According to the letter of the law, clearly outlined by SayUncle in the text of TX Title II 9.42, the dude with the Street Howitzer has a good case in court. He was following the letter OF THAT PARTICULAR LAW. He reasonably believed that he was preventing imminent commission of burglary. His attorneys will likely argue (if they’re smart) that he believed that any force other than deadly force would expose him to death or serious bodily injury. So, IN THAT RESPECT, he’s committed no crime. I had a heyday trying to clear that up with some folks at work.

How-the-hell-ever. Going out there to shoot up bad guys after you’ve told a cop (who’s recording the conversation for crying out loud) that you’re gonna do it and after he specifically told you not to? That pretty much ends your case right there. That 911 tape is gonna get played over and over again during that trial, until the jury can recite it in three languages.

That dude’s toast.

Oh, and to Mr. Orlov. With all due respect, sir, with the impending SCOTUS trial at hand this would not be the time to take a “Kill ‘Em All And Let God Sort ‘Em Out” type of attitude. Especially in written/typed word. While many would likely agree with you, it is the activity of the man in question here that has the Gun Rights crowd in an outrage, too, as it will allow the Anti’s yet another opportunity to paint us all up as trigger-happy vigilantes.

I’m just sayin…

tweaker

Also, I hear the tape differently (and I’ve heard it several dozen times, as my favorite radio program plays it over and over to much glee, legality be damned). I hear him saying, “Move ‘n you’re dead!” and then shooting, which jives with his story that they came into his yard after him when he went out. The timing on the third shot is problematic, though.

And quite frankly, I don’t see many versions of this story that will hurt him much in front of a jury of his peers from Pasadena, TX.

Hey, Rustmeister: I am not anti-gun.

I don’t think he called you anti-gun. There was a period and paragraph break there.

BUT, and this is the big one, you are still open to civil charges even if there are no criminal charges.

I bet this one goes to trial in a criminal court first, and then a civil one for wrongfull death.

This stems from security guards and rent-a-cops being able to use force to protect while on their job.

Obviously, in this case it would depend upon if the man and his neighbor had an agreement whereby they would watch each other’s property.

Cell phone company says you can stick this plug thingy into to dashboard cig lighter and power your cell phone safely.

Parent takes this claim and twists it to say you can stick anything into the dashboard cig lighter safely.

When child hurts himself, blame the cell phone company because it’s a natural consequence of the cell phone company’s marketing not the parents false portrayal of it.

Metulj’s wrong, as usual.

Well, yeah. His lame example which in no way relates to the issue I address and his feigned intellectual detachment are amusing. He might be challenging if he were as intellectual as he thought was.

Solipsism and cargo cult, bitches!

Now the anti-gunners are gonna use this to try and repeal Castle Doctrine.

You’ve stepped in it now

It’s not a hit. It’s the truth. Google up ’shoot first’ law. Or just go here.

So, the one of the consequences of the castle doctrine could not have been a scenario like this idiot in Texas?

This idiot in Texas seems to have fallen for what the Brady Bunch said the law did rather than what it did.

If a journalist* pointed to this possible outcome, that journalist would be complicit? … Personal Responsibility.

Try again. I said no such thing. I said misinformation from anti-gun groups that was then re-printed in the press likely affected this guy’s stupid decision to go kill someone over property.

Doesn’t take a genius to figured that out since he referenced the date the law went into effect.

conflates press with anti-gun

ding, ding, ding, we have a winner

That’s a fucking howler. All of that referencing and researching and writing to get to the political hit. So, the one of the consequences of the castle doctrine could not have been a scenario like this idiot in Texas? If a journalist* pointed to this possible outcome, that journalist would be complicit? Let’s follow that logic, if your father says to you repeatedly, “Hey, don’t put your finger in the dashboard cigarette lighter” and then you do it, your father is complicit in putting the germ of the idea in your head? Wow. This violates Conservertarian Maudlin Rule #1: Personal Responsibility.

*Your little bit of legerdemain also conflates press with anti-gun, which repeated enough would seed the minds of your readers as to such. No. Never. Never happened.