• 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 Says It's OK to Shoot an Escort If She Won't Have Sex With You

Goshin said:
I support the killing of thieves.


This particular case though.... :doh
Click to expand...

That's cool. But I think you missed the entire conversation.

Would you kill a person who came into your front yard during a yard sell and attempts to steal a $1.00 item? Or would you kill a kid chasing a runaway football that landed in your yard?
 
Captain America said:
I hope the person who plans on coming in my bedroom, to steal from me, in the middle of the night, doesn't believe what you do. I pray the culprit realizes that I value my security and possessions more than I value his/her life. He/she will be sorely disappointed when I inform them otherwise.

Have a nice weekend!
Click to expand...

Translation: "I fantasize about murdering people over possessions."
 
Aderleth said:
What? I brought up Ceballos in response to this comment:



Ceballos specifically addresses that contention: "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'”




But it has to be a method that actually constitutes taking someone hostage. Simply telling someone to sit down doesn't do it. The California false imprisonment statute requires restraining confining or detaining someone using violence, menace, fraud or deceit.

Simply telling someone to sit down is none of those things (by itself).
Click to expand...


Again, the Cebellos case involved someone setting up a gun trap that shot and killed the person who broke into the garage. That a booby trap, and a completely different scenario than someone breaking into an actual residence while someone is home and then taking them hostage.

The method of taking someone hostage has very little to do with the qualifier for use of deadly force. I suppose if someone came in with dinner and calmly asked a person to eat while they ransacked their home it might be conceivable a person would not be threatened, but holding someone against their will is kidnapping. That is considered a potentially life threatening situation.

I guess in the end a jury would have to decide.
 
Paschendale said:
And then you should go to prison for murder. Because you attacked people who were not attacking you. Property is no cause to justify violence.
Click to expand...

It is here and I am glad it is. You come in my house uninvited, I do not even have to give you notice before I blow your head off. There would a whole lot fewer robberies if more thieves thought they might not see tomorrow after entering.
 
ocean515 said:
Again, the Cebellos case involved someone setting up a gun trap that shot and killed the person who broke into the garage. That a booby trap, and a completely different scenario than someone breaking into an actual residence while someone is home and then taking them hostage.
Click to expand...

I know what the case is about. I've read it. As I've explained twice now I didn't bring it up for any reason related to hostage taking. I brought it up because you said this:

ocean515 said:
The law reads that someone standing on your property is not sufficient cause to use deadly force.

Breaking into your home while you are there is. There is no expectation that one is required to establish a threat level before trying to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

The Ceballos case specifically addresses the contention in bold. Simply breaking into someone's home - even for the purpose of committing a felony (the definition of burglary) - is not enough to justify use of deadly force on it's own. This point that I'm making has absolutely nothing to do with hostage taking, which I think you'll agree is distinguishable from breaking and entering.

ocean515 said:
The method of taking someone hostage has very little to do with the qualifier for use of deadly force.
Click to expand...

No, but again, you actually have to be taken hostage. Simply telling someone to sit on their own couch - absent threat/force/etc - doesn't qualify.

ocean515 said:
I suppose if someone came in with dinner and calmly asked a person to eat while they ransacked their home it might be conceivable a person would not be threatened, but holding someone against their will is kidnapping. That is considered a potentially life threatening situation.
Click to expand...

Holding someone against their will is false imprisonment. And a potentially life threatening situation is distinguishable from a reasonable belief of imminent death/gbh.


ocean515 said:
I guess in the end a jury would have to decide.
Click to expand...

True enough.
 
Paschendale said:
Let's say any number of improbable possibilities. Let's add an erupting volcano to the mix, too. If there is an infant in the mix, and reasonable proof to suspect danger, you can use violence. The whole argument here is that mere presence in someone else's home, or the taking of property, create a reasonable belief in imminent harm. That's complete nonsense.

Regardless, you still make the situation worse by escalating violence.
Click to expand...


A child asleep or otherwise occupied in another part of the house is equally improbable to an exploding volcano??


Seriously, you went there?


Exploding volcanos are a reality for only a very few people, like Hawaiians or people near Mt St Helens.


Having other family members around who can't defend themselves nor haul ass solo is a DAILY REALITY for.... oh say a few billion people....


On top of that when someone breaks into your home you don't know what their intentions are. They're about as likely to rape or murder as merely steal, and that's something you don't want to find out the hard way.
 
Removable Mind said:
That's cool. But I think you missed the entire conversation.

Would you kill a person who came into your front yard during a yard sell and attempts to steal a $1.00 item? Or would you kill a kid chasing a runaway football that landed in your yard?
Click to expand...



Don't be ridiculous. Shooting a kid who runs into your yard chasing a ball has NOTHING to do with what we're talking bout. Nothing.

Burglary, carjacking, armed robbery, strong-arm robbery... these are serious crimes where innocents are frequently hurt or killed. I'm talking about FELONIOUS theft, not kids chasing balls.

Idiotic comparison.
 
Goshin said:
Don't be ridiculous. Shooting a kid who runs into your yard chasing a ball has NOTHING to do with what we're talking bout. Nothing.

Burglary, carjacking, armed robbery, strong-arm robbery... these are serious crimes where innocents are frequently hurt or killed. I'm talking about FELONIOUS theft, not kids chasing balls.

Idiotic comparison.
Click to expand...

Goshin...man, as I said before...you didn't read the prior posts. Of course it's an idiotic comparison. Just like the OP in this thread.

I purposely used ridiculous examples to illustrate how senseless and stupid it is to even have 14 pages of posts on this topic.
 
Paschendale said:
Let's say any number of improbable possibilities. Let's add an erupting volcano to the mix, too. If there is an infant in the mix, and reasonable proof to suspect danger, you can use violence. The whole argument here is that mere presence in someone else's home, or the taking of property, create a reasonable belief in imminent harm. That's complete nonsense.

Regardless, you still make the situation worse by escalating violence.
Click to expand...

Doesn't need to create a reasonable belief of imminent harm, In Texas, deadly force is also legal for protection of property. Most of us wouldn't just shoot, we would give someone the choice of surrendering first, but nothing says we actually have to, even if it could be proven you did or did not.

And no, it doesn't make the situation worse, if they are dead, they ain't going to escalate violence. Well, I guess if you believe in zombies, they might be able to, but then, most counties cremate now because it is cheaper.
 
DVSentinel said:
Doesn't need to create a reasonable belief of imminent harm, In Texas, deadly force is also legal for protection of property. Most of us wouldn't just shoot, we would give someone the choice of surrendering first, but nothing says we actually have to, even if it could be proven you did or did not.
Click to expand...

And those laws are wrong. That's my whole argument.

And no, it doesn't make the situation worse, if they are dead, they ain't going to escalate violence. Well, I guess if you believe in zombies, they might be able to, but then, most counties cremate now because it is cheaper.
Click to expand...

You have killed someone. That is making the situation much much worse. And these sorts of arguments always assume that speaker will be the victor and not die themselves, and that they will escape unharmed. The moment someone adds violence to a situation where there wasn't any before, it's making things worse.
 
Paschendale said:
And then you should go to prison for murder. Because you attacked people who were not attacking you. Property is no cause to justify violence.
Click to expand...

Not here.

Sure it is. Why do you think we spent trillions of dollars fighting socialist world wide? Because the only good thief is a dead thief.
 
Paschendale said:
And those laws are wrong. That's my whole argument.



You have killed someone. That is making the situation much much worse. And these sorts of arguments always assume that speaker will be the victor and not die themselves, and that they will escape unharmed. The moment someone adds violence to a situation where there wasn't any before, it's making things worse.
Click to expand...

Um, if i'm dead, then I probably won't give a damn anymore or do any more violence either.

You say it's wrong, I say it isn't. You live where you live, and I live where I live, don't like our laws, then don't come here.
 
OP Title sounds about as crazy as the fact that its not prostitution if you're putting it on the internet as porn.
 
Texas says you can kill someone if you're trying to rob from you, and it appears this lady was trying to rob the guy. Dumb law, but it's not really about prostitution. Funny that people want to make it about that, though. Or maybe more telling?
 
Aderleth said:
I know what the case is about. I've read it. As I've explained twice now I didn't bring it up for any reason related to hostage taking. I brought it up because you said this:



The Ceballos case specifically addresses the contention in bold. Simply breaking into someone's home - even for the purpose of committing a felony (the definition of burglary) - is not enough to justify use of deadly force on it's own. This point that I'm making has absolutely nothing to do with hostage taking, which I think you'll agree is distinguishable from breaking and entering.



No, but again, you actually have to be taken hostage. Simply telling someone to sit on their own couch - absent threat/force/etc - doesn't qualify.



Holding someone against their will is false imprisonment. And a potentially life threatening situation is distinguishable from a reasonable belief of imminent death/gbh.




True enough.
Click to expand...



Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Dumb law, but it's not really about prostitution. Funny that people want to make it about that, though. Or maybe more telling?
Click to expand...

Actually the defense is the one that made it about prositution.
 
Who gives a shet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom