Deadly Force, Theft At Night, Burglary, etc.

[Mxrdad]

According to this, if you see some kid swiping your lawn sprinkler after dark, you can blow his head off. That can't be right.

And why not? I am not the one who decided the kid's life was only worth the cost of a sprinkler, he was.

I would like to believe nobody would shoot/kill a kid for stealing a water sprinkler from a lawn. I think one would have to worry about charges coming their way on that one. Kinda different than a home burglary.

[twomillenium]

One must remember the most important rule. Force can only be used as a last resort.

Do you have a source for that? Ethically that can be argued, but I certainly don't see that in the statutes.

Texas has the Castle Doctrine for a reason - don't put others at risk if you don't want to put yourself at a potentially greater risk.

PC §9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

To use force against another is illegal to do so, laws are written that provide a justification for the non-adherence of those laws.
If you use force and the courts get involved, YOU will have to prove the justification. Some situations are easier to prove than others. Innocent until proven guilty plays into this because you have been charged with a crime an now the state must prove you did the action in question. However, you are provided with reasons that justify your actions and you are given the chance to convince your peers that you were justified. If you had other legal remedies then that may be hard to prove your justification.
I am not an attorney and not only is this not legal advise but it is merely my opinion.

Justification? I am stopping you from causing me imminent harm by your stealing of my property. "Harm" doesn't necessarily only mean physical harm against my body.

That will be your burden to prove your justification!

[1911 10MM]

There is the Joe Horn case in Pasedena, Texas where Joe killed two burglars who burglarized his neighbors home. He was on the phone with 911 and told them what he was going to do even after 911 operator told him to stay in the house. He was no billed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor ... ontroversy

[Abraham]

Thieves, (and without further specificity) criminals in general must be fought against otherwise they'll quickly catch on that we the people will be seen as sheep for them to fleece, intimidate, or murder at will if we meekly stand by when they attempt to commit crime against us.

Those who would gnash their teeth and wring their hands if witnessing say, theft of their personal belongings must act rather than behave like quailing accountants trying to tote up how much cost/trouble is potentially involved in protecting yourself.

If that's your gelatinous attitude when crime is being committed against you, what are you doing on this forum?

Perhaps, Conscientious Objectors R us would be a better fit, eh?

[bigtek]

Don't forget the 'and' in 2(B) which invokes 3 A. . I think it could be argued you can replace the TV by other means (insurance).

That can be argued but it doesn't matter because the law doesn't say replace.

[Caliber]

Caliber,

You ended your lecture with: "Both choices are valid and there is no wrong answer"

Spoken like a true liberal.

I disagree with your assertion.

I won't stand by while a criminal is committing a crime against me, so yeah, there is a wrong answer.

Please, peddle that type thinking on some anti-gun, weak kneed, "we're all just victims here" type site.

The idea I should be more afraid of what the law will do to act against me for standing up to a criminal, is well, criminal...

I'm not defending nor recommending either option. Those ARE your choices, pick the one you're most comfortable with.

[twomillenium]

There is the Joe Horn case in Pasedena, Texas where Joe killed two burglars who burglarized his neighbors home. He was on the phone with 911 and told them what he was going to do even after 911 operator told him to stay in the house. He was no billed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor ... ontroversy

I believe the evidence showed that the burglars came at Mr. Horn.

[1911 10MM]

There is the Joe Horn case in Pasedena, Texas where Joe killed two burglars who burglarized his neighbors home. He was on the phone with 911 and told them what he was going to do even after 911 operator told him to stay in the house. He was no billed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor ... ontroversy

I believe the evidence showed that the burglars came at Mr. Horn.

Both burglars were shot in the back.

http://m.chron.com/neighborhood/pasaden ... 587004.php

[twomillenium]

There is the Joe Horn case in Pasedena, Texas where Joe killed two burglars who burglarized his neighbors home. He was on the phone with 911 and told them what he was going to do even after 911 operator told him to stay in the house. He was no billed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor ... ontroversy

I believe the evidence showed that the burglars came at Mr. Horn.

Both burglars were shot in the back.

http://m.chron.com/neighborhood/pasaden ... 587004.php

Yes the were, but they were shot as the turned and shot on his property! I read all the reports and not just the liberal chronicle reports.

[1911 10MM]

There is the Joe Horn case in Pasedena, Texas where Joe killed two burglars who burglarized his neighbors home. He was on the phone with 911 and told them what he was going to do even after 911 operator told him to stay in the house. He was no billed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor ... ontroversy

I believe the evidence showed that the burglars came at Mr. Horn.

Both burglars were shot in the back.

http://m.chron.com/neighborhood/pasaden ... 587004.php

Yes the were, but they were shot as the turned and shot on his property! I read all the reports and not just the liberal chronicle reports.

He was no billed. What is your point? Nobody really knows what happened since both perps were killed. Only thing that matters is he was no billed.

[twomillenium]

There is the Joe Horn case in Pasedena, Texas where Joe killed two burglars who burglarized his neighbors home. He was on the phone with 911 and told them what he was going to do even after 911 operator told him to stay in the house. He was no billed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor ... ontroversy

I believe the evidence showed that the burglars came at Mr. Horn.

Both burglars were shot in the back.

http://m.chron.com/neighborhood/pasaden ... 587004.php

Yes the were, but they were shot as the turned and shot on his property! I read all the reports and not just the liberal chronicle reports.

He was no billed. What is your point? Nobody really knows what happened since both perps were killed. Only thing that matters is he was no billed.

?????? Reread, you will find I was not trying to make any point except the use of lethal force was justified by a grand jury.

[TreyHouston]

One must remember the most important rule. Force can only be used as a last resort.

Do you have a source for that? Ethically that can be argued, but I certainly don't see that in the statutes.

Texas has the Castle Doctrine for a reason - don't put others at risk if you don't want to put yourself at a potentially greater risk.

Russell,
I do respect your post. However, taking a persons life... is that really something you can't replace. YES, you can legally shoot, but people really need to recognize that this is a life...

Added to say: Taking a life is something that stays with you FOREVER, Whether you're right or not.

[Mike S]

There is the Joe Horn case in Pasedena, Texas where Joe killed two burglars who burglarized his neighbors home. He was on the phone with 911 and told them what he was going to do even after 911 operator told him to stay in the house. He was no billed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor ... ontroversy

I believe the evidence showed that the burglars came at Mr. Horn.

Both burglars were shot in the back.

http://m.chron.com/neighborhood/pasaden ... 587004.php

Yes the were, but they were shot as the turned and shot on his property! I read all the reports and not just the liberal chronicle reports.

He was no billed. What is your point? Nobody really knows what happened since both perps were killed. Only thing that matters is he was no billed.

Actually, there were others who witnessed what happened. The two plain clothes officers in the unmarked patrol car that was on-scene waiting for a marked unit to arrive before responding; they testified. Their testimony may have played a part in his No Bill, or TPC 9.43 that provided legal justification for his actions.

[Mike S]

One must remember the most important rule. Force can only be used as a last resort.

Do you have a source for that? Ethically that can be argued, but I certainly don't see that in the statutes.

Texas has the Castle Doctrine for a reason - don't put others at risk if you don't want to put yourself at a potentially greater risk.

Russell,
I do respect your post. However, taking a persons life... is that really something you can't replace. YES, you can legally shoot, but people really need to recognize that this is a life...

Added to say: Taking a life is something that stays with you FOREVER, Whether you're right or not.

Both are extremely valid views. Regardless of the justification available (and I'm definitely proud of the justifications available in the Texas Penal Code), there's no going back after the shot. Both the criminal & the defender have consequences, whether physical or emotional, that should temper their decisions. For some it's easier to recover emotionally than others, & the right decision (within the law) ends up being a personal one.