911 call of man who killed two burglars at neighbors house

[CervixThumper]

If I ever start robbing and stealing, I know the first house I'm gonna hit up
I'll just take all your shit in broad daylight and fuck your wife/girl/daughter while you're busy calling 911 waiting for the cops to arrive 3 hours later
You'll be too scared to shoot because it's not night time, lol
I don't know where you're originally from (probably up north I'm guessing), but we don't play that shit down here


Amen!

This doesn't have one damn thing to do with what the hell we're talking about. He didn't shoot someone coming into HIS house. He shot somebody outside of his neighbors. If I pay someone to move my shit, I don't want my neighbor shooting his ass cause of what he thought might be going down. There was no wife/kid/owner at home. Who were they raping? The DVD player?

 

[Warrior 7]

Peace,

You're coming across like you're just not that intelligent of a dude. Reading is fundamental. Again, the the shooter was in NO PHYSICAL DANGER. His was not the house being robbed. He was under no threat. Try to read and interpret the article properly.

Who gives a shit? Fuck a thief
motherfuckers can rot in hell.

 

[Ill Paragraph]

at all these anti-crime cats on here actively defending a murderer.

 

[Ill Paragraph]

Who gives a shit? Fuck a thief
motherfuckers can rot in hell.

The law gives a shit.

 

[XXXplosive]

PENAL 9.43
Statutes and Session Law
PENAL CODE - TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
PENAL 9.43 PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF 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.

Thanks for posting this
I don't see anywhere where it mentions only being able to shoot at night
So I'm not sure where they pulled that from

Peace,

You're coming across like you're just not that intelligent of a dude. Reading is fundamental. Again, the the shooter was in NO PHYSICAL DANGER. His was not the house being robbed. He was under no threat. Try to read and interpret the article properly.

No, you sound like the one that's not intelligent here
Read the above section of the law
The law says you can protect your neighbor's house
And you DON'T have to be in any imminent danger
How do you know he was not in any danger?
Don't you think the robbers were armed with something?
Again I ask you: What would you do in the same situation?
Any man that's not willing to protect his himself and his family should have his balls removed

 

[Ill Paragraph]

Who gives a shit? Fuck a thief
motherfuckers can rot in hell.

Peace,

BTW, I'm sure the man in your avatar would be proud to know that the Revolution now includes supporting members of the dominant class when they murder minorities.

 

[Amajorfucup]

at all these anti-crime cats on here actively defending a murderer.

The irony is indeed thick.

 

[Leeeeeee]

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.

Stay focused.

The reason I highlighted burglary is because the crooks were committing burglary.

Burglary is breaking and entering a building or residence with the intent to commit theft or a felony.

Therefore, if you break into someone's house to steal their shit, day or night, you are fair game.

But if you are just stealing someone's car out the front yard, i.e. theft, then you have to be doing it at night in order to be fair game.

These crooks were committing burglary, so it doesn't matter whether it is day or night.

The right certainly orginates, at least in part, from the old saying, "a man's house is his castle."

 

[Ill Paragraph]

Thanks for posting this
I don't see anywhere where it mentions only being able to shoot at night
So I'm not sure where they pulled that from

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.

Here you go.

 

[Amajorfucup]

...Any man that's not willing to protect his himself and his family should have his balls removed

What does this have to do with this situation brother?

 

[Ill Paragraph]

Stay focused.

The reason I highlighted burglary is because the crooks were committing burglary.

Burglary is breaking and entering a building or residence with the commit theft or a felony.

Therefore, if you break into someone's house to steal their shit, day or night, you are fair game.

But if you are just stealing someone's car out the front yard, i.e. theft, then you have to be doing it at night in order to be fair game.

These crooks were committing burglary, so it doesn't matter whether it is day or night.

The right certainly orginates, at least in part, from the old saying, "a man's house is his castle."

Peace,

I'm staying focused on the law - which does NOT support your viewpoint.

 

[Bnice]

The guys defense is simple in this case.
A citizen has a right to make a "citizens arrest" of a person commiting a felony. If he felt that his life was endangered he has a right to defend himself. The guy is going to say that his life was in danger.

 

[Ill Paragraph]

No, you sound like the one that's not intelligent here
Read the above section of the law
The law says you can protect your neighbor's house
And you DON'T have to be in any imminent danger
How do you know he was not in any danger?
Don't you think the robbers were armed with something?
Again I ask you: What would you do in the same situation?
Any man that's not willing to protect his himself and his family should have his balls removed

Peace,

We know that he wasn't in any danger because he was stupid enough to have himself recorded while he committed the murders.

 

[tablebreaker]

Damn sorry about the loss of life and I love my people,but that's a risk you take when you break in someone's home.It does not matter which direction the lead comes from.

 

[Leeeeeee]

Peace,

I'm staying focused on the law - which does NOT support your viewpoint.

Then you sir can not read.

The law, is what it is.

Forget about this case, the law says that a person is justified in using deadly force to protect the property of another to prevent burglary. That is not an opinion, that is a fact of the law.

Now, whether any particular person is able to avail themselves of the defense is up to the facts of each case and the ability of their lawyer.

 

[Amajorfucup]

Stay focused.

The reason I highlighted burglary is because the crooks were committing burglary.

Burglary is breaking and entering a building or residence with the commit theft or a felony.

Therefore, if you break into someone's house to steal their shit, day or night, you are fair game.

But if you are just stealing someone's car out the front yard, i.e. theft, then you have to be doing it at night in order to be fair game.

These crooks were committing burglary, so it doesn't matter whether it is day or night.
The right certainly orginates, at least in part, from the old saying, "a man's house is his castle."

Wrong.
By law, in order to satisfy the elements of burglary (and therefore to fall under the protection of the burglary statute which allows deadly force) the act has to be committed at night.

Maybe Texas state law is different but its my understanding that burglary in its defintion is "breaking in...at night" regardless of jurisdiction.

 

[Ill Paragraph]

Then you sir can not read.

The law, is what it is.

Forget about this case, the law says that a person is justified in using deadly force to protect the property of another to prevent burglary. That is not an opinion, that is a fact of the law.

Now, whether any particular person is able to avail themselves of the defense is up to the facts of each case and the ability of their lawyer.

Peace,

The law CLEARLY states "at nighttime." I don't see why you're ignoring this.

 

[Amajorfucup]

The guys defense is simple in this case.
A citizen has a right to make a "citizens arrest" of a person commiting a felony. If he felt that his life was endangered he has a right to defend himself. The guy is going to say that his life was in danger.

And any prosecutor with more than 6months of legal education from even the worse law school in the nation will play that tape and illustrate how dirty harry created the confrontation and was NEVER even remotely in harms way or imminent danger from the deceased.

 

[Ill Paragraph]

Wrong.
By law, in order to satisfy the elements of burglary (and therefore to fall under the protection of the burglary statute which allows deadly force) the act has to be committed at night.

Maybe Texas state law is different but its my understanding that burglary in its defintion is "breaking in...at night" regardless of jurisdiction.

Exactly.

They wouldn't have repeatedly included the phrase, "during the nighttime" if it were immaterial.

 

[XXXplosive]

Here you go.

Sorry, I don't abide by laws that have been modified by you

What does this have to do with this situation brother?

If a robber will break into your neighbor's place, what's to stop them from breaking into your place as well?

 

[Amajorfucup]

Sorry, I don't abide by laws that have been modified by you



If a robber will break into your neighbor's place, what's to stop them from breaking into your place as well?

Me and an aresenal of licensed and unlicensed firearms.

 

[big pimp]

Peace,

This is ridiculous in the extreme. Did you even read the article? In Texas, you have a right to use deadly force to defend your neighbor's property AT NIGHT. Even in these instances, you can't just go shooting cats with impunity. But I'm sure some predominately white redneck jury will share your affinity for vigilantism and left this cat off.

cosign they will let that redneck walk.

 

[Ill Paragraph]

Sorry, I don't abide by laws that have been modified by you

Peace,

Again, you're coming across like you're kind of obtuse. All you have to do is some BASIC research on this and you'll see that I haven't modified anything. It doesn't take a brain surgeon.

 

[big pimp]

Lets not forget that TEXAS was a state that love to hang people.

 

[Leeeeeee]

PENAL 9.42
Statutes and Session Law
PENAL CODE - TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
PENAL 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF 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[/COLOR]

(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.

Peace,

The law CLEARLY states "at nighttime." I don't see why you're ignoring this.

The section in green provides for five offenses that the Thief has to be engaged in before deadly force is allowed:

1. Committing burglary; or
2. Robbery; or
3. Aggravated Robbery; or
4. Theft in the nighttime; or
5. Criminal mischief at nighttime.

If a person is engaged in either of these activities, he is fair game.

I agree it wasn't night. But that is irrelevant because as long as the crook is engaged in either one of these activities, they are fair game.

No, they weren't committing theft in the nighttime, or robbery or aggravated robbery, but they were committing burglary, therefor they were fair game.

 

[Leeeeeee]

PENAL 30.02
Statutes and Session Law
PENAL CODE - TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS
PENAL 30.02 BURGLARY.
§ 30.02. BURGLARY.

(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or

(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or

(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.

(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:

(1) any part of the body; or

(2) any physical object connected with the body.

(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a:

(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or

(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.

(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:

(1) the premises are a habitation; and

(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.


IT NEVER SAYS THAT BURGLARY IS ONLY AT NIGHT.

 

[Rawness]

Damn Texas is a crazy state.

I don't defend criminals, but I don't like the idea untrained people having the authority to shoot down suspects. For various reasons:

1) What if those suspects are not actually robbers?
2) What if the shooter misses. Strays kill.
3) What if the robbers shoot back, and you have a shoot out. Strays kill.

I can't believe this is a law. Amazing...

 

[Ill Paragraph]

The section in green provides for four offenses that the Theif has to be engaged in before deadly force is allowed:

1. Committing burglary; or
2. Robbery; or
3. Aggravated Robbery; or
4. Theft in the nighttime.

If a person is engaged in either of these activities, he is fair game.

I agree it wasn't night. But that is irrelevant because as long as the crook is engaged in either on of these activities, they are fair game.

No, they weren't committing theft in the nighttime, or robbery or aggravated robbery, but they were committing burglary, therefor they were fair game.

Peace,

We might have to agree to disagree here but I think you're misinterpreting the law. In fact, this is from the article that you, yourself, posted:

Legal opinions conflict
Lambright contended that Horn was startled to find the burglars just 15 feet from his front door when he stepped onto his porch. "He was petrified at that point," the lawyer said. "You hear him say, 'I'll shoot. Stop!' They jumped. Joe thought they were coming for him. It's a self-defense issue."

Attorneys and legal experts said Horn's defense probably will be based on state law that allows people to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property.

"If you see someone stealing your neighbor's property, you can get involved and help to stop it," said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Others disagreed.

The statutes that allow people to use deadly force to stop a burglary appear to require that the incident be occurring at night, said Craig Jett, a Dallas criminal defense attorney and president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association.

"It can't be during the day," Jett said.

 

[big pimp]

This aint got nothing to do with race. He didnt violate any law. You dont need a permit to carry a shotgun, he shot somebody that would have otherwise got away. I would want my neighbors to do the same for me. His house may have been next.

Moral of the Story: Dont Mess With Texas​

This is racist 100% the the 911 call is telling this racist redneck to stay in the house.

 

[Amajorfucup]

The section in green provides for five offenses that the Thief has to be engaged in before deadly force is allowed:

1. Committing burglary; or
2. Robbery; or
3. Aggravated Robbery; or
4. Theft in the nighttime; or
5. Criminal mischief at nighttime.
If a person is engaged in either of these activities, he is fair game.

I agree it wasn't night. But that is irrelevant because as long as the crook is engaged in either one of these activities, they are fair game.

No, they weren't committing theft in the nighttime, or robbery or aggravated robbery, but they were committing burglary, therefor they were fair game.

Leeeeee,
notice how it specifies "nighttime" for all the crimes except burglary (and robbery but robbery requires that the victim be present or threatened which would justify the use of deadly force as person and property are both present and are in danger during the crime)? Thats because by legal defition burglary is a crime that takes place at night. IOW, in order for the crime to be classified as burglary it HAS to have taken place at night. The other crimes dont have "nighttime" as an essential element therefore the statute has to specify that they must take palce at night in order to fall within the deadly force exception.

 

[Leeeeeee]

Peace,

We might have to agree to disagree here but I think you're misinterpreting the law. In fact, this is from the article that you, yourself, posted:

Legal opinions conflict
Lambright contended that Horn was startled to find the burglars just 15 feet from his front door when he stepped onto his porch. "He was petrified at that point," the lawyer said. "You hear him say, 'I'll shoot. Stop!' They jumped. Joe thought they were coming for him. It's a self-defense issue."

Attorneys and legal experts said Horn's defense probably will be based on state law that allows people to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property.

"If you see someone stealing your neighbor's property, you can get involved and help to stop it," said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Others disagreed.

The statutes that allow people to use deadly force to stop a burglary appear to require that the incident be occurring at night, said Craig Jett, a Dallas criminal defense attorney and president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association.

"It can't be during the day," Jett said.

He's wrong....the statute is clear...Right now he is going, "fuck, I should have read it first."

When I first heard it on talk radio the morning after, I thought is was required that it be nighttime too; but I have been around long enough to know to do some quick research before making statement of fact. He should have read the statute.

 

[shanebp1978]

Fuck a burglar, what if somebody was in their sleep? Could turn into a rape or an assualt.

Co-sign.

Last year when I was broken into, while I was sleeping through the Jim Lehrer news hour, I had three thoughts.

Son of fucking bitch, it finally happened, someone's breaking in. ( I knew there had been squatters in the neighborhood during the summer ).

2nd thought, Naw, that's an Icicle.

Did my girl come over, is she on the downstairs couch!?

I got up, grabbed the phone, armed myself and ran downstairs.

I paused to unlock and open the front door, because I did not know what he had and may need to escape.

If I had not paused he would be dead now. He had ripped the side door enough to get out the door, and his back was to me once I was in a position to do anything.

Or maybe I'd be dead because this fucker crawled through a 12" by 12" something basement window. So how someone that small got a unused secured door off, I don't know WHAT this cat was high on.

After he got out, I ran out the front door after him, in the snow, no shoes or socks, trying to dial 911 and ran too far because I was on the cordless.

When someone breaks in your shit, you feel violated, victimized and you want to defend yourself, and those you love, and straight fuck with someone back. That's all your thinking about.

Needless to say, I have glass block windows now.

Now that I laugh about the situation, the thing that makes me the maddest is what if it had been like, " Damn, you hear Shane got got by a crackhead in his sleep! The cuz of death!! "

I'd much rather it be, " Damn, you hear Shane got merced in a vicious shootout whoride with the big homie Killer thug Criptonite, from the H.H.A.G's! Heavily Armed Gansta Crips! "


After that said,

Bottom line, this dude didn't have to defend his neighbor's house.

 

[Substance]

if you steal shit be ready to get blasted.

+1

 

[Rawness]

gotta love these BGOL law debates

Amajorfucup, et al are correct
from Merrian-Webster:

Main Entry: bur·glary
Pronunciation: \ˈbər-glə-rē also -gə-lə-rē also -gəl-rē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural bur·glar·ies
Date: circa 1523
: the act of breaking and entering a dwelling at night to commit a felony (as theft); broadly : the entering of a building with the intent to commit a crime

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/burglary


gotta admit I never knew that, one of many misused words in the english language

 

[Leeeeeee]

gotta love these BGOL law debates

Amajorfucup, et al are correct
from Merrian-Webster:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/burglary


gotta admit I never knew that, one of many misused words in the english language

The worse is "my house got robbed." People get robbed, houses get burglarized.