Posted on 06/28/2002 3:49:45 PM PDT by 45Auto
"Through a process of pathological evolution, it has gone on so long and has become so reflexively habitual that some of the people engineering it (society) have forgotten what they are doing or why they are doing it and believe their original denial.
The Second Amendment, though simple and elegant, breaks down in our efforts at rhetoric to make it understandable. We need language that is short, simple and clear.
Not if it's dark and he's running away with your jewelry or other property. Deadly force is authorized to stop or prevent "theft during the night" among other property crimes. Although fighting the resulting civil lawsuit will cost more than the deductable on your insurance, so it's probably not worth it, other than as fufilling a civic duty, after all the next time the criminal might hurt someone, if he is allowed to succeed.
From the Texas Penal Code (similar rules apply to protecting a third party's property):
§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 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.
A spouse or teenaged child cutting off the route of retreat with a wicked-looking shotgun
In which case it doesn't matter if he turns or not. If he does, you can shoot him, if he doesn't spouse or offspring can do the job. Although try to stay out of each others line of fire. :)
LOL. Those "circuluar" firing squads are really dangerous.
This is not true. If he has one of your possessions then you can chase him down to retrieve it. If there is then a threat, by him, to your life then you can shoot to stop him.
The only proviso is that if you lose sight of him you can continue to chase, but you cannot shoot to stop. You must back away and not press the issue further. If you do then you are up a creek.
On your property at night you can also shoot to stop just like if he was inside.
Eaker
I was typing (slowly) from memory.
Thanks,
Eaker
Granddad: Bill, what am I supposed to do if someone breaks into the store?
Sheriff: Shoot 'im, but if you shoot 'im make sure you kill 'im or he'll sue ya'. If he's in the yard and ya' shoot 'im, make sure ya' drag 'im back inside so ya' can say that he was in the store when ya' shot 'im.
I went to Sheriff Bill's funeral 6 years ago. I miss that guy.
Hmmmm.......I wonder if the FBI lab boys would be able to figure this one out???
Eaker
The school cop gave me the same advice when I was 17.
I was involved in an incident at High School where I was attacked with a knife by an older student. (Fortunately, this was before the daze of "zero tolerance," so I did not get into trouble for defending myself against an unprovoked attack with a deadly weapon.) It was a situation where he came up and picked a fight, and as he was inciting me I knew he had a knife. (Why else would someone push you with his left hand while keeping his right hand over his back pocket.) I tried stalling things (I wasn't crazy enough to take someone with a knife on bare-handed if I didn't have to), trying to get a teacher to notice and break up this big fight brewing in the cafeteria, but suddenly a lot of them found reasons to be somewhere else (maybe they figured he had a knife, too, or maybe they were afraid of getting sued). So I had fifty witnesses that stated that I was trying to avoid trouble.
Didn't matter. This clown hauled out the knife and started swinging. He didn't know how to use it so I blocked most of the blows, but he did bounce one off my ribs.
That was when I uncorked on him. I knew no one else was going to end the fight, except one or the other of us. I grabbed him, threw him against a wall, then jumped on top of him. The fight ended with my hands around his throat, one knee on his chest, the other on his knife arm (he had dropped the knife, but I didn't know it), and I was banging his head on a concrete floor. It took four students to drag me off of him, or I would have killed him. As it was, I dazed him so badly that when the school cop came by five minutes later, he was still on the floor trying to figure up which way was up and not succeeding. (Because of the way he was swinging at me, everyone assumed it was a simple fistfight. No one saw the knife, and no one saw any blood until I stood up. All my injuries were on the front, not visible while I had him down. Everyone freaked when they saw my shirtfront soaked in blood, and I got dragged down to the school nurse with the rest of the lunchroom crowd following.)
The kid that attacked me was a real bad boy. He and an identical twin brother had kicked up a four-year crime wave in my home town. One would rob a gas station, liquor store, or stop-and-rob, while the other would be at a party. Then they would play the game of good-twin/bad-twin, and there was always reasonable doubt when it came to trial. You cannot imagine the cops' delight that they had one of them, caught, literally covered with his victim's blood. He was 19 when he attacked me and they sent him away for a looong time.
During the trial, the school cop and I were alone together for a while. I asked what would have happened had I killed the kid. He told me that I would be the one in the dock, but that I would almost certainly get off because of self-defense. The only downside would have been I would be the one paying for lawyers.
Then he went over the rules concerning self-defence in Michigan (where I grew up), and finished it by stating what that sheriff said almost verbatim.
I wonder if they teach them that in cop school, or if it just instinctual?
Bless our Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.