- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Never mind that no one has ever argued that rights cannot be abused.
As it should be.Florida's law is very similar in that you do not have to retreat under any circumstance from your car, home or place of business, period.
Beats me. All I said was that in TX, you may kill in self-sefense to protect property (even of a third person) absent a direct threat to your life.
Sec. 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.
You are confused.
I am not arguing that shooting the child was legal; I -was- arguing that, in TX, you do not need to be threatened with bodily harm before you you can use deadly force to protct yorself, your property, someone else, or the property of someone else.
C'mon son. You can do better than this. Maybe.Your proof clearly states there must be the threat of force, so your claim that Texas law justifies self defense "absent a direct threat to your life" is incorrect, unless you have further evidence from Texas law.
"Unlawful force" would be unlawful force which is NOT "unlawful DEADLY force"....unlawful force or unlawful deadly force...
Thats all well and good - as noted before, I'm not defending their actions, and I challenge you to show where I have.The fact of this matter is that the man and alleged woman were firing on trespassers and they had no legal justification for doing so.
C'mon son. You can do better than this. Maybe.
"Unlawful force" would be unlawful force which is NOT "unlawful DEADLY force".
Thus, you can use deadly force to protect you, your property, or that of a third party from "unlawful force" which differs from "unlawful deadly force".
And so, my statement stands. I'll take that Thanks now.
I see that you also dont understand my position here.Trespassing does not constitute force of any kind.
And, the reason you do not see it in his helpful quote of TX law is because you didnt bother to look at the link he posted. Had you done that...
Your thanks is accepted.
Nope. They committed murder. Just posting a sign doesn't give them legal authority to shoot trespassers. They have to prove imminent threat of bodily harm. They're just dumb rednecks abusing their right to bear arms.
Hmmm...so rights CAN be abused....interesting.
You know those evil conservatives always denying that rights can be abused. :roll:
It is mentioned in the referenced sections of TX law.I'm not really interested in going through the whole law but the part you quoted doesn't seem to mention property. It looks like self defense or the defense of another person, nothing about property. Maybe I missed it?
So if they looked like Ward and June Cleaver, it'd be okay right? The law doesn't judge people by their looks.
Without knowing exactly what prompted the owner to open fire, I can only say that while I strongly support the Castle Doctrine, I personally would have made damn sure I knew what I was shooting at if it wasn't shooting first.
You're wrong.The Castle Doctrine is a legal justification of self defense. As such, it applies only if the defender is under threat or attack.
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITYSec. 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
(2) when and to the degree the actor 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.
And what does TX law have to say abut that?Simply trespassing doesn't even come close to being relevant
Looks like you are wrong, yet again.SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
Looks like you are wrong, yet again.
Aside from the fact that the defintion of "reasonable" falls not to you or anyone else here, but to the prosecutor, the judge(s) and, ultimately, the jury...Except that the law uses the word "reasonably", and what those to rejects did doesn't fit any reasonable definition of reasonable.
So the law doesn't cover their actions.
Except that the law uses the word "reasonably", and what those to rejects did doesn't fit any reasonable definition of reasonable.
So the law doesn't cover their actions.
The Castle Doctrine is a legal justification of self defense. As such, it applies only if the defender is under threat or attack. Simply trespassing doesn't even come close to being relevant.
:lol:
So wrong all the time will, how DO you do it.
Castle Doctrine in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Trespass is "an intrusion". By definition.You are once again demonstrated to be in ignorant disregard of the facts you yourself provide.
Speaking of ignorance...You are once again demonstrated to be in ignorant disregard of the facts you yourself provide.
so amusing
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?