MAN CHARGED AFTER BEATING HIS WIFES RAPIST TO DEATH

[Hagar]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This was in NY, so I'm not sure what would happen in Texas.  Imo, they ought to pin a medal on him, but I'm old school.

[77]

Saved the tax payers some money more of them need to go down the same way! JMO

[king]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

Hmmmm...... maybe because he broke the law? 

[5GallonBucket]

Where's the compassion?  Meanwhile the dead gorilla is suing the state, zoo, and family.

[5GallonBucket]

SO in new York you cannot protect yourself or loved ones?

7 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Hmmmm...... maybe because he broke the law? 

 

[tvc184]

48 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

SO in new York you cannot protect yourself or loved ones?

 

From the way I read it, not in Texas either. 

Protecting means stopping. Protecting doesn't mean retaliation. 

Accirding to the report, the suspect was not in the act of a sexual assault but was in a hallway. The husband got a pipe and beat him to death. That is not self defense or stopping a crime in progress. 

He technically committed murder but they are factoring in sudden emotion, making it manslaughter. 

[LumRaiderFan]

4 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

From the way I read it, not in Texas either. 

Protecting means stopping. Protecting doesn't mean retaliation. 

Accirding to the report, the suspect was not in the act of a sexual assault but was in a hallway. The husband got a pipe and beat him to death. That is not self defense or stopping a crime in progress. 

He technically committed murder but they are factoring in sudden emotion, making it manslaughter. 

He could claim he was transgender and the guy was trying to rape him.

[5GallonBucket]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

From the way I read it, not in Texas either. 

Protecting means stopping. Protecting doesn't mean retaliation. 

Accirding to the report, the suspect was not in the act of a sexual assault but was in a hallway. The husband got a pipe and beat him to death. That is not self defense or stopping a crime in progress. 

He technically committed murder but they are factoring in sudden emotion, making it manslaughter. 

so if a person breaks into your home in the middle of the night and you shoot him not knowing intentions....its murder/manslaughter?

[5GallonBucket]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

From the way I read it, not in Texas either. 

Protecting means stopping. Protecting doesn't mean retaliation. 

Accirding to the report, the suspect was not in the act of a sexual assault but was in a hallway. The husband got a pipe and beat him to death. That is not self defense or stopping a crime in progress. 

He technically committed murder but they are factoring in sudden emotion, making it manslaughter. 

I thought the guy broke in?   was it hallway in the apt or hallway that everyone used?

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, 5GallonBucket said:

so if a person breaks into your home in the middle of the night and you shoot him not knowing intentions....its murder/manslaughter?

 Using deadly force to stop a break-in in progress? Yes. 

 The news story said nothing about the man stopping a burglary.  You are adding something that simply is not in the article. According to the story it was inside a building with apartments which is typically what you would see in New York. The article says the husband confronted the man in a hallway. Going just by that, it means to me the attack was over in the guy was leaving. There is nothing in the law that allows a civilian or police officer  to kill someone in retaliation out of anger. 

 The laws in most states generally give you the right to use force to stop a crime in progress. That use of force does not extend after-the-fact. That appears to be what happened in this case. 

 

[tvc184]

We can play "what if". 

What if it was inside if the apartment?

What if the dead guy was reaching for a knife? 

What if it was inside of the apartment, the suspect was actually on top of the woman, he had a gun in his hand and he threatened to kill everyone? 

We  can toss 1000 different scenarios into it. All we have to go by however if simply the article. From the way the article states it, I see no justification to use deadly force. 

 Now, back to what if............

[5GallonBucket]

15 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 Using deadly force to stop a break-in in progress? Yes. 

 The news story said nothing about the man stopping a burglary.  You are adding something that simply is not in the article. According to the story it was inside a building with apartments which is typically what you would see in New York. The article says the husband confronted the man in a hallway. Going just by that, it means to me the attack was over in the guy was leaving. There is nothing in the law that allows a civilian or police officer  to kill someone in retaliation out of anger. 

 The laws in most states generally give you the right to use force to stop a crime in progress. That use of force does not extend after-the-fact. That appears to be what happened in this case. 

 

I know it didn't say that in the story....I was just asking in general.

16 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

so if a person breaks into your home in the middle of the night and you shoot him not knowing intentions....its murder/manslaughter?

I know this is somewhat off topic, but I want to know

So does my wife or son or myself have to wait until someone forces entry AND THEN comes after us before we can use deadly force as far as the law states?

 

[5GallonBucket]

15 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 Using deadly force to stop a break-in in progress? Yes. 

 The news story said nothing about the man stopping a burglary.  You are adding something that simply is not in the article. According to the story it was inside a building with apartments which is typically what you would see in New York. The article says the husband confronted the man in a hallway. Going just by that, it means to me the attack was over in the guy was leaving. There is nothing in the law that allows a civilian or police officer  to kill someone in retaliation out of anger. 

 The laws in most states generally give you the right to use force to stop a crime in progress. That use of force does not extend after-the-fact. That appears to be what happened in this case. 

 

What type of FORCE?

 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

What type of FORCE?

 

Any.

Lawful force is to stop a threat or action. If that action has stopped, the force is no longer justified. It can be a punch in the nose or killing someone. 

The laws typically state something like "necessary" force. Then it usually adds "reasonable", meaning under the circumstances. It isn't necessary if someone if fleeing or is no longer a threat. 

If a guy is 50 yards away from you with a baseball bat and says that he is going to beat your brains in, I would venture to say that when he gets a good bit closer (since he can't typically hurt you from 50 yards with a club), you can probably justify shooting him. But let's say he makes that statement, but drops the bat and keeps coming. At that point all he has is his hands and while you would be justified in defending yourself, I doubt that any court would say that it is lawful to shoot him when is no really only a danger to give you a bloody nose. If you could use deadly force in such an encounter, every time two kids fight at school, the one that didn't start it could justify killing the other one. 

It all goes by "necessary" and "reasonable" and someone else other than you are the police is going to sit in judgment if that force fit both requirements. 

[tvc184]

7 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

I know it didn't say that in the story....I was just asking in general.

I know this is somewhat off topic, but I want to know

So does my wife or son or myself have to wait until someone forces entry AND THEN comes after us before we can use deadly force as far as the law states?

 

There is no requirement for "entry". It is the threat or the crime that you are trying stop, not when a person is standing. Of course we all hear the stories like, "A cop told my father to drag a guy inside of the house after I shoot him". 

Ooooookay..........

In truth moving a person at all other than trying to save his life or get him away from you would tend to make you guilty of a felony even if the shooting was justified. It is called tampering with evidence and generally carries up to 10 years in prison. I can almost assure you that you cannot drag a body without it being obvious. Those stories still persist however. 

 

[tvc184]

Here is part of what the Texas Penal Code says about "necessity" and "reasonableness" in Chapter 9.

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

and

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct

As you can see it says "immediately" necessary, meaning that it kind of had to be now or never. It doesn't say that a guy might be a threat five minutes from now or next week. 

That isn't the authority to use force which if covered later in the chapter for specific crimes and/or circumstances. That is only the beginning near the first of the chapter saying that to justify force, you must need to do so only if it is "immediately necessary" and "reasonable". Again, this section gives no right to use force, only that it must be needed to stop a threat "right now" (my words). 

[tvc184]

As to your question of trying to break in and do you need to wait for the person to actually enter, the Penal Code states you can use "self defense" if....

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

As you can see it says you had reason to believe the person had "entered" OR unlawfully "attempting to enter" a habitation, vehicle or business. If a guy is trying to kick in your door to get to you or your family, TX law is pretty open minded about using force to defend yourself. The idea of a person trying to gain entry is not just my opinion but spelled out in the TX PC. 

You will note that says entered or is trying to enter. It doesn't say fleeing after such as attempt. 

NOTE: This does not say deadly force and only says that "force" is justified.  Deadly force is covered later but it still goes by "immediately necessary". 

I will bring up the case in the news a few months ago of the guy that shot and killed two teenagers (a boy and girl) that broke into his home and he was convicted of murder. He was probably justified in using deadly force but when it did not kill them outright, he put "kill shots" in them (head shots if I remember correctly) and told the police so. He was almost bragging about finally getting them. At that point it was not "necessary". He was going by his own rules of, once fair game, always fair game. 

Just as part of the "what if" game, what if you look outside and see it is your next door neighbor's 14 year old kid that is 5'4" and weighs 125 pounds trying to get in your home. He snuck out in the night with some friends and drank a couple of beers. Now being out of his head he is trying to get back inside of his house .... but he had the wrong one. He is too drunk to realize it. While you might get away with it by shooting through the door, the prosecutor had better not find out that you peaked outside and saw what was happening. In such a case you can stop the little kook from coming in but it would be hard to justify killing him. That is one of many examples that we might be able to come up with on "what if" situations where force might be great but deadly force will not. 

TX law also specifically does not give the authority of deadly force for trespassing. It says that you can use "force" for trespass and never mentions the use of "deadly force". 

[5GallonBucket]

Thank you for the info.

My wife had a situation arise while I was at work...guy came to the front door knocking loudly first then tried to open the door by jiggling the handle........wife was 15 feet from front door on the inside with pistol pointing at the point of entry waiting to see if he made his way in.  Luckily he got scared off by vehicles driving by.

 

[5GallonBucket]

16 hours ago, tvc184 said:

As to your question of trying to break in and do you need to wait for the person to actually enter, the Penal Code states you can use "self defense" if....

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

As you can see it says you had reason to believe the person had "entered" OR unlawfully "attempting to enter" a habitation, vehicle or business. If a guy is trying to kick in your door to get to you or your family, TX law is pretty open minded about using force to defend yourself. The idea of a person trying to gain entry is not just my opinion but spelled out in the TX PC. 

You will note that says entered or is trying to enter. It doesn't say fleeing after such as attempt. 

NOTE: This does not say deadly force and only says that "force" is justified.  Deadly force is covered later but it still goes by "immediately necessary". 

I will bring up the case in the news a few months ago of the guy that shot and killed two teenagers (a boy and girl) that broke into his home and he was convicted of murder. He was probably justified in using deadly force but when it did not kill them outright, he put "kill shots" in them (head shots if I remember correctly) and told the police so. He was almost bragging about finally getting them. At that point it was not "necessary". He was going by his own rules of, once fair game, always fair game. 

Just as part of the "what if" game, what if you look outside and see it is your next door neighbor's 14 year old kid that is 5'4" and weighs 125 pounds trying to get in your home. He snuck out in the night with some friends and drank a couple of beers. Now being out of his head he is trying to get back inside of his house .... but he had the wrong one. He is too drunk to realize it. While you might get away with it by shooting through the door, the prosecutor had better not find out that you peaked outside and saw what was happening. In such a case you can stop the little kook from coming in but it would be hard to justify killing him. That is one of many examples that we might be able to come up with on "what if" situations where force might be great but deadly force will not. 

TX law also specifically does not give the authority of deadly force for trespassing. It says that you can use "force" for trespass and never mentions the use of "deadly force". 

When it comes to trespassing.....  Can I point a weapon at the individual demanding they leave without consequence?. 

I live off a deer lease road surrounded by over 3000 acre deer lease.....I get sketchy characters sometimes wandering onto my property as well as timber companies cutting my trees.  I ve approached both with display of gun.  Never had to pull it thankfully.   

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

When it comes to trespassing.....  Can I point a weapon at the individual demanding they leave without consequence?. 

I live off a deer lease road surrounded by over 3000 acre deer lease.....I get sketchy characters sometimes wandering onto my property as well as timber companies cutting my trees.  I ve approached both with display of gun.  Never had to pull it thankfully.   

In my opinion, no you can't "point" a firearm. The problem is that pointing a firearm in itself is a crime and there is no justification for deadly force for trespassing. The law does very specifically say that you can produce a weapon to try to scare a person and the production of it with that intent only, does not in itself constitute deadly force. 

That law says "the threat of force" is okay as long as the "force" is "justified" by Chapter 9. It goes on to say that the "production" of the weapon is okay.... but it is right after it says that the threat of force is okay if the force itself is justified. To me the production of a weapon means showing it, not pointing it. That doesn't mean that you cannot point a weapon as long as the use of it in that situation would be justified. For example if a guy is standing there with a club and threatening you, you would likely be justified in using deadly force. In that case pointing a gun would be justified as a threat because using the gun would also be justified. 

Since trespass never gives authority to use deadly force, I would be hesitant to point a firearm at someone. Now that doesn't mean that you cannot point the weapon for another reason. Let's play what if and say that he is trespassing but when you tell him to leave, he balls up his fists and comes at you and he is about 6" taller and 50 pounds heavier. A DA or grand jury might side with you saying that the trespass doesn't justify the use of deadly force but a guy big enough to stomp you and is coming at you does. 

It all depends on what the circumstances are at that moment. Also remember that in Texas, you can have a firearm openly carried on your own property anyway. Just tell a guy to leave and don't wave the gun around... but let him see you holding it. No crime in being armed on your property or property under your control. 

In any case, this is that law. Make your judgment accordingly. 

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

[tvc184]

Of course in all cases, it is the opinion of the DA that counts and what he might or might not push. The law is the same everywhere in the state however a DA has discretion on when he applies it. The TX law says that the DA's job is "not" to seek convictions but see that justice is done. "Justice" can be in the eye of the beholder. I have seen cases where the DA refused to file charges in a rural county when in a place like Dallas or Harris County would almost certainly get an indictment. 

In the rural county the DA might think, "The ol' boy needed killin'". 

One such case was the guy a couple of years ago that killed the guy he caught sexually assaulting his small child. The guy had stopped and was running away but the father beat him to death with his fist. The DA basically said, "Oh well". By the letter of the law, just like the case that we were discussing, it was probably manslaughter. In NY the DA was likely correct that the law does not allow retaliation. In south Texas............. 

I wouldn't want to risk my freedom on a sympathetic DA in a small county when the law says otherwise however. 

[tvc184]

Here is that law on the duties of the DA in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Art. 2.01. DUTIES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. Each district attorney shall represent the State in all criminal cases in the district courts of his district and in appeals therefrom, except in cases where he has been, before his election, employed adversely. When any criminal proceeding is had before an examining court in his district or before a judge upon habeas corpus, and he is notified of the same, and is at the time within his district, he shall represent the State therein, unless prevented by other official duties. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused.

[5GallonBucket]

Thank ya