OK

This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.

ATTENTION: READ THE RULES.

  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Forgive me if this Diary is lacking the bells & whistles others possess. It's my first diary, but I was so enraged, I had to bang it out on my keyboard & share it with someone!

The Austin American Statesman  reports that 17 year old Koby Yoder was charged, Thursday, with Murder for shooting, and killing, his stepfather while the stepfather was actively beating the boy's mother.

Sheriff's Chief Deputy John DePresca on Friday said 43-year-old Leonard Digiliormo (dee-juh-LOR'-moh) was punching and beating his wife when her son intervened. DePresca says Yoder retrieved a handgun and fatally shot Digiliormo Wednesday night at the family's home near Carthage.

The woman's 13-year-old daughter was also present. DePresca says the mother and both teens told investigators that the woman was being attacked. She was treated and released from a hospital.

But wait! Isn't this Texas? Can't we shoot an ask questions later? Don't we have a state Constitution that "allows" us to use deadly force to protect even our property? And, in the past, (several instances come to mind) haven't people who actually shot others in the BACK and killed them been "no billed" by Grand Juries because of this Texas Constitutional right? Follow me below the fold for more, please.
Intro

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

Try as I might, I was unable to locate anything online pertaining to the two Houston instances that came to mind when I heard this story on the TV. One was a convenience store clerk (might have been the owner, but can't recall or verify) who shot a beer shoplifter. The victim was shot in the back at the corner of the parking lot, near the street. The second was an off-duty firefighter (again, been too long, and I can't confirm) who shot a tow-truck driver after driver had hooked up to the firefighter's truck, and begun to tow it down the road. The driver was performing a repossession on the truck, and was shot in the back as he drove away.

Both shooters were "no billed" which is a term used in Texas legal proceedings that means a Grand Jury reviewed the evidence (sometimes taking witness testimony), and determined that no charges would be filed. I'm no attorney, so input from the legal eagles would be nice.

The difference between those instances, and this one, is that "property" was being protected in the No Bills, and apparently, a sub-human woman was being protected in the other. Maybe, since this is Texas, if the husband had shot someone else who was beating her, it would've been okey dokey, since she's apparently his property. But a son cannot protect his mother from a cowardly piece of shit beating the hell out of her.

To be fair, I suppose the boy could have shot the asshole after the beating had stopped - though that's not what the article said. Frankly, I don't care. A "manly" man is no longer able to abuse anyone else again. Gawd only knows what those kids have gone through, and for how long!

It appears that protecting your beer or truck with deadly force is 100% acceptable in Texas, but protecting your own mother while she's getting the hell beaten out of her by her husband is 100% NOT!

Stupid, mouthy, nagging bitch should've shut the hell up when he told her to and stupid kid should've taken notes on how to keep control of stupid, mouthy, nagging bitches he's bound to come across in the future!

Curious as to the verbiage in the Texas Penal Code regarding this type of thing? I was too. I've not found the mention of assault/battery or domestic/family violence anywhere which is probably going to be the excuse the District Attorney must use (I guess) as to why the charges were pressed. Here goes:

Protecting your or someone's property:

§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Protecting Another Person with Deadly Force
§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Use of Deadly Force IN DEFENSE of a PERSON (notice, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE or even ASSAULT/BATTERY is NOT listed! Emphasis, mine.
§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
        (1)  if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
        (2)  if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated;  and
        (3)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
            (A)  to protect himself against the 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 requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Maybe the District Attorney Forgot THIS? Emphasis mine.
§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.  (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
    (b)  A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Or maybe the kid said he was just sick of the asshole beating his mom, and maybe he said he didn't think the wanna-be man would actually kill her. And maybe, we women just don't count in Texas. Oh wait. . . we already knew that!

Since preview is not showing my links: http://www.statesman.com/... http://law.onecle.com/... http://law.onecle.com/... http://law.onecle.com/...

Wed Mar 12, 2014 at  4:08 PM PT: According to East Texas Today (Sat. 3/8/14) Panola County Sheriff Kevin Lake says, “We’ve received a little criticism from both sides on maybe the charge was too much, or maybe the charge wasn’t enough. Ya know, it’s never easy to keep everybody happy, but our job is not to make the law, but to enforce the law,”

Sheriff Lake also added, “The case will go before a Grand Jury for the Grand Jury to decide what happens. We are not the guilt or innocence, we collect the evidence and we enforce the law and that is what we have done in this case. We will continue to work on this, we are putting a lot of hours into this to make sure everything is done correctly, and to make sure the complete story is told.”

So, I guess I'm not the only one to have had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the charges. At least we know what is going to happen from here.

Will keep you posted; and thanks for the interest. This boy needs all the support he can get, as does his sister, as well as his mother!


Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to Deja on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:52 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and This Week in the War on Women.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.