Houston woman kills auto burglar.

imported post

MetalChris wrote:

TehGruu wrote:

Well, crime does carry a certain risk. Please reference "GPFHNTGS."

Gruu's Postulate For How Not To Get Shot - It is always bad strategy to steal people's sh**. Especially in Texas.

Please note the powerful knowledge that is being bestowed on all with half a brain.

-Gruu

Click to expand...

I prefer that to Hank's POSD :celebrate

Click to expand...

I think Hank is just pointing out that the majority of gun laws make it impossible to protect yourself against any threat nowadays. Both 'slogans' are true. Does POSD stand for what I think it stands for?

imported post

POSD = postulate of self defense

I screwed it up a little

imported post

hanky has been deemed "irrelevant" on OCDO.

In Texas, he's just plain WRONG.

imported post

TehGruu wrote:

Well, crime does carry a certain risk. Please reference "GPFHNTGS."

Gruu's Postulate For How Not To Get Shot - It is always bad strategy to steal people's sh**. Especially in Texas.

Please note the powerful knowledge that is being bestowed on all with half a brain.



-Gruu

Click to expand...

LOL

Finally, a postulate that makes sense!

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

[align=left]Yes you can use deadly force in Texas for the Protection of Property.[/align]
[align=center]TEXAS PENAL CODE[/align]
[align=center]Title 2 [/align]
[align=center]Chapter 9[/align]
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.

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.

Click to expand...

Holy shishkebab! You can defend property with force AND go get it back with force!

Hate to be in the repo business in TX!

imported post

Daddy always said, if it ain't yours don't touch it without permission.....you might get in trouble!:shock:

imported post

HankT wrote:

cloudcroft wrote:

As I have said, the only real "justice" any criminal sees is at the hand of an armed citizen. The more dead criminals, the better.

Good riddance.

-- John D.

Click to expand...

Wow.

Just wowsa.

:what:

Click to expand...

I can't say I disagree. Its better then the joke of the justice system that awards criminals.

imported post

Something to keep in mind:

Several months ago an older gentleman shot a couple of burglars who were carting off some goods from his NEIGHBORS house. IIRC there were no charges filed there, either. It was found to be justifiable homicide.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

imported post

Double Tap

imported post

In Kansas the laws for horse thieves and cattle rustlers is still a hanging offense. What pray tell is the difference between stealing a car (only mode of transport) and a horse. God bless the young almost a momma and let the BG's beware. Just like the first righteous shoot in Kansas, a judge said " Let the bad guys beware, we have guns and will use them."

imported post

TehGruu wrote:

Well, crime does carry a certain risk. Please reference "GPFHNTGS."

Gruu's Postulate For How Not To Get Shot - It is always bad strategy to steal people's sh**. Especially in Texas.

Please note the powerful knowledge that is being bestowed on all with half a brain.
-Gruu

Click to expand...

Hello, HankT? Oh, sorry, wrong number....

Shoot them at night?

It is possible that the Texas law reflects the biblical admonition that lethal force is permissible to someone attempting to steal from you at night, but not during the day.

I do not know why God would make this provision, but i suspect there is a good reason for it if He did.


And regarding the Texas man (Joe Horn?) that shot the two burglars during daylight, i think he claimed they moved toward him when he told them not to, claiming self defense. Anyone feel free to correct me.

Statkowski said:

Good shot with a 20-gauge!

If I remember correctly, one can protect property in addition to one's life.

Click to expand...

Only at night. Daytime is a no go.:banghead:

robert68 said:

It is possible that the Texas law reflects the biblical admonition that lethal force is permissible to someone attempting to steal from you at night, but not during the day.

I do not know why God would make this provision, but i suspect there is a good reason for it if He did.


And regarding the Texas man (Joe Horn?) that shot the two burglars during daylight, i think he claimed they moved toward him when he told them not to, claiming self defense. Anyone feel free to correct me.

Click to expand...

Just a guess on my part here but.... At night it is much easier to conceal weapons and the true intent that the bg may be interested in more that just property.

I daylight it is much easier to "see" the bg!

On Mr. Joe Horn?, he was on 911 and reported the burglary of his neighbor's property and announced BEFORE shooting that he was going to go kill the BG's. I don't recall for sure if it was night or not, but I think it was! I believe he was no billed when the prosecutor presented to the grand jury.

MSC 45ACP said:

One of the reasons I really miss Texas. "He needed killin" is a defense to prosecution when dealing with someone involved with "criminal mischief at night".

It goes back to the days when cattle and horse thieves prowled Texas. Non-Texans don't fully understand or appreciate that the Republic of Texas has enough resources to become its' own country (again).

OT:
How many people know that Texas was a REPUBLIC, independent of the United States before it became a state? I remember someone telling me when I lived there that they could legally seceed from the U.S. because they had already been a soverign nation and could become one again if it's citizens so desired. I don't know if that is true or not, but it was an interesting concept and worthy of discussion, but this may not be the right place to do it.

Sadly they don't allow OC, but hand out CC permits like they were candy. Go figure. (Had to get back on topic, right?)

Click to expand...

They still prowl Texas. Cattle and horse rustling in Texas is bigger today than it ever was in the "good ole" western days. It is a business run by smart thieves. They watch you and your daily habits. They know when you leave and return. When they are ready, they back up trucks with ramps placed over your fence and run the cattle or horses right up into the trucks and drive away. I had two horses stolen this way. Only the people came onto the land to shoo the horses into the truck. The truck stayed outside my fenced-in pasture.

JoeSparky said:

Just a guess on my part here but.... At night it is much easier to conceal weapons and the true intent that the bg may be interested in more that just property.

I daylight it is much easier to "see" the bg!

On Mr. Joe Horn?, he was on 911 and reported the burglary of his neighbor's property and announced BEFORE shooting that he was going to go kill the BG's. I don't recall for sure if it was night or not, but I think it was! I believe he was no billed when the prosecutor presented to the grand jury.

Click to expand...

Joe Horn acted in broad daylight around 1 to 2 PM.

Night time only applies to a couple of actions listed, burglary is not one of them.

i know in MO deadly force is not authorized on personal property like this situation, but man if thats the law in texas, im glad she shot him. one less Ahole out robbing people.

makes a loud statement; and a loud gunshot.
good for her.

...from Tx. Deadly Force Law...

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.



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

Is there any particular reason why a thread over a year old is being revived? I was interested in this story until I read the original post was in 11/09. Just an observation, YMMV.

Ruby said:

Is there any particular reason why a thread over a year old is being revived? I was interested in this story until I read the original post was in 11/09. Just an observation, YMMV.

Click to expand...

The is one curiosity most strongly brought to my mind by this necropost....







is HankT finally gone?