This is a true story.
In San Antonio, the client booked a hooker for 30 minutes of “escort services” at 4 in the morning. As bad luck would have it (for both of them), he picked the rare hooker who really did charge strictly for her time. After he paid her $150 for the “escort services,” she explained to him these services did not include sex but only her time. She left his apartment.
The client did not take being ripped off very well. He followed her to her car where her pimp told him to fuck off. But the client was armed with an AK-47. As the pimp and the hooker drove off with his $150, the client fired four shots at the car. One shot apparently hit a tire and a fragment hit and paralyzed the hooker. She died 7 months later from the injury.
“I wasn’t trying to kill her. Just wanted to get my money back,” the client would later claim.
The client was charged with murder one. At trial, the defense attorney argued the shooting was justified under Texas law because the client reasonably believed the hooker had stolen from him at night, and shooting at the fleeing hooker was the only way he could recover his $150. Therefore, he was justified in using deadly force.
The Texas “use of deadly force to retrieve property” law does indeed permit the use of deadly force in this situation.
Last summer, the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty.”
This is what happens when you cross -pollinate expansive self- defense laws with the easy access to AK-47s. But this was not “defense of home;” this was not “defense of person”; this was not “defense of others.” This was shooting at a fleeing lady and her pimp for her refusal to engage in an illegal activity to recover a trifle sum. “Stand your ground” is a joke with what you can do in Texas.
What say Willy, Mein, Ed, and maybe Spades, the champions of using guns in self -defense on the Board? Does this one go in the “use of guns in successful self defense” category that you guys love, or in my unspeakable gun tragedy column?
Good law that makes us safer?
Or license to kill
Not guilty because he was lawfully attempting to recover his stolen property?
I don't think so.
Or not guilty of murder because he wasn't attempting to kill anyone as he was shooting at the tires and she died by accident?
More probable.
I don't know very much about this case but could it be the prosecutor overreached, just like in the Trayvon Martin case? Was this guy also charged with manslaughter or any other crimes less severe than murder?
to acquit. One defense atty claimed they acquitted for lack of an intent to kill. You may very well be right.
The prosecution apparently went all in on murder one and there was no lesser offense charged; so the guy walked.
But my bigger point is this incredible authorization of using guns to stop a thief from escaping with your property at night. Basically, in Texas you can shoot a guy in the back who steals from you at night and runs. Here is the text of the statute-I ve never seen anything like it:
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:
…
(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
Keep in mind that a police officer cannot use deadly force in this situation; nor would Clint Eastwood. But a private citizen can.
Bad law, right? You are with me on this one
Even so, can you point to an acquittal of someone that intentionally caused the death of another and clearly used this law as their sole defense?
It would seem that even most Texas juries would have trouble getting past the reasonableness tests.
But it seems that all this gun defense craziness is spreading outside of the boundaries of Texas, all the way to mega liberal Motor City
...killed two men when he saw them burglarizing his neighbor's house. He was on the phone with 911 and they told him to stay inside his house, not to confront the burglars. He ignored the 911 dispatcher and shot the two burglars in the back while they were fleeing. A grand jury did not indict him even though it wan't his "castle" that he was defending. Maybe there's some fine print in the Castle Doctrine allowing someone to shoot illegal aliens in the back.
to get your property back if you have a reasonable belief the property cannot be recovered by any other means. I think another statute 9.41 requires that it be your property, so this guy could not use it as a defense if they stole his neighbor’s 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:
…
(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;
Is not really any different than being stabbed in the back
You're Welcome
2014 = GOP Senate and House
In 'Liberal' California it has gotten to a point where one must first 'take a bullet' from their felonious assailant to be considered 'justifiable homicide/self defense' for their shooting back. And then the police and the bureaucracies will do everything in their power too NOT give the gun back to the innocent victim after adjudicated.
Texas is NOT the norm. It's the only State with an 'express line' for Capital Punishment cases and death row inmates.
in San Diego that required an applicant to show good cause as to why he needed to carry a gun in public.
(i.e, a panel of the Ninth Circuit struck the law).
But you are right, Texas is not the norm thank goodness
Before anyone starts farting "racism!" at me, please note I am asking in context.
Just as ed2000 pointed out the lack of ancillary details (was he charged with lesser crimes etc)
I would ask what the color of their skin was.
MY guess is the client was white. MY cynical observation is that if the client were Black, he would already be on Death Row.
It's not stand your ground and isn't self defense. Either way to kill someone over $150 is insanely stupid. But it was Texas.... you might be able to shoot someone for trespassing in parts of texas.
Given that I don't believe firearms are the end of society.
In San Antonio, the client booked a hooker for 30 minutes of “escort services” at 4 in the morning. As bad luck would have it (for both of them), he picked the rare hooker who really did charge strictly for her time. After he paid her $150 for the “escort services,” she explained to him these services did not include sex but only her time. She left his apartment.
The client did not take being ripped off very well. He followed her to her car where her pimp told him to fuck off. But the client was armed with an AK-47. As the pimp and the hooker drove off with his $150, the client fired four shots at the car. One shot apparently hit a tire and a fragment hit and paralyzed the hooker. She died 7 months later from the injury.
“I wasn’t trying to kill her. Just wanted to get my money back,” the client would later claim.
The client was charged with murder one. At trial, the defense attorney argued the shooting was justified under Texas law because the client reasonably believed the hooker had stolen from him at night, and shooting at the fleeing hooker was the only way he could recover his $150. Therefore, he was justified in using deadly force.
The Texas “use of deadly force to retrieve property” law does indeed permit the use of deadly force in this situation.
Last summer, the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty.”
This is what happens when you cross -pollinate expansive self- defense laws with the easy access to AK-47s. But this was not “defense of home;” this was not “defense of person”; this was not “defense of others.” This was shooting at a fleeing lady and her pimp for her refusal to engage in an illegal activity to recover a trifle sum. “Stand your ground” is a joke with what you can do in Texas.
What say Willy, Mein, Ed, and maybe Spades, the champions of using guns in self -defense on the Board? Does this one go in the “use of guns in successful self defense” category that you guys love, or in my unspeakable gun tragedy column?
Good law that makes us safer?
Or license to kill.
manslaughter was not an option.
This one is more about the law than about guns, Spades. But let's be frank - the only way anyone is likely to attempt to stop a fleeing thief is by shooting, right? So the legislature has effectively written that you can shoot a fleeing thief if you meet the statute's reasonableness requirements.
Now multiply the risk by the number of person's carrying in Texas. But hey, I might have to agree with you that this kind of law does deter crime.
Texas is a different state and probably the only one in the union with laws like these... it's not the gun though, they could use a bat and it'd still kill someone and be legal. Or maybe run them down in their truck. If the state legislature values people right to protect their property higher than the thieves life you end up with Texas laws. Other states have laws that can give settlements to thieves who injure themselves breaking into your home. Both are insane.
True self defense and being able to protect yourself from oppression are different things entirely.
Although it could come in handy.
One of the biggest problems I have with Florida's SYG statute is that you're permitted to use deadly force to protect private property. Sorry, that's bullshit.
It's one thing to use deadly force to protect your life, or the lives of others. But to use deadly force to protect property? When no life is at risk? That's bullshit.
If you need to protect your home, I can understand it. Your home is your home. But if you see someone outside trying to steal your car, and nobody is in your car, then you should not be permitted to shoot the guy.
If someone points a gun at you, or pulls out a knife to rob you, that's one thing. Someone pointing a weapon at you means that you could die at any moment.
But suppose you leave your wallet on a table in a restaurant, somebody comes by and snatches it and runs off. You shouldn't be allowed to chase the guy down and shoot him.
You can replace your fucking wallet. You can always make more money. You can't bring someone back from the grave.