Don't forget....this happed in Texas.

No criminal charges, but the jerk will probably file a civil suite. He won't win, but it will cost Grandma Deadeye big bucks. If he does, maybe someone will start a legal fund for her that I can donate to.

 

that's why you shoot to kill. dead intruders can't file suit. i wholeheartedly support the idea of women owning and learning how to use handguns.

 

and al gore wanted to take our guns away .
in texas we have the right to shoot a trespasser, no questions asked. woo hoo!

 

wont play for me

 

I liked the end where she said that the reason she wasn't intimidated by him was because of her .38.

"I TOLD you I was gonna shoot you!!"

Then of course there's the 911 operator...."Did she just shoot him again?!?!?! Tell her to stop shooting him!!!"

Don't mess with grandma.


I love it! I am pretty sure that would be my wifes reaction. Except the hole would be in his spine like her elk was.

Randy

 

She needs to follow the "Three S" principle.

Shoot - Shovel - Shut-Up.

 

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that's not true. The laws are very specific about when lethal force can be used. Trespassing alone isn't one of the reasons. This woman got away with it because he tried to take her gun away. At that point it became self defense.

 

Hoss,
I think you need to check the laws on this one. He was IN her house.

 

I realize that. All I'm saying is that trespassing alone is not a lawful reason to use deadly force in the state of Texas. I'll find the statutes and post them. I've done a lot of studying on this because I carry daily.

 

Makes no difference. He was a criminal in her house that had BROKEN IN. Since he tried to get the gun away from her, his first intent was not to leave. How do you know if it would have really been his second intent?

 

So do I. Sometimes I carry more the one.

Find and read the part about protecting your property, family, etc. If you still have your CC study book, you can probably find it in there. And, another poster was correct...if it's in your home, you don't need a CC to protect your property and family.

 

Okay...here are the deadly force statutes in Texas. If you read all of this (like I just did), you will not see ANYWHERE that says you can shoot someone simply for trespassing. If that were the case I could shoot my neighbor just because he was standing in my front yard.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

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, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

 

Don't misunderstand me. I definitely think that Grandma was justified in shooting him under Texas law (but only because he tried to take her gun away).

My point to Derek##### was that you can't just shoot someone for trespassing (which is what he seemed to be saying).

 

I just quoted the statutes above. Read them and you'll see that I'm right. TRESPASSING is not listed as a reason for using deadly force.

Grandma got away with it because she could reasonably believe that her life was in danger.

Technically, if I understood the story correctly, he was trying to leave her house through the front door when she shot him in the leg. If the DA wanted to she could be prosecuted because he was trying to leave. If he wouldn't have tried to take her gun from her then she might very well be in jail right now.

 

You type faster the I do, but I'll leave it anyway.

"unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor" = legal jargon for "trespass".
It appears to me she had the laws on her side.