Quanell X humiliated, marginalized by large crowd in Pasadena

As are yours supporting a yahoo cowboy.

 

i think its time to put this thread to rest...

joe horn haters, give it up.

let the legal system do its job.

 

texas law states that you can use deadly force on a burglar as he tries to flee...

case closed...

 

As I have seen reported a few times, you have to have been asked to protect the neighbors property. Is that true or not?

 

you keep saying this but you keep replying

 

During the night time.....

Case closed.

 

I had no idea this dude even existed prior to this thread, but if he said that, he's an ass and as much a racist as anyone he might decide to "protest" against. He could have put any "white neighborhood" in that sentence and the basis of what he's saying would be the same, and equally wrong.



Trim Bush!

 

i think its time to put this thread to rest...

vigilante defenders, give it up.

let the legal system do its job

 

Usually stay out of the D&D but I saw this on the news and couldn't help but shake my head at what I saw.

Quanell X even said he wasn't sure if the shooting was racially motivated, so if he isn't sure, why the hell was he there?

Also...the white people that came to protest didn't really help their cause either, I saw confederate flags being waved and if their were racial slurs being yelled, well, you're kinda proving X right if anything.

If the law states you can shoot robbers, then that's the law.

 

Best post in this thread.

 

it was up to joe horn. the law states that the person is allowed to decide if his neighbor gives him permission to defend the neighbors property.

any neighbor would reasonably believe that his neighbor doesnt want his property stolen...

from: same site.


Protection of the Property of Others


"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

 

that same stuff applies to protection of another's property. read it again. if you're justified to do so with your own property (and under these specific circumstances, you are) then you're justified to do so to defend another person's property.

the legislature didn't take away the circumstances required for defense of your own property in creating justification for using deadly force to protect someone else's property.

 

yeah bc the joe horn haters need to stop saying... but it was premeditated... but it was the neighbors property... but they were shot during the daytime... but they were shot in the back...


like i said, i think in all aspects, joe horn is in the right. but who knows. let the legal system do its job.

 

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou071126_tnt_burglarshooting.41772f2e.html

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they could otherwise be killed. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbor’s property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he’s out of town.

 

so we can't discuss it any further??

you're right, if we keep discussing this here, there's no way for the legal system to do its job.

 

so it was legal for joe horn to

1) defend his neighbors property
2) shoot burglars who are fleeing

show that he was being reckless or he shot them execution style... if not, there is no case.

let the legal system investigate the incidence and determine if there is a case against joe horn. dont call him a vigilante, he was acting w/in the law.

 

ok you got me there

keep discussing if yall want but it seems like it is pretty cut and dry.

shocking yes, unfortunate yes, but the law is the law.

 

As I understand it, here's the relevant statutory authority:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

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.



So from this I think:

1. In order for him to protect property of another under 9.43, you have to have the same circumstances from 9.41 & 9.42. Which means the "nighttime" thing comes into play.

2. It's not necessary that he have permission to defend the property...or that he be asked first. It's one qualifier, as best I can tell, for the defense.

3. I'd say the defense will likely work for him..and I think that's ridiculous. I'm guessing Texas is one for 5 or so states that has this sort of thing on the books still.

4. I don't know if it's possible that there's some consequence for ignoring the dispatcher....if there is, this defense would not apply. This defense applies merely to homicide.

 

i think people in this country are just blood thirsty. and its disturbing

I can't help but think of michael moore's bowling for columbine.