Undocumented Aliens on my Land

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not a lawyer.

There was a case in Houston when I lived there where a guy shot and killed a man who was robbing his neighbor's house. I think they didn't press charges. Of course it was a white neighborhood and the criminal wasn't white and it was Texas after all so they let it slide.

Texas is a castle doctrine state, which basically means you probably can blow someones head off if they step on your lawn. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some actual duty to engage trespassers with gunfire.

[Babs]

Of course it was a white neighborhood and the criminal wasn't white and it was Texas after all so they let it slide.

More likely because it's the law. The burglar had passed onto his (the shooter's) property, and at that point the shooter had the right to use deadly force. In Texas you can pretty much shoot anyone or anything you don't recognize on your property.

[Green Monstah]

I believe what you said about your Crim Law class.

Just out of curiosity, How did Con Law work out for you?

Only slightly better. I remember something about the commerce clause.

[CardiacCoug]

More likely because it's the law. The burglar had passed onto his (the shooter's) property, and at that point the shooter had the right to use deadly force. In Texas you can pretty much shoot anyone or anything you don't recognize on your property.

Uh.. It was his neighbor's property, so I think it was stretching the Castle Doctrine thing a little bit. I'll look for the link. I think his defense was that his neighbor had asked him to watch his place so he was acting in place of the owner.

Link:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=5766452

[Babs]

Uh.. It was his neighbor's property, so I think it was stretching the Castle Doctrine thing a little bit. I'll look for the link. I think his defense was that his neighbor had asked him to watch his place so he was acting in place of the owner.

We studied the case. He robbed the next-door neighbor, but passed over onto the shooter's property in flight. Unless you're talking about a different case.

[Green Monstah]

Texas is a castle doctrine state, which basically means you probably can blow someones head off if they step on your lawn. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some actual duty to engage trespassers with gunfire.

There's more to the story than that. His neighbor's house was burglarized. he was on the phone with the cops and as they fled, he shot both of them in the back (killing both). He was charged, but the prosecutors dropped charges because they couldn't get an indictment.

This is the type of guy DDD is trying to paint me as, even though I admitted that there were "no easy answers". The difficulty in my mind is that the rancher's proximity to the border alters significantly what a reasonable person should/could do in response to tresspassers on his property.

[CardiacCoug]

We studied the case. He robbed the next-door neighbor, but passed over onto the shooter's property in flight. Unless you're talking about a different case.

Gotcha. No, that's the one so you obviously know it better than I do.

[TripletDaddy]

There's more to the story than that. His neighbor's house was burglarized. he was on the phone with the cops and as they fled, he shot both of them in the back (killing both). He was charged, but the prosecutors dropped charges because they couldn't get an indictment.

This is the type of guy DDD is trying to paint me as, even though I admitted that there were "no easy answers". The difficulty in my mind is that the rancher's proximity to the border alters significantly what a reasonable person should/could do in response to tresspassers on his property.

My concern was your statement that you saw "nothing wrong" with what the guy did. There are plenty of potential issues to spot even if you personally feel that the guy should have gone harp seal on the Mexican lady.

Reasonable person standard is a negligence issue, which has no bearing on this case.

[CardiacCoug]

So Babs, what was the consensus when you studied the Joe Horn case in law school?

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like the guy should have been charged with something. I guess he convinced the Grand Jury that he felt threatened by these guys and was justified in shooting them.

But when you listen to his 911 call it's pretty clear that he was really just getting angry and finally snapped and decided he wasn't going to let these guys get away with the burglary. It sure didn't sound like a self-defense situation.

[Green Monstah]

My concern was your statement that you saw "nothing wrong" with what the guy did. There are plenty of potential issues to spot even if you personally feel that the guy should have gone harp seal on the Mexican lady.

Reasonable person standard is a negligence issue, which has no bearing on this case.

Since you apparently didn't get a bad grade in crim law, help me out. Let's assume the rancher did in fact feel threatened. From a legal perspective, is a subjective pang of apprehension enough to feel threatened, and therefore, enough to use a firearm to apprehend tresspassers? Or must his fear/apprehension meet some objective standard? My inkling is that it's the latter, and therefore, reasonableness remains relevant.

[Green Monstah]

So Babs, what was the consensus when you studied the Joe Horn case in law school?

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like the guy should have been charged with something. I guess he convinced the Grand Jury that he felt threatened by these guys and was justified in shooting them.

But when you listen to his 911 call it's pretty clear that he was really just getting angry and finally snapped and decided he wasn't going to let these guys get away with the burglary. It sure didn't sound like a self-defense situation.

First, he was never indicted. The case ended at the grand jury. They didn't indict because of two key facts: he felt threatened and the aforementioned "castle doctrine". Apparently they cut onto his yard. Correct me if I'm wrong, Babs.

[CardiacCoug]

First, he was never indicted. The case ended at the grand jury. They didn't indict because of two key facts: he felt threatened and the aforementioned "castle doctrine". Apparently they cut onto his yard. Correct me if I'm wrong, Babs.

Right. Seemed like a bad decision to me. And it's all recorded on the 911 call. He's not saying that he's scared or feeling threatened. He's saying stuff like the police better hurry because he's not going to let them get away with this.

I think it all boiled down to the fact that the guys he killed were "Afro-Latino" scumbags.

[TripletDaddy]

Since you apparently didn't get a bad grade in crim law, help me out. Let's assume the rancher did in fact feel threatened. From a legal perspective, is a subjective pang of apprehension enough to feel threatened, and therefore, enough to use a firearm to apprehend tresspassers? Or must his fear/apprehension meet some objective standard? My inkling is that it's the latter, and therefore, reasonableness remains relevant.

If he felt threatened then it is an entirely different ballgame. At that point, *probably* grab your gun.

However, the feeling must have basis. Words are not enough, for example. There must also be a present apparent ability to cause harm in order to support self defense against assault. These are issues for the fact-finder. But when then guy admits that he never felt threatened nor saw any weapons, he is SOL on a self defense claim. And he has zero legal right to assume an INS role because suspects they are illegal aliens. cops cant even do that (allegedly).

Also, absent traditional castle doctrine, you can't really grab your gun and go out to protect the border of your land.

[Babs]

So Babs, what was the consensus when you studied the Joe Horn case in law school?

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like the guy should have been charged with something. I guess he convinced the Grand Jury that he felt threatened by these guys and was justified in shooting them.

But when you listen to his 911 call it's pretty clear that he was really just getting angry and finally snapped and decided he wasn't going to let these guys get away with the burglary. It sure didn't sound like a self-defense situation.

In Texas, I think force is technically justified to whatever extent the actor reasonably believes necessary. The belief is presumed reasonable if the victim unlawfully attempted to enter the actor's domicile. In this case the victim entered the property, but there was no evidence of an attempt to enter the domicile. Probably the homeowner should have been charged with murder, and then would have argued that he was under emotional distress at the time.

But the reality in Texas has been that the homeowner has always been considered justified in protecting his property. Any use of force has been considered reasonable. Is that okay? Not really. It'll take another couple of Horn cases before it changes, though.

[Uncle Ted]

The government is not prepared to protect us against the aliens...

[YOUTUBE]LZC0rE4IWlE[/YOUTUBE]

Thankfully in Texas the laws are such we can protect ourselves from the invasion.