Quote:
|
You can't have a situation just because someone was in the wrong stealing from someone for example that its OK to shoot them in the back when they are running away.
|
That's generally correct although there are some
very limited situations in TX where it is legal (although HIGHLY inadvisable) to shoot someone escaping with stolen property.
Quote:
I said and mean that in a saner society than the one we live in now,,,
There would be a point that violent attackers cross,,,
That gives a victim carte blanche immunity.
|
It's possible to search old versions of the Texas statutes online, and on one occasion I was curious about the origins and evolution of the current laws, particularly those relating to the defense/recovery of property.
Here are two interesting excerpts from the
1879 version of the TX Penal code regarding justifiable homicide.
Please note that the quote below is NOT from current TX law.
If homicide takes place in preventing a robbery, it shall be justifiable if done while the robber is in the presence of the person robbed, or is flying with the money or other article taken by him.
...
In cases of burglary and theft by night, the homicide is justifiable at any time while the offender is in the building, or at the place where the theft is committed, or is within reach of gunshot from such place or building.
So in the 1879 version of the TX Penal Code, one was allowed to use deadly force to recover property lost as a result of burglary or theft at nighttime or as the result of an armed robbery as long as the deadly force was used in relatively close proximity to the place where the crime took place. Because the crime is still in progress (person is fleeing with stolen property) deadly force was still justified.
One might look at that law and assume that the same kind of proximity clause applied to defense of person during that timeframe.
Not so. Because, in the case of a crime against the person, the crime is already committed and completed when the criminal flees, there was no justification for use of deadly force once the criminal fled. There was one interesting exception.
Please note that the quote below is NOT from current TX law.
Homicide is permitted in the necessary defense of person ... under the circumstances and subject to the rules herein set forth.
...
The killing must take place while the person killed was in the act of committing the offense, or after some act done by him showing evidently an intent to commit such offense.
It must take place before the offense committed by the party killed is actually completed; except that, in case of rape, the ravisher may be killed at any time before he has escaped from the presence of his victim...
Apparently, in 1879, it was felt that a rapist could be killed even after the offense was complete as long as the rapist was still in the presence of his victim. I suppose that would equate to your comment about a threshold that, once crossed gave the victim
carte blanche. It should be noted that even in this situation the victim didn't really have true
carte blanche since once the rapist left the victim's presence the justification disappeared.
However, even during that timeframe (135 years ago) it's clear that in the cases of other offenses against the person,
once the crime was completed the justification for justifiable homicide no longer existed.
Although the specifics are different in the current TX law, the gist is still fairly similar.
If the crime is over, so is the justification for deadly force.