First, let me say that I don't think this killing was justified, either. But I think Texas law might have a different opinion.
As I understand Texas law, a person is justified in using force when the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself. The belief is reasonable if the homeowner did not provoke the intruder and the intruder is attempting to enter one's house with force. The homeowner is not required to wait until the intruder has him by the throat. The homeowner is not required to attempt to retreat. That's what the law says, not just my opinion of what's justified.
The circumstances of this case as reported in the press -- a man yelling and kicking at your door at 4:00 AM, you yelling at him to leave, him continuing to attempt to gain entrance to your house -- certainly sound like the homeowner was reasonable in feeling that force was immediately necessary to protect himself and his wife. Later we learn that the intruder had been drinking and had recently suffered hallucinations and had just beaten his wife who had locked him out of his own home. Even though the homeowner couldn't have known all that at the time, those facts are consistent with the theory that the homeowner was reasonable in fearing this intruder.
I expected Trey Garrison to side with the homeowner. If the intruder turned out to be some unknown drunken madman, instead of a drunken madman minor celebrity, I wonder if Mr Garrison would be so critical of the homeowner's deadly judgment in the middle of the night.
5 comments:
Ed, I didn't know Carter nor do I care about his local celebrity. The homeowner violated three rules of shooting -- two the prime safety rules, one a tenant of Texas self-defense law.
1) Do not shoot unless you know what you're shooting at.
2) Do not shoot unless you know what is behind what you are shooting at.
3) Under Texas law, you shoot to stop a threat. You do not shoot to wound, to kill or to warn.
Get your shit straight, Ed.
According to an AP report, "Sgt. Larry Lewis said Dallas police aren't pursuing charges. ... 'In an incident like that you're well within your rights under the old law, as well as the new one, to use deadly force,' Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins said."
We'll see soon enough see whether a grand jury agrees with the police and the district attorney or with Trey Garrison. But thanks for the explanation of your own position, Mr Garrison.
If the dead man had been a homeless black guy hopped up on PCP, Trey Garrison wouldn't even have noticed.
On second thought, he might even have approved.
Although I can't remember Mr Garrison ever agreeing with claims of victimization for anything that ever happened to a "homeless black guy hopped up on PCP," we'll never know how Mr Garrison would have reacted to this case if different actors had been involved. Mr Garrison himself claims the identity of the actors did not influence his opinion. He didn't back down from his claim that the homeowner was "grossly - and likely criminally - responsible," even in the face of differing opinions from, not only me, but the police and district attorney. I remain surprised by his position on this matter, which appears contrary to law, a law which I believe Mr Garrison supports.
Post a Comment