Guns Laws Protect Murderer - Page 8

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

If we were in a school library and I picked up your laptop and slammed it on the ground do you think you'd be within your rights to shoot me for it? Do you think it would be ethical?

If I made up a hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with you entering another man's property and causing him fear for his safety, would I get a +rep or -rep?

lew · 07-02-2008, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

Do you at least recognize a difference between crimes against a person and crimes against things/animals/whatever else?

Of course.

Phantom · 07-02-2008, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Of course.

Do you think lethal force should be allowed to defend life and any property, or are there situations where lethal force should not be allowed?

lew · 07-02-2008, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

Do you think lethal force should be allowed to defend life and any property, or are there situations where lethal force should not be allowed?

I think lethal force should be allowed to defend life and property as a last resort.

Was this case a last resort? Probably not.

In a perfect world, I wouldn't have wanted him shooting those two thugs. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where the police suck and criminals literally get off scot free every day, of every year.

Meanwhile, decent hard working people are getting shafted left and right, and non-violent drug offenders go to prison for years.

Combine all of that, and no, I don't really care that he shot two thugs.

Ezra Smack · 07-02-2008, 06:18 PM

Defense of property is a morally legitimate use of force.

Most of us have to go to work every day and can't stay home and guard our property. Law enforcement evolved as people and communities hired men to guard the camp, settlement or village while they were off working in the fields. These guards derives their power from the people.

If a thief knows that armed men stand at the ready to use force to stop him or to hunt him down after the fact and bring him back to be punished, it works as a great deterrent.

The problems started when the state got involved and granted a monopoly on the use of force only to government employed law enforcement thus giving them powers beyond that of the citizens for whom they worked. This monopoly on force is jealously guarded. How many times have you heard the phrase "You can't take the law into your own hands." People have become so conditioned to this idea that many will simply stand idly by and do nothing when they witness a violent crime being committed. When it gets to the point that people behave as a bunch of sheep waiting to be herded about by the government, is it any wonder that the wolves are emboldened?

Ezra Smack · 07-02-2008, 07:17 PM

Lets look at the actual Texas law. Mr. Horns neighbor had asked him to look after his place while he was gone. (Look for * * *) Mr. Horn did not shoot these people to punish them. He used no more force than was necessary to stop the thieves who were carrying away his neighbors property.
_____________________________

TEXAS PENAL CODE

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection * * *
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care. * * *

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Simius · 07-02-2008, 07:18 PM

To me, the worst part is the dispatcher told the guy that police were on the scene. The guy didn't see the cops from his window so he disregarded that and went out and shot the two criminals in the back. Moments later, he was taken down by the police.

I'm not sure if the cops were just a bit down the block trying to figure out the best way to safely apprehend the criminals... or if they were just on the other side of the house... or if they were just pulling into the neighborhood when the shots were fired... But the fact cops were there and he was told as much negates the argument that he was defending his neighbor's property (Which I personally don't think is enough to shoot someone in the back) because even if he hadn't acted the thieves would have been arrested before they got at most 5 houses away.

Pretty reckless move to put yourself in danger and to put the police on the scene in danger just because you are angry/frustrated.... and since he shot the criminals as they were leaving you in no way can argue he was acting in a way that might defend someone else. Lucky for him the law was on his side even though all reason isn't.

Ezra Smack · 07-02-2008, 07:34 PM

And while I am a in a posting mood, I saw a film clip of a riot where people were looting a store. I think it was in New Orleans during Katrina but it could have been the LA riots. It was hard to tell but everyone was black including the cops. People had smashed a store window and were carrying off stolen property when the cops showed up. As one surley looter strolled out with a TV, a cop pointed a shotgun at him and ordered the looter to put the TV down. The looter just glared at the cop and said "Or what, shoot me? They will put yo ass under the the jail." and he turned his back and strolled off with the stolen TV.

Is this what you liberals want?
I would be perfectly willing to live in a world where thieves are shot for stealing if it meant living in a world where people DID NOT STEAL!

And BTW, The title of this thread is total hogwash. "Gun laws" did not protect a murderer. It was not murder, but even if he had killed those two thugs with a bow and arrow the result would have been the same.

Simius · 07-02-2008, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

However, I'm honestly not sure how Castle doctrine applies to defending other people's property - I figured I should note that in fairness to your arguments. I suspect that the only reason this guy isn't facing charges is a grand jury decided not to indict him.

In Texas you have the right to use lethal force to stop a felony. It isn't the castle doctrine that protected this guy from being charged with murder.

JaJae · 07-02-2008, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

If I made up a hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with you entering another man's property and causing him fear for his safety, would I get a +rep or -rep?

He said if someone was running up and down the street damaging vehicles he would be ok with someone shooting them. So I'm asking him a direct question in the same light to see how much money or how personal it has to be before it isn't ok to shoot a person for property damage.

JaJae · 07-02-2008, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by lew

But all crimes are property crimes. If someone kills you, they're violating your property. If you don't have a clear understanding of property, then you'll get the thousands of bullshit laws that don't make any sense that we have today.

Not all crimes are property crimes. The law and our society has a different reality than you and when dealing with our criminal justice system we have to use the system we're in to define things. There are two major types of crimes.. property crimes and violent crimes. Crimes are divided into those categories.

lew · 07-02-2008, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not all crimes are property crimes. The law and our society has a different reality than you and when dealing with our criminal justice system we have to use the system we're in to define things. There are two major types of crimes.. property crimes and violent crimes. Crimes are divided into those categories.

A violent crime is a property crime. If someone damages your body with violence, they're damaging your property.

lew · 07-02-2008, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

He said if someone was running up and down the street damaging vehicles he would be ok with someone shooting them. So I'm asking him a direct question in the same light to see how much money or how personal it has to be before it isn't ok to shoot a person for property damage.

Ok. So if a cop goes up to the person and tells them to stop and they continue doing it, what then? What if the cop cannot restrain the person? Should the cop just continue to allow that person to violate properties just because he shouldn't shoot him?

thewise1 · 07-02-2008, 08:39 PM

This whole Quanell X thing is such a clusterfuck to go along with the original situation too

Simius · 07-02-2008, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by lew

A violent crime is a property crime. If someone damages your body with violence, they're damaging your property.

It doesn't really matter how you call crimes. Just because some crimes warrant death when they are happening doesn't mean they all do. That doesn't change just because you call a violent crime a property crime.

lew · 07-02-2008, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Simius

It doesn't really matter how you call crimes. Just because some crimes warrant death when they are happening doesn't mean they all do. That doesn't change just because you call a violent crime a property crime.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm merely stating that all violent crimes are crimes against property.

JaJae · 07-02-2008, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by lew

A violent crime is a property crime. If someone damages your body with violence, they're damaging your property.

That is not commonly understood logic, nor is it how the law views criminal behavior which makes it irrelevant and wrong in this instance.

JaJae · 07-02-2008, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Ok. So if a cop goes up to the person and tells them to stop and they continue doing it, what then?

You don't shoot them. It would be illegal for a police officer to shoot someone for damaging vehicles. The rule basically is don't shoot unless you're willing to kill the person. Every police department has rules regarding using firearms on people. Typically you can only use it when your life or someone else's life is in imminent danger. That's it. You can't use it just because someone doesn't listen to you.

What if the cop cannot restrain the person?

They call for backup. They'd don't shoot them. That would be absurd. Police officers can't shoot people just because they're incapable of restraining them.

Should the cop just continue to allow that person to violate properties just because he shouldn't shoot him?

No. He should use whatever tools he has within the guidelines of his department and call for backup. If the officer is unable to restrain someone the first line is typically pepper spray. If that doesn't work a taser may be used if the officer has one. If that doesn't work they can use non-lethal force. Key word being non-lethal. You can not shoot a person for damaging property. That's not rational. Human life is more highly regarded than a vehicle, even criminal life.

JaJae · 07-02-2008, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Maybe not a shooting. But I'd certainly be within my rights to kick your ass.

No you wouldn't.

7960 · 07-02-2008, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

You don't shoot them. It would be illegal for a police officer to shoot someone for damaging vehicles. The rule basically is you don't shoot unless you're willing to kill the person. Every police department has rules regarding using your firearm on people. Typically you can only use it when your life or someone else's life is in eminent danger.

They call for backup. They'd don't shoot them. That would be absurd.

No. He should use whatever tools he has within the guidelines of his department and call for backup. If the officer is unable to restrain someone the first line is typically pepper spray. If that doesn't work a taser may be used if the officer has one. If that doesn't work they can use non-lethal force. Key word being non-lethal. You can not shoot a person for damaging property. That's not rational. Human life is more highly regarded than a vehicle, even criminal life.

I can't believe you're actually hav