« Roni Deutch -- scammer or victim? | Main | This is why the terrorists hate us -- the Slurpee »

May 23, 2011

Comments

My wife and I will be taking a renewal class from Gaylene in June.

In the penal code section you quote above, I'm getting a different reading, with "theft during the nighttime" being the only application of the time of day limiter because of the placement of the comma. If you read the whole of that clause, it seems to support my interpretation:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;

Did you go over this in the class?

Well, it's not an inconsequential point, is it? Arson and aggravated robbery, in particular, are crimes with potentially deadly outcomes, and we need to understand what our rights are in terms of protecting ourselves in the [unlikely] event we confront such situations.

This probably warrants further research.

Dang. You're fast Eric. I posted a reply then deleted it to rewrite it.

I brought this up in the class, but Gaylene wasn't there to provide legal advice or interpretation.

The clause in the statute is poorly written, in my opinion. A casual search at the Court of Criminal Appeals website doesn't turn up any cases on point. But don't let that prevent your own research.

The comments to this entry are closed.