Houston carjacking victim may not face charges for shooting attackers

[Closing The Gap]

Quote:
(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
The article says it happened at 9:30 P.M. IIRC, the law in Texas defines nighttime as 30 minutes past sunset and 30 minutes before dawn. Sunset for Houston is listed at 7:31 P.M. on Tuesday. Under the law, it would seem to be justified. That being said, I am not a lawyer.

Isn't carjacking a form of aggravated robbery? If so then the time of day doesn't matter. Still justified under section 3A IMO.

[OldMarksman]

Mr. Gap, it was a robbery, and the time of day does not matter.

Whether it was justified depends upon whether the other conditions were met, and that will be decided by others on the basis of the evidence.

Unless the shooter is an unusual person, he will probably have doubts for the rest of his life.

[Closing The Gap]

The rest of his life is undoubtedly changed. I was only basing my opinion on the law as I read it and the circumstances presented in the story.

[lcpiper]

But except in Texas, the use of deadly force after an armed robbery has occurred is unlawful.

No one commenting on the idea that they may have been still pointing a gun in his direction? I know the article doesn't say so, but it doesn't say otherwise either.

...the use of deadly force for the defense of person would not be justified.

Not even considering that the thieves now have all of his personal information and most likely the location and means of entry to his home where he may have family who are now exposed to risk.

I must say fellas, if this happened to me and they got my car, (BMW with garage door remote built in), papers in the glove box with my home address, etc... If those were the thoughts in my mind at that moment, that they might go after my family and I pretty much have no way to stop them in time. I'd be pulling the trigger too.

Quote:
Posted by 9mmfan: The article says it happened at 9:30 P.M. IIRC, the law in Texas defines nighttime as 30 minutes past sunset and 30 minutes before dawn. Sunset for Houston is listed at 7:31 P.M. on Tuesday. Under the law, it would seem to be justified.

Posted by Oldmarksman: This was a robbery.

What is a robbery that is perpetrated at gunpoint called?

[Eppie]

I must say fellas, if this happened to me and they got my car, (BMW with garage door remote built in), papers in the glove box with my home address, etc... If those were the thoughts in my mind at that moment, that they might go after my family and I pretty much have no way to stop them in time. I'd be pulling the trigger too.

Hear ye, hear ye. Finally somebody that thinks like I do. He's got the car key, garage door opener, must likely all the house keys, the wallet and your home address and he knows the man of the house is not there. If he's got half brain that's where he's headed next.

[Closing The Gap]

What is a robbery that is perpetrated at gunpoint called?

Aggravated robbery.

[Double Naught Spy]

But except in Texas, the use of deadly force after an armed robbery has occurred is unlawful.

This is not exactly true. At the time of the shooting, as described, the armed robbery was still in progress.

Even if the robbery had occurred as suggested as this quote suggests, then justification can still be made for the protection of life threatened by the robbers. The robbery may be over, but the threat being posed may not be. This would depend on the circumstances.

So just because the robbery itself might be described as being over, it does not mean the situation does not allow for lethal force as other circumstances develop as a result of the robbery.

Mr. Gap, it was a robbery, and the time of day does not matter.

Oh contraire. It this occurred at night, it certainly does matter in Texas.
TEXAS PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.42 : Texas Statutes - Section 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.

Let's see, the robbers were armed and so is aggravated robbery. So if this occurred at night, then lethal force under such circumstances would be lawful.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

He's got the car key, garage door opener, must likely all the house keys, the wallet and your home address and he knows the man of the house is not there. If he's got half brain that's where he's headed next.

Had a case here in Ohio where someone jacked a car from a family. (If I recall correctly it was Columbus). He then used the address from the registration to find the home a day or two later. Keys to the home were on the key ring. He went to the home where he found the woman alone with her son and killed the woman. Thank god the kid wasn't physically harmed.

[Double Naught Spy]

That may be, but I don't know of any state where you are allowed to preemptively use lethal force to stop a person from committing a potential crime at some unknown point in the future. The criminal may have your wallet, keys, garage door opener, etc., but possession of those items because they may give the criminal access to others isn't justification for lethal force.

[Closing The Gap]

I'm not from Texas but, doesn't the Texas law I put in post http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...9&postcount=16 #16 cover this? Or is that not the correct Texas law regarding justified use of deadly force. The way it reads seems pretty clear. You can use deadly force to recover property, as a result of an aggravated robbery, and the criminals carry firearms that could result in serious bodily injury or death. This would meet the section 1, 2B and 3B requirements. No?

[ripnbst]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

The criminal may have your wallet, keys, garage door opener, etc., but possession of those items because they may give the criminal access to others isn't justification for lethal force.

I disagree. There is language about "what you can articulate in court" and "what a reasonable person" believes could happen. If I can articulate in court, meaning describe what I was thinking at the time, that my garage door opener and address are in the vehicle, and then to think a reasonable person wouldn't believe that, is a far stretch. Much further than what I've just described.

It is commonly known and accepted that you should not have your home address listed in your GPS as such. Call it "Franks House" or something. If anyone steals your GPS, boom they know where you live.

Similar concepts though vastly different applications.

[ripnbst]

You guys citing all this time of day stuff as if it were important in this case must not be reading the same law I am. They are two different criteria to meet entirely. Read it again and understand what you are reading. Aggravated robbery is met, done deal, time of day means absolutely nothing.

[Eppie]

Aggravated burglary is met, done deal, time of day means absolutely nothing.

That's the way I understood it. That's way the detective on TV understood it and that is why he called it "Justifiable homicide".

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by ripnbst

I disagree. There is language about "what you can articulate in court" and "what a reasonable person" believes could happen. If I can articulate in court, meaning describe what I was thinking at the time, that my garage door opens e and address are in the vehicle, and then to think a reasonable person wouldn't believe that, is a far stretch. Much further than what I've just be scribed.

Double Naught Spy is correct. There is no jurisdiction (at least in the United States) in which one may use deadly force based on a belief that a crime may be committed in the future; whether the belief is "reasonable" is irrelevant.

You guys citing all this time of day stuff as if it were important in this case must not be reading the same law I am.

In Texas, the "time of day stuff" is important. The section of the statute quoted by DNS in this post is very clear that one may use deadly force to protect property only at night. If you're reading something different from this, please give us chapter and verse.

[MLeake]

I think he is referring to the bit about robbery and aggravated robbery being listed in a section that seemed to say the crimes, and not loss of property, justified shooting the fleeing felon to stop him.

That seemed different from the section on shooting to stop loss of property, and did not seem to require night - unlike property defense.

I may have read it incorrectly, but that was how it seemed to read to me, too.

[Evan Thomas]

The section quoted above begins as follows:

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:" (My emphasis)

Everything that follows specifies the conditions under which protecting property with deadly force is justified. One of those conditions is that the crime must happen at night.

The entire section is about stopping the loss of property, and nothing else.

[Double Naught Spy]

And so either way, the shooting is justified, whether as for stopping an aggravated robbery or the protection of property at night.

Where it would not be justified is for the purpose of using lethal force against the robber for the purpose of stopping him from possibly going to your home at some future time and doing harm.

Aggravated burglary is met, done deal, time of day means absolutely nothing.

Aggravated robbery, not burglary.

[MLeake]

Vanya, re-read post 32. Nighttime is specifically mentioned in relation to (edit: solely) property related crimes (theft, criminal mischief); the crimes (edit: that necessarily also include crimes) against persons do not seem to stipulate nighttime, whether for prevention or post.

[ripnbst]

Originally Posted by MLeake

Vanya, re-read post 32. Nighttime is specifically mentioned in relation to (edit: solely) property related crimes (theft, criminal mischief); the crimes (edit: that necessarily also include crimes) against persons do not seem to stipulate nighttime, whether for prevention or post.

This is what I was getting at. Thank you for the clarification MLeake. I am posting from my phone so don't have the ease of reference I do from a computer.

The night time reference is listed within the list and applying to two different SPECIFIC crimes. One being criminal mischief and the other something else. That something else was not aggravated robbery. Occurring at night time does not apply to all crimes listed in that section of the law.

[Closing The Gap]

I also believe that the aggravated robbery part does not have to be at night. It(texas code 9.42) specifies which crimes need to occur at night.

However also since it was an act of fleeing with property this falls under section 2B not section 2A as highlighted by DNS post. Section 2A only applies to the imminent commission, the shooting occurred post aggravated robbery while the individuals attempted to flee which is clearly section 2B.

(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

[Dashunde]

I'm indifferent about whether or not it was a good shooting, as far as I'm concerned these types of events serve to remind criminals that they need to worry about more than just the police.
Also, what this guy did isnt much different than what a cop would have done if he were standing nearby.
It could be looked at as a citizens arrest, sort of.

They were also working as a team with the third guy in the Honda, returning to this guys home may very well have been in their plans.
No way to tell for certain what they were up to, but if he had wife/kids at home its likely to have been a real concern for the victim at the time.

[lcpiper]

Where it would not be justified is for the purpose of using lethal force against the robber for the purpose of stopping him from possibly going to your home at some future time and doing harm.

You guys are looking too far into my statement. I said nothing about it being a justification acceptable to the law. I said I would most likely be pulling the trigger and I'll take my chances in court but those freaks are not going to drive away with access to my family period, law be damned.

I have a dear and very dead Aunt to show what these animals will do if given opportunity. You never know, challenges occur and precedent is set in the oddest of ways and sometimes a jury just does what it sees is right.

[OuTcAsT]

sometimes a jury just does what it sees is right.

And if I were on that jury, you would have a hard time convincing me that it was justifiable for you to shoot someone for fear of what he might or might not do at some future time. Keys, or a garage door opener mean nothing, locks only keep honest people out, criminals pay them little mind.

That being said, It looks like the gentleman in this case was justified under the law .

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Legal texts and analyses of self-defense law make it clear that using lethal force to prevent some future crime (not that the BG is running towards a school with a gun) is not acceptable.

That was part of the debate on battered wife defenses - a predicted future assault did not cut it.

[lcpiper]

And if I were on that jury, you would have a hard time convincing me that it was justifiable for you to shoot someone for fear of what he might or might not do at some future time.

Oh, and again, I said nothing about using this as a defense which means it's not being claimed and isn't being ruled on.