Man who shot Alzheimer’s sufferer won’t be charged

[HeadHunter]

Our Castle Doctrine has been well established in both caselaw and statutory law for over 100 years. In Georgia, B&E or anything that could be construed to be is extremely hazardous.

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23
Use of force in defense of habitation

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

Note that with regard to (3), burglary is a felony.

I can't think of a single case in the 28 years I have lived here where a homeowner has been charged for shooting an intruder. Intruders are pretty much for the homeowner to do with as he or she wants. It's one of the reasons I live here. While 'curtilage' was not included in the latest statutory codification, it is well established in case law here.

IANAL, etc.

[TR675]

But, but... I read on internet gun forums that in Texas you can shoot a man dead for picking up a penny off your lawn in the middle of the night and go back to sleep, safe in the knowledge that TEXAS! has your back, because your property is a free-fire zone after dark.

Yeah, people make me sad. So sometimes you can shoot somebody to prevent them from running away with your stereo. Ok, great. Why on earth would you do that?

Here's the Texas statute:

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.

Ok, so I'd like any Texas blowhard to read through that and tot up all of the ifs/ands/buts and other bolded phrases, let alone the cross references and figuring out which words and phrases have specific definitions, then see if he can tell me, off the top of his head at 3 a.m. right after he's had an adrenaline dump, whether he is justified in using lethal force against someone trying to steal his car in a specified fact scenario of my choosing.

I'd bet money that most people couldn't do it. And when you start making "shoot/no shoot" decisions without understanding what the dang law is, you start nudging perilously close to the magical realm of "prosecutorial discretion."

Just call the cops. Tell him you've done so if you have to from the safety of your house, but don't go outside with a gun. I have seen a few self-defense cases that wouldn't have been cases at all if the defendant had just stayed inside.

[jlw]

Our Castle Doctrine has been well established in both caselaw and statutory law for over 100 years. In Georgia, B&E or anything that could be construed to be is extremely hazardous.



Note that with regard to (3), burglary is a felony.

I can't think of a single case in the 28 years I have lived here where a homeowner has been charged for shooting an intruder. Intruders are pretty much for the homeowner to do with as he or she wants. It's one of the reasons I live here. While 'curtilage' was not included in the latest statutory codification, it is well established in case law here.

IANAL, etc.

The definition of a burglary in GA is entering or remaining in a premises with the intent to commit a theft or felony therein.

The state monkeyed with the definition in 2012 by creating first and second degree burglary where there had previously simply been burglary, but the above is still the heart of the burglary statute.

[Tamara]

Our Castle Doctrine has been well established in both caselaw and statutory law for over 100 years. In Georgia, B&E or anything that could be construed to be is extremely hazardous.



Note that with regard to (3), burglary is a felony.

I can't think of a single case in the 28 years I have lived here where a homeowner has been charged for shooting an intruder. Intruders are pretty much for the homeowner to do with as he or she wants. It's one of the reasons I live here. While 'curtilage' was not included in the latest statutory codification, it is well established in case law here.

IANAL, etc.

I grew up in Georgia and didn't leave the state until I was past 30. I saw a man, a customer of ours, put in front of a grand jury for shooting someone he caught on the property of his convenience store with a carload of cigarette cartons. He was no-billed, but it was touch and go, there, and by the letter of the law the grand jury could have hung him out to dry.

[jlw]

I grew up in Georgia and didn't leave the state until I was past 30. I saw a man, a customer of ours, put in front of a grand jury for shooting someone he caught on the property of his convenience store with a carload of cigarette cartons. He was no-billed, but it was touch and go, there, and by the letter of the law the grand jury could have hung him out to dry.

Putting a case in front of a grand jury doesn't necessarily mean going for blood. There are times when it actually benefits the defense. The same goes for show cause hearings.

[TR675]

Putting a case in front of a grand jury doesn't necessarily mean going for blood. There are times when it actually benefits the defense. The same goes for show cause hearings.

Right-o. Prosecutors will sometimes use grand juries as political cover. Take a weak case that has some political ramifications to the GJ, let the jurors know that the case is weak, and...no-bill with plausible deniability of fault. I've seen this happen in, among others, a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse where the case was weak and the supposed victim not plausible. In that case the detective testified that he didn't believe the victim. Grand jury no-billed and the DA didn't have to answer questions about not prospecting the case in the next election.

[hufnagel]

downside with that is the "defendant" just tossed a dump truck load of cash into some lawyer's pocket, for no good reason. that kind of action on the case of prosecutors raises my ire, I just don't see a legal means of restitution to the "defendant" for such a dubious act of judicial cowardice.

[jlw]

downside with that is the "defendant" just tossed a dump truck load of cash into some lawyer's pocket, for no good reason. that kind of action on the case of prosecutors raises my ire, I just don't see a legal means of restitution to the "defendant" for such a dubious act of judicial cowardice.

How's that? The defense doesn't put up a case at the grand jury thus there is no defense lawyer to pay.

[Tamara]

Looking at the post I typed at beer minutes after 0200hrs, I realize that it doesn't much apply anyway, since the dude in question shot the guy in question in the back of the noggin through the back window of the fleeing getaway car, and still got no-billed. Which is a criminal thing as opposed to a civil thing anyway and therefore not germane to the thread of conversation. Sorry 'bout that.

[HeadHunter]

Yeah, people make me sad. So sometimes you can shoot somebody to prevent them from running away with your stereo. Ok, great. Why on earth would you do that?

Here's the Texas statute:

I had a long conversation with SouthNarc today and this case came up. It is one I had never heard of before.

A Texas john who shot a Craigslist escort dead after she took $150 of his cash but refused to have sex has been cleared of murder.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...#ixzz2v8nVvkzR

The headline may be incorrect in that she didn't die immediately. Apparently, she lived seven months in a vegetative state (shot in the neck with brain damage). One report stated that her family finally took her off life support.