Posted on 01/04/2012 7:51:27 AM PST by marktwain
Northwest Harris County -
A group of burglars targeted a home in Northwest Harris County. One was caught, but there may be as many as two others on the loose. They may have all gotten away, had it not been for one observant neighbor, armed with a gun.
For the second time in just a month, Carmen Cadwell answered a call that sent her into a panic. It was from her home security company alerting her to a possible break-in at her house on Melody Park. She says the first time, the criminals took off without any valuables as the alarm sounded. But this time, the thieves were bolder, smashing the back window to get in, lifting a 50 inch television and other electronics as the alarm went off.
"I'm like oh my God, not again," says Cadwell. "It's sad that you can't even feel safe in your own home."
But as the burglars tried to make their escape, they weren't counting on watchful neighbors with a loaded gun.
"I heard the alarm going off and looked in the back and saw two guys back there and started walking back and that's when I saw the tv," says Cadwell's next door neighbor, Lawrence Montemayor.
He grabbed his 9 millimeter and chased one suspect to a waiting car. "I pointed the gun at him. It's amazing what a gun will do at your head." Montemayor says that was enough to get the suspect out of the car with his hands up.
(Excerpt) Read more at click2houston.com ...
He IS a hero in my book too
but somewhere is the houston area is a sleazebag lawyer working up a lawsuit because the gun pointed at the POS corrk’s head traumatized the crook.
wait for it
Long live the 2nd amendment
a HUGE reason to get that POS 0dumbo out of office
But since all the ne're-do-wells have been run out of the neighborhood, it's pretty quiet.
/johnny
Not very likely here in Texas.
I wish this were true
“Not very likely here in Texas.”
but we have some of the greediest ambulance chashing sleazebags here in Texas .
I am not saying the case could be won but I am saying there will be a lawyer who will drool to file it.
The castle doctrine does not apply to a a neighbor and a crtizens’ arrest is pretty iffy.
I thought stopping a criminal act was legal in Texas. Didn’t a man shoot someone fleeing a mall years ago in Texas with a .44 magnum? IIRC he wasn’t charged even though the criminal died from the shot.
? do you have examples of the castle doctrine defense extending to neighbors in here Texas?
Our police, in seminars for neighborhhod protection specifially said it did not.
Not that i think our police are always right.
but again, the point is anyone can file a lawsuit and lawyers will file anything if they think they can get a buck
probably
i don’t know whether a citizen can shoot a criminal
That is NOT what i was saying
i was saying there will be a lawyer who will be willing to file a lawsuit
it may not be a wonnable lawsuit but that won’t stop a lawyer from filing it
THAT was my only point
was the castle doctine cited in the grand jury’s refusal to charge joe Horn?
IIRC during the 911 call Joe horn told the operator he was afraid he would be shot by the illegals if he didn’t shoot them
which is self defense and has zero to do with the castle doctrine
but ONE MORE TIME
my point is, right or wrong, merit or no merit there will be a lwayer lusting to file a lsawuit against the neighbor who pulled to gun and pointed it at the crook’s head.
THAT is the point I tried to make
there is a lawyer willing to file a lawsuit over anything.
You're right, there are lawyers that will file a lawsuit over a dropped hat, but the chance of it going anywhere is probably close to nonexistence so the attorney wouldn't get paid. The guy probably doesn't even have enough money to cover the expenses so the attorney would risk being out that too.
I think the case in Houston you referred to was the Joe Horn case but the castle doctrine was not the reason the Grand jury refused to chrge him. when he called 911 he mentioned he was going to shoot them as he was afraid they were going to shoot him.
There has been no castle doctrine case in dallas that referenced a neighbor
BUT that is not my point
my point is that a alwyer will file a lawsuit over anything, right or wrong
Texas Castle Law:
AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.