# And why you need to know the laws of self defense



## Deaf Smith (Jul 22, 2009)

"Authorities say when Terry Graham returned home to his farm, there was a car he didn't recognize. The door to his home had been kicked open. That's when he and a ranch-hand found Josh Chambers. At the time, Chambers was an alleged cocaine addict on probation for a previous burglary. Chambers was able to make it to his car outside of Graham's home with a stolen bag packed with cash, guns and a bottle of alcohol. But, Chambers would not make it out of the driveway alive."

The owner shot the thief in the head. DRT right there.

Now in Texas, with the Castle Doctrine, if someone is inside your house you are presumed in danger and can use lethal force. *The bad guy and his relatives cannot sue.* BUT, outside your house it ain't like that. Now you can use lethal force to retreive property you feel cannot be retreived any way else. BUT.. again, you still can be sued for 'wrongful death'. In this case below, the owner is being sued for just that!

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10765354

Notice the "ex-wife's" lawyer is saying all kinds of awful things about the owner and how the poor old crack head didn't need killing. Like, "There's no death penalty in Texas for burglary or for being a drug addict". 

Just to let you guys know and understand that while I'm actually in favor of protecting property as needed, you can still get your self in a world of hurt.

I'll keep on this trail and see just how it ends, then post it here.

Deaf


----------



## David43515 (Jul 23, 2009)

That`s the first time I`ve heard of a law that allowed leathal force to retrieve property. Must be a hold over from the days when law enforcement could literally be hours away and people`s livlihood for the year depended on one harvest or one sale of cattle.

I`ll be interested to see how this turns out.


----------



## Carol (Jul 23, 2009)

Apparently Graham isn't sticking to his "I shot him to retrieve my property" story:



> Contention came from determining whether Chambers was trying to flee in his white Ford Taurus or trying to run Graham over. When Crawford asked Graham why he shot Chambers as he was driving away, Graham said, "I wanted him stopped; I wanted him arrested; and I wanted my property back."
> 
> 
> Graham said when asked the same question later on, "I was afraid of my life and the life of my employee."


http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090723/NEWS08/907220352


----------



## blackxpress (Jul 23, 2009)

It's very simple.  If the bad guy is trying to run away, let him go.  If he's threatening you with bodily harm and you kill him, it's justifiable homicide.  If he's running away with your valuables and you kill him, it's murder.  Never mind that he was "a poor old crack head."  We cannot tolerate a society where private citizens are allowed to decide for themselves who does and who does not need killing.  It's just a small step from vigilanteism to outright anarchy.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 23, 2009)

Another reflection of how personal responsibility has gone out the window... I believe life is precious, but I also feel like Captain Crackhead brought this on himself. 

That being said, it's extremely important to know what repercussions you may face as a result of your own actions. Training for self-defense is more than just learning a krotty-chop. It's being aware of what's happening in your community and what the law says in regards to self-defense. 

Good luck to Mr. Graham.


----------



## still learning (Jul 23, 2009)

Hello, First thing to remember here?  ...Man make the laws..man is NOT perfect..therefore we will have imperfect laws..

2nd, Common sense has NOTHING to do with laws made by man..

3rd...why we NEED lawyers...the way the laws are written can be interpedated many ways...one comma, one period...can change what it means.....MAN IS NOT PERFECT HERE!

Each State has there own laws regarding what happens above...impossible to know the laws for every situtions...which will be different each time...

WHAT THING YOU WILL NOTICE:   da laws protect the guilty more than the innocence's..

One reason why America is falling apart...MOffied? is going to a special prison..WHY?  

YES!  one needs to know the laws...just that there is many interpetations of each one....THAT'S WHY WE NEED LAWYERS...like OJ's

Aloha,   

Here is a case the innocence person is been made guilty...while the guilty person is innocence until proven guilty...

THERE IS" no" COMMON SENSE IN MANMADE LAWS....


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 23, 2009)

David43515 said:


> That`s the first time I`ve heard of a law that allowed leathal force to retrieve property. Must be a hold over from the days when law enforcement could literally be hours away and people`s livlihood for the year depended on one harvest or one sale of cattle.
> 
> I`ll be interested to see how this turns out.


 
Actually David it's a rather NEW part of the law.

§ 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.

*BUT WHEN YOU DO THIS.....*

§ 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED.  The fact that conduct 
is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any 
remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

And thus 'wrongful death' suits. That does not mean the suit will be sucessful, but they can try to sue you.

Deaf


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 23, 2009)

More on the trial. The poor ex-wife says he was not a violent man... but when she divorced him she stated he was a 'unpredictable and violent man'. Ops.....

http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090723/NEWS08/907220350/0/FRONTPAGE


Ex-Wife Testifies In Wrongful Death Case

By REGIS L. ROBERTS
Staff Writer

"Amanda Whitsell Wednesday testified that her former husband, Joshua Chambers, was not a violent man.


However, in a petition for divorce filed by Mrs. Whitsell against her husband she described him as unpredictable and violent."

.
.
.
.
"When Crawford asked her to explain the difference between the two statements regarding Chambers' capacity for violence, Mrs. Whitsell said, "At the time I signed that, I believed it to be true," and that she was fearful that he could be violent.


Judge Randall Lee Rogers excused the jury and reminded Mrs. Whitsell that *she had a Constitutional right not to incriminate herself by saying things that may be used against her in perjury charges*."


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 23, 2009)

And more...

http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090723/NEWS08/907220352/0/FRONTPAGE

"Contention came from determining whether Chambers was trying to flee in his white Ford Taurus or trying to run Graham over. When Crawford asked Graham why he shot Chambers as he was driving away, Graham said,* "I wanted him stopped; I wanted him arrested; and I wanted my property back."
*

Graham said when asked the same question later on, "*I was afraid of my life and the life of my employee."*


He was referring to Guy Osborn, whom Graham employed as a ranch hand on his property in Bullard."

Now this is one reason after you are involved in a shooting, YOU SHUT UP TILL YOU TALK TO A LAWYER. I have no doubt he was very upset and shocked. He could have shot the thief for many reasons, both to get his property back AND to keep him from running over his employee.

But by blabbing away at the first opportunity, he got himself into a world of trouble.

Deaf


----------



## grydth (Jul 23, 2009)

Hopefully the jury will be instructed on nominal damages and will award the plaintiffs exactly $1.

This concept of nominal damages is an excellent antidote to xxx who abuse the legal system. A prominent case I know of is where the malodorous ex prof Ward Churchill sued his former university and recovered exactly $1 from the jury. If there were more 1$ verdicts instead of making jerks instant millionaires, you'd see the tide of bogus lawsuits recede in a hurry.


----------



## cdhall (Jul 23, 2009)

I just found this thread and I haven't read all the links... but I live in Texas and I'm a Pre-Paid Legal member and an Independent Associate as some of you may know.

Contact me directly if you want to look at my services.

But... I had a guy come into my driveway, steaming mad, interrupt me while I was on my cordless phone with my sister and demand that I pay for his sons baseball glove. He threatened to hit me at least twice.

I waited for an opportunity and an excuse to TRASH him but I wanted him to make the first move. 

Apparently, he was really intimidated by my complete lack of fear and he left. He yelled a threat to me again from the end of my block. I was going out of my way to ask him what he wanted me to do and why, so I could not be seen to be instigating anything. 

I filed a Police Report when he left then I called my attorney. I can't give legal advice but I can relate some of what I was told.

My attorney told me, based on my circumstances, how and when I could indeed us either Lethal Force and/or a Pre-Emptive Strike.  He told me where to download the law from the Internet. I kept notes, I have a copy of the law.

It didn't cost me any money beyond my monthly membership fee to clarify this issue. I got advice, I have a copy of the Penal Code in my house. I know my rights and that gives me peace of mind. Like I said, you can contact me if you want info on what services I offer. I won't post a link here but I can give you a link to a description of how we help with legal issues like this and Identity Theft which is worse. ID Theft is like Ninja tactics. They want to harm you anonymously and of course a good ID Thief may never be caught. A bad ID Thief may never be caught. But you can still protect yourself.

So Amen. Know your rights. As we say at Pre-Paid, "If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

As it turns out, the Holy Spirit spared that guy's life. My son got mad at me for not wiping him out, but that was All Kenpo, All The Time. I had no fear and the guy marched home and no one got hurt. That was a win. That was one of our most valuable Martial Arts lessons. I think it is the first time I have used that lesson.

I may come back to read the rest of this and post again but I mostly wanted to echo the point that it is Good to know your rights and that the quote about "fear for my life" may be related to the Castle Doctrine. 
:yoda:


----------



## Joab (Jul 23, 2009)

Well, he likely talked with an attorney before he made the second statement, because self defense would have been the only defense, and the threat would have to be life threatening to use lethal force. Personally, I hope no jury convicts tha man, a crack addict with guns, whoa, were looking at something that could have lead to far more loss of lives. I hope the jury sees it my way.

But your right, its good to know your local self defense laws very well, I always research them when I move to a new area.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2009)

David43515 said:


> That`s the first time I`ve heard of a law that allowed leathal force to retrieve property. Must be a hold over from the days when law enforcement could literally be hours away and people`s livlihood for the year depended on one harvest or one sale of cattle.
> 
> I`ll be interested to see how this turns out.


 
In some parts of this country law enforcement is STILL hours away.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2009)

blackxpress said:


> It's very simple.  If the bad guy is trying to run away, let him go.  If he's threatening you with bodily harm and you kill him, it's justifiable homicide.  If he's running away with your valuables and you kill him, it's murder.  Never mind that he was "a poor old crack head."  We cannot tolerate a society where private citizens are allowed to decide for themselves who does and who does not need killing.  It's just a small step from vigilanteism to outright anarchy.



Isn't killing in self-defense STILL deciding 'who does and does not need killing'?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> More on the trial. The poor ex-wife says he was not a violent man... but when she divorced him she stated he was a 'unpredictable and violent man'. Ops.....
> 
> http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090723/NEWS08/907220350/0/FRONTPAGE
> 
> ...



Hey, DARN IT, the ex-wife needs some MONEY!  The best thing crackboy ever did for her was getting shot by someone with a little money!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2009)

grydth said:


> Hopefully the jury will be instructed on nominal damages and will award the plaintiffs exactly $1.
> 
> This concept of nominal damages is an excellent antidote to xxx who abuse the legal system. A prominent case I know of is where the malodorous ex prof Ward Churchill sued his former university and recovered exactly $1 from the jury. If there were more 1$ verdicts instead of making jerks instant millionaires, you'd see the tide of bogus lawsuits recede in a hurry.



Absolutely.......and this IS still Texas.....my guess is the jury will probably come back with a finding for the homeowner, and ex-wifey won't even get her $1.


----------



## blackxpress (Jul 24, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Isn't killing in self-defense STILL deciding 'who does and does not need killing'?



Yes, I suppose you're right.  But in the case of self-defense you're not making a value judgment.  You're not killing him because he's a worthless crackhead but because he's going to kill you if you don't kill him first.


----------



## still learning (Jul 24, 2009)

Hello, Laws are made by MAN....Lawyers are good at making great interpetations....to reflect judgements...

Common Sense and Fairness...Plays NO part in written laws....

She could win it ALL...$$$$

Aloha,


----------



## BLACK LION (Jul 24, 2009)

Should have aimed for the feet or knees.


----------



## Frostbite (Jul 24, 2009)

As much as I disagree with him being sued over this, I honestly can't think of anything I own that's worth killing someone over.  I just can't picture myself living with someone's death on my shoulders so I can continue to play Xbox.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2009)

Frostbite said:


> As much as I disagree with him being sued over this, I honestly can't think of anything I own that's worth killing someone over.  I just can't picture myself living with someone's death on my shoulders so I can continue to play Xbox.



That's because you have the wrong perspective........what someone ELSE should ask is whether I own anything they are willing to DIE over........because the decision is REALLY theirs.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2009)

blackxpress said:


> Yes, I suppose you're right.  But in the case of self-defense you're not making a value judgment.  You're not killing him because he's a worthless crackhead but because he's going to kill you if you don't kill him first.


True, though shooting him to prevent you losing your property isn't really a value judgment in that sense either......it's just preventing the loss of your property.

The decision about whether a piece of my property is worth dying for originally lay with the man who is contemplating stealing it......stealing is STILL an intentional act, and quite frankly a man can prevent be shot under such circumstances simply enough.

I know the modern moral view is that property isn't worth life.......by my own moral view is a bit different......it's HIS life and MY property....and the decision to trade one for the other originally rests with him.....legally that's a different story, and I will always obey the law of the land, but morally I don't have a real issue with this situation.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Should have aimed for the feet or knees.


Then he'd be suing injury and probably collect a disability check from the government.

Ultimately I know it's not morally or politically correct to declare that society is, in sum, better off by a small margin today than while this guy was still alive.....but it is what it is........like a drop of chlorine in the gene pool.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jul 24, 2009)

True. 

That's simple personal responsibility; a concept that's been overlooked for way too long. 

Sure, life is precious; especially your own. That's why you should think long and hard before doing something you know you shouldn't be doing. Like stealing. 

If you freely choose to do wrong to another, then you must accept that you freely choose the consequences of that action. You must also accept that by doing wrong to another that they will most likely not be happy about it and reciprocate in a negative manner; perhaps violently causing you bodily harm or worse. 

Put simply, if you do wrong to somebody and you get your butt handed to you as a result then you got what you asked for; deservedly so.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> True.
> 
> That's simple personal responsibility; a concept that's been overlooked for way too long.
> 
> ...



Moral and natural consequences........


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 24, 2009)

*NOT GUILTY!*

http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090724/NEWS08/307249998

Jury Rules For Homeowner In Wrongful Death Case

By REGIS L. ROBERTS
Staff Writer

A verdict in the favor of Terry Graham was handed down Thursday by the jury in the wrongful death lawsuit against him.

***

And guys, Massad Ayoob testified for the defense!

Deaf


----------



## still learning (Jul 24, 2009)

Hello,  It would be nice to know the background of the thief?

I am sure it was NOT his first time in crime....mostly likely release many times out of prison...

Most crimes are REPEAT OFFENDERS....and they know the risk of stealing....Aloha


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> *NOT GUILTY!*
> 
> http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090724/NEWS08/307249998
> 
> ...


 Massad Ayoob often testifies in self-defense cases......he is a subject matter expert.  I imagine his testimony helped sway the jury.  

I knew Texans wouldn't give this gal any money for a dead crackhead burglar!


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 25, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> *NOT GUILTY!*
> 
> http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090724/NEWS08/307249998
> 
> ...


 
HOOah!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 25, 2009)

If you want to hear Ayoob's take on this case:


http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=368776

He is a TFL member.

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2009)

> This was not a strict "shoot to protect property" incident, despite the plaintiff's unsuccessful attempts to make it appear so.
> 
> At the time of his death, Josh Chambers had two loaded, stolen pistols in his possession in the front seat of his vehicle. He had been seen by two of the witnesses to make a furtive reach toward the bag containing those pistols as he moved from the house to his vehicle. He was now accelerating his vehicle toward Mr. Graham. All three witnesses stated that at the last moment, Graham stepped to the side to escape being hit and almost simultaneously fired the single shot, which passed through the open driver's window and killed Chambers. Distance was four feet, from muzzle to head. Evidence at the scene confirms this unanimous account.
> 
> It was a shooting in defense of life" Mas Ayoob



Excellent insight, and definitely a more revealing account than in the media account........that's why one can NEVER base their assessment of a case solely on the media version of events.


----------



## Guardian (Jul 26, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Should have aimed for the feet or knees.


 

Oh heck no, then you make him a cripple and he wins allot of money for being disabled from their on our and society pays for all the rest of his care for the rest of his life.  No thank you, just shoot him dead and make the ex-wife work for it.


----------



## David43515 (Jul 26, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Should have aimed for the feet or knees.


 
I`ve gotta disagree. Shoot to wound is nice on paper, but a wounded man can still kill you. If you have to shoot, you don`t do so with the idea to wound or to kill. You do it with the intention to stop them immedietley right where they are.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 26, 2009)

Black Lion,

Here is why one does not shoot for feet or knees, or shoot guns out of their hands, or even give warning shots (and to all readers, this is vintage Ayoob advice.)

When you shoot for a appendage the bullet can miss the smaller target COM (Center of Mass) presents. The bullet can not only miss and hit someone else, but even if it hits, it can overpenitrate and hit someone else. And their is no guarantee and leg shot will stop the other person from hurting you or others.

The same goes for shooting a gun out of someones hand. That's even harder. Plus the shot might hit the gun itself and the bullet ricochet off the weapon and strike another person.

Warning shots can even be more dangerous. The bullet may very well travel a mile and if at a shallow angle, hit with enough force to kill. Plus the other person, seeing you shoot, might shoot back!

All in all, one shoots to stop the attack. And that is why COM is the most used aiming point for LEOs and civilians to.

Deaf


----------



## still learning (Jul 27, 2009)

Hello, For those who use guns...know exactly how hard to hit or wound someone in the right place...

Tarket practice and training...like in martial arts training...when it is happening for real....adrenline...real actions...NOT the same!

The body will not always be in a relaxation and slow and clear thinking...

Things are happen real fast...and he reacted the way he felt at the time...maybe next time he will shoot in the air...and kill someone else with the fallen bullet instead?

This is a true case of "judge by twelve...instead of buried by six"

Aloha,


----------



## rdonovan1 (Aug 8, 2009)

cdhall said:


> I just found this thread and I haven't read all the links... but I live in Texas and I'm a Pre-Paid Legal member and an Independent Associate as some of you may know.
> 
> Contact me directly if you want to look at my services.
> 
> ...


 
I think that is so cool that you are a PPL member and associate. I myself am one as well. My father is an attorney and he is the one that got me into PPL as a member a long time ago. 

I got into being an independent representative last year, but have so far not been able to get anyone interested in it as of yet.

I'm still working on it though.


----------

