Deadly Force in Texas

[CdwJava]

Ozark, all of that is preventative - to defend one's property from a subject who is making entry or may be already inside while the resident or his family is also inside. Unlike TX, the MO law does not seem to give a NEIGHBOR the right to run next door and cap a couple of suspects as they are standing on the front or even side lawn of the already burgled neighbor's home.

- Carl

 

[BoredAtty]

Further proof you are wrong, from State of Missouri v. Walter R. Dulaney.

What? Don't you see the part of case you quoted where it says "defense of premises is essentially accelerated self-defense."

Using deadly force to prevent a break-in is for the purpose of defending one's person, not property. LOL. This is ridiculous.

 

[BoredAtty]

It says deadly force can be used for protection of property--albeit with strings attached.

But the strings you're talking about restrict deadly force to defense of persons! This is getting funny.

Dude, even if you think we're all idiots who can't read, the bottom line is that the courts say you're wrong. You can't argue against this: "The use of deadly force, however, is not permitted when a person's only purpose is to protect his property. § 563.041 comment."

 

[fairisfair]

What? Don't you see the part of case you quoted where it says "defense of premises is essentially accelerated self-defense."

Using deadly force to prevent a break-in is for the purpose of defending one's person, not property. LOL. This is ridiculous.

Oh dang it, I had that all cut and ready to paste. and I forgot to come back and put it on here. shoooooooot.

"In Missouri, defense of premises is essentially accelerated self-defense because it authorizes "protective acts to be taken earlier than they otherwise would be authorized, that is, at the time when and place where the intruder is seeking to cross the protective barrier of the house."

and as for the case itself:

There is no evidence Bryant or Anthony were attempting to enter the Dulaneys' dwelling either to try to burn it or to kill or inflict serious physical injury on someone inside the home. Yet, Defendant used deadly force by discharging his gun. Since deadly force may be used in defense of a dwelling only when a trespasser is attempting to enter the dwelling or burn it in order to kill or inflict serious physical injury on someone inside, these facts do not support defense of premises and do not justify Defendant's actions. Therefore, the court was not required to acquit defendant based on the justifications of self-defense or defense of premises. "

 

[BoredAtty]

There is no evidence Bryant or Anthony were attempting to enter the Dulaneys' dwelling either to try to burn it or to kill or inflict serious physical injury on someone inside the home. Yet, Defendant used deadly force by discharging his gun. Since deadly force may be used in defense of a dwelling only when a trespasser is attempting to enter the dwelling or burn it in order to kill or inflict serious physical injury on someone inside, these facts do not support defense of premises and do not justify Defendant's actions. Therefore, the court was not required to acquit defendant based on the justifications of self-defense or defense of premises. "

Great catch. Unfortunately, it will fall on deaf ears and be ignored. Rather than confront the arguments made by others (as we in this debate have done with his arguments), he refuses to even acknowledge them as if they never existed (notice how much attention he gave the case law I cited). Instead, he'll quote a blog about an irrelevant Idaho law or claim that he spoke to Renquist's ghost...anything to keep the attention away from that which he can't refute.

LOL