Dashing, Daring Dave, and this supports your post how? I was quoting the relevant bit of Texas law
in support of what the guy did. So how does this justify your "too bad the jury disagrees with you, Lemur" comment?
Look, I love getting love-bites from you, but please read what I write
before nibbling on me, okay?
Let's get back to more important matters, like how very right I was. I predicted he wouldn't even be charged. Several Orgahs pooh-poohed me at the time.
You know who you are! I want all of those Orgahs who said I was wrong to now go to their User Profile and write "Lemur was right" a hundred times.
-edit-
Wait a minute, I think I see where the misunderstanding happened. It's all my fault. I said that the "castle doctrine" didn't apply in this case, which is correct. Then I quoted a bit of a different statute, the part that
does apply. But I phrased it in such a way that you could read it and think I was quoting the castle doctrine.
Ugh. My bad! Once again:
Castle doctrine does not apply in this case.
However, there is a relevant Texas law which does, and which covers exactly the circumstances which occurred. Here are excerpts from that law:
According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."
Hope that goes some small way to clearing up teh confusion. And I'm still right.
Re: I Told Ya So: Texas Man Cleared for Killing Burglars
Originally Posted by Lemur
Reply With Quote
] is a bit OTT. 
Bookmarks