|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 9, 2013, 02:58 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Stop bickering. This is a perfectly good thread, and there's no need to ruin it with childish squabbling.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
June 9, 2013, 03:21 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
|
I never said I thought justice was carried out in the shooting of the Hooker. I was talking in a broader sense like this thread has been. Common sense tells me I wouldn't consider using deadly force for a pencil, or a few dollars. $150 is not a few dollars. That's a considerable sum to many people but still I don't think I would risk the legal ramifications of a shooting for it, not because I think it was morally wrong to use deadly force to protect it but because I can't afford the legal costs.
|
June 9, 2013, 04:11 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Legal scholar tend to have negative views on evaluating the use of lethal force based on a monetary scale. The yes-no decision is whether any lethal defense of property based on value is appropriate. Most would say No.
Lethal force to defend property that is necessary for life might be a special case. The money for your needed medicine or a genetic sample that uniquely has the cure for cancer. But even then, there is always the chance that you will get the money or someone else will make the breakthrough. Rationally, you cannot use value as a decision point if right to life is the predominate decision. Once you abandon that - then the specifics of the crime may count. In TX, the designing presumptions were that a theft at night had more of a life threat to you and the irreplaceable property loss was such that it would damage your life. You did not take the burden of hoping for the curative financial miracle. So in our case, you may not like it - but that is not good legal principles - but if the action fit the law of the land in this unusual circumstance, the jury acted correctly. Saying you don't like it - is very surface analysis.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 9, 2013, 04:20 PM | #79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
June 9, 2013, 05:57 PM | #80 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,930
|
Quote:
Quote:
In a more closely related example, in TX, as you pointed out, a person who is committing a crime more serious than a class C misdemeanor gives up the right to use deadly force in self-defense, regardless of the circumstances; however, they clearly don't give up the right to protect their property with deadly force if the circumstances of the situation warrant it. Quote:
In this type of case, the property owner will likely be charged and tried and will have to prove, in court, that their claim of justification is valid by presenting evidence and arguments to support that claim. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||
June 9, 2013, 06:52 PM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
I'd want to know, for instance, whether it does deter nighttime marauders; it seems to me that would be hard to measure. But it should be possible to determine whether people really benefit from it: for example, does it in fact help property owners to recover their property, or, if they act on the basis of this law, do they, on average, incur legal and other costs that exceed the value of the property in question? In other words, if one is to justify taking life to prevent victimization, one ought to be able to show that victimization is actually prevented.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
June 9, 2013, 06:52 PM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Had the shooting occurred 100 miles north in Travis County (Austin), it is very likely numerous charges would have been preferred and convictions obtained.
There are some differences across Texas, with many in Austin acting more like Diane Feinstein than Texans
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
June 9, 2013, 07:40 PM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
This is like the habitual criminal in California who received a life sentence under the then-new Three Strikes law. His third offense was stealing a slice of pizza.
He was not put away for life for stealing pizza, nor was the woman shot for $150. The laws were applied to them because they were criminals and the public expects it. |
June 9, 2013, 09:18 PM | #84 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,930
|
Quote:
I can come up with some very "creative" (i.e. unrealistic) scenarios where it might make sense, but no scenarios that are reasonably probable. Quote:
However, I do believe the law has value in that it seems likely to reduce the incidence of victimization by deterring, to one extent or another, criminals from engaging in crimes where they can be legally shot. That's in spite of the obvious issues with how it would play out for the "defender" in practice. In fact, an occasional well-publicized case is valuable to preserving that deterrent effect by not allowing the law to fade from the collective memory of the public. That deterrent value is pretty much the sole reason I wouldn't care to see the law changed--with the possible exception of adding a criminal activity clause to bring it into line with the other TX deadly force laws. In one sense, this is the same general principle as a person, who has no personal desire to own or use firearms, supporting the right to own firearms as a deterrent to government tyranny, or as a general deterrent to certain violent crimes. Not because he believes revolutions are a good idea or because he wants to own firearms himself for self-defense, but because he believes that widespread private ownership of firearms likely provides some deterrent value against the government overstepping its bounds and probably makes it less desirable for criminals to break into occupied dwellings.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
June 9, 2013, 10:31 PM | #85 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
As regards a theoretical principle of deterrence, there are some similarities between the two. But I think that there's also an analogy with capital punishment when one looks at the effects in a more concrete way.
The evidence that the death penalty deters murderers is minimal (in part because no study has compared it with the deterrent effects of other punishments, such as life without parole). But -- especially since the advent of DNA testing -- it's become apparent that innocent people are sentenced to death with some regularity. Concern about executing the innocent is one of the reasons that six states have repealed death penalty laws since 2007. I don't mean to suggest that thieves are "innocents," but they are human beings, and their lives have value. I'm not sure that the actual loss of life can be justified by a presumed, but unsupported, deterrent effect. I don't know how frequent such cases are, and that's also relevant to this calculus, although I also don't know exactly how one would do the math. But I'm pretty sure that it would be hard to justify the law on the basis of "...if it saves just one bicycle."
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
June 9, 2013, 10:45 PM | #86 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,930
|
Quote:
Although it's not precisely the same thing, I do know that there have been studies/interviews done that indicate criminals are generally more afraid of armed citizens than of LEOs. I also find that although shootings over property don't happen very often, they tend to stay in the collective memory. I still occasionally hear someone retell an incident that happened in this area well over 20 years ago. It involved a property owner who was exonerated after he shot and killed someone who had repeatedly stolen from him. The homeowner encountered him leaving the scene and shot him to prevent his escape with the stolen property.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
June 9, 2013, 11:55 PM | #87 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 6, 2012
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 1,670
|
Re: Appropriate use of deadly force Texas style
Quote:
|
|
June 10, 2013, 12:11 AM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Posts: 159
|
I'm with Ezekiel Gilbert. $150 is $150.
|
June 10, 2013, 12:12 AM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Here is a great example. It has a lot of the hot button topics.
- child killed (age 14) - shot in back - because of property theft at night - homeowner shooter walked, uncharged IIRC, because he was 100% within compliance of the law - also San Antonio incident http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...ght=fight+cock Given that the law is in place and has been for so long, the burden of risk is really on the criminal, not the homeowners/residents, when it comes to crime at night.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
June 10, 2013, 08:10 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,512
|
Yes but in this case^^ the person was not otherwise engaged in illegal activity. The case under discussion the person was engaged in illegal activity that otherwise would not have given the oportunity for the theft to have occured ultimately resulting in a homicide.
|
June 10, 2013, 11:18 AM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
There's an assumption being made here that may not be accurate. That assumption is that the $150 in question remained the defendant's property even after he voluntarily gave it to the woman he subsequently shot. Did it really? I'd suggest not. He voluntarily gave it to her in expectation of some "service" (the specific nature of which has not necessarily been established). He was unhappy with the service rendered, but under what legal precept does that return legal title of the $150 to him? How would it be different from any other purchase someone makes and is unhappy with?
If I were to buy an item from Walmart (or any other retailer), suffer buyer's remorse and demand my money back, only to be refused by the retailer, would that qualify under the law as theft? I highly doubt it. |
June 10, 2013, 11:45 AM | #92 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Its a contract dispute, not property.
As a Texan, this case has so much FAIL on so many levels its infuriating. The prosecution almost has to appeal (and will win that), else nearly every criminal shooting can be protected under this methodology. "he sold me bad crack so I shot him" "case dismissed." You cannot claim defense of yourself or property if you are engaged in criminal activity at the time. Thats basic Texas law and an appellate court will knock it on that basis alone. appeal #1. The activity involved is not a good, but a service, therefor he's not protecting property - appeal #2. The issue was a contract dispute. You cannot claim self defense under a contract dispute. appeal #3 The contract dispute is VOID as it was an illegal contract. Appeal #4. You cannot use a firearm to stop a BG fleeing unless they pose a threat to you of serious injury or death. Appeal #5. |
June 10, 2013, 11:47 AM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
That's where I was headed too. But this is a jury's verdict. Jeopardy has attached and there can be no prosecutorial appeal. The time for the prosecution to act would have been at the moment the judge allowed/required the jury to consider the affirmative defense.
Last edited by csmsss; June 10, 2013 at 12:23 PM. |
June 10, 2013, 11:55 AM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Otherwise, you and csmsss raise some interesting points...
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
June 10, 2013, 11:56 AM | #95 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
The man shot someone to recover $150 and he was charged and tried and acquitted three and a half years later.
Bad move by the shooter, bad outcome for the state. |
June 10, 2013, 12:16 PM | #96 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 6, 2012
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 1,670
|
Re: Appropriate use of deadly force Texas style
Quote:
And as to appeals in general - double jeopardy is attached so the prosecution cannot appeal this one for any reason (unless they can prove perjury, I believe). |
|
June 10, 2013, 12:39 PM | #97 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Prosecutors aren't judges, that is why. Will this make legislators make or contemplate changes? Nope. Quote:
Last edited by manta49; June 10, 2013 at 12:57 PM. |
||
June 10, 2013, 12:47 PM | #98 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
June 10, 2013, 12:49 PM | #99 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
Quote:
(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. ***It’s a payment for a service not tangible property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or ****Woops just lost that one. (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and ****See above. (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or ****Its not reasonable to shoot an AK at someone. (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and ****Its not reasonable to shoot an AK at someone. (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or ***Its not reasonable. It’s a contract dispute over an illegal contract. (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. ***Nope, maybe prosecution for solicitation. Last edited by zincwarrior; June 10, 2013 at 01:16 PM. |
||
June 10, 2013, 01:00 PM | #100 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Realistically, the state legislative session is coming to an end. There will be no great effort to change the law because of this case in the near future.
Nor will there be an appeal. If that is legal. What is the grounds against the protection against double jep.? My opinion but that's the way I see it.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|