Replies

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?

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.

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.