How guns save lives

Washington Times ^ | 1/26/03

[WL-law]

Just because someone is coming to your property uninvited, doesn't mean they are there to steal your property.

So let's get rid of the fireman ruse -- a robber (let's stipulate) is coming to an abandoned house on property you own, with the intent to steal. You set a spring gun. He is killed.

You think you're permitted to do that? That's defense of property.

[WL-law]

Here's the problem with your argument under the statute -- the statute says you can use the force "reasonably necessary", and the reasonableness in your instance is based on the threat of physical injury, based on the fact that the guy was holding a hammer.

So this is REALLY an argument for self defense, not defense of property -- the reference to property is irrelevant. You can ALWAYS defend yourself against an attack with reasonable force -- that's the basis of self-defense.

Whereas my spring gun hypo is the clearest example of pure defense-of-property with no "complication" of self-defense mixed in.

My argument here has always been on the notion that DEFENSE OF PROPERTY permits lethal force.

Now I think the Texas statute pushes the outer limit of the envelope, but it is still under the umbrella of self defense. For example, you can use deadly force to prevent an arson. Well, arson could easily kill someone -- the arsonist could be presumed not to know that a building is uninhabited -- and the arsonist endangers the life of the fireman as well. So I'm not convinced that the statute, in that instance, is really protecting PROPERTY as its focus, in the allowance of lethal force. Now, theft in the nighttime may be a different matter -- depends on what the formal elements of that crime are, i.e., whether the statute mentions a domicile, as opposed to a general reference to theft.

[lawdude]

"Because guns in the hands of citizens are considered much more dangerous to the state than guns in the hands of criminals."

In the minds of libs, the criminal wouldn't be a criminal were it not for the gun he possesses. That is the turning point!! A perfectly normal, law-abiding citizen one moment, then he gets the dreaded "gun" and, POOF, murderous criminal.

Not his fault, it is your fault; for forcing the gun into his hands.

I have had a number of lib-o-crats tell me just this FACT. Guns cause crime.

[Shooter 2.5]

The statute of defence of property is not under self defense. Texas law allows the defense of property even when the suspect is running away.

Read the statute.

[Ches]

Now that we have danced around 359 degrees, you maintain the courtroom is the only arena where this can be determined. Again, refer to the original article. There are no "if, then" scenarios or hypotheticals. It started with two guys, on their property, an armed burglar and a not guilty verdict to first degree murder charges. We can always parse this and disect this ad infinitum, particularly when looking through a lens fabricated with statutory law. This lens, in our adversarial system, bends and distorts the facts as those using this lens attempt to reconcile facts with statute.

While I do understand the courtroom may be the proper arena to make a determination of guilt or innocence, the system; arrest, booking, jail time, bonding, legal fees, time off work, is brutally burdensome to the innocent and does not work to seek the facts first. If the facts indicate there just might be a reason to think reasonable fear for one's well being was present, one would hope that the prosecutor would seek first the truth and second the inditement.

Anyone who has ever been caught up in the system knows only too well "innocent until proven guilty" is a myth. I will spare you classic examples of the court system's failings.

This brings me back to my original rhetorical question, why first degree? Not a prayer of conviction. Did the prosecutor want them to go free after giving them their spanking?

[WL-law]

I did read the statute -- and I read your inserted comments. Here they are.

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and [See the other section]
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
[The guy was approaching with a hammer] (bold added)

In your facts you are emphasizing the guy with the hammer. That sounds like the 'actor' is physically in fear of harm, i.e., a self-defense situation. And then the inquiry is, is the fear reasonable and the response necessary? And that is at the heart of traditional self-defense formulations -- hence my point.

[Shooter 2.5]

You took only one line from the statute.

Read the whole statute.


In Texas it's legal to shoot someone in the back in order to save your property.

Again, read the statute. If that fails, have someone explain it to you.

Or better yet, call a Texas lawyer and have them explain it to you.

[FreedomPoster]

Did you even read my #80? I clearly stated that I do not think booby traps should be allowed to be used to defend property, for they do not allow human discrimination in who they attack. I also said that I think lethal force in defense of property is appropriate, in case you also had trouble parsing that.

Are you really an attorney, or do you just play one on TV? Remind me not to send the kid to W&L law school, if you're an example.

[WL-law]

Remind me not to send the kid to W&L law school, if you're an example.

Well, maybe your kids aren't smart enough to get in, if you're an example.

[FreedomPoster]

Ignoring the point being made once again, I see.

Is it that hard to admit that the law might not be what you think it is in all jurisdictions?

[WL-law]

Did you even read my #80?

Yes, my response was was on #81 -- how did you miss THAT?

And YOU haven't answered that.

[FreedomPoster]

I answered it pretty clearly in #80.

Beyond the moral issue of "should you be able to defend your property with lethal force", on which my stand is stated in #80 -

Why don't you go call a TX attorney?

[FreedomPoster]

To spell it out one more time:

Booby traps in defense of property - Morally and legally indefensible.

Personal use of lethal force in defense of property - Morally defensible, and legally defensible in some jurisdictions.

[FreedomPoster]

An example

Sign Threatens Potential Car Thieves; Homeowner Within Legal Rights

[On the Road to Serfdom]

You just don't seem to get it. Spring traps are illegal because they can hurt an innocent person. Shooting a robber is a different issue.

You also seem to be incapable of reading Texas law posted here. I'll give you and example. Someone steals a lawn mower from a carpoint at night. They load it into the back of their pickup. The owner comes out with a gun and says stop. Thief tries to get into truck. Owner shoots thief in the back. That would be legal in Texas.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

carpoint=carport

[WL-law]

You just don't seem to get it. Spring traps are illegal because they can hurt an innocent person. Shooting a robber is a different issue.

And I don't think YOU get it. Let's stipulate that no innocent person can be harmed by the spring gun. Let's say we're in a country where all criminals speak chinese only, but innocent persons speak english. A sign outside in English warns about the spring trap. A chinese criminal goes into the empty building (trespassing, with criminal intent to steal). He is killed by the gun.

Legal? Moral? Permitted under Texas law? It IS a pure example of defense of property by lethal force.

Other examples offered by my detractors consistently blend self-defense into the scenario.

Well, is it moral? Is it permitted?

[WL-law]

To spell it out one more time: Booby traps in defense of property - Morally and legally indefensible. Personal use of lethal force in defense of property - Morally defensible, and legally defensible in some jurisdictions.

You can spell it all you like but READ what you're spelling. If you are PERSONALLY defending in PERSON, and you are defending your property against ANOTHER PERSON, then there is a mix of self-defense (because there are TWO PERSONS THERE!) and defense-of-property.

My hypo attempts to logically separate the two principles. You want to blur them, for obvious reasons.

[WL-law]

I read your link. Well, he hasn't shot anybody just yet -- the sign is just "talk". He's also careful to cover himself that he feels personally threatened, and for his family -- so he's careful to preserve a self-defense theory in his 'pre-imagining" of what might happen.

Find me another Texas example, one where the rubber really meets the road on this issue

[FreedomPoster]

How are they un-blurred in the case at hand? How is this anything more than a D.A. trying to make a name for himself at the expense of a law-abiding citizen who was defending his livelihood from a predator?

Your hypo is obscuring the case at hand, and your continuing refusal to admit you may have been wrong regarding Texas law is revealing of your character.