Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatech
Believe it or not, intent means nothing if the man did not violate the law.
|
That's just not true...
I'm not so sure:
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or (C)
the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
It was a neighbor, not a spouse, parent, or child. The neighbor didn't reside with the guy, nor was the neighbor under the guy's care. Whether or not he had a "legal" duty to protect the property is, I think, up for debate.
But, that notwithstanding, before the guy was in any threatening position whatsoever, he said he was going to kill them. Not "I might kill them" or "I hope I don't have to kill them, but I will if I have to", but "I'm going to kill them".
Look, I'm about as big a proponent as you're likely to find when it comes to carrying a gun, and/or using a gun to protect your life, the lives of loved ones, or your property. In this case, though, the guy said, before he ever stepped out of his house, that he was going to kill them.
That's gotta' be the very definition of premeditation...