Texas State Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Would-Be Thief

[Toad]

How very typical.

Texas State Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Would-Be Thief

He opposed the bill but he's quick on the draw when it's property of his own.

Also, where I live you have to have a resonable assumption that the intruder is going to do you great bodily harm or kill you and the need has to be immediate. (Not that I care a whit that he shot one of them. They didn't want to get shot, they could have decided not to steal is copper.)

IMO, it doesn't sound like this guy was in immediate danger of GBH or loss of life.

Still, it's typical of hypocritical politicians. Why do we put up with these guys?

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by Toad
Still, it's typical of hypocritical politicians. Why do we put up with these guys?

Shhhh.... American Idol is on.


We, as a population eligible to vote in elections and on issues (were we to register, learn about the issues, and actually go to the polls), get exactly the kinds of representatives and government we deserve.

[DiabloTX]

True.  But the problem is the dominance of the 2 parties that have dominated the last, what, 130+ years?  With a democrat you pretty much know what you're getting.  With a republican you pretty much roll the frikkin' dice.  I vote conservatively but I really don't know what I'm getting nowadays.  When I was a democrat I knew I was getting a womanising, cheating, drunkard, socialist commie bastard.  Now that I am a conservative it seems they turn out to be pedophile, greedy ex-war hero, aisle-jumping, 'the bible above all else', bastard.

[Masherbrum]

I believe my son's generation (he's 5) will revolt.    It will happen, later than sooner, but it will happen.

[Wolf14]

Originally posted by Toad
...Also, where I live you have to have a resonable assumption that the intruder is going to do you great bodily harm or kill you and the need has to be immediate. (Not that I care a whit that he shot one of them. They didn't want to get shot, they could have decided not to steal is copper.)

IMO, it doesn't sound like this guy was in immediate danger of GBH or loss of life...

To me wheather the guy was in danger or not is beside the point. Those two criminals chose to walk the road they chose to walk and they got compensated for their time. Who cares if they mean me bodily harm or not?.....They're intruding/ tresspassing. They sure as hell aint there for milk and cookies.

Throwing a knife at a gunfight doesnt help matters much either. Its gonna sound bad me saying this, but I kinda wish the guy would have gotten a little more than being shot in the leg. I have no love for those who trespass against thy neighbor thinking they are going to get away with no repurcussions (sp?) or have no remorse doing so.

A criminal realy should have a very limited set of rights or maybe in some cases none at all after it has been determined the criminal was in the wrong. Everybody should have the right right to do process, but if they are convicted they lose the right to come after the person for shooting them when they were the ones screwing up. Do not pass go and do not collect $200. When the knife was thrown, even though it didnt hurt ot hit the guy, the situation was not one where they'd lay down on their bellies, with hands behind head, waiting for the cops to show up. I even doubt they would have stayed around anyway.

For awhile it has seemed that the politicians who want to be the ones who tell us what we need and dont need are the ones who live in some kind of personal utopia. Some of the perspectives they have on things......I just dont get it. Point and counter point is good and all, but it would be nice if they had some semblance of being down to earth. It goes for both sides actually.

I am happy the great state of Texas has allowed for the fine law abiding citizens to have the power to protect themselve and property. I work for a living. I'll be damned if somebody is going to come steal from me, thinking they are going to make the easy profit. I myself do not really want to have to shoot somebody, cause its something I'd have to live with for a good bit, but its nice to know I wont be penalized for protecting my property.

I'm curious now what the good politician is thinking in regards for being against the law.

[lazs2]

diablo is correct in that with a democrat you know what you are getting..  a loss of your second amendment rights.. the guy is a democrat.

He is also correct that it is a roll of the dice with republicans but... it is a roll where only on or two numbers can bust you.. you still have a really good chance they will support the second amendment.   Even if they don't.. they will vote with the party 9 out of ten times which.. in the case of the second... is a good thing.

I can't figure out how any gun owner or believer in the second would vote for a democrat.

lazs

[Toad]

I have no real concern for deadbeats/criminals. But do you kill someone over 5 pounds of copper? Wasn't there another option?

I think it adds to the hypocrisy. This guy wasn't really in danger of GBH/Death (as they put it in the CCH class). Yet he votes against a "no retreat" clause (something my state and many states have already adopted) for citizens that ARE actually in danger of GBH/Death and then shoots a guy over $100 worth of copper.

What a creep.

[-Concho-]

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I think the no retreat clause is going to have it's problems.

Scenario:

Ned and Earl are best friends.  Ned goes to Earl's house late on night to borrow a fishing pole out of Earl's boat but didn't calll because of the late hour.  Earl hears a bump in the night, looks out the wndow and see's a prowler under the carport.  Earl goes to the nightstand, retrieves his .50 DesertEagle that he bought for home defense and smokes his best friend Ned.

I've worked in Texas law enforcement for 8 years, in that time  have never seen anyone have a problem defending their property even with deadly force.  Maybe that's what this rep saw when he decided to oppose the law.  The article stated that he was a former police officer.

[lazs2]

yep.. why couldn't he have run away?    What is so special about your property that you have the right to shoot someone?

Oh wait.. these are criminals who broke in...  they might not be good people... perhaps they mean to do you harm?  perhaps the simple fact that they are nutty enough to break into someones home is reason enough to view them as potential threats.

But.. as toad points out... have the courage of your convictions... if you don't think other peoples  property or home is sacred then don't be shooting someone over a few pots and pans at your house.

do like the real moral anti gun politicians do and hire someone with a gun to protect you and your property...

do like the real moral politicians do and live in a home that will house 50 and charter jets full of servants to vacation in  but buy a few trees in some depressed area to make up for your "footprint"

after all.. a politician should not be expected to suffer the hardships his laws may impose on others.  

lazs

[Toad]

Texas is certainly different from Kansas.

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

B. 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

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.

Looks like this "do as I say, not as I do" lawmaker had the right to shoot to kill to protect his copper. He's still a hypocrite.

Kansas is different.

21-3213.   Use of force in defense of property other than a dwelling. A person who is lawfully in possession of property other than a dwelling is justified in the threat or use of force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with such property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof as a reasonable man would deem necessary to prevent or terminate the interference may intentionally be used.

I don't think the courts here would agree that shooting someone dead to save your fishing rod is what a reasonable man would deem necessary to prevent theft of the fishing rod.

[68ROX]

Irony can be....so ironic.


68ROX

[Grayeagle]

It's all about 'stuff' ..

My stuff is mine.

A theif wants my stuff.

If I shoot someone in my home who is tryin to take my stuff,
..he's gonna get the whole clip.

There won't be a trial.

You dont know if he's got a gun or not.
You dont know if he's on drugs/crazy/psychopathic
You do know he's not supposed to be near your stuff.
You do know he doesn't give a rats bellybutton about you or he wouldn't be there in the first place.
If you tell him to 'FREEZE' and he doesn't, he's done.

There have been several home invasions in Phoenix recently,
..quite a different scenario than the 'theif in the night'
.. these bastards force their way in at gunpoint
..and not only take your stuff, but abuse and shoot you.

They are in for a rude awakening if they want my stuff.

-GE

[McFarland]

All I can say, if a man comes on me property, and he ain't supposed to be there, he's getting a full load of buckshot and blindness from the spotlight. A thief's a thief, they have no right to your property, and they have no right on your land. There shouldn't be a trial for you if you shoot someone you thought was a thief. It's their fault, they should've stayed off your property. Now, as for what rights a thief has, here are a few examples of that:

A man here in town tried to break into a home through a skylight while the owner was away. The owner came home, found him laying in the floor with a broken leg, and called the police. The thief sued the homeowner for his broken leg. He won the case.

A man tried climbing down the chimney to break into a house. (This sounds like the same guy.) He got stuck halfway down. The homeowner came home, found him up there by his yelling, and called the cops and the fire department. The homeowner tried suing him for the fact thay had to tear the chimney apart to get him out. He didn't win. The robber sued him for getting stuck in the chimney, and won.

Me papaw was working with a friend of his one night, (at an auto shop the guy owned), and heard a noise. They ran outside in time to see a guy jump over the fence and run away. Me papaw tells him not to follow him, he might have been waiting with a gun. He listens to me papaw, and they go in and call the cops. The cops get there, and they say, "Well, if he's gone, he's gone. He could be miles away by now." Well, me papaw's friend says, "Yeah, and I hope they come back, I'll beat him half to death next time." The cop gets angry aboot this and replies, "Hey now, you can't do that! I'll take you to jail if you do!" Well, me papaw's friend tells him he will be taking him to jail if he does come back. He was actually ready to fight the cop, but me papaw told him not to. I don't blame him meself, I actually would have.

This leaves me feeling real confident in our court and govment systems.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
I believe my son's generation (he's 5) will revolt.    It will happen, later than sooner, but it will happen.

I wish they would.....

How funny would it be for guys my age.....to sit on thier front porch...rocking along with my lil ole plaid blankie coverung my lap...slight drool....THICK ole glasses......Cane next to my walker....watching the YOUNGINS fight in the streets. The next revolutionary war....new age style.

I could put my teeth in and holler at em.....

"Kick his butt sonny...hit him again...Harder....HARDER..... SHOOT HIM THEN.....There ya go..."

[bustr]

Originally posted by -Concho-
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I think the no retreat clause is going to have it's problems.

Scenario:

Ned and Earl are best friends.  Ned goes to Earl's house late on night to borrow a fishing pole out of Earl's boat but didn't calll because of the late hour.  Earl hears a bump in the night, looks out the wndow and see's a prowler under the carport.  Earl goes to the nightstand, retrieves his .50 DesertEagle that he bought for home defense and smokes his best friend Ned.

I've worked in Texas law enforcement for 8 years, in that time  have never seen anyone have a problem defending their property even with deadly force.  Maybe that's what this rep saw when he decided to oppose the law.  The article stated that he was a former police officer.

More often Ned is 70-85 and hears a noise in the dark. Earl is 16-35 and has been working on his criminal record for some time. Ned catches Earl in the act of liberating his life long personal property because the elderly in many cases have collected quite a bit of it. Earl being younger and stronger incapasitates Ned along with removing his property.

Ned spends the next 3 months in the hospitel burning through his life savings and meger insurance on doctors bills. Concho could not be there to protect Ned and is not required to in any state of the U.S.. But Concho does not want us non LEO citizens to have unristricted "rights" to protect ourselves, family and property and tells us why it's not a good idea for the unwashed masses to have the right to stand our ground.

But the freashman congrass man from texas doesnt get a mention from Concho probably because of the ex-LEO background so he is one of the anointed in being able to blow away his fellow citizens when they try to steal the copper pipes from the new home he is building and throws a pocket knife at him. He shot the perp in the leg so that just shows us unanointed how much more worthy LEO's are to protect themselves than the rest of us unwased masses..................

Kinda like sewing up your own cut then mentioning it to your doctor months later and you get read the riot act because a 3 inch cut could have soo many unknown complications..........how did we ever survive before LEO's and doctors....sheeesh........... ............