Defending others' property

Finally someone from clutchfans that thinks the way I do.

 

thats what it says.

 

These guys brought it on themselves. You know full well when you go smashing windows to steal property that there is a chance you might die.

I don't have a problem with citizen's arrests if I have no problem with law enforcement and self defense.

 

So if it is at night you can shoot them when fleeing after they burgle, rob, or steal. During the daytime? Nope. That right is not given.

 

the way i interpret it is...


"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of

1) arson,

2) burglary,

3) robbery,

4) theft during the nighttime or

5) criminal mischief during the nighttime,

and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."



"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to

1) pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary,

2) robbery, or

3) theft during the nighttime,

from escaping with the property

and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means;

or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

(Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"


like i said, im not a lawyer but thats the way i see it.

 

of course he should!!! no doubt! as should you.

i've just had lots of discussions with meowgi on this board and i'm surprised at his opinion. i'm not saying he's wrong.

 

I don't have a problem with citizens' arrests at all. Nor do I have a problem with self-defense.

I do have a problem with a guy telling a 911 operator he can't wait for the police to get there because "he's gonna go kill 'em"...and then him getting his gun, marching outside, and doing just that. that bothers me.

 

Btw, is anyone else wondering why this neighbor had all this cash in his house? It's not relevant to the murder, but I thought it was a little weird.

 

asian?

 

the only way this man is getting pinched is if he was reckless. thats the only scenario where he loses the right to use deadly force.

to me, hes reckless if

1) he didnt give a warning to the burglars to stop

2) there were kids outside

3) he fired and excessive number of rounds (used a shotgun)

so far it seems like hes the only witness so i dont see how hes gonna go down. he was within the law and any decent defense lawyer shouldnt have a difficult time w/ this case. add to these the facts that this event occured in texas, meaning a texas jury... seems pretty open and shut to me.

 

except in rare circumstances, there is no such thing.

 

if this were new york or boston, id say this guy is going down.

but in texas, this guy is in the clear.

 

ok

i'm not saying you're wrong. i've just been around the courts enough to know there is no such thing as a slam dunk.

 

Oh well. Deadly force is allowed. The burglars did it to themselves.

 

and we're back to me being surprised.

 

Why? They made a decision to rob the house knowing there was a chance they would be killed. So while it is sad, it is understandable. Lesson: don't go breaking into houses. They gambled with their life and got burned. It's their own fault.

 

so anyone know of any good deals on HKs?

 

don't do it max

 

Which model?

 

1. I am the first guy you'd want as a neighbor when you are out of town.
2. Breaking into my neighbor's house may be deleterious to one's health.