Texas Couple Shoots 4 for Trespass. Boy, 7, Dies

[JohnKSa]

The more generously you set the threshold of when lethal force is permissible, the greater the likelihood that law-abiding citizens will mistakenly be killed, as happened in the case being discussed in this thread.

That's a rather creative premise. I've not found that people who make the assessment that you can shoot people for trespassing (and I've heard it from more than one person) base their belief on an analysis of the law. Instead they base it exclusively on what they heard from some other person (or persons) who are also totally ignorant of the law and who heard it from others who were also totally ignorant of the law... (you get the point.)

The point is, and remains, that you can't fix ignorance by changing something that ignorant people are ignorant of. If they knew the law and kept up with the changes to the law then there would be no problem. The problem is that they do NOT know the law and do NOT keep up with the changes to it. Therefore changing the law can not have any effect on what they do.

This is why I've used as it as an example,...

It's not a valid example because what you're proposing as a solution will clearly have no effect on them or people like them. In fact, your argument is contradictory if you claim they are an example for the reasons I listed above.

...that they were acting in good faith when they shot at that car, that they genuinely believed that it was legal to shoot...

If this is true then they clearly didn't know the law. If they knew the law they would not have fired on the trespassers unless they wished to commit murder. If they wanted to commit murder in violation of the law then changing the law can have no effect. If they were ignorant of the law then changing the law can have no effect because their ignorance (and the similar ignorance of others) can't be fixed by changing that which they are ignorant of.

In other words, you're attempting to use an emotionally charged incident to support your view (deadly force laws in TX need to be changed) but even your own arguments demonstrate that the incident is not applicable to the view you're airing. That glaring lack of applicability is what has driven you to repeatedly make statements like:

"I'm not arguing that the law should be changed based on this case."
"...my point isn't about "educating ignorant idiots."

[OldMarksman]

I happen to think that taking someone's life over a property crime, especially a misdemeanor, is unethical, and ought not to be legal, no matter whether it's at night, no matter whether the crime couldn't be prevented in any other way, etc., etc.

I happen to agree.

....assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that they were acting in good faith when they shot at that car, that they genuinely believed that it was legal to shoot, that the victims were damaging their property and that they had no other recourse, they were wrong. .... People can and do make mistakes in evaluating a situation, even when they're well-informed about the law.

If the shooting had taken place on their property and the Muhs had shot to protect low value property from being defaced, and if that provision of the code made their act lawful, that might be relevant, and regardless of whether the Texas legislators who enacted Section 9.42 understood that that might happen, it would now be the subject of very legitimate debate. However, it is not relevant.

I think it makes a difference where the boundaries are set in the first place:

OK, just where would you draw them? Would you make the use of deadly force unlawful in all circumstances, reversing a millenium of established law?

Forget Texas for a moment. We've had a homeowner shoot a sleeping drunk in his house Washington, a man try to strike a trespasser in Tennessee with a hammer, and someone kill someone at night with a "warning shot" in Colorado in recent months--all criminal acts. We've had people opine that it's OK to shoot a fleeing felon in Illinois, to point guns at trespassers and tell them to get on the ground in the Southeast, and draw and shoot people "making threatening gestures" somewhere far to the northeast of Texas, all very ignorant of the law, but what "boundaries" are set in such a manner that they made a difference in these misconceptions? None, I think.

I seriously doubt that the Muhs had any more knowledge of the content of Texas Code Section 9.42 than the night watchman in Colorado had about the lethal force laws there (deadly force to protect property is very clearly unlawful) or the Washington State homeowner knew about the appellate court rulings that establish a castle doctrine there . Both face murder charges, but it wasn't because of anything wrong with the way the law is framed.

No, I think the Texas Code contains a provision that is completely unethical and I expect that, should something really bad happen that turns out to be beyond the pale, the law will be amended, either by the legislature or by judicial interpretation. But I do not think that any part of the law as written and as understood by the Muhs contributed at all to the tragedy now at hand.

Actually, for the most part, I think the Texas code is very well written; there's enough specificity in it to minimize the likelihood of misinterpretation by persons not knowledgeable of the case law. I think there are real problems with Section 9.42, but if that section comes up in court in this case it won't be because the Muhs had ever read it.

[Texan_Mama1985]

Personally, they should stick them (alive and bloody), in a room filled with hungry hogs to be eaten alive. Then if there is anything left, grind it up and feed it to the gators in the Trinity.

[Bernie Lomax]

Does Texas still have the death penalty?

You're joking, right?

TX may lead the country in state executions.

Texas executes the most people in total, but Oklahoma executes the most per capita.

[Al Norris]

Bringing back a thread from a year and a half, just to vent.

Closed.