tvc184

I suppose you could write a driver a $200 maximum citation for fail to control speed if so inclined. This woman faced 20 years in prison and cut a plea deal for 5 years. So one person is convicted of a homicide and one gets a ticket. More to your point, yes anyone who commits a crime “could” be charged. In this particular case no because I believe the driver was killed.

He was likely on a fishing expedition…. AKA; looking for a DWI, drugs, etc. I never liked to get that close. It seems ridiculous to me and I am searching for a good reason and can’t come up with one at the moment. On the slamming on brakes, I was working one day when a woman in Port Arthur brake checked a guy in an Entergy truck and he stopped in time. The pickup behind the Entergy truck didn’t. It cost her a five year prison sentence. If a person intentionally commits an act like brake checking, that person will likely be held criminally responsible for an results including in this case, a homicide. [Hidden Content]

Yeah, he may have been 100% legally correct but foolish. I have seen some foolish actions (and maybe done a couple 🤔) by officers in my time. Most were technically legal but stupid. That’s when you tell the officer, you got lucky. And yes, certainly traffic laws do not apply to police officers and it is stated specifically in the law. Driving in the left lane where prohibited, on the shoulder which is generally prohibited and speeding while on patrol have laws that say it is permissible. Also parking in a fire lane for example. Emergency response requirements by the police are different than other emergency vehicles.

You can do whatever you want. 🤔 A folly is believing that because a person knows a law on a particular topic, it somehow equals all laws on that topic. An example I have used in the past, I have seen people in a couple of different forums say that the police can do nothing to you for driving in the left lane if there is no sign forbidding it. They are absolutely correct!! Well, assuming a person is only asking about that particular law that in chapter 544 on signs. However…. there was another traffic law in a different chapter that says: Sec. 545.051. DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY. (b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is: (1) passing another vehicle; or (2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. Oh there is a different law about lanes? Like one that could get me arrested and my vehicle towed? That is not what I saw on Facebook! This law doesn’t mention speed limits. I have often heard the comment and as long as I’m going the speed limit I can drive anywhere I wish. Ooookay… This law says if you’re going slower than the other vehicles at that time and place, get out of the way. Basically, if people are passing you on the right, you are probably violating a lane law. But that was just for an example. So roll the dice and try your gambit. Caveat: The above is intended for humor however the laws cited are actual laws.

That would work…. Up until he arrested you for obstructing a passageway.

Who knows? Maybe going to an emergency call and didn’t want to use his emergency equipment. Police are exempt from using siren and/or lights when responding to an emergency and speed limits at any time while on patrol whereas other vehicles are not. There wasn’t much you could do if you were stuck in traffic. Or maybe he had a bad day…..

Reading on another forum… Apparently, the police did not recommend charges. The former district attorney did not prosecute. At that point you would think he was cleared and normally that is true. In comes a new DA who makes it a point to push the case where the defendant has already been cleared. Certainly that is legal but has it really done that way? Once the case has been investigated and the accused person should cleared, unless new evidence comes up, it is considered closed. If those things are true, that the police did not recommend charges and the former DA did not seek charges, it appears this is nothing but a political indictment. It is the same as with the George Zimmerman and the Kyle Rittenhouse prosecutions. The evidence simply did not back up convictions on those charges yet in the big media cases, the prosecution went forward against the evidence. The US DOJ did the same in the Michael Brown, “hands up don’t shoot” false accusations but fortunately even they could not come up with enough evidence to go forward.

In thought that I was going to have to explain anatomy…..

I knew of the case but haven’t followed any news. Here is a lesson, don’t go to Austin and expect justice.

Prognosticating? Foreshadowing? They could not find a 45 star flag?

That’s why I cryptically said that if LFR’s answer (no mother) was not correct then the final Jeopardy answer wouldn’t be true. 🤔🙃

You’re all around it…… 🤔

1. Did he break any rules? 2. Have other justices done or were allowed to the same consideration?

Because if this was not true, the other answer can’t be either.

I am assuming that is part of the answer however.

In a timely fashion, the Beaumont Enterprise in my email headlines to says: Teens arrested for breaking and entering Hotel Beaumont Ooookay…. Arrested for Breaking and Entering. Well, they do say that in the movies. I guess reporters aren’t actually supposed to report. Then you go on to read the article, and it does not even mention burglary (B&E). The police, according to the article, said that going inside the old Hotel Beaumont is Trespassing. Not a question but a legal point, entering a location unlawfully can Trespassing or Burglary. It comes down to intent. For example: A burglary is entering a location not open to the public with intent to: 1. Commit a theft 2. Commit a felony or; 3. Commit an assault. Burglary is an “intent” (my description) crime. If you enter a location, it does not matter if you actually completed the theft or committed a felony or assault. If you intended to do it, the crime has been completed. Trespass has no required intent except to enter. Let’s say a homeless guy entered the old Hotel Beaumont in order to find a place to sleep to get out of the weather. He might’ve actually broken in by smashing a door. It is still not Burglary because there was no intent to do anything other than sleep. In another scenario, a guy goes to see his ex-girlfriend. He is arguing with her through an open front door of the house with her inside and him outside. She finally tells him to leave and start to shut the door. The guy puts his hand up to stop the door and reaches through with the other hand and slap her in the face and then leaves. In the two scenarios, the guy that caused damage to the hotel by smashing open door, then going completely inside to sleep, is guilty of class B misdemeanor Trespassing and has a maximum sentence of six months in jail. The guy that only stuck his arm through an open door and caused no damage to the home, is guilty of Burglary of a Habitation and has a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. That is because he “entered” with intent to commit an assault. Entry does not require a person to be completely inside but any part of the body or something attached to the body. To go a step further and play “what if”…. In the exact same scenario between the boyfriend and girlfriend, as she is closing the door, he reaches his hand through but this time has a knife in his hand and says “I’ll kill you”. He then leaves without injuring her. In that case, the guy entered with an intent to commit a felony, Aggravated Assault (displays a deadly weapon). So the guy caused no damage (the girlfriend opened the door), entered only with his hand and did not actually injure her. Oops, he could be looking at 99 years in prison. Here is the article from the Beaumont Enterprise but it might require a subscription to read. [Hidden Content]

Sometimes there is a lack of knowledge between the way people use words or phrases and the legal definitions of the words or phrases. It is like someone saying, my house got robbed. Legally that is impossible. In fact rob is used often by people to describe any theft or burglary, which it isn’t. I see on social media forums all the time people say something like, I was robbed. They then go on to say that when they woke up to go to work the next morning, somebody had taken their child’s bicycle. I understand the vernacular but it is Theft, not Robbery Here are the crimes listed. Burglary is a felony. It is what many (most?) states call Breaking and Entering (or the movie cops, B&E). Entering a closed business or a residence, usually by force (not against a person but prying open doors, shattering windows, etc.) is a serious and dangerous crime. Robbery is a criminal of violence. It is a theft with an assault. Think of a person pointing a gun and demanding money. Theft is just stealing. It is often called things like shoplifting. Like slide something into your pocket at a store and walk out. Legally there is a huge difference in what constitutes those crimes. So if people are escaping with property from a burglary or robbery (serious felonies) AND you have the “reasonable belief” that the force used was “immediately necessary” to recover your property, deadly force may be lawful. Theft does not include unlawful entry such as breaking into a closed business and it does not cover the use of force as in a robbery. In fact, there is no such crime as theft in the nighttime. There is just Theft. Obviously there is no justification for shooting a shoplifter from a store (Theft). Like, a guy stole a bag of Fritos so I shot him. Uhhhh, no. The law views stealing at nighttime differently. Basically Texas law allows the use of deadly force to protect property if you are stopping someone from getting away with your property if there’s a reasonable believe that you can’t recover the property later OR if trying to recover it would reasonably expose the victim to a substantial risk of serious injury. I can only speculate on the force for Theft but only committed at night. I believe that it probably has something to do with it being the nighttime/dark. A person is probably less likely to be able to identify the person/suspect at night and to run into the dark to chase someone might expose them to additional risks. The Texas legislature many decades ago decided that they Theft does not authorize deadly force but theft at nighttime and a person escaping with the property, may. Like the law… Hate the law… Agree or disagree… For now, I posted the current law.

This is the law: …to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, {or} theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; It shows that any of the following are justification. Robbery or Aggravated Robbery or Burglary or Theft during the nighttime. The key word is “or”. Each of those crimes stands alone as justification for the use of deadly force IF escaping with property and IF the other requires are met.

Nope, that is not correct.

That is correct. For those that may not know, acting in “loco parentis” is Latin for in place of the parents. The law in use of force on a child actually says by the parent or a person acting in loco parentis.

I had a call one day about child abuse. Two children called to say that their father was abusing them. They were about 12 and 14. At school they were told by their teacher that it was illegal for a child to have pain inflicted on them in Texas even if it was for punishment. So they went next-door to the neighborhood and called the police and I showed up. When I arrived, the two children went back home next-door and the father came out and started talking. As a general rule, I at first speak (or used to ) with the person who called the police. People that did not call always want to step in and certainly the officer could listen to that side of the story first if he wishes. So the children ran down the story to me. Their father spanks them for punishment and the teacher was talking about the law and said that was illegal. They wanted something done. I asked if they ever had any broken bones or serious bruises, requiring medical attention or anything of that sort. They said no injuries except pain (which is considered an injury in Texas just as much as a bruise or laceration). The father, who had been very respectful and sat back and listened without interfering, then gave his side. Yes, he spanks then on occasion is corrective measures. “Is that a problem?” By Texas criminal law, can a teacher, parent, baby sitter, aunt who the children are with for the summer, etc., use corporal punishment if the intent is to correct an action if he believes that action might harm the child later in life? Example might be a parent catching his son stealing something or his daughter going to a dance after being told not to go.

While speaking of deadly force and/or a deadly weapon, by law is a knife a deadly weapon? A pen? A piece of paper?

Yes it does for the sake of this discussion. It is identical, the use of deadly force in defense. The law doesn’t say shoot but that was the scenario I started with. The law says deadly force. A baseball bat, knife, gun… to stop the unlawful action.

So if the question is, under Texas law can you use force or deadly force to protect your own property or the property of another person if certain circumstances are met, the answer is yes. I would not do it to protect a third person’s property and I probably would not do it to protect mine, but I can understand the anger factor of seeing someone run away with your property. I am sure that any lawyer would recommend not using deadly force in such a situation, even if it is lawful. Otherwise the lawyer might be defending you in court.

Now that I have more time: Part 2 What about my question about a neighbor’s property or the property belonging to a “third person”? It reminds me of the talking heads on CNN about 15 years ago when Joe Horn shot and killed two guys breaking into the neighbor’s home. If I remember correctly, the neighbors had just moved in and Horn didn’t know them. The guys broke into the neighbor’s home in daylight (I think) and Horn called 911. He told the dispatcher that he had a gun and wasn’t going to let them get away. The dispatcher told him several times to put the gun down and don’t go outside. So Horn went out to confront them and them killed both. The thing about that story was the CNN story about the incident while it was nationwide news. One of the lawyers said something like, everyone knows that you could never shoot somebody to recover property. Another lawyer on the panel said something like, apparently you’ve never read Texas law. Back to the question…. We went over the Penal Code 9.41 and 9.42 on force and deadly force to protect your own property. Now let’s check out 9.43. Sec. 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. The section starts out with a sentence that says you can use force and deadly force to protect the property of a “third person”. Before we delve into this further, you can see that deadly force to protect another person’s property is in some circumstances, lawful. What are those circumstances listed above. In the first sentence it says that a person is justified in using force or deadly force to protect the property of another person if “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“. So it begins with saying that he can protect another person’s as if it was “his own land or property”. AND…. If the conditions in (1) or (2) exist. Note the “or” between (1) and (2). That means that (1) and (2) stand alone. Each gives a different justification for using the force. (1) says, if the actor (the person using deadly force) “reasonably believes” that the action constitutes attempted or consummated theft or criminal mischief of tangible, movable property. The law says that you can protect a third person’s property as if it was your own and you “reasonably believe” it was “immediately necessary” (described in 9.41 & 9.42). OR…. (2) The actor (the person using deadly force) reasonably believed that (A) the third person requested it OR (B) he had a legal duty (security?) OR (C) it belonged to your parents, child or spouse. I guess if one of those people was at work and you went by to check on the house he saw one of the listed situations, you could use the force needed. So: (1) (2)(A) (2)(B) or (2)(C) …are listed in the Penal Code as justifications to use deadly force to protect the property of another person.