I’m not saying don’t kill.
I am saying that you cannot kill somebody who is incapacitated and you cannot shoot them in the back either.
The pharmacist should have known better, because he’s had a bit of medical training that a good medical examiner has a pretty good idead when a wound is fatal and when it is not.
Sorry, If a guy breaks in my house I’m not going to do a full medical exam on him. I am going to shoot him... in the head, the back, hell I’ll stuff the gun up his ass and pull the trigger. Anyone that comes in my house w/o my permision or legal warrant has forfetted his right to breathe my oxygen. My lawyer can get me out of a murder rap but he cant get me out of a grave. Shoot and take my chances with a grand jury, thats my motto.
As far as I am concerned anyone that has shown a willingness to harm me or mine is not a person any more but a dangerous animal. And will be treated like one.
“I am saying that you cannot kill somebody who is incapacitated and you cannot shoot them in the back either.”
It is not a sports event. It is vermin eradication. What you say is legally true since the days of the Warren court. The Warren court was wrong. Healthy societies do not tolerate predators. They are killed or cast out.
Watch the video. What the shopkeeper may have been illegal, but I am glad he took the feral hoodlum out of the gene pool. Somewhere down the line, the shopkeeper saved a life by eradicating the armed robber.
“I’m not saying don’t kill.
I am saying that you cannot kill somebody who is incapacitated and you cannot shoot them in the back either.”
You should not shoot them execution style if there is a camera video taping the whole episode either.
In my CC class they showed a video scenario of a woman shoot a guy who broke in her apartment and then put his hands up. At this point she shoots him and then walks over and puts one in his temple. The point was supposed to be that you can not shoot an unarmed and/or incapacitated person.
Amazingly, most the women, all well educated nurses, psychologists, med pros - said if it was not legal it should be because he might come back and/or he might get up. So they wanted to end the threat permanently. The LEO tried to explain,but, despite his efforts, every woman knowingly answered the question “incorrectly” on the test in protest.
Actually, if you watch the stupid horror shows where the bad ____ (guy, monster, zombie, mummy, etc.) gets up and kills/eats them after they shoot or otherwise immobilize him temporally, it seems prudent to pay the insurance and finish the job. Except for the later conviction for murder if it is video taped.
In Texas you can.
Before you attempt to argue read the following:
This text is from the 1999 Texas Penal Code. For a more current version of this provision see the FastLaws Texas Penal Code . 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.