Gun and Escort

I don't know if it has been posted but I am going to post this. http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-...have-511636423

Maybe the state should have gone for a lessor charge of manslaughter instead of murder. After all, she sort of ineffect commited fraud

That deal was rigged or there is more to the story than what is being reported although I'm not sure what.

I never heard the deadly force at night caveat either.

This guy admits to being in possession of a weapon while soliciting and no charges were filed against him?

2 + 2 is not equaling 4.

You beat me to it lol. Yeah, I think there's more to this story we're not hearing...
Not that it's justifiable in any sense, just wish there were more facts to form a solid opinion on it...

Even if he was shooting at the damn pimp, missed him and hit her I would have voted to convict the little turd. The shooter's a venomous looking little bastard, looks like he's in his early 20's.

This is one of this threads that probably ought not to have been started.

This guy is way to quick to draw a pistol. I believe if the prosecutors would have went after a manslaughter charge they would have got a conviction.

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.

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. Originally Posted by lostincypress

Wtf? According to that, you're only covered at nighttime. So no shooting any robbers or home invaders during sun up people, you won't get off.

:facepalm:

The state of our schools today...it doesn't seem like grammar is being taught any more...

Interesting article...

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 or burglary or robbery or aggravated robbery or 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. Originally Posted by lostincypress

Wtf? According to that, you're only covered at nighttime. So no shooting any robbers or home invaders during sun up people, you won't get off. Originally Posted by ARCHmajor

All the commas mean OR hon.

All the commas mean OR hon. Originally Posted by Luxury Daphne

"or" means "or" AND "and" means "and" ...

... the commas merely separate the series elements.

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.

Use of force is justified if: 1 + 2 + 3.

The "A's" and "B's" are subset alternatives under 2 and 3.

As for #1:

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."


Jurors are instructed to follow the Court's instructions.

As I said, this thread was probably best not started.

There will be "gunslingers" on here who will fail to comprehend the narrow exception implemented by this on jury verdict and fail to comprehend how complex and narrow the fact scenario must be to justify the use of "deadly force" (which btw is not defined as only "killing someone" in the texas penal code).

Furthermore what one jury does in one city may not be the same as another elsewhere. Keep in mind that this was over $150 ... killing someone over 150 bucks?

:facepalm:

The state of our schools today...it doesn't seem like grammar is being taught any more... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

It's being taught.

Some people just have their palm in the face during the instruction.

...Only in Texas.