Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

[ponderingturtle]

Ok, but that is not what your link and the example given shows. So either you're saying your evidence is wrong, or I'm understanding it wrong.



I don't find this claim to be accurate.



I don't find one instance to make a compelling case, and I'm certainly not claiming to be an ultimate authority.

The actual law

"Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 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.

"

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#D

Shooting people fleeing with your property after a burglary is legal in Texas. There are some terms that the definition I am fuzzy of but in Texas protecting property is a valid reason to open fire, see the above law.

I am not saying it will be interpreted in this way or should be, but there is a decent chance she will be getting a settlement for wrongful termination from the police department.

 

[Thermal]

In the video I watched he said he felt race played a factor because she went into the place and "saw a black man and was intimidated".

...which means he claims she could see him clearly, and he knew her feelings. That's some heavy-duty clairvoyance claimed. Or he just made it up.

I have no seen any evidence of the first part I lit up. Is there some such evidence available?

I linked Texas lethal force statutes a couple pages back. You can shoot if you simply believe that the person is about to commit a robbery. That's one low-ass bar.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Everything I read about Texas Castle doctrine says it wouldn't apply even if she was at her own apartment. My understanding is that some actual occupant of the "castle" has to be in the apartment/home/vehicle/whatever for it to apply.



https://www.uslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/

Generally sure, but most states with castle doctrines don't permit lethal force in defense of property like Texas does.

 

[ponderingturtle]

...which means he claims she could see him clearly, and he knew her feelings. That's some heavy-duty clairvoyance claimed. Or he just made it up.



I linked Texas lethal force statutes a couple pages back. You can shoot if you simply believe that the person is about to commit a robbery. That's one low-ass bar.

Exactly few other states specifically allow lethal force to protect property alone, only protection of people. That is something that makes texas different and hence this case different. Merely believing he was a non threatening burglar is enough to chase someone down and kill them in texas while most other states it is murder plain and simple.

 

[plague311]

Again, deadly force being "immediately necessary". Something that hasn't been shown in this case at all. There isn't even a little bit of a reason to think that it was necessary.

Ok, though. I'll drop it and we'll wait to see what happens. The horn case didn't even make it to trial, the grand jury acquitted him. No such luck here, so I feel like I'm on the right course, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[plague311]

Exactly few other states specifically allow lethal force to protect property alone, only protection of people. That is something that makes texas different and hence this case different. Merely believing he was a non threatening burglar is enough to chase someone down and kill them in texas while most other states it is murder plain and simple.

Jesus, come on man. That's not even close to true. Chase someone down and kill them? LoL get the **** out of here. That wouldn't be legal no matter what unless you're an on-duty cop that witnessed the robbery. Once the people are off your property you can't just slaughter them. That level of hyperbole does you no justice, and it's completely and entirely wrong.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Again, deadly force being "immediately necessary". Something that hasn't been shown in this case at all. There isn't even a little bit of a reason to think that it was necessary.

Sure, there are a number of things to be shown but they do not include feeling threatened or being threatened only feeling that he was stealing her stuff. So if the mistake in facts about it being her apartment are not enough there is a fairly good chance she will walk.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Again, deadly force being "immediately necessary". Something that hasn't been shown in this case at all. There isn't even a little bit of a reason to think that it was necessary.

Ok, though. I'll drop it and we'll wait to see what happens. The horn case didn't even make it to trial, the grand jury acquitted him. No such luck here, so I feel like I'm on the right course, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

"reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"

The full quote is harder to dismiss if you accept that the "reasonably" will be decided by people who you would likely not consider to be reasonable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Jesus, come on man. That's not even close to true. Chase someone down and kill them? LoL get the **** out of here. That wouldn't be legal no matter what unless you're an on-duty cop that witnessed the robbery. Once the people are off your property you can't just slaughter them. That level of hyperbole does you no justice, and it's completely and entirely wrong.

Yes pursute in the case of stolen property is allowed.

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




Sec. 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.
"


https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#D


Texas laws are crazy.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Jesus, come on man. That's not even close to true. Chase someone down and kill them? LoL get the **** out of here. That wouldn't be legal no matter what unless you're an on-duty cop that witnessed the robbery. Once the people are off your property you can't just slaughter them. That level of hyperbole does you no justice, and it's completely and entirely wrong.

Nope. Welcome to Texas.

 

[plague311]

"reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"

The full quote is harder to dismiss if you accept that the "reasonably" will be decided by people who you would likely not consider to be reasonable.

Texas might be red, but from everything I can tell Dallas is not. That's why the lawyers are doing everything in their power to move the trial from Dallas to somewhere else by claiming that they can't get a good jury pool. I believe that was shot down when the gag order put in effect.

The main reason I won't dismiss the jury as being willing to let her off the hook is because Dallas has a better chance of getting POC on the jury. All it takes is one hold out for a mistrial, but I think the state has a good chance to prosecute if they want to put forth the effort or if some of the evidence is irrefutable. They brought in more than 200 witnesses and planned to interview more...per one of the articles I read. I don't know if they are eyewitnesses or what, but it does appear the city is doing their due diligence.

 

[plague311]

Nope. Welcome to Texas.

I'll concede the fact, as it does appear I'm wrong, but that article isn't characterizing the Horn case properly. I'll take the time to dig up the other cases to see if I can find inconsistencies in those as well.

Horn claimed the people came on his property, he said on the phone that they entered his property, and a cop witnessed it as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Texas might be red, but from everything I can tell Dallas is not. That's why the lawyers are doing everything in their power to move the trial from Dallas to somewhere else by claiming that they can't get a good jury pool. I believe that was shot down when the gag order put in effect.

The main reason I won't dismiss the jury as being willing to let her off the hook is because Dallas has a better chance of getting POC on the jury. All it takes is one hold out for a mistrial, but I think the state has a good chance to prosecute if they want to put forth the effort or if some of the evidence is irrefutable. They brought in more than 200 witnesses and planned to interview more...per one of the articles I read. I don't know if they are eyewitnesses or what, but it does appear the city is doing their due diligence.

Oh that might be true but that doesn't justify making claims about how chasing down burglars and killing them is not legal in texas. Texas has rather expansive premissions for when someone can shoot.

So she might be less likely to get a friendly jury there than other places in texas but the law isn't as solidly against her as you seem to think. It gets to what a reasonable person would think and not a clear case of her being wrong.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Texas might be red, but from everything I can tell Dallas is not. That's why the lawyers are doing everything in their power to move the trial from Dallas to somewhere else by claiming that they can't get a good jury pool. I believe that was shot down when the gag order put in effect.

The main reason I won't dismiss the jury as being willing to let her off the hook is because Dallas has a better chance of getting POC on the jury. All it takes is one hold out for a mistrial, but I think the state has a good chance to prosecute if they want to put forth the effort or if some of the evidence is irrefutable. They brought in more than 200 witnesses and planned to interview more...per one of the articles I read. I don't know if they are eyewitnesses or what, but it does appear the city is doing their due diligence.

It's not a Red Blue thing here. I am fairly liberal and I own guns. Hell, my Swedish neighbor has a concealed carry permit. People here like their guns and they like their gun laws to be on the side of the victim/homeowner. That this case turns that dynamic on its head is interesting, but not enough to dismiss their established jurisprudence.

I hope I am wrong. It would renew my faith in my fellow Texan a bit. But I fear that your optimism is misplaced. She may get some lesser charge, but I don't see her getting Murder, even though I think she should.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'll concede the fact, as it does appear I'm wrong, but that article isn't characterizing the Horn case properly. I'll take the time to dig up the other cases to see if I can find inconsistencies in those as well.

Horn claimed the people came on his property, he said on the phone that they entered his property, and a cop witnessed it as well.

Why does that matter? you are permitted lethal force in defending a third persons property as well as your own.

"Sec. 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."

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#D

Seeing people robing your neighbor is all the justification you need to shoot in texas.

 

[plague311]

Oh that might be true but that doesn't justify making claims about how chasing down burglars and killing them is not legal in texas. Texas has rather expansive premissions for when someone can shoot.

So she might be less likely to get a friendly jury there than other places in texas but the law isn't as solidly against her as you seem to think. It gets to what a reasonable person would think and not a clear case of her being wrong.

Yes, I retracted my statement because I'm a grown man that is able to admit when I am not reading something properly.

As for the rest, I'll stick with my thoughts that she would still be guilty no matter what. Right now we have a stalemate of, what appears to be, people who want her to go to jail and people who want her to go to jail but don't think she will because of the Texas laws.

I am still of the mindset that there are key pieces to her story missing (which her story has changed a few times), and there being no threat while she is in fact the one committing a crime. In none of the other cases were people on property or in places that didn't belong to them. That's a pretty big difference.

 

[plague311]

Why does that matter? you are permitted lethal force in defending a third persons property as well as your own.

It matters because accurate reporting and representing the truth in a factual way is important to me? I know, I'm weird like that. I'm just a sucker for the truth I guess.

In the Horn case, he also made several claims that they were coming for him, he communicated to them, one of them ran at him, the other ran at him and then away from him. There are a bunch of differences.

 

[Bob001]

....
Seeing people robing your neighbor is all the justification you need to shoot in texas.

If that's true -- and I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you think -- doesn't the shooter still have to be sure that his assessment is correct? Suppose he sees strangers carrying stuff out of his neighbor's house and opens fire. It turns out that the neighbor is moving, or selling his old furniture, or giving it to his relatives that you've never met, or donating it to Goodwill. Is the shooter still justified? A basic presumption of defense of person and property is that the shooter had no reasonable alternative to killing somebody. If he had time to retreat or call the cops or even say "Hey! Whatchoo doin'?," his claim is weakened.

There's also a basic moral belief, taught pretty much by all religions, that life is more valuable than property. Killing somebody to defend yourself or your family or even a stranger against attack? Maybe a sad necessity. Killing the teenage crackhead who grabs your TV? Maybe not so much.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If that's true -- and I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you think -- doesn't the shooter still have to be sure that his assessment is correct? Suppose he sees strangers carrying stuff out of his neighbor's house and opens fire. It turns out that the neighbor is moving, or selling his old furniture, or giving it to his relatives that you've never met, or donating it to Goodwill. Is the shooter still justified? A basic presumption of defense of person and property is that the shooter had no reasonable alternative to killing somebody. If he had time to retreat or call the cops or even say "Hey! Whatchoo doin'?," his claim is weakened.

There seems to be some room in that

"Sec. 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."

If the or at the end of 1 was an and it would be clearly only in cases of relatives or ones that you had some kind of agreement in place. So it does seem to limit that but the or at the end of 1 makes it seem that those do not need to be in place.

And again it gets into reasonable person issues. A reasonable person would need to know that it wasn't their neighbor or such.

There's also a basic moral belief, taught pretty much by all religions, that life is more valuable than property. Killing somebody to defend yourself or your family or even a stranger against attack? Maybe a sad necessity. Killing the teenage crackhead who grabs your TV? Maybe not so much.

Not in texas.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The whole "Well I'm just saying what the jury might say" still comes across as rather distasteful and sideways apologetics to me.

Mainly in that nobody who is bouncing everything off that talking point really seems to think that's a problem to be solved.