View Single Post
Old December 10, 2002, 06:11 PM   #21
TEA
Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 44
I got the "harder to aim at night" interpretation from an editorial written by a lawyer (prosecutor or defense attorney, can't remember which), in one of the Houston papers (back when there were two) quite a few years ago following a shooting in Houston. If I remember the details of the shooting, a store owner shot a car thief stealing a customers car in day light hours.

The editorial commented on the fact that the car did not belong to the store owner, was in the parking lot of a building he did not own (strip mall where he leased space) and that it was during the day, so did not meet either the criteria of 9.41 with regards using force to defend one's own property nor the provision in 9.42 with regards to theft at night. I think the DA may have declined to press charges anyway, on the grounds that the store owner claimed that the thief was trying to run him over so it was self defence.

The author also gave an analysis of the law and its history, and stated that the reason for the night time provision was because it was harder to accurately aim a firearm and hit your target at night - the assumption being that during the day you could opt for shooting in the leg or such but had to aim COM at night to be assured of a hit. It may be hokey logic, but logic has never held much sway in the Capitol. I have heard much more ridiculous arguments made and actually carry floor votes.
TEA is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03240 seconds with 8 queries