Law Trivia and Discussions

[CardinalBacker]

On 4/2/2023 at 11:54 AM, tvc184 said:

Your neighbor is out of town. You have spoken a time or two but you really don’t know each other.

During daylight hours you hear glass break at the neighbor’s home. You grab your gun and go outside to investigate.

You get to the back of the neighbor’s home and find that the glass patio door has been broken out. A couple of moments later a guy comes out through the broken door with a pillowcase full of items from inside the house.

The suspect starts running toward the back 6 foot privacy fence with the pillowcase still in hand. He has no obvious weapons and has not made a threat but being kind of elderly and overweight, you know that he is going to get away.

You shoot the suspect in the back to keep him from getting away with the property of the neighbor, that you barely know.

1. You barely know the neighbor   
2. The neighbor did not ask you to look out for his house (or would that matter)   
3. It is in daylight   
4. The suspect is apparently unarmed and has made no threat and;
5. The suspect appears to escaping with property only 

If the facts as I presented them appear to be true, could deadly force in such a situation to be lawful?
 

Nope... has to be at night.

 

[tvc184]

13 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Nope... has to be at night.

 

Nope, that is not correct. 

[tvc184]

19 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Nope... has to be at night.

 

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. 

[LumRaiderFan]

43 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

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. 

What is the difference between burglary (day or night) and specifically calling out theft during the nighttime?

I understand robbery is different but these seem to be the same.

[tvc184]

8 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

What is the difference between burglary (day or night) and specifically calling out theft during the nighttime?

I understand robbery is different but these seem to be the same.

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. 

 

[tvc184]

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. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[WOSdrummer99]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Here is the article from the Beaumont Enterprise but it might require a subscription to read. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

In their defense, the story was updated. It now reads...

Teens caught after breaking into Hotel Beaumont building

"The public needs to be reminded that entering Hotel Beaumont is trespassing and they can face arrest and potential jail time," police said.

[baddog]

Friday morning about 7:00, I was making a left turn off of MLK, in Beaumont, onto College street heading west. I saw the Beaumont cop sitting at the college street traffic signal to my right. I caught the signal red and was sitting in the middle lane with the cop in the same lane at the signal behind me. Our lights change green simultaneously and off we go. At the top of the hill, I am the only car in my lane with the cop behind me. There are several vehicles in the right hand lane. Speed limit is 30, I look down and am doing 31….ok in my book. The cop is severely tailgating me and I can’t move over. He was so close I could not see his headlights in my rearview mirror. The cars in the right hand lane are going slightly faster than me and with a cop on my tail, I am not about to speed and risk a ticket. We go over the railroad tracks and the traffic in the right lane has moved up significantly. When there is an opening so I can move to my right and let the cop pass, he shoots into the right lane overtaking me and cuts me off, swerving back in front of me. It was very close. I felt like honking my horn and flashing my brights at him, but thought why risk it. He sped on up with no one in front of him now, running the red light at 4th street, never hitting his lights. Maybe he was having a bad day just starting his shift and having to work a holiday. Not my fault. It wouldn’t have bothered me to see him down the road pulled over with a flat. I might have tooted my horn on that one.

Was there anything else I could have done? I don’t think so. 

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Friday morning about 7:00, I was making a left turn off of MLK, in Beaumont, onto College street heading west. I saw the Beaumont cop sitting at the college street traffic signal to my right. I caught the signal red and was sitting in the middle lane with the cop in the same lane at the signal behind me. Our lights change green simultaneously and off we go. At the top of the hill, I am the only car in my lane with the cop behind me. There are several vehicles in the right hand lane. Speed limit is 30, I look down and am doing 31….ok in my book. The cop is severely tailgating me and I can’t move over. He was so close I could not see his headlights in my rearview mirror. The cars in the right hand lane are going slightly faster than me and with a cop on my tail, I am not about to speed and risk a ticket. We go over the railroad tracks and the traffic in the right lane has moved up significantly. When there is an opening so I can move to my right and let the cop pass, he shoots into the right lane overtaking me and cuts me off, swerving back in front of me. It was very close. I felt like honking my horn and flashing my brights at him, but thought why risk it. He sped on up with no one in front of him now, running the red light at 4th street, never hitting his lights. Maybe he was having a bad day just starting his shift and having to work a holiday. Not my fault. It wouldn’t have bothered me to see him down the road pulled over with a flat. I might have tooted my horn on that one.

Was there anything else I could have done? I don’t think so. 

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…..

[WOSdrummer99]

3 hours ago, baddog said:

He was so close I could not see his headlights in my rearview mirror.

That's usually when I take my foot off the gas. No brakes. Never seen a sign for speed minimum except on I10

[tvc184]

8 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

That's usually when I take my foot off the gas. No brakes. Never seen a sign for speed minimum except on I10

That would work….

Up until he arrested you for obstructing a passageway. 

[WOSdrummer99]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

That would work….

Up until he arrested you for obstructing a passageway. 

So I can't drive... "2 miles an hour so everybody sees you" ???

[tvc184]

26 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

So I can't drive... "2 miles an hour so everybody sees you" ???

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. 

[baddog]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

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…..

I know police may be “in a hurry” but wasn’t aware that they could excessively speed and run red lights without being lit up. I wouldn’t have had a problem with this had he not taken away my ability to move over to my right. The worst part is how he almost clipped my truck with the aggressive move back in front of me. No excuse, but what can I do? I’m just a civilian motorist trying to drive legally.

I still respect the police. Thanks for your input. I can let it go now.

[SmashMouth]

As you read this story, just know that what I did was not really the smart thing to do. 

I was driving from Houston one night to my home in Lumberton. I was crossing over the Old & Lost Rivers bridge (I-10). I was in the right hand lane traveling the speed limit. All of a sudden a car got behind me (County Sheriff, I would later learn). The car was so close to my bumper, I could barely see the headlights. As I sped up to distance myself (eventually going well over the speed limit), the car followed suit. I had quite enough at that point and was contemplating jamming on my breaks and would have done so had my wife not been with me. Eventually the cop lit me up, and I pulled over. Like always, I turned off my motor, rolled down the window and placed my hands at 10 & 2 on the steering wheel until the deputy approached the window. He asked me for my license. I told him it was in my wallet in my back pocket and asked permission to retrieve it. He nodded, and I got it out for him along with my insurance (although he never asked me for the insurance). He told me the reason he pulled me over was for my excessive speed. Until this point, everything was cordial on both parts. And then he asked me what my hurry was.. I told him there was some "effing" idiot tailgating me so close I couldn't even see the headlights. I also said it was a good thing it was an officer, because instead of just a ticket, I would probably have gotten in trouble for whipping somebody's butt! After a tense silence, he handed me my documents back and told me to slow it down. That was all he said before returning back to his car. 

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, baddog said:

I know police may be “in a hurry” but wasn’t aware that they could excessively speed and run red lights without being lit up. I wouldn’t have had a problem with this had he not taken away my ability to move over to my right. The worst part is how he almost clipped my truck with the aggressive move back in front of me. No excuse, but what can I do? I’m just a civilian motorist trying to drive legally.

I still respect the police. Thanks for your input. I can let it go now.

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.

[tvc184]

27 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

As you read this story, just know that what I did was not really the smart thing to do. 

I was driving from Houston one night to my home in Lumberton. I was crossing over the Old & Lost Rivers bridge (I-10). I was in the right hand lane traveling the speed limit. All of a sudden a car got behind me (County Sheriff, I would later learn). The car was so close to my bumper, I could barely see the headlights. As I sped up to distance myself (eventually going well over the speed limit), the car followed suit. I had quite enough at that point and was contemplating jamming on my breaks and would have done so had my wife not been with me. Eventually the cop lit me up, and I pulled over. Like always, I turned off my motor, rolled down the window and placed my hands at 10 & 2 on the steering wheel until the deputy approached the window. He asked me for my license. I told him it was in my wallet in my back pocket and asked permission to retrieve it. He nodded, and I got it out for him along with my insurance (although he never asked me for the insurance). He told me the reason he pulled me over was for my excessive speed. Until this point, everything was cordial on both parts. And then he asked me what my hurry was.. I told him there was some "effing" idiot tailgating me so close I couldn't even see the headlights. I also said it was a good thing it was an officer, because instead of just a ticket, I would probably have gotten in trouble for whipping somebody's butt! After a tense silence, he handed me my documents back and told me to slow it down. That was all he said before returning back to his car. 

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. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

42 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

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. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

 

Never thought brake checking was a good idea, you take a chance on getting rear ended and dealing with the aftermath.

Gotta admit, I've been ticked off on occasion by folks doing it, I can understand the reaction.

Never knew it could send you to jail.

So would other drivers have any responsibility for following too close and not allowing the room to stop?

[tvc184]

10 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Never thought brake checking was a good idea, you take a chance on getting rear ended and dealing with the aftermath.

Gotta admit, I've been ticked off on occasion by folks doing it, I can understand the reaction.

Never knew it could send you to jail.

So would other drivers have any responsibility for following too close and not allowing the room to stop?

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.

[LumRaiderFan]

7 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

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.

I actually just read the article, that's a no brainer, she did quite a bit more than simply brake checking.

[tvc184]

2 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I actually just read the article, that's a no brainer, she did quite a bit more than simply brake checking.

She came to a stop.

Once the following trucks hits his brakes to avoid her, does her other actions matter? No.

Her initial intentional act created the situation. The fact that she got out of her car later has no bearing.

 

[tvc184]

40 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I actually just read the article, that's a no brainer, she did quite a bit more than simply brake checking.

I have told a story some time in the past but it seems kind of appropriate for this.

After I got off work on the evening shift, my best friend was working the night shift. He was on a traffic stop at a 3 way flashing red light. It was a T intersection and usually at midnight it changes from cycling red and green to all flashing red.

 While my friend was conducting the traffic at that intersection, he witnessed a fatal accident. The innocent victim was stopped at the light and a drunk driver hit him from behind. It did not kill him but not wearing his seatbelt, he came out of the vehicle. As he was trying to get to his feet to walk out of the roadway, a second drunk driver coming from another direction, ran the red light and killed him.

A couple of points. Neither driver alone killed him. The second drunk driver would have never killed him had the first one knock knock him out of the car. Basically the victim flew in front of his vehicle. The first drunk driver knocked the guy out of the car but that did not kill him. Also, the victim was not wearing his seatbelt. So now what?

Is either driver responsible because neither one actually alone caused the death. Then, had the guy been in his seatbelt as required by law, none of this would’ve likely happened other than one DWI from the first impact. The second truck driver probably would have driven past the same and nothing would’ve happened to him. 

For anyone? Does anyone get charged with the death when neither person’s actions killed the victim? What about the fact that had the victim been wearing a seatbelt, this likely would not have occurred?

Charges? No charges?

If so, on who and why (sticking with this thread)?

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Never thought brake checking was a good idea, you take a chance on getting rear ended and dealing with the aftermath.

Gotta admit, I've been ticked off on occasion by folks doing it, I can understand the reaction.

Never knew it could send you to jail.

So would other drivers have any responsibility for following too close and not allowing the room to stop?

Like I said, it wasn't necessarily the smart thing to do... Lol. I'm glad I didn't do it. By his reaction though, I feel like the officer knew he was following way too close. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the police and the very difficult job they have to perform. By the same token, that is an earned respect, and not automatic.

[tvc184]

CHEAT CODE 

This Penal Code section might help decipher my last comment/questions.

Sec. 6.04. CAUSATION: CONDUCT AND RESULTS.

(a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient. (b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that: (1) a different offense was committed;

or (2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected.

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

I have told a story some time in the past but it seems kind of appropriate for this.

After I got off work on the evening shift, my best friend was working the night shift. He was on a traffic stop at a 3 way flashing red light. It was a T intersection and usually at midnight it changes from cycling red and green to all flashing red.

 While my friend was conducting the traffic at that intersection, he witnessed a fatal accident. The innocent victim was stopped at the light and a drunk driver hit him from behind. It did not kill him but not wearing his seatbelt, he came out of the vehicle. As he was trying to get to his feet to walk out of the roadway, a second drunk driver coming from another direction, ran the red light and killed him.

A couple of points. Neither driver alone killed him. The second drunk driver would have never killed him had the first one knock knock him out of the car. Basically the victim flew in front of his vehicle. The first drunk driver knocked the guy out of the car but that did not kill him. Also, the victim was not wearing his seatbelt. So now what?

Is either driver responsible because neither one actually alone caused the death. Then, had the guy been in his seatbelt as required by law, none of this would’ve likely happened other than one DWI from the first impact. The second truck driver probably would have driven past the same and nothing would’ve happened to him. 

For anyone? Does anyone get charged with the death when neither person’s actions killed the victim? What about the fact that had the victim been wearing a seatbelt, this likely would not have occurred?

Charges? No charges?

If so, on who and why (sticking with this thread)?

Dang, that's a tough one... A couple of thoughts.

1. There's a saying that goes "First is worst". The first drunk guy that struck the innocent driver from behind set the wheels in motion for the second drunk driver to kill the now ejected innocent driver. First guy gets the rap for killing the victim.

2. Charge both drivers as they acted in concert of sorts.