TexasCHLforum.com

duns wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Where do we find the moral code that says BGs should be dealt with using as little force as possible?

In oneself.

That explains why I can't seem to find it.

duns wrote:

LarryH wrote:Firing a shotgun at the truck is still considered use of lethal force, regardless of the fact that you're trying to hit the truck and not the people inside.

You may have a point. Firing at the thieves' vehicle or tires might be treated in law as the same as firing at them. But morally it is not the same thing.

Where do we find the moral code that says BGs should be dealt with using as little force as possible?

duns wrote:Your point is thought-provoking. My take on it is this. A person committing a sexual assault needs to be stopped as does a person committing a physical assault but from a moral and legal point of view the level of force should not be excessive so shooting will not always be necessary, probably rarely necessary. Theft is different to physical attack on a person in that it is often a reasonable option just to be a good witness and hope the person can be arrested later. In other words, I don't see use of lethal force as an imperative when someone is making off with property (even if the letter of the law allows it). If you saw a man snatch a lady's handbag and come running in your direction, would you shoot him down? I wouldn't. I might use force (if I felt I was capable of overwhelming him) but I would not use lethal force.

The case in question was the theft of an A/C condenser, which apparently was already in the back of the thieves' truck. Unless the thieves were attacking me, I would not have shot them. I would have told them to unload the truck. If they jumped in to drive off, I would have used my shotgun against the truck to try to deflate a tire or put some nice identifying marks on the bodywork.

Here's the problem with your thinking. You have no idea what the BG will do when you confront him. You're assuming that he will be reasonable and either leave peacefully or submit to you. Secondly, you're assuming you might be able to physically overcome the BG. But even the smallest of BGs can be surprisingly strong, and since you've now allowed him to close the distance between you and him, using your gun is now both more difficult and extremely dangerous. Finally, you assume that the use of deadly force is "excessive". The law doesn't agree with you. So you are replacing your personal moral judgments ahead of the law. Worse than that, however, you're placing your personal moral judgments ahead of not only your own safety but the safety of other people (in the hypothetical of rape that you postulated.)

As a private citizen authorized to use deadly force, you do not have the same rules of engagement as a LEO has. LEO's deliberately place themselves in harm's way. You should never do that. They also are required to give the bad guy warnings and a chance to give up. You are not. They train specifically to handle those situations, including the use of force to subdue BGs. Very few private citizens can afford to do that, much less have the time to do it. Personally, at the age of 62, I am not capable of that, nor would I attempt it. My only two options are fight or flight.

All the law requires of you is that you be in a position where the use of deadly force is justified by the circumstances. Those include the threat of deadly force against you or another person, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping and murder when a reasonable person would not have retreated under the same circumstances.

duns wrote:

Cobra Medic wrote:They had lots of opportunity to straighten up and fly right. Instead they intentionally and knowingly chose a life of crime.

It's been a long time since stealing was a capital offense.

Not really. It still can be in Texas, according to deadly force law.

The case is being referred to the grand jury.

duns wrote:

PC §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.
PC §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
(8) 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 (8) 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.

See the bold text above. This property owner would need to show that he could not reasonably have used a lesser degree of force and that he could not have recovered the property by any other means.

You cite doesn't support your conclusion.

He only needs to show that he "reasonably believed" that "the use of force other than deadly force....would expose [him] to a substantial risk...". He was along. There was two of them, both relatively young. His use of deadly force was justified. (Edited: I thought I had seen that his age was 68, but I can't find that in the news articles. The two thieves were in their 40's and 50's.)

Grog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:
Our rights don't come from the state of Texas. They come from God.

What if someone does not believe in God? Who do they get their rights from?

You don't have to believe in God to enjoy His blessings.

The moment you concede that your rights come from your government, they can just as easily take them away as allow you to exercise them. You can call God anything you want; nature, Buddha, whatever, but your rights came with your birth and are not a possession of the state that can be revoked or restricted at their whim. Why do you think the 2A ends with "shall not be infringed"?

Clutch wrote:After reading the article, I was a bit troubled. I am glad that Mr. Starr was able to defend himself and his property. I am glad that we have the gun laws that we do

here in the state of Texas. I believe there is no better state in the union. What bothered me was two fold.

First, was the tone of the video. Like Andy said in the comments, wild wild west? If you do the research, the wild west was nothing like the hype. "Gun toting"? "...took the law into his own hands"? What he did was exercise his God given right and a right given to him by the state of Texas, to protect himself

Our rights don't come from the state of Texas. They come from God. The state of Texas at least recognizes our rights and doesn't punish us for exercising them or attempt to take them away from us. Other countries do.

As far as bad guys "needin' killing'", I absolutely believe in that. Two words; Kenneth MacDuff. (If you're not familiar with MacDuff, Google him.) Two more; Adolf Hitler. If ever a man needed killin', it was Kenneth MacDuff. Some men forfeit their right to life due to their evil deeds. We should not feel badly about their lives being taken, either by an honest citizen or by the state, because they have earned it. I feel bad when innocent lives are taken. I feel good when evil ones are. The world is a better place when evil men are killed.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Two-men- ... 90044.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.thenewsconnection.com/articl ... ting/33582" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The owner shot the men with his "scattergun", then called 911 to report the shooting. One is in critical condition. The other is in serious condition. Both are convicted felons.