Batman never carried a gun....hehehehehehehehehe!

9.43 only requires that the other person have made the request to this guy to protect his property. I don't think that's apparent from what we see here, but I don't see how that didn't happen either.

The requirement of the potential for potential death or serious bodily harm isn't required. Heck -- criminal mischief in the night. The standard is low.

Yes he did:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2.../tec032-12.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/400/q.jpg
If that was actually true, then why would the attorney neglect to include that. His defense doesn't seem based on a neighbor's request, but on the claim that they went on his property. From the 911 call it was clear he was intending to shoot them whether they were on his property or not.

Not saying it didn't happen, but there's been no claim that it did by the defense or by the neighbor. Sad to say but a little lie by the neighbor may get this guy off.

But what if it wasn't clear? We're telling people to use their own discretion when determining whether it's OK to shoot at someone who's not even a threat?

Some people have said here that the guy was protecting his neighbor, but I don't see that at all. He was, at most, protecting his neighbor's "stuff" which is not enough cause in my mind to shoot someone. In other words, I'm saying the law in this case is idiotic. But I think we all probably get what really happened here - the guy was pissed off and wasn't going to let the robbers get away with anything...not on his block!

And if the guys were running away from him, all the more proof to me that he was not in any danger.

Don't get me wrong, if someone was in my house that I didn't know, they better watch out. But our laws shouldn't permit people to just shoot other people they see breaking the law.

dang...somehow I thought u would find that!!!

Curses foiled again!

Batman fangirl ftw.

I have a book that collects some of the most memorable comics, old school. So I knew it before I googled for the pictures.

that's what I was thinking peppy...what happened was not enough grounds for him to shoot these guys.

I mean just suppose these guys were also armed and what went from a simple robbery, wound up getting him shot?

What kind of obligation was he under to watch a neighbor's (who he didn't know) property and call himself a protector?

I am sure he thought he was being the 'good' neighbor but his responsibility ended when he called 911.

I think what would be interesting to find out is the rate of burglaries in that area over an extended period of time.

Coolness....

Trying to think of a really tough Batman Question to throw at you......

I read the statute wrong. 9.43 -- see the "and" after the first paragraph, and note that the rest of the elements are "or" sorts of elements. So you only need one of these:


(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.

-- I think the bolded one works. It all does come to a question as to whether his belief that deadly force was immediately necessary... but we're dealing with Texas here folks :)

Criminal mischief in the night....

I don't think either A or B are viable here, although again, a lie is all that's required to get him off. He knew the police were on the way so A is not valid. B requires some sort of threat to himself that would suggest that deadly force is necessary. If he saw the burglars carrying a gun for example.

ETA: Also, I don't think this happened at night. That's a BIG issue here. Reports said about 2 in the afternoon I think? I'm trying to find that.

wait...was it at night? I thought this happened in broad daylight.....the deadly force....well again...that may work against him since we come back to the 911 ops telling him several times not to discharge his weapon....interesting...

Nittany...thank you....I think it also answers some questions

Quoted from the article:

"....report a burglary next door on that November afternoon"

and

Although a Texas law allows citizens to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property, some experts say the statute only applies to nighttime incidents.

I only say criminal mischief during the nighttime to illustrate how low the standard is. In this case, I believe burglary was the crime. That used to have an element of it being nighttime, but not really anymore.

I'd like to direct your attention to the "or" following (A).

Anything under B is unnecessary if A is met. The converse is also true.

Also, from a practical standpoint, try picking a jury that's not going to hang on this case :)

No charges will be filed.