This is a perfect display of what is wrong with the USA... How can you kill people for stealing ? I would never want to live in a country where there is no gun control and people actually believe they are enabled to take the law into their own hands... And we have free health care and education...
this paragraph is right before the one you posted. "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means." "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)" looking at the grammatical structure of this passage, i think its refering to criminal activities during the night as one of the instances of when deadly force can be applied--not, deadly force can only be applied at night. but im not a criminal defense lawyer nor do i hold a law degree... itll be up to the prosecutor. but realistically, this is texas... if the prosecutor tries to bring this to trial, the neighbor will most likely be acquited unless... (as i have continuously repeated before...) he was being reckless... http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost "Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable." "A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time." so did he give the burglars a warning to stop? they were fleeing so he exercised his right under the law...
I don't want to get into a Who's Country is Better contest, but if I were a German, I certainly wouldn't talk about screwed up policies in the United States. Glass houses, mein freund.
I don't think that's it. I think if the prosecutors choose to chase this one they'll do so on the notion that he could not have REASONABLY believed there was no other way to protect this property given the fact the dispatcher told him not to go out there and get involved...and presumably told him the police were on the way. Let me also say that if the law protects this...then it needs to be changed. Otherwise the law is encouraging something other than order. It's leaving enforcement of the law up to private citizens with guns.
I tried to read it the way you stated, and I still don't see it that way. The crime had already been committed, so statements about stopping the imminent or impending commission of a crime or durring the comission of a crime are't really relevant which is what the paragraph before deals with. He shot them as they were fleeing. Reading the text, if he had busted into the guy's house and shot them in the act, you would be correct. But he hit them as they were fleeing which provides him with much, much more limited protection. An important thing to understand on most of the deadly force laws as well as many of the firearms laws like CCH, is that you don't have any leeway. If you follow the exact text you are protected but if you deviate one iota you are guilty of a very serious felony criminal violation. The line between 'no legal fault' and '20 years to life' (or watever the sentencing for murder in Texas is) is very thin. I am not a lawyer either, and so all the same disclaimers that you repeated apply, but this is my experience as a dealer of firearms. I don't think some of the more gung-ho firearms proponents who feel empowered by 'castle doctrine' laws quite understand this.
thats debatable and i think a good defense lawyer would be able to prove that the neighbor reasonably believed there was no other way of protecting the property and it would not have been recovered without intervention (a bag full of cash can disappear pretty quickly)... private citizens w/ guns is not quite the chaos you portray it to be... this is an extreme example but ill give it anyways... after hurricane katrina hit, there were looters going around robbing people, raping women, and creating general chaos. armed citizen had to police new orleans bc there werent enough police officers. yes we have to be careful of vigilante mentality but in this instance, the neighbor was acting within the law so he is not a vigilante. dont crucify the good samaritan... he was just helping out his neighbor.
Good question. I'm not sure that would be high on a burglars list. I'm guessing that if I had a respirator I would have it with me. A Dialisis machine, could be replaced if I went to the hospital in time.
Shouldn't citizen's arrests be encouraged instead of completely relying on the police? If he went to stop them, then felt threatened and shot them so be it. He called the police before he went out there. I don't think he was on a kill mission. He was on a protect and arrest mission. If more people would get involved crime would not be so bad.
im not a lawyer either... but "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
Citizens' Arrest By David C. Grossack, Constitutional Attorney Common Law Copyright © 1994 All Rights Reserved Not long ago the politically correct Boston Globe noticed a "shocking" new trend. It seems as if some citizens of Massachusetts were so fed up with crime that they have begun to intervene in petty street crime afflicting the streets of our cities. Thieves and pickpockets in Massachusetts should exercise caution in where and how they ply their craft as the chances that vigilantes pummel them and drag them to the nearest cop are definitely on an upswing. While the Globe is shocked at this healthy trend, students of the law should note that both a statutory and common law basis for a certain degree of "vigilante behavior" is well founded. Indeed, in an era of lawlessness it is important that readers be advised as to their lawful right to protect their communities, loved ones and themselves by making lawful citizens' arrests. The purpose of this essay is to simply explain the law and the historical context of the citizen's arrest. First, what is an arrest? We can thank Black's Law Dictionary for a good definition: "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." See Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812). Historically, in Anglo Saxon law in medieval England citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages of their jurisdiction. From this legacy originated the concept of the posse comitatus which is a part of the United States legal tradition as well as the English. In medieval England, the right of private persons to make arrests was virtually identical to the right of a sheriff and constable to do so. (See Inbau and Thompson, Criminal Procedure, The Foundation Press, Mineola, NY 1974. A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen. In the most crime ridden spot in the country, our nation's capitol, District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows: (b) A private person may arrest another - (1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence - (A) a felony, or (B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or (2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make an arrest. (c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay. (July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 630, Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, § 210(a); 1973 Ed., § 23-582; Apr. 30, 1988, D.C. Law 7-104, § 7(e), 35 DCR 147.) In Tennessee, it has been held that a private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not. (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833). Contrast this to Massachusetts law, which while permitting a private person to arrest for a felony, permits those acquitted of the felony charge to sue the arresting person for false arrest or false imprisonment. (See Commonwealth v. Harris, 11 Mass. App. 165 (1981)) Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.) Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.) Utah law permits citizen's arrest, but explicitly prohibits deadly force. (See Chapter 76-2-403.) Making citizen's arrest maliciously or without reasonable basis in belief could lead to civil or criminal penalties. It would obviously be a violation of a suspect's civil rights to use excessive force, to torture, to hold in unsafe or cruel conditions or to invent a reason to arrest for the ulterior motive of settling a private score. Civil lawsuits against department stores, police departments, and even cult deprogrammers for false imprisonment are legend. Anybody who makes a citizens arrest should not use more force than is necessary, should not delay in turning the suspect over to the proper authorities, and should never mete out any punishment ... unless willing to face the consequences. As the ability of the powers that be to hold society together and preserve law and order diminishes, citizen's arrests will undoubtedly be more common as a way to help communities cope with the wrongdoers in out midst. http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm
you're right...bad example. that was one of the most unique situations in american history. complete with martial law.
If someone flees after either burgling, robbing, or stealing when the actions are done at night, you can use deadly force to prevent them from escaping with property if you reasonably believe the property can't be recovered if you don't. I'm not sure how else you can read that.
