2 teens killed after allegedly breaking into home;

[Mn01r6]

You would also have the voluntary intoxication defense, which would knock the murder charge down to manslaughter. So you got that going for you...which is nice.

[xd ED]

The key thought might be that a reasonable response to a large, able bodied aggressor is not the same as a reasonable response to an incapacitated person, with several holes in him, lying on the basement floor, no matter where you are.
Of course all that is ultimately continent on your ability to …'reason'.. with the DA and likely the jury.

And....to zoom in to details.....what If I've had 4 shots of Brandy before going to bed...if woken up by the sound of breaking glass and the presence of 2 intruders.......would I have any ability WHAT-SO-EVER to act 'reasonably'

It's my home....the one place where I'm allowed full blown drunkenness.

If one voluntarily intoxicates them self then they remain responsible for their behavior.

It's your home, but if you get drunk in your apartment, pass out with a lit cigarette, and burn the place down and kill someone, you'll be responsible

The law doesn't require you to be reasonable, only that your actions are reasonable.

The newspaper today was comparing Bernard Goetz to Smith.
While Goetz didn't always seem to sound too reasonable, his actions were intimately deemed to be.

[LePetomane]

You would also have the voluntary intoxication defense, which would knock the murder charge down to manslaughter.

Which is absolutely ridiculous. Having one's judgement impaired by alcohol or drugs shouldn't give them a pass.

[Mn01r6]

You would also have the voluntary intoxication defense, which would knock the murder charge down to manslaughter.

Which is absolutely ridiculous. Having one's judgement impaired by alcohol or drugs shouldn't give them a pass.

It doesn't give you a pass, but it can in some cases remove the intent from a crime. It is by no means automatic.

[gunsmith]

I think I know where I want to go with this...toward the Texas philosophy...The Home is the Castle.

Johnny PerpThug has no EFFing business in Joe Texas's Castle....and if he breaks in AND ACTS WITH VIOLENCE.....He's forfeited many protections he would have if he were not engaging in a SERIOUS CRIME.

If those two pretty-faced-teens lived in Texas instead of Minnesota they may ironically be alive today...Their pre-break in conversation may have gone like this:

Her: Look at all those keep out / no tresspassing / private property signs, should we go away?

Him: "let's break-in to Old-Man-Smith's place and steal Sh!t."

Her: "But what about the Castle Doctrine? He won't know if we want to rape and then kill him or just rob-his-sh!t ...under current law he's allowed to assume the worst and blow us away. I'm going home to finish my Algebra Homework"

And they would live happily ever after.

[gunsmith]

Just learned his today: In Texas, Civilians are legally allowed to do things that the police cannot. ......cool. That's just everyday fact / common knowledge down there.

[jtk5768]

Like what?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[cobb]

Just learned his today: In Texas, Civilians are legally allowed to do things that the police cannot. ......cool. That's just everyday fact / common knowledge down there.

Yes, I would like to see a link to this info.

[gunsmith]

Checking that now...came up in Google Search of 'Texas Castle Doctrine'
https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=t ... w&safe=off

I think you'll come up with similar sources if you Google 'Joe Horn Shooting'
https://www.google.com/search?client=op ... el=suggest

He got a no bill from his grand jury......I remember one of the national ABC anchors interviewing him (and Joe Horn was completely UN-Eqivocal) The Suit from New York had a meltdown in disbelief that what he did was legal. (I was amazed as well)

I think to the extent that there is a difference in what a "citizen under attack" can do that a Law Enforcement officer ...through professional practice tradition and statute....relates to the era of Horse Stealing and what they call 'Burglary after Dark'

I found the original source....I'll be back to edit this shortly. I don't want to be spewing spew....some of what I've read may be from 'Anti-Gun College professors' but I don't think so.....I'm on it.

[jshuberg]

If the burglary was the felony justification for the defense of dwelling, the crime is ongoing while the burglar is in the dwelling. Therefore the teens were still committing the crime until they were dead.

You are absolutely incorrect. While they were still trespassing, once they were shot and fell to the ground they were no longer stealing any property. After being shot if the girl would have grabbed her bag of loot and attempted to leave, she would still be burglarizing the house, and continuing to shoot would be justified. This isn't what happened though. She fell to the ground and was no longer committing the crime of burglary. To shoot her in this condition is murder.

Now, there is a very, very small amount of wiggle room here for a person who is acting entirely in the moment. If you shoot a person who falls to the ground and you continue shooting for a second or so because your brain in its current state didn't recognize that the threat/crime has ended, your lawyer may be able to argue that your continued action was reasonable given your current state of mind. However, if you stop and reload, and then begin shooting again, or if you roll the person onto a tarp and drag them into a different room before shooting them assassin style in the head, then you are a murderer. Even when operating in condition black, it should only take a second or two to recognize the threat has changed.

If you guys have a carry permit in MN (or anywhere else for that matter) you should know this. It should have been covered in your training. This is not some gray area that needs to be determined by the courts. The law here is already quite clear and well documented. The only question is whether this guys actions were within what the law allows for defense of dwelling or self defense. The facts presented so far clearly show that he shot the girl assassin style in the head, long after a self defense or defense of dwelling claim was justified.

There will be absolutely no clarification of law resulting from this case. The law is perfectly clear already. This case is basically as close to a slam-dunk for the prosecution as you can get.

[gunsmith]

Here's the simplest instance from the Houston Cronicle:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 676412.php

For $20.29 stolen from the tip jar of a Houston taco truck, 24-year-old Benito Pantoja was shot with a .357 Colt and killed.

Quote from article, Highlights mine:

The owner of Tacos Del Indio, parked near the Ship Channel, ran him down as he tried to escape with the cash, fired into the getaway car and hit Pantoja in the back.

The death was ruled a justifiable homicide, one of 48 involving citizens across Texas in 2010, with 27 in Houston, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of FBI data.

Since Texas in 2007 expanded its "Castle Doctrine" - in some states known as "Stand Your Ground" - justifiable killings have steadily increased, from 32 statewide in 2006 to 48 in the 2010, the Chronicle's review shows.

Texas law always has allowed deadly force against intruders and thieves to protect lives and property, but where it once required a duty to try to retreat if possible when facing imminent danger, it no longer does.

"Traditionally, if you felt your life was threatened, you could use deadly force to protect yourself, except if you could get away safely where nobody got hurt, then you were required to do that," said Sandra Thompson, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

The law always has allowed deadly force to protect your property, even $20.29 from a tip jar.

"Even if somebody is just stealing from your front yard, and they are not threatening anybody, (and) there's no threat of being hurt at all, you can kill them, if it's reasonably necessary protecting your property," Thompson added.

Killings by civilians long have piqued national outcries over the use of deadly force and whether it was necessary - or feigned to be necessary - to protect lives or property. Few have reached the fevered pitch of former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Florida teenager as he walked to his cousin's house. Zimmerman, who was indicted, claims he was in fear for his life.

I think this is the core citation: I don't think Houston Cops are shooting fleeing suspects in the back who've just stolen $20 from a tip jar

"Even if somebody is just stealing from your front yard, and they are not threatening anybody, (and) there's no threat of being hurt at all, you can kill them, if it's reasonably necessary protecting your property," Thompson added.


My assumptions are:
A) Houston Chronicle is not blatantly lying.
B) This college professor (Sandra Thompson, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center)
has 'basic' credibility and is not trying to deceive the public (as opposed to anti-gunners in Texas)

There's more. I'll be back.

[gunsmith]

Same article: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 676412.php

Here is some contact info from the story if anyone finds serious fault with the article...I do think professional journalists (even the Star Tribune) take reasonable complaints seriously and are accountable to their editors.

Contribute to this story:
Send us a tip dane.schiller@chron.com
Suggest a Correction dane.schiller@chron.com

author of story:
Yang Wang yang.wang@chron.com
Reporter / Data Specialist, Houston Chronicle

Dane Schiller dane.schiller@chron.com
Reporter, Houston Chronicle

Texas law goes further than other states in allowing deadly force not only to protect property, but also to stop rape, arson, burglary, robbery, theft at night and criminal mischief at night.....I'm definitely going to bone up on differences between MN and Texas gun laws.

HERE ARE 2 QUOTES I'M DEPENDING ON TO BE ESSENTIALLY ACCURATE (and unfortunately one is from the Brady Campaign....I hope I'm not stepping in it here )

"Things police can't shoot you for, your fellow citizens can," said Marsha McCartney of the Texas Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "This is just appalling."

The above quote is from the Brady Campaign chick.

Below is from their equivalent of Mike Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney:

"The Castle Doctrine is now the law, and this is Texas," said Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos. "If someone is invading your home or your place of business, you should not be obligated to retreat.
"At the same time, people should never seek a confrontation," she said.

More Detail to follow:

[gunsmith]

Here is the URL of the full article: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 676412.php

I think we can employ the Statutory 'Fair use of Copyrighted Material' exemption and make an extensive quote as we are 'scholars' engaged in the Scholarly exploration of this work. Here is the balance of the article with my highlights...draw your own conclusions.

A range of emotions

About half of the killings in Texas occurred in the greater Houston area, the state's largest metropolis. Dallas, with nine, and San Antonio, with eight, also showed increases.

"Things police can't shoot you for, your fellow citizens can," said Marsha McCartney of the Texas Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "This is just appalling."

Clashes with adrenaline flowing and deadly consequences leave a range of emotions in the aftermath; relatives of the dead question the bloodshed; those who did the killing wrestle with remorse, even if they had the right to use deadly force.

"I hate that the guy's life was taken, I really do," said Rodrick Batiste, a longshoreman who bolted awake when someone tripped his burglar alarm by kicking in the French doors to his backyard. "I try and tell people with the 'You should have shot him again' attitude, that it is not really what you think. If you haven't been there before, you don't know what type of feelings overtake you.

"It changed me. There is nothing cool about taking somebody's life."

On a dark winter morning, a naked Batiste grabbed his .38-caliber revolver from his bedside and charged to confront the home invader who was trying to steal his flat-screen television.

"Although I have all kinds of remorse, that doesn't change the world," Batiste said. "This type (of) thing is still out there, and you should be able to defend yourself and your property without the risk of turning into a victim, if not by the person trying to victimize you, then by the law."

Texas law goes further than other states in allowing deadly force not only to protect property, but also to stop rape, arson, burglary, robbery, theft at night and criminal mischief at night.

Castle Doctrine

A grand jury in Lavaca County in June declined to indict a 5-year-old girl's father who found a man molesting her behind a barn in Shiner - and beat him to death. The father, the grand jury determined, was within his right to use deadly force to protect his daughter.

In Houston early Friday, a 19-year-old convenience store clerk shot and killed a 52-year-old man who stole beer, according to police. The matter remains under investigation, but the clerk was not arrested.

In Texas and elsewhere, each time someone is shot dead with a claim of self-defense, a grand jury must decide if an indictment is warranted. However, deliberations by grand juries are secret and the basis of their decisions is seldom public.

The Chronicle also examined times of death, gender and race of both the shooters and the dead. Citizen shootings most often happen after dark, and involve a male shooting a handgun during a home invasion.

The person doing the killing is most often a minority, as is the person killed, according to the Chronicle analysis.

But the exchanges play out in an array of settings: From the taco truck parked on the corner of a street packed with tiny cantinas to the outside of a liquor store in Montrose, from the bedroom of a one-story house in northwest Houston to a gentrifying neighborhood northeast of downtown where townhouses tower over decaying shacks.

"The Castle Doctrine is now the law, and this is Texas," said Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos. "If someone is invading your home or your place of business, you should not be obligated to retreat.

"At the same time, people should never seek a confrontation," she said.

'A losing situation'

Mark Brown had just returned home from a morning trip to the grocery store when he realized his home was being burglarized. He grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun, headed to the bedroom, where he saw his rings, watches, cuff links and bracelets piled in the middle of a bed. He heard a noise in the closet behind the closed door and fired one shot. As the thief pushed the door open, Brown fired off more blasts, killing the man. Holes were blown in the wall behind the body, blood splattered on clothes in the closet.

"It was a horrible experience, I just want to put it behind me," Brown said. "I hated it happened. For him, it wasn't worth it. For me, it wasn't worth it - a losing situation for both people."

Brown even had a note by his back windows warning would-be burglars. "My neighborhood was getting rough. I was giving people a warning that whatever was going to happen, was going to happen," he said.

Emotions also run raw for those who lose family.

"Nobody knows what happened because my son has already gone," said Edyth Moss, the mother of David McDaniel, who was shot and killed by a cab driver during a fight touched off by an argument over change.

"But they know he didn't have a weapon. He didn't have a knife. He didn't have a gun."

Texas Rep. Garnet Coleman is among a handful of lawmakers who voted against the Castle Law amendment back in 2007. He calls it the "shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later" law.

"Some people call them 'justifiable homicide,' but it's not justifiable, it's the law (that) made something that's wrong legal," Coleman said.

Batiste, who shot the man who broke into his townhouse, said he's prayed a lot about what happened and has considered reaching out to the dead man's family.

"I'd just tell them I am sorry for their loss, I didn't mean for it to go that way," he said. "I did want to stop him from doing what he was doing. I did not mean to take his life."


yang.wang@chron

[gunsmith]

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/forum.php

Added this to my favorites today http://www.Texasguntalk.com

They currently have 844 members online wow...hopefully it will be a good source for info on texas and national gun issues.

As far as '

"Things police can't shoot you for, your fellow citizens can,"

I think both the quote and the veracity of the quote are 'valid' according to respected public sources ie Houstons Largest Newspaper.

Let me know If I've stepped in some poop laid out by the Brady Campaign...but AFIK 'Citizens in Texas can use lethal force in situations where Law Enforcement can not'

WOW. I'm willing to stand corrected...I think the Joe Horn case is an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_s ... ontroversy

Joe Horn, 61, spotted two burglars breaking into his next-door neighbor's home in Pasadena, Texas. He called 911 to summon police to the scene. While on the phone with emergency dispatch, Horn stated that he had the right to use deadly force to defend property, referring to a law (Texas Penal Code §§ 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43) which justified the use of deadly force to protect Horn's home. Horn exited his home with his shotgun, while the 911 operator tried to dissuade him from that action. On the 911 tape, he is heard confronting the suspects, saying, "Move, and you're dead",[3] immediately followed by the sound of a shotgun blast, followed by two more.[4] Following the shootings Mr. Horn told the 911 operator, "They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!" [5]

Police initially identified the dead men in Horn's yard as 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, 30, both residents of Houston, and of Afro-Latino descent. However, DeJesus was actually an alias of an individual named Hernando Riascos Torres.[3] Torres and Ortiz were carrying a sack with cash and jewelry taken from the home next door to Joe Horn. Both were criminals from Colombia who had been convicted on drug trafficking charges.[1] Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz. Torres had three identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, and had been previously sent to prison for dealing cocaine. Torres had been deported in 1999.[6]

An unidentified plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call arrived at the scene before the shooting, and witnessed the escalation and shootings while remaining in his car.[3] His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear".[1] Police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett, a spokesman for the Pasadena Police Department, stated that the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and that one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before angling away from Horn toward the street when the suspect was shot in the back. The medical examiner's report could not specify whether they were shot in the back due to the ballistics of the shotgun wound.[7] Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into Horn's front yard. The plain clothes detective did not arrest Horn.

The incident touched off protests, led by Quanell X, leader of the Houston chapter of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) that were met by counter-protests from Horn's neighbors and other supporters.[8][9][10][11]

Here's some twerp on MSNBC



This starts off with "It's a different world in Texas" I'm going to have to research just how different the Texas gun laws are.. http://www.texasguntalk.com would be a good start.

[jshuberg]

I suggest you move to Texas.