And, when he ignored her, she hot him dead.
The Castle Law gives greater right to kill people who invade your home. Did Officer Guyger have those liberties in mind when she pulled the trigger? Was she thinking, if this person is in my home, then I have the right to kill him?
The Castle Law might not be as liberal as it is in many states, and I do not know if Officer Guyger even was justified under the Texas version of the law. But, I see great dangers in such laws.
I read the Texas law a little, but not enough to come up with an answer as to whether the Texas version of the law gave her the right to kill if in her own home. Here's a portion of that law:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person | ||
is justified in using deadly force against another: | ||
(1) if the actor [ | ||
against the other under Section 9.31; and | ||
(2) [ | ||
[ | ||
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: | ||
(A) to protect the actor [ | ||
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or | ||
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of | ||
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual | ||
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. | ||
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the | ||
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that | ||
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: | ||
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person | ||
against whom the deadly force was used: | ||
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was | ||
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied | ||
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; | ||
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was | ||
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the | ||
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or | ||
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an | ||
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); |
No comments:
Post a Comment