Use of force protecting property

[ShootDontTalk]

How did we get from blocking the drive to shooting the guy just because he shot your horse isn't justified?

I think someone besides the OP asked. My experiences had nothing to do with shooting persons, but property. I saw a brand new pickup that belonged to a trespasser that had been turned into Swiss cheese by a rancher and his hand who had him outgunned - significantly. Charges only brought against the trespasser.

[jmra]

How did we get from blocking the drive to shooting the guy just because he shot your horse isn't justified?

I think someone besides the OP asked. My experiences had nothing to do with shooting persons, but property. I saw a brand new pickup that belonged to a trespasser that had been turned into Swiss cheese by a rancher and his hand who had him outgunned - significantly. Charges only brought against the trespasser.

Great outcome - my post wasn't aimed at you, I just didn't know how we got there earlier in the thread.

[OneGun]

I would like a little clarification. If a person trespasses in my house with a weapon, It would be a defense from prosecution to shoot the trespasser. However, if an armed trespasser is on my land and shoots my horse, I can't shoot the armed trespasser?

Yes, legally there is quite a difference between trespass in the house and trespass on the land outside it. If we were dealing with just the trespass, that would be a simple answer.

But neither of those situations is just a trespass case. In the case of inside the house, as a general rule you get to presume the burglary is occurring. In the case of the trespasser shooting the horse, you have multiple crimes going on. You have the trespass while armed, which does not justify the shooting, then you have the cruelty to livestock animal (PC 42.09) which would be a state jail felony. I would guess that shooting the horse would come under the heading of torture (causing unnecessary pain) but I have to admit that killing the animal is not specifically defined as cruelty. I believe most prosecutors have been doing this in this manner. Then we also have the criminal mischief. A horse is property and it is illegal to damage another person's property. This would go by the value of the animal (the defined part as a felony is for a fence containing the animal but not the animal itself). And, as we all know, criminal mischief at night does justify the use of deadly force.

So, you might be allowed to shoot a trespasser in your house, while not allowed to shoot the armed trespasser in your yard, but you are justified in shooting the armed trespasser who is shooting your horse at 9:30 p.m., as the OP had stated.

Thanks for the clarification! I was thinking about the Joe Horn shooting in Pasadena, TX a number of years ago where Joe Horn shot and killed two burglars who were burglarizing his neighbor's house in broad daylight. At that time, the grand jury declined to indict and the explanation was that a person can use deadly force to protect his property or a third person's property.

Thanks again for your the clarification.

[cb1000rider]

Thanks for the clarification! I was thinking about the Joe Horn shooting in Pasadena, TX a number of years ago where Joe Horn shot and killed two burglars who were burglarizing his neighbor's house in broad daylight. At that time, the grand jury declined to indict and the explanation was that a person can use deadly force to protect his property or a third person's property.

Thanks again for your the clarification.

Is that the actual law? My understanding was to be able to use that defense, you need to have some sort of agreement with the neighbor that you were "watching" or otherwise responsible for the property... Maybe I've got it wrong?

I like my neighbors, not sure I'd risk a grand jury for them though.

[Ruark]

I always wondered about interpreting this language. So you can use deadly force to prevent "theft during the night time," and even against a thief fleeing with the property. So if it's after dark and you see some kid walking off with your water sprinkler, you can blow him to smithereens? Hmmmmm.

[ShootDontTalk]

I've never heard a discussion about the reasoning for such a law, but I can make a fair country guess. Dealing with criminals at night is dangerous because you need light to see their hands. Hands are life - or death. When you can't see the hands, you are in a lot more danger. Police officers are taught about light in dark places. A lot of non-LEO don't even think you need a light at night. Maybe the lawmakers understood that?

[drjoker]

This man very well could've successfully protected his home from a morally corrupt burglar who MIGHT'VE been armed at night. However, he ran his mouth off and said that he was out to get (shoot dead) the guy who stole from him. Revenge is illegal but self defense is. He got 70 years for running his mouth off.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ncing.html

This guy shot an unarmed man on his front porch but did NOT go to jail. He did NOT run his mouth off. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ ... 2620120327

You see a pattern? Almost identical shootings of unarmed men. One went home but the other went to jail.

It is NOT legal to shoot someone who shot your horse. That is revenge.

It IS legal to shoot someone who is an armed and dangerous maniac because he just shot your horse. You were afraid for your life. He might shoot you next. But please do allow your lawyer to make that argument. Don't run your mouth off.

Castle law or not, I would try my best not to shoot someone. I would not hesitate if I or my family were in danger and feared for our lives, but if avoidable, I would avoid shooting someone. Because if you do, you would be out $2.5 million. That's how much debt George Zimmerman ran up, almost entirely in legal fees.

[The Annoyed Man]

I've never heard a discussion about the reasoning for such a law, but I can make a fair country guess. Dealing with criminals at night is dangerous because you need light to see their hands. Hands are life - or death. When you can't see the hands, you are in a lot more danger. Police officers are taught about light in dark places. A lot of non-LEO don't even think you need a light at night. Maybe the lawmakers understood that?

While I'm not sure as to the intent of the Texas law, it may have it's root in Old Testament Biblical Law. You can read it here from Exodus 22 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... dus+22:2-3

I can't recall the specific cite, but as I recall, there is another OT passage that explains this dichotomy of daytime versus nighttime criminal actions in even greater detail, and I do believe that Texas law deliberately (at least originally, anyway) followed this standard. My guess is that most of the country originally followed this standard, knowing full well that there was a biblical underpinning to it......and that as society has turned away from biblical kinds of teachings (name your own reason for that), many states have abandoned this standard—concocting such ridiculous notions as "duty to retreat" in the process.