|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 10, 2013, 01:10 PM | #101 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
(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.Since it's not there, it doesn't apply to defense of property. As to the question of an appeal by the prosecutor, in most places, a prosecutor is allowed to appeal a verdict only if there was egregious misconduct, such as bribery of jurors, during a trial. Otherwise, the protection against double jeopardy prevents prosecutorial appeals. But things may be different in Texas, as they so often are.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. Last edited by Evan Thomas; June 10, 2013 at 01:15 PM. |
|||
June 10, 2013, 01:23 PM | #102 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
You could be right on that. I'm getting that confused with self defense.
|
June 10, 2013, 01:34 PM | #103 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
June 10, 2013, 07:22 PM | #104 | |
Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
|
When I was growing up this was a "watermelon law". It is what allowed a farmer to unload a couple of 12ga rounds of rock salt into your rear end as you ran off with his melons at night. And it is what allows you to follow Joe Biden's advice to fire a couple of "blasts" in the air when someone is making off with whatever. You don't have to shoot them, but you may cause them to drop whatever they are taking. Whether you kill them, injure them, or miss completely, it is still a use of deadly force.
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others. |
|
June 10, 2013, 09:18 PM | #105 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Criminal mindset...
I honestly don't have loads of sympathy for "career criminals" or "frequent flyers" as some working cops call them.
A street crook & petty thief I had a few run-ins with as a hotel security guard in a low end property about 3 years ago was recently busted for auto theft(felony). He's in his mid-20s & has a long rap sheet. I'm 100% sure this felon will move on to violent crimes like armed robbery & home invasions later in life if he doesn't do a long stint in prison. If a armed citizen or license holder uses lethal force on a bad guy, think of all the crimes or deaths or misery that may prevent in the future. CF |
June 10, 2013, 09:31 PM | #106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Wannabe heroes are apt to think this way, but the only justification for a civilian to use deadly force is to stop an immediate threat or a crime in progress. It's vital to know the laws in your jurisdiction.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
June 10, 2013, 10:37 PM | #107 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,990
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
June 10, 2013, 11:12 PM | #108 |
Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
|
I don't think it makes any difference if the payment is for a service or "tangible, moveable property" if the payment is obtained by fraud.
__________________
NRA Life Member All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others. |
June 10, 2013, 11:48 PM | #109 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,990
|
The question arises because the law only justifies the use of deadly force when the property in question is "land or tangible, movable property". Money clearly isn't "land", so if it's also not "tangible, movable property" then the law doesn't apply to the recovery of money and there would be no justification available under the law.
I don't know the legal definition of "tangible, movable property".
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
June 11, 2013, 02:39 AM | #110 |
Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
|
Tangible property in law is anything which can be touched, and includes both real property (land) and personal (moveable) property. Money is considered personal property. (When an estate is probated, money is listed as personal property.)
__________________
NRA Life Member All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others. |
June 11, 2013, 05:58 AM | #111 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
The defendant committed a felony in shooting at the vehicle. At best this is involuntary manslaughter. I tell you though, if you ever get in trouble in Central Texas, you need this guy's lawyer, jury consultant, and judge. Quote:
If "money" is not viewed as property under the definition, then there's another reason this case was bust. Jeez was the prosecutor even there during the trial? |
||
June 11, 2013, 07:35 AM | #112 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
Quote:
To put it in your contractor terms, it would be theft by deceit (scam) whereby a job was to be performed, was paid for in advance, and the contractor fled with the money and without performing the service, much like 'gypsy' roofers. http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=3442,907279 http://www.kcbd.com/story/1843704/gy...ubbock-to-scam The suggestion that this is simply a contract dispute (civil matter) seems to differ considerably from the perspective of the cops who see such as a criminal matter. A promise to perform work you aren't going to perform after being paid for it isn't a contract dispute. It is theft and at the time it was a theft in progress. Theft at night, certainly in progress as happened here, is covered under the law.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange Last edited by Double Naught Spy; June 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM. |
||
June 11, 2013, 08:56 AM | #113 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've been turning this one over in my head for several days, which is why I haven't weighed in much. Clearly, the jury thought that this shooting met the legal requirements of TX law. Despite that, I have a hard time with it. It just doesn't pass the smell test for me. Yes, the deceased and her driver were likely engaged in an illegal activity. Then again, so was the shooter (solicitation). Yes, TX law allows for deadly force indefense of property, under certain circumstances. Yes, when all the chips are counted, this likely cost the shooter a great deal more than the initial $150 dollars that he would have lost if he'd just let them drive away. That said, the nydailynews article says that he shot at her car "as she was driven away." That says to me that he followed her outside. As far as I can tell, there was no threat to his life, his family, or anything other than the $150. It just doesn't sit right with me.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||
June 11, 2013, 11:06 AM | #114 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Another interesting thing about this case is that it was tried in Bexar County (San Antonio). It might not be terribly surprising to see a case resolved this way in a rural TX county (what few there are left), but not in an urban area like this.
|
June 11, 2013, 11:33 AM | #115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Another interesting wrinkle. If its not physical currency, but debt/credit/check, how would that interplay? It could be argued thats not tangible, movable property. I'm sure there's case law on it.
The problem here is that, its such a crazy fact pattern, who's scope means that pretty much any transaction occurring at night could lead to gunplay, even if its an illegal activity. Go to a 7/11, don't like the candy bar. Clerk tries to leave because shooter is acting crazy and blamo legally dead clerk. I don't see on what tortured argument this can hold. Its like some off the wall Bar exam test. |
June 11, 2013, 02:02 PM | #116 |
Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
|
As it was explained to me, a credit card is tangible personal or moveable property. It can be touched, it is obviously personal as it has your name on it, it can be moved, and it has value.
Likewise, a music CD is tangible personal property. It can be touched, it can be moved, and it has value. It also contains intellectual property which is not tangible and not yours. A person stealing the CD is stealing tangible property from you. A person copying the CD is stealing intellectual property, not from you but from the artist who created the music. Theft of intellectual property is not covered under the law in question. I don't think the 7-11 candy bar analogy holds because there are other avenues offering hope of recovery other than by use of deadly force. Such as complaining to the corporate offices.
__________________
NRA Life Member All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others. |
June 11, 2013, 03:29 PM | #117 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
You go to 7/11 and buy a candy bar. It is YOUR property. There is no law that says 7/11 must buy it back from you if you don't like it. You don't get to shoot the clerk under the law. He isn't stealing property from you at night, is he?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
June 11, 2013, 03:43 PM | #118 | |
Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
|
Quote:
Two unidentified persons fleeing in an unidentifiable vehicle would seem to be covered under (a) and two persons would seem to create a disparity of force that would be covered under (b). That he pursued her outside rather than shooting her when she tried to leave the room suggests that he may have been attempting to use less than deadly force until he was faced with either a disparity of force or a fleeing vehicle with no other way of stopping it. What does not sit right with me is that, as Vanya pointed out, there is no preclusion of justification when the act occurs in the course, or as the result of another crime in which the actor is a willing participant.
__________________
NRA Life Member All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others. |
|
June 11, 2013, 03:49 PM | #119 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Having read the code sections, I understand that the TX law in question does not require a threat to life or limb. It still doesn't sit right with me. This is one of those times when "legal" doesn't necessarily equate with "right" in my mind.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
June 11, 2013, 04:03 PM | #120 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
1) it occurs at night. 2) the clerk leaving when you're displeased with the product, is taking your property (money), without providing the product you desired. 3) you shoot said clerk and claim defense of property. Another example: 1) buyer pulls up to illegal crack dealer at night. 2) an exchange is made. 3) buyer reviews the product in more detail and is not happy with the weight or consistency of the product. 4) crack dealer attempts to flee with buyer's money. 5) buyer shoots the crack dealer. Thats a good shoot using this case as stare decisis. Its not different then the actual case. I'd say its an absurb example, but the real world situation is so absurd itself as to make any attempt at absurdity nothing by comparison. I know its stupid but thats the point. If this case is used as stare decisis it opens a massive can of worms. This has to be addressed via appeal or change the law. Last edited by zincwarrior; June 11, 2013 at 04:32 PM. |
|
June 11, 2013, 04:40 PM | #121 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
|
I like the law as it stands. Just because you don't agree with this one verdict you need to change the law? Seems rash to me.
|
June 11, 2013, 04:45 PM | #122 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
While I don't think this will start a run of convenience store shootings, its a definite defence in a slew of criminal activity.
And no I don't like the law. Just because its night time doesn't mean you should be ok shooting someone stealing your purse. |
June 11, 2013, 05:12 PM | #123 | ||
Member
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 94
|
Quote:
Quote:
In any event, the theft at night justification could be claimed, and I'm fairly certain a search of cases would find that it has been claimed many times under similar circumstances without success. What makes the San Antonio case notable is that the jury accepted the defense. (Juries are not bound by stare decicis.)
__________________
NRA Life Member All calibers equalize, some calibers equalize more than others. |
||
June 11, 2013, 05:17 PM | #124 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
Quote:
What you are describing with your crack example and your candy bar example is not theft. In both cases of your cases, the sellers delivered and payment was made. In the OP court case, money was paid but the seller did not deliver.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
June 11, 2013, 05:41 PM | #125 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 320
|
Quote:
I could see shooting at someone for stealing a box of jewelry, horse, car, etc probably what the law was made for. But where do you draw the line? It would be sad to see a kid get killed for stealing a garden gnome, a hooker stealing money not so much. |
|
|
|