Conservative homeowner arrested for shooting would-be thief

That description does state one of the suspects was shot while fleeing. That he started towards Joe Horn doesn't change that when he was shot he was fleeing.

It sounds like OK laws are stricter on the use of lethal of force to defend property than TX. That's a good thing and I argued back in the Joe Horn case that self-defense laws regarding property should be reconsidered.

 

maybe because the perps didn't actually retreat. then ran in angle maybe they were attempting to flank joe horn.

so it's not cut and dry that they NEVER advanced and Joe Horn NEVER felt his life was in danger.

 

I understand that's the law. I don't necessarily agree with it. It emboldens criminals to push boundaries. Homeowners have nearly no rights against porch pirates, petty theft and vandalism.

 

they have right to use force but not deadly force what's so hard to understand about that?

 

Pretty sure not shooting them isn't giving them immunity. I'll report it to the police and let them handle it, aside from heinous crimes that I can't say vengeance wouldn't necessarily take over.

 

Because the weak will be victimized by stronger criminals. Like I said before.

 

The police won't do anything. They're not obligated to solve crimes or protect citizens.

 

If I recall correctly Joe Horn's own reasoning for shooting them wasn't that his life was threatened but that he was specifically going to out to stop a burglary of his neighbor's house and did so already with the intention of the using deadly force. From what I recall he cocked the shotgun for the 911 operator to hear.

Whether Joe Horn felt his life was directly threatened TX laws do allow for lethal force in the defense of property.

Again this situation is different that the laws are different in OK than in TX. If the laws in OK don't allow as liberal a use of force in defense of property then I agree that Feaster is legally in trouble.

 

It's a sad commentary on our society when there are folks who think it's OK to shoot someone in the back who is not posing a physical threat for stealing a nazi flag or other similarly priced items.

 

Again we need to distinguish what is legal and what is moral and those aren't always the same. I think this case is one where they aren't necessarily the same.

Regarding if force can be used to defend property I think it get's very legally complicated if we decide where force is justified based on the value of the property or the cultural acceptance of the property. Would it make a difference in this case if the flag stolen was a US Flag that had been flown by US troops over a concentration camp they liberated? Would those arguing that shooting the thief wasn't justified then say it was justified because that flag represents something we all consider good and is a valuable historical artifact?

I think we get into some very slippery slopes regarding assessing the value of property over human life.

I've been reading some stuff though about OK self-defense laws and yes it does appear that they are stricter than TX laws regarding defense of property and the Castle Doctrine. It does look like there is a reasonableness standard in regard to the nature of the threat so Feaster's defense on the basis of protecting his own property might not matter if his actions are disproportionate to the threat.

 

This is the point of my post above. The Nazi flag is something that we all find universally abhorrent but what if it's something that we think is good? For that matter if it's something of similarly priced where do you draw the line on value versus human life. If she's stealing a historic flag that has been appraised be worth a $1,000 then is it alright to shoot her? $10,000? $1,000,000?

 

Why did I know the second post in this thread would be from Astrodome?

"Good mor---"

"TROLL!"

"---ning, uh....your Tourettes kicking in?"

 

Taking a blade a grass, or stealing a flower off a plant, etc etc. Where do you get to the point that you are able to try to murder someone for trying to take your property?

We have 911 for a reason. Is it worth killing someone over your flag? Is that what guns are for?

 

So a woman who is walking on the street has her purse snatched by a thief who runs away. She has no recourse. If society thinks that's okay, then we are allowing weaker people to get victimized.

 

I would argue that the joe horn verdict was jury nullification, more than an accurate gauge of the boundries of the law as written.

 

You have to use your head. For example, oftentimes, one's car is their livelihood. Someone stealing that should be fair game. Someone stealing a basketball from your front yard, no.

 

Who is saying she was right?

Why even bring that argument to this discussion.

I don't see anybody saying she had the right to steal the flag.

 

even Texas doesn't allow a "liberal" use of deadly/lethal force

need to stop making assumptions before reading the actual

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42.html

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.

that's the law but doesn't mean a jury will never misinterpret it

 

That's what I'm trying to debate. Where does society draw the line? Is it monetary value? Sentimental value? Mystery box? Or never? 911 won't report for petty theft, they'll only respond when there's a threat of violence. Do we not allow property victims any protections from criminals?

 

No rights except you know, the law.