TexasCHLforum.com

duns wrote:

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.

Personally, I would agree with your statement, but we've seen, in posts here and elsewhere, how quickly a robbery can turn lethal, even if the victim cooperates fully. Too many perps don't seem to want to leave a witness behind who can testify against them.

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

Sexual assault isn't a capital offense but I have no problems with anyone shooting a rapist to prevent the crime.

tacticool wrote:

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

Sexual assault isn't a capital offense but I have no problems with anyone shooting a rapist to prevent the crime.

Your point is thought-provoking. My take on it is this. A person committing a sexual assault needs to be stopped as does a person committing a physical assault but from a moral and legal point of view the level of force should not be excessive so shooting will not always be necessary, probably rarely necessary. Theft is different to physical attack on a person in that it is often a reasonable option just to be a good witness and hope the person can be arrested later. In other words, I don't see use of lethal force as an imperative when someone is making off with property (even if the letter of the law allows it). If you saw a man snatch a lady's handbag and come running in your direction, would you shoot him down? I wouldn't. I might use force (if I felt I was capable of overwhelming him) but I would not use lethal force.

The case in question was the theft of an A/C condenser, which apparently was already in the back of the thieves' truck. Unless the thieves were attacking me, I would not have shot them. I would have told them to unload the truck. If they jumped in to drive off, I would have used my shotgun against the truck to try to deflate a tire or put some nice identifying marks on the bodywork.

duns wrote:

tacticool wrote:

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

Sexual assault isn't a capital offense but I have no problems with anyone shooting a rapist to prevent the crime.

Your point is thought-provoking. My take on it is this. A person committing a sexual assault needs to be stopped as does a person committing a physical assault but from a moral and legal point of view the level of force should not be excessive so shooting will not always be necessary, probably rarely necessary. Theft is different to physical attack on a person in that it is often a reasonable option just to be a good witness and hope the person can be arrested later. In other words, I don't see use of lethal force as an imperative when someone is making off with property (even if the letter of the law allows it). If you saw a man snatch a lady's handbag and come running in your direction, would you shoot him down? I wouldn't. I might use force (if I felt I was capable of overwhelming him) but I would not use lethal force.

The case in question was the theft of an A/C condenser, which apparently was already in the back of the thieves' truck. Unless the thieves were attacking me, I would not have shot them. I would have told them to unload the truck. If they jumped in to drive off, I would have used my shotgun against the truck to try to deflate a tire or put some nice identifying marks on the bodywork.

Firing a shotgun at the truck is still considered use of lethal force, regardless of the fact that you're trying to hit the truck and not the people inside.

LarryH wrote:

duns wrote:

tacticool wrote:

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

Sexual assault isn't a capital offense but I have no problems with anyone shooting a rapist to prevent the crime.

Your point is thought-provoking. My take on it is this. A person committing a sexual assault needs to be stopped as does a person committing a physical assault but from a moral and legal point of view the level of force should not be excessive so shooting will not always be necessary, probably rarely necessary. Theft is different to physical attack on a person in that it is often a reasonable option just to be a good witness and hope the person can be arrested later. In other words, I don't see use of lethal force as an imperative when someone is making off with property (even if the letter of the law allows it). If you saw a man snatch a lady's handbag and come running in your direction, would you shoot him down? I wouldn't. I might use force (if I felt I was capable of overwhelming him) but I would not use lethal force.

The case in question was the theft of an A/C condenser, which apparently was already in the back of the thieves' truck. Unless the thieves were attacking me, I would not have shot them. I would have told them to unload the truck. If they jumped in to drive off, I would have used my shotgun against the truck to try to deflate a tire or put some nice identifying marks on the bodywork.

Firing a shotgun at the truck is still considered use of lethal force, regardless of the fact that you're trying to hit the truck and not the people inside.

Agreed. And it could lead to a much more complicated defense.
"I was trying to shoot out the tires. I did not mean to kill them."
Or worse yet, you only injure them.

duns wrote:Your point is thought-provoking. My take on it is this. A person committing a sexual assault needs to be stopped as does a person committing a physical assault but from a moral and legal point of view the level of force should not be excessive so shooting will not always be necessary, probably rarely necessary. Theft is different to physical attack on a person in that it is often a reasonable option just to be a good witness and hope the person can be arrested later. In other words, I don't see use of lethal force as an imperative when someone is making off with property (even if the letter of the law allows it). If you saw a man snatch a lady's handbag and come running in your direction, would you shoot him down? I wouldn't. I might use force (if I felt I was capable of overwhelming him) but I would not use lethal force.

The case in question was the theft of an A/C condenser, which apparently was already in the back of the thieves' truck. Unless the thieves were attacking me, I would not have shot them. I would have told them to unload the truck. If they jumped in to drive off, I would have used my shotgun against the truck to try to deflate a tire or put some nice identifying marks on the bodywork.

Here's the problem with your thinking. You have no idea what the BG will do when you confront him. You're assuming that he will be reasonable and either leave peacefully or submit to you. Secondly, you're assuming you might be able to physically overcome the BG. But even the smallest of BGs can be surprisingly strong, and since you've now allowed him to close the distance between you and him, using your gun is now both more difficult and extremely dangerous. Finally, you assume that the use of deadly force is "excessive". The law doesn't agree with you. So you are replacing your personal moral judgments ahead of the law. Worse than that, however, you're placing your personal moral judgments ahead of not only your own safety but the safety of other people (in the hypothetical of rape that you postulated.)

As a private citizen authorized to use deadly force, you do not have the same rules of engagement as a LEO has. LEO's deliberately place themselves in harm's way. You should never do that. They also are required to give the bad guy warnings and a chance to give up. You are not. They train specifically to handle those situations, including the use of force to subdue BGs. Very few private citizens can afford to do that, much less have the time to do it. Personally, at the age of 62, I am not capable of that, nor would I attempt it. My only two options are fight or flight.

All the law requires of you is that you be in a position where the use of deadly force is justified by the circumstances. Those include the threat of deadly force against you or another person, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping and murder when a reasonable person would not have retreated under the same circumstances.

LarryH wrote:Firing a shotgun at the truck is still considered use of lethal force, regardless of the fact that you're trying to hit the truck and not the people inside.

You may have a point. Firing at the thieves' vehicle or tires might be treated in law as the same as firing at them. But morally it is not the same thing.

duns wrote:

LarryH wrote:Firing a shotgun at the truck is still considered use of lethal force, regardless of the fact that you're trying to hit the truck and not the people inside.

You may have a point. Firing at the thieves' vehicle or tires might be treated in law as the same as firing at them. But morally it is not the same thing.

Where do we find the moral code that says BGs should be dealt with using as little force as possible?

baldeagle wrote:Where do we find the moral code that says BGs should be dealt with using as little force as possible?

In oneself.

duns wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Where do we find the moral code that says BGs should be dealt with using as little force as possible?

In oneself.

Pacifism is a valid philosophical viewpoint. It's not my philosophy, but a detailed discussion would tread dangerously close to violating Rule 11.

duns wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Where do we find the moral code that says BGs should be dealt with using as little force as possible?

In oneself.

That explains why I can't seem to find it.

duns wrote:Theft is different to physical attack on a person in that it is often a reasonable option just to be a good witness and hope the person can be arrested later. In other words, I don't see use of lethal force as an imperative when someone is making off with property

I encourage you to post a large sign with your policy on your property. That will make work much safer for criminals. They can steal from you instead of a neighbor who might shoot them. It's a win-win situation.

juggernaut wrote:

duns wrote:Theft is different to physical attack on a person in that it is often a reasonable option just to be a good witness and hope the person can be arrested later. In other words, I don't see use of lethal force as an imperative when someone is making off with property

I encourage you to post a large sign with your policy on your property. That will make work much safer for criminals. They can steal from you instead of a neighbor who might shoot them. It's a win-win situation.

Such would be the case if he were my neighbor. I am tired of treating thugs with sympathy.

duns wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Where do we find the moral code that says BGs should be dealt with using as little force as possible?

In oneself.

Respectfully,
I suggest that any internal moral dilemna be satisfied.
Should the need to defend arise before that time,
a delay in reaction due to second guessing any actions
could be deadly.

duns wrote:

tacticool wrote:

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

Sexual assault isn't a capital offense but I have no problems with anyone shooting a rapist to prevent the crime.

Your point is thought-provoking. My take on it is this. A person committing a sexual assault needs to be stopped as does a person committing a physical assault but from a moral and legal point of view the level of force should not be excessive so shooting will not always be necessary, probably rarely necessary. Theft is different to physical attack on a person in that it is often a reasonable option just to be a good witness and hope the person can be arrested later. In other words, I don't see use of lethal force as an imperative when someone is making off with property (even if the letter of the law allows it). If you saw a man snatch a lady's handbag and come running in your direction, would you shoot him down? I wouldn't. I might use force (if I felt I was capable of overwhelming him) but I would not use lethal force.

The case in question was the theft of an A/C condenser, which apparently was already in the back of the thieves' truck. Unless the thieves were attacking me, I would not have shot them. I would have told them to unload the truck. If they jumped in to drive off, I would have used my shotgun against the truck to try to deflate a tire or put some nice identifying marks on the bodywork.

I think if you were to talk to the person being sexually attacked or you were the one being attacked you might change your mind as to whether the use of deadly force is appropriate. I maintain that a sexual attack causes grave bodily harm and the use of deadly force is appropriate!