How guns save lives

Washington Times ^ | 1/26/03

[kattracks]

Thanks to Baltimore Circuit Court Judge John M. Glynn, justice finally prevailed Thursday, as two businessmen were acquitted of first-degree murder charges for killing a weapon-toting hoodlum who broke into their warehouse. Just seconds after defense attorneys finished their closing arguments, Judge Glynn pronounced Darrell Kifer and Kenny Der not guilty in the June 30, 2001, slaying of Tygon Walker, who was holding a hammer and threatening to kill them. Judging from the facts of the case

[gitmo]

and their ammo.

[Ches]

Is legal thinking always mutually exclusive to common sense? The lawyer protesteth too much, me thinks. Persistant argument as well as seeking loopholes is dangerous to your mental health. I sincerely hope this condition is a acute, not chronic. You have carried this conversation to the level of hairsplitting that would be the envy of any liberal thinktank.

While I do not deny there may be legal grounds for the charges, the article did not indicate such. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO COMMON SENSE!

Like people in all walks of life, there are those willing to advance their personal or political agendas by misusing their positions and authority, lawyers included. Education or position does not make one just or wise. While the letter of the law may be perfect, the exercise and execution is definitely not.

"explaining why they were so heavily armed in their workshop -- "

None of your business.

"did they 'always' have such guns around, for example?"

I certainly hope so.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The point is not how you USE your property -- it is whether the relative value of your "property" (as opposed to your life and physical safety) ever allows you to take another's life in the defense thereof. And the longheld legal reasoning in British-US jurisprudence (not "statutory" law, so you don't understand that distinction either) is that the defense of property, although strongly protected under the law, does not by itself EVER justify the taking of another's life. Period."

The idea that one cannot use lethal force in defense of property is a new invention of liberal lawyers in the Northeast, not the historical position of common law. That may be what they teach in schools of law these days, but it isn't supported by history. And, in fact, the use of lethal force in defense of property is STILL understood to be allowed in several states (most recently in the news, Texas).

[gitmo]

I always wondered how that was possible:

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

[fella]

Thanx for the link.

[Double Tap]

-- but you do NOT have the right to use deadly force to defend PROPERTY.

That is simply not true in every state. Don't make blanket statements that can be so easily debunked.

[Shooter 2.5]

Texas Penal Code 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.

[gitmo]

There is a dichotomy between justice and the Law. What is right, just, and decent is often at the opposite end of the spectrum from the legal system. So is the US Constitution.

"explaining why they were so heavily armed in their workshop -- "

None of your business.

Good answer. How about "Because they have a God-given right to in the USA"?

[Double Tap]

§ 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.

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.

[Double Tap]

You beat me by 6 minutes. I'm getting slow. I should just put the Texas Penal code on my favorites that way I don't have to do a google every time I need it.

[Shooter 2.5]

I had no idea where to find it. My CCW book only states how to carry and not, what to do in case of a problem. I finally marked it my book.

[Shooter 2.5]

Try this one:

http://www.guncraft.com/linkccw.html

[Shooter 2.5]

Forget about that site I listed. Not one of those links work.

[Double Tap]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html

Do a search on "deadly force".

[Shooter 2.5]

Thanks.

Our detractors seem to do us a service by forcing us to expand our knowledge.

[maica]

What if instead of threatening to kill them, the intruder, who apparently broke in unarmed, saw their guns and yelled "Please don't shoot!". It still isn't 1st degree murder, but it isn't commendable either.

-------------

For the record - the intruder actually broke though the wall of these defendants' warehouse with a sledgehammer. You might want to say he did not have a gun, but he certainly was carrying a weapon.

[WL-law]

Easy.
A female store clerk shoots and kills a male as he's coming around the counter armed with a hammer.
The store does not sell hammers.
Are you going to tell me a veteran officer can't find the evidence in that scenario to "no bill" the clerk without the case going to trial?

Well, before we were talking about "defense of property". Now you are talking about self-defense, and that right exists anywhere -- but the facts must support it. The law recognizes a greater right to use lethal force based on all the facts and physical characteristics -- so the judgment call will be easier when a woman is defending against a man, and I think the your conclusion is right in your hypo.

But in the case we were talking about, 2 men had guns, and surprised the assailant -- not the other way around. I find it implausible that they didn't have a way to stop the burglar without using deadly force -- but again that's what trials are for.

[FreedomPoster]

Any response to 47 and 49?

[WL-law]

"explaining why they were so heavily armed in their workshop -- "

None of your business.

It's the law's business because laying in wait and then executing a burglar is illegal -- and that's what the facts suggest.

[Ches]

"laying in wait and then executing a burglar is illegal "

You mean these guys were in the burglar's house?! I was under the impression that the burglar broke in to their place of business.