 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
August 2009
More KVUE Blogs
|
« Hans Klingler Has a Future in Broadcasting... |
Main
| Noriega Throws TV News Bosses "Under the Bus" »
Last week, Kingsland resident Tom Oakes shot someone he thought was going to break into his neighbor's house. Today, Oakes was arrested on a felony assault charge. While his case still has to go to a grand jury, he already faces one more charge than Pasadena's Joe Horn ever did. (See video story here) Last year, Joe Horn shot and killed two burglars who broke into his neighbors house. A grand jury decided not to charge him with anything. Here's the Houston Chron: In his 911 call, Horn cited a newly enacted Texas law, the "castle doctrine," which authorizes the use of deadly force during a home invasion.Only the people in the grand jury room know why they didn't charge Horn, but the Texas penal code makes clear that using deadly force to protect yourself only extends so far -- to your own stuff. The Castle Doctrine won't give Oakes a stronger legal shield either, for the same reason. "There's been a lot of confusion about this," said longtime Austin criminal defense attorney Keith Hampton. Find the applicable parts of the law in the Texas Penal Code 9.41, 9.42 and 9.43. 4 CommentsLeave a comment |
|
|
There's too much politics in Texas to fit into a newscast, so the fun continues here.
Categories
Powered by Movable Type 4.1 |
|
Elise, that is not true at all. The penal code allows you to use deadly force to protect others and it also gives you the right to use deadly force to protect others' property too under 9.43:
ยง 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
As you can see, there are clear ways in which deadly force is authorized by law in cases of third party property. This issue came up in the Joe Horn case as well.
One other point, 9.41 gives him the right to defend himself as well. He says he saw someone reaching for what he thought was a gun. That gives him the right to defend himself, regardless of any other circumstances. The Austin DA is a partisan hack who is bound and determined to prosecute someone for using a gun to defend themselves. If he somehow manages to get this into court, he will have his arse handed to him.
I assume the "Austin DA" you refer to is the retiring Travis county district attorney Ronnie Earle. He'll be thrilled to know that his authority extends to Llano county. You should also inform Sam Oatman, the Republican DA from Llano county that is prosecuting the case.
Lefty, I missed that, I stand corrected. But even some Republican DA's have problems with the whole 2nd Amendment thing, Former Harris County DA, Chuck Rosenthal has on several occasions arrested people and confiscated weapons that clearly fell within the updated definition of "traveling". So while being republican is generally a good thing, it isn't everything.