Car Thief Killed; Woman Released Without Charges - Castle Law Discussion

[Tech_In_Training]

I am the same age as this kid and if I were to throw all moral out the window and try to steal someones car, I would understand that being killed might be the consequence. And if I were killed while trying to steal someones car it would be no ones fault but my own.... He probably knew that too.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

She wasn't in danger of any sort... Isn't that the whole point of castle laws? To protect persons; not personal property?

[PoorManQ45]

It is to protect your persons AND your property

[TroubleBound]

Headshot from the second floor with a shotgun? s*** she's not facing criminal charges they're hiring her for Texas Police work.

Does suck though, dead kids aren't fun.

She was eight months preggers though, she need her car for doc visits and stuff =) And it's not like the Police EVER recover stolen property. EVER My family lost everything in our house to a burglar in 1996, even took the damn meat out of our fridge. Cops spent 10 minutes 'investigating' and said they would give us a call if they heard something. Food stamps and thrift store ftw!

[BusyBadger]

i'm not quite sure what you're getting at. legal open carry will reduce the number of gunshot wounds and deaths? how do you figure?

Because an armed society is a polite society.

I'm a firm Second Amendment supporter, ccw and open carry proponent - I have no sympathy for the thief and certainly don't think that the public has heard all of the facts but I'll say that the woman needs to make sure she has a good lawyer.

Reading this seems to put her firmly on the wrong side of the law. This addendum to laws Texas already had on the books goes to great lengths to point out that a vehicle is your "ground" only when its occupied, it also uses the term robbery and not theft. Robbery involves force, intimidation and typically a weapon. None of those were the case here.

Based on the spirit in which this woman invoked the self-defense laws of Texas I can see a whole new spinoff of the tv show Bait Car where people park their cars in high theft locations and snipe the thief from a distance.

I also curious why some of the "experts" here haven't pointed out that Texas doesn't have a Castle Law, they have a Stand Your Ground Law. While the two have similarities a Stand Your Ground has a much broader application as applied to self-defense. And I'm not even sure if that would help this woman against a good lawyer based on the facts of the incident that the public has heard so far.

[NY94J30]

Anyone who would morally equate the theft of personal property with purposeful homicide is a frightening person.

The so called Castle Doctrine does not sanction deadly force solely in defense of property - in addition, where it does sanction the use of deadly force (one's domicile and apparently an occupied car) there must be a reasonably perceived imminent threat of bodily harm to oneself or another. The difference between castle doctrine and other self defense doctrines is the lack of an obligation to first attempt to retreat in such a situation - instead, you may use deadly force notwithstanding your ability to safely retreat.

If, as has been suggested, this woman was in her second floor home and the robber was on the street taking a car (leaving her unnoticed), it doesn't seem that anyone could reasonably argue that she felt she was in imminent danger of bodily harm. Therefore, it would seem she should face charges.
Modified by NY94J30 at 11:05 AM 11/7/2009

[mrodrig2]

I also curious why some of the "experts" here haven't pointed out that Texas doesn't have a Castle Law, they have a Stand Your Ground Law. While the two have similarities a Stand Your Ground has a much broader application as applied to self-defense. And I'm not even sure if that would help this woman against a good lawyer based on the facts of the incident that the public has heard so far.

On the other forum I took this from, Texans kept coming in saying that she's protected by Castle law bla bla. They didn't get the point that she wasn't. People acting on misunderstandings or misperceptions of the law are just as dangerous as criminals.

[szh]

So the penalty for car theft should be death?

What is the minimum value of theft for the death penalty to still be an appropriate punishment?

Not to change the subject too badly ...

There is an excellent science fiction short story by Larry Niven. Go look it up - I forget the name now.

Synopsis: the world needs more donors since organ replacement is a big business. Death penalties are introduced for simpler and simpler crimes, since there is a organ parts shortage. Convicted criminals face the death penalty and "organ harvesting".

This particular short story is about a person who escapes from a courthouse trial into a medical facility and destroys an organ storage bank, but the eventual conviction and death penalty is for a third offense of ... speeding in a vehicle (the reason he was in the courthouse and on trial in the first place)!

The prosecutor does not even bring up the organ bank destruction at the later trial, since the speeding was already going to result in the death penalty anyway.

Z

[PoorManQ45]

If, as has been suggested, this woman was in her second floor home and the robber was on the street taking a car (leaving her unnoticed), it doesn't seem that anyone could reasonably argue that she felt she was in imminent danger of bodily harm. Therefore, it would seem she should face charges.

There are add ons to the Doctrine. One of them is that if someone is entering the house or vehicle and intends to commit a felony you have the right to protect yourself and your property. Grand Theft is a felony

[f1seb]

Because an armed society is a polite society.

I'm a firm Second Amendment supporter, ccw and open carry proponent - I have no sympathy for the thief and certainly don't think that the public has heard all of the facts but I'll say that the woman needs to make sure she has a good lawyer.

Reading this seems to put her firmly on the wrong side of the law. This addendum to laws Texas already had on the books goes to great lengths to point out that a vehicle is your "ground" only when its occupied, it also uses the term robbery and not theft. Robbery involves force, intimidation and typically a weapon. None of those were the case here.

Based on the spirit in which this woman invoked the self-defense laws of Texas I can see a whole new spinoff of the tv show Bait Car where people park their cars in high theft locations and snipe the thief from a distance.

I also curious why some of the "experts" here haven't pointed out that Texas doesn't have a Castle Law, they have a Stand Your Ground Law. While the two have similarities a Stand Your Ground has a much broader application as applied to self-defense. And I'm not even sure if that would help this woman against a good lawyer based on the facts of the incident that the public has heard so far.

Wild West was a society where criminals police and regular citizens were armed with a gun and openly carried them. Was the society polite back then?

[NY94J30]

There are add ons to the Doctrine. One of them is that if someone is entering the house or vehicle and intends to commit a felony you have the right to protect yourself and your property. Grand Theft is a felony

Please cite to a statute which permits the use of deadly force to prevent the theft of an unoccupied vehicle outside one's home - I'd be interested in seeing it.

My point was and remains that the two are not morally equivalent - that is why in a civilized society under true rule of law, we do not kill for theft. And if we have not vested this right in civil authority, what would make you think it makes sense to vest it in a private individual?

[PoorManQ45]

Quote »In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car. * The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary * The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force * The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)[/quote]Quote » * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary * The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force [/quote]I'm not Sure if some of those situations listed are more important then others to be able to fulfill the requirement of the Castle Doctrine

[Red coupe]

And it's not like the Police EVER recover stolen property. EVER

I had my car broken into, and the police recovered everything that was stole, and tracked me down with out me ever even reporting it.

[Tech_In_Training]

lucky bastard

[TroubleBound]

I had my car broken into, and the police recovered everything that was stole, and tracked me down with out me ever even reporting it.

Lucky Bastard Indeed that would never happen around here. I've never met anyone who had anything returned to them that was stolen.

[TroubleBound]

Lol this is perfect for this thread!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNdIBZWhzO8

[mrodrig2]

I'm not Sure if some of those situations listed are more important then others to be able to fulfill the requirement of the Castle Doctrine

The protection is extended to vehicles if the person is occupying the vehicle at the time or the vehicle is the primary habitation and the above things are occurring. Either way, as I understand it Texas does not have a Castle Law, they have Stand Your Ground meaning she has no duty to retreat, making all this moot. She is not protected unless there's some crucial details being left out of the public view that make it evident that her life was threatened.

[Mr1der]

eh...s***bag shouldn't be breaking to cars.

[EW]

Guy should not have been breaking into cars and now he will not do it again. She should get a reward. Even if there were charges, it would get no billed by a TX grand jury.

[EW]

Will she ever face charges? Probably not, it's Texas. Some seriously f***ed up people live there.

Interesting...someone from Kentucky besmirching the residents of Texas. pot/kettle? Me thinks yes. Maybe states that support the victim more than the criminal should ship all their criminals to your state.

[AZhitman]

I'm gonna side with the libbies on this one.

Bottom line, she's not the judge. Nor the jury. And certainly not the executioner.

Neither SYG or CL applies here.

She was in the wrong. As much as I ate thieves, and as much as I believe in natural consequences, I can't support someone blasting a thief from the second floor of an apartment building.

And yes, charlieo is right - All this talk of "warning shots" is silly... but a round in the air would have sufficed, followed by a call to the cops.

Stupid decision or not, that was someone's kid.

[mrodrig2]

No one is supporting the criminal. Theft is wrong and should be punished. No one is arguing that.

The issue at hand is that this lady is not a police officer, judge or juror and, intentional or not, it was not her role to administer the punishment. The discussion is whether or not (as the story is described by the media) she should be afforded any protection under the law.

[mrodrig2]

And yes, charlieo is right - All this talk of "warning shots" is silly... but a round in the air would have sufficed, followed by a call to the cops.

Beat me to it. Actually, she would have been much better off just calling the cops and not firing the warning shot. Now she has to be relocated for fear of retaliation because she is identifiable.

[EW]

I'm gonna side with the libbies on this one.

Bottom line, she's not the judge. Nor the jury. And certainly not the executioner.

Neither SYG or CL applies here.

She was in the wrong. As much as I ate thieves, and as much as I believe in natural consequences, I can't support someone blasting a thief from the second floor of an apartment building.

And yes, charlieo is right - All this talk of "warning shots" is silly... but a round in the air would have sufficed, followed by a call to the cops.

Stupid decision or not, that was someone's kid.

In Texas, at night, legally she is in the right.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

And yes, charlieo is right - All this talk of "warning shots" is silly... but a round in the air would have sufficed, followed by a call to the cops.

Sorry, but she couldn't account for a round fired in the air.

Death of a thief is still a death, but the death of a bystander? Serious problem.

[mrodrig2]

In Texas, at night, legally she is in the right.

I'm going to guess you didn't read any of this thread.

[whyteboy]

its really sad to see this lady get off killing a guy robbing her car but the poor 16yr old girl a couple threads below this is getting life for defending her life by killing her pimp thats been beating and raping her and put her in the streets at 13. somethings f***ed up majorly in the world. but hey that kid would never steal again.

[hannibal]

Greg's a liberal!

Anyone who would morally equate the theft of personal property with purposeful homicide is a frightening person.

The so called Castle Doctrine does not sanction deadly force solely in defense of property - in addition, where it does sanction the use of deadly force (one's domicile and apparently an occupied car) there must be a reasonably perceived imminent threat of bodily harm to oneself or another. The difference between castle doctrine and other self defense doctrines is the lack of an obligation to first attempt to retreat in such a situation - instead, you may use deadly force notwithstanding your ability to safely retreat.

If, as has been suggested, this woman was in her second floor home and the robber was on the street taking a car (leaving her unnoticed), it doesn't seem that anyone could reasonably argue that she felt she was in imminent danger of bodily harm. Therefore, it would seem she should face charges.

Modified by NY94J30 at 11:05 AM 11/7/2009