Texas justifiable homicides rise with 'Castle Doctrine'

[Ought Six]

Does this mean you can shoot neighborhood kids who cut across your yard for the sake of shortcuts?

Not trolling. serious question.

When i was younger my friends and i would do that all the time, not knowing anything about anything. It seemed harmless back then.

Get off my lawn.

[FlintHillBilly]

Does this mean you can shoot neighborhood kids who cut across your yard for the sake of shortcuts?

Not trolling. serious question.

When i was younger my friends and i would do that all the time, not knowing anything about anything. It seemed harmless back then.

Kind of a silly question IMO in regards to the thread. Someone could shoot me for looking at them in a threatening or any manner really. Will they get away with it? It won't fly in court. Can somebody be shot for crossing your lawn? Sure any moron who has a gun and willing to do so could do it. Will they have a legitimate excuse? I doubt it. Will they take the chance? Only an idiot IMO.

All of course if you can't read and the sign says "No trespassing, Violators will be shot", which then may have yet to still be challenged in court?

I don't know how many lawns of "mean neighbors" I've crossed or how many "No Trespassing" signs I didn't comprehend. Luckily I'm still here!

[muck]

Does this mean you can shoot neighborhood kids who cut across your yard for the sake of shortcuts?

Not trolling. serious question.

When i was younger my friends and i would do that all the time, not knowing anything about anything. It seemed harmless back then.

When I was a kid we'd always pull off doorbell pranks at my neighbours residence. Only the bell button was deep on enemy territory so to speak... Guess he'd have bust a cap in my ass (or two) were he a Texan.

[C.Puffs]

My my you finally did it. Now I feel like a total pussy... admitting I wouldn't shoot a man over 20 dollars...

You must be way more evolved than the rest of us. Given that criminals have killed for far less than $20 maybe we should institute a law requiring the potential victim conduct an interview with the criminal to see if he is in fact safe before determining if he should shoot? Jesus, and you call me a dumbass.

[muck]

Given that criminals have killed for far less than $20 maybe we should institute a law requiring the potential victim conduct an interview with the criminal to see if he is in fact safe before determining if he should shoot? Jesus, and you call me a dumbass.

Seeing that I didn't suggest anything even remotely resembling your allegation, I guess I'll have to call you a dumbass once more.

[shermbodius]

When I was just a baby,
My Mama told me, "Son,
Always be a good boy,
Don't ever play with guns,"
But I shot a man in Reno,
Just to watch him die,
When I hear that whistle blowin',
I hang my head and cry.

[C.Puffs]

Seeing that I didn't suggest anything even remotely resembling your allegation, I guess I'll have to call you a dumbass once more.

Of course you did. Apparently $20 isn't worth killing over in your mind, but clearly it is by some criminals. So how is a potential victim to know if they're "justified" by your criteria? They can't read minds obviously, so there's no way for them to determine whether their life is in danger or not simply because it's "only" $20. So let's hear your genius solution.

[shermbodius]

Kill em all and let god sort em out!

[muck]

Of course you did. Apparently $20 isn't worth killing over in your mind, but clearly it is by some criminals. So how is a potential victim to know if they're "justified" by your criteria? They can't read minds obviously, so there's no way for them to determine whether their life is in danger or not simply because it's "only" $20. So let's hear your genius solution.

Nope, I did not and repeating it doesn't make it any more true.
Nowhere I did advocate to put one's life on the line for a criminal. However, seeing this paragraph I'm feeling inclined to believe the shooter wasn't really threatened by the perp driving away from him.

The owner of Tacos Del Indio, parked near the Ship Channel, ran him down as he tried to escape with the cash, fired into the getaway car and hit Pantoja in the back.

I'm all in favour of defender-friendly self defense laws but I don't like the idea of a law some could see as an invitation to vigilante justice. You're free to appreciate such a law but don't put words in my mouth which I didn't say.

[Ought Six]

Nope, I did not and repeating it doesn't make it any more true.
Nowhere I did advocate to put one's life on the line for a criminal. However, seeing this paragraph I'm feeling inclined to believe the shooter wasn't really threatened by the perp driving away from him.
---
I'm all in favour of defender-friendly self defense laws but I don't like the idea of a law some could see as an invitation to vigilante justice. You're free to appreciate such a law but don't put words in my mouth which I didn't say.

Okay, fair enough. Do you envision any circumstance where you believe it would be morally justifiable to use lethal force to protect one's property?

[muck]

Okay, fair enough. Do you envision any circumstance where you believe it would be morally justifiable to use lethal force to protect one's property?

I do: whenever the perp would still be on my premises and I couldn't tell in a split-second that he was going to leave immediately - such as in "climbing above my fence right now" - or whenever he was trying to get away with something valuable, prompting me to pursue him, while still commanding the means to hurt or kill me - for example in the form of a weapon or display of aggressive behaviour. Just to be clear, though: As soon as I'd have the slightest reason to believe my own life or anybody else's could be on the line I'd put the perp down.

Anyways, I'm gonna say it once more and can only ask that you take it for what you will - I'd not shoot someone over a stolen tip jar and don't think anybody else should automatically wield the right to do so... though odds are I'd not even bother following him. 20 bucks? Just not worth the hassle. It's probably a mentality thing.

[VersuZ]

Don't mess with texas.

[Ought Six]

I do: whenever the perp would still be on my premises and I couldn't tell in a split-second that he was going to leave immediately - such as in "climbing above my fence right now" - or whenever he was trying to get away with something valuable, prompting me to pursue him, while still commanding the means to hurt or kill me - for example in the form of a weapon or display of aggressive behaviour. Just to be clear, though: As soon as I'd have the slightest reason to believe my own life or anybody else's could be on the line I'd put the perp down.

Anyways, I'm gonna say it once more and can only ask that you take it for what you will - I'd not shoot someone over a stolen tip jar and don't think anybody else should automatically wield the right to do so... though odds are I'd not even bother following him. 20 bucks? Just not worth the hassle. It's probably a mentality thing.

So it would have to be valuable property for you to pursue at all, and then you would not fire unless you felt threatened or that someone else's life was in potential danger.

[West Texican]

Obviously it would be a bad idea.

In fact it seems advised to steer clear of a state where at least some people seem to think it could be "justifiable" to kill a man over 20 dollars, no matter what a filthy crook he was...

Texas has always been hard on its outlaws. After Texas became a republic it set about dealing with its criminal element with Texas Rangers and the like. Most outlaws got the message and ran for it to other states. This happened again after Texas became a state and once again after the Civil War and again during prohibition. There was a time in Texas when death was not considered a serious injury.

[muck]

So it would have to be valuable property for you to pursue at all, and then you would not fire unless you felt threatened or that someone else's life was in potential danger.

I would not fire while on pursuit unless I felt threatened or that another life was in danger. On my premises - especially inside my own four walls - I'd take the least possible risk (whereas I've depicted my definition of the least possible risk above). While undeniably the perp is to blame for any misfortune arising from his actions I simply don't think I'd should have to take the additional risk so long as nothing valuable is at stake, or burden myself with the hassle of the aftermath.
I mean, think of what the shooter in the cited case must've been through - police questioning, grilling by both the authorities and the press, the weight of a taken life on his conscience... and all that over almost nothing.

Texas has always been hard on its outlaws. After Texas became a republic it set about dealing with its criminal element with Texas Rangers and the like. Most outlaws got the message and ran for it to other states. This happened again after Texas became a state and once again after the Civil War and again during prohibition. There was a time in Texas when death was not considered a serious injury.

I see.