TexasCHLforum.com

Here is a good topic for a Monday morning:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/At-Lea ... B_DFWBrand" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Does 9.42 apply or did the home owner jump the gun (no pun intended) since the guy had not broken in yet???



Texas statute on use of deadly force: § 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.

The homeowner said he fired off several rounds after the intruder did not stop, because he feared for his life.

While TX has some pretty lenient laws in regards to night time shooting, I would have to ask some questions as this article is far to vague. Which way was the suspect going? Was he running away or coming at the home owner? If running away why shoot? They will investigate and we will learn more later on. I'll bet this home owner also complied with the leo's when they arrived and didn't point the gun at them or refuse to give it up

Not that I want to bring up old controversies but one case I can think of may relate here. If Joe Horn could get away with shooting a guy in the back that was running away after breaking into his neighbors house, I would think this feller is good to go.

The only problem may be that the bad guy in this case lived to tell his side of the story. If anyone thinks the criminal is going to be honest, I have a bridge I can sell you.

Good shoot.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Not that I want to bring up old controversies but one case I can think of may relate here. If Joe Horn could get away with shooting a guy in the back that was running away after breaking into his neighbors house, I would think this feller is good to go.

The only problem may be that the bad guy in this case lived to tell his side of the story. If anyone thinks the criminal is going to be honest, I have a bridge I can sell you.

I am going to do some research, but I am almost certain in the Joe Horn case he was preventing the crime of theft of property , i.e. goods being carried away. There's too little info in the article for the FW case for me to draw any conclusion.
Edit: I checked and the burglars were carrying away property stolen from the neighbors house when he shot. They had also moved into his yard.

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Not that I want to bring up old controversies but one case I can think of may relate here. If Joe Horn could get away with shooting a guy in the back that was running away after breaking into his neighbors house, I would think this feller is good to go.

The only problem may be that the bad guy in this case lived to tell his side of the story. If anyone thinks the criminal is going to be honest, I have a bridge I can sell you.

I am going to do some research, but I am almost certain in the Joe Horn case he was preventing the crime of theft of property , i.e. goods being carried away. There's too little info in the article for the FW case for me to draw any conclusion.
Edit: I checked and the burglars were carrying away property stolen from the neighbors house when he shot. They had also moved into his yard.

They were actually running away from him and it looked more like they had dropped the VCR or DVD player, before trying to run. But hey... It was a fifty dollar appliance after all. I think blasting them in the back is the proper punishment for such a crime. Heck, I think we should be able to kill teen agers that steal our Christmas decorations. We have to put a stop to these heinous crimes. That case is a a perfect example of how making sure the bg is dead can work in your favor. Only one story to tell. The main reason joe got away with it was he claimed they were coming at him.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Not that I want to bring up old controversies but one case I can think of may relate here. If Joe Horn could get away with shooting a guy in the back that was running away after breaking into his neighbors house, I would think this feller is good to go.

The only problem may be that the bad guy in this case lived to tell his side of the story. If anyone thinks the criminal is going to be honest, I have a bridge I can sell you.

I am going to do some research, but I am almost certain in the Joe Horn case he was preventing the crime of theft of property , i.e. goods being carried away. There's too little info in the article for the FW case for me to draw any conclusion.
Edit: I checked and the burglars were carrying away property stolen from the neighbors house when he shot. They had also moved into his yard.

They were actually running away from him and it looked more like they had dropped the VCR before trying to run. But hey... It was a. Fifty dollar appliance. They deserved to be shot in the back.

There was a bag of jewelry and cash as well per what I have read. Regardless he said he was in fear of his life. They were in his yard and at least one ran toward him then angled away. The ME's could not specify whether they were shot in the back or not. A plain clothes detective who witnessed the shooting did not arrest Joe Horn. No matter what you and I or any one else thinks about his justification, Mr. Horn was no billed. Back to topic ; it will be interesting to see what, if any, legal actions are taken in FW in this shooting.

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Not that I want to bring up old controversies but one case I can think of may relate here. If Joe Horn could get away with shooting a guy in the back that was running away after breaking into his neighbors house, I would think this feller is good to go.

The only problem may be that the bad guy in this case lived to tell his side of the story. If anyone thinks the criminal is going to be honest, I have a bridge I can sell you.

I am going to do some research, but I am almost certain in the Joe Horn case he was preventing the crime of theft of property , i.e. goods being carried away. There's too little info in the article for the FW case for me to draw any conclusion.
Edit: I checked and the burglars were carrying away property stolen from the neighbors house when he shot. They had also moved into his yard.

They were actually running away from him and it looked more like they had dropped the VCR before trying to run. But hey... It was a. Fifty dollar appliance. They deserved to be shot in the back.

There was a bag of jewelry and cash as well per what I have read. Regardless he said he was in fear of his life. They were in his yard and at least one ran toward him then angled away. The ME's could not specify whether they were shot in the back or not. A plain clothes detective who witnessed the shooting did not arrest Joe Horn. No matter what you and I or any one else thinks about his justification, Mr. Horn was no billed. Back to topic ; it will be interesting to see what, if any, legal actions are taken in FW in this shooting.

Actually, it was on topic until you zeroed in on the horn case so I am comforted by you suggesting we "get back on topic" at the end of your post. The bad guys had about two thousand in goods piled up but did not try to cart them off after being called down by Horn. Regardless, I would not recommend killing a person you see carting off your neighbors belongs and expect it to go as well for you as it did for Horn. One... The castle doctrine was only in affect for three months and there was real debate about the doctrine applying to ones own castle and not their neighbors. There still is.

Here is a quote from a news story on the events back then.

"Horn's defense hinged on his assertion that he fired out of fear for his life, making the shooting justifiable under Texas law. The law also permits the use of deadly force to protect property under some circumstances."

That was the single most determining factor in his acquittal. The castle doctrine alone would have left him in a heap of trouble.

We all know police never lie so I am positive the officer who sat on his butt and supposedly did zilch while he watched two guys robbing a house is a very reputable source for an eye witness account. Having a cop slant the story in favor of the good guy is not going to be the norm. Having a cop watching the whole thing while eating a donut is even more unlikely.

But again... The one factor about that case and the one factor that caused me to compare the two was the importance of leaving the BG dead. Having one side to the story is going to work in our favor if we decide a person needs shooting.

Here is a link to the story I got the quote from above.

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasad ... 587004.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But getting back on topic.... .... This person appears to have gotten a bit ahead of himself with the shooting. I do think we want to be careful about relying on the castle doctrine to save us when shooting BG's that not actually trying to invade our castles. If we all start shooting people for trying to steal our car stereos, Christmas decorations, pumpkins, nomes and pink flamingos from our yards, we may find ourselves facing public sentiment that causes the law to swing too far in the other direction.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Not that I want to bring up old controversies but one case I can think of may relate here. If Joe Horn could get away with shooting a guy in the back that was running away after breaking into his neighbors house, I would think this feller is good to go.

The only problem may be that the bad guy in this case lived to tell his side of the story. If anyone thinks the criminal is going to be honest, I have a bridge I can sell you.

I am going to do some research, but I am almost certain in the Joe Horn case he was preventing the crime of theft of property , i.e. goods being carried away. There's too little info in the article for the FW case for me to draw any conclusion.
Edit: I checked and the burglars were carrying away property stolen from the neighbors house when he shot. They had also moved into his yard.

They were actually running away from him and it looked more like they had dropped the VCR before trying to run. But hey... It was a. Fifty dollar appliance. They deserved to be shot in the back.

There was a bag of jewelry and cash as well per what I have read. Regardless he said he was in fear of his life. They were in his yard and at least one ran toward him then angled away. The ME's could not specify whether they were shot in the back or not. A plain clothes detective who witnessed the shooting did not arrest Joe Horn. No matter what you and I or any one else thinks about his justification, Mr. Horn was no billed. Back to topic ; it will be interesting to see what, if any, legal actions are taken in FW in this shooting.

Actually, it was on topic until you zeroed in on the horn case so I am comforted by you suggesting we "get back on topic" at the end of your post. The bad guys had about two thousand in goods piled up but did not try to cart them off after being called down by Horn. Regardless, I would not recommend killing a person you see carting off your neighbors belongs and expect it to go as well for you as it did for Horn. One... The castle doctrine was only in affect for three months and there was real debate about the doctrine applying to ones own castle and not their neighbors. There still is.

Here is a quote from a news story on the events back then.

"Horn's defense hinged on his assertion that he fired out of fear for his life, making the shooting justifiable under Texas law. The law also permits the use of deadly force to protect property under some circumstances."

That was the single most determining factor in his acquittal. The castle doctrine alone would have left him in a heap of trouble.

We all know police never lie so I am positive the officer who sat on his butt and supposedly did zilch while he watched two guys robbing a house is a very reputable source for an eye witness account. Having a cop slant the story in favor of the good guy is not going to be the norm. Having a cop watching the whole thing while eating a donut is even more unlikely.

But again... The one factor about that case and the one factor that caused me to compare the two was the importance of leaving the BG dead. Having one side to the story is going to work in our favor if we decide a person needs shooting.

Here is a link to the story I got the quote from above.

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasad ... 587004.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But getting back on topic.... .... This person appears to have gotten a bit ahead of himself with the shooting. I do think we want to be careful about relying on the castle doctrine to save us when shooting BG's that not actually trying to invade our castles. If we all start shooting people for trying to steal our car stereos, Christmas decorations, pumpkins, nomes and pink flamingos from our yards, we may find ourselves facing public sentiment that causes the law to swing too far in the other direction.

You are the one who interjected the Horn case in the first place with a dose of opinion and sarcasm. Now you insinuate the police may be lying and are lazy and unreliable to boot! I simply responded to your first comment with some facts and attempted to steer the thread back on track. Whether the guy on Hawthorne got ahead of himself or not remains to be seen, so I'm going to reserve my judgement until more is revealed.

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

puma guy wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Not that I want to bring up old controversies but one case I can think of may relate here. If Joe Horn could get away with shooting a guy in the back that was running away after breaking into his neighbors house, I would think this feller is good to go.

The only problem may be that the bad guy in this case lived to tell his side of the story. If anyone thinks the criminal is going to be honest, I have a bridge I can sell you.

I am going to do some research, but I am almost certain in the Joe Horn case he was preventing the crime of theft of property , i.e. goods being carried away. There's too little info in the article for the FW case for me to draw any conclusion.
Edit: I checked and the burglars were carrying away property stolen from the neighbors house when he shot. They had also moved into his yard.

They were actually running away from him and it looked more like they had dropped the VCR before trying to run. But hey... It was a. Fifty dollar appliance. They deserved to be shot in the back.

There was a bag of jewelry and cash as well per what I have read. Regardless he said he was in fear of his life. They were in his yard and at least one ran toward him then angled away. The ME's could not specify whether they were shot in the back or not. A plain clothes detective who witnessed the shooting did not arrest Joe Horn. No matter what you and I or any one else thinks about his justification, Mr. Horn was no billed. Back to topic ; it will be interesting to see what, if any, legal actions are taken in FW in this shooting.

Actually, it was on topic until you zeroed in on the horn case so I am comforted by you suggesting we "get back on topic" at the end of your post. The bad guys had about two thousand in goods piled up but did not try to cart them off after being called down by Horn. Regardless, I would not recommend killing a person you see carting off your neighbors belongs and expect it to go as well for you as it did for Horn. One... The castle doctrine was only in affect for three months and there was real debate about the doctrine applying to ones own castle and not their neighbors. There still is.

Here is a quote from a news story on the events back then.

"Horn's defense hinged on his assertion that he fired out of fear for his life, making the shooting justifiable under Texas law. The law also permits the use of deadly force to protect property under some circumstances."

That was the single most determining factor in his acquittal. The castle doctrine alone would have left him in a heap of trouble.

We all know police never lie so I am positive the officer who sat on his butt and supposedly did zilch while he watched two guys robbing a house is a very reputable source for an eye witness account. Having a cop slant the story in favor of the good guy is not going to be the norm. Having a cop watching the whole thing while eating a donut is even more unlikely.

But again... The one factor about that case and the one factor that caused me to compare the two was the importance of leaving the BG dead. Having one side to the story is going to work in our favor if we decide a person needs shooting.

Here is a link to the story I got the quote from above.

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasad ... 587004.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But getting back on topic.... .... This person appears to have gotten a bit ahead of himself with the shooting. I do think we want to be careful about relying on the castle doctrine to save us when shooting BG's that not actually trying to invade our castles. If we all start shooting people for trying to steal our car stereos, Christmas decorations, pumpkins, nomes and pink flamingos from our yards, we may find ourselves facing public sentiment that causes the law to swing too far in the other direction.

You are the one who interjected the Horn case in the first place with a dose of opinion and sarcasm. Now you insinuate the police may be lying and are lazy and unreliable to boot! I simply responded to your first comment with some facts and attempted to steer the thread back on track. Whether the guy on Hawthorne got ahead of himself or not remains to be seen, so I'm going to reserve my judgement until more is revealed.

You just can't stop can you. OK.... You win the Internet battle. by the way... Allow me to firmly straighten you out here. I am not insinuating anything. I am flat out saying that cop was a waist of uniform if he actually sat there like a coward while watching a house get robbed. Does that clear up my perspective on it for ya? I sure hope so.

Oh yeah... Like you keep preaching but not doing... I agree... Let's get back on topic. This compares to the joe Horn case in that both parties shot a BG that was not actually breaking into their homes(castle). The difference in the two is Joe Horn was smart enough and lucky enough... Maybe both.... To leave no witness to give a different story. Joe Horn could argue he felt threatened. This guy cannot really do that.

So, to truly get things back on topic at hand,

The burglar had broken in as evidenced by the alarm went off.

The homeowner says he was in fear for his life. Of course he does. The investigation will show if the man was shot in the back or front which should answer some questions.

9.42 states that the shoot is legal IF the BG has some of your stuff, it's dark, and you don't think you're gonna get your stuff back.

It was dark. I don't think anyone ever expects to get their stuff back. But, did the BG have the homeowners stuff?

I would put my bet on it at least going to a grand jury to decide.

healthinsp wrote:So, to truly get things back on topic at hand,

The burglar had broken in as evidenced by the alarm went off.

The homeowner says he was in fear for his life. Of course he does. The investigation will show if the man was shot in the back or front which should answer some questions.

9.42 states that the shoot is legal IF the BG has some of your stuff, it's dark, and you don't think you're gonna get your stuff back.

It was dark. I don't think anyone ever expects to get their stuff back. But, did the BG have the homeowners stuff?

I would put my bet on it at least going to a grand jury to decide.

That is about the size of it. One problem the home owner has is that simply stating one is in fear of their life may not be enough. One has to be in a situation where one would reasonably be in fear of their life. I could darned near shoot anybody I wanted if all I had to do was claim I was in fear for my life. Grabbing a gun and going outside to confront an intruder in a detached building does not really match the actions of a person in fear for their life.

That being said, I am not sure it matters anyway. This is a good example of why an attorney would say to keep your mouth closed and call a lawyer if you are ever in this situation. He introduced a topic that may not work in his favor.

In the end, I think the only thing that will matter is if the DA decides this meets the castle doctrine criteria. If they decided it does not, a jury will decide if it does.

I am thinking he may be OK based on castle doctrine. Is a detached garage part of my castle? Maybe. If a barn with a two hundred thousand dollar tractor is part of a farmers castle to defend, why not a detached garage?

It will be interesting. I am still with the folks who said he would have been better off if the BG had not survived. The BG may claim he was doing nothing wrong.

I know others feel differently, but I'm calling the cops and securing the house. I just don't see the upside of leaving the protection my home offers in order to confront a BG. Now if he breaches the house, all bets are off.

03Lightningrocks wrote:ove.

You just can't stop can you. OK.... You win the Internet battle. by the way... Allow me to firmly straighten you out here. I am not insinuating anything. I am flat out saying that cop was a waist of uniform if he actually sat there like a coward while watching a house get robbed. Does that clear up my perspective on it for ya? I sure hope so.

Oh yeah... Like you keep preaching but not doing... I agree... Let's get back on topic. This compares to the joe Horn case in that both parties shot a BG that was not actually breaking into their homes(castle). The difference in the two is Joe Horn was smart enough and lucky enough... Maybe both.... To leave no witness to give a different story. Joe Horn could argue he felt threatened. This guy cannot really do that.

I don't think the sarcasm is really necessary. I have been respectful in all my responses to you. No one said the plain clothes officer witnessed the break in. The facts are he saw the shooting and reported what he saw, my point was he didn't arrest Joe Horn as a result of what he witnessed. His report on what he viewed wasn't even in Joe Horn's favor. The burglars were carrying a bag of loot out of the neighbor's house as Horn reported during the 911 call. He went downstairs to go outside to see which direction they were going and to maybe get a license number. When he opened his door they were mere feet away from him (maybe 8-12 feet judging by the videoed investigation by the Pasadena Police Detectives.) in his front yard facing him, NOT running away. The coroner couldn't positively state they were shot in the back, but I will concede the possibility that Horn could have shot as the guy turned. The fact remains they were facing Joe Horn as they came from the neighbor's (unless they walked backward) and could have closed the distance very, very quickly. Being in fear for his life he shot because they moved after he warned them stop. The question of whether Horn would have been justified in shooting based on protecting his neighbor's property wasn't tested as you alluded. We'll have to wait to see if protection of property warrants the use of lethal force in the FW case.

If people didn't want to get shot in the act while stealing, I think they would do it in California or New York instead of Texas or Florida.