TexasCHLforum.com

They got what they had coming for them. Two types of people I had most: Thieves and liars.

AndyC wrote:

Fangs wrote:

towcutter said on July 2, 2010 at 4:42 AM
andyindallas for President!

Hehe...

Thank you, but I couldn't possibly accept - I was born outside the country.

Oh - wait...

While I agree with a lot of what you say about the incident in question I have to take exception to this statement:

Clutch wrote: The slant WFAA reporter SGables puts on the story gives us insight into the bias of the media and a left wing agenda, and I support his ability to print the article. Many brave men have fought for him to exercise his right.

I don't agree that the media has any right to "slant" supposed "news" stories to service an agenda; and they most certainly don't have any right to lie. The media in this country gets extraordinary privileges under the presumption that they fulfill a public trust to provide information necessary to a functioning democracy --like free use of public property (airwaves), special access to people and places, and special treatment under the law-- and this special status confers upon them an obligation to tell the truth.

Nearly everything in the media today is a lie of some kind --usually a lie of omission that allows them to maintain the fiction that what they print is "factually" true. For at least the last thirty-years the media agenda has been to delegitimize gun ownership and self-defense. This media anti-gun propaganda has been extremely effective in Europe, Australia, and Britain.

What in the article by S Gables you very generously consider to be evidence of bias I consider to be evidence of dishonesty. Was it "like the Wild West"? Did the property owner "take the law into his own hands?" No. These statements don't add up to a "slant," they add up to a lie. Ever heard of Bernard Goetz? He shot a bunch of thugs on a subway back in 1984 and the media dubbed him the "subway vigilante." What's a "vigilante?" Wikipedia says: "A vigilante is someone who illegally punishes someone for perceived offenses, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to such a person." Dictionary.com says a vigilante is: "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime."

So, when Gables says the property owner took the law into his own hands is calling him a "vigilante." Presuming that dictionaries or the internet are available to the likes of S Gables, that is a DELIBERATE mischaracterization, otherwise known as a lie.

The problem is there isn't much that can be done about these liars, except to challenge their lies whenever possible.

Interestingly, a court (SCOTUS?) said the media does not have any responsibility to tell the truth, just like the police don't have any responsibility to protect us.

Edited because I was bothered that I didn't have a reference for the above statement and wasn't sure what exactly was said, so I went and looked it up.

Here's what I remember reading in numerous news outlets:
"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. ... [F]ive major media outlets [...] filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc."

And here'shere's what I discovered today:
"It is clear from the evidence presented here that FOX did not argue, as claimed by several of its critics, that it had a First Amendment [right] to lie in its news reports. It's also plain that the Florida courts did not rule that FOX and other broadcasters had such a right."

The FCC has a policy prohibiting false, distorted, or slanted news stories and is able to fine stations that do not comply. There is not a rule, law, or statute that I am aware of that requires news organizations to be honest in their stories.

However, I was correct about the police not having a responsibility to protect individual citizens: SCOTUS No 04-278 Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v Jessica Gonzales

Hoi Polloi wrote:Interestingly, a court (SCOTUS?) said the media does not have any responsibility to tell the truth, just like the police don't have any responsibility to protect us.

I remember something about that now that you mention it. I don't remember how the ruling was worded, but I think from the legal standpoint I'd modify the term "any responsibility" either to "any requirement" or "any legal responsibility" to tell the truth. In other words there can be a higher standard for conduct than the minimum standard set by the law. For instance, I don't lie to the people I care about: it's irrelevant to me that lying is "legal." I was speaking to a moral obligation that is obviously an object of contempt and derision for the liars, hypocrites, and all around scoundrels who populate our media. From the legal standpoint I have to agree with the court: making it a legal requirement for the media to tell the truth would create much worse problems than tolerating their lies.

VMI77 wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:Interestingly, a court (SCOTUS?) said the media does not have any responsibility to tell the truth, just like the police don't have any responsibility to protect us.

I remember something about that now that you mention it. I don't remember how the ruling was worded, but I think from the legal standpoint I'd modify the term "any responsibility" either to "any requirement" or "any legal responsibility" to tell the truth. In other words there can be a higher standard for conduct than the minimum standard set by the law. For instance, I don't lie to the people I care about: it's irrelevant to me that lying is "legal." I was speaking to a moral obligation that is obviously an object of contempt and derision for the liars, hypocrites, and all around scoundrels who populate our media. From the legal standpoint I have to agree with the court: making it a legal requirement for the media to tell the truth would create much worse problems than tolerating their lies.

I edited my above post while you were typing. I agree with you.

PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (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.
(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 (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
PC §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
(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
(8) 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
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (8) 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.

See the bold text above. This property owner would need to show that he could not reasonably have used a lesser degree of force and that he could not have recovered the property by any other means.

duns wrote:

PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (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.
(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 (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
PC §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
(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
(8) 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
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (8) 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.

See the bold text above. This property owner would need to show that he could not reasonably have used a lesser degree of force and that he could not have recovered the property by any other means.

You cite doesn't support your conclusion.

He only needs to show that he "reasonably believed" that "the use of force other than deadly force....would expose [him] to a substantial risk...". He was along. There was two of them, both relatively young. His use of deadly force was justified. (Edited: I thought I had seen that his age was 68, but I can't find that in the news articles. The two thieves were in their 40's and 50's.)

baldeagle wrote: He only needs to show that he "reasonably believed" that "the use of force other than deadly force....would expose [him] to a substantial risk...". He was 68. There was two of them, both young. His use of deadly force was justified.

Agreed. There was disparity of force. Elderly victim vs. 2 younger thieves. In addition:

Denton County Sheriff's Department spokesman Tom Reedy said when the owner spotted his stolen property inside the bed of the crooks' truck

The bg's already had his property in their pickup. It'd be pretty difficult to pull that equipment off the bg's pickup by himself, while trying to be nice to the thieves.

The case is being referred to the grand jury.

baldeagle wrote:You cite doesn't support your conclusion.

He only needs to show that he "reasonably believed" that "the use of force other than deadly force....would expose [him] to a substantial risk...".

Reasonable belief means the belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the actor (Section 1.07[42]). He will need to demonstrate that his belief was reasonable to the Grand Jury. Without knowing the full facts, I cannot form an opinion on whether this will be difficult or easy for him. Just to give one example, what if the injured thieves might have voluntarily returned his property on seeing the shotgun? Did he give them an opportunity to return the property before he fired? Maybe the property would have been returned without need for force at all. Maybe force was not justified let alone deadly force.

They had lots of opportunity to straighten up and fly right. Instead they intentionally and knowingly chose a life of crime. I hope the grand jury returns no true bill and the victim can get on with his life without being further victimized by politicians and bureaucrats. It's probably good for him he lives in Denton County Texas and not Travis County California.

Cobra Medic wrote:They had lots of opportunity to straighten up and fly right. Instead they intentionally and knowingly chose a life of crime.

It's been a long time since stealing was a capital offense.

duns wrote:

Cobra Medic wrote:They had lots of opportunity to straighten up and fly right. Instead they intentionally and knowingly chose a life of crime.

It's been a long time since stealing was a capital offense.

Not really. It still can be in Texas, according to deadly force law.

baldeagle wrote:

duns wrote:

Cobra Medic wrote:They had lots of opportunity to straighten up and fly right. Instead they intentionally and knowingly chose a life of crime.

It's been a long time since stealing was a capital offense.

Not really. It still can be in Texas, according to deadly force law.

Yeah, I read the Penal Code that way too. I keep wondering if I'm misreading it. Personally, I would not shoot to prevent loss of property but only to defend my life.