• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas boy, 7, dies after shot in mistaken trespass

WillRockwell

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
387
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
HOUSTON - A 7-year-old boy who was allegedly shot in the head by a couple who thought he and three other people were trespassing on their property died Saturday, authorities said.

Donald Coffey Jr. died Saturday morning at a Houston hospital, less than two days after the boy was struck in the head by shotgun pellets, Liberty County Sheriff's Cpl. Hugh Bishop said.
Texas boy, 7, dies after shot in mistaken trespass | AP | 05/09/2009

Hey, kid's parents should have known better, right?
 
If the levee was not owned by the couple shooting - then its murder.

If they were indeed on private property, stupid parents for offroading in an area with a sign about trespassing.
 
I'm still not sure whether trespassing has been established, however the actions the couple took were most certainly premature, since it doesn't appear they were theatened. Looks like the charges are correct.
 
I'm still not sure whether trespassing has been established, however the actions the couple took were most certainly premature, since it doesn't appear they were theatened. Looks like the charges are correct.


And yet, if the kid had stepped across the property line, under Texas law the killing would be considered justified, correct?
 
And yet, if the kid had stepped across the property line, under Texas law the killing would be considered justified, correct?




uhm please point out in texas code where this would be considered "justified" you know to shoot a 7 year old....


speculation does not cut it.
 
And yet, if the kid had stepped across the property line, under Texas law the killing would be considered justified, correct?
Not necessarily.
 
And yet, if the kid had stepped across the property line, under Texas law the killing would be considered justified, correct?
Google Texas Castle Doctrine and read how incorrect you are.

In 2007, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378, aka "Texas Castle Law" or "Texas Castle Doctrine", which allows for the use of deadly force when someone is illegally entering one's home, vehicle, place of business, or place of employment. Specifically, Texas Penal Code Chapter 9 Section 31 was amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the 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 aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
The kid was 7 and riding with his parents. He wasn't doing anything unlawfully. Force was not being used.

Texas laws are posted online for all to read. Simply go to Texas Legislature Online and do the research.
 
46802727.jpg



It does look like they've had some long years in them.

And because this happened in Texas.. (their murder of this 7 year old boy).. they'll fry for it. And they should, they give responsible gun owners a ****ty name.
 
46802727.jpg



It does look like they've had some long years in them.

And because this happened in Texas.. (their murder of this 7 year old boy).. they'll fry for it. And they should, they give responsible gun owners a ****ty name.
So if they looked like Ward and June Cleaver, it'd be okay right? The law doesn't judge people by their looks.
 
This kind of story makes me angry.

I know it's an enshrined right in a lot of places to shoot first and ask questions later, but even if the kid was on private property, how would this constitute self-defense?
 
So if they looked like Ward and June Cleaver, it'd be okay right? The law doesn't judge people by their looks.

I was simply commenting on the fact that it looks like they're meth addicts.

gg though.
 
These people may have had a history of people riding around on their property without permission. I'm not defending their actions, which appear clearly wrong in this case. Just saying.
 
These people may have had a history of people riding around on their property without permission. I'm not defending their actions, which appear clearly wrong in this case. Just saying.

Could be, but it's up to the shooter to assess a situation and make a decision to pull the trigger.

There are much better ways to deal with kids trespassing on your property than to go shooting a shotgun at them willy nilly. :(
 
260xStory.jpg



The sign says it all.
 
The whole ordeal is messed up, but the part about smiling, that's even more wacked. :shock:
 
So if they looked like Ward and June Cleaver, it'd be okay right? The law doesn't judge people by their looks.
There are only three facts that matter:

  1. The child was not on their property.
  2. The child was not violating any law.
  3. They intentionally fired on the child.
 
I'm still not sure whether trespassing has been established, however the actions the couple took were most certainly premature, since it doesn't appear they were theatened. Looks like the charges are correct.
In TX, you may kill in self-sefense to protect property (even of a third person) absent a direct threat to your life.
 
In TX, you may kill in self-sefense to protect property (even of a third person) absent a direct threat to your life.


I do not see that in Celtic's helpful quote of Texas law. Can you show otherwise?
 
Oh, you refuse to respond to any question until I contribute to your assault weapon thread?
Actually, its YOUR 'assault weapon' thread -- odd that you wont defend your position.

OK - not really...
 
Last edited:
I do not see that in Celtic's helpful quote of Texas law. Can you show otherwise?
And, the reason you do not see it in his helpful quote of TX law is because you didnt bother to look at the link he posted. Had you done that...

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Your thanks is accepted.
 
Back
Top Bottom