Replies

WTF??? How did a spring-gun get into this conversation?

A spring gun is the classic case of "defending PROPERTY" as opposed to self-defense -- because using the spring gun means you're not even at the scene, so clearly no self-defense attaches.

I raised the hypo because the writers on this thread are SAYING that its OK to use lethal force to defend PROPERTY, and then the illustrations offered are NOT clearly defense of property, but variations of self-defense.

So I want to put the question clearly on the table -- is it OK to use a spring gun as I hypothesized? If you say NO, then you are agreeing that defense of PROPERTY does not warrant lethal force.

Even the statutes are muddy -- in the Texas statute, for example, "robbery" requires that a PERSON is robbed -- it's an element of the crime. And I suspect that a careful reading of the statute points to self-defense, not defense of property, although the title states otherwise.

I've had the experience of defending in a murder trial where self-defense was asserted by my client -- dso I speak from some experience here.

In the first place, you quoted a statement I didn't make, though I did ask the same question in a different way, and I did quote that same statement.

In the second, your assertion:

>>If you say NO, then you are agreeing that defense of PROPERTY does not warrant lethal force.

is false. I do not think booby traps are appropriate, but I do think defense of property can warrant use of lethal force. Just because someone is coming to your property uninvited, doesn't mean they are there to steal your property. A fireman could arrive in response to a neighbor's report of a fire at your property, and be killed, in the case of a booby-trap gun setup. Your construct fails.

You're going to have to do better around here.

Now how about addressing my rebuttal of your "a grand jury agreed" nonsense?

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?

Once again, no spring gun was used, so it is irrelevant. In Texas is against the law to use spring guns, so again, your arguement is irrelevant.

By Texas statue, it is legal to shoot someone in the back if they are running or driving off with your property. It is in plain English. There has been cases go to court and won using this law. It has nothing to do with self defense or spring guns. It is defense of property only, period.

What is your fascination with spring guns?