U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-03-2007, 01:49 AM
 
310 posts, read 273,850 times
Reputation: 111

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
I'm a pacifist. I don't believe in murder, no matter what.
OK......maybe he MEANT to just blow their kneecaps off so they could be hobblers from now on and TRY to commit future burglaries in wheelchairs.
Either way........their days of being thieves are over with and they should put up new "Neighborhood Crime Watch" signs in that hood.......saying something like:
Shotgun patrolled
The last 2 are no longer here
Burglars WILL be SHOT......Survivors WILL be shot AGAIN!

Oh well......they WOULD still be alive if they had only stayed in bed that day.....'stead of being punks who feel the need to burglarize.

Sorry....but to all those gun control folks, its stories like this one that help crime rates from really getting out of control.
Criminals SHOULD FEAR MORE than cops, getting busted and a little jailtime when it comes to breaking into someone's home!

 
Old 12-03-2007, 01:53 AM
 
9,715 posts, read 13,294,980 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by texanborn View Post
You must be in New York or California.

I catch you stealing my car I have the right to shoot to kill in Texas. Catch you in my house I have a legal right to shoot to kill. Welcome to Texas, ain't we a great state.
In California, we can shoot you if we find you in our house too -- if you are there to harm us.

If you are a neighbor dropping by to tell us that you don't appreciate our kids speeding down the street, we can't kill you though I understand that is legal in Texas. Authorities say man fatally shot neighbor during dispute | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (broken link)

If you are trying to repossess my car because I didn't pay my auto loan, I can't kill you in California either -- though I understand that is legal in Texas. In Killing of Repo Man, Law Shields the Killer - New York Times (Though I have to admit, the way I'm reading this new "castle doctrine," since the repo man has a legal right to be there, he can shoot back?)

I imagine next we'll hear about shootings of Avon ladies and newspaper boys, all in the great state of Texas.

You're right. In California, they won't let you do that. But if someone enters your house, well, they're fair game (providing you didn't invite them in).
 
Old 12-03-2007, 03:53 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,381,403 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
You're right. In California, they won't let you do that. But if someone enters your house, well, they're fair game (providing you didn't invite them in).
And provided you dont shoot the intruder in the back.

Once you shoot him in the back, it means that the intruder was leaving, and you were no longer in harms way.
 
Old 12-03-2007, 04:33 AM
 
9,715 posts, read 13,294,980 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And provided you dont shoot the intruder in the back.

Once you shoot him in the back, it means that the intruder was leaving, and you were no longer in harms way.
Well, I would think that circumstances would come into play here... What if he had terrorized you then thought he had tied you up -- then took off his clothes and went into the bathroom to turn on the shower? I think you could safely shoot him in the back in that case because it wouldn't exactly be like he was leaving... I think, as long as he is in the house and not near an exit, he'd be fair game -- front or back. (You might have some 'splainin' to do but I think you'd probably be within your rights.)
 
Old 12-03-2007, 05:00 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,381,403 times
Reputation: 9358
This man will be put on trial for murder.. The law is very clear that the shooter, must have a fear of IMMEDIATE danger, IN THEIR OWN HOME in order to justify shooting.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:


SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding

Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section

30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section

30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending

Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as

follows:

(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 knew or had reason to believe that the

person against whom the force was used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter

unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business

or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove

unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or

place of business or employment; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated

kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,

robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location

where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against

whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity

at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before

using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether

an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the

use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider

whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as

follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person

is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force

against the other under Section 9.31; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably


believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor 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 actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the

deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that

subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had

reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was

used:

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter

unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business

or employment;

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove

unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or

place of business or employment of the actor; or

(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense

described by Subsection (a)(2)(B)

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location

where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person

against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in

criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not

required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this

section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining

whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed

that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not

consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies

Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative

defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death

that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was

justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,

Chapter 9 Penal Code

SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is

amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:

Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER

EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative

defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff

all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was

lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as

amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after

the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the

effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the

offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for

this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is

committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of

the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as

amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and

Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action

that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action

that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by

the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is

continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007
 
Old 12-03-2007, 07:07 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 51,257,609 times
Reputation: 24611
If I am being threatened (assaulted) AFAK I have a nearly absolute right to use whatever means necessary to stop the threat. I am less certain of my rights and duties when I am performing a citizens’ arrest.

In any case I will NOT allow myself to be terrorized by criminals. If I ever become unfortunate enough to have to live in a crime ridden neighborhood I will take care to be able to defend my family and myself. The criminals can count on that.
 
Old 12-03-2007, 09:21 AM
 
3,322 posts, read 4,535,494 times
Reputation: 1539
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
And provided you dont shoot the intruder in the back.

Once you shoot him in the back, it means that the intruder was leaving, and you were no longer in harms way.

Not true. What's to say he's not going to another room, to his car for weapons, to hurt someone else??

Bottom line: Don't sneak into a stranger's house and you won't get hurt.

As for theft, what if the thieves were stealing a unique item that was in your family for 100 years and very valuable to you? Is it worth killing someone over? Personally, I think I should be allowed to shoot. Do I want to kill the perp? No, I want to maim him for life though. If I kill him, oh well.

People have the right to defend themselves and their property.
 
Old 12-03-2007, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 35,144,684 times
Reputation: 4899
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
I'm a pacifist. I don't believe in murder, no matter what.
Would you kill another to same your own, or a family members life?
 
Old 12-03-2007, 10:02 AM
 
9,715 posts, read 13,294,980 times
Reputation: 3318
I'd like to start a magazine called "Texas Self-Defense."

In my first issue, I'll have an article titled "A Realtor Knocked on my Door - So I Killed Her"

and maybe these too:

"How To Protect Yourself Against Neighbors, Relatives & Acquaintances"
"Protecting Yourself in Traffic Jams"
"Defending Yourself against Parking Space Thieves"
"Don't Let the Repo Man Steal Your Car!"
"A Theft is A Theft: The Legality of Shooting Recyclers Who Try to Steal Your Trash."
"Poor Aim as A Legal Defense"
"Defending Your Personal Space in Shopping Malls and Grocery Stores"
"People who Look At You Funny: Are They Being Aggressive & A Threat?"

I'm sure others will be able to think of some more...
 
Old 12-03-2007, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 51,257,609 times
Reputation: 24611
I have noticed that a surprising number of gun owners are ADULTS and are quite capable of making a proper judgment as to the level of a threat and the proper response. There is a huge RESPONSIBILITY that accompanies gun ownership. Most of us accept it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top