• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas boy, 7, dies after shot in mistaken trespass

Florida's law is very similar in that you do not have to retreat under any circumstance from your car, home or place of business, period.
As it should be.
 
You said this:


Beats me. All I said was that in TX, you may kill in self-sefense to protect property (even of a third person) absent a direct threat to your life.

And cited this as proof:
Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Your proof clearly states there must be the threat of force, so your claim that Texas law justifies self defense "absent a direct threat to your life" is incorrect, unless you have further evidence from Texas law.
 
You are confused.
I am not arguing that shooting the child was legal; I -was- arguing that, in TX, you do not need to be threatened with bodily harm before you you can use deadly force to protct yorself, your property, someone else, or the property of someone else.

The fact of this matter is that the man and alleged woman were firing on trespassers and they had no legal justification for doing so.

Now you're trying to move goal posts or otherwise claim you were posting utter irrelevancies with absolutely no bearing on the case at hand.

Whatever.
 
Your proof clearly states there must be the threat of force, so your claim that Texas law justifies self defense "absent a direct threat to your life" is incorrect, unless you have further evidence from Texas law.
C'mon son. You can do better than this. Maybe.

...unlawful force or unlawful deadly force...
"Unlawful force" would be unlawful force which is NOT "unlawful DEADLY force".

Thus, you can use deadly force to protect you, your property, or that of a third party from "unlawful force" which differs from "unlawful deadly force".

And so, my statement stands. I'll take that Thanks now.

(PS: Still waiting for that appearance on the other thread)
 
Last edited:
The fact of this matter is that the man and alleged woman were firing on trespassers and they had no legal justification for doing so.
Thats all well and good - as noted before, I'm not defending their actions, and I challenge you to show where I have.
 
C'mon son. You can do better than this. Maybe.


"Unlawful force" would be unlawful force which is NOT "unlawful DEADLY force".

Thus, you can use deadly force to protect you, your property, or that of a third party from "unlawful force" which differs from "unlawful deadly force".

And so, my statement stands. I'll take that Thanks now.


Trespassing does not constitute force of any kind. Try to concentrate instead of patting yourself on the back. Your perpetual endzone dance is tiresome.
 
Trespassing does not constitute force of any kind.
I see that you also dont understand my position here.
Not sure how that can be, given how clear I have been.
Oh well. When you figure it out, let me know.
 
Last edited:
And, the reason you do not see it in his helpful quote of TX law is because you didnt bother to look at the link he posted. Had you done that...



Your thanks is accepted.

I'm not really interested in going through the whole law but the part you quoted doesn't seem to mention property. It looks like self defense or the defense of another person, nothing about property. Maybe I missed it?
 
Nope. They committed murder. Just posting a sign doesn't give them legal authority to shoot trespassers. They have to prove imminent threat of bodily harm. They're just dumb rednecks abusing their right to bear arms.

Hmmm...so rights CAN be abused....interesting.

Sure, just try to yell "FIRE" in a movie theater.
 
I'm not really interested in going through the whole law but the part you quoted doesn't seem to mention property. It looks like self defense or the defense of another person, nothing about property. Maybe I missed it?
It is mentioned in the referenced sections of TX law.
 
Without knowing exactly what prompted the owner to open fire, I can only say that while I strongly support the Castle Doctrine, I personally would have made damn sure I knew what I was shooting at if it wasn't shooting first.

The Castle Doctrine is not a license to obliterate just anyone who comes onto your property and these people give Texas a bad rep.

The Castle Doctrine is in place to protect the citizen from liberal gun-controllers. Abusing the Doctrine is the surest and fastest way to loose your 2nd Amendment.
 
Last edited:
These 2 refugees from the movie "Deliverance" are going to have a tough time in prison. a lot of brothers who will take exception to the flag flying over their shack and there will probably be no drugs available to dull the pain...
 
Without knowing exactly what prompted the owner to open fire, I can only say that while I strongly support the Castle Doctrine, I personally would have made damn sure I knew what I was shooting at if it wasn't shooting first.

The Castle Doctrine is a legal justification of self defense. As such, it applies only if the defender is under threat or attack. Simply trespassing doesn't even come close to being relevant.
 
The Castle Doctrine is a legal justification of self defense. As such, it applies only if the defender is under threat or attack.
You're wrong.
I've been telling you this, but you continue to fail to understand. Up until this time I've been willing to believe that said failure to understand was unintentional, but after this, it will clearly be willful ignorance on your part.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
PENAL CODE   CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Deadly force may be used in the defense of property -- thus, a person using deadly force need not be "under threat or attack" to his person in order to legally use that deadly force.

Simply trespassing doesn't even come close to being relevant
And what does TX law have to say abut that?

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
Looks like you are wrong, yet again.
 
Looks like you are wrong, yet again.

Except that the law uses the word "reasonably", and what those to rejects did doesn't fit any reasonable definition of reasonable.

So the law doesn't cover their actions.
 
Except that the law uses the word "reasonably", and what those to rejects did doesn't fit any reasonable definition of reasonable.
So the law doesn't cover their actions.
Aside from the fact that the defintion of "reasonable" falls not to you or anyone else here, but to the prosecutor, the judge(s) and, ultimately, the jury...

At some point, you will realize that I haven't said anything that defends their actions.
 
Except that the law uses the word "reasonably", and what those to rejects did doesn't fit any reasonable definition of reasonable.

So the law doesn't cover their actions.

Reasonable is subjective especially in terms of law.
 
The Castle Doctrine is a legal justification of self defense. As such, it applies only if the defender is under threat or attack. Simply trespassing doesn't even come close to being relevant.




:lol:


So wrong all the time will, how DO you do it.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine]Castle Doctrine in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 

You are once again demonstrated to be in ignorant disregard of the facts you yourself provide.
the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

so amusing
 
Last edited:
You are once again demonstrated to be in ignorant disregard of the facts you yourself provide.
Trespass is "an intrusion". By definition.

You hang yourself with your own quotes.

And that is very amusing.
 
You are once again demonstrated to be in ignorant disregard of the facts you yourself provide.
so amusing
Speaking of ignorance...
Have you failed to figure out that the relevant TX law disagrees with you on every point you have made on this topic, or are you willfilly ignoring that fact?
 
Back
Top Bottom