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.
question regarding the use of deadly force to protect property (Texas)
- Thread starter Pecos21
- Start date
Doug,
I've read the law, I've resposted it here several times.
The part you've emphasized says that it WOULD expose a person to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. That's not the same as saying that if you think a person could be armed and might resist that you have the right to shoot.
Ok, I'm not going to respond to every single comment in your previous edited post, but here are a few of the more pertinent responses I have.
Sorry, but it makes no sense to agree that people should avoid killing when possible and then in the next sentence to say "But people should be able to use any means at their disposal to protect what they have earned." and mean by that they should be able to shoot anyone who steals from them without so much as challenging them or even determining that they are armed.
I've read the law, I've resposted it here several times.
The part you've emphasized says that it WOULD expose a person to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. That's not the same as saying that if you think a person could be armed and might resist that you have the right to shoot.
Ok, I'm not going to respond to every single comment in your previous edited post, but here are a few of the more pertinent responses I have.
READ 9.41. If he takes that response, you have legal avenues under 9.41 that DON'T include shooting him. If he escalates things then 9.42 may come into play, or you may even be able to claim self-defense depending on how he responds. A harsh response doesn't automatically justify your shooting him.And if he uses a four letter word and takes off (with your property)? no good.
This is a hammer looking for a nail, IMO. Having the means to stop someone doesn't automatically mean you have the legal right, and even having the legal right doesn't always mean you SHOULD.Calling the police per se isn't absurd, just the idea that if someone is stealing from you and is about to get away, you have the means to stop them and you pick up the phone and call the police and hope they arrive in time.
Because you don't take someone's life on the basis of speculation.It's almost a sure thing with a hardened criminal. Even a crackhead will kill so he can get merchandise to sell for dope. Why should I take any chances?
Then why are you advocating changing the laws so a person can legally kill someone in a situation where they can EASILY avoid doing so?You're right, a rational, mature person will avoid if it can reasonably be avoided.
Sorry, but it makes no sense to agree that people should avoid killing when possible and then in the next sentence to say "But people should be able to use any means at their disposal to protect what they have earned." and mean by that they should be able to shoot anyone who steals from them without so much as challenging them or even determining that they are armed.
The problem is that if you pull the trigger, be damn sure of why. That should be a given anytime except in this thread it's even more so. Sure if someone's breaking into your house you don't know if he's armed but once they're on the way out, it's a real crap shoot (no pun intended.)
There was a case a couple of years ago near where I live where a man shot and killed a naked man he found breaking into his house. At first it seemed pretty cut and dry.
Then it was learned:
The break in type was drunk as a skunk and lost and thought he was getting into his own house. OK Still justified since the shooter in the dark couldn't tell.
Then it came out: The naked man was running for it and shot in the back when he took his fatal wounds. At that point the law and public opinion turned on the shooter.
I was always taught it matters where the body hits the ground. In your house and it's a clean shoot. Outside the house and it's up in the air. seems like a good rule of thumb.
There was a case a couple of years ago near where I live where a man shot and killed a naked man he found breaking into his house. At first it seemed pretty cut and dry.
Then it was learned:
The break in type was drunk as a skunk and lost and thought he was getting into his own house. OK Still justified since the shooter in the dark couldn't tell.
Then it came out: The naked man was running for it and shot in the back when he took his fatal wounds. At that point the law and public opinion turned on the shooter.
I was always taught it matters where the body hits the ground. In your house and it's a clean shoot. Outside the house and it's up in the air. seems like a good rule of thumb.
Then why are you advocating changing the laws so a person can legally kill someone in a situation where they can EASILY avoid doing so?
Well, you, I, and LEO Joe Friday can EASILY avoid killing someone by putting our gun down when they produce theirs. We can avoid killing someone by not carrying at all. In context, I am talking about when it comes to defending life, liberty and property. If you can protect said three essential items AND avoid shooting someone, then you should do it. If you can't, then it should be the fault of the criminal.
Sorry, but it makes no sense to agree that people should avoid killing when possible and then in the next sentence to say "But people should be able to use any means at their disposal to protect what they have earned." and mean by that they should be able to shoot anyone who steals from them without so much as challenging them or even determining that they are armed.
In context, I mean't during the night when it is dark and this person clearly isn't supposed to be where they are at this unGodly hour and since it is dark you are at risk because your visibility is limited and you are in a lot more vunerable postion (in short, you are INDEED at risk of serious injury or death). Didn't your parents ever tell you as a boy not to go play or hide in other people's yards after dark because you might get shot as a prowler or burgler?
I believe that was the original intent of the Texas law of using deadly force after dark. Think it used to be common sense and perfectly legal in most states 50 or so years ago.
If a crook, car thief, prowler, etc. is on your property at night or attempting to steal your property at night, in many cases it risks serious injury or death to you if you approach them under such conditions and try to apprehend them. Shooting at them could be the only way to avoid serious injury or death and protect your life, liberty and property.
Having said that, if I feel I can protect said items without shooting the criminal even at night, then I will certainly do it.