Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

[JD50]

I hope this guy gets off and I wish I still lived in Texas.

 

[jonks]

"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.

"Stay inside the house and don?t go out there, OK?" the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK?"

Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!
Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK?"


Gee, the 911 dispatcher gets it. Why can' t you guys? Property < human scumbag life. The only hero here is that dispatcher. Someone should commend him.

And for the legal sticklers, this was in the afternoon, not at night, so he could be looking at charges, and possible jail, unless he can prove they came after him when he went outside and can make a case for self-defense.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...l?source=mostpop_story

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."


Articles coming out now with quotes from Horn's friends and family say stuff like "oh, he's a sweet non-confrontational man." Really? Compare that with his own words: "You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."

And: "I don't want you going outside, Mr. Horn," the dispatcher said.
"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

As Jesus would say.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In 1751, Benjamin Franklin wrote a satirical commentary in his Pennsylvania Gazette suggesting that as a way to thank the Brits for their policy of sending convicted felons to America, American colonists should send rattlesnakes to England.

In December 1775, he published an essay in the Pennsylvania Journal under the pseudonym American Guesser in which he suggested that the rattlesnake was a good symbol for the American spirit:

I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids?She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.?She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.?As if anxious to prevent all pretentions of quarrelling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenceless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defence, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:?Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.?Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?

"DON'T TREAD ON ME" !

Exactly

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.

"Stay inside the house and don?t go out there, OK?" the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK?"

Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!
Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK?"


Gee, the 911 dispatcher gets it. Why can' t you guys? Property < human scumbag life. The only hero here is that dispatcher. Someone should commend him.

And for the legal sticklers, this was in the afternoon, not at night, so he could be looking at charges, and possible jail, unless he can prove they came after him when he went outside and can make a case for self-defense.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...l?source=mostpop_story

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."


Articles coming out now with quotes from Horn's friends and family say stuff like "oh, he's a sweet non-confrontational man." Really? Compare that with his own words: "You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."

And: "I don't want you going outside, Mr. Horn," the dispatcher said.
"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

As Jesus would say.

Read the law. It doesn't have to be night time. What this guy did is ok by the law, that's why he wasn't arrested and won't be charged.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Read the law. It doesn't have to be night time. What this guy did is ok by the law, that's why he wasn't arrested and won't be charged.

I'm not sure it's clear, and the articles I've read quoting legal professors say his actions were not clear cut. Whether he will be charged remains to be seen.

The law is a bit confusing. Sec 9.43 (defense of 3rd person's property) says deadly force is justified as long as it would be under 9.42 (defense of own property). Under 9.42, deadly force is ok to protect property when it's:

(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;

Horn was going after them when they were attempting to escape after the crime so section A is inapplicable since he wasn't preventing the imminent commision of the crime.

We're dealing with a home invasion and theres been no evidence the neighbors were there (from what I read no one has heard from them for days...) so the robberies are out. Which leaves burglary and theft. Burglary is entering illegally premises with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein but only becomes implicated in this statute if they also took property, which brings us to theft. So how do you get around the "nighttime" provision? Especially since 9.43 states:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;


I'd like it if we could have a reasonable discussion here over the interpretations over this law without 1) starting a new thread or 2) people chiming in with "they deserved it".

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Read the law. It doesn't have to be night time. What this guy did is ok by the law, that's why he wasn't arrested and won't be charged.

I'm not sure it's clear, and the articles I've read quoting legal professors say his actions were not clear cut. Whether he will be charged remains to be seen.

The law is a bit confusing. Sec 9.43 (defense of 3rd person's property) says deadly force is justified as long as it would be under 9.42 (defense of own property). Under 9.42, deadly force is ok to protect property when it's:

(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;

Horn was going after them when they were attempting to escape after the crime so section A is inapplicable since he wasn't preventing the imminent commision of the crime.

We're dealing with a home invasion and theres been no evidence the neighbors were there (from what I read no one has heard from them for days...) so the robberies are out. Which leaves burglary and theft. Burglary is entering illegally premises with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein but only becomes implicated in this statute if they also took property, which brings us to theft. So how do you get around the "nighttime" provision? Especially since 9.43 states:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;


I'd like it if we could have a reasonable discussion here over the interpretations over this law without 1) starting a new thread or 2) people chiming in with "they deserved it".

Actually, I think it seems pretty clear that what the guy did was illegal. Section 9.42 that you quoted says deadly force is OK if you are preventing any of those named crimes or preventing someone from escaping at night after committing any of those other named crimes. As you said, they weren't committing the crime, they were "fleeing", which means section B covers this. However, since it wasn't nighttime, section B DOESN'T give the neighbor the authorization to use deadly force. Since there appears to be no other section that allows for deadly force against fleeing criminals, I don't see how this could possibly be legal unless there was some other consideration (like they threatened him or something).

This law actually seems like a reasonable compromise to me, stopping someone during the day as they are escaping seems like a good way to injure innocent bystanders.

 

[Nebor]

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

 

[Siddhartha]

Has anyone addressed the ethical issue of killing two people over a broken window and a bag of unknown contents?

Who is the scum bag? Some guy who murdered two people over a broken window and a bag of unknown contents or two guys who broke a window and robbed a house?

Lets not forget the shooter did not have to kill those people.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Gee, the 911 dispatcher gets it. Why can' t you guys? Property < human scumbag life. The only hero here is that dispatcher. Someone should commend him.

By law, yes he is going to be put away.

Personally, those criminals died in the commission of a crime. "Human scumbag life" is worth nothing. The true wrong was he did not confront them honorably with the option to surrender, in light of it only being property and not a truly serious crime.

If they were, say, hurting someone or burning the house down, I would waiver the requirement to face them honorably. Since that is apparently not the case, and he apparently was eager to kill for a minor crime, my ultimate judgment with regards to this case is with the letter of the law.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

I was hoping to have a reasonable discussion about the law, I didn't think my post constituted foaming at the mouth, and if you think taking a few words out of a clause and ignoring the rest constitutes valid statutory interpretation in a homicide, then I guess I'll seek my discussions elsewhere.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Has anyone addressed the ethical issue of killing two people over a broken window and a bag of unknown contents?

Who is the scum bag? Some guy who murdered two people over a broken window and a bag of unknown contents or two guys who broke a window and robbed a house?

Lets not forget the shooter did not have to kill those people.

No, he didn't. He really went above and beyond is taking these bad guys off the street.


By the way, when I was reading the law, I came across this:

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

God bless Texas.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Gee, the 911 dispatcher gets it. Why can' t you guys? Property < human scumbag life. The only hero here is that dispatcher. Someone should commend him.

By law, yes he is going to be put away.

Personally, those criminals died in the commission of a crime. "Human scumbag life" is worth nothing. The true wrong was he did not confront them honorably with the option to surrender, in light of it only being property and not a truly serious crime.

If they were, say, hurting someone or burning the house down, I would waiver the requirement to face them honorably. Since that is apparently not the case, and he apparently was eager to kill for a minor crime, my ultimate judgment with regards to this case is with the letter of the law.

He gave them the choice to stop. They chose not to.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Nebor
He gave them the choice to stop. They chose not to.

Do we here at P&N have the evidence to truly know that? I leave that to the officers and a jury of his peers to decide.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Has anyone addressed the ethical issue of killing two people over a broken window and a bag of unknown contents?

Who is the scum bag? Some guy who murdered two people over a broken window and a bag of unknown contents or two guys who broke a window and robbed a house?

Lets not forget the shooter did not have to kill those people.

No, he didn't. He really went above and beyond is taking these bad guys off the street.


By the way, when I was reading the law, I came across this:

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

God bless Texas.

To reply to your previous post, I live in TX and I think what this guy did was completely inappropriate as do many others that I have spoken with.

Now, onto your interpretation of the law.

The above quoted section would not be applicable. The statute is dependent upon BOTH CONDITIONS being met and is geared towards your right to respond with force if you are being excessively abused by the police or someone acting in that capacity.

In other words, they could have shot Cowboy here legally because he tried to execute a citizen's arrest and did so using excessive force.

Edit: Responding to your "God bless Texas" -- Heaven help protect us from those that do not understand the law but believe that they do in Texas.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Has anyone addressed the ethical issue of killing two people over a broken window and a bag of unknown contents?

Who is the scum bag? Some guy who murdered two people over a broken window and a bag of unknown contents or two guys who broke a window and robbed a house?

Lets not forget the shooter did not have to kill those people.

No, he didn't. He really went above and beyond is taking these bad guys off the street.


By the way, when I was reading the law, I came across this:

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

God bless Texas.

To reply to your previous post, I live in TX and I think what this guy did was completely inappropriate as do many others that I have spoken with.

Now, onto your interpretation of the law.

The above quoted section would not be applicable. The statute is dependent upon BOTH CONDITIONS being met and is geared towards your right to respond with force if you are being excessively abused by the police or someone acting in that capacity.

In other words, they could have shot Cowboy here legally because he tried to execute a citizen's arrest and did so using excessive force.

Edit: Responding to your "God bless Texas" -- Heaven help protect us from those that do not understand the law but believe that they do in Texas.

Huh? I know that the police part is in no way applicable to this case. It's just another cool Texas law.

Anyway, this guy is gonna walk. I'd bet money. I'll throw down $25.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

Yeah, you can't just take some words out of the law and use that as a defense. You have to, you know, read the ENTIRE law to see what it means.

As far as the Texas attitude goes, I know plenty of normal people from Texas. They tend to support self-defense pretty strongly, but I know plenty of them who don't support taking it this far. The real problem with Texas is the folks like you who think if you live there you have to embrace acting like some big jackass as part of some lame-ass "culture".

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

Yeah, you can't just take some words out of the law and use that as a defense. You have to, you know, read the ENTIRE law to see what it means.

As far as the Texas attitude goes, I know plenty of normal people from Texas. They tend to support self-defense pretty strongly, but I know plenty of them who don't support taking it this far. The real problem with Texas is the folks like you who think if you live there you have to embrace acting like some big jackass as part of some lame-ass "culture".

Sorry, but Texans are still in charge of Texans. Outsiders looking in, and outsiders living here may try to change everything, but we're still free and just.

I've read all the laws thoroughly (You spend about 10 hours reading and discussing those very laws in order to get your CHL.) I know that the law says he's in the right, and I know that even if it didn't, a Texas jury wouldn't convict him.

So, $25 says he's not convicted of a felony. Care to bet?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

Yeah, you can't just take some words out of the law and use that as a defense. You have to, you know, read the ENTIRE law to see what it means.

As far as the Texas attitude goes, I know plenty of normal people from Texas. They tend to support self-defense pretty strongly, but I know plenty of them who don't support taking it this far. The real problem with Texas is the folks like you who think if you live there you have to embrace acting like some big jackass as part of some lame-ass "culture".

Sorry, but Texans are still in charge of Texans. Outsiders looking in, and outsiders living here may try to change everything, but we're still free and just.

I've read all the laws thoroughly (You spend about 10 hours reading and discussing those very laws in order to get your CHL.) I know that the law says he's in the right, and I know that even if it didn't, a Texas jury wouldn't convict him.

So, $25 says he's not convicted of a felony. Care to bet?

Well, I never said that the outcome of the case would be strictly defined by the law. The law is pretty clear, it says he had no right at all to do what he did. Now maybe a jury won't see it that way, or maybe he'll plea bargain or something. But if you had to read the law to get your CHL, they should have actually made you pay attention...you are extremely wrong about what it says. Since home defense has nothing to do with CHL, as far as I know, perhaps you were studying a different set of laws. But either way, you're wrong.

And don't give me that "Texans for Texas" bullshit. You guys do nothing BUT pass judgment on the rest of the country, so you'll forgive me if I don't mind passing a little judgment on YOUR state. And like I said, I know plenty of Texans who don't believe in your stupid-ass cowboy attitude.

 

[bctbct]

Nebor you are assuming too much and not versed in the law. There is a slight chance he wont be charged because this is Tx but I tend to believe the old guy is being given the chance to spend the holidays with his family.

There is too many clear cut standards not met for him to get off IMO.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

Yeah, you can't just take some words out of the law and use that as a defense. You have to, you know, read the ENTIRE law to see what it means.

As far as the Texas attitude goes, I know plenty of normal people from Texas. They tend to support self-defense pretty strongly, but I know plenty of them who don't support taking it this far. The real problem with Texas is the folks like you who think if you live there you have to embrace acting like some big jackass as part of some lame-ass "culture".

Sorry, but Texans are still in charge of Texans. Outsiders looking in, and outsiders living here may try to change everything, but we're still free and just.

I've read all the laws thoroughly (You spend about 10 hours reading and discussing those very laws in order to get your CHL.) I know that the law says he's in the right, and I know that even if it didn't, a Texas jury wouldn't convict him.

So, $25 says he's not convicted of a felony. Care to bet?

Well, I never said that the outcome of the case would be strictly defined by the law. The law is pretty clear, it says he had no right at all to do what he did. Now maybe a jury won't see it that way, or maybe he'll plea bargain or something. But if you had to read the law to get your CHL, they should have actually made you pay attention...you are extremely wrong about what it says. Since home defense has nothing to do with CHL, as far as I know, perhaps you were studying a different set of laws. But either way, you're wrong.

And don't give me that "Texans for Texas" bullshit. You guys do nothing BUT pass judgment on the rest of the country, so you'll forgive me if I don't mind passing a little judgment on YOUR state. And like I said, I know plenty of Texans who don't believe in your stupid-ass cowboy attitude.

You study all the deadly force statutes, including the ones at issue here. My class was taught by a Dallas county ADA. He repeatedly said never to shoot anyone over property for any reason. And while I wouldn't do it myself, I applaud this old man for defending his neighborhood.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

Yeah, you can't just take some words out of the law and use that as a defense. You have to, you know, read the ENTIRE law to see what it means.

As far as the Texas attitude goes, I know plenty of normal people from Texas. They tend to support self-defense pretty strongly, but I know plenty of them who don't support taking it this far. The real problem with Texas is the folks like you who think if you live there you have to embrace acting like some big jackass as part of some lame-ass "culture".

Sorry, but Texans are still in charge of Texans. Outsiders looking in, and outsiders living here may try to change everything, but we're still free and just.

I've read all the laws thoroughly (You spend about 10 hours reading and discussing those very laws in order to get your CHL.) I know that the law says he's in the right, and I know that even if it didn't, a Texas jury wouldn't convict him.

So, $25 says he's not convicted of a felony. Care to bet?

Well, I never said that the outcome of the case would be strictly defined by the law. The law is pretty clear, it says he had no right at all to do what he did. Now maybe a jury won't see it that way, or maybe he'll plea bargain or something. But if you had to read the law to get your CHL, they should have actually made you pay attention...you are extremely wrong about what it says. Since home defense has nothing to do with CHL, as far as I know, perhaps you were studying a different set of laws. But either way, you're wrong.

And don't give me that "Texans for Texas" bullshit. You guys do nothing BUT pass judgment on the rest of the country, so you'll forgive me if I don't mind passing a little judgment on YOUR state. And like I said, I know plenty of Texans who don't believe in your stupid-ass cowboy attitude.

You study all the deadly force statutes, including the ones at issue here. My class was taught by a Dallas county ADA. He repeatedly said never to shoot anyone over property for any reason. And while I wouldn't do it myself, I applaud this old man for defending his neighborhood.

Well the ADA was right...getting in an unnecessary lethal conflict with someone when your life or someone else's life isn't in danger is stupid. Your belongings are just things, things can be replaced, especially since most people have insurance. You can't go down to Best Buy and get a new head if someone shoots a hole in yours.

And don't get me wrong, I admire the mindset that causes a person to defend his neighborhood. I think this guy took it too far, but I think many other people don't take it far enough. Stuff like this bugs me, but stories like the one where some lady was getting mugged (or was it raped?) in broad daylight in a crowd that refused to do anything piss me off even more. There is such a thing as taking it too far, but I think we'd be better off if people looked out for each other more than they do today. Our society is too isolated, too concerned with our own problems that we refuse to give a shit about anybody else. This guy could use a little judgment and restraint, but the basic concept is something we could do with more of.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Has anyone addressed the ethical issue of killing two people over a broken window and a bag of unknown contents?

Who is the scum bag? Some guy who murdered two people over a broken window and a bag of unknown contents or two guys who broke a window and robbed a house?

Lets not forget the shooter did not have to kill those people.

No, he didn't. He really went above and beyond is taking these bad guys off the street.


By the way, when I was reading the law, I came across this:

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

God bless Texas.

To reply to your previous post, I live in Austin TX and I think what this guy did was completely inappropriate as do many others that I have spoken with.

Now, onto your interpretation of the law.

The above quoted section would not be applicable. The statute is dependent upon BOTH CONDITIONS being met and is geared towards your right to respond with force if you are being excessively abused by the police or someone acting in that capacity.

In other words, they could have shot Cowboy here legally because he tried to execute a citizen's arrest and did so using excessive force.

Edit: Responding to your "God bless Texas" -- Heaven help protect us from those that do not understand the law but believe that they do in Texas.

Heh, the only place in Texas where it's safe to walk the streets as a registered Democrat

I think the fact that he wasn't arrested is a strong indicator he won't be charged. People are sick & tired of burglars, if the DA presses, they'll likely take a massive PR hit.

It's an interesting case, we shall see, I suspect the grand jury will fail to indite.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I applaud this old man for defending his neighborhood.

That's what this case will come down to.

Can anyone "defend" a neighborhood?

If not then it will be a free for all of stealing and pillaging by criminals with no fear of impunity.

With the onslaught of the pussification of America sadly that is what may happen.

 

[blackllotus]

The death penalty for stealing... last time I checked this was 2007 not 1007

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
The death penalty for stealing... last time I checked this was 2007 not 1007

I'll bet you that it will be a long time before another robbery takes place in that neighborhood again.