Papa Johns Pizza Employee Acquitted of Involuntary Manslaughter
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I'm liking this...A LOT!
SSN Vet
Member
Sorry.... but I do check my facts and you sir are wrong...
In Maine, the law specifically authorizes deadly force to prevent arson or criminal trespass... you have to give them a command to stop... but if they do not immediately comply, deadly force is legal.
§104. Use of force in defense of premises
....
3. A person in possession or control of a dwelling place or a person who is licensed or privileged to be therein is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
A. Under the circumstances enumerated in section 108; or [PL 1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW).]
B. When the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other person, who the person reasonably believes:
(1) Has entered or is attempting to enter the dwelling place or has surreptitiously remained within the dwelling place without a license or privilege to do so; and
(2) Is committing or is likely to commit some other crime within the dwelling place. [PL 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).]
[PL 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).]
4. A person may use deadly force under subsection 3, paragraph B only if the person first demands the person against whom such deadly force is to be used to terminate the criminal trespass and the trespasser fails to immediately comply with the demand, unless the person reasonably believes that it would be dangerous to the person or a 3rd person to make the demand.
One more time--arson and criminal trespass are NOT theft.
To use deadly force to prevent or terminate criminal trespass because the actor believes that the trespasser would otherwise commit theft or some other crime might be something else again.
Here's the rub: it would certainly not apply to someone who had trespassed, but was leaving with loot in hand.
Have you researched the case law, or read the jury instructions?
I wouldn't want to try it. Someone else will decide the reasonableness of the act, afterwards. Even if the actor dodges the bullet, so to speak, he will likely be out far more that the value of everything in the house that could be carried by a trespasser.
bdickens
Member
Joe Horn.
SSN Vet
Member
I do check my facts... and you sir are wrong.
Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
Part 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Chapter 5: DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; JUSTIFICATION
§104. Use of force in defense of premises
1. A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using nondeadly force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises.
[PL 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).]
2. A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using deadly force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent an attempt by the other person to commit arson.
[PL 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).]
3. A person in possession or control of a dwelling place or a person who is licensed or privileged to be therein is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
A. Under the circumstances enumerated in section 108; or [PL 1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW).]
B. When the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other person, who the person reasonably believes:
(1) Has entered or is attempting to enter the dwelling place or has surreptitiously remained within the dwelling place without a license or privilege to do so; and
(2) Is committing or is likely to commit some other crime within the dwelling place. [PL 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).]
[PL 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).]
4. A person may use deadly force under subsection 3, paragraph B only if the person first demands the person against whom such deadly force is to be used to terminate the criminal trespass and the trespasser fails to immediately comply with the demand, unless the person reasonably believes that it would be dangerous to the person or a 3rd person to make the demand.
[PL 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).]
5. As used in this section:
A. Dwelling place has the same meaning provided in section 2, subsection 10; and [PL 1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW).]
B. Premises includes, but is not limited to, lands, private ways and any buildings or structures thereon.
Joe Horn shot and killed, believing that he was justified under Texas code Section 9.42 (Defense of Property), and he was charged. A witness testified that he had fired in self defense. He was not indicted, but he was ruined.
You repeated yourself...saying nothing new.
You had said that the law in Maine allows the use of deadly force to prevents theft.
I explained why the code section that you linked does not so permit, if someone has trespassed and is leaving with loot in hand.
You have not tried to explain why you disagree.
This is why our forum rules sticky contains the following:
"...trying to interpret a particular law in isolation by using lay dictionary definitions can lead to erroneous conclusions. Case law—decisions rendered by high courts in the interpretation of the laws—and relationships among other pertinent laws and constitutional principles can have as much to do with the real meaning of the law as the words in a single statute.
"For this reason, we strongly discourage the rote cutting and pasting into posts of state legal codes to support one’s position in a discussion here, and we advise against the reliance on same to justify the lawfulness of a particular course of action.
"Such reliance is particularly dangerous when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force."
"For this reason, we strongly discourage the rote cutting and pasting into posts of state legal codes to support one’s position in a discussion here, and we advise against the reliance on same to justify the lawfulness of a particular course of action.
"Such reliance is particularly dangerous when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force."
Now, what about the case law and jury instructions?
bdickens
Member
[Emphasis added]
All due respect, you don't seem to be very familiar with the Texas landscape. This happened in Harris County. While not as liberal as Travis, it's still not Waller or Ft. Bend either.
For perspective, Texas had for decades allowed one to carry a handgun in one's car while "traveling" without defining what that was, creating much confusion. In 2005, the legislature finally clarified that by changing the law so that you were presumed to be traveling if you were not otherwise breaking the law.
Harris County was one of several jurisdictions where the DA did not seem to understand English and stated that they would prosecute anyway. In response, the Legislature completely removed any reference to "traveling" in the law during the following session (2007), changing it so that in essence, if it's legal for you to have the handgun, it's legal for you to carry it in your car.
Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the media. Despite all the protesting and activism by Quanell the Tenth and others. Despite all the surety in the gun community that Mr. Horn was going to end up in prison. Harris County was the environment in which a Grand Jury no-billed Joe Horn.
WE WERE ALL SURE HE WAS GOING TO PRISON. But he didn't even get indicted.
Perhaps this too is a good illustration of how one can't rely merely on the black letter of the law.
Also a good illustration of why your question should not be "can I" but "should I" shoot.
The Grand Jury deliberations per se were, of course confidential, but are you aware of the one piece of testimony, and of its source, that established a basis for legal justification?
Horn believed, without establishing the prerequisites, that he was justified in using deadly force to protect his neighbor's property. But the Grand Jury was given testimony that made that irrelevant.
bdickens
Member
Would you be referring to the neighbor in question who said he had asked Mr. Horn to keep an eye on his place?
I am referring to the neighbor whose alleged request could not be shown to have been made before the incident.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
