Page 1 of 1
Shooting in Baytown
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:50 pm
by Mike1951
Thsi happened today less than three miles from my home.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=5134548
At this point, it sounds like a no-bill.
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:11 pm
by anygunanywhere
Don't be so sure. He shot at the BGs as they were leaving.
Of course, they might have tried to run over him.
One thing for certain. The dead one will not steal again.
I'll bet the one that got away will think twice before he tries again.
We need to watch this one closely to see where it goes.
Anygun
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:47 pm
by jimlongley
2am, probably "after dark."
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:55 pm
by Venus Pax
Let's just hope the family doesn't file civil charges.
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:45 pm
by anygunanywhere
jimlongley wrote:2am, probably "after dark."
Harris County. Rosenthal. Not a slam dunk.
I rest my case.
Anygun
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:03 pm
by longtooth
Yea, "travelling law or Castle Doctrine" either one, He will decide they dont apply to Harris County.
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:12 pm
by casselthief
if they were leaving with property, could he not say that it was the only way he could recover said property.
I know in an earlier thread about a wallet being stolen, some had said that the law said that you could not shoot if the property could be replaced.
I had the opinion that it meant that if you believed that the property would not be recovered, ie the thief dropping it as he ran, or recovered by police.
whatcha'll think about that?
in this case, to me, the business owner felt that he could not recover the property taken, or believed to have been taken, by the thieves, and therefore is in the right to have applied DeadlyForce.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, discuss:
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:23 pm
by txinvestigator
casselthief wrote:if they were leaving with property, could he not say that it was the only way he could recover said property.
I know in an earlier thread about a wallet being stolen, some had said that the law said that you could not shoot if the property could be replaced.
I had the opinion that it meant that if you believed that the property would not be recovered, ie the thief dropping it as he ran, or recovered by police.
whatcha'll think about that?
in this case, to me, the business owner felt that he could not recover the property taken, or believed to have been taken, by the thieves, and therefore is in the right to have applied DeadlyForce.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, discuss:
Agree with you generally. Chapter 9 of the Penal Code also adds that you must
reasonably believe the property cannot be recovered by any other means. The belief that the property cannot be recovered must be reasonable.
I am NOT saying that is not so in this case, just a point of clarification.
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:31 pm
by stevie_d_64
"Txi" "Cassell"...
Another twist in this...
Would you say the increased abuse and threat of Identity Theft would be another complication to the theft of just a mear wallet???
Not that that could be reasonably deduced as justification to shoot someone to "stop" them from committing a crime like that...You would not know if that could happen...
But it could...
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:37 pm
by HankB
txinvestigator wrote: . . . Chapter 9 of the Penal Code also adds that you must reasonably believe the property cannot be recovered by any other means. The belief that the property cannot be recovered must be reasonable.
It's not a case of looking out the window and seeing the kid from next door swiping your garden gnome . . . it's seeing your business inventory in the back of a rapidly fleeing vehicle operated by persons unknown, at night, no cops anywhere around . . . IMHO and under the circumstances, a belief that the property would not be recovered is
perfectly reasonable.
ESPECIALLY if property previously stolen was never recovered.
Of course, if the Harris County authorities decide to make up their own laws (as they have a reputation for doing) and prosecute, I won't be on the jury . . .
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:47 pm
by casselthief
txinvestigator wrote:just a point of clarification.
thanks, I was genuinely looking for just that!

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:00 pm
by seamusTX
HankB wrote:it's seeing your business inventory in the back of a rapidly fleeing vehicle operated by persons unknown, at night, no cops anywhere around . . . IMHO and under the circumstances, a belief that the property would not be recovered is perfectly reasonable.
Not to forget that you can't get theft insurance for construction materials. It comes straight out of the victim's wallet.
- Jim
Re: Shooting in Baytown
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:18 pm
by IcheeWaWa
Mike1951 wrote:Thsi happened today less than three miles from my home.
Glad to see one of my neighbors on here. This was about 3 miles from my house as well!
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:07 pm
by Jeremae
By my odometer it is 2.3 miles from mine.