Appropriate use of deadly force Texas style

[Fishing_Cabin]

MLeake brings up a good point...

However, I think a good argument can be made that if one is not allowed to defend one's property, then in reality one has no right to property.

I also think that saying, "hey, people can insure stuff," could be translated as, "law abiding people should be required to subsidize thieves, by paying insurance so they can replace stuff, and so thieves don't have to fear physical harm."

Having grew up in a family business which was regularly targeted by thieves, and dealing with insurance claims I have a slightly jaded view. If someone is subject to repeated thefts they may face the cancelation of their insurance, or they may become uninsurable, period. The insurance company will be look for a person(or company) to take care of their (its) property in the first place. If you (or your business) doesn't take care of its property, don't look for the insurance to repeatedly replace/repair it.

There comes a point when the insurance will expect changes or else no coverage for a loss. Its not as simple as it sounds to say, "Oh, its insured" all the time. Due to break-ins, I spent many nights from my late teens in to my early 20's sleeping in a store with a shotgun, not to protect the property itself, but to protect me while I watched over the property.

Originally Posted by G.E.M.

Gotta go - discuss among yourself and there will be a moral philosophy and law quiz tomorrow.

Uh oh.....Cant we have a sensitivity class instead? Ive aced tons of those classes/texts....

[manta49]

Due to break-ins, I spent many nights from my late teens in to my early 20's sleeping in a store with a shotgun, not to protect the property itself, but to protect me while I watched over the property

That sounds reasonable to me, but shooting a woman for taking of with a few dollars is not in my opinion.

[Fishing_Cabin]

manta49, I agree that this is not a perfect case, and I also know that juries will do strange things too.

That said, I do not have a problem with legal force being used to protect oneself or ones property, provided they are, or did the extremely best possible to stay within the law. Yes, I did say "force"... Force can be the very basic physical presence of the property owner (or other person(s)) up to lethal force and anything in between. The laws and court system (however we may agree/disagree with it) will be how it will finally be decided, after the even happens.

[JohnKSa]

I think when most people are referring to property they are talking about their house and using force to defend themselves and their family most would have no problem seeing the use of force in them circumstances as reasonable.

The law does not specify a minimum value to the property being stolen as part of the justification for deadly force--my guess is that the law was written that way because in some cases it would not be possible for the property owner to make an accurate assessment of what the thief was leaving with. That was obviously not the case in this situation.

I think the punishment should have some relation to the crime obviously not in this case.

This is a common misconception about the justified use of deadly force.

The justified use of deadly force by citizens is NEVER allowed as a punishment. Citizens are NEVER allowed to punish other citizens using deadly force.

Deadly force is sometimes allowed, under very specific circumstances to PREVENT a crime from happening or from being carried to completion, but NEVER as a way to punish the criminal for what he's doing or has done.

Punishment ONLY happens as the result of a trial under an entirely separate set of laws and that that punishment is carried out ONLY by the government.

Trying to equate the justified use of deadly force by a citizen with the legal punishment carried out by the government is bound to cause confusion.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by MLeake

However, I think a good argument can be made that if one is not allowed to defend one's property, then in reality one has no right to property.

It seems to me that this is a simplistic view. As Glenn noted, the only possible absolutist position is that it is always wrong to take a life. Once you allow that it's sometimes OK to do so, things get messy, and there are no dichotomous variables. It's not as simple as "Either I have a right to property or I don't, and if I do I can use any level of force to defend it."

I'd argue that there is a hierarchy of rights, with the right to life at the top.

For me, a list of rights might look something like this:

1. An individual has the right to life.
2. A society has the right -- in fact the duty -- to protect its members and its institutions, including public (or "cultural") property.
3. An individual has the right to protect his personal property.

In the abstract -- without a specific context -- that's how I'd order them. The problem is that in specific cases, the ordering of rights isn't necessarily this clear-cut.

For example, opinions differ as to the morality of capital punishment. If you're someone who always places the individual right to life ahead of the rights of society as a whole, then you must be opposed to capital punishment.

If you believe that capital punishment is OK in some cases, you're saying that the right of society to protect itself is sometimes more important than the right to life. Then you have to get down and dirty and argue about when that's the case.

The same is true if you believe that taking a life in self-defense is justified. You've just opened a huge can of ethical worms: among other things, you have to decide under what circumstances it's OK, what counts as self-defense, and where the boundaries are (for example, someone's claim of self-defense isn't justified if he provoked the incident, unless he then made a clear effort to back off and de-escalate the situation).

As to taking a life in defense of personal property, as far as I'm concerned, the right to life outweighs the right to private property. I can't imagine a situation in which I would feel that defending my money or my stuff would justify taking a life. (There may be exceptions that I haven't thought of, but I'd hold that as a general principle.) So, yes, a petty thief's right to life outweighs a person's right to the contents of his wallet.

But I regard cultural property differently. When I say "cultural property," I don't mean "all public property:" if someone witnesses the theft of a library book, he wouldn't be justified in defending the book with deadly force. But -- to take an extreme example -- in April 2003, at the start of the second Iraq war, looters broke into the National Museum of Iraq and stole irreplaceable antiquities that were part of the heritage not just of Iraq, but of civilization in general. (U.S. forces had no plan in place to protect the museum, although they had been asked to make one.)

I would have been fine with the use of deadly force against those looters, whether by US troops or by civilians. To me, that was a clear case in which the interest of society in protecting an irreplaceable part of our cultural heritage outweighed the right to life of thieves who were, in a sense, committing a crime against humanity.

I think the Mona Lisa is a vastly overrated painting, but if someone tries to vandalize her, whack the heck out of 'em, say I.

[Tom Servo]

An individual has the right to life.

We do, and in any just society, violating that right should be subject to very stern and deliberate scrutiny.

Our society is also built on the concept of the ownership of property. As MLeake pointed out, that property loses value if someone can just waltz in and take it.

The problem lies in deciding where the two meet. I have a real problem equating life with property, and that's what we must do if we're to discuss taking a life to protect things. I can place a value in dollars on my television, my banjo, or my 49-state collection of Franklin Mint commemorative plates. Can I place such a value on life?

If I do, it cheapens it. Is a person's life worth $500? $5000? I can't say I like where such a discussion would lead.

[teeroux]

Well I can think of a few scumbags I've come across that are probably worth less than the price of a bullet to shoot them. However I do not believe that a person could be justified in shooting them without prosecution themselves because that person crawfished out on a criminal enterprise they were coconspiring.

[JohnKSa]

An individual has the right to life.

The law doesn't make any attempt to balance life against property value. It doesn't try to establish a minimum property value that merits a deadly force response, it merely sets forth a confluence of circumstances--which are all exclusively dependent on the criminal's decisions--under which the property owner can use deadly force to retrieve property or otherwise prevent its loss.

In effect, it is the criminal who makes the decision(s) that what he is stealing is worth the risk of his life.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I can place a value in dollars on my television, my banjo, or my 49-state collection of Franklin Mint commemorative plates. Can I place such a value on life?

If I do, it cheapens it. Is a person's life worth $500? $5000? I can't say I like where such a discussion would lead.

I agree with your basic point, but in fact human lives are given a value all the time by courts and insurance companies.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The law doesn't make any attempt to balance life against property value. It doesn't try to establish a minimum property value that merits a deadly force response, it merely sets forth a confluence of circumstances--which are all exclusively dependent on the criminal's decisions--under which the property owner can use deadly force to retrieve property or otherwise prevent its loss.

In a very real sense, it is the criminal who makes the decision(s) that what he is stealing is worth the risk of his life. [emphasis mine]

I'm not comfortable with this as a justification for the use of deadly force. It seems to me that if it's a valid argument in the case of property crime, it could also be used to justify the use of deadly force to prevent or stop all sorts of other crimes: drunk driving, indecent exposure, or littering, for example. In each of these cases, it's the criminal who decides to engage in the activity. It's not clear to me that "But it's mine!" is a sufficient reason to put a petty theft in a different category from these.

[ClydeFrog]

I agree that criminal jury actions are hard to gauge.

A middle age woman in a upper middle class area near me was cleared by a jury for the 2011 death of her boyfriend. The jury took the woman's claim that the victim took the handgun & somehow killed himself in a dispute.

Another local homicide/trial had a SE Asia combat veteran & JD holder shoot a guy who was having sexual relations with the veteran's wife(who later stated she had mental problems & drank a lot).
The jury sided with the husband & he walked out a free man. The victim was shot several times & died at the scene.

ClydeFrog

[JohnKSa]

I'm not comfortable with this as a justification for the use of deadly force.

I wasn't presenting it as a justification, just explaining how I read the law.

Also pointing out that the law itself contains nothing that might be interpreted as valuing human life in terms of property or vice-versa.

It seems to me that if it's a valid argument in the case of property crime, it could also be used to justify the use of deadly force to prevent or stop all sorts of other crimes: drunk driving, indecent exposure, or littering, for example.

Of course it could--assuming that the public and the representatives of the public/legislators felt that was reasonable. Just as the public and the legislators believe that it is reasonable to allow people to use deadly force to protect life in many places and have passed laws reflecting that belief.

It's not clear to me that "But it's mine!" is a sufficient reason to put a petty theft in a different category from these.

That's a pretty oversimplified version of the law.

As I mentioned earlier, if one reads the law, it is fairly obvious that deadly force is allowed under circumstances where there is little to no chance that the law would be able to recover the property--in other words, under circumstances engineered by the thief/robber/burglar to make identification/apprehension/prosecution nearly impossible. The law simply allows the property owner to do what he can in a situation where the law is impotent to provide redress.

So, for example, if a thief doesn't want to be legally shot in TX for theft, he can commit theft in the daytime. It's illegal to use deadly force for simple theft in the daytime because the assumption is that if the property owner is close enough to use deadly force in the daytime he is able to see the thief and therefore the chance of being able to identify the thief to the authorities is sufficient for the law to take control of the situation. Under those circumstances the property owner can't use deadly force--he has to report the crime, tell law enforcement what he saw and what happened and then let the government deal with the crime.

If one wants to attempt to justify this law, the place to start is with that theme--the idea that the government will not tie the hands of a property owner to recover his property in a situation where the circumstances make it essentially impossible for the government to deal with the problem.

The law clearly isn't about ruling on the relative value of life vs property; it's based on the idea that if the government can't help, it steps back and allows the property owner to do what he can to resolve the situation.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by John

If one wants to attempt to justify this law, the place to start is with that theme--the idea that the government will not tie the hands of a property owner to recover his property in a situation where the circumstances make it essentially impossible for the government to deal with the problem.

I have read the law, and I know that's the rationale behind it. I'd OK with it, if it stopped short of allowing the use of deadly force. The question Glenn raised was the moral one:

Thus, his action was moral if you go by the standard of the law of the land. If you disagree with the law's principle then in your view it was immoral.

It's really like one of Kohlberg's exercises. The action is moral under a Stage 4 Conventional morality view. A 5 or 6th level analysis might say no.

It's the principle -- permitting deadly force to recover personal property -- that I disagree with, and that principle really does come down to "But it's mine!" For that to be a justification for homicide, a culture must put a very high value on property rights.

In some cultures, "honor killings" are justifiable. In that case, the justification is basically "But he dissed me!" or "But she shamed me!" It's not that long ago that it was commonplace in France for men to be acquitted of murder in crimes passionels, and they can be treated differently in this country, as well. See this 1994 case in Maryland, in which the judge basically said that it was justifiable for a man to have killed his wife four hours after finding her with another man. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter, and the judge said he regretted having to send him to prison. In that case, the justification comes down to "But she betrayed me!"

The primary consideration in making law should be the ethical standards of the society; whether the government is always able to prevent or redress a particular crime should be secondary to that. In Texas, the standards of the community place property ahead of life in some circumstances, and that's different from the standards in other parts of the country.

It seems to me that exploring those differences is the point of this thread.

[JohnKSa]

It's the principle -- permitting deadly force to recover personal property -- that I disagree with, and that principle really does come down to "But it's mine!"

I would argue that the principle is more accurately described as: "We (society) see that you tried everything else and it didn't work, and we see that the criminal arranged things so that we won't be able to help you. We also see that anything else you try would place your life in danger, and we realize that you are left with only one alternative to merely standing by and allowing yourself to be victimized. Therefore we will allow you to act on your own behalf to recover the property and prevent you (a member of society) from being victimized."

In other words, minor emphasis on the property and major emphasis on coming up with a way to prevent a member of society from being victimized in a case where the law can't do anything about it. If you think about it, that's really what laws should be all about--attempting to prevent the victimization of members of society by criminals.

Just to be clear, I would never shoot anyone over property for a number of reasons, but I don't want to see the law changed either. Not because it is a law that would ever keep me from going to jail but because I believe it is a law that makes me (and the other members of society) somewhat less likely to be victimized.

[arch308]

I must agree with John. He stated it better than I could have. As stated earlier, if you can't protect your property then you have no real right to own property. It is the thief that causes the problem. They made the decision to steal knowing what can happen if caught.
Would I use deadly force to stop someone from stealing my lawn sprinkler? Of course not. Would I use it as a last resort to stop someone from getting away with my Harley? Damn straight. I'm not sure where I would draw a line tho.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

In other words, minor emphasis on the property and major emphasis on coming up with a way to prevent a member of society from being victimized in a case where the law can't do anything about it.

But why should this include the right to use deadly force?

Your argument that it's legitimate because "... it is the criminal who makes the decision(s) that what he is stealing is worth the risk of his life" seems to be contradicted by what you wrote in an earlier post:

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Just because a person breaks a law doesn't mean they give up all their essential rights. In TX, the offense of prostitution is a Class B misdemeanor (level 2 of 3 levels of misdemeanor), only one level up from a traffic ticket. How much do you believe a conviction of a mid-level misdemeanor should impair one's rights?

The theft committed by the young woman in the case we're discussing was also a Class B misdemeanor, yet the jury found that by committing it, she had, in effect, given up her right to life.

Originally Posted by CriminalDefenseLawyer*

Theft is a class B misdemeanor in Texas if the value of the property or services stolen is $50 or more but less than $500, or if the property stolen is a driver's license or other identification card. (Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(2).) The punishment for a class B misdemeanor in Texas is a sentence of confinement in jail for a term of not more than 180 days a fine of not more than $2,000, or both. (§ 12.22.)

So if deliberate but minor criminality doesn't, in itself, impair fundamental rights, what ethical principle puts Person A's right not to be "victimized" ahead of Person B's right to life?

The crimes in question are viewed similarly by the law. The only difference between the two (prostitution and theft) is that one is a crime against property and the other is not.
----
*Link.

[arch308]

Just my take Vanya but person "B" made the decision that put his/her life in danger whereas person "A" didn't decide to be a victim. I still believe a person should be held accountable for their actions.

[Evan Thomas]

Arch, read my post again. It points to reasons why that's a problematic argument.

[MLeake]

While Vanya may disagree, I think JohnKSa is correct when he says,

In effect, it is the criminal who makes the decision(s) that what he is stealing is worth the risk of his life.

Frankly, I don't care if it's a junkie supporting a habit; a teenager pulling a "prank;" you name it. I am not saying I would shoot at a kid for stealing a garden gnome in a scavenger hunt, but I am saying that the kid is in fact choosing to run the risk of watchdogs biting or cranky old guys shooting.

[arch308]

I really don't see the problem. The right to defend ones life and property pretty much overshadow a criminals "right to life". JMO and not backed up by anything but my own personal compass.

[manta49]

I really don't see the problem. The right to defend ones life and property pretty much overshadow a criminals "right to life". JMO and not backed up by anything but my own personal compass.

So if a teenager stole your a pencil out of your pocket and ran away you would feel it was proportionate response to shoot them.

[MLeake]

manta49, what if your teenager stole the compass my grandfather used to carry on search and rescue missions, which is my only physical memento of the man?

[manta49]

manta49, what if your teenager stole the compass my grandfather used to carry on search and rescue missions, which is my only physical memento of the man?

You tell me if you think its worth shooting someone for. Are you saying it depends on what they take.

[arch308]

Manta, that was a stupid question. Nobody is saying kill a teenager for stealing a pencil. Sometimes I think you just like to stir the pot.

[MLeake]

manta49, I think the thief takes his chances, in a moral sense. I would not take the shot, living where I do, as it would be unlawful.

In Texas, after dark, I will let the thief wonder what I would do.

As far as it depending on what is taken, I only raised the point because it seems to matter to you - so you must have some theoretical floor in mind.

If so, I would point out that what would be a trivial amount to a Gates, Buffett, or Bloomberg could easily be next month's rent and grocery money to another victim.

[manta49]

Manta, that was a stupid question. Nobody is saying kill a teenager for stealing a pencil. Sometimes I think you just like to stir the pot

I was replying to the post bellow. I think its a fair question the individual in question stole a few dollars. When do you start shooting a pencil is your personal property. Where do you draw the line steeling your watch your money a pencil.

I really don't see the problem. The right to defend ones life and property pretty much overshadow a criminals "right to life". JMO and not backed up by anything but my own personal compass