Here's what happens with your Castle Doctrine

[AK-74me]

Don't try and put Texas laws ahead of federal ones. Federal ones trump them, that issue was settled during the civil war when the United States of America beat the South into submission. Quite simply he can be brought up on federal charges for denying these men their civil rights (yes even thieves have civil rights) by killing them. He cannot say he was protecting himself because he wasn't. He was defending an empty house that was not his own. He actively sought to confront these men and shot them, most eagerly at that. Honestly, I cannot believe you people. The value of human life gets cheaper by the day. Killing someone for stealing is not acceptable.

And what ferderal law would you be reffering to?

 

[MMDad]

Don't try and put Texas laws ahead of federal ones. Federal ones trump them, that issue was settled during the civil war when the United States of America beat the South into submission.

Now that is the worst of the weasel word copouts you have done yet. You tried to argue Texas law, but as soon as you were shown how wrong you are, you deem Texas law irrelevant.

Tell me, if Texas law does not matter, why did you try to use it to your advantage?

Why did you switch tactics?

 

[Novus Collectus]

Don't try and put Texas laws ahead of federal ones. Federal ones trump them, that issue was settled during the civil war when the United States of America beat the South into submission. Quite simply he can be brought up on federal charges for denying these men their civil rights (yes even thieves have civil rights) by killing them. He cannot say he was protecting himself because he wasn't. He was defending an empty house that was not his own. He actively sought to confront these men and shot them, most eagerly at that. Honestly, I cannot believe you people. The value of human life gets cheaper by the day. Killing someone for stealing is not acceptable.

He says he was being attacked. They were armed and he had a right to use force under state law. His action was he dutifully attempted to stop a crime as per Texas law. The criminal's actions were to commit the crimes and as a result of their crimes got themselves shot. The old man is not to blame, it is the criminals which are to blame for ignoring Texas law and risking the public's safety.

Federal charges do not apply. Unless he was a police officer or unless it was a civillian committing a hate crime, he will not be charged under federal law. He has nothing to fear from the feds.

Defining a Hate Crime
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Civil Rights - Hate Crime Overview

By the way, they weren't killed for stealing, they were killed as a result of their stealing. You commit a violent crime, then you have knowingly put your own life at risk while you are commitiing the violent crime.

 

[Bruzilla]

Don't try and put Texas laws ahead of federal ones. Federal ones trump them, that issue was settled during the civil war when the United States of America beat the South into submission. Quite simply he can be brought up on federal charges for denying these men their civil rights (yes even thieves have civil rights) by killing them. He cannot say he was protecting himself because he wasn't. He was defending an empty house that was not his own. He actively sought to confront these men and shot them, most eagerly at that. Honestly, I cannot believe you people. The value of human life gets cheaper by the day. Killing someone for stealing is not acceptable.

Once agin, I agree with you that a Federal charge COULD be brought, but the question is who is going to bring it? There is not one redeeming issue about the two dead guys other than they were human beings. They were known criminals, they were committing multiple felonies, they were armed, and they were acting in broad daylight (which is pretty bold).

Federal civil rights cases are brought when you have a situation where someone is injured because of mistaken identity. For example, two kids are walking home from school, and they are wearing clothes similar to those worn by two kids who just killed someone they were robbing. The cops see the walkers, and start shooting. The cops had reason to believe that they were armed and dangerous, so they didn't do anything wrong, but these innocent kids are still dead. So a Federal civil rights case is brought. These guys that got themselves kid were not innocent, and there's no way a Federal prosecutor is going to kill his career bringing that case.

 

[Larry Gude]

What...

. The value of human life gets cheaper by the day. Killing someone for stealing is not acceptable.

...is appropriate then?

A person(s) decide, of their own free will to cross a line, to take another persons property. That is at the very minimum immoral and I would argue it is evil. When you take someone else's property you have taken their property, you have taken their efforts that went into acquiring the property be it work, a gift, you have taken the planning on getting the property, you have taken their time and effort going and getting it or building it or what have you.

Then there is the attachment to the property, enjoyment of it, the satisfaction of acquiring it, any and all friends, family and neighbors who also derived something from it be it giving or helping or what have you.

Further, a persons right to privacy has been violated. Their peace, their sanctuary has been taken. They have been violated far more deeply than losing something that belongs to them.

A thief has subjugated another human being both temporarily for the actual crime and permanently for the lasting emotional impacts. He has attacked them both physically and emotionally. Do you even consider stealing wrong? If so, why? Do you dismiss out of hand each and every violation that is inflicted on a person when they've been robbed? What is fair to 'give' all that back? What is just?

This man saw wrongs being committed and he reacted correctly, rightly and justly in taking action as a citizen to say "NO!! I will not stand by as you do these crimes!". He is a good citizen, far better then these criminals. He is not the one who brought injustice and crimes. He is the one who stood against them.

They chose of their own free will to inflict upon others, innocent others. What's to prevent them from choosing to cross more lines? Maybe the dog barks a them? Maybe they choose to kill it? Or poison it? Maybe someone is home, asleep? A child? A grandparent? A witness! Now what? Who will know? Maybe they tie them up? Murder them? Rape them? Why is their judgement as to how far they would go to be given some sort of pass? Who is to know, at the time, that they 'only' wish to 'simply' steal? Now they've entered into terrorizing another, innocent human being(s).

When you've done wrong, you've brought this upon yourself, the right of others to oppose you..

When you've done right and tried to prevent a wrong, to punish that person, now THAT is evil.

A person has no, NO right to inflict upon another person, an innocent person.
These two getting killed committing these crimes is nowhere near what they were doing to others. You want to talk about value of life, you start with what has been inflicted upon innocent people and what is appropriate sanction to not only punish offenders but to discourage others.

The value is not the criminal. He acted of free will to inflict. The value is in what the criminal has taken.

 

[forestal]

Didn't Jesus teach you anything?

So someone steals your toaster, you fill their gut full of buckshot to keep them from getting away? Not even the police have that power; what makes you think a vigilante does?


Certainly the thieves deserve to be punished, but the gravity of their offense is not proportional to a death penalty.

The old man was not threatened until he, contrary to the orders of the police, deputized himself and most eagerly sought stop a pair of thieves with deadly force.

...is appropriate then?

A person(s) decide, of their own free will to cross a line, to take another persons property. That is at the very minimum immoral and I would argue it is evil. When you take someone else's property you have taken their property, you have taken their efforts that went into acquiring the property be it work, a gift, you have taken the planning on getting the property, you have taken their time and effort going and getting it or building it or what have you.

Then there is the attachment to the property, enjoyment of it, the satisfaction of acquiring it, any and all friends, family and neighbors who also derived something from it be it giving or helping or what have you.

Further, a persons right to privacy has been violated. Their peace, their sanctuary has been taken. They have been violated far more deeply than losing something that belongs to them.

A thief has subjugated another human being both temporarily for the actual crime and permanently for the lasting emotional impacts. He has attacked them both physically and emotionally. Do you even consider stealing wrong? If so, why? Do you dismiss out of hand each and every violation that is inflicted on a person when they've been robbed? What is fair to 'give' all that back? What is just?

This man saw wrongs being committed and he reacted correctly, rightly and justly in taking action as a citizen to say "NO!! I will not stand by as you do these crimes!". He is a good citizen, far better then these criminals. He is not the one who brought injustice and crimes. He is the one who stood against them.

They chose of their own free will to inflict upon others, innocent others. What's to prevent them from choosing to cross more lines? Maybe the dog barks a them? Maybe they choose to kill it? Or poison it? Maybe someone is home, asleep? A child? A grandparent? A witness! Now what? Who will know? Maybe they tie them up? Murder them? Rape them? Why is their judgement as to how far they would go to be given some sort of pass? Who is to know, at the time, that they 'only' wish to 'simply' steal? Now they've entered into terrorizing another, innocent human being(s).

When you've done wrong, you've brought this upon yourself, the right of others to oppose you..

When you've done right and tried to prevent a wrong, to punish that person, now THAT is evil.

A person has no, NO right to inflict upon another person, an innocent person.
These two getting killed committing these crimes is nowhere near what they were doing to others. You want to talk about value of life, you start with what has been inflicted upon innocent people and what is appropriate sanction to not only punish offenders but to discourage others.

The value is not the criminal. He acted of free will to inflict. The value is in what the criminal has taken.

 

[kwillia]

Certainly the thieves deserve to be punished, but the gravity of their offense is not proportional to a death penalty.

All human lives are not of equal value. Think of it thining the herd. Those that chose to do stupid and bad things put themselves at risk of being removed from the gene pool.

 

[tater]

All human lives are not of equal value. Think of it thining the herd. Those that chose to do stupid and bad things put themselves at risk of being removed from the gene pool.

Lib mentality = kill the babies you don't want and at the same time, confer rights and protections to terrorists, murderers, and rapists

 

[Novus Collectus]

Once agin, I agree with you that a Federal charge COULD be brought, ...

What federal charge?

This is when the feds can charge for civil ritghts violations:
#07-921: 11-15-07 Fact Sheet: Hate Crimes and Prosecution of Civil Rights Violations

The U.S. Department of Justice has always been, and remains, deeply committed to the vigorous enforcement of our nation’s civil rights laws. In recent years, the Department has prosecuted a number of high-profile hate crime cases. As permitted by federal criminal law, the Department of Justice continues to aggressively prosecute those within our society who attack others because of the victims’ race, color, national origin, or religious beliefs.

Key Federal Hate Crime Statutes:

Federally Protected Activities, 18 U.S.C. § 245. The portion of Section 245 of Title 18 which is primarily enforced by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division makes it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, BECAUSE OF that other person’s race, color, religion or national origin AND BECAUSE he or she is, or has been, engaging in one of six specifically-enumerated activities:

-Enrolling in or attending a public school or public college; Participating in or enjoying a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;

-Applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by a private or state employer;

-Serving as a juror or prospective juror in state court;

-Traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce or transportation;

-Enjoying the services of a place of public accommodation, including a hotel, motels, restaurant, bar, gas station, theater, concert hall, sports arena, or other place of entertainment.

Since it was not a race based shooting, this one does not apply. Even if someone tried to claim it was, they were not doing any of the six enumerated activities and would still not apply.

Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing, 42 U.S.C. § 3631. Section 3631 of Title 42 makes it unlawful for an individual to use force or threaten to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with, any person’s BECAUSE OF that person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin AND BECAUSE that person is exercising his or her housing rights.

Among the housing rights enumerated in the statute are the right to purchase, rent, or occupy a dwelling, and the right to contract for and finance those rights.

Ok, so I seriously doubt they were trying to rent the house they broke into, so this one is out too.

Damage to Religious Property, 18 U.S.C. § 247. Section 247 of Title 18 prohibits anyone from intentionally defacing, damaging or destroying religious real property BECAUSE OF the religious nature of the property, SO LONG AS the crime is committed in or affects interstate commerce. The statute ALSO prohibits anyone from intentionally obstructing or attempting to obstruct, by force or threat of force, a person in the enjoyment of that person's religious beliefs, SO LONG AS the crime is committed in or affects interstate commerce. Finally, the statute ALSO prohibits anyone from intentionally defacing, damaging or destroying any religious real property BECAUSE OF the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with the property, regardless of any connection to interstate or foreign commerce. Section 247 also prohibits attempts to do any of the above.

Unless they were a member of the church of slealing and burglary, this one cannot be used against the old man either.

Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241. Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States. An offense under section 241 is the agreement itself; the statute does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.

Nope, just one person so this one is out too.

He was not an officer or representative of local, state or federal government with duties of enforcing the law and so he was not acting "under color of law", therefore 18 U.S.C. § 242 does not apply.
US CODE: Title 18,CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Civil Rights Statutes

"Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken `under color of' state law."

United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)
FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the constitutional prohibition has no meaning. Then the State has clothed one of its agents with power to annul or to evade it.

Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

 

[PsyOps]

Didn't Jesus teach you anything?

So someone steals your toaster, you fill their gut full of buckshot to keep them from getting away? Not even the police have that power; what makes you think a vigilante does?


Certainly the thieves deserve to be punished, but the gravity of their offense is not proportional to a death penalty.

The old man was not threatened until he, contrary to the orders of the police, deputized himself and most eagerly sought stop a pair of thieves with deadly force.

The toaster didn't belong to them. They trespassed. They reportedly had criminal backgrounds, which means the cops and/or the legal system didn't work keeping these thugs off the street. You are going to propose your own defined level of action on others. This guy did a public service to his community and got these criminals off the streets, permanently. They will never violate another person again. When you could be saluting this man's actions you stand on the side of the thugs; as usual. You do this here and with the war we are in. Instead of standing up for those that take action to keep the rest of us safe you defend those that aim to harm the innocent. You'll never come to the conclusion that your thinking does us more harm than good. This is why crime grows in this country. This is why our kids aren't safe to play in our streets anymore. We have people that install more rights into the hands of criminals than into innocent people.

 

[ItalianScallion]

Didn't Jesus teach you anything?
Certainly the thieves deserve to be punished, but the gravity of their offense is not proportional to a death penalty.

Didn't Jesus teach YOU anything? Exodus 22 v 2, Matthew 12 v 29, Luke 11 v 21 & Luke 23 v 41 should help you see that we do have a God given right to protect ourselves. I would NEVER shoot anyone stealing from me or another. I would only shoot if they are threatening to end my life. This means they would have to show a gun, large knife or other deadly instrument. Otherwise they'll meet Law & Order (my left & right legs or fists). Oops! Sorry for that copyright infringment Mr. Norris.

Lib mentality = kill the babies you don't want and at the same time, confer rights and protections to terrorists, murderers, and rapists

This is the liberal (Forestal) mindset. Make a big stink about these punks but kill those innocent babies anytime you like, put down our troops & blame the Pres for everything.

The toaster didn't belong to them. They trespassed. They reportedly had criminal backgrounds, which means the cops and/or the legal system didn't work keeping these thugs off the street. You are going to propose your own defined level of action on others. This guy did a public service to his community and got these criminals off the streets, permanently. They will never violate another person again. When you could be saluting this man's actions you stand on the side of the thugs; as usual. You do this here and with the war we are in. Instead of standing up for those that take action to keep the rest of us safe you defend those that aim to harm the innocent. You'll never come to the conclusion that your thinking does us more harm than good. This is why crime grows in this country. This is why our kids aren't safe to play in our streets anymore. We have people that install more rights into the hands of criminals than into innocent people.

Well said PsyOps. Thank you for pointing out what he'll NEVER see.

 

[Bruzilla]

Thanks for your in-depth legal investigation Novus, but as we all know... where there's a will, there's a way, and if some federal prosecutor wants to warp a law to make case he/she will. What's different here is I don't see any upside to any prosecutor for trying to make a case, so I doubt one will ever be filed.

Forrestal, you are right IRT the theft of a toaster not meeting the requirements to implement the death penalty, but those requirements are only for civil authorities to meet, not the public.

 

[toppick08]

Don't try and put Texas laws ahead of federal ones. Federal ones trump them, that issue was settled during the civil war when the United States of America beat the South into submission. Quite simply he can be brought up on federal charges for denying these men their civil rights (yes even thieves have civil rights) by killing them. He cannot say he was protecting himself because he wasn't. He was defending an empty house that was not his own. He actively sought to confront these men and shot them, most eagerly at that. Honestly, I cannot believe you people. The value of human life gets cheaper by the day. Killing someone for stealing is not acceptable.

If "federal law trumps them", then every state should have gun laws that actually do what the 2'nd amend. states. You must be a relative of those 'Yanks who ran or went awol when the going got tough. The War of Northern Aggression ravaged the South, including Maryland. Read Mr. Randall's official state song ,and learn about Lincoln's martial law of Md.

 

[forestal]

General Sherman Kicks (Southern) Ass.

Hey, the 2nd amendment says that well regulated militias, like the kind they actually had at the time the Constitution was written, can own guns. There is no provision for private citizen ownership.

If "federal law trumps them", then every state should have gun laws that actually do what the 2'nd amend. states. You must be a relative of those 'Yanks who ran or went awol when the going got tough. The War of Northern Aggression ravaged the South, including Maryland. Read Mr. Randall's official state song ,and learn about Lincoln's martial law of Md.

 

[forestal]

Sorry, I don't salute thieves or murderers.

BTW, murderers are worse than thieves.

The toaster didn't belong to them. They trespassed. They reportedly had criminal backgrounds, which means the cops and/or the legal system didn't work keeping these thugs off the street. You are going to propose your own defined level of action on others. This guy did a public service to his community and got these criminals off the streets, permanently. They will never violate another person again. When you could be saluting this man's actions you stand on the side of the thugs; as usual. You do this here and with the war we are in. Instead of standing up for those that take action to keep the rest of us safe you defend those that aim to harm the innocent. You'll never come to the conclusion that your thinking does us more harm than good. This is why crime grows in this country. This is why our kids aren't safe to play in our streets anymore. We have people that install more rights into the hands of criminals than into innocent people.

 

[Novus Collectus]

General Sherman Kicks (Southern) Ass.

Hey, the 2nd amendment says that well regulated militias, like the kind they actually had at the time the Constitution was written, can own guns. There is no provision for private citizen ownership.

No, it says the People's right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. The 2nd also mentions militias as a reason the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The People's right is not subordinate to the militia reason. This is why the DC handgun law was overturned, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Sorry, I don't salute thieves or murderers.

BTW, murderers are worse than thieves.

This man murdered no one. He was allowed to shoot under Texas law. Therefore he is not worse than the thieves.

 

[Larry Gude]

Then...

There is no provision for private citizen ownership.

...there is no provision for private speech, for private homes or papers or personal affects or even a 'privacy' right?

I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Just look at those first two, or even all of them as you see fit and you'll see a common theme of individual rights. 'The people' means what? It is specified in both, so, do they both mean 'the people' or 'the state'.

I'm just saying it seems obvious.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

, but those requirements are only for civil authorities to meet, not the public.

...that's what I am trying to establish as far as how forestal views 'the people'. If it was 'the peoples' toaster and there is no right to an individual then he has a point. If 'the people' mean him and you and me and our individual rights then he'll need to make some sort of allowance for individual, private rights as opposed to those that 'the state' allows us.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

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?

...you can see an 'individual right' to property? Oe is it 'the states' retirement money that Lay stole? You seem to have at least some sort of inclination of outrage to harm done to an individual that may justify hostility towards a perpetrator. So, was that a slip or can you see a situation where it's just too bad for the bad guy?