Sorry for starting another thread on this but as opposed to DaDakota's thread which is about the particular case of Joe Horn I am more interested / troubled by the law regarding use of deadly force to protect another person's property. As I said in DaDakota's thread I don't know if I have enough information to convict Joe Horn and believe there are strong arguments on both sides regarding whether he upheld or broke the law. The problem I have is that I think this law is a very reckless law that potentially puts many in danger needlessly. I've stated these arguments in the other Joe Horn threads but will restate them here to kick the conversation going. 1. In most states the police cannot use deadly force on a fleeing suspect unless they have probably cause that the suspect represents an ongoing danger to life. It strikes me as reckless that Texas law would allow civillians to do so when in most states even the police cannot. 2. There is the potential for civillians to misread a situation and accidently kill someone who isn't actually engaged in a robbery. 3. There is a danger of bystanders getting injured by stray bullets or other spillover from a violent confrontation between a someone trying to stop a robbery. 4. There is the danger of someone trying to stop a robbery getting injured or killed themselves. 5. Finally there is the moral argument whether life is more valuable than property but I am placing this last so whether you think it is moral or not there are many other factors involved.
Also Mods. If you think there are too many Joe Horn threads and want to combine them or lock them please lock.
Let me clarify. I put a higher value on other people's lives than I do my stuff or my neighbors' stuff.
Have you considered though that lowering the standard taht deadly force can be used might lead to shootings under mistaken identity or people being injured in a cross fire? Think about this scenario. Lets say some kids are playing ball and a ball ends up in someones back yard the homeowner isn't there so one of the kids decides to climb the fence and get the ball. A jumpy neighbor sees someone climbing the fence and presumes its a burglar and shoots the boy out of fear tha the burglar might be armed before he could shoot him back or anyone else. That to me seems very possible under the law and even more from what I understand is that the law would exonerate the person even though he made terrible a mistake under the reasoning that has been argued to defend Horn the neighbor would have the right to shoot what he perceived to be a robber and a threat.
Well, then, shouldn't we remove firearms from police officers as well? People do get shot mistakenly by police and people are caught in police related crossfire somewhat regularly. I don't believe same can be said for incidents involving individuals protecting their home. If there is a problem, it seems like we should address it where it is more prevalent?
^ The difference is that police are trained to put themselves in that situation most civillians are not and it is their job to put themselves in those type of situations. Would you suggest that everyone else be required to go through the same training as police? [edit] also just to add as I've noted a few times most police aren't allowed to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect to minimize the danger to others. The Texas law lowers that standards for civillians.[/edit]
I guess what I was really trying to point out is that I believe that you are concerned about a problem that doesn't exist. There is no common occurrence of children getting shot by stray bullets from the guns of cross-eyed homeowners. It is more of a problem regarding the police, but I would guess that you are giving the police more leeway on this because you are comfortable with police having guns. But I can think of several police 'mistaken identity' shootings which have made the news in recent years. The most prominent being the shooting at the night club in Queens last year. I can not say the same for accidental homeowners shootings. Show me a genuine problem with real people who have been hurt and then we can discuss a remedy. Right now you are speaking about hypothetical situations that I haven't seen materialize since the law went into effect. And I don't think the text of the Texas law gives you the broad power to shoot fleeing thieves that you seem to indicate. I think Mr. Horn is, according to the text of the Texas law, guilty of murder.
Again I don't deny this occurs often but I would rather avoid having the possibility of this becoming a problem. I know for a fact that bystanders get hurt by people firing guns in residential neighbors and I would rather limit the possibility of having more gunfire near homes. True this is more of a problem with police because its the job of police to use force to stop crime and it is their calling to put themselves in that situation. Police are trained for this situation and while not all of them are trained as well as they should be I would still rather trust those who are trained to deal with the situation than invite untrained civillians to. I would rather not wait until to see if this became a major problem as the possibility of it would be tragic. I will admit again to not fully understanding the Texas law but from what I've seen of it I don't agree with it.
