Robbery suspect dies after getting shot, run over

[Deaf Smith]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6348060.html

"A man allegedly attempting to rob a northwest Harris County cell phone store died Saturday night after he was shot by the business owner and then hit by a car as he attempted to flee, authorities said."

Oh, well, that ended that!

Deaf

 

[grydth]

Not to rain on the parade, but readers should not try this at home if home ain't Texas. Not that I'm insulting the great state, as it appears almost unique in recognizing the realities of self defense and the very real danger posed by savage and armed criminals.

But checking the facts shows that when the business owner drew, the guys ran out of his store. In our Northeast Peoples' Republics, 'the law' would usually say that ended the self defense situation; when the owner chased him it became a gunfight..... the owner would quite possibly be indicted for manslaughter up here.

This type of armchair legalizing is famous with our NYC liberals. If, on the other hand, one has ever faced down an armed criminal on the street, then you tend to see things differently.

I like Texas' solutions much better.

 

[Deaf Smith]

grydth,

In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property.

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.

So I suspect the suspect must have taken something.

Deaf

 

[grydth]

This Texas statute as cited highlights yet another point worth noting..... it is not only that states differ on the letter of the law, but also how the law is read, interpreted and enforced.

Even if we in New East Europe had that law, the far left would hamstring it by restrictively reading 3 A and B .... to them, there would always, theoretically, be "another means" available.

 

[chinto]

in my state he would be ok, I would say that he would not face any charges for the actions taken. but then you never can tell with a grand jury and all.
but burglary and arson are black letter law justifiable homicide in this state. so i would say that a grand jury would not indict on this either.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I'm gonna like Texas once I touch down.

 

[KenpoTex]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6348060.html
"A man allegedly attempting to rob a northwest Harris County cell phone store died Saturday night after he was shot by the business owner and then hit by a car as he attempted to flee, authorities said."

I just shed a tear...

 

[Deaf Smith]

I'll let you guys know how it really is in Texas.

Now the store owner that shot the guy in the article. He will be no-billed as for CRIMINAL charges. That is, he is off the hook.

BUT... the family of the deceased might (not necessarily, but might) file a wrongful death suit against him. Especially if he has deep pockets then they will find a shark lawyer who will do the case for a percentage. Their lawyer might say the poor misunderstood man was just desperate for a Twinkie. He once saved a cat in a tree and gave a dog a pat on the head, and thus he didn't need plugging by that mean bad old rich store owner.

Now, depending on how the jury is selected (if the defense lawyer is any good he will try to get gun owners and conservatives on the jury, while the plaintiff’s lawyer will want soft liberal types who a animal lovers and against violence) you might get a good jury that is level headed. And a good lawyer will know what the reputation of the judge is. That all matters alot. And knowing the judge is very important as you will know beforehand how he tends to rule on procedures.

If the defendant is wise he will get experts to show how and why he feared for his life (or properly.. but if wise he will emphasize his life and the lives of the people on the street the robber was running toward.) He will have to spend for getting such experts, but he had better!

And while he cannot use the decease history to prove the guy was bad (since at the time of the shooting he had no knowledge of it) he can still use it, if the decease history is real bad, to show 'state of mind' the robber had at the time. But that will have to be very carefully introduced or the Judge will say no.

If the shop owner gets found innocent, he still has alot of lawyer bills. If found libel, then I hope he has lots of insurance.

Anyway, it won't be fun or cheap.

So that's the way it is. Still it's better than alot of places where they would have got him on criminal charges to.
Deaf

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I'll let you guys know how it really is in Texas.

Now the store owner that shot the guy in the article. He will be no-billed as for CRIMINAL charges. That is, he is off the hook.

BUT... the family of the deceased might (not necessarily, but might) file a wrongful death suit against him. Especially if he has deep pockets then they will find a shark lawyer who will do the case for a percentage. Their lawyer might say the poor misunderstood man was just desperate for a Twinkie. He once saved a cat in a tree and gave a dog a pat on the head, and thus he didn't need plugging by that mean bad old rich store owner.

Now, depending on how the jury is selected (if the defense lawyer is any good he will try to get gun owners and conservatives on the jury, while the plaintiff’s lawyer will want soft liberal types who a animal lovers and against violence) you might get a good jury that is level headed. And a good lawyer will know what the reputation of the judge is. That all matters alot. And knowing the judge is very important as you will know beforehand how he tends to rule on procedures.

If the defendant is wise he will get experts to show how and why he feared for his life (or properly.. but if wise he will emphasize his life and the lives of the people on the street the robber was running toward.) He will have to spend for getting such experts, but he had better!

And while he cannot use the decease history to prove the guy was bad (since at the time of the shooting he had no knowledge of it) he can still use it, if the decease history is real bad, to show 'state of mind' the robber had at the time. But that will have to be very carefully introduced or the Judge will say no.

If the shop owner gets found innocent, he still has alot of lawyer bills. If found libel, then I hope he has lots of insurance.

Anyway, it won't be fun or cheap.

So that's the way it is. Still it's better than alot of places where they would have got him on criminal charges to.
Deaf

I'm gonna like Texas.

 

[KenpoTex]

Do Texas citizens not have immunity from civil suits in cases of justified self-defense?

 

[Deaf Smith]

From Chapter 9, Texas Penal Code.


Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.


So yes, there is the possibility of being sued. Not everyone is sued, but if I defended myself then I'd find all the evidence to prove I was justified just in case a shyster lawyer and 'victim' tried to sue me.

Now is the exception inside your house (the Castle Doctrine).


Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32]*, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

So if someone is kicking down the door of your 'habutation' then you are immune to being sued. And you don't have to retreat either.



*Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.


Deaf

 

[Andy Moynihan]

From Chapter 9, Texas Penal Code.


Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.


So yes, there is the possibility of being sued. Not everyone is sued, but if I defended myself then I'd find all the evidence to prove I was justified just in case a shyster lawyer and 'victim' tried to sue me.

Now is the exception inside your house (the Castle Doctrine).


Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32]*, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

So if someone is kicking down the door of your 'habutation' then you are immune to being sued. And you don't have to retreat either.



*Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.


Deaf

I'm gonna like Texas.

 

[Guardian]

From Chapter 9, Texas Penal Code.


Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.


So yes, there is the possibility of being sued. Not everyone is sued, but if I defended myself then I'd find all the evidence to prove I was justified just in case a shyster lawyer and 'victim' tried to sue me.

Now is the exception inside your house (the Castle Doctrine).


Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32]*, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

So if someone is kicking down the door of your 'habutation' then you are immune to being sued. And you don't have to retreat either.



*Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.


Deaf

Deaf; If I'm not wrong, I think this has been redefined also and civil liability has been done away with the no retreat statues also. I'll go back and check, but we discussed this in another thread and it went beyond the house statues.

I could have read it wrong though, but worth checking.

 

[Guardian]

Deaf; If I'm not wrong, I think this has been redefined also and civil liability has been done away with the no retreat statues also. I'll go back and check, but we discussed this in another thread and it went beyond the house statues.

I could have read it wrong though, but worth checking.

Reading laws is tiring LOL, but it look like before and after dates apply if the whole chapter is read for they talk about crimes committed before and after effective dates and civil liability of those crimes.

Like I said though, reading laws is tiring.

 

[Guardian]

Reading laws is tiring LOL, but it look like before and after dates apply if the whole chapter is read for they talk about crimes committed before and after effective dates and civil liability of those crimes.

Like I said though, reading laws is tiring.

I think it's a safe bet to say as Deaf said, if you have to use those self-defense laws, your pretty safe from civil suits all the way around for you have your evidence already on hand especially if the suspect doesn't make it. Your word against that of a deceased individuals holds more water.

 

[tellner]

Hello, Geico? I've got a claim to make on my car insurance...