Murderous justice?

[Chaossaber314]

Texas Criminal Code: § 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.

Criminal Mischief includes things like vandalism. Damn, I hope they're making Texas children aware of this...

"Now Timmy, please don't go out TPing tonight because you could GET SHOT!"

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Muser I'd be doing good to make it to 3 and I live here. I am the exception that proves the norm of brainwashed Texans illogically believing themselves and their state to be better than the rest of the US. Be warned, however, that if any Oklahoman insults Texas I will be forced against my will and intelligence to defend Texas - please don't put me in that situation.

You do know the difference between a Texan and an idiot, is the Red River.

I got tons more where that comes from. Don't test me.

However, I have to respect the Texas statutes that allow confronting a burglar in the act as have been posted here.

I guess we can leave it at that. If you would like.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Criminal Mischief includes things like vandalism. Damn, I hope they're making Texas children aware of this... "Now Timmy, please don't go out TPing tonight because you could GET SHOT!"

Yes. One would hope that parents are teaching about respecting other's property.

Do you not do so in Missouri?

Keith

[Zeebadee]

Texas, go east until you smell it, south until you step in it. I've lived there. Not a good place to go burglaring. I'd also be wary of walking across my neighbor's lawn after dark.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zee said: Not a good place to go burglaring.

Thats a plus in my eyes.

Zee said: I'd also be wary of walking across my neighbor's lawn after dark.

Wise advice. Why would you want to do that, since it isn't your property?
Got a phone?

[Charlatan]

Murdering someone on your property or in self defense is a crime, because to kill is a crime. Killing someone that wants to kill you just transfers the crime from that person to you. If someone wants to kill you then they are preparing to commit a crime, and if they kill you then they have done wrong. If you get killed you have done no wrong, but if you kill them you have commiteed the crime yourself. Sometimes people people won't listen to you as you plead for your life, but that is tough luck, the power is in the hands of one party, and if the power is in the hands of two parties then there should be a stale mate, not a 'homicide', or by anohter name, self defence. If you bring a gun to bear on a burglar then you are threatening them, so the power has shifted to you. To shoot is a conclusion to the power play and if both people shoot then there is a real problem. People should just lie down and let people commit their crimes, as this power play leads to death, which is something far worse than losing a few valuables. If it comes down to it being you or them you may wish it to be them, and act accordingly, killing them. Have you done wrong? Have you committed a crime by defending yourself? You would need information about the intruder the same way a policeman needs info about his perps, so think of yourself as the law. Do you own your house, or does the state? Can you shoot someone on your property seeing as how it is under a states jurisdiction? Are you the law? If you think you are the law then you will find that you have had no power vested in you and that is why you will stand accused of acting agaisnt an intruder or whatever, so best to just lean back.

[Osborn F Enready]

I will defend my life, and bear the consequences of doing so, regardless of the "threatened" cost of such acts.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Yes. One would hope that parents are teaching about respecting other's property. Do you not do so in Missouri? Keith

Not as many as they should. Though usually one isn't thinking about being shot over something a trivial as the inconvenience of cleaning up toilet paper from their lawn.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: Though usually one isn't thinking about being shot over something a trivial as the inconvenience of cleaning up toilet paper from their lawn.

Their fault for misassociation.

It isn't about the TP, its about the breach of property rights.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Their fault for misassociation. It isn't about the TP, its about the breach of property rights.

You think one should be shot for inconveniencing another?

Having them clean it up and maybe a fine/restitution isn't sufficient?

All I'm saying is with something as important as the law regarding lethal force, it should be a tad more specific than criminal mischief.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaoss said: You think one should be shot for inconveniencing another?

Obviously not. I don't think people have the right to trespass at whim.
Who are you to defend that right to trespass at whim? On what ground?

Chaoss said: Having them clean it up and maybe a fine/restitution isn't sufficient?

Provided they don't over-react or panic when the property owner comes out to investigate with his firearm, and cause him to shoot them, FOR VIOLATING HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Chaoss said: All I'm saying is with something as important as the law regarding lethal force, it should be a tad more specific than criminal mischief.

BS, people should be taught to respect property rights.

If a TP'ing kid is shot violating property rights, who is at fault if the person who did the shooting felt threatened, ON HIS PROPERTY by trespassers who had no right to be there?

You sound like you would defend a person who was breaking into a home, and injured themselves because they tripped over a childs toy left in front of the locked door they just broke through.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn Obviously not. I don't think people have the right to trespass at whim. Who are you to defend that right to trespass at whim? On what ground?

Where did I say anyone has a right to trespass? I said, and I thought quite clearly, that I thought this instance we're discussing would be excessive and yet legal under Texan law.

Provided they don't over-react or panic when the property owner comes out to investigate with his firearm, and cause him to shoot them, FOR VIOLATING HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS.

I'm curious how you define over-reacting since you seem to be under the impression that shooting someone for trespassing is not.

BS, people should be taught to respect property rights.

What in the hell does property rights have to do with the vagueness of a law that defines how you can legally kill someone?

If a TP'ing kid is shot violating property rights, who is at fault if the person who did the shooting felt threatened, ON HIS PROPERTY by trespassers who had no right to be there?

If you feel your life is in danger from toilet paper, your bathroom experiences must be awfully horrific, and you're of the mental state that you shouldn't be handling sharp pointy objects let alone firearms.

You understand that this vagueness of law works both ways, right? Police could shoot you for trespassing on government property by your logic.

Also, terms like trespassing are ill-equiped to deal with this law. It's technically trespassing if a friend has you over, you offend them, they ask you to leave and you don't do so immediately. By the logic you've demonstrated here they could be gunned down for this behavior.

You are not thinking this one through.

You sound like you would defend a person who was breaking into a home, and injured themselves because they tripped over a childs toy left in front of the locked door they just broke through.

Does not compute... nor does it match any logic used in this thread or elsewhere. The only way I would defend someone breaking into a home would be if the occupant captured and tortured them for several weeks.

Do you have any concept of reasonable force? Sure children should learn to respect property rights? But if they don't, kill them? Christ...

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaoss said: Where did I say anyone has a right to trespass?

You seem to me, to be saying we should further restrict the right to protect life and property, instead of addressing the source of the problem, the people breaking the law by trespassing.

When I own property, I shouldn't have to "expect" my property limits to be broken. If I see someone in my yard, at dark, the first question that should come up is "why is someone in my yard without my permission?" The second is to assess the situation and see if a threat exists.

If I were to walk up on this "suspect" of criminal trespass, and they do something quickly that I feel places me in danger (mainly because its dark and like most people, have trouble seeing in the dark unless my eyes are fully adjusted), things could get ugly.

Instead of allowing situations like this to be "routine" we should be teaching people how important respect of property rights is.

Chaoss said: I said, and I thought quite clearly, that I thought this instance we're discussing would be excessive and yet legal under Texan law.

It may be, but why should people be further put at risk by limiting innocent people (property owners) for taking a just action? Why not start an educational campaign on the "importance of respecting property rights"?

You know 9 times out of 10, a person wouldn't be shot for TP'ing a tree in someones yard... but it is NOT the property owner who should be obligated to justify every action he takes, when the law is quite clear... NO TRESPASSING.

You also know in many situations things don't appear as they are, especially if you are walking into a group of people, who are already breaking the law, on your land, and they don't see you coming up on them. You don't know what to expect when you challenge them to identify themselves and state their reasons for being on your property, and you don't know if theyll react by shooting at you, or simply saying "hi mr, I have a flat, can I borrow a 4-way?"

You know as well as I do, people sometimes do stupid things, and in cases where a law has already been broken, we should give benefit of the doubt to the property owner.

Chaoss said: What in the hell does property rights have to do with the vagueness of a law that defines how you can legally kill someone?

Firstly, its a law about self-defense, its not a law explaining how to legally kill someone.

Secondly, because you think we should change the law, again, putting more restriction on the person who may be in serious threat to his life. I have trouble with that. People have enough pressure on them already from all the ridiculous rules and regulations you have to observe simply to exercise your right to defense.

We should not be protecting law breakers, at the expense of innocent people. If a person is trespassing, that is a serious issue that can end up in serious results, and that should be known when trespassing. Do you think people coming across the border from mexico into the U.S. worry about being shot? I wonder why?

You expect people to respect government "no trespassing signs" with reverance, yet can't observe the same thing for private individuals, and it just doesn't jive with me. Defense is defense, and the benefit of the doubt has to be with the property owner.

Chaoss said: I'm curious how you define over-reacting since you seem to be under the impression that shooting someone for trespassing is not.

I do think it is over-reaction to shoot someone "for trespassing". I can see how it could easily happen though if the situation isn't crystal clear, especially if there are multiple trespassers, and something could be interpreted as threatening.

Chaos said: If you feel your life is in danger from toilet paper,

Haha... not funny.

What if I am coming out of a brightly lit house, into a dark yard taking my trash out, notice people next to me who don't see me, and just as I recognize the shape I see them throw something that looks like a brick, or drawing a gun, or pulling a knife?

Obviously if it was identified as TP there wouldn't be an issue besides saying "GET OFF MY LAND".

Chaos said: your bathroom experiences must be awfully horrific, and you're of the mental state that you shouldn't be handling sharp pointy objects let alone firearms.

Obviously you are just trying to insult peoples intelligence and act as if accidents don't happen, while slipping in a few coy insults.

Childish.

Chaos said: You understand that this vagueness of law works both ways, right? Police could shoot you for trespassing on government property by your logic.

No kidding?!? Isn't this obvious?

Try wandering your ass on to a nuclear power plant property, and see what happens. Why? Because they don't know what your intentions are, what you have on you, if you're armed, etc.

Why should private property be any different if there is reason to believe the property owner felt a reasonable threat? Do you deny this could happen?

Chaos said: Also, terms like trespassing are ill-equiped to deal with this law. It's technically trespassing if a friend has you over, you offend them, they ask you to leave and you don't do so immediately.

By the logic you've demonstrated here they could be gunned down for this behavior.

How have I said anything like this.... you are reaching, and as usual, running with an example you didn't even think through.

Chaos said: .Do you have any concept of reasonable force? Sure children should learn to respect property rights? But if they don't, kill them? Christ...

Did I say I would?!? No.

The fact is, accidents happen, and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the property owner.

[Elminister]

Mr. Horn said he didn't know the neighbors very well. I don't know some of my neighbors very well but I do know if they are male/female or elderly or how many children reside in the houses around me. Though Mr. Horn may not have known them well I'm sure he knows them. I understand why he did what he did. From his perspective he could have just watched the two people who slit his neighbors throats, adults/children for a mere gymbag of silver spoons and forks.

I think Mr. Horn acted in a rash manner and his quotes,as I have read them in this thread, do not work in his favor I don't think I would call what he did.....

Quote by: dictionary.com mur·der (mûr'dər) Pronunciation Key n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

I would not want to be placed in a situation like that to have to make the type of decision he did.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn You seem to me, to be saying we should further restrict the right to protect life and property, instead of addressing the source of the problem, the people breaking the law by trespassing.

Well you interpreted wrong. I'm saying that we shouldn't be able to legally kill people for inconveniencing another.

When I own property, I shouldn't have to "expect" my property limits to be broken. If I see someone in my yard, at dark, the first question that should come up is "why is someone in my yard without my permission?" The second is to assess the situation and see if a threat exists.

If you own property you shouldn't simply shoot anything that comes on it.

If I were to walk up on this "suspect" of criminal trespass, and they do something quickly that I feel places me in danger (mainly because its dark and like most people, have trouble seeing in the dark unless my eyes are fully adjusted), things could get ugly.

Then why do you need a new law that says you can shoot them simply for being there? Why not follow old self defense precedent?

Instead of allowing situations like this to be "routine" we should be teaching people how important respect of property rights is.

We should teach people to respect property rights and we also should not have laws that make it legal for one to shoot another over the mundane.

It may be, but why should people be further put at risk by limiting innocent people (property owners) for taking a just action? Why not start an educational campaign on the "importance of respecting property rights"?

You have yet to explain why people are put at risk by not having a law vaguely state that they can essentially shoot anyone that comes onto their property. If they are entering a residence that's one thing, but just because a person steps foot on your land does not in any way shape or form indicate or presuppose violent nor malicious intent.

You know 9 times out of 10, a person wouldn't be shot for TP'ing a tree in someones yard... but it is NOT the property owner who should be obligated to justify every action he takes, when the law is quite clear... NO TRESPASSING.

I don't know what world you live in, but in the real one, we don't execute people for petty crimes. The fact that you're arguing that even if someone gets legally killed over tp'ing someones house 1 time out of 10 is alright is just completely reprehensible. The fact that this law allows for that 1 time out of 10 and makes it codified as legal means that the law should be rewritten.

You also know in many situations things don't appear as they are, especially if you are walking into a group of people, who are already breaking the law, on your land, and they don't see you coming up on them. You don't know what to expect when you challenge them to identify themselves and state their reasons for being on your property, and you don't know if theyll react by shooting at you, or simply saying "hi mr, I have a flat, can I borrow a 4-way?"

So apparently your answer is to shoot the person for good measure. What utter bs.

You know as well as I do, people sometimes do stupid things, and in cases where a law has already been broken, we should give benefit of the doubt to the property owner.

Why? In this hypothetical that is allowed for under this law they irrationally discharged their firearm into a child because they didn't determine there was a threat. So either they acted criminally reckless at best for any other state in the nation or they executed someone for a petty crime. Your choice.

Firstly, its a law about self-defense, its not a law explaining how to legally kill someone.

BS. It's extended to using lethal force against those committing criminal mischief, IE vandalism. If someone vandalizes your property, you are not in any danger. There is nothing to defend the self, you as the individual, from.

Secondly, because you think we should change the law, again, putting more restriction on the person who may be in serious threat to his life.

Once more, and I'll bold it for you this time. HOW IS SOMEONE WHO VANDALIZES YOUR PROPERTY A SERIOUS THREAT TO YOUR LIFE.

We should not be protecting law breakers, at the expense of innocent people. If a person is trespassing, that is a serious issue that can end up in serious results, and that should be known when trespassing. Do you think people coming across the border from mexico into the U.S. worry about being shot? I wonder why?

I'm glad the threat of illegals warrants us making killing legal for petty crimes. What nonsense.

You expect people to respect government "no trespassing signs" with reverance, yet can't observe the same thing for private individuals, and it just doesn't jive with me. Defense is defense, and the benefit of the doubt has to be with the property owner.

Where do you get off saying I personally don't respect private property?

I do think it is over-reaction to shoot someone "for trespassing".

I'm glad you think this is an overreaction. Now explain why it's codified in law as perfectly ok.

I can see how it could easily happen though if the situation isn't crystal clear, especially if there are multiple trespassers, and something could be interpreted as threatening.

The fact of the matter is that if a situation isn't clear you shouldn't be discharging a firearm, PERIOD.

Haha... not funny. What if I am coming out of a brightly lit house, into a dark yard taking my trash out, notice people next to me who don't see me, and just as I recognize the shape I see them throw something that looks like a brick, or drawing a gun, or pulling a knife?

So how isn't this covered under law anywhere else? If you interpret yourself to be in danger because someone's actions are reasonably threating, why do you need a new law saying that you can shoot someone even when their actions are not?

Obviously if it was identified as TP there wouldn't be an issue besides saying "GET OFF MY LAND".

Great, so explain why you need a law saying that it's ok for your first response to be with a bullet even after discovering that it is TP.

Obviously you are just trying to insult peoples intelligence and act as if accidents don't happen, while slipping in a few coy insults. Childish.

No, I'm getting pissed off that you're trying to skate around the issue and defend a law that makes the "accidents" of reckless people (or potentially people who just have a vendetta) perfectly lawful.

No kidding?!? Isn't this obvious? Try wandering your ass on to a nuclear power plant property, and see what happens. Why? Because they don't know what your intentions are, what you have on you, if you're armed, etc.

But you know what? They won't shoot you. You'll be arrested.

Why should private property be any different if there is reason to believe the property owner felt a reasonable threat? Do you deny this could happen?

Indeed, why should it be different? See above.

How have I said anything like this.... you are reaching, and as usual, running with an example you didn't even think through.

No, I'm giving an example that is allowed for under this law as further evidence as to why it should be rephrased.

Did I say I would?!? No. The fact is, accidents happen, and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the property owner.

Accidents and issues that are less so, should not be made legal. Particularly when the result is death.

If you need a law to protect you should you use a firearm irresponsibly, you don't deserve a firearm. That simple.

[ruksak]

What I really like abou the Texas criminal code concerning property protection is as follows; It puts the homeowner/property owner in a position whereas they do not have to refer to their states criminal code law books to decide what to do. It is clear.

Unlike in some states where you have to take off running from your own home if an intruder enters and you don't want to get into a shootout with the crook and end up in prison on a 12 year manslaughter sentence.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 If you own property you shouldn't simply shoot anything that comes on it.

No, you shouldn't. According to Texas law, you cannot. The suspect must fit certain criteria first. Namely, he/she must be committing a crime to be legally shot. Killing the pizza delivery man or the mailman will land your ass in prison.

Quote by: Chaossaber Then why do you need a new law that says you can shoot them simply for being there? Why not follow old self defense precedent?

For a homeowner to stop and consider every ramification other than "This crook is gonna steal my sh*t and get away with it" could be dangerous to the homeowner.

For example, if you see a couple men running out of your back door with an armload of your loot and you yell "Hey stop", you may get a bullet in your stomach for asking. Shoot them in their back like the cowards they are, and you have little chance of being shot first.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Ruksak What I really like abou the Texas criminal code concerning property protection is as follows; It puts the homeowner/property owner in a position whereas they do not have to refer to their states criminal code law books to decide what to do. It is clear.

Yes and if all force was allowed under the law homeowners wouldn't have look up criminal codes either. Just because a law is vague and works in your interest does not make it any less unjust.

No, you shouldn't. According to Texas law, you cannot. The suspect must fit certain criteria first. Namely, he/she must be committing a crime to be legally shot. Killing the pizza delivery man or the mailman will land your ass in prison.

But it's perfectly fine to gun down the kid clutching a roll of toilet paper who is guilty of criminal mischief in the night. Yes they have to be committing a crime a to be legally killed, but the fact is that the vast majority of the crimes associated with this law (such as the one I find particularly problematic) do not carry the death penalty when the individual is actually granted due process under the law. Fact is, people shouldn't be shot for petty crimes. A law stating otherwise is inherently unjust.

For a homeowner to stop and consider every ramification other than "This crook is gonna steal my sh*t and get away with it" could be dangerous to the homeowner.

No, someone stealing your shit is not dangerous to the homeowner. In the interest of this law, it refers to property. Until they directly enter (or attempt to enter) your home, or fire at it (providing that they even have a gun), they are of no direct threat to you nor have they demonstrated the intent to harm you.

So someone stealing shit out of your yard, while not preferable does not presuppose danger to your person. In fact, at the moment they are in your yard and have not done anything there is not yet any potential for danger. On the other hand confronting the person who you believe might be stealing your sh*t does put you in potential danger that might not have been there had you remained in your home.

In the interest of self-defense, if this really is your interest, it is simply idiotic to leave your home if you suspect someone intends to harm you and you see them in your yard. From your home you have a strategic advantage and leaving cover to go confront the individual is not in the best interest of protection, but in the interest of satiating ego.

Also, not considering other possibilities/ramifications before discharging your firearm puts everyone around you at risk. Are you really advocating only relying on instinct in a situation where someone may or may not be a threat in the middle of the night? Sure you have to think fast, but quick thinking and no thinking are not the same thing. I hope you never have a child try and sneak back into your house late at night.

Unfortunately (though I don't consider it so unfortunate) you must consider the ramifications of your actions should you decide to engage in them in this society. This does not just apply to firearm use, but every aspect of life.

Now on the flip side, should these same hypothetical individuals attempt to break into your house, I think all bets are off.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 But it's perfectly fine to gun down the kid clutching a roll of toilet paper who is guilty of criminal mischief in the night. Yes they have to be committing a crime a to be legally killed, but the fact is that the vast majority of the crimes associated with this law (such as the one I find particularly problematic) do not carry the death penalty when the individual is actually granted due process under the law. Fact is, people shouldn't be shot for petty crimes. A law stating otherwise is inherently unjust.

No, "the vast majority of the crimes associated with this law do not carry the death penalty" but ultimately, since all laws are enforced at gunpoint, any crime can be escalated by a police officer to deadly force.

If a police officer attempts to stop you for jaywalking, and you run, the officer can pursue you. If you end up caught and fight him while he's trying to restrain you, he CAN shoot you. You may want nothing more than to be left alone, but, the escalation of the "crime" of jaywalking, could end up in your death.

No one here is saying that they want to kill a kid for TPing their house. All they're saying is that, if they confront someone in such a situation, and things escalate for whatever reason, that the doubt should go to the person who was defending their property and their rights.

Nothing more.

An exact parallel, with far more justification, than a fully trained "professional" trying to apprehend a "suspect" for whatever crime would have for drawing his "service weapon" and firing a shot.

Or, if we could draw a parallel, I would be more justified in shooting a kid who has violated my property in the dark, if I perceived a threat, than a highly trained, professional law enforcement officer has in tasering a 20-something speeder, in the back, in broad daylight on the side of a busy highway.

Keith

[Osborn F Enready]

Well said Keith.