Here's what happens with your Castle Doctrine

[forestal]

Actually the law was to protect people not property, and this man wasn't in any danger. He'll probably die in prison for cold blooded murder. He shouldn't have disobeyed the police.

The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property.

It "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth told the newspaper. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

Whoops! Looks like pre-meditated murder!!

"Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house. You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun," the dispatcher told Horn at one point.
"You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."

Originally Posted by I'mno Mensa

The law seemed to have worked. Two theives are shot while in the act.

Perhaps the law needs a little tuning up since there is a chance the man who shot them could be prosecuted. They need to write the law so that he dosnt have to face that chance.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by forestal

Actually the law was to protect people not property, and this man wasn't in any danger.

Did you read the law? Of course not. It's much easier to just regurgitate what you are fed, isn't it?

What the law really does say:

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person

Note the word "property." If they meant "person" it would say person. But the law says "property" doesn't it?

It kind of leads me to believe that they meant "property" and the doofus who says "that's not what we meant" is trying to cover his azz in case it costs him re-election.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by MMDad

Did you read the law? Of course not. It's much easier to just regurgitate what you are fed, isn't it?

What the law really does say:

Note the word "property." If they meant "person" it would say person. But the law says "property" doesn't it?

It kind of leads me to believe that they meant "property" and the doofus who says "that's not what we meant" is trying to cover his azz in case it costs him re-election.

...he says that the guy says that what he meant isn't what he, or anyone else, says about what needs to be said in terms of saying who is wrong; robbers or those willing to confront them.



forestal, you are on the side of the robbers, correct? What say you?

[Novus Collectus]

Originally Posted by forestal

Actually the law was to protect people not property, and this man wasn't in any danger. He'll probably die in prison for cold blooded murder. He shouldn't have disobeyed the police.[indent]The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property.

....actually, the rest of Texas law does:
§ 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;


Looks like the legislature was just talking about the recent Caslte Doctrine law. You see, the protection of another person's property with lethal force has been Texas law for decades.

He didn't disobey the police, he only ignored the advice of a 911 operator and even so it would not have made a difference. He did not murder anyone and he legally shot two violent criminals. This man will most likely not even be charged.

[forestal]

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. Maybe in Iran, but not here.

Steeling is wrong, killing someone for stealing is also wrong.

Hey, under Castle Doctrine, would a former Enron employee be justifiable in killing Ken Lay (if he hadn't died) for stealing their retirement money?

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...he says that the guy says that what he meant isn't what he, or anyone else, says about what needs to be said in terms of saying who is wrong; robbers or those willing to confront them.



forestal, you are on the side of the robbers, correct? What say you?

[Novus Collectus]

Originally Posted by forestal

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. Maybe in Iran, but not here.

Steeling is wrong, killing someone for stealing is also wrong.

Hey, under Castle Doctrine, would a former Enron employee be justifiable in killing Ken Lay (if he hadn't died) for stealing their retirement money?

A violent crime must be stopped. Texas has ruled that a violent criminal in the act can be stopped by whatever means at hand by a citizen. The onus is on the criminal in Texas. They knew their actions could be stopped by deadly force and when they continue their crime they put their own lives in danger. They are responsible for their own deaths.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by forestal

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. Maybe in Iran, but not here.

It is in Texas. Hmmmm.... Where did this happen? Oh, that's right, Texas.

Tell me, rocket surgeon, if these criminals had decided not to commit the crime, would they be alive today?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by forestal

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. Maybe in Iran, but not here.

Steeling is wrong, killing someone for stealing is also wrong.

Look at it this way Forest... These guys had criminal records. They will never steal or commit crimes again. EVER!

If this sort of action was put more in the hands of property owners instead of having to wait for the police and depend on an inept legal system (that obviously let these guys out time and time again) you can be sure the crime rate would go down.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by forestal

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. Maybe in Iran, but not here. Steeling is wrong, killing someone for stealing is also wrong.

This case is not a couple dumb teenagers lifting some CDs from a store; it's about two criminals breaking and entering into a private residence. I suppose you would not be afraid at all if you saw that happening next to your place. You would not for one moment fear that they may come after you next - maybe for your stuff, maybe because you saw them, maybe both reasons.

You're right, forestal: the two thieves were not posing a threat to the man at that moment. But how much longer should he have waited to react? Until they were approaching him? Inside his house? Putting a weapon to his head?

This world will be a scary place if/once people believe they no longer have the right to defend themselves.

[forestal]

Jesus Christ you morons have the great ability to read only the parts that support your argument. You left out section 9.42 which also have to be satisfied..

#2 isn't satisfied because the police specifically told him NOT to shoot.

2.(A) and (B) aren't satisfied because it took place during the DAY not the NIGHT.

3(A) isn't satisfied because the property CAN be recovered by other means.

and 3(B) isn't satisfied because again, he wasn't in any danger as long as he remained inside, as TOLD to him stay inside....


Sec. 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.
</pre>

Originally Posted by Novus Collectus

....actually, the rest of Texas law does:
§ 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;


Looks like the legislature was just talking about the recent Caslte Doctrine law. You see, the protection of another person's property with lethal force has been Texas law for decades.

He didn't disobey the police, he only ignored the advice of a 911 operator and even so it would not have made a difference. He did not murder anyone and he legally shot two violent criminals. This man will most likely not even be charged.