Expert Witness: Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman when teen was shot

[NoDak]

Seriously?

Wow.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

But I think, like many people, he's still a little unclear on how Florida law works. He has touched on what a lot of people seem to be claiming is a contradiction in self-defense law: "The guy with the gun can defend himself, but can't the guy getting followed by the guy with the gun defend himself?"

Yes... of course. If the guy with the gun is acting like an aggressor. In fact, in the case, the guy getting followed has the right to defend himself and the guy with the gun has NO such right. Zimmerman would be guilty of murder in that case.

So I don't see how that's a problem with the law. It's very logically spelled out.

I think the problem is Cosby is coming up with a scenario that we have no idea happened. He is making an assumption that there isn't enough evidence to prove out. It's part of the problem with a case like this when the only eye witness besides the shooter is dead.

 

[Cotton]

I think the problem is Cosby is coming up with a scenario that we have no idea happened. He is making an assumption that there isn't enough evidence to prove out. It's part of the problem with a case like this when the only eye witness besides the shooter is dead.

Correct.

 

[Clay_Allison]

This thing reminds me of a scenario in Texas law where a gun battle can have no guilty party.

If a man is trying to repossess your car he doesn't have to tell you or present papers, he can just break into the car and drive it back to the dealership. Under the castle doctrine, if someone is breaking into your car you can shoot them to protect it. If you come out of your house and point a gun at him, the repo man can shoot you out of self defense because he's doing nothing wrong and you're trying to kill him. So the winner will literally be the man that doesn't get killed.

 

[Smitty]

This thing reminds me of a scenario in Texas law where a gun battle can have no guilty party.

If a man is trying to repossess your car he doesn't have to tell you or present papers, he can just break into the car and drive it back to the dealership. Under the castle doctrine, if someone is breaking into your car you can shoot them to protect it. If you come out of your house and point a gun at him, the repo man can shoot you out of self defense because he's doing nothing wrong and you're trying to kill him. So the winner will literally be the man that doesn't get killed.

I'm not an expert on texas law but I think that is if you are IN the car when they are trying to break in.

Typically, you can never use deadly force to protect property only. My understanding is that the castle doctrine was extended from homes to vehicles, but, like, so that it means if you are in the vehicle, you don't have to retreat to your home.

I don't think it means you can take pot shots out the window of your house at someone jacking your car.

 

[Bluestar71]

I'm not an expert on texas law but I think that is if you are IN the car when they are trying to break in.

Typically, you can never use deadly force to protect property only. My understanding is that the castle doctrine was extended from homes to vehicles, but, like, so that it means if you are in the vehicle, you don't have to retreat to your home.

I don't think it means you can take pot shots out the window of your house at someone jacking your car.

I don't think so. I believe Texas law has been changed so you can defend your actual property with deadly force and not just your person when you happen to be on your property.

 

[Cotton]

I don't think so. I believe Texas law has been changed so you can defend your actual property with deadly force and not just your person when you happen to be on your property.

He's right. The vehicle has to be occupied to be considered part of your "castle". You can't shoot someone for breaking into your vehicle if you aren't in it. You also can't shoot someone for just being on your property unless they present a threat to you or your family's life and then the stand your ground law supersedes. Your property isn't defined as part of your habitation in the state of Texas.

 

[Bluestar71]

I'll defer to schmidty if my interpretation is incorrect but I believe this indicates at least in some cases Texas allows you to use firearms to defend against property crimes and not just threats to your physical person.


www.texasgunlaws.org/chap9.htm

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


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.


Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

 

[Cotton]

Texas Castle Doctrine or Texas Castle Bill or Texas Castle Law


Below is a copy of the Texas Castle Doctrine also known as Texas Castle Law or as Texas Castle Bill
______________________________________

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [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 actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [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].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

 

[Bluestar71]

When You Can Kill in Texas

By Miles Graham, Time Magazine.Com

On Christmas Eve in 2009, Ezekiel Gilbert paid an escort he found on Craigslist $150 for what he thought would be sex. Instead, according to the San Antonio Express-News, 23-year-old Lenora Frago left his apartment after about 20 minutes without consummating the act. Gilbert, now 30, followed her to a car with a gun and shot her in the neck through the passenger-side window. Frago became paralyzed, and died about seven months later. Gilbert admitted to shooting her but contended that he did not intend to kill.

Gilbert was tried for murder. Last Wednesday, a Texas jury ruled that his actions were legal. That’s because Texas penal code contains an unusual provision that grants citizens the right to use deadly force to prevent someone “who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property.”

Texas A&M Professor Mark Hoekstra, who studies the effectiveness of lethal-force provisions in self-defense law, says the protection-of-property element of the deadly force law is “pretty unique to Texas.” Within Texas, however, the case was not unique. In 2010, the law protected a Houston taco-truck owner who shot a man for stealing a tip jar containing $20.12. Also in Houston, a store clerk recently killed a man for shoplifting a twelve-pack of beer, and in 2008 a man from Laredo was acquitted for killing a 13-year-old boy who broke into his trailer looking for snacks and soda.

Texas law also justifies killing to protect others’ property. In 2007, a man told 14 times by a 911 operator to remain inside during a robbery gunned down two thieves fleeing from his neighbor’s house. (“There’s no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?” the operator said on the call. The shooter’s response: “The law has been changed….Here it goes, buddy! You hear the shotgun clickin’ and I’m goin’!”) He was acquitted the next year.

So-called “justifiable homicides” are on the rise in Texas, where in 2007 Governor Rick Perry expanded already expansive lethal-force laws to allow Texans to kill in their vehicles and workplaces in self-defense or in any location to stop “aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.” Though the penal code has included the clause discussing “theft during the nighttime” since the 1970s, some Texans might have taken the 2007 change as a declaration of open season. From 2002 to 2006, there were 146 cases of justifiable homicide committed by private citizens. From 2007 to 2011, the number jumped to 224, an increase of more than 50%.

Such cases have often drawn outrage and prompted communities to question the state’s lethal-force laws. Proponents of lethal force in cases of self-defense say that crime rates have fallen in response to the laws. But a study conducted by Hoekstra and his colleague Cheng Cheng found that overall homicide numbers rose in the 21 states that adopted such laws between 2000 and 2010.

Chandler McClellan and Erdal Tekin, who study lethal force at the National Bureau of Economic Research, conducted research that confirmed Hoekstra and Cheng’s results. “To the extent Gilbert’s acquittal depended on a defense of justifiable homicide,” they wrote, “the result is consistent with the notion that such force may not have been used except for the liberalization of laws meant to prevent homicide. Further, this acquittal could indicate to others that the use of lethal force is acceptable under a broad set of circumstances, thereby resulting in more violence. While the expansion of self-defense laws has slowed in the wake of recent high-profile cases such as Trayvon Martin, there have been no concerted efforts to roll back these laws or establish stricter standards.”

Due to the criminal nature of the Gilbert case, an appeal cannot be filed by the state.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what I was thinking of. Seems like it mainly applies to cases of theft in addition to normal self-defense scenarios.

 

[Carp]

 

[midswat]

[big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read]

 

[Carp]

Amen...but if you have longer posts you are more important.

Fact.

 

[Jiggyfly]

When You Can Kill in Texas

By Miles Graham, Time Magazine.Com

On Christmas Eve in 2009, Ezekiel Gilbert paid an escort he found on Craigslist $150 for what he thought would be sex. Instead, according to the San Antonio Express-News, 23-year-old Lenora Frago left his apartment after about 20 minutes without consummating the act. Gilbert, now 30, followed her to a car with a gun and shot her in the neck through the passenger-side window. Frago became paralyzed, and died about seven months later. Gilbert admitted to shooting her but contended that he did not intend to kill.

Gilbert was tried for murder. Last Wednesday, a Texas jury ruled that his actions were legal. That’s because Texas penal code contains an unusual provision that grants citizens the right to use deadly force to prevent someone “who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property.”

WOW that is some bullshit right there.

 

[dallen]

[big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read]

QFT

 

[mcnuttz]

[big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read][big block of text no one will read]

Good read.

It tickled my senses and hit home on issues I feel strongly about.

Would read again.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'm not an expert on texas law but I think that is if you are IN the car when they are trying to break in.

Typically, you can never use deadly force to protect property only. My understanding is that the castle doctrine was extended from homes to vehicles, but, like, so that it means if you are in the vehicle, you don't have to retreat to your home.

I don't think it means you can take pot shots out the window of your house at someone jacking your car.

As Bluestar pointed out, you are mistaken. He posted the whole law, but here's the important part.

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.

The scenario I posited before satisfies these requirements.

 

[Clay_Allison]

WOW that is some bullshit right there.

Weird that it doesn't say what she was supposed to have stolen.

 

[dmo069]

Weird that it doesn't say what she was supposed to have stolen.

His $150.

 

[Smitty]

As Bluestar pointed out, you are mistaken. He posted the whole law, but here's the important part.



The scenario I posited before satisfies these requirements.

Well then if you are the repo man you better announce your presence and hand out your business card with an address on it, because then no one can claim that the use of force would be "immediately necessary." Because the would-be shooter would know who you are and where you are located if for some reason you didn't have the right to the car, so they could just call the police to get it back.

But that is very unique to Texas and I'm not sure I agree with it. I think you should be able to defend yourself with force, maybe even your property, if it's under threat of force by someone doing the robbing.

But if someone grabs some of your cash that is unattended and slips away with it, you should not be able to chase them down and shoot them.