Search found 2 matches

by Jumping Frog
Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:30 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Is deadly forced justified when construction company trying?
Replies: 74
Views: 13340

Re: Is deadly forced justified when construction company try

Javier730 wrote:
EEllis wrote:
Javier730 wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:Am I the only one that thinks tearing down your house with you still in it would be at least aggravated assault, if not attempted murder? I guess you could plop yourself down in the house with a rifle and call the police. If the backhoe starts knocking down the house with you in it, you'd seem to be justified in shooting the operator.
Somehow we are in the minority.
You may be the only one who thinks there is some real chance it could happen.
I must have a wild imagination.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/worth-co ... d=20882129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ ... -1.1452154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although rare, things like this do happen.
I already addressed this scenario, and I still stand by my viewpoint that deadly force is not warranted. They aren't going to actually tear down a house with someone still inside it. We are talking defense of property, not self defense. Warning them to leave your property until the mistake gets straightened out is far more reasonable that shooting some guy on a backhoe. Then slap the construction company and/or the local government with a temporary restraining order.
Jumping Frog wrote:Scenario 2: Mistake. I am aware of instances where a construction company shows up to tear down the wrong house. In this circumstance, I believe ordinary force under PC §9.41 may be justified in the sense of openly carrying a firearm and telling them to wait until the police arrive. Certainly deadly force would not be justified because it fails this test:
PC §9.42(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.
If a construction company mistakenly tears down the wrong house, any reasonable person knows they are going to be liable in court for the damages caused and the monetary damages allows one to recover the value of the property. This isn't some punk stealing your heirlooms at night and fleeing never to be found.
Yes, our legal system takes time and money, but that is still preferable to unnecessarily taking a life.
by Jumping Frog
Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:24 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Is deadly forced justified when construction company trying?
Replies: 74
Views: 13340

Re: Is deadly forced justified when construction company try

Three scenarios come to mind:

Scenario 1: Lawful eviction. If the homeowner has received the legal papers showing lawful eviction, then self defense would not apply because PC §9.31 includes the phrase "immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force". If the eviction was lawful, then attempting to tear down the property is not the use of "unlawful force" and self defense is not justified. Second, if the homeowner has received the legal papers for the eviction and has not complied, then the homeowner is the one trespassing. Armed trespass is a Misdemeanor A, which makes the statute language for deadly force applicable: "was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used."

Scenario 2: Mistake. I am aware of instances where a construction company shows up to tear down the wrong house. In this circumstance, I believe ordinary force under PC §9.41 may be justified in the sense of openly carrying a firearm and telling them to wait until the police arrive. Certainly deadly force would not be justified because it fails this test:
PC §9.42(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.
If a construction company mistakenly tears down the wrong house, any reasonable person knows they are going to be liable in court for the damages caused and the monetary damages allows one to recover the value of the property. This isn't some punk stealing your heirlooms at night and fleeing never to be found.

Scenario 3: Obstinacy. The homeowner receives the eviction notice but disagrees. It violates "his rights". :roll: The remedy here is to pursue one's options in court, not create a sniper hide inside his house and starts shooting people like some overblown sovereign-citizen whackjob. This scenario is equivalent to an evicted apartment dweller deciding to resist eviction with deadly force. Not going to go well for the person.

Return to “Is deadly forced justified when construction company trying?”