Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[Cylinder]

...if we give carte blanch to shoot anyone that you think is robbing a house...

...Two to the core then a double tap to the head...

...that family wasn't sitting around with a hand cannon wishing someone looks at the house wrong so they can unleash a hail of lead...

...When you start sending bullets through walls to protect your stuff...

...The robber, who never would have escalated things...

...You turned a robbery into a heartbreaking family tragedy...

...We should all huddle in our caves hurling stones...

...Please tell me you don't just start sending bullets flying through the bed...

We keep coming back to this. No-one is really arguiing from these positions.

If you burgularize my property, I have a right to intervene. If in the course of that intervention you use - or reasonably threaten to use - force (in most jurisdictions) I have a right to repel force in kind - including deadly force at that end of the spectrum.

That's not the same as killing to protect property or any of the other strawmen assembled above.

 

[triforcharity]

You wouldn't even try to call the police first, then tell the guy to stay where he is? Please tell me you don't just start sending bullets flying through the bed.

Of course not! We don't need no stinkin badges!! J/k

It's always been discussed in my house that if this type scenario ever arrive, God forbid, my wife's job is to call 911, and my job is to protect the family using any means necessary.

I should be more specific in my posts. (Im really bad at that) I would of course order whomever to stop and lay down, but the person becomes aggressive, i'm firing.

If the person tries to flee, i'm going to let them go, most likely.

 

[BStrong]

Not telling you that your opinion is wrong for you, nor am I suggesting that people in general just start shooting... I'll just note that the police response time for a break-in where I live, can be anywhere from 15 minutes to over an hour.

There's an old joke along these lines.

"When every second counts, help is only minutes away."

 

[Travis]

Not telling you that your opinion is wrong for you, nor am I suggesting that people in general just start shooting... I'll just note that the police response time for a break-in where I live, can be anywhere from 15 minutes to over an hour.

Then you have a better response time than where I live.

Which is not the point. The idea that "stuff" is replaceable but life is not is the point.

We keep coming back to this. No-one is really arguiing from these positions.

If you burgularize my property, I have a right to intervene. If in the course of that intervention you use - or reasonably threaten to use - force (in most jurisdictions) I have a right to repel force in kind - including deadly force at that end of the spectrum.

That's not the same as killing to protect property or any of the other strawmen assembled above.

Maybe I missed something but wasn't this entire thread started to talk about whether you can kill people you think are burglarizing somebody elses property?

 

[luchog]

On the other hand he might have been a real robber. But one that only intended to rob, not harm. When you start sending bullets through walls to protect your stuff you have now put your whole family in greater danger. The robber, who never would have escalated things before, might now pull his own gun to try and save his own life. And, panicked, starts wildly sending bullets through the walls. Maybe into a child's room.

(emphasis added)

Wow, do you have any actual knowledge about how confrontations like that really happen, or do you get all of your information from action movies and cop shows?

That is a particularly ludicrous and demonstrably ignorant way of demonizing anyone who actually cares about themselves and their family enough to protect them from potentially harmful intruders.

How about this scenario: You hide in a closet hoping that the robber will grab your stuff and go away, not realizing he's down the hall raping your 12-year-old daughter.

Every bit as realistic as your scenario, if not more so.

Or better yet, he's a serial killer on a typical escalation path, and he sets fire to your living room before jumping out the window with your stereo.

 

[crimresearch]

Then you have a better response time than where I live.

You apparently live out in the woods... I don't.

Which is not the point. The idea that "stuff" is replaceable but life is not is the point.



Maybe I missed something but wasn't this entire thread started to talk about whether you can kill people you think are burglarizing somebody elses property?

I have no idea how you could have gotten this idea, or why you keep repeating it.

A grand jury found that Joe Horn defended himself against two younger criminals who were no longer in the process of taking property, they were in his yard in a manner that reasonably crossed the threshold for 'fear of death or great bodily harm'.

And as pointed out over, and over, and over, complete with cites to the law, people are talking about deciding whether an intruder in your house also crosses that threshold.

Some states have codified the presumption that it is, other states put such incidents under the regular self defense standard.

 

[Cylinder]

Maybe I missed something but wasn't this entire thread started to talk about whether you can kill people you think are burglarizing somebody elses property?

That's what it keeps being portrayed as, it seems.

1. You try to steal my stuff. I can't shoot you for that but I can try to intervene.

2. You physically resist intervention. I can defend myself.

3. You decide to retailiate with a reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm. I get to return the favor.

Many states say that nowhere in that scenario can a jury weigh whether or not I had an oppurtunity to retreat in deciding if the shooting was lawful.

 

[Kestrel]

That's been gone over many times. No state can legalize killing *merely* over property, any more than they can outlaw sodomy or interracial marriage.

Just because a state leaves sections of a law on the books long after the Supreme Court has struck them down, doesn't mean that they are still in force.

In which case did the Supreme Court invalidate the Texas statute I just posted?

 

[crimresearch]

In which case did the Supreme Court invalidate the Texas statute I just posted?

Graham and Garner are the 2 landmark USSC cases that set the current deadly force standard of 'a reasonable fear of clear and imminent death or great bodily harm' and they have been linked and cited before.

This isn't a theory, or a controversial claim, or something new, or obscure...it is a basic legal fact of life in America... you cannot legally kill, just over property.
There is a lot of popular misunderstanding over that, because of the wording in Texas and elsewhere, and because some people really want to believe it, but it is well established.

The cogent observation from the first case is that there is no death penalty for misdemeanor crimes like theft.

The second case addresses disproportionate/excessive use of force in a misdemeanor theft.

And if the government can't shoot or beat you down for stealing a box of candy, neither can your neighbors.

 

[Cylinder]

I really wish some of you guys were local, I'd have you over for a quick "range rules and shoot." You'd be suprised.

You show up at a gun club or private range with your chest puffed out and the spraying lead additude, you're not gonna be inivted back. Alot of times we will talk about tactical problems -which may be distasteful to some - but it's not a glee thing. More training means less mistakes.

Whenever we organize a shoot - you know what the first order of business is? A gun saftey topic.

There are people who should be nowhere near a firearm - no question.

 

[Kestrel]

Graham and Garner are the 2 landmark USSC cases that set the current deadly force standard of 'a reasonable fear of clear and imminent death or great bodily harm' and they have been linked and cited before.

This isn't a theory, or a controversial claim, or something new, or obscure...it is a basic legal fact of life in America... you cannot legally kill, just over property.
There is a lot of popular misunderstanding over that, because of the wording in Texas and elsewhere, and because some people really want to believe it, but it is well established.

The cogent observation from the first case is that there is no death penalty for misdemeanor crimes like theft.

The second case addresses disproportionate/excessive use of force in a misdemeanor theft.

And if the government can't shoot or beat you down for stealing a box of candy, neither can your neighbors.

A reasonable argument, but as we all know the law is not always reasonable.

Can you cite a case where a suspect was found guilty of homicide despite the Texas law allowing the use of deadly force to protect property?

If the law was invalid, why did the grand jury not return an indictment in the Joe Horn shooting controversy^WP?

 

[Cylinder]

If the law was invalid, why did the grand jury not return an indictment in the Joe Horn shooting controversy^WP?

IIRC, Mr. Horn successfully argued that the burgulars advanced toward Mr. Horn in a menacing manner.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, first off if they have a weapon and they are going to use it to harm someone then all bets are off. You have every right to defend life. It's taking life to protect property that I have a huge issue with.

Think of it this way: if we give carte blanch to shoot anyone that you think is robbing a house you are introducing what is likely unnecessary violence into the situation. I'm reminded of the night this old man, father of my neighbor, in a rather bad fit of dementia went into the wrong house in the middle of the night.

BAM! Two to the core then a double tap to the head.

Or...no wait that family wasn't sitting around with a hand cannon wishing someone looks at the house wrong so they can unleash a hail of lead. They called the cops who straightened everything out.

On the other hand he might have been a real robber. But one that only intended to rob, not harm. When you start sending bullets through walls to protect your stuff you have now put your whole family in greater danger. The robber, who never would have escalated things before, might now pull his own gun to try and save his own life. And, panicked, starts wildly sending bullets through the walls. Maybe into a child's room.

Way to go. You turned a robbery into a heartbreaking family tragedy.

Yeah yeah, we can all make up a bunch of silly what-ifs where my hypothetical situation saves more innocent children than yours. Big deal. And your use of the straw man scenario of someone "sitting around with a hand cannon wishing someone looks at the house wrong so they can unleash a hail of lead" is nonsense. It's a dishonest misrepresentation of what people are actually saying. Go hide in the closet if you want. Or offer to help the crooks carry your stuff out to their truck. Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't have the right to make that decision.

And if you magically know whether someone who breaks into your house means you harm or just wants your stereo, you ought to go for that JREF million dollar prize. What? You were just saying that so you can sound all noble and life-loving? Maybe you missed this productive suggestion...

If you don't want to get shot for breaking into someone's house, don't break into someone's house. Dying is a serious risk you'd take even in locales where there are restrictions against defending one's life or property. And if you're concerned about other people suffering because they don't understand those risks, or they're willing to take them anyway, do what you can to convince them otherwise. Or maybe, if a guy would break into my house to steal my stuff, and you want him to obtain that stuff safely, you give him your stuff. There's no law against that and nobody gets hurt.​

Yes, this is exactly what I have done in the past. Then you calmly call the police and let them do their job.

The job of the police is to come after a crime has been committed, interview witnesses, take some notes, and write a report about what happened as well as they can tell. Happened. That's past tense. It's not the job of the police to prevent crimes. It's not their responsibility.

This was also what I did the night this crazy man barged in ranting about how we knew where his daughter was. I had a weapon that night but would only use it if he actually attacked anyone. He didn't. He ranted and raved for a few minutes then left. The police eventually got a hold of him and determined he was just high on meth.

And sometimes the meth head kills someone. And sometimes a perfectly innocent but well prepared citizen kills the meth head before any more harm can be done.

Well, you are lucky that you can tell the difference between a mere robber and a killer who robs.

Not everyone has the luxury of staying safe in that assumption.

Actually I know I don't have that ability. Therefore I don't try to pretend I do. I leave that up to the professionals.

Nice that you can afford a full time body guard.

You wouldn't even try to call the police first, then tell the guy to stay where he is? Please tell me you don't just start sending bullets flying through the bed.

The job of the police is to come after a crime has been committed... well... if you haven't figured out that slice of reality by now, my repeating it probably won't help.

 

[crimresearch]

A reasonable argument, but as we all know the law is not always reasonable.

Can you cite a case where a suspect was found guilty of homicide despite the Texas law allowing the use of deadly force to protect property?

If the law was invalid, why did the grand jury not return an indictment in the Joe Horn shooting controversy^WP?

Your definitions of the law and the law's definitions don't seem to concur.

That doesn't make the law's definitions unreasonable... or subject to debate, as explained time and again.

The difference between presumptive statutes about use of deadly force *on* your property, and the use of deadly force merely to keep someone from taking property have been pretty well explained.

Someone breaks into your house in Texas, you don't have to read their mind, you can treat the action as though it were a deadly threat. That would be killing to protect *on* your property.

Looking out your window, you see someone running down the street with your TV, you can't shoot them, even in texas. That would be killing to protect just the property.

Again, perhaps the confusion is the media making stuff up and repeating it ad nauseum, or perhaps it is not seeing the various components of that statute as interlocking parts of a larger pattern.

 

[Kestrel]

Your definitions of the law and the law's definitions don't seem to concur.

That doesn't make the law's definitions unreasonable... or subject to debate, as explained time and again.

The difference between presumptive statutes about use of deadly force *on* your property, and the use of deadly force merely to keep someone from taking property have been pretty well explained.

Someone breaks into your house in Texas, you don't have to read their mind, you can treat the action as though it were a deadly threat. That would be killing to protect *on* your property.

Looking out your window, you see someone running down the street with your TV, you can't shoot them, even in texas. That would be killing to protect just the property.

Again, perhaps the confusion is the media making stuff up and repeating it ad nauseum, or perhaps it is not seeing the various components of that statute as interlocking parts of a larger pattern.

There was a case here in Colorado where a burglar was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene of the crime. The shooter was a retired police officer who thought he was doing the right thing. He was charged with manslaughter as Colorado doesn't allow deadly force to protect property.

The language of the Texas law on this matter is rather clear. It reads that way because the Texas Legislature intended to give citizens permission to blast away.

I agree with you that deadly force should not be used to protect property. But without court case or an official source that explicitly declares Texas statute 9.42 invalid you haven't proved your case.

 

[RandFan]

IIRC, Mr. Horn successfully argued that the burgulars advanced toward Mr. Horn in a menacing manner.

Officer: What happened:
Mr. Horn: Uh... the burglars advanced toward me.
Officer: Sounds good to me. You are alive they are dead. Case closed.

If I was a burglar I damn sure would advance toward a guy with a shotgun. Certainly nothing to be skeptical of there. Who wouldn't?

 

[triforcharity]

The job of the police is to come after a crime has been committed... well... if you haven't figured out that slice of reality by now, my repeating it probably won't help.

I understand you, but do you really think that if the police see a guy peering into your window late at night, with a crowbar and mask, they aren't going to do something? I mean, if their job (as you claim) is reactive, and not proactive (as reality tells us) does that mean they're going to sit back and relax and wait?

Of course not. Any police officer who witnesses a crime in progress, or an attempted crime, they are going to react.

In fact, we read about it all the time.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2010140512_seattle_police_foil_bank_robbe.html

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/l...e-police-officer-foils-gary-bank-robbery.html

I could do this for days.

So, in conclusion, while your premise is correct, that is their job to investigate crimes, their job is also to prevent them also.

 

[crimresearch]

Officer: What happened:
Mr. Horn: Uh... the burglars advanced toward me.
Officer: Sounds good to me. You are alive they are dead. Case closed.

If I was a burglar I damn sure would advance toward a guy with a shotgun. Certainly nothing to be skeptical of there. Who wouldn't?

And let's just conveniently ignore the cop who pulled up in time to see the shooting and assume a conspiracy.

On second thought, *you* go ahead, I'll stay right here.

 

[crimresearch]

There was a case here in Colorado where a burglar was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene of the crime. The shooter was a retired police officer who thought he was doing the right thing. He was charged with manslaughter as Colorado doesn't allow deadly force to protect property.

The language of the Texas law on this matter is rather clear. It reads that way because the Texas Legislature intended to give citizens permission to blast away.

I agree with you that deadly force should not be used to protect property. But without court case or an official source that explicitly declares Texas statute 9.42 invalid you haven't proved your case.

The language is rather clear to you using your understanding of the legal system and the law.

Other reasonable people with different definitions and experience may come to another conclusion.

I'll leave it to you to decide if the laws are written so that no one needs a lawyer to figure them out...

 

[Kestrel]

Officer: What happened:
Mr. Horn: Uh... the burglars advanced toward me.
Officer: Sounds good to me. You are alive they are dead. Case closed.

If I was a burglar I damn sure would advance toward a guy with a shotgun. Certainly nothing to be skeptical of there. Who wouldn't?

The 911 call shows rather clearly that he went outside intending to kill. Just another idiot out to prove he is a real man Texas style.