Texas State Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Would-Be Thief

[wildblue 7]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288737,00.html

Another reason to love Texas

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[justinb138 0]

The bill passed by a large margin, but doesn't go into effect until September.

I hate to say it, but I kind of hope he gets sued by the guy he shot, might change his way of thinking on the bill he opposed.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

The bill passed by a large margin, but doesn't go into effect until September.

I hate to say it, but I kind of hope he gets sued by the guy he shot, might change his way of thinking on the bill he opposed.

It is interesting that he shot the man in the leg. Was that deliberate? If he testifies that it was, then he will have admitted that he did not believe deadly force was warranted.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[beowulf 1]

What do you mean? He opposed deadly force to begin with.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

What do you mean? He opposed deadly force to begin with.

To the law, "deadly force" is "deadly force". There is no provision to "shoot to wound". If you testify in court that you "shot to wound", then you just admitted that even you did not believe deadly force was justified. And you just lost your case.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 897]

the statement "in fear of my life" comes to mind in all statements issued to the police when questions come around.
this could get pretty interesting, although his being a politician could affect the outcome.

[juanesky 0]

Just the act of firing it implies deadly force. Besides it does not give the exact fact of the shooting per say.

Edited to add: it was not your post I replied to Ryoder.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

the statement "in fear of my life" comes to mind in all statements issued to the police when questions come around.
this could get pretty interesting, although his being a politician could affect the outcome.

Well, he is from TX, but he is a Democrat, so he can't depend on Dubya to bail him out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borris_Miles

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[juanesky 0]

Too bad it was not Pelosi

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[beowulf 1]

He most likely didn't intend to wound the theif. I just don't see the theif standing still for him to aim at his leg.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

the statement "in fear of my life" comes to mind in all statements issued to the police when questions come around.
this could get pretty interesting, although his being a politician could affect the outcome.

I believe Texas law allows the use of deadly force to protect property at night, but I'd need to check my CHL book to be sure.

[wildblue 7]

Quote

the statement "in fear of my life" comes to mind in all statements issued to the police when questions come around.
this could get pretty interesting, although his being a politician could affect the outcome.

"Miles, a former law enforcement officer, shot the man in the left leg,"

Should be interesting to see how it comes out. I'd like to know how large the pocket knife was he threw at him

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[normiss 897]

it does as you stated.
legally one must be very careful in the wording of statements to police in the event you get sued later, or simply need to justify or defend your actions in "firing in the direction of the assailant while in fear of my life"

[1888 0]

Once the knife was thrown, the fear of a deadly threat is over unless the attack continues. Then any deadly force used would be in retaliation for the previous deadly force, and not to protect yourself from the use of deadly force. I may be cutting too fine a line, but it seems a bit dicey to me.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

I believe Texas law allows the use of deadly force to protect property at night, but I'd need to check my CHL book to be sure.

Generally such laws allow you to protect your home. Since it sounds like it was actually a construction site, rather than an occupied dwelling, it is unclear if that would apply.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 897]

interesting...but if someone throws a knife in my direction, I'm shooting back in theirs.
how am I to know if they have more knives or not?
I, at least, have more bullets

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe Texas law allows the use of deadly force to protect property at night, but I'd need to check my CHL book to be sure.

Generally such laws allow you to protect your home. Since it sounds like it was actually a construction site, rather than an occupied dwelling, it is unclear if that would apply.

I don't believe Texas law, as written, is specific to the home, I just believe it mentions property. I'll check tonight to be sure.

Being a construction site, he may not yet technically be the owner, so the law may not apply. Even then, I don't see criminal charges from it, but I can see it being pursued as a civil matter.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

the statement "in fear of my life" comes to mind in all statements issued to the police when questions come around.
this could get pretty interesting, although his being a politician could affect the outcome.

I believe Texas law allows the use of deadly force to protect property at night, but I'd need to check my CHL book to be sure.

______________________________________

Yes, it does. Recently, in Odessa, Texas, a man shot a guy as he was running from the man's car he had just broken into. This was about 1:30 - 2:00 in the morning. The way the law reads is, if, it is at night and the person is leaving with your posessions, you can shoot. The thief, suffered a gunshot wound to the buttocks and had the vehicle owner's stereo in his hands when he hit the ground. He had also slashed the top of the man's vintage car and had broken into another vehicle the same man owned The man protecting his property was 'No billed' for the shooting.


Chuck

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Yes, it does. Recently, in Odessa, Texas, a man shot a guy as he was running from the man's car he had just broken into. This was about 1:30 - 2:00 in the morning. The way the law reads is, if, it is at night and the person is leaving with your posessions, you can shoot. The thief, suffered a gunshot wound to the buttocks and had the vehicle owner's stereo in his hands when he hit the ground. He had also slashed the top of the man's vintage car and had broken into another vehicle the same man owned The man protecting his property was 'No billed' for the shooting.

Chuck

I don't understand the logic. It is OK to shoot at night when you can't see your target as well, (nor can you see your back stop), but if the exact same set of circumstances were to occur in daylight, it would be illegal???

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 897]

don't forget - we're talking about Texas here!

[lawrocket 3]

Ah, memories of Carl Rowan...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

don't forget - we're talking about Texas here!

I lived in TX for 18 months in the late '80's. This was at the time, (to my surprise), when there was no CCW in TX. A TX local told me this:

There was an exemption in the law to allow carrying handguns to sporting events, to enable taking guns to shooting contests, and target ranges. However the lawmakers forgot to specify it meant sporting events involving guns. So as he put it:

"Going to a football game? Take your gun.
Going to a little-league game? Take a gun."

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 897]

oddly enough THOSE events are specifically banned on most CCW guidelines these days. I think it stems from the high school football game, soccer match fights.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

don't forget - we're talking about Texas here!

I lived in TX for 18 months in the late '80's. This was at the time, (to my surprise), when there was no CCW in TX. A TX local told me this:

There was an exemption in the law to allow carrying handguns to sporting events, to enable taking guns to shooting contests, and target ranges. However the lawmakers forgot to specify it meant sporting events involving guns. So as he put it:

"Going to a football game? Take your gun.
Going to a little-league game? Take a gun."

lmao sporting events-alcohol-guns.. they go pretty well together

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I don't understand the logic. It is OK to shoot at night when you can't see your target as well, (nor can you see your back stop), but if the exact same set of circumstances were to occur in daylight, it would be illegal???

I believe the logic is that at night it is hard to tell whether the perp has a gun; the safest thing to do therefore, is to assume he does and blow him away. In the daytime you can see the gun.