The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 26, 2005, 09:17 PM   #76
aspen1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2005
Posts: 1,030
....to me...the ideal law would allow a citizen to use force..if necessary to prevent a serious crime..if no other means were successful....I do not think anyone here is advocating shooting a suspect on the spot (unless the suspect is armed and poses an immeadiate threat)...where the law is wrong today is that does not give a would-be victim or witness of a crime enough power to thwart that crime..remember..usually a policeman comes after a crime has already been commited and reported(not always the case of course)...when the criminal element in our society fears us more than the cops then we will see true progress made in diminishing crime....now those here who want attention don't twist this thread to say something it really doesn't......THE END
aspen1964 is offline  
Old September 26, 2005, 10:58 PM   #77
Blackwater OPS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,153
Amen to that
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty,
to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Ben Franklin

Spc. Jeremy M. Campbell
Died 9/1/2005
and the best DS ever
MSG Matthew Ritz
Died 11.23.2005
matthewritz.com

For those who have had to fight for it, Life holds a special meaning that the protected will never know.

(\__/)
(='.'=) Someone set us up the bunny!
(")_(")
Blackwater OPS is offline  
Old September 26, 2005, 11:04 PM   #78
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,577
aspen1964,

The TX law is just about as close to what you describe as "ideal" as I've ever heard of. It is complicated though--but so are most laws.

Doug,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug.38PR
What I am saying, is that you have the right to STOP someone from stealing or damaging your property with deadly force if NO OTHER OPTIONS are available.
That's getting closer, but that is still not sufficient under the TX law. A simple theft, even a felony theft is not sufficient justification for use of deadly force, nor is property damage--not even if deadly force is the only reasonable way to recover/preserve the property. I've tried to restate the law in the past, and managed to do so with reasonable clarity, but it takes a page and a half or so to line it out. Best to just read it through several times until you get the gist. You can't shoot someone for simply stealing or damaging property, it's far more complicated than that. What I'm getting at is that non-violent theft is insufficient justification (unless it takes place at night) if you read the law. Also, only certain types of property damage crimes are justification. EVEN if the proper TYPE of crime has happened at the proper TIME, it's still not sufficient justification. There are still several other requirements that must be satisfied before you can use deadly force. (Immediate necessity, no other reasonable method, force, as opposed to deadly force, justifed under 9.41, etc.)

tsavo,
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
Then when I give a scenario you all say that it can't be done
I posted the entire law of my state relating to your objection. You obviously didn't read them at all--not terribly surprising since you said as much
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
I don't care what the law says...
so it's not surprising that your "scenario" bore no resemblance to the type of scenario described in the law. And consequently you received decidedly negative responses which you incorrectly interpreted as "backpedaling".
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
You walk up to the drivers side and put a gun to the thiefs head and blow his brains out all over the passenger seat. You used deadly force to prevent a felony, and you're telling me that you think that you're gonna walk away from this?
Another ridiculous scenario that proves nothing but does make it abundantly clear that you either haven't read or haven't understood about 90% of what's been posted on this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
So therefore, you must say yes to this question based on what you just said.
Let me ask you a question. Why should anyone should carefully read and logically respond to your posts when it's painfully obvious that you either aren't reading or can't understand what others have posted and that you are either not bothering to take the time to construct a coherent argument or are unable to?
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?

Last edited by JohnKSa; September 27, 2005 at 09:59 PM.
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 26, 2005, 11:23 PM   #79
tsavo
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
Are you ****ing blind? There are numerous people in this thread claiming you can use deadly force to protect property and nothing more.

It's not very hard. It's either a yes or a no. Can you use deadly force to protect a simple piece of property. Plenty of people have said yes so maybe you're the one who should be reading posts again.
tsavo is offline  
Old September 26, 2005, 11:40 PM   #80
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
It's either a yes or a no.
No it's not. It's absolutely not "either a yes or a no".

Sometimes you can, most of the time you can't. The fact that you have failed to realize this is further proof that you either aren't reading or aren't comprehending the vast majority of what has been posted on this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
There are numerous people in this thread claiming you can use deadly force to protect property and nothing more.
Actually, I don't see a single person making such a claim without qualifying it. I've said it so many times that it's almost not worth repeating, but I'll try again. I think you're either not reading or not comprehending most of what's being posted here. I'll tell you what. Just so we know who you're talking about, why don't you quote some of the people who are making these alleged claims and list their names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
Can you use deadly force to protect a simple piece of property.
In certain cases you can. In other cases you may not. That's been said over and over now, and I even posted the entire text of the law of my state so it would be perfectly clear.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 26, 2005, 11:40 PM   #81
aspen1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2005
Posts: 1,030
..calm yourself TSAVO...no one is advocating shooting anyone commiting any kind of crime without jusitifiable cause...but some crimes are more serious in nature..and what unarmed criminal is going to ignore an armed citizen telling him to stop...it's the idea that we must sit and watch powerless from a distance while the criminal does whatever he wants because the law is on his side that gets me upset...try to keep things in the right perspective...
aspen1964 is offline  
Old September 27, 2005, 12:00 AM   #82
tsavo
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
I've been saying during the length of this entire thread that you can't use deadly force to protect property, and 90% of the people in here disgareed with me. What do you think that means? If nobody is claming that, then I wouldn't have so many people arguing about it.
tsavo is offline  
Old September 27, 2005, 09:20 AM   #83
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,853
The problem with chest beating threads is that they don't take a cold hard logical look at what is the best outcome of the encounter.

Is it to save the property? Is the cost of the property worth what may be the later costs due to the shooting aftermath.

Is it to make an ideological statement whatever the risk to one's life?

If one does shoot, there are significant finanacial, social and psychological consequences to self and family.

If you focus on the ideological statement, then don't whine when you get caught up in the system. It's nice to be so sure as an internet commando and lawyer of unknown credentials.

So many bytes, so much BS.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; September 27, 2005 at 11:16 AM.
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old September 27, 2005, 10:40 AM   #84
Derius_T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
TSAVO WROTE:

Quote:
Are you ****ing blind? There are numerous people in this thread claiming you can use deadly force to protect property and nothing more.
Such language. Careful tsavo....your intelligence (or lack of) is showing...


Quote:
It's not very hard. It's either a yes or a no. Can you use deadly force to protect a simple piece of property. Plenty of people have said yes so maybe you're the one who should be reading posts again.
Actually it is quite complicated, and that seems to be what is confusing you so much. It is NOT a cut and dry, yes or no answer. There are pesky little things called CIRCUMSTANCES that will determine wether or not you can or will be justified in using deadly force to protect property.

But to answer a SIMPLE question SIMPLY....YES you CAN use deadly force to protect property anytime you want. * IF * you don't mind facing the legal consequences and quite probably rotting in jail for the rest of your life. But with this, like in all things....its your life....and your choice....and your butt....

And lastly, this is supposed to be an intelligent, civil discussion. If you are incapable of the first, at least make an attempt to comply with the second.
Derius_T is offline  
Old September 27, 2005, 01:47 PM   #85
tsavo
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
Once again, read my posts-apparently you haven't done that yet. I've said numerous times that if you use deadly force to protect property you will be in jail.

People seem to be confusing what I'm saying. They come back with something such as "well if you're protecting property and you're threatened with force"-well I never said that. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said to protect PROPERTY, not your life.
tsavo is offline  
Old September 27, 2005, 02:06 PM   #86
Blackwater OPS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
It's nice to be so sure as an internet commando
Who me?
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty,
to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Ben Franklin

Spc. Jeremy M. Campbell
Died 9/1/2005
and the best DS ever
MSG Matthew Ritz
Died 11.23.2005
matthewritz.com

For those who have had to fight for it, Life holds a special meaning that the protected will never know.

(\__/)
(='.'=) Someone set us up the bunny!
(")_(")
Blackwater OPS is offline  
Old September 27, 2005, 02:23 PM   #87
sreising
Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2005
Location: Beautiful North Cakalackie
Posts: 20
Hmmmm.........

....Oh sorry...nevermind me...

......Just basking in the testosterone....

Shan
__________________
Love, Honor, and Watch Your Six!
sreising is offline  
Old September 27, 2005, 09:13 PM   #88
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
I've said numerous times that if you use deadly force to protect property you will be in jail.
And I posted the law that shows that statement is false. There are certainly times and circumstances where TX law allows you to legally use deadly force to protect property without going to jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
They come back with something such as "well if you're protecting property and you're threatened with force"-well I never said that.
I haven't come back with anything like that. I even posted the law showing that under the proper circumstances TX law will allow you to legally use deadly force to protect property even when your life is NOT in danger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
I said to protect PROPERTY, not your life.
So did I. So does TX Law.

Can you ALWAYS use deadly force to protect property in TX? NO! Read the law.

Can you SOMETIMES use deadly force to protect property in TX even when your life is NOT in danger? YES! Read the law.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?

Last edited by JohnKSa; September 27, 2005 at 11:52 PM.
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 01:01 AM   #89
tsavo
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
And my response to that, like it has been before in this thread, is that it's really stupid to risk going to prison based on a law that says "sometimes". That's pretty vague to me, and again-which I already said-it's not worth risking that for a piece of property.
tsavo is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 10:32 AM   #90
Derius_T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
JohnKSa, we're beating a dead horse.....just forget it man.
Derius_T is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 10:35 AM   #91
Derius_T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
TSAVO wrote:

Quote:
Once again, read my posts-apparently you haven't done that yet. I've said numerous times that if you use deadly force to protect property you will be in jail. People seem to be confusing what I'm saying. They come back with something such as "well if you're protecting property and you're threatened with force"-well I never said that. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said to protect PROPERTY, not your life.
Hmmm, read post #84 again. If you READ it, it should clear things up for you. If your having trouble, I can use smaller words....
Derius_T is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 03:21 PM   #92
tsavo
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
You really must be mentally handicapped. I'll post the exact same thing I just did concering that law.

"And my response to that, like it has been before in this thread, is that it's really stupid to risk going to prison based on a law that says "sometimes". That's pretty vague to me, and again-which I already said-it's not worth risking that for a piece of property."
tsavo is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 06:46 PM   #93
Derius_T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
TSAVO, a little history of your comments shall we?

Quote:
You realize that you aren't allowed to use deadly force to protect property don't you?
That was your very first post. And your question. And you happen to be WRONG. You didn't state wether or not it was worth it, just that you couldn't do it.

Quote:
Are you ****ing blind? There are numerous people in this thread claiming you can use deadly force to protect property and nothing more.
The fact is you CAN in some instances. WRONG AGAIN. (and rude)

Quote:
It's not very hard. It's either a yes or a no. Can you use deadly force to protect a simple piece of property.
Your next question. Again with no mention of if its WORTH it or not. (Which I answered)

Quote:
I've been saying during the length of this entire thread that you can't use deadly force to protect property, and 90% of the people in here disgareed with me.
Thats because your WRONG again. Must this go on? Yes it must....

Quote:
And my response to that, like it has been before in this thread, is that it's really stupid to risk going to prison based on a law that says "sometimes". That's pretty vague to me, and again-which I already said-it's not worth risking that for a piece of property.
Ah! Finally we get to the RISK! The COST! Is it worth it! But that was NOT the question I was answering as stated in message #84.

Quote:
You really must be mentally handicapped.
Actually, I happen to be a disabled veteran. But mentally? No. It seems the only mental problem here is your ability to keep your facts straight, though you backpedal very well.
Derius_T is offline  
Old September 28, 2005, 10:19 PM   #94
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
based on a law that says "sometimes".
Give me a break! The law absolutely does NOT say "sometimes" and I find it borderline ludicrous that you would so much as IMPLY that it does.

I said "sometimes" by way of a VERY brief summary of the law. Since I have actually posted the entire applicable section of the text of the law, I didn't think it was necessary to post a complete summary. Particularly since I said twice in that post that you should read the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsavo
That's pretty vague to me.
The law is ANYTHING but vague as you would know if you had so much as glanced at the text of the law that I posted for your perusal. In fact, if anything it is excessively specific.

Another post proving you have either not read or have not understood what's been posted here.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 29, 2005, 12:16 AM   #95
tsavo
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
Gee the law isn't vague huh, yet you can't give a yes or no answer to the use of deadly force to protect property, that makes sense

The fact is I stated that you can't use deadly force to stop a thief from stealing your neighbors car, and people started bitching and arguing with me. Then a few respected memebers came in and agreed partly with what I was saying and people started changing their stories. I'm done with this thread.
tsavo is offline  
Old September 29, 2005, 07:34 AM   #96
kennybs plbg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Hemet, Ca.
Posts: 524
Quote:
Gee the law isn't vague huh, yet you can't give a yes or no answer to the use of deadly force to protect property, that makes sense
I guess if you don't know your rights, you have no rights.

In NY State The answer is YES YOU CAN and it is clear with no fancy wording.

NY State Penal Law
kenny b

Last edited by kennybs plbg; September 29, 2005 at 07:51 AM. Reason: repair link
kennybs plbg is offline  
Old September 29, 2005, 09:25 AM   #97
Derius_T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
Tsavo wrote:

Quote:
Then a few respected memebers came in and agreed partly with what I was saying and people started changing their stories. I'm done with this thread.
Wow, imagine that JohnKSa....we're 'prolly not the respected members he's referring too. OMG, what ever shall we do!?

And with your attitude tsavo, you were done before you got started....
Derius_T is offline  
Old September 29, 2005, 10:21 AM   #98
tsavo
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
Maybe this will shut you up.

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=436506

Here's a few exerts from that thread from people who actually know what they are talking about.

"Not to be insensitive, but the victim, initiating contact with the suspects, escelated this situation to a violent level.
The suspects could even go so far as to say that the shooting was a matter of self defense.
A CCW is designed to afford us a last chance effort of self defense.
A CCW does not give anyone the right to play "COP" or "VIGILANTE".
I do not mean to be so harsh, but situations such as this one could one day cost everyone the privilege of a CCW."

"2) Like my CCW instructor {A Virginia LEO} said: "Let the cops take care of the big picture." If I see guys jacking a car I will arm myself and dial 911."

"3) By confronting property thieves with his defense weapon CCW guy just escalated a non-violent theft into an armed confrontation. What if the CCW guy had shot and killed the thieves? I expect he would be looking at charges and prison time. "

And those are just quotes from the first page. Owned.
tsavo is offline  
Old September 29, 2005, 12:03 PM   #99
Denny Hansen
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2001
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 2,367
And maybe THIS will shut everyone up…

This board is dedicated to the responsible use of firearms. This particular forum is dedicated to TACTICS AND TRAINING, not chest thumping, name calling and acting like school kids. Recess is over, kiddies.

Denny
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine
Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World
Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook
Denny Hansen is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.21007 seconds with 9 queries