N. Texan indicted in shooting DESPITE 'Castle Doctrine'

[flashl]

Source: Houston Chronicle

DALLAS — A Kaufman County man has been charged for the shooting of a teenager who was walking across his yard with a friend, whose mother was killed in a wreck while driving the teen to the hospital.

W.C. Frosch, 74, was indicted last week on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The felony is punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Frosch was in his home March 1 when he shot Brandon Robinson through a window, striking the 15-year-old under his left arm. Frosch said he believed Brandon and Devin Nalls, 16, were going to break into his home.

The teenagers told officers they had been cutting across yard to go to a property on one side of Frosch's. They ran back to Devin's home, next Frosch's property, after the shooting.

Houston Chronicle

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5815647.html

[pegleg]

1. Kind of a no-brainer. nt

[Xenotime]

55. Exactly. Gun fundies just can't wait to shoot.

I hope that his old ass ain't driving.

[nebenaube]

2. dementia...

I fully support gun-rights. But I disarmed my grandmother.

[Dogtown]

5. That is a nice distinction

I also support gun rights, but not license to murder. There will be more "mistakes" like this until the "pre-emptive" self-defense laws are overturned.



Flame-away: I'm licensed and I sometimes carry, but this law incites violence.
In this murderer's mind, he believed he had a right to shoot this kid. He probably also expected to be seen as a hero.

May the fucking NRA pay for his defense and the wrongful death suit.

[Bake]

8. The victim didn't die; ergo, no wrongful death.

The shooter was charged with aggravated assault. There could be a civil suit for assault and battery.

Bake

[Dogtown]

13. I'll have to recheck

but I believe the report stated the boy's mother died in a car wreck.

Texas does have "felony murder" provisions; any death that results from the commission of a felony, even accidental death, is felony murder and sentences are equivalent to 1st degree murder.

Surely, if this fool can be convicted of murder in the mother's death, there could very well be successful wrongful death litigation.

EDIT: "whose mother was killed in a wreck while driving the teen to the hospital". Apparently the victim's friend's mother was the one killed. A righteous prosecutor would go for felony murder, and plea bargain to negligent homocide due to the geezer's age.

[cstanleytech]

20. Except a good lawyer could argue that the mother

was at fault for not calling an ambulance so I doubt they can get any charges involving her death to stick, course with a jury anything is possible even rulings that are unlikely like that.

[Dogtown]

21. Really, that won't matter

The statutes address that issue, any death connected to the crime is felony murder, the test being; "Would the death have occurred if the felony had not?" Any reasonable person would agree that this woman would be alive if the boy had not been shot.

That evidenciary requirement being met, this guy would have no defense in civil court.

Even if the defendent pleads to negligent homocide, he'd still be liable in civil suit.

[cstanleytech]

23. Oh, yeah they could nail him in civil, juries being influenced

by emotion if the mothers death and all but I am talking criminal court, even if he is convicted it might get thrown out on appeal but we shall see.

[Bake]

22. You can't pin the mother's death on the shooter

The car wreck is an intervening cause. The wreck caused the death, and was not reasonably foreseeable from the shooting.

Bake

[Dogtown]

29. Not by my understanding of felony murder

I'm not a lawyer, but am familiar with several version of these statutes. I think I see what you're saying, but my understanding is that virtually any death that wouldn't have occurred save for the felony of the accused is the responsibility of the accused.

[cstanleytech]

38. I think they generally mean any death

that occured at the time the alleged crime occured or as a direct consequence like say a bullet next to a persons heart eventually drifts enough to kill them which I just dont think would apply here because it
1. occured after the act
2. the mother could have called an ambulance to get her son since he was shot
Sad she died and the old guy sounds like an asshole but I just cant see him being held accountable for her death, the kids shooting sure if there were no signs and or no fencing up to let people know it was off limits.

[bean fidhleir]

43. The prosecution could argue that driving the kid to the hospital was an emergency judgement call

predicated on ambulances being slow to respond to calls from where they live.

[cstanleytech]

47. Yes, there is alot of coulds here. NT

[nachoproblem]

9. I agree with you

I'm not really opposed to guns either, just people's "right" to do any fool thing they want with 'em.

For example a car is also a deadly weapon but requires a liscense, and can be taken away, suspended, etc., but I've never heard anybody gnashing their teeth about the government coming to take away our cars. Granted it's not in the Contitution, but people seem to be satisfied enough with the rights we have in that department, and there isn't this presumption that just anybody should be able to grab one and start tearing around with it.

[sharesunited]

3. Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!

Or I'll fucking kill you!

[mainegreen]

4. 'Despite Castle Doctrine?' How would castle doctrine even apply?

I've read W.C. Frosch's side of the story, and I'm still confused as to how the hell he, or anyone would think castle doctrine would apply.

[Dogtown]

6. They don't read law;

the "title" alone will make them think they can shoot trespassers on sight, many of the most rabid RWers think this is their *right*.

And are quivering at the chance to show how brave they are.

[lonestarnot]

10. arg this truth makes me

:puke: Appalling!

[krispos42]

16. And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use

Of course is so balanced and informative that there is no chance at all it might possibly be misleading people.

And get a clue. Nobody is "quivering" at the chance to shoot people. Stop visiting gunguys.com and their ilk.

[AlbertCat]

26. And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use

Talk about frothing hyperbole.

A gun is a device made for killing other human, or near human-sized animals, right? It's not a car, or a knife, or even a rock. The 1st two have other primary uses and the third is an accidental use if used to kill something. The gun was designed with a specific purpose. To kill.

Now with a car, not meant to kill, you have to prove you can drive it every 4 years and carry proof of that with you if you are using it. And there is an ID number telling who owns and operates what. Why can't we do that with guns? Most gun law advocates suggest even less. But gun nuts go insane when someone trie to just register their toy.

The real problem is this cavalier attitude toward gun and shootings we have in this country. A little frothing hyperbole is needed sometime to get people to remember what a friggin' gun is for sometimes.

[krispos42]

39. Pointing out hyperbole is hyperbole?

<shakes head sadly>

Oy vey.

Now with a car, not meant to kill, you have to prove you can drive it every 4 years and carry proof of that with you if you are using it. And there is an ID number telling who owns and operates what. Why can't we do that with guns? Most gun law advocates suggest even less. But gun nuts go insane when someone trie to just register their toy.

Every gun has a serial number that is recorded whenever it is sold by a federal firearms licencee.

And when you go to posess your gun in public, you also have to get a license to prove that you're qualified to do so and it gets renewed every few years.

But, fine, let's play it your way. Let's make concealed-carry licenses like driver's licenses. They they must be issued immediately upon completion and passage of a written test and practical basic skills demonstration. There is 100% reciprocity between your state and the other 49 in the country. You can carry anywhere in public. And minor violations are dealt with via a court summons and modest fine.


Toy, huh? You'd better get some paper towels. The condescension dripping from your post is starting to puddle.

Tell you what: how about we start registering your toys, starting with that computer you're typing on and the modem you're using to connect to the Internet. I mean, with all the copyright infringement, fraud, theft, vandalism,stalking, and child predation occuring, surely you understand, right?



This continually fascinates me. The exact same bullshit excuses that BushCo gives for warrantless wiretapping and denial of court access all of a sudden become acceptable if it relates to guns

[Dogtown]

27. krispos42

That chip looks precarious.

:eyes:



My carry is a HK P2000SK, 10 shot. Backup is a Beretta Tomcat.

I'm licensed where I reside.

You're the one frothing, and clearly did not really read my post, you just "reacted to what you perceived", which is exactly my point.

If a law suggests to people, especially those that cook-off on half-cock (nudge), that it's ok to kill people *while defending your castle*, some-one will get hurt.

In this instance a boy was wounded, physically and emotionally and a woman was killed.

Is that tragic enough for you?

This isn't a gun-law; it's a killing law. The statute has nothing to do with guns. The law doesn't mention guns, just lethal force.

Now, go away and imagine that your pitbull attitude has us all quaking, or grow up and join in with civility.

BUT, most of all, *read* before you spray spittle all over the screen.

[krispos42]

40. Karl Rove, is that you?

I "reacted to what I perceived"?

You rant about right wing nuts just quivering for a chance to kill somebody, and I'm frothing and spraying spittle?

A tactic worthy of Rove, indeed. Bald-faced lie combined with a complete reversal of truth.

[Dogtown]

44. 2:30 AM and *this*

is the best you can come up with? You've had nearly 12 hours!

Sorry for keeping you up all night thinking...

Or were you just trying to sneak in the last word so you get to win?

"Bald faced lie with a complete reversal of truth"

Syntactical redundancy, my unlearned friend. And so lame to play the association game, "If I fling some mud at him, maybe it'll stick."

Point is, some of your brethren do lust for old-west style fame. Some. Are you saying there are *NO* armed killers in this country?
No more Eric Rudolfs out there?
Not another McVeigh in the whole country?


Guns don't kill folks, krispy. Killers do.

You're a fool, and you don't argue well at all.

[krispos42]

46. I work nights

Hence the delay. Don't flatter yourself.


"Syntactical redundancy"? I think not. A lie does not have to be the reversal of truth. "I didn't due it" when you did do it is a lie. "I didn't do it, you did!" when you did do it and are being faced by an accuser that didn't do it is both a lie and the reversal of truth.

Point is, some of your brethren do lust for old-west style fame.

Yup, doubtless there are a few out there. It's a big country full of people and if you look hard enough you can find just about anybody. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find a left-landed homosexual Muslim orthodontist with a lisp. Doesn't mean that characterizing all orthdontists as lisping gay southpaws who follow the prophet Muhammad is appropriate or honest.

And so lame to play the association game...

<snip>

No more Eric Rudolfs out there?
Not another McVeigh in the whole country?

<cough>

Ahem...

[Dogtown]

48. krispy, you keep picking

at that scab it's going to fester.


In addition to fully reading my posts you need to re-read your own.

In your 1st response to me, you accused me of being an anti-gun nut, even though I'd already qualified my support of the 2nd Amendment. "And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use..."

You also stated unequivocally that "Nobody is "quivering" at the chance to shoot people".

When I pointed out that this is *not* a law concerning guns at all, you turned to the tried and trite tactic of equating me to a republican strategist, an NRA member, BTW. WTF does Karl Rove have to do with this discussion?

I don't want someone stabbed in the neck with a sharp stick in "defense" of the "castle", but you want to shriek about gun laws. "Get a clue" (sound familiar?), this is a law about legalized murder you're trying to justify. It has *nothing* to do with guns.

After panning through the detritus of your last post, this is the only small glint of substance to be found: "Yup, doubtless there are a few out there."
Which is exactly my point.

So, after wasting all that time, we're in agreement. Too bad you can't be a bit more gracious and civil in your surrender. You're like the drunk that name calls the bouncer as he's picking himself up in the alley.

See you around, krispy. You better get some sleep before hitting the clock tonight.

[krispos42]

50. Okay, let's work through this here

Because obviously you need some help with this.


YOU:

6. They don't read law;
the "title" alone will make them think they can shoot trespassers on sight, many of the most rabid RWers think this is their *right*.

And are quivering at the chance to show how brave they are.

ME:

16. And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use
Of course is so balanced and informative that there is no chance at all it might possibly be misleading people.

And get a clue. Nobody is "quivering" at the chance to shoot people. Stop visiting gunguys.com and their ilk.

YOU:

27. krispos42
That chip looks precarious.


:eyes:


My carry is a HK P2000SK, 10 shot. Backup is a Beretta Tomcat.

I'm licensed where I reside.

You're the one frothing, and clearly did not really read my post, you just "reacted to what you perceived", which is exactly my point.

If a law suggests to people, especially those that cook-off on half-cock (nudge), that it's ok to kill people *while defending your castle*, some-one will get hurt.

In this instance a boy was wounded, physically and emotionally and a woman was killed.

Is that tragic enough for you?

This isn't a gun-law; it's a killing law. The statute has nothing to do with guns. The law doesn't mention guns, just lethal force.

Now, go away and imagine that your pitbull attitude has us all quaking, or grow up and join in with civility.

BUT, most of all, *read* before you spray spittle all over the screen.

ME:

40. Karl Rove, is that you?
"reacted to what I perceived"?

You rant about right wing nuts just quivering for a chance to kill somebody, and I'm frothing and spraying spittle?

A tactic worthy of Rove, indeed. Bald-faced lie combined with a complete reversal of truth.

YOU:

44. 2:30 AM and *this*
is the best you can come up with? You've had nearly 12 hours!

Sorry for keeping you up all night thinking...

Or were you just trying to sneak in the last word so you get to win?

"Bald faced lie with a complete reversal of truth"

Syntactical redundancy, my unlearned friend. And so lame to play the association game, "If I fling some mud at him, maybe it'll stick."

Point is, some of your brethren do lust for old-west style fame. Some. Are you saying there are *NO* armed killers in this country?
No more Eric Rudolfs out there?
Not another McVeigh in the whole country?


Guns don't kill folks, krispy. Killers do.

You're a fool, and you don't argue well at all.

ME:

46. I work nights
Hence the delay. Don't flatter yourself.


"Syntactical redundancy"? I think not. A lie does not have to be the reversal of truth. "I didn't due it" when you did do it is a lie. "I didn't do it, you did!" when you did do it and are being faced by an accuser that didn't do it is both a lie and the reversal of truth.

Point is, some of your brethren do lust for old-west style fame.

Yup, doubtless there are a few out there. It's a big country full of people and if you look hard enough you can find just about anybody. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find a left-landed homosexual Muslim orthodontist with a lisp. Doesn't mean that characterizing all orthdontists as lisping gay southpaws who follow the prophet Muhammad is appropriate or honest.


And so lame to play the association game...

<snip>

No more Eric Rudolfs out there?
Not another McVeigh in the whole country?

<cough>

Ahem...

YOU:

48. krispy, you keep picking
at that scab it's going to fester.


In addition to fully reading my posts you need to re-read your own.

In your 1st response to me, you accused me of being an anti-gun nut, even though I'd already qualified my support of the 2nd Amendment. "And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use..."

You also stated unequivocally that "Nobody is "quivering" at the chance to shoot people".

When I pointed out that this is *not* a law concerning guns at all, you turned to the tried and trite tactic of equating me to a republican strategist, an NRA member, BTW. WTF does Karl Rove have to do with this discussion?

I don't want someone stabbed in the neck with a sharp stick in "defense" of the "castle", but you want to shriek about gun laws. "Get a clue" (sound familiar?), this is a law about legalized murder you're trying to justify. It has *nothing* to do with guns.

After panning through the detritus of your last post, this is the only small glint of substance to be found: "Yup, doubtless there are a few out there."
Which is exactly my point.

So, after wasting all that time, we're in agreement. Too bad you can't be a bit more gracious and civil in your surrender. You're like the drunk that name calls the bouncer as he's picking himself up in the alley.

See you around, krispy. You better get some sleep before hitting the clock tonight.

Now that the entire conversation is plainly laid out for all to see, maybe you'll see the error of your ways.

In your 1st response to me, you accused me of being an anti-gun nut, even though I'd already qualified my support of the 2nd Amendment. "And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use..."

No, I never accused you of being an anti-gun person. Hence "And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use..." "The", not "you".

I was talking about the hyperbole that they use. I don't recall ever interacting with you, so I don't know what your political stance is. I DO know that repeating their ridiculous memes and talking points does not help anybody. It does not improve the Dem's position, real or apparant, on guns and gun-control.

You're the one frothing, and clearly did not really read my post, you just "reacted to what you perceived", which is exactly my point.

I clearly did read your post, which contained anti-gun frothy talking points. I reacted to what you said. The fact that you then pretend you didn't say what you said and spin my response as being to something that you didn't say is something I would expect of Faux News.


Then you drop this little gem:

This isn't a gun-law; it's a killing law. The statute has nothing to do with guns. The law doesn't mention guns, just lethal force.

In your response to MY response to you talking about "the 'title' alone will make them think they can shoot trespassers on sight, many of the most rabid RWers think this is their *right*."

You talk about shooting people, I state that it's not productive to repeat anti-gun hyperbole, and you then start talking about how the law is not a gun law! If the issue is about lethal force, which you apparantly claim, then why do you expressly use the word "shoot"?

Your comment was about gun owners quivering to legally shoot and kill somebody, not about the appropriateness of the use of lethal force. In point of fact, I specifically addressed that legal question further downthread in a response to Iverglas' post.

You also stated unequivocally that "Nobody is "quivering" at the chance to shoot people".

So nit-picking is your path to personal victory? Attributing inapproprate levels of precision to a conversation is how you're going to justify this in your own mind? You, the same person who said:

the "title" alone will make them think they can shoot trespassers on sight, many of the most rabid RWers think this is their *right*.

And are quivering at the chance to show how brave they are.

:rofl: at the lameness.

When I pointed out that this is *not* a law concerning guns at all, you turned to the tried and trite tactic of equating me to a republican strategist, an NRA member, BTW. WTF does Karl Rove have to do with this discussion?

You talked about "many" people quivering for a chance to shoot people, which was the point I was discussing, then try to turn it around and say "Hey, this discussion is about lethal force, not guns". And then you continue to act all innocent and confused? Can't imagine where anybody got the idea that you were talking about guns? But you're being unjustly called on something you never ever ever said, and oh by the way the person calling you on it must obviously be a frothing gun nut? Oh, those silly right-wing quivering gun nuts!

Spin, spin, spin.

I don't want someone stabbed in the neck with a sharp stick in "defense" of the "castle", but you want to shriek about gun laws. "Get a clue" (sound familiar?), this is a law about legalized murder you're trying to justify. It has *nothing* to do with guns.

Ah, I see. When you said "the 'title' alone will make them think they can shoot trespassers on sight, many of the most rabid RWers think this is their *right*. And are quivering at the chance to show how brave they are" you obviously meant one of those pointy-stick-shooting guns.

Or perhaps a longbow.

Crossbow?

Double-torsion ballista?

Oh, wait, I'm "unlearned". Forget I said anything about double-torsion ballista.

After panning through the detritus of your last post, this is the only small glint of substance to be found: "Yup, doubtless there are a few out there."
Which is exactly my point.

So, that was your point, huh? And you had to wait until I said it to figure out what your point was? Because lord knows you never said that.

So, after wasting all that time, we're in agreement. Too bad you can't be a bit more gracious and civil in your surrender. You're like the drunk that name calls the bouncer as he's picking himself up in the alley.

You're saying I'm right, but I'm surrending to you?

:rofl:

And you still don't see any Rovian influence here at all?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


And now I'm an unlearned drunk!

[Dogtown]

51. Cut and pasted the entire thread

didn't change anything:

I'm not an anti-gun nut.

The law isn't about guns.

There really are bad folks out there.

This law serves no purpose but to incite violence.



Oh, and you're a waste of bandwidth. So go ahead and get the last word in, and pretend you're not a waste of time.

[krispos42]

52. Yeah, having a programmable keyboard makes this stuff super-easy

Makes revealing mistakes super-easy as well.

[KT2000]

32. Would you have a talk

with my neighbor?
He hears about someone going onto someone else's property (a mentally ill man in the neighborhood) and he gets agitated and says things like "he comes into my property and I'll shoot him! He routinely shoots at the deer and racoons that walk on his property. This is a transplanted Orange County, CA retired superintendent of schools.
There are many unbalanced so-called good citizens who are anxious to use their guns on other people. They listen to hate radio and other sources that support their mental illness and give them the idea that their rights include accomodating their hate and anger.

[krispos42]

41. Sounds like the police need to get involved over unlawful dischages of a weapon

Taking deer out of season is one. Discharging a firearm too close to an occupied structure is another.

Sounds like your neighbor has issues. Is this mentally ill man a threat, or just confused? Your neighbor is putting up an awfully testosterone-fueled front, it sounds like. Maybe dealing with living in the OC has does that to him.

[KT2000]

54. You are right

when I do this it will be the beginning of a serious neighbor war and that is why I have put it off. His boundaries barely exist.

[iverglas]

34. fascinating

And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use
Of course is so balanced and informative that there is no chance at all it might possibly be misleading people

... into ... killing children cutting across their lawns ...

I'm sure you have an anecdote to demonstrate the relevance of your attempt to compare the outcomes of alleged "frothing hyperbole" on the part of "anti-gun people" to obvious outcomes of decades of frothing hyperbole on the part of gun militants.

My favourite frothing comes from way back at the beginning of it -- the beginning of the modern era of racist right-wing gun militancy, that is. That fine Democrat whom Spiro Agnew beat for the governorship of Maryland in 1966,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Mahoney

George P. Mahoney's campaign slogan -- a rallying call to all racists opposed to integrated neighbourhoods and gun control -- was YOUR HOME IS YOUR CASTLE - PROTECT IT! And all the gun-lovin' African-American-hatin' white boys knew exactly what he was talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew

Coming on the heels of the recently-passed federal Fair Housing Act of 1965, Mahoney's campaign embraced the slogan "your home is your castle". Many Democrats opposed to segregation then crossed party lines to give Agnew the governorship by 82,000 votes.

An interesting lesson in how trying to be righter-wing than a Republican doesn't necessarily mean winning.

[KT2000]

24. Yes - it is a mental state

I think they hope and pray someone walks on their lawn. They keep the guns close at hand too.

[Dogtown]

28. HEY!

Don't froth your hyperbole at me!!!

Joking, see the other response to my post. :+


Yes, *some* do, despite the assurances of that other poster. *Some*.

And they feel empowered and actualized by these outrageous anachronistic laws.

:hi:

[Xipe Totec]

7. It doesn't nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. As to the public being confused on what the Castle Doctrine actually is I blame the media

It was being tossed out there as a right to shoot people on your property with impunity by the media. There was so much confusion by some of the people I spoke to I was amazed. I don't support the Castle Doctrine for various reasons. The fact that people have been misled to believe it means they can just go around shooting anyone who sets foot on their property is but one of them.

As for the authorities waiting to file charges and citing the Castle Doctrine; it would appear they should have known it didn't apply after speaking to Mr. Frosch.

[iverglas]

37. here's the truly amazing bit

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc.html

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 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.


§ 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.

Yes, Virginia, in Texas, you really are allowed to kill someone to stop him/her from stealing your DVD player after breaking in the window.

And if you can establish that you reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent someone from committing "criminal mischief during the nighttime" on your property, you can shoot 'em dead.


It's an odd thing for a visitor from the civilized world to discover, but it's true.

[krispos42]

42. Thank you for posting

It is good to have the text of this law to reference in this case.






It appears that in this case the requirement of part 1 and of part 2 of § 9.42 were not met. If the kids were just cutting across his lawn, then it is not reasonable to believe that force is necessary to terminate the trespass. There was no imminent crime, no "arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime". Nor had a crime just occurred.

§ 9.42 says you need all three conditions. The guy only got one, the third.


If I was on the jury I'd convict.

[YankmeCrankme]

45. Of course legalese is always difficult to interpret

Seems to me this law does indeed allow for shooting trespassers if you feel that you are threatened. In this case, criteria 9.41 (a) was meet. For criteria 9.42, section (1) applies (see first criteria) and, since determining danger to oneself and one's property is subjective, 2A is also meet. (B) doesn't apply and 3 A and B could, again depending on the subjective determination of the individual.

He stated that he feared for his safety when they entered his property. Now, whether that was reasonable is what a jury/judge would decide, but nonetheless, this law applies. Granted his position is weak, but well within the boundaries of this law as you have posted.

[rocktivity]

11. This is why you should call an ambulance instead of driving to the hospital in a panic...

Devin's mother, June Nalls, 41, was driving them to the hospital when another vehicle crossed the center line and struck the truck they were in head-on, police said. June Nalls was killed; her son Devin and Brandon survived.

Oh.

:(
rocknation

[armodem08]

14. Maybe they couldn't afford an ambulance...

[rocktivity]

18. The mother probably didn't even think about that

she probably just calculated that she could get him to the hospital faster herself. Which is why I jumped to the conclusion that in her panic, she had caused the accident.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Paladin]

35. Quit Blaming The Victim (n/t)

[damntexdem]

15. I was surprised, even though it was clear that the teens in no way threatened the home.

Now we'll see whether a N. Texas jury will convict.

[depakid]

17. "we'll see whether a N. Texas jury will convict."

I rather doubt it- though the case does come with some pretty bad facts.

Bottom line is that I expect to see a LOT more of this as the economy contracts in the post cheap oil era.

[KansDem]

19. Man! And I think of all the times I've cut across lawns when I was growing up...

I could've been shot many, many times! :scared:

[McCamy Taylor]

25. This happened because they no-billed the old man who killed the man on his property in Houston.

It gave all elderly men the green light to shoot anyone on their property in Texas--and it was just a matter of time before one of those people was a minor.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

30. What did the moron legislators in Texas expect?

This is something that was bound to happen. It is a state law that, for the weak-minded with itchy trigger fingers, creates the impression that they just got their "00" license. Now, there is a good chance that the law was not intended for such cavalier and wreckless use of firearms, but name 5 people you know who read the laws? No, they get their legal advice from relatives, friends, the drunk next to them at the bar...anyone but a lawyer. That is because, as we all know, most people hate lawyers and figure they don't know nothing anyway and are gonna just rob them blind.

If you doubt this, talk to a lawyer or judge who has dealt with a pro se case in court. Some mighty creative and, might we say, reality-challenged interpretations of the law are offered before the bar in pro se cases.

Because of the aggressive ignorance of the modern American, "Castle Laws" are doomed to cause situations like the above or worse, until they are repealed. Not because they are, in and of themselves bad, but because there are too many Americans who are just too actively and aggressively pig-stupid to find out what the laws are, rather than what they think they are or were told what they are by their sister-in-law's third cousin's husband, who knew a cop once and watches "Court TV".

[ManiacJoe]

31. A link to the other side of the story.

http://metrocolumnistsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/mr-frosch-responds.html

[crim son]

33. Thanks for posting that.

It's apparent the shooting was still wrongful. We are fenced or treeed in at our place (one acre property). Behind us is a park edged by trees and shrubs. People walk through the park, through the trees and through our back yard, cutting past our back door (the one we use)and garage as they do so. By this man's reckoning, I'd be justified in shooting one of these kids/bums/homeless people. I don't think so.

[Paladin]

36. Mr. Frosch Isn't The Sharpest Pencil In The Drawer, Is He?

First, he determines that the proper penalty for a kid walking across his yard at night is death. He then shoots and (by the grace of God) only wounds one of the kids, leading directly to the unspeakable tragedy of a parent being killed in a car wreck. Then, he decides to go public, spewing his "other side of the story," which does nothing but confirm how stupid and unjustified his actions were. I hope he pays for this, big time, but he may get away with it---and I'll wager that there are some on this thread who will be glad if he does.....

[bean fidhleir]

49. According to him, Brandon was at his door and the Devon was somewhere else

If you're one 70ish guy, and you can't be in two places at once, and you're aware that you're no longer strong or fast - certainly not compared to men in their teens or 20s - and you have strong suspicions about the behavior of men who've no business being where they were at the time they were there (why didn't they both come to the door, if their intentions were innocent?) what would you do?

[Wcross]

53. Clearly the old guy was not justified in shooting.

At the point he shot the kid his life was not in danger. If he had shot as the kids were attempting to enter it would be justifiable. I have had armed trespassers on my property late at night & I did not feel justified shooting them. I did however feel justified arming myself when I went outside to ask them to leave.