Thief calls 911, afraid homeowner may have a gun

[bfdd]

There is NO state in the USA - not even Texas - where shooting a guy locked in your bathroom who is on the phone with the police is going to be protected by a castle doctrine type law.

I invite the armchair lawyers here who think it's legal to justify it by citation to their state's laws on the subject.

"I over heard him on the phone calling for help, so I burst in and shot him before I could hear him tell them where I am." At worst, manslaughter. A deadmans word against the home owners.

 

[Zebo]

No, no lying needed. Perp was in house unlawfully, perp gets dead. Doesn't matter if he's armed or not. I'm don't have to prove anything, I have no duty to retreat, no means to prove escalation of force, the law is VERY clear on this. In my house unlawfully, you get dead and the law protects me, the home owner.

You have zero idea of what you're talking about.

They don't even have to be in your house in TX Plenty of repo men shot DEAD in TX

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/txcodes/pe000900.html

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

� 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, � 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, � 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

� 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, � 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, � 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

� 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, � 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, � 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

� 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property

The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, � 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, � 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, � 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Blah blah blah...everyone here is a badass and loves killing people.

Typical gun loon thread.

 

[Kelvrick]

Blah blah blah...everyone here is a badass and loves killing people.

Typical gun loon thread.

I don't see that anywhere. I just see people loving the ability to defend their home.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Blah blah blah...everyone here is a badass and loves killing people.

Typical gun loon thread.

Most of the replies are not like that at all. Many of us feel that we should have the right to defend our homes if someone broke into them... I have no way of knowing if the guy breaking into my home is a thief or a murderer. But many states have laws that provide the homeowner the right to use deadly force so that the homeowner doesn't have to find out the hard way what the intruder means to do.

It's a shame that the laws have to be written like this, but the blame shouldn't lie with homeowners who want to defend their homes, nor the lawmakers who enacted these laws. Maybe we should look at those who break in to homes and have no regard for the law, the property of other people, or the lives of others as the cause.

 

[HAL9000]

If you'd enter my house uninvited i would get you out really fucking fast, i would have to take the consequences for my actions later though which just proves that our nations legal system is fucked up in these matters.

It means you can't defend yourself without fear of prison, that would make a big difference to me...and everyone is always out for themselves when it comes down to it.

This is where you get so confused. It's not taking the law into your own hands, it's defending your life, family and property. The ultimate in self determination and responsibility.

There is a different between defending yourself and shooting the person. Killing someone is not just defending yourself.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

There is a different between defending yourself and shooting the person. Killing someone is not just defending yourself.

I'd get you out, i didn't say anything about killing you, but if you tried to fight that is the most likely outcome. In that case, that would be your choice.

 

[HAL9000]

I'd get you out, i didn't say anything about killing you, but if you tried to fight that is the most likely outcome. In that case, that would be your choice.

I don't condone killing, I'm not arguing that someone shouldn't defend themselves, I'm arguing they shouldn't be judge jury and executioner.

 

[corwin]

There is a different between defending yourself and shooting the person. Killing someone is not just defending yourself.

It most certainly can be the same thing, just because you falsely believe someone breaking into your home is "just visiting" doesn't mean we're willing to take that chance...I hope I never have to but if the time comes I won't hesitate to put them down.

 

[HAL9000]

It most certainly can be the same thing, just because you falsely believe someone breaking into your home is "just visiting" doesn't mean we're willing to take that chance...I hope I never have to but if the time comes I won't hesitate to put them down.

Yeaaah... I don't believe that I also don't believe breaking and entering is worth death.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I don't condone killing, I'm not arguing that someone shouldn't defend themselves, I'm arguing they shouldn't be judge jury and executioner.

As i said, you make your own choice, i'd be well within my rights to injure or even kill you to get you out of my home in England too if you were threatening me or my family.

Everyone makes their own choices and faces the consequences for them.

 

[corwin]

Yeaaah... I don't believe that I also don't believe breaking and entering is worth death.

Doesn't matter what believe, luckily you don't have anything to do with our laws...and breaking and entering can become assault/murder in the blink of an eye...I won't take that chance with my family.

 

[HAL9000]

As i said, you make your own choice, i'd be well within my rights to injure or even kill you to get you out of my home in England too if you were threatening me or my family.

Everyone makes their own choices and faces the consequences for them.

Legally not morally IMO.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It most certainly can be the same thing, just because you falsely believe someone breaking into your home is "just visiting" doesn't mean we're willing to take that chance...I hope I never have to but if the time comes I won't hesitate to put them down.

Daughters boyfriend sneaking in? Some poor chap drunk who got in the wrong house because you forgot to lock the door? Your own daughter sneaking out, your wife?

You do know that the chances are greater that something like that will happen if this is how you treat a situation like this, right?

Hell, even in combat zones we are more lenient than you are in your own homes, we make absolutely clear what we are firing at and if they surrender or are unarmed, we don't shoot them AND THIS IS IN A FUCKING COMBAT ZONE!

You are nuts, that's the only possible explanation, completely fucked in the skull.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Legally not morally IMO.

I have no morals, i don't believe in morals, morals were created to teach others how to live their lives.

Ethics i do have though, they tell me how to act and live my life, they are based on the golden rule which works well both ways.

Do unto others as you would have them to unto you AND do unto others as they would have done unto you.

There is no dilemma, there is no question, if you try to hurt me or my family, you'll get exactly what it takes to stop you, whether that is to punch you in the chest or to shove a knife up your neocortex doesn't really matter, it's just that you get what you give with me.

 

[davmat787]

Squatters laws in England have a historical background that Yanks will never get, it's no use discussing it because you'll never get it.

Marlon Brando got prosecuted for having oral sex, it's those kind of historical laws, you've got them too.

I just find it curious that you keep saying we don't get it and our laws don't make sense, yet use the defense that there is no need to defend a criticism of the squatting issue because a US citizen wouldn't get it.

Whether or not I agree with your opinion, I do find foreigners opinions on US issues to be very interesting, and I do thank you for that.

 

[corwin]

Daughters boyfriend sneaking in? Some poor chap drunk who got in the wrong house because you forgot to lock the door? Your own daughter sneaking out, your wife?

You do know that the chances are greater that something like that will happen if this is how you treat a situation like this, right?

Hell, even in combat zones we are more lenient than you are in your own homes, we make absolutely clear what we are firing at and if they surrender or are unarmed, we don't shoot them AND THIS IS IN A FUCKING COMBAT ZONE!

You are nuts, that's the only possible explanation, completely fucked in the skull.

Seems you're the one fucked in the skull if you think any of us are referring to shooting at shadows in the night...good god that's fucking retarded to come to that conclusion.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Yeaaah... I don't believe that I also don't believe breaking and entering is worth death.

I don't either. But when you are involving yourself in an illegal activity that can make it appear that you are in fact a murderer, someone who has the means to defend themselves from a murderer may use those means. I would do my best to not appear as a possible rapist, murderer, etc. It isn't asking a whole lot to not break in to someone's home.

I don't think dressing up as a deer is worth death either. But if I go out in the woods wearing a dear costume and mimicing deer during hunting season, is the problem the hunter or the dumbass who went out into the woods? Don't break in to someone's home and that homeowner will not use deadly force against you because they think you are something you're not.

The problem isn't the homeowner. It's not the laws. It's the dumbass that tries to break and enter.

 

[HAL9000]

I don't either. But when you are involving yourself in an illegal activity that can make it appear that you are in fact a murderer, someone who has the means to defend themselves from a murderer may use those means. I would do my best to not appear as a possible rapist, murderer, etc. It isn't asking a whole lot to not break in to someone's home.

I don't think dressing up as a deer is worth death either. But if I go out in the woods wearing a dear costume and mimicing deer during hunting season, is the problem the hunter or the dumbass who went out into the woods? Don't break in to someone's home and that homeowner will not use deadly force against you because they think you are something you're not.

The problem isn't the homeowner. It's not the laws. It's the dumbass that tries to break and enter.

I agree, and people shouldn't be allowed to own the means to kill each other, as you said they get the wrong end of the stick.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I just find it curious that you keep saying we don't get it and our laws don't make sense, yet use the defense that there is no need to defend a criticism of the squatting issue because a US citizen wouldn't get it.

Whether or not I agree with your opinion, I do find foreigners opinions on US issues to be very interesting, and I do thank you for that.

I didn't say that, what i said is that we have fucked up old laws and so do you.

I don't defend the squatters laws as they are today, don't misinterpret what i say to mean that because i've said it plenty of times before.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Seems you're the one fucked in the skull if you think any of us are referring to shooting at shadows in the night...good god that's fucking retarded to come to that conclusion.

Not after what you said, read your posts back "someone crawling around the house"...

Perhaps i took what you wrote too literally but my excuse for that is that literal interpretation is vital to what i do.

 

[davmat787]

I didn't say that, what i said is that we have fucked up old laws and so do you.

I don't defend the squatters laws as they are today, don't misinterpret what i say to mean that because i've said it plenty of times before.

Not saying anything regarding your position in regards to the squatters, just your comment that we wouldn't "get it" when the same could be said to you regarding the issue here.

 

[spidey07]

I didn't say that, what i said is that we have fucked up old laws and so do you.

I don't defend the squatters laws as they are today, don't misinterpret what i say to mean that because i've said it plenty of times before.

Castle Doctrine laws are relatively new meant to protect the home owner and allow him to legally defend life and property. And that's EXACTLY what they are doing. No surprise that breaking and entering, rape, violent crime in homes went down after they were enacted.

 

[corwin]

Not after what you said, read your posts back "someone crawling around the house"...

Perhaps i took what you wrote too literally but my excuse for that is that literal interpretation is vital to what i do.

Umm..yeah, way to literal. Why do people assume any american with a gun wants to just blindly start shooting things? If for no other reason it would get expensive fixing all the holes, not to mention the cost of ammo😉 we're just proud we won't be thrown in prison for defending our homes, lives, and loved ones with force when necessary.

 

[bfdd]

I agree, and people shouldn't be allowed to own the means to kill each other, as you said they get the wrong end of the stick.

Shouldn't be allowed to own the means to kill each other? I guess that means we have to get RID OF EVERYTHING AND START LIVING IN SINGLE PERSON CAGES. God you're fucking retarded and you compound it every day. One day you're going to explode into a super nova of retardedness.