911 call of man who killed two burglars at neighbors house

[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.

I highlighted it for easier reading.

(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



The above portion of the statute defines burglary for Texas. Trust me, when court begins, they won't be using a dictionary, they will be using Texas Law.

Many states define burglary many different ways. To understand how it applies to a Texas case, one has to find out how Texas defines Burglary.

Please re-read the Texas Burglary statute and show me where it says night.

 

[Got gumbo?]

The only reason a black person would go on that side of town would be to go to work or go to the junk yard. Aint nothin but "mesican" and dirty ass "peckawoods" over there. But any way, If you "LISTEN" to the 911 call, the white boy was itching to kill somebody esp. a black man on the wrong side of town.

Everybody's quote about the law would have been on point up until Aug 31, 2007. However the law changed. The new law started Sept 1, 2007. Its called the castle doctrine.

NEW LAw​

AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had
reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was
used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment of the actor; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by
Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against
a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense
of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the
time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry
in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action
that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action
that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by
the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is
continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

 

[PointyHeadPimp]

yo i'm in law school, (which doesn't mean shit and I could damn well be wrong) but I read the statute and it seems that he could've shot him for fleeing a burglary (which occurs at night in common law, but in the statute it doesn't include in the night)or theft that occurs at night. Therefore, he seems like he'll be fine. Although I don't agree with the law, because it promote vigilantism.

 

[seagramsg]

if you steal shit be ready to get blasted.

yey yeyh

 

[shanebp1978]

XXXplosive

They're not thinking that this could have been a case of a man defending his neighbor's house, which is allowed by Texas law

Oh didn't know that. Have not read the entire thread. I don't think there needs to be a lethal need to defend next door, but I mean if they were not there, they would not have been killed.

 

[Leeeeeee]

yo i'm in law school, (which doesn't mean shit and I could damn well be wrong) but I read the statute and it seems that he could've shot him for fleeing a burglary (which occurs at night in common law, but in the statute it doesn't include in the night)or theft that occurs at night. Therefore, he seems like he'll be fine. Although I don't agree with the law, because it promote vigilantism.

A+

Most people don't understand common law because they have no need for it. Lawyers use it every day.

Common law burglary includes the element of nighttime.
Statutory burglary is defined by that State's statute.
Court proceedings will be according to Statute.

Knowing what the law is and agreeing with it are two different things, as you have pointed out. We must first understand it, before we can reasonably debate whether we agree with it or whether the particular facts of a given case fall with in it.

 

[big pimp]

The only reason a black person would go on that side of town would be to go to work or go to the junk yard. Aint nothin but "mesican" and dirty ass "peckawoods" over there. But any way, If you "LISTEN" to the 911 call, the white boy was itching to kill somebody esp. a black man on the wrong side of town.

Everybody's quote about the law would have been on point up until Aug 31, 2007. However the law changed. The new law started Sept 1, 2007. Its called the castle doctrine.

NEW LAw​

AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had
reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was
used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment of the actor; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by
Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against
a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense
of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the
time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry
in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action
that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action
that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by
the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is
continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

If you "LISTEN" to the 911 call, the white boy was itching to kill somebody esp. a black man on the wrong side of town.COSIGN

 

[Mickey Spillane]

be careful what u ask for

your innocent family member could easily get set up for a crime he/she didnt do

as for this story, both parties were wrong

the murder was premeditated

but who really cares about robbers

he'll walk with that all white trailer park jury

Peace Lex,

Philly needs some of this justice
These animals kill, rob and rape with impunity down here
Got no sympathy for someone who thinks they can take shit you busted your ass months to pay for

AND wetback?!! You know if there was a fifteen year old girl in that house it would have been another charge

Personally I hope they open their eyes in hell

 

[unknownsoldier]

Lee...you trying hard, but I don't believe you. I believe the Houston Chronicle:

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.

Houston Chronicle...11/17/07

A+

Most people don't understand common law because they have no need for it. Lawyers use it every day.

Common law burglary includes the element of nighttime.
Statutory burglary is defined by that State's statute.
Court proceedings will be according to Statute.

Knowing what the law is and agreeing with it are two different things, as you have pointed out. We must first understand it, before we can reasonably debate whether we agree with it or whether the particular facts of a given case fall with in it.

 

[Leeeeeee]

Lee...you trying hard, but I don't believe you. I believe the Houston Chronicle:



Houston Chronicle...11/17/07

It is not a matter of who to believe. You are an intelligent person. The statute that defines Burglary is quoted above.

Read it for yourself.

Again, when Court begins, the definition of Burglary that will be used is the one quoted above which is taken directly from Texas Statutes; Penal Code.

If you ever find yourself in a criminal trial and the judge is using the Penal Code and the prosecutor is using the Penal Code and your lawyer is using the Houston Chronicle daily newspaper, you, my friend, are fucked.

 

[TRUFICTION]

It is not a matter of who to believe. You are an intelligent person. The statute that defines Burglary is quoted above.

Read it for yourself.

Again, when Court begins, the definition of Burglary that will be used is the one quoted above which is taken directly from Texas Statutes; Penal Code.

If you ever find yourself in a criminal trial and the judge is using the Penal Code and the prosecutor is using the Penal Code and your lawyer is using the Houston Chronicle daily newspaper, you, my friend, are fucked.

AND AS THE OLD SAYING GOES
ITS NOT WHAT YOU KNOW , ITS WHAT YOU CAN PROVE !

 

[ballscout1]

THE TOP ANYTHING LIST WHEN IT COMES TO CRIME.

They never reach the top of anything but drug addiction and executions.

Them mofokrs in texas are tops in huffing paint.They so bad they sell krylon in the pharmacy.

They abuse anything in that state... they used to sell diet pills for $25 a piece

And as far as executions ,Texas will kill anybody ..

And talk about a backwards ass state.. they sell rolling papers in the stores but they are against the law to have. You can buy guns in gorcery stores but face ten years if you have one where alcool is served.

And Texas is the first state where prison was an industry..

 

[mk23666]

Isnt it a good thing that criminals know they could get shot if they get caught by neighborhood watch? Mofos will def think twice about robbing that old mans hood...

Me personally I dont think the laws are harsh enough when it comes to crime. If mofos would be instantly put infront of a firing squad for crimes like in China we wouldnt have half the crime we do.

WORD! And jail/prison should be hellish but shorter sentences. The three strikes rule would be after the third strike you either go for life or get death.

 

[Drayonis]

Peace,

LIKE a right wing fanatic as in "You sound just LIKE a right wing fanatic." Same arguments.

At any rate, your last sentence doesn't make any sense at all. Not once in this entire thread have I defended those cats who got shot.

So if you're against theft you're a "right winger". so I guess if you're a "left winger" that means criminals should be able to rob, kill and rape in your opinion.

 

[DoubleD]

First, what he did is not against the law
It's being investigated but I doubt he'll be charged
This is Texas, remember that...we can do that
Second, he did give them a warning before he shot them
Fuck criminals, I've got no sympathy for em
They should hold a fucking parade for this man

I'm with that... In Texas we don't have to put up with the bullshit while some dumb Mutha Fucka trying to steal yo shit or break in your house to harm you and or your family... Fuck that shit... We can unload a clip in yo ass, reload and do the shit again...and will be justified in doing so... And I don't give a fuck what race you are... The hollow points are color blind!

Criminals get no sympathy here...

 

[Drayonis]

I'm with that... In Texas we don't have to put up with the bullshit while some dumb Mutha Fucka trying to steal yo shit or break in your house to harm you and or your family... Fuck that shit... We can unload a clip in yo ass, reload and do the shit again...and will be justified in doing so... And I don't give a fuck what race you are... The hollow points are color blind!

Criminals get no sympathy here...

I live in a very quiet neighborhood in H-town. We had some drama on our street one night and EVERYONE, I mean EVERYONE came out of their houses with pistols and rifles. It really looked like the old west....even the old lady on the block was outside in her robe and slippers with a 9....!

Fuck the thieves.....

 

[untouchable212]

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​

Bullshit he didnt break any laws. Dude was hellbent on killing before he even got out the door. He quite clearly said on the phone, "I'm going to kill him". He also says when he gets out the door, "Your dead". He's saying he didnt intend on killing him, but that contradicts whats on the tape. If you had people doing this, you wouldnt need police officers, he needs to be punished, obstruction of justice or whatever.

 

[brewdawg1]

everybody needs a neighbor like that!!! i wouldn't shoot a person burglarizing a neighbors house, i would just call the police. on the real, fuck them thieving ass bastards. i can't stand a thief!!!!

 

[djkidrich]

if you steal shit be ready to get blasted.

cosign...

 

[RBGrider]

TEXAS IS A HOMESTEAD STATE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF LAWS THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT IN TEXAS WHEN IT COMES TO PROPERTY, FLORIDA IS THE SAME WAY.

YOU NOTICE THAT THESE PLACES NEVER REACH
THE TOP ANYTHING LIST WHEN IT COMES TO CRIME.
THATS BECAUSE IF YOU GET CAUGHT SLIPPIN YOU WILL GET DEALT WITH BEFORE THE POLICE EVER EVEN GET A CALL.

THATS WHY IT PAYS TO KNOW OR AT LEAST UNDERSTAND THE LAWS IN YOUR STATE.

BY THE WAY IM NOT DEFENDING HIS ACTIONS
HE COULD HAVE JUST DIALED 911 AND BEEN DONE WITH IT.

Better check the crime stats on that. Texas and Fl may not TOP the lists but they are no where near the bottom either. The entire notion that laws, threats, prison and other punishments are real deterrents against crime is flawed. It is a line of thinking that allows the root causes of crime to go untreated while satisfying the lust for revenge and the feeding of an entire industry - the prison industrial complex.

Most crimes committed are defined as crimes against property. In a society where 10% of the population owns and controls 90% of the assets and wealth; a crime of mythic proportions in itself, how can you not expect some of the remaining 90% to commit crime? To then turn around and kill them for committing those crimes (property crime) is ludicrous.

 

[Leeeeeee]

The only reason a black person would go on that side of town would be to go to work or go to the junk yard. Aint nothin but "mesican" and dirty ass "peckawoods" over there. But any way, If you "LISTEN" to the 911 call, the white boy was itching to kill somebody esp. a black man on the wrong side of town.

Everybody's quote about the law would have been on point up until Aug 31, 2007. However the law changed. The new law started Sept 1, 2007. Its called the castle doctrine.

NEW LAw​

AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had
reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was
used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment of the actor; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by
Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against
a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense
of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the
time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry
in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action
that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action
that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by
the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is
continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

This statute is not applicable unless the shooter claims self defense. His lawyer has alluded to the claim of self defense, but his best defense is Defense of Property of Another, which is already quoted above.

This Statute deals strictly with Self Defense and was amended to clarify Texas as a non-retreat State.

When a person is justified in using deadly force against another, some States require that the person attempt to retreat before they can use deadly force in self defense; and only after they can not retreat can they use deadly force in self defense. Texas no longer requires that one retreat first.

 

[TRUFICTION]

Better check the crime stats on that. Texas and Fl may not TOP the lists but they are no where near the bottom either. The entire notion that laws, threats, prison and other punishments are real deterrents against crime is flawed. It is a line of thinking that allows the root causes of crime to go untreated while satisfying the lust for revenge and the feeding of an entire industry - the prison industrial complex.

Most crimes committed are defined as crimes against property. In a society where 10% of the population owns and controls 90% of the assets and wealth; a crime of mythic proportions in itself, how can you not expect some of the remaining 90% to commit crime? To then turn around and kill them for committing those crimes (property crime) is ludicrous.

WHERE DO YOU LIVE ?

 

[ironfist88]

This is our problem.

Why the fuck our we defending burglars??????

Good, if he beats the shit he will set a precedent that hopefully a brother can use when he shoots some of these white t shirt wearing fucks doing shit to his hard working neighbors property when they aint there.

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

Sometimes over look race, cause precedents are much more important, of course the government knows this and might try to hang his ass

Exactly just because some one is black or Latino doesn't mean they have they right to steel come into my home. Those people who
wait on the boarder ready to shoot people crossing now thats a different story.

Crime pays but sometimes you gotta pay the price.

 

[RBGrider]

WHERE DO YOU LIVE ?

Does where I live change the facts??

 

[michigantoga]

He thought they were black

 

[Ill Paragraph]

So if you're against theft you're a "right winger". so I guess if you're a "left winger" that means criminals should be able to rob, kill and rape in your opinion.

Peace,

No. Taking an anti-theft stance isn't exactly the same thing as saying thieves should be "shot on site" like you did. Again, arguments like that usually are issued from the mouths of right-wing fanatics.

 

[Ill Paragraph]

I'm with that... In Texas we don't have to put up with the bullshit while some dumb Mutha Fucka trying to steal yo shit or break in your house to harm you and or your family... Fuck that shit... We can unload a clip in yo ass, reload and do the shit again...and will be justified in doing so... And I don't give a fuck what race you are... The hollow points are color blind!

Criminals get no sympathy here...

Peace,

You're trying to take credit for laws that have historically been used against minorities and the poor. You're also gleefully supportive of a Wild West environment in which everyone is armed and aggressive.

 

[Ill Paragraph]

Better check the crime stats on that. Texas and Fl may not TOP the lists but they are no where near the bottom either. The entire notion that laws, threats, prison and other punishments are real deterrents against crime is flawed. It is a line of thinking that allows the root causes of crime to go untreated while satisfying the lust for revenge and the feeding of an entire industry - the prison industrial complex.

Most crimes committed are defined as crimes against property. In a society where 10% of the population owns and controls 90% of the assets and wealth; a crime of mythic proportions in itself, how can you not expect some of the remaining 90% to commit crime? To then turn around and kill them for committing those crimes (property crime) is ludicrous.

Exactly!

How do you know when the oppressor has succeeded? When the oppressed support him.

 

[Amajorfucup]

Exactly!

How do you know when the oppressor has succeeded? When the oppressed support him.

LOL!

 

[RBGrider]

Peace,

You're trying to take credit for laws that have historically been used against minorities and the poor. You're also gleefully supportive of a Wild West environment in which everyone is armed and aggressive.

Sadly you are right but this goes deeper than this. The axiology and epistemology of Europeans is centered around THINGS ie material objects. The short three-month growing season in prehistoric Europe has rendered Europeans due to bygone prehistoric necessity - as time-sensitive, forward-looking, and obsessed with efficiency, hierarchies, and the acquisition of objects - most importantly in their history - FOOD. So, their entire society was centered and built around the acquisition and protection of the THING - FOOD. Food soon was replaced with money and wealth or the means by which to obtain THINGS. Thus wars can be fought over things - land - food - oil etc and whites can be moved to suicide over the loss of THINGS (stock market crash in the 20's and 30's.

So the very idea that a human life is an appropriate sacrifice for a THING is the product of a white mind ie a mind socialized by the axiology and epistemology of whites. Do black people have their own axiology - yes of course we do - it is relationship based. Meaning in our history food was in abundance; no need for us to fight over it - if we don't agree I can go to the next orchard a few kilometers down. SO our societies are built on relationships. Thus we find life threatened not over things but over the break down of basic relationships ie at our worst we kill each other over being disrespected. The ultimate melding of these mindsets is to be found among those of us whose sense of self worth is defined by the primitive acquisition of things - cars, rims, gold and other bullshit.

Some of us in supporting murdering other human beings over things are trying to out white the white man. Do you just let people steal some will ask; of course not. But neither do you kill them for attempting to steal - theft at the threat of ones life is another issue not the one posited in the original posters thread. We need to be careful what we absorb as part of our way of thinking.

 

[Ill Paragraph]

Sadly you are right but this goes deeper than this. The axiology and epistemology of Europeans is centered around THINGS ie material objects. The short three-month growing season in prehistoric Europe has rendered Europeans due to bygone prehistoric necessity - as time-sensitive, forward-looking, and obsessed with efficiency, hierarchies, and the acquisition of objects - most importantly in their history - FOOD. So, their entire society was centered and built around the acquisition and protection of the THING - FOOD. Food soon was replaced with money and wealth or the means by which to obtain THINGS. Thus wars can be fought over things - land - food - oil etc and whites can be moved to suicide over the loss of THINGS (stock market crash in the 20's and 30's.

So the very idea that a human life is an appropriate sacrifice for a THING is the product of a white mind ie a mind socialized by the axiology and epistemology of whites. Do black people have their own axiology - yes of course we do - it is relationship based. Meaning in our history food was in abundance; no need for us to fight over it - if we don't agree I can go to the next orchard a few kilometers down. SO our societies are built on relationships. Thus we find life threatened not over things but over the break down of basic relationships ie at our worst we kill each other over being disrespected. The ultimate melding of these mindsets is to be found among those of us whose sense of self worth is defined by the primitive acquisition of things - cars, rims, gold and other bullshit.

Some of us in supporting murdering other human beings over things are trying to out white the white man. Do you just let people steal some will ask; of course not. But neither do you kill them for attempting to steal - theft at the threat of ones life is another issue not the one posited in the original posters thread. We need to be careful what we absorb as part of our way of thinking.

Peace,

Good thoughts. What are some materials that you can recommend to read more about this?

 

[Finito]

First, what he did is not against the law
It's being investigated but I doubt he'll be charged
This is Texas, remember that...we can do that
Second, he did give them a warning before he shot them
Fuck criminals, I've got no sympathy for em
They should hold a fucking parade for this man

If yall "can do that" why does this man even need an attorney? Dude went out and killed some folks knowing it was against the law. You could hear it in his voice in the tape. His attorney is saying he didnt mean to kill... yet on the tape keeps sayin he bout to kill them.. then the last thing he say before he fires(3 shots mind you.. so at least one of them took a shot while they were on the ground im thinking ) was "Youre dead".

If he doesnt pay for this its a fuckin travesty. Im all for vigilante justice but this aint it. This is just some guy who was looking for an excuse to kill someone.

If you listen to the phone call dude was even SURE he wasnt in danger if he went out(meaning they were not armed). The Operator says "if you go out youll get shot" dude says "Wanna bet?" Pathetic.

 

[RBGrider]

Peace,

Good thoughts. What are some materials that you can recommend to read more about this?

on Axiology and epistemology:
Dr. Joy DeGruy Leary, POST TRAUMATIC SLAVE SYNDROME

Must reading for all the fam.

 

[peterlongshort]

If you break into someone's house your assuming the risk of having your ass blown off. It don't matter by who, it could be the neighbor, the homeowner, the police, the family pet, bottom line is crime is a risky business.

 

[Amajorfucup]

on Axiology and epistemology:
Dr. Joy DeGruy Leary, POST TRAUMATIC SLAVE SYNDROME

Must reading for all the fam.

Thanks for the reference.