Deadly Force in Texas

[CdwJava]

I seriously doubt that this kind of thing would have any kind of nationwide impact at all.

- Carl

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

LOL! Talk about deja vu.

Indiana Filer,

Read the last couple of pages in this thread where Missouri law is discussed and why it does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property. Hopefully I won't need to explain why the use off deadly force to protect property alone is NOT justified in Indiana.

YES IT DOES.

Use of physical force in defense of property.
563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.

MISSOURI LAW DOES PERMIT THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. IT DOES IT RIGHT HERE. READ IT.

Sure there is a qualification, but the law still reads in PLAIN ENGLISH that a person "may use deadly force...to the extent he or she reasonable believes it necessary...to prevent...stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree."

 

[CdwJava]

But it does not state that deadly force is authorized when preventing the flight of the suspects.

But, if MO wants to be as barbaric in TX in this regard, I'll be happy to concede the point and place MO on my list of 'un-friggin'-believeable' states.

- Carl

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

See how the changed the law this year. PDF shows original langauge and new language. Also see in 563.031, the state went from a specific list of crimes to "forcible felonies." If

http://www.senate.mo.gov/07info/pdf-bill/tat/SB62.pdf

 

[quincy]

Carl -

This is actually the type of story that has impact, and it gets national (and international) media coverage for that reason.

On any given day you will find daily newspapers across the country reporting hundreds of different stories. Only a few of these stories will ever find their way to more than just the one local paper, however. The story of the Horn shootings is one of the few.

There are several criteria looked at when deciding which stories are important enough to be included in the local daily news. The "audience" needs to be considered first and, therefore, the most important criteria a newspaper looks at is the impact an event or idea has on the people in the area it serves. A robbery at a Charter One bank in Detroit, Michigan, for instance, has more of an impact on the people residing in Detroit than a similar robbery would have if it occurred at a Charter One bank in San Diego. Residents of San Diego, in turn, would have no interest in reading about a robbery in Detroit, and yet they do have an interest in knowing that their own local bank was robbed.

Proximity, then, is an important factor in deciding which stories make it to print. Detroit papers tend to report on Detroit and/or Michigan news first, for instance.

However, stories from other parts of the country or the world that involve prominent people, or that are novel in some respect, or that involve conflict are also important to readers. Stories on the Texas "shoot first" law received wide media coverage when it was first passed, as the implications of such a law were weighed in other states. And now the Horn shootings have been reported nationwide.

With the Supreme Court taking a new look at gun control laws, any uses (and misuses) of guns is a natural focus of the news. Gun use is a national issue. The Texas law, and subsequent shootings by Horn, has news value, and impact, nationwide.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

MISSOURI LAW DOES PERMIT THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. IT DOES IT RIGHT HERE. READ IT.

2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.

I'm sorry but this is the most circular and ridiculous analysis I can think of. You are saying that the statute authorizes deadly force to defend property IF it is authorized under another section and well...yeah... it is indeed authorized under another section so therefore it is authorized under this section as well. Do you not think the Legislature maybe KNOWS that its authorized under another section since they were the ones that wrote it? Why in the world would they make that particular statute conditional on something that never changes? Its literally the same thing as just coming out and saying, yes it is authorized, period. If that's what they intended to do than surely they would have done it.

Seriously just think about it and please tell us why that sentence is there. If their intention is to allow that defense for property why is that conditional requirement there? Why does it use the word, only when under your analysis it would always be permitted? What purpose does it serve to refer you to another law just to confirm a condition that never changes? Its like saying that this defense is allowed only if the sky is blue, so make sure the sky is blue prior to reading this statute.

The plain reading of the statute, and the one cited to you from multiple cases, is that this conditional requirement is in fact conditional on the facts of the case. Go figure. You must actually meet the requirements for deadly force self defense under those sections that permit it outright (ex: defense of self and others) before you can use it to protect property as well.

There is absolutely no shame in admitting you are wrong. There's even no shame in just dropping an off topic tangent, without admitting anything, when its obvious you're wrong. What you are doing...is shameful.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl -

This is actually the type of story that has impact, and it gets national (and international) media coverage for that reason.

I'm not saying it won't get air time and spur a discussion (or, rather, an argument) of the issue, but I do not agree that it will be more than a sideline in the presidential elections. It might be an issue in the Republican primary to a lesser extent in TX and a few other states, but I cannot see that the issue will translate into a national swing for any candidate.

- Carl

 

[longsally111]

sorry

Having been the victim of robbery, I am not sorry that two illegal immigrants who were living off the system and making their money breaking into honest hard working peoples homes are gone and not in prison where my tax dollars are supporting them while they scream that they are being unfairly treated and racially profiled.

 

[mike_lee]

Carl -

This is actually the type of story that has impact, and it gets national (and international) media coverage for that reason.

This is a prime example of traditional news media failing to adapt to the changing world, true the Internet can't be stopped. But a fair number of people like a physical newspaper. While this story is alive and well on the Internet it was one article written a week ago and nothing since. If newspapers would print readers comments with a minimum of bowdlerizing of responses (remove most of the cuss word but enough to figure out the word the impact of that is larger then people realize) Run the very best responses like op-ed columns, require a user name that can only be changed by mail to encourage community building and so on.

There was a brief period there in the late 80's and early 90's where you wanted the newspaper version because there were more facts and less bias, now news articles, for the most part, feel like they came straight off a wire.

Just a passing thought that threatened to become a mindworm

 

[quincy]

Mike -

I am not quite sure what you are saying.

Internet news tends to be brief, but it reaches the readers rapidly so the readers are informed, often within minutes of an event occurring. Timeliness means a lot with news and, generally, the fresher the news is, the better. The traditional newspapers obviously cannot match the speed of the Internet (or the television's nightly news) so, in order to compete, the articles printed in a traditional paper tend to concentrate on the "why" and the "how" of a story and less on the "when".

With a story like the Texas shootings, the Internet can report it quickly, certainly, and readers can respond. A traditional paper, however, may just print the "wire" story originally, while it is still "fresh", but the story is often not just ignored after that. A few days or even weeks later, the newspaper may have worked the details of the story into a larger, more in-depth story, analyzing what it all means to the residents of their area and the nation as a whole. A story occurring in Texas already has made an impact if it is featured in a newspaper in Detroit in the first place.

The story of Horn is basically a killing, and killings happen all over the country for various reasons all of the time. In Detroit, killings are front page news on a regular basis. What, then, is it that makes the Horn shootings different? That is what is explored in a traditional newspaper, and what gives the story impact. Would a "shoot first" law in Michigan, for instance, help to reduce the crime in Detroit, or would it only legitimize the killings occurring already?

Readers can, by the way, write letters to the editor, to respond to any story printed. In smaller, local papers, for instance, dialog often does develop between the letter writers, resulting in some community involvement on an issue earlier brought to print by the paper. Unfortunately, our country is fast becoming a nation of people who do not (or cannot) read and who do not (or cannot) write - unlike, perhaps, earlier decades when reading and writing was a vital part of education and not just an adjunct to audio and visual learning.

As for Carl's statement that this story will not have an impact on the election, I can almost predict with some certainty that it (or the "shoot first" laws that are developing in states around the country) will be mentioned, when candidates' views on gun control are explored.

 

[BoredAtty]

There is absolutely no shame in admitting you are wrong. There's even no shame in just dropping an off topic tangent, without admitting anything, when its obvious you're wrong. What you are doing...is shameful.

I'm embarrassed for the guy.

 

[no_Wedge]

personally I think that what Horn did was necessary. What if the neighbor was someone who could not defend for themselves, or what if he let them flee and then they ended up killing an innocent person next time they burglarized?
The moral is that wouldn't you want your neighbor to defend you and your property from criminals? A criminal chooses his path of crime and should know that it is a dangerous business, and should not be protected by mans law and is not protected by God's law.

 

[mike_lee]

Please explain to me how it was "necessary?"

The moral is that wouldn't you want your neighbor to defend you and your property from criminals? .

I do not want my neighbor to kill in my name, it's bad enough the government does it.

and is not protected by God's law.

Wow, are you speaking for God now? What god? Do you mean the law that says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . . " Or the law that says "If a man steals your cloak give him your robe as well. (My paraphrase)" If God judges the heart then I suspect this guys heart was about murder.

should not be protected by mans law and is not protected by God's law.

Are you an anarchist as well as an oracle of God?

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

I'm embarrassed for the guy.

So, when I talked to the sponsor of the bill, I shared your interpretation and it was suggested not to use you for legal advice.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

I'm sorry but this is the most circular and ridiculous analysis I can think of. You are saying that the statute authorizes deadly force to defend property IF it is authorized under another section and well...yeah... it is indeed authorized under another section so therefore it is authorized under this section as well. Do you not think the Legislature maybe KNOWS that its authorized under another section since they were the ones that wrote it? Why in the world would they make that particular statute conditional on something that never changes? Its literally the same thing as just coming out and saying, yes it is authorized, period. If that's what they intended to do than surely they would have done it.

Seriously just think about it and please tell us why that sentence is there. If their intention is to allow that defense for property why is that conditional requirement there? Why does it use the word, only when under your analysis it would always be permitted? What purpose does it serve to refer you to another law just to confirm a condition that never changes? Its like saying that this defense is allowed only if the sky is blue, so make sure the sky is blue prior to reading this statute.

The plain reading of the statute, and the one cited to you from multiple cases, is that this conditional requirement is in fact conditional on the facts of the case. Go figure. You must actually meet the requirements for deadly force self defense under those sections that permit it outright (ex: defense of self and others) before you can use it to protect property as well.

There is absolutely no shame in admitting you are wrong. There's even no shame in just dropping an off topic tangent, without admitting anything, when its obvious you're wrong. What you are doing...is shameful.

No Bored is wrong. He said Missouri statute does not permit deadly violence in defense of property. This section does state that.

There is no reason for the statute on use of deadly force to protect property unless the legislature intended it to be used as an element of defense. In fact, the changes to the law this past session expanded from a short list of crimes in which deadly force can be asserted as a defense to criminal prosecution to all forcible felonies.

It is not my assertion that deadly force in defense of property is always permitted. It is my position that the legislature drafted the language to permit the use of a defense of justifiable use of force in a criminal prosecution. There are still high hurdles to be overcome.