Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: antivenom

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.......... Para:3 deals with recovery, not protection as in Para:2 during nightime. I may be wrong but I believe para:3 would stand alone and not be contingent on para:2


63 posted on 04/29/2006 9:02:09 AM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: eastforker

once the imminent threat of personnal injury is over, you cannot use Deadly Force


65 posted on 04/29/2006 9:06:54 AM PDT by antivenom (If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much damn space!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: eastforker

>>Para:3 deals with recovery, not protection as in Para:2
>>during nightime. I may be wrong but I believe para:3 would
>>stand alone and not be contingent on para:2

I don't think so if they are using and's and or's in a boolean fashion here. By that logic, a person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property as long as he meets the criteria set in 1 and either 2(A) or 2(B), and either 3(A) or 3(B).

The key "and" in this case is the one at the end of 2(B). Were 3 stand alone I would have expected it to be an "or".


67 posted on 04/29/2006 9:17:04 AM PDT by NYorkerInHouston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: eastforker

No. The "and's" and "or's" decide what is contiguous.
(1) must be true AND (2) must be true with either (2A) OR (2B) being true AND (3) must be true with either (3A) or (3B) being TRUE.

In BASIC or LISP computer programming, it'd look something like this:

(Power down Varmint
(WHILE
(1=TRUE) AND
((2A=TRUE) OR (2B=TRUE)) AND
((3A=TRUE) OR (3B=TRUE))
)
)

Of course this is armchair coaching and may have absolutely no relativity until after the fact...;-)


90 posted on 04/30/2006 4:07:48 AM PDT by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson