Spats McGee
Administrator
Double jeopardy is something different, but the circumstances under which a prosecutor can appeal are usually limited.Buzzcook said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Appropriate use of deadly force Texas style
- Thread starter Buzzcook
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
sometimes its the jury, they can go either way. we had a case here where a doctor was driving drunk after leaving a martini golf tournament and he hit and killed a young girl on a skate board on the side of the road. He knew he hit the young girl and didn't even stop to see how she was. He went home and his wife and his daughter helped clean the blood off the front of his damaged car. He was aquited of all charges except the drunk driving.
personally I believe he bought his way out.
personally I believe he bought his way out.
allaroundhunter
New member
Rebs, I have a hard time believing that that is all there is to that story, but your point is well taken. Plenty of trials are expected to go one way very heavily and juries come back with the exact opposite opinion.
Buzzcook said:
Perhaps Norway is not; have you spent any time in Naples, Italy? (Note: Look up the Camorra.)
If that were the case Norway would be overrun with criminals.
Perhaps Norway is not; have you spent any time in Naples, Italy? (Note: Look up the Camorra.)
I thought some of the laws were strange here. In this case I think its a joke that this guy was acquitted and would worry me that someone that quick to start shooting is in possession of firearms. PS Don't forget a young woman was paralysed and then died in this incident not a good example of American justice.
Last edited:
Yes and I am sure a lot of innocent people were hanged. I am sure no one wants lynch mobs setting themselves up as judge jury and executioners. Most civilizations have thankfully moved on from that type of behaviour and its not a example that I would hold up as being a good thing now or then.We used to hang horse thieves on the spot. Slowed that occupation down some.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
This reminds me of a San Antonio case years ago. A nice old gentleman reportedly shot some people who came to his house to do ill. He was the neighborhood Santa. Loved by the kids. He is initially seen as a hero.
Later it comes out that he had solicited two women to come to his house for a paid threesome. There was a dispute over price and Santa sent them off with lumps of coal, I presume. Their pimp returns with them and an argument ensues. Santa opens fire and it was deemed justified.
His neighborhood reputation was sullied and sitting on his lap was no longer in the cards for the kiddies.
As far as this -if the jury thinks it is reasonable that the action falls within the bounds of the law, that's American justice.
Later it comes out that he had solicited two women to come to his house for a paid threesome. There was a dispute over price and Santa sent them off with lumps of coal, I presume. Their pimp returns with them and an argument ensues. Santa opens fire and it was deemed justified.
His neighborhood reputation was sullied and sitting on his lap was no longer in the cards for the kiddies.
As far as this -if the jury thinks it is reasonable that the action falls within the bounds of the law, that's American justice.
Last edited:
Texas justice maybe ,I am sure a lot of states in America would have a different view on things. I think the punishment should have some relation to the crime obviously not in this case. That sort of guy gives other shooters a bad name.American justice.
I am not thrilled with this case.
However, as far as life vs property goes, there are those here who would feel that defense of property never justifies deadly force.
A while back, we had a problem in our area with some jerk (or jerks) going around with a bow and arrow, shooting horses and dogs.
Suffice to say I am very happy they never came by our place, and that I never had to decide whether or not to shoot somebody over threatening my chattel.
How many here, if honest with themselves, would take the "high ground" and allow the snipers to kill their pets and livestock, if they could stop them?
You don't have to answer here, and it might be advisable not to do so, but it is something to think about.
For those who determine that perhaps some "property" might justify armed defense, then how and where do you draw the line?
However, as far as life vs property goes, there are those here who would feel that defense of property never justifies deadly force.
A while back, we had a problem in our area with some jerk (or jerks) going around with a bow and arrow, shooting horses and dogs.
Suffice to say I am very happy they never came by our place, and that I never had to decide whether or not to shoot somebody over threatening my chattel.
How many here, if honest with themselves, would take the "high ground" and allow the snipers to kill their pets and livestock, if they could stop them?
You don't have to answer here, and it might be advisable not to do so, but it is something to think about.
For those who determine that perhaps some "property" might justify armed defense, then how and where do you draw the line?
For those who determine that perhaps some "property" might justify armed defense, then how and where do you draw the line
I would draw the line at shooting a unarmed woman that was no threat to the person or their property. And who's crime was leaving with the guys money and probably hurting his pride. I am surprised that anyone can think that was justice would they think the same if one of their friends or family got the same treatment for a petty crime. What next cutting of someone's hand for steeling.
I'm not advocating lynch mobs. Just saying that if thieves and criminals have some justifiable fear of armed/physical harm as a result of getting caught it tends to provide a deterrent.
I have worked hard all my life and have managed to acquire a few nice things. If I caught a thief in the act and they were getting away with my possessions I don't think I would be too hesitant to use deadly force. The only thing that would make me think twice would be the possible legal ramifications. I don't think shooting the hooker was justified. Lucky for him a jury saw it different.
It is just my humble opinion but I would like to see public executions as I believe they would act as a definite deterrent.
I have worked hard all my life and have managed to acquire a few nice things. If I caught a thief in the act and they were getting away with my possessions I don't think I would be too hesitant to use deadly force. The only thing that would make me think twice would be the possible legal ramifications. I don't think shooting the hooker was justified. Lucky for him a jury saw it different.
It is just my humble opinion but I would like to see public executions as I believe they would act as a definite deterrent.
manta49, first I don't think anybody here is particularly happy about the case in the OP.
Second, there is a difference in what the state should be allowed to do after the dust has settled, IE in sentencing after arrest, trial and conviction, and what an individual should be allowed to do in defense of self or property in the heat of the moment.
I don't get all aghast at the thought of somebody getting shot in the act of burglary, for instance. This assumes no attempt to surrender, of course, but I don't agree with the majority that the law as it is in most places is correct in insisting deadly force be specifically limited only to threats against human life, or threats of grave bodily injury to humans.
I will comply with the law to the best of my ability, but that does not mean I always agree with it.
Second, there is a difference in what the state should be allowed to do after the dust has settled, IE in sentencing after arrest, trial and conviction, and what an individual should be allowed to do in defense of self or property in the heat of the moment.
I don't get all aghast at the thought of somebody getting shot in the act of burglary, for instance. This assumes no attempt to surrender, of course, but I don't agree with the majority that the law as it is in most places is correct in insisting deadly force be specifically limited only to threats against human life, or threats of grave bodily injury to humans.
I will comply with the law to the best of my ability, but that does not mean I always agree with it.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
One should read the book - Killing in Self-defense by Leverick. It's a great law text.
It covers in depth and historically the use of lethal force and discusses the property issue.
It is reasonable for some to argue that killing in self-defense is unacceptable as taking another's life is a moral violation. That someone may do it to you, doesn't justify you doing it. That's the highest standard.
How about shooting to defend property that is irreplaceable - a madman running at the Mona Lisa or an original copy of the Constitution with a firebomb? Or a beloved pet?
Or using lethal force to prevent rape? Good discussion of that. Rape is not definitionally physically lethal. So to use lethal force to prevent it? One can argue that you cannot trust the attacker not to kill you. Or one can argue that the act causes such grievous psychological harm that lethal force is justified. But is psychological harm enough? Leverick said that is a tough call but came down as a yes on rape.
Use of lethal force is not an easy thing to define in rational terms. We do have fast emotional evaluations. The TX standard was rationally determined to deal with property crimes in a different environment than today. However, the incident here may fit in the definitions of the law and jury acted within that or so it seems.
It covers in depth and historically the use of lethal force and discusses the property issue.
It is reasonable for some to argue that killing in self-defense is unacceptable as taking another's life is a moral violation. That someone may do it to you, doesn't justify you doing it. That's the highest standard.
How about shooting to defend property that is irreplaceable - a madman running at the Mona Lisa or an original copy of the Constitution with a firebomb? Or a beloved pet?
Or using lethal force to prevent rape? Good discussion of that. Rape is not definitionally physically lethal. So to use lethal force to prevent it? One can argue that you cannot trust the attacker not to kill you. Or one can argue that the act causes such grievous psychological harm that lethal force is justified. But is psychological harm enough? Leverick said that is a tough call but came down as a yes on rape.
Use of lethal force is not an easy thing to define in rational terms. We do have fast emotional evaluations. The TX standard was rationally determined to deal with property crimes in a different environment than today. However, the incident here may fit in the definitions of the law and jury acted within that or so it seems.
I think there is a difference in finding someone in your house carrying out a burglary you would be fearful of them injuring you or your family. But when they are driving away in a car and there is no threat its time to ring the police not to start shooting.I don't get all aghast at the thought of somebody getting shot in the act of burglary, for instance.
manta49, what if they were in a farmer's barn, trying to steal his tractor? No threat to life, but a potential threat to livelihood, especially if the tractor were not insured.
My point is, if people play felonious games, then it does not seem morally unjust to me when they win horrible prizes.
My point is, if people play felonious games, then it does not seem morally unjust to me when they win horrible prizes.
Everyone is different I wouldn't dream of shooting someone for stealing from me don't get me wrong I wouldn't be happy. Most material things are insured and can be replaced.My point is, if people play felonious games, then it does not seem morally unjust to me when they win horrible prizes.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
There are thefts from people that cannot be replaced. People do not have insurance if they live on the margins. Is a great art masterpiece more or less important than the life of some vandal?
IIRC, when the Mona Lisa was in the USA - a silly woman decided it was not being probably cared for and crossed over the satin ropes so she could check it. A marine guard came close to bayoneting her and did whack her a good one. What level of physical harm is acceptable to protect property?
Would you put someone's eye out to protect property - or would you never use physical force to protect property? A good punch can kill someone.
IIRC, when the Mona Lisa was in the USA - a silly woman decided it was not being probably cared for and crossed over the satin ropes so she could check it. A marine guard came close to bayoneting her and did whack her a good one. What level of physical harm is acceptable to protect property?
Would you put someone's eye out to protect property - or would you never use physical force to protect property? A good punch can kill someone.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.