[acidcomplex]

Blue_Nose wrote:

acidcomplex wrote:

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

Section 9.33 of the Texas Penal Code, the only one pertaining to deadly force in defense of a third person:

Quote:

DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

I don't see anything about another person's belongings.

9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and



9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

[Blue_Nose]

Actually, there's another section that does pertain to belongings:

Quote:

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.

Note the part bolded.

[RUEZ]

Well that sorta makes it more complicated.

[acidcomplex]

RUEZ wrote:

Well that sorta makes it more complicated.

Does indeed eh

[Blue_Nose]

Deadly force wasn't necessary to prevent the crime, and there's no reason to believe the property couldn't have been recovered by the police he knew were on the way.

There was no justification for deadly force.

[acidcomplex]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Deadly force wasn't necessary to prevent the crime, and there's no reason to believe the property couldn't have been recovered by the police he knew were on the way.

There was no justification for deadly force.

I agree that it probably wasn't necessary, but comone how many people actually believe the police will get anything back that can be fit inside of a bag.

As for justification,in this case according to Texas law, its really in the eye of the beholder even if that beholder is not correct and really old and maybe crazy.

[Brenda]

acidcomplex wrote:

Blue_Nose wrote:

Deadly force wasn't necessary to prevent the crime, and there's no reason to believe the property couldn't have been recovered by the police he knew were on the way.

There was no justification for deadly force.

I agree that it probably wasn't necessary, but comone how many people actually believe the police will get anything back that can be fit inside of a bag.

As for justification,in this case according to Texas law, its really in the eye of the beholder even if that beholder is not correct and really old and maybe crazy.

If I were shallow, I would wonder why Texas had a police force anyway...

Or a detention system

[uwish]

There is no justification for deadly force?

u were drunk when you wrote that weren't you?

[Blue_Nose]

uwish wrote:

There is no justification for deadly force?

u were drunk when you wrote that weren't you?

No there wasn't, and no I wasn't. Any other irrelevant questions?

[uwish]

Tell me that when someone breaks into your house in a home invasion and starts threatening to kill your family

I am so tired of armchair wanna bee's that live in a land of peace and tarnquility that only taliban jack live in.

tree huggers are the first to yell save the forest but the first to hack down a tree when it gets really cold.

[Blue_Nose]

acidcomplex wrote:

Blue_Nose wrote:

Deadly force wasn't necessary to prevent the crime, and there's no reason to believe the property couldn't have been recovered by the police he knew were on the way.

There was no justification for deadly force.

I agree that it probably wasn't necessary, but comone how many people actually believe the police will get anything back that can be fit inside of a bag.

As for justification,in this case according to Texas law, its really in the eye of the beholder even if that beholder is not correct and really old and maybe crazy.

Judging from the 911 tapes, the police showed up not long after he'd fired the gun - they would have been easily caught and the stolen goods returned by someone trained and responsible for handling such issues.

[Blue_Nose]

uwish wrote:

Tell me that when someone breaks into your house in a home invasion and starts threatening to kill your family

So the robbers broke into the guy's house and threatened to kill his family? Did they even threaten to kill anyone's family?

Irrelevant again, but I'm sure the third time's a charm. You can do it!

[Brenda]

uwish wrote:

Tell me that when someone breaks into your house in a home invasion and starts threatening to kill your family

Get your facts straight before you spew your nonsense.

[SprCForr]

What's your opinions on a situation such as the one below?

Quote:

Police: Former Marine Shoots 2 Subway Robbery Suspects
Customer Kills 1, Wounds Another, Police Say

UPDATED: 4:41 pm EDT June 28, 2007

PLANTATION, Fla. -- A retired United States Marine disrupted a robbery in progress when he shot two men who attempted to rob a Subway sandwich shop, fatally wounding one of them, police said.

According to Plantation police, two armed men barged into the Subway at 1949 Pine Island Road shortly after 11 p.m. Wednesday, demanding money from the employee behind the counter. When they tried to force John Lovell into the bathroom, he pulled out a gun and shot both men, police said.

Donicio Arrindell, 22, was shot in the head and later died at the hospital. Fredrick Gadson, 21, was shot in the chest and ran from the Subway, but police found him in hiding in some bushes on the property of a nearby BankAtlantic.

Lovell, 71, was the lone customer at the time. Police said he had a concealed weapons permit. A witness who was about to enter the Subway at the time said he thought the shootings were justified. "I think justice, you know, was served and a civilian was a hero for today," Sebastian Shakespeare said.

Police said Lovell, a retired Marine, wouldn't be charged.

Link

[Tricks]

Methinks he should get a friggin' medal.