In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

I'm not hiding behind anything, unlike you, Ronnie. Though it is a
desperate attempt at diversion, no one is buying it.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
JimR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd
be fine with it if you for example had small kids and found out
you just bought a house next to someone who'd done a stretch for
pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be publicised, where those who have been
convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and other
sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living' to be
publicised to anyone who wants to know.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Well, that's where they're currently living, isn't it?

Irrelevant to what can be looked up on web sites.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Actually, quarterly our local newspaper publishes names, addresses and photos of sex offenders who have been released
and are now living in this county.

Pity the OP was talking about a SPREE KILLER, not a sex offender.

Just because you can't keep up with the conversation doesn't mean
that others are just as stupid.

There are also regulations on where they can live in the county, in terms of a required distances their residence must
be from schools and churches.

Pity there isnt with the SPREE KILLER the OP was talking about.

Pity that others *WERE* talking about such things in this thread,
which *you* joined, Ronnie. Jackass.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit parasite desperately cowering behind
Larry desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that the best its ever been able to manage is lying parasite.

You're repeating yourself, Ronnie.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
"krw" wrote
Laws may not *allow* the realtor to disclose such even if they are
aware of
it. The home owner may or may not be required to disclose such,
rather area
dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense. It *is* public information.

I never said it wasn't. What your area (state) requires may match
another or may not be the same. I advised to look up the laws for
the area involved. Normally pretty easy to find.


You did when you said, "Laws may not *allow* the Realtor to
disclose...". It is perfectly legal to "disclose" public information.

Pity the current location of spree killers who have served their time isnt.

'Tis a pity you that can't read.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not
disclose' as you
can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do
'disclose' you can be sued even years later for just about
anything even if you can prove
you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to prove such, and wont
save you
here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house. I
looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the questions
honestly there was nothing to come back after me for, though that
wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

Just wierd to me, but got same info from several realtors. I do not
live in a 'must disclose' state.

It is *not* uncommon. I've had to do it twice now, in different states.
The last one was *very* strict. Agents get sued for non-disclosure
all the time, even though there was no way they *could* have known.
...even if the homeowner obviously did, the agent gets sued (deep pockets).

Only in the stupid US system.

....and you *know* stupid! Every day you brush your teeth and shave
looking at it.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have a
way here
of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for example
quietly warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was largely
code-spec to 1963
and that future work, depending on what it was, would sometimes
entail additional costs. He was real careful to explain the back
room was codespec
only to 'enclosed porch' for example and now we understand why ;-).
Reality
is at the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all.
It's a
'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5
bath. Had he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been
required to pay
to bring that enclosure to codespec of the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on
the market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three
bedrooms. It cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes
of the town clerk's time.

I'm not sure what the costs would have been in 1995 to bring it up
to code, only an estimate in 2007 that was very open ended as in 'we
expect to find more'. Of what I can recall besides the roof having
to go up was the slab had to be raised to level to the rest of the
house (it's a 1.5 inch or so drop). I thought that one very odd
indeed. They seemed quite happy to make it with no windows but
spec'd out that if it had a window it had to be a certain size...
(The room has 2 doors so the window apparently isnt required but i
already have one bedroom with no windows and 2 doors).

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two
bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Grin, does sound odd!

I didn't grin at the $3500 - for nothing.

Your problem.

Indeed it was. The $3500 was a very temporary setback. OTOH, yours
is permanent.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
wrote
thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor
and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they
are aware of it. The home owner may or may not be required
to disclose such, rather area dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense.

Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom, with a line with just -- on a line by itself in front of it.

It *is* public information.

The current location of an ex prisoner isnt.

You ****ing idiot, it *IS* public knowledge in many states and
web searchable for those convicted of "sex crimes", whether
the crime is kiddie porn, child rape, or a college hazing prank.

Pity we happen to be discussing a SPREE KILLER, ****wit.

Pity *you* haven't been able to keep up, Ronnie.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose'
as you can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do
'disclose' you can be sued even years later for just about anything
even if you can prove you did NOT know about it (obviously hard
to prove such, and wont save you here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house.

But which didnt include anything about the neighbours.

Do try to keep up, Ronnie.

Go and **** yourself, gutless.

Gee Ronnie, that was a pretty snappy comeback, at least for you.

I looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the
questions honestly there was nothing to come back after
me for, though that wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

So it was in fact completely useless.

So, in fact you are as stupid as you pretend on the Usenet.

We'll see...

We have.

I still *had* to disclose,

No you didnt, most obviously if you hadnt used a ****wit agent.

You're going down from stupid, fast. The law has nothing to do with
Realtors, other than they're caught in the middle too.

but could describe exactly the circumstances.

And it was in fact completely useless liability wise anyway.

The only thing being talked about here that is "useless" is you.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have
a way here of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for
example quietly warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was
largely code-spec to 1963 and that future work, depending on what
it was, would sometimes entail additional costs. He was real
careful to explain the back room was codespec only to 'enclosed
porch' for example and now we understand why ;-). Reality is at
the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's
a 'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5
bath. Had he tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would
have been required to pay to bring that encloser to codespec of
the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on the
market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three bedrooms.
It cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes of the town
clerk's time.

Your problem.

Obviously, you stupid ass!

Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.

SOmetimes the retarded have to be told the obvious, Ronnie.

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Those who arent stupid enough to spend more on more house when they dont need that.

You certainly are a dumb ****!

Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.

You didn't "get" the obvious, so it had to be explained in terms you
can comprehend. Not my problem, Ronnie.



--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
wrote
thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor
and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they
are aware of it. The home owner may or may not be required
to disclose such, rather area dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense.

Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom, with a line with just -- on a line by itself in front of it.

It *is* public information.

The current location of an ex prisoner isnt.

You ****ing idiot, it *IS* public knowledge in many states and
web searchable for those convicted of "sex crimes", whether
the crime is kiddie porn, child rape, or a college hazing prank.

Pity we happen to be discussing a SPREE KILLER, ****wit.

Actually, we all moved on.

Everyone can see you are lying, just like you always end up doing when
you have got done like a ****ing dinner, time after time after time.

The only lie here Ronnie is your claim of neuron ownership.

No surprise that the best it can ever manage is parasite.

....says the unemployable welfare leech.

--
Keith

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit parasite desperately cowering behind
Larry desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that the best its ever been able to manage is lying parasite.

Some gutless ****wit parasite desperately cowering behind
Larry desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that the best its ever been able to manage is lying parasite.

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

The only one ****ting his pands here, is you Ronnie. It's nice that
you admit it though.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Repeating yourself only makes you wrong again. Nothing new.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

So, you admit that you're out of bullets (as in "impotent"), eh
Ronnie?

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

You are a bore, Ron. Nothing new folks. Move along.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

You do like to repeat your lies. You've had loads of practice. You
should be good at it.

--
Keith

In article -
sjc.supernews.net, says...
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Do you think posting this same thing 6 times really makes anyone think
highly of you, or what you have to say? Do you really?

Yes, Ron really does think that. Are you surprised?

--
Keith

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit parasite desperately cowering behind
Larry desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that the best its ever been able to manage is lying parasite.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

On 20 Jun 2008 14:50:34 -0400, (tjab) wrote:

In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
richard wrote:

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the
back?



Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University of
Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of wild west
lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land
or tangible, moveable property:
(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..., 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 to... risk of death or serious
bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary and were
fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above.

Fulfilling 2B isn't enough under the law. And unless the theft happened
at night (the part you edited out - why?), even 2B wasn't fulfilled.

You also edited out that 2B is only part of the requirement before deadly
force can be used. 9.42 additionally rquires that he be justified in
using force under 9.41, which makes it clear that the justification
only applies to defending one's own property.

You are posting some seriously flawed legal advice on a very serious matter.
I hope no one relies on it to their detriment.



Thanks for bringing that up. Most states allow a person to defend HIS
own home from intruders. Not be the watchdog and act under the color
of the law for others. Having called 911 is where his authority ends.
Crossing the street with a loaded shotgun, putting others in danger,
is where he crossed the line.

Shooting in the back is murder. Even if he did fire a warning shot.

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

....as he ****s his pants, once again.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

....more **** from Ronnie's mouth.


--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.


....and even more **** from Ronnie.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

....more useless **** from the ****, Ronnie.


--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.


You really are tiring. A tiring liar.


--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

More lies from a sack of ****.


--
Keith

tjab wrote:
In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
richard wrote:

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the
back?



Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University of
Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of wild
west lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, moveable property:
(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..., 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 to... risk of death or
serious bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary
and were fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above.

Fulfilling 2B isn't enough under the law. And unless the theft
happened
at night (the part you edited out - why?), even 2B wasn't fulfilled.

You also edited out that 2B is only part of the requirement before
deadly force can be used. 9.42 additionally rquires that he be
justified in
using force under 9.41, which makes it clear that the justification
only applies to defending one's own property.

You are posting some seriously flawed legal advice on a very serious
matter. I hope no one relies on it to their detriment.

What I posted was an example and wasn't meant to be dispositive. The
original assertion was that nobody can shoot a criminal in the back - I was
merely trying to dispute that flawed claim.

You attach 9.41 to 9.42 and that is correct. But you should have kept
reading:

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, moveable
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 tangible moveable
property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes
attempted on consummated theft or or criminal mischief to the tangible
moveable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that
(A) the third person has requested his protection or 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 [related to the actor].

richard wrote:
On 20 Jun 2008 14:50:34 -0400, (tjab) wrote:

In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
richard wrote:

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the
back?



Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University of
Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of
wild west lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, moveable property:
(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..., 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 to... risk of death or
serious bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary
and were fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above.

Fulfilling 2B isn't enough under the law. And unless the theft
happened
at night (the part you edited out - why?), even 2B wasn't fulfilled.

You also edited out that 2B is only part of the requirement before
deadly force can be used. 9.42 additionally rquires that he be
justified in
using force under 9.41, which makes it clear that the justification
only applies to defending one's own property.

You are posting some seriously flawed legal advice on a very serious
matter. I hope no one relies on it to their detriment.



Thanks for bringing that up. Most states allow a person to defend HIS
own home from intruders. Not be the watchdog and act under the color
of the law for others. Having called 911 is where his authority ends.
Crossing the street with a loaded shotgun, putting others in danger,
is where he crossed the line.

Shooting in the back is murder. Even if he did fire a warning shot.

No. Shooting someone in the back because he stole from another may be
frowned upon in Delaware, but not here.

The Texas Penal Code goes on in Section 9.43 PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S
PROPERTY with the same requirements and options for protection as for one's
own property. Specifically, deadly force is not disallowed to prevent the
commission of a burglary, arson, robbery, theft during the nighttime or
criminal mischief during the nighttime or to prevent the escape of someone
who has just committed such an act.

What's a "warning shot"?

richard wrote:
On 20 Jun 2008 14:50:34 -0400, (tjab) wrote:

In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
richard wrote:

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the
back?



Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University of
Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of
wild west lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, moveable property:
(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..., 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 to... risk of death or
serious bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary
and were fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above.

Fulfilling 2B isn't enough under the law. And unless the theft
happened
at night (the part you edited out - why?), even 2B wasn't fulfilled.

You also edited out that 2B is only part of the requirement before
deadly force can be used. 9.42 additionally rquires that he be
justified in
using force under 9.41, which makes it clear that the justification
only applies to defending one's own property.

You are posting some seriously flawed legal advice on a very serious
matter. I hope no one relies on it to their detriment.



Thanks for bringing that up. Most states allow a person to defend HIS
own home from intruders. Not be the watchdog and act under the color
of the law for others. Having called 911 is where his authority ends.
Crossing the street with a loaded shotgun, putting others in danger,
is where he crossed the line.

Not in texas he didnt.

Shooting in the back is murder.

Not in texas it isnt.

Even if he did fire a warning shot.

No legal requirement for that in texas.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:13:01 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

tjab wrote:
In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
richard wrote:

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the
back?



Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University of
Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of wild
west lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, moveable property:
(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..., 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 to... risk of death or
serious bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary
and were fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above.

Fulfilling 2B isn't enough under the law. And unless the theft
happened
at night (the part you edited out - why?), even 2B wasn't fulfilled.

You also edited out that 2B is only part of the requirement before
deadly force can be used. 9.42 additionally rquires that he be
justified in
using force under 9.41, which makes it clear that the justification
only applies to defending one's own property.

You are posting some seriously flawed legal advice on a very serious
matter. I hope no one relies on it to their detriment.

What I posted was an example and wasn't meant to be dispositive. The
original assertion was that nobody can shoot a criminal in the back - I was
merely trying to dispute that flawed claim.

You attach 9.41 to 9.42 and that is correct. But you should have kept
reading:

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, moveable
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 tangible moveable
property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes
attempted on consummated theft or or criminal mischief to the tangible
moveable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that
(A) the third person has requested his protection or 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 [related to the actor].



So far I have not seen either of laws state, "in broad daylight".
Each one has clearly used the words "during the night time".
Joe Horn has therefor violated the law in his act being performed in
the daylight hours.

Joe Horn will never be prosecuted because the news media portrayed him
as a vigilante hero. Then finding 12 honest people who would convict
him is not gonna happen.

richard wrote:



So far I have not seen either of laws state, "in broad daylight".
Each one has clearly used the words "during the night time".
Joe Horn has therefor violated the law in his act being performed in
the daylight hours.

I see how you can get there, but that's not the way laws in general - and
this one in particular - are interpreted.

To review the law(s) state: "(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..."

The above (and similar renditions elsewhere) is decoded to mean one may use
deadly force to prevent:
arson [anytime],
burglary [anytime],
robbery [anytime],
aggravated robbery (Texas-talk for 'armed' robbery) [anytime],
theft during the nighttime [nights only], or
criminal mischief during the nighttime [nights only].

Specific examples: (1) You may NOT use deadly force against a couple of kids
tagging your garage during the DAY. To be allowed the use of deadly force to
suppress criminal mischief, the mischief must be at night. (2) You can't
garrote a horse thief if the offense takes place during the day - you can if
at night.



Joe Horn will never be prosecuted because the news media portrayed him
as a vigilante hero. Then finding 12 honest people who would convict
him is not gonna happen.