Houston carjacking victim may not face charges for shooting attackers

[Eppie]

Here an an article link of a man that would have been carjacked, but he was able to defend himself. What is your take on it.

[thallub]

Texas prosecutors do not hold gun armed carjackers in high regard. This shooter will not be prosecuted.

All fatal shoots in TX must go to a grand jury. The TX prosecutor simply sends the case to the grand jury as required by law. The grand jury will no bill the shooter in this case.

It works differently in OK. The prosecutor here simply declines to prosecute the shooter in a righteous shooting case. The family and friends of the late carjacker are allowed to take up a petition for a grand jury hearing. Yep, that's right: No one will sign a petition for a grand jury on behalf of a gun armed carjacker who got himself killed.

[motorhead0922]

In southwest Missouri, the shooter would get a pat on the back from local police and prosecutors.

[lcpiper]

My take?

He wasn't defending himself, he was defending his property and perhaps by a long shot his home and any family who might have been there at the time or soon after. Face it, chances are high that his home address was in the car and a garage door opener is better then keys to the front door.

But he wasn't defending himself unless someone was still threatening to harm him. They may have been, but that info isn't in the report.

[ripnbst]

So lc, your take is that he should be charged with something?

I don't know Texas law but in OK a car jacking is justification for use of deadly force.

He should not face charges. The guys should have tried to steal his car.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[lcpiper]

So lc, your take is that he should be charged with something?

I didn't say that at all. I said that from the article he was not defending himself but his property. I was raised in Lubbock and Shallowater, lived in Texas till I joined the Army in '81. But I can't say I know Texas law well enough to know how this will likely play out, so I didn't try to guess.

Could you please take your words out of my mouth now

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Don't count on TX prosecutors not charging you - cases in point:

Gordon Hale:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/23/us...w-gun-law.html

Oops - but the grand jury:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/21/us...fic-fight.html

Elizabeth Tamez, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case could not be reached for comment.

And:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27129

Saustrop was lucky.

It is a myth to think that TX is some kind of free fire zone and that you won't run into legal troubles.

Thanks to my buddy, Karl Rehn at KRtraining.com who helped me remember the names.

[alan]

Originally Posted by thallub

Texas prosecutors do not hold gun armed carjackers in high regard. This shooter will not be prosecuted.

All fatal shoots in TX must go to a grand jury. The TX prosecutor simply sends the case to the grand jury as required by law. The grand jury will no bill the shooter in this case.

It works differently in OK. The prosecutor here simply declines to prosecute the shooter in a righteous shooting case. The family and friends of the late carjacker are allowed to take up a petition for a grand jury hearing. Yep, that's right: No one will sign a petition for a grand jury on behalf of a gun armed carjacker who got himself killed.

Re your closing comment, there are definite limits concerning what I would bet on that, and then it seems to me, that there is always question concerning what some "hot dog prosecutor" might or might not do.

That having been said, the individual opted to take up a risky occupation, "carjacking". Having so done, that individual has no grounds for complaint, nor do his "friends and or family".

[Eppie]

Just FYI this shooting was on the local news and the detective speaking on camera basically said that it would referred to the grand jury as a matter of course, but it looks like justifiable homicide.

[OldMarksman]

Texas is unique in that the law provides for excusing the use of deadly force under some circumstances of immediate necessity in the defense of tangible, moveable property. No other state has such a provision.

In Texas, the referral of the case to a Grand Jury is automatic. The Grand Jury can either recommend prosecution or return what is commonly referred to as a "no bill".

In the case of "no bill", the case is dropped, but the state can always choose to pursue the case at a later time.

Not that the shooter in this case was not in his automobile at the time of the incident. Several other states (Missouri and Oklahoma have been mentioned here) have laws that provide presumptions of the lawful necessity of deadly force in instances involving the unlawful (and sometimes forcible) entry into an occupied vehicle.

Those laws would not apply under the circumstances described in the article.

[lcpiper]

I am considering that in this instance, the thieves, being armed, must have in some manner communicated a threat with those weapons as they initially robbed the man of his phone and his keys.

He was apparently returning a movie at the kiosk when the suspects, who carried guns, confronted him. They demanded his car keys and cell phone and got into his car to drive away.

Robbing armed citizens at gun point doesn't look to be a healthy profession.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by lcpiper: I am considering that in this instance, the thieves, being armed, must have in some manner communicated a threat with those weapons as they initially robbed the man of his phone and his keys.

Evidently so.

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

[jimbob86]

My take?

He wasn't defending himself, he was defending his property

Not necessarily- there is no guarantee the car jackers won't kill you even after you give them what they demanded- it worked out that way for Andrea Kruger in Omaha recently. She got out of the car and the thug gunned her down anyway.

[GJSchulze]

What if he could shoot the front tire? That would have made it hard to drive.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by jimbob86: there is no guarantee the car jackers won't kill you even after you give them what they demanded.

But the justification for deadly force ceases when the immediate threat no longer exists.

If the evidence and testimony are consistent with this:

They demanded his car keys and cell phone and got into his car to drive away. A third suspect then sped away in a 1999 dark-green Honda Civic.

When the suspects began to leave in the man's car, the owner pulled out a gun and opened fire.

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

[Closing The Gap]

I thought Texas law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe that this is necessary and the only way to prevent a serious crime such as burglary or theft or to prevent someone from fleeing with your stolen property.

Texas code 9.42

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.

The fact they had guns would put it into section 3b I would think.

[thallub]

Not necessarily- there is no guarantee the car jackers won't kill you even after you give them what they demanded- it worked out that way for Andrea Kruger in Omaha recently.

What you said right there is very important. It's something i've been saying for years.

So long as the attacker is armed with a gun he presents a grave threat to your life. Do not assume that the gun armed attacker is no threat to your life because he is preparing to leave the scene or is running away; he can still kill you in an instant.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by thallub: So long as the attacker is armed with a gun he presents a grave threat to your life. Do not assume that the gun armed attacker is no threat to your life because he is preparing to leave the scene or is running away; he can still kill you in an instant.

That smeone "can kill you" is but part of the equation; it relates to ability. There are also opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion.

Of course, in the case at hand, defense of person is not the only area of the law that my come to bear.

[timn8er]

I'm a little confused here, which is a normal state of affairs for me, but if someone can clear this up I would appreciate it! When I took my CCL training, one aspect that had especially HEAVY emphasis placed on it was that you can only use deadly force to counter deadly force. Yes, the hijackers used deadly force initially, but once they had the victim's car, they started to leave the scene, at which time the victim drew his weapon & fired. This conflicts(I think)with what I was taught. The deadly force was leaving the scene, so it would not be a justifiable shooting. You're not allowed to use deadly force to protect property, in Oklahoma, anyway. Thoughts?

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Real life is not a video game, a game of cops and robbers, or a Hollywood Movie and putting myself in harms way after being free and clear is not what I would call a good idea.

I don't blame someone who wants to defend his property from trash, but sitting in prison for many years would cost him more than the price of the car!

For me using deadly force is something I prepare for but hope I NEVER have to use and I would only use it to protect human beings, not property.

[Eppie]

The deadly force was leaving the scene, so it would not be a justifiable shooting. You're not allowed to use deadly force to protect property, in Oklahoma, anyway.

In Oklahoma you're right. In Texas you can shoot and kill to protect life and property. Anything else I see as a free pass for thieves.

Here's, Joe Horn, another even more extreme example of a man defending his neighbor's property.

[Eppie]

Wreck-n-Crew I was just reading you link to the 2nd amendment. It seems pretty clear that our founding fathers saw the protection of liberty and property as inextractably linked

[9mmfan]

(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.

Whether or not potentially or actually taking a life over an automobile or other property is an action one would actually want to live with, well that's a whole other can of worms.

[timn8er]

Eppie, Thanks for the info.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Eppie: ....Here's Joe Horn, another even more extreme example of a man defending his neighbor's property.

Let's stop propagating that myth.

Horn's 911 call does indicate that he was under the impression that he would be justified in shooting to defend his neighbor's property.

Under some circumstances (including the existence of a prior request from the neighbor to do so), one might well be justified.

However, Horn's attorney did not pursue that defense.

What saved Horn's hide was the Grand Jury testimony of an eyewitness (LEO) that Horn had fired in self defense.

Horn has suffered heaiviy since.

It seems pretty clear that our founding fathers saw the protection of liberty and property as inextractably linked.

Our founding fathers lived within the constructs of centuries-old laws that did not excuse the use of deadly force to defend property per se.

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.

This was a robbery.