If this guy lived in Texas, he could have (probably should have) been shot.

[Agnostic007]

No, you would be fine to shoot, night or day.

No, probably not. In order to shoot someone you would have to convince a grand jury that you were in fear for your life. Being human, they would take into account the totality of the circumstances and if they believed a reasonable person would not be in fear for their life, you might spend some time behind bars. 

[Twaddle]

The theory is that night adds more danger to the confrontation.

We're not talking about confrontation.  We're talking about loss of property (IE theft).  In TX, you can shoot and kill someone at night, who is running away from you with your personal property.  Car stereo, bike, etc.  There does not have to be a confrontation at all.  If you witness somebody stealing your property, and they are getting away, you can shoot them.  You cannot use deadly force during the day though.

[HTexan]

Not in TX.  The use of deadly force to prevent or recover stolen property is only allowed during night.  However, defending yourself from an attack is allowed at anytime.

not true.

[Twaddle]

not true.

Yes, true.  TX penal code chapter 2; section 9:

Sec. 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.  A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41;  and
(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or
(B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; 
and(3)  he reasonably believes that:
(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or
(B)  the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[240 is Back]

even if he hadn't been shot in FL, the gun present woudl have given others the audacity to pick up bricks and pipes and ruin the bad guys' day.

Sometimes ppl forget - you don't have to shoot anyone.  Simpmly keep the gun present to give other semi-heroes the guts to come fwd and fck up a bad guy.

nothing more beautiful than a bloody store robber going into police custody because hs 'resisted' while being held at gunpoint for police to arrive!

[littledumbells]

I never saw a black person participating in the Tour de France, so I assumed negro's cannot ride a bycicle...

Can't swim either...

  lets not forget ice hockey.

[smoothasf]

Wow love Texas law. Need that in the UK

[Kwon_2]

We could use some of that Texas-Law here in Sweden!

[Kwon_2]

Let's get BDB out there shirless

Sherlies? You in australia Bob?

[HTexan]

Yes, true.  TX penal code chapter 2; section 9:

Sec. 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.  A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41;  and
(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or
(B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; 
and(3)  he reasonably believes that:
(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or
(B)  the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

[Twaddle]

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Section 9.41 refers to the use of force, not "deadly force".  There is a big difference.  Now, if during the use of force you feel like your life is being threatened, or could be, then you may use deadly force.  

[Agnostic007]

One point where many states diverge is on when force or deadly force can be used to protect property.

Texas illustrates one end of the spectrum -- where deadly force is allowed in certain circumstances to protect or recover one's own property or the property of another person. Many states forbid the use of deadly force to protect or recover property.

In addition to the many situations in which it allows deadly force in self-defense, Texas law allows deadly force in defense of property if:

•The person reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent another from taking the property or to recover it once taken (if in fresh pursuit); and
•when the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent someone from committing arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, or to prevent a person from fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime; and
•the person reasonably believes that the property can't be recovered by any other means, and that using less than deadly force might expose the person to substantial risk of bodily harm or death.
This is likely why, in 2008, a Harris County grand jury refused to indict Joe Horn, who shot and killed two men who had robbed his neighbor's house. The story stunned many, in large part due to the entire incident being recorded through Horn's 911 call. After the 911 operator pleaded with Horn not to go outside with his shotgun, Horn took matters into his own hands.

"I'm not gonna let them get away with this [expletive]," he repeats at one point, before saying "I'll kill 'em." After the 911 dispatcher pleaded with him that property was not worth killing someone over, he told him, "[w]ell, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going." "Move. You're dead," is the next thing we hear Horn yell on the recording, immediately before the first of three shotgun blasts are heard. Horn shot the two men in the back, killing both.

Many were outraged at the perceived indifference to human life in the grand jury's decision not to have Joe Horn charged. However, under current Texas law, the grand jury's decision was not out of the ordinary.

[Twaddle]

This is likely why, in 2008, a Harris County grand jury refused to indict Joe Horn, who shot and killed two men who had robbed his neighbor's house. The story stunned many, in large part due to the entire incident being recorded through Horn's 911 call. After the 911 operator pleaded with Horn not to go outside with his shotgun, Horn took matters into his own hands.

"I'm not gonna let them get away with this [expletive]," he repeats at one point, before saying "I'll kill 'em." After the 911 dispatcher pleaded with him that property was not worth killing someone over, he told him, "[w]ell, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going." "Move. You're dead," is the next thing we hear Horn yell on the recording, immediately before the first of three shotgun blasts are heard. Horn shot the two men in the back, killing both.

Many were outraged at the perceived indifference to human life in the grand jury's decision not to have Joe Horn charged. However, under current Texas law, the grand jury's decision was not out of the ordinary.

Again, many might think this is an outrage, but I for one think it is a great learning experience for all thieves.  I think there should be cliffs notes for the Joe Horn case, and they should be distributed at large in schools, gas stations, grocery stores, etc.  Make it public knowledge to thieves that a homeowner has every right to end your life.  Maybe after a few more cases like the Joe Horn case, people will start thinking twice before commiting such acts of crime.

[Agnostic007]

Again, many might think this is an outrage, but I for one think it is a great learning experience for all thieves.  I think there should be cliffs notes for the Joe Horn case, and they should be distributed at large in schools, gas stations, grocery stores, etc.  Make it public knowledge to thieves that a homeowner has every right to end your life.  Maybe after a few more cases like the Joe Horn case, people will start thinking twice before commiting such acts of crime.

Or..... we could start holding these criminal accountable in court. I cannot tell you how many car thieves, burglary of auto thieves and even burglary thieves we arrest over and over again only to see the liberal court system in our county slap them on the wrist. It is no wonder when we spend thousands of tax payers dollars in resources to catch a serial burglar of vehicles that they tell us arrest is just the cost of doing business and they will be back out soon doing it again. There is really no incentive to stop.
I would vote first to put some teeth in the existing laws with some serious sentencing, then perhaps shooting them won't be necessary

[Raymondo]

This is likely why, in 2008, a Harris County grand jury refused to indict Joe Horn, who shot and killed two men who had robbed his neighbor's house. The story stunned many, in large part due to the entire incident being recorded through Horn's 911 call. After the 911 operator pleaded with Horn not to go outside with his shotgun, Horn took matters into his own hands.

"I'm not gonna let them get away with this [expletive]," he repeats at one point, before saying "I'll kill 'em." After the 911 dispatcher pleaded with him that property was not worth killing someone over, he told him, "[w]ell, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going." "Move. You're dead," is the next thing we hear Horn yell on the recording, immediately before the first of three shotgun blasts are heard. Horn shot the two men in the back, killing both.

Many were outraged at the perceived indifference to human life in the grand jury's decision not to have Joe Horn charged. However, under current Texas law, the grand jury's decision was not out of the ordinary.

They didn't indict him? When he shot and killed them? Why not shoot them in the leg with a pistol, or in the arm or the shoulder, did he have to shoot to kill?

[Twaddle]

They didn't indict him? When he shot and killed them? Why not shoot them in the leg with a pistol, or in the arm or the shoulder, did he have to shoot to kill?

Number one rule of firearms:  You don't shoot at anyone unless you're prepared to kill them.  There is no: "Just wound him" or "Shoot him in the leg".  Shoot him in the leg, you hit a femoral artery, he bleeds out and dies.  Shoot him in the foot, you hit a pedal artery, he bleeds out and dies.  Again, you never shoot at someone unless you're prepared to kill them.  Furthermore, if you wound them, they have a better chance of suing you in civil court for debilitating injuries.

As for the shotgun, maybe that's all he had.  It is the number one prefered home defense weapon.

[Raymondo]

Number one rule of firearms:  You don't shoot at anyone unless you're prepared to kill them.  There is no: "Just wound him" or "Shoot him in the leg".  Shoot him in the leg, you hit a femoral artery, he bleeds out and dies.  Shoot him in the foot, you hit a pedal artery, he bleeds out and dies.  Again, you never shoot at someone unless you're prepared to kill them.  Furthermore, if you wound them, they have a better chance of suing you in civil court for debilitating injuries.

As for the shotgun, maybe that's all he had.  It is the number one prefered home defense weapon.

Not sure that makes sense to me. I understand you have to be prepared for the event of a person dying if you shoot at them- as you say you may hit a femoral artery; but does one have to aim to kill if their life is not threatened?

Furthermore, if you wound them, they have a better chance of suing you in civil court for debilitating injuries.

Concrete reasoning; better kill those guys, so they won't sue us  

[Twaddle]

Not sure that makes sense to me. I understand you have to be prepared for the event of a person dying if you shoot at them- as you say you may hit a femoral artery; but does one have to aim to kill if their life is not threatened?

Concrete reasoning; better kill those guys, so they won't sue us  

I have never seen or heard of anyone shooting anything other than center mass or headshots.  If I ever have to pull the trigger on anyone it will be center mass or headshot.  Again, there is no training for wounding shots, and wounding shots should never be tried or considered.  Call me cruel if you want, but if I ever shoot someone, I hope they die.  Less mess, less paperwork, and there will only be one side to the story.   

[Parker]

We're not talking about confrontation.  We're talking about loss of property (IE theft).  In TX, you can shoot and kill someone at night, who is running away from you with your personal property.  Car stereo, bike, etc.  There does not have to be a confrontation at all.  If you witness somebody stealing your property, and they are getting away, you can shoot them.  You cannot use deadly force during the day though.

Baltimore has a huge problem with kids riding quads in the streets, they can be 30-100 strong, weaving in and out of traffic (just look at YouTube vids of the 12 o'clock boys). They are a hazard, and they so this alot during rush hour, and many of those quads are stolen---from up and down the east coast.

A few yrs ago, a man shot an 11 yr old boy who broke into his shed at 11:30pm. In that shed was quad ATV. The boy died, and the parents said that the man did t have to shoot the kid. The argument is, the owner didn't know who was breaking into his shed at night, and why is an 11 yr old kid out at 11:30pm and why is he breaking into someone's property.

[Twaddle]

A few yrs ago, a man shot an 11 yr old boy who broke into his shed at 11:30pm. In that shed was quad ATV. The boy died, and the parents said that the man did t have to shoot the kid. The argument is, the owner didn't know who was breaking into his shed at night, and why is an 11 yr old kid out at 11:30pm and why is he breaking into someone's property.

Very good point.  If anyone is breaking into your property it is not your responsibility to determine their age, intentions, etc.  "Excuse me sir, how old are you, are you armed, and what are your intentions."  Uh, no thanks.