Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 11/3/2009 5:39:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/5/2009 5:00:26 AM EST by MateFrio]
Not what I might have done but after four kids I'd just say "good shoot" to the wife.
Link
By MIKE GLENN Copyright 2009 HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Nov. 3, 2009, 6:32AM

A woman fatally shot a suspected car burglar Monday night in the parking lot of her northwest Houston apartment complex, police said.

The woman, who is eight months pregnant, told Houston police she shot the man about 9 p.m. after she spotted him breaking into her car parked outside the apartment in the 5900 block of Pinemont at Alabonson.

The man still had a screwdriver in his hand when the woman opened fire with a shotgun. The door lock to her car also had been popped open, officers at the scene said.

He was pronounced dead at the scene. The woman was still being questioned late Monday.

The fatal shooting remains under investigation, Houston police said.

**********************************UPDATE****­***********************

Nov. 4, 2009, 8:20PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6703918.html

Mayes' family and activist Quanell X are questioning how a woman who is 8 months pregnant and so short in stature could fire a 20-gauge shotgun and why the woman's boyfriend never came outside their apartment after the shooting. Quanell X said the woman denied shooting Mayes when a neighbor questioned her immediately after Mayes was killed.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 6:06:42 AM EST
guess the racking noise didn't scare him away

Link Posted: 11/3/2009 6:19:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 6:19:25 AM EST by battlestick]
Originally Posted By StealthCRF:
guess the racking noise didn't scare him away



I'm betting it was an auto, or she already had one in the chamber. LMAO

Edited: for spelling

Link Posted: 11/3/2009 6:34:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 6:34:35 AM EST by MateFrio]
Hell Hath No Wrath Like A Woman Scorned X2 if she's with child and armed.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 7:30:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By MateFrio:
Hell Hath No Wrath Like A Woman Scorned X2 if she's with child and armed.

Hormones.... they're a killer.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 1:20:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 3:18:13 PM EST by DanParker]
This is precisely why anytime my wife announced a craving of any sort when she was pregnant with my two kids, I got my ass off the sofa and ran to the store.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 2:43:07 PM EST
Hopefully this is a good shoot as it appears and she is no-billed. One less scumbag on the street.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 4:51:24 PM EST
is it just me or in the Houston area the citizens have been shooting the piss out of the bad guys lately? seems like the Grand Jury is routinely reviewing non-LEO shootings more than police shootings lately. good if the Grand Jury is no-billing everyone.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 7:38:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 8:21:44 PM EST by topgunpilot20]
While Castle Doctrine doesn't apply here, it still looks like it should be justified:

Sec. 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.


She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 8:10:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 8:12:03 PM EST by hkusp9]
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
While Castle Doctrine doesn't apply here, it still looks like it should be justified:

Sec. 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:


to prevent a person from fleeing at night with your stuff and theres not a better way of stopping them.

(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.


She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.


you read that wrong, you have to pay more attention to the AND OR 's. it says deadly focre is justified to protect land or tangible movable property when he believes its necesary and its a criminal mischief during the night time *****OR********


Link Posted: 11/3/2009 8:16:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 8:22:29 PM EST by topgunpilot20]
Originally Posted By hkusp9:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.


you read that wrong, you have to pay more attention to the AND OR 's. it says deadly focre is justified to protect land or tangible movable property when he believes its necesary and its a criminal mischief during the night time *****OR********




No I didn't. Points 1, 2, and 3 must all be met for deadly force to justified. It would make more sense if the formatting wasn't lost when I pasted it here. I'll see if I can fix it.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 8:40:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 8:53:08 PM EST by fundummy]
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
Originally Posted By hkusp9:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.


you read that wrong, you have to pay more attention to the AND OR 's. it says deadly focre is justified to protect land or tangible movable property when he believes its necesary and its a criminal mischief during the night time *****OR********




No I didn't. Points 1, 2, and 3 must all be met for deadly force to justified. It would make more sense if the formatting wasn't lost when I pasted it here. I'll see if I can fix it.


It looks like a good shoot.
It would be nice if the county would at least reimburse her for ammunition.

ETA: it's 1, 2, and either A - OR - B ..... if with B... the remainder of the paragraph applies ( which includes 3 ).

From what is written in the article... to me, it looks like she's GTG under 1, 2, and A.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 11:26:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By fundummy:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
Originally Posted By hkusp9:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.


you read that wrong, you have to pay more attention to the AND OR 's. it says deadly focre is justified to protect land or tangible movable property when he believes its necesary and its a criminal mischief during the night time *****OR********




No I didn't. Points 1, 2, and 3 must all be met for deadly force to justified. It would make more sense if the formatting wasn't lost when I pasted it here. I'll see if I can fix it.


It looks like a good shoot.
It would be nice if the county would at least reimburse her for ammunition.

ETA: it's 1, 2, and either A - OR - B ..... if with B... the remainder of the paragraph applies ( which includes 3 ).

From what is written in the article... to me, it looks like she's GTG under 1, 2, and A.

Wrong. Paragraph 3 is its own paragraph separate from paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 is joined with 1 and 2 using "and" which means all three circumstances must be present for deadly force to be justified. This is Penal Code Reading 101.
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 4:21:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

Originally Posted By fundummy:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
Originally Posted By hkusp9:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.


you read that wrong, you have to pay more attention to the AND OR 's. it says deadly focre is justified to protect land or tangible movable property when he believes its necesary and its a criminal mischief during the night time *****OR********




No I didn't. Points 1, 2, and 3 must all be met for deadly force to justified. It would make more sense if the formatting wasn't lost when I pasted it here. I'll see if I can fix it.


It looks like a good shoot.
It would be nice if the county would at least reimburse her for ammunition.

ETA: it's 1, 2, and either A - OR - B ..... if with B... the remainder of the paragraph applies ( which includes 3 ).

From what is written in the article... to me, it looks like she's GTG under 1, 2, and A.

Wrong. Paragraph 3 is its own paragraph separate from paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 is joined with 1 and 2 using "and" which means all three circumstances must be present for deadly force to be justified. This is Penal Code Reading 101.

Ummm, your all wrong. The guy had a screwdriver in his hand, a deadly weapon. She confronted him, he advanced on her with a deadly weapon, she shot him in self defense. Him breaking into the car and all that jazz is just icing on the cake for her defense.
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 4:58:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By Texas_Infidel:

Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

Originally Posted By fundummy:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
Originally Posted By hkusp9:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.


you read that wrong, you have to pay more attention to the AND OR 's. it says deadly focre is justified to protect land or tangible movable property when he believes its necesary and its a criminal mischief during the night time *****OR********




No I didn't. Points 1, 2, and 3 must all be met for deadly force to justified. It would make more sense if the formatting wasn't lost when I pasted it here. I'll see if I can fix it.


It looks like a good shoot.
It would be nice if the county would at least reimburse her for ammunition.

ETA: it's 1, 2, and either A - OR - B ..... if with B... the remainder of the paragraph applies ( which includes 3 ).

From what is written in the article... to me, it looks like she's GTG under 1, 2, and A.

Wrong. Paragraph 3 is its own paragraph separate from paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 is joined with 1 and 2 using "and" which means all three circumstances must be present for deadly force to be justified. This is Penal Code Reading 101.

Ummm, your all wrong. The guy had a screwdriver in his hand, a deadly weapon. She confronted him, he advanced on her with a deadly weapon, she shot him in self defense. Him breaking into the car and all that jazz is just icing on the cake for her defense.


unfortunately the article does not state that. we can assume that's what happened but we have no idea what her statement actually is. if that is the case then yes I'd say it's a question of self defense not protection of property.

and I believe topgunpilot's interpretation of the and/or issues are correct since they are separate 1, 2, and 3, otherwise it would have been 1, 2, a, b, b1, b2, etc.
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 6:09:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/4/2009 8:20:38 AM EST by DanParker]
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
Originally Posted By fundummy:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
Originally Posted By hkusp9:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.

you read that wrong, you have to pay more attention to the AND OR 's. it says deadly focre is justified to protect land or tangible movable property when he believes its necesary and its a criminal mischief during the night time *****OR********

No I didn't. Points 1, 2, and 3 must all be met for deadly force to justified. It would make more sense if the formatting wasn't lost when I pasted it here. I'll see if I can fix it.

It looks like a good shoot.
It would be nice if the county would at least reimburse her for ammunition.

ETA: it's 1, 2, and either A - OR - B ..... if with B... the remainder of the paragraph applies ( which includes 3 ).

From what is written in the article... to me, it looks like she's GTG under 1, 2, and A.

Wrong. Paragraph 3 is its own paragraph separate from paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 is joined with 1 and 2 using "and" which means all three circumstances must be present for deadly force to be justified. This is Penal Code Reading 101.

The problem is that you highlighted in red the following from 2(a)...

theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;

...as part of your assertion that "Castle Doctrine" does not apply, implying that it does not apply because her actions failed that specific test (2(a)). But because of the "or" at the end of 2(a), the overall rule (2) may be satisfied if 2(b) is passed instead. In other words, test 2 is passed as a whole if EITHER 2(a) is passed OR 2(b) is passed.

So, what does 2(b) say? Let's review:

(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

Since the story tells us that she...

shot a suspected car burglar Monday night

...it would appear that either 2(a) or 2(b) may well in fact apply here. We just don't know whether "imminent commission of" or "fleeing immediately after committing" apply. But either will serve to satisfy paragraph 2.

ETA: By the way, the same either/or construction applies to paragraph 3. Her actions need not satisfy 3(a) if they satisfy 3(b) instead.
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 2:03:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/4/2009 2:09:36 PM EST by topgunpilot20]

Originally Posted By DanParker:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
Originally Posted By fundummy:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
Originally Posted By hkusp9:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.

you read that wrong, you have to pay more attention to the AND OR 's. it says deadly focre is justified to protect land or tangible movable property when he believes its necesary and its a criminal mischief during the night time *****OR********

No I didn't. Points 1, 2, and 3 must all be met for deadly force to justified. It would make more sense if the formatting wasn't lost when I pasted it here. I'll see if I can fix it.

It looks like a good shoot.
It would be nice if the county would at least reimburse her for ammunition.

ETA: it's 1, 2, and either A - OR - B ..... if with B... the remainder of the paragraph applies ( which includes 3 ).

From what is written in the article... to me, it looks like she's GTG under 1, 2, and A.

Wrong. Paragraph 3 is its own paragraph separate from paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 is joined with 1 and 2 using "and" which means all three circumstances must be present for deadly force to be justified. This is Penal Code Reading 101.

The problem is that you highlighted in red the following from 2(a)...

theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;

...as part of your assertion that "Castle Doctrine" does not apply, implying that it does not apply because her actions failed that specific test (2(a)). But because of the "or" at the end of 2(a), the overall rule (2) may be satisfied if 2(b) is passed instead. In other words, test 2 is passed as a whole if EITHER 2(a) is passed OR 2(b) is passed.

So, what does 2(b) say? Let's review:

(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

Since the story tells us that she...

shot a suspected car burglar Monday night

...it would appear that either 2(a) or 2(b) may well in fact apply here. We just don't know whether "imminent commission of" or "fleeing immediately after committing" apply. But either will serve to satisfy paragraph 2.

ETA: By the way, the same either/or construction applies to paragraph 3. Her actions need not satisfy 3(a) if they satisfy 3(b) instead.

Castle Doctrine does not apply because she was not inside the car when the bad guy broke into it. The section of Penal Code I posted has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine and has been around for much longer.

Here is the recently added Castle Doctrine from Section 9 of the Penal Code:


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;

Since she wasn't inside the vehicle, Castle Doctrine doesn't apply. That doesn't mean it's not justified though.

Judging by the article, I think her actions are justified by what I posted earlier. It just takes a little more work to justify situations where Castle Doctrine doesn't apply, since she has to satisfy the three paragraphs for using deadly force to protect property (which I believe she can).

And you are correct that either 3a or 3b may be satisfied.


Originally Posted By Texas_Infidel:

Ummm, your all wrong. The guy had a screwdriver in his hand, a deadly weapon. She confronted him, he advanced on her with a deadly weapon, she shot him in self defense. Him breaking into the car and all that jazz is just icing on the cake for her defense.



Did we read the same article? Where did it say he was advancing on her?

Link Posted: 11/4/2009 2:13:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/4/2009 2:14:25 PM EST by DanParker]
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
Originally Posted By DanParker:
The problem is that you highlighted in red the following from 2(a)...

theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;
...as part of your assertion that "Castle Doctrine" does not apply, implying that it does not apply because her actions failed that specific test (2(a)). But because of the "or" at the end of 2(a), the overall rule (2) may be satisfied if 2(b) is passed instead. In other words, test 2 is passed as a whole if EITHER 2(a) is passed OR 2(b) is passed.

So, what does 2(b) say? Let's review:

(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

Since the story tells us that she...

[div style='margin-left: 40px;']shot a suspected car burglar Monday night

...it would appear that either 2(a) or 2(b) may well in fact apply here. We just don't know whether "imminent commission of" or "fleeing immediately after committing" apply. But either will serve to satisfy paragraph 2.

ETA: By the way, the same either/or construction applies to paragraph 3. Her actions need not satisfy 3(a) if they satisfy 3(b) instead.

Castle Doctrine does not apply because she was not inside the car when the bad guy broke into it. The section of Penal Code I posted has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine and has been around for much longer.

True. I incorrectly cited your mention of Castle Doctrine there. But the bottom line is that, if the use of the term "night" in the story is consistent with it's use in the cited statute, she's likely covered by 9.42...though we appear to agree on that. The source of the confusion seems to be your original use of highlighting and the ensuing "and/or" debate, which suggested that you thought 2(a) AND 2(b)...and...3(a) AND 3(b) needed to be satisfied. Misunderstanding all around, apparently.
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 2:22:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By DanParker:

True. I incorrectly cited your mention of Castle Doctrine there. But the bottom line is that, if the use of the term "night" in the story is consistent with it's use in the cited statute, she's likely covered by 9.42...though we appear to agree on that. The source of the confusion seems to be your original use of highlighting and the ensuing "and/or" debate, which suggested that you thought 2(a) AND 2(b)...and...3(a) AND 3(b) needed to be satisfied. Misunderstanding all around, apparently.

Isn't lawyer-speek fun?
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 2:56:19 PM EST
Sec. 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:


to prevent a person from fleeing at night with your stuff and theres not a better way of stopping them.

(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.


so for clarification....do we all believe that the breakdown is:

(1) must be satisfied, AND
(2)(A) OR (2)(B) must be satisfied, AND
(3)(A) OR (3)(B) must be satisfied?
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 3:05:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/4/2009 3:06:51 PM EST by topgunpilot20]

Originally Posted By spreadfirearms:
Sec. 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:


to prevent a person from fleeing at night with your stuff and theres not a better way of stopping them.

(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.


so for clarification....do we all believe that the breakdown is:

(1) must be satisfied, AND
(2)(A) OR (2)(B) must be satisfied, AND
(3)(A) OR (3)(B) must be satisfied?

Correct.

I edited the formatting of my original post, so it shows that a little clearer.
Link Posted: 11/4/2009 4:03:11 PM EST
ok great. i just hope the grand jury no-bills her, which i think they will, so long as she didn't say anything stupid to the investigators.
Link Posted: 11/5/2009 2:35:38 AM EST
Hold on to yer hats, Quanell 10 now has doubts about her story. He's wondering how a pregnant 4'11" woman could shoot a 12-gauge. I'm thinking he's both racist and sexist.
Link Posted: 11/5/2009 4:57:07 AM EST
Wow:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6703918.html

Family questions who shot accused burglar

Mayes' family and activist Quanell X are questioning how a woman who is 8 months pregnant and so short in stature could fire a 20-gauge shotgun and why the woman's boyfriend never came outside their apartment after the shooting. Quanell X said the woman denied shooting Mayes when a neighbor questioned her immediately after Mayes was killed.

“We are praying that the truth comes out,” Quanell X told mourners during a candlelight vigil outside the woman's apartment Wednesday. “This does not pass the smell test.”
Link Posted: 11/5/2009 6:02:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By Texas_Infidel:

Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

Originally Posted By fundummy:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:
Originally Posted By hkusp9:
Originally Posted By topgunpilot20:

She's gonna have to articulate the part in the blue though. Shouldn't be too hard since she's a pregnant female.


you read that wrong, you have to pay more attention to the AND OR 's. it says deadly focre is justified to protect land or tangible movable property when he believes its necesary and its a criminal mischief during the night time *****OR********




No I didn't. Points 1, 2, and 3 must all be met for deadly force to justified. It would make more sense if the formatting wasn't lost when I pasted it here. I'll see if I can fix it.


It looks like a good shoot.
It would be nice if the county would at least reimburse her for ammunition.

ETA: it's 1, 2, and either A - OR - B ..... if with B... the remainder of the paragraph applies ( which includes 3 ).

From what is written in the article... to me, it looks like she's GTG under 1, 2, and A.

Wrong. Paragraph 3 is its own paragraph separate from paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 is joined with 1 and 2 using "and" which means all three circumstances must be present for deadly force to be justified. This is Penal Code Reading 101.

Ummm, your all wrong. The guy had a screwdriver in his hand, a deadly weapon. She confronted him, he advanced on her with a deadly weapon, she shot him in self defense. Him breaking into the car and all that jazz is just icing on the cake for her defense.


and the news just said she shot from the second story window of her apartment and shot the bad guy in the face with a 20 gauge.

nice to know all the facts before fabricating things isn't it?
Link Posted: 11/5/2009 7:32:30 AM EST
The changes to the law that were unfortunately called "The Castle Doctrine" were in the sections regarding using force or deadly force to protect person, NOT to protect property.

And I agree;

1, 2 and 3 must be met.
Top Top