Philando Castile’s mom rips into NRA’s Dana Loesch

trouble13 said:

I didn't claim any of that applied in that case. It was a generic example of how a perceived threat that later turned out to be false could justify a response with deadly force.

I don't enough of the details in this case to really say if she could reasonably argue a perceived threat or not. Based 8th what I do know I can see the possibility that she may be able to successfully make that argument.

If she believed she entered her home and was confronted by a stranger being there, she may have of felt mortally threatened and discharged her weapon to defend herself from that threat. If it was her home it could of easily not been charged.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

If it was her home then her unlucky neighbor upstairs would still be alive and well. How about a parking lot where you see a stranger getting into what you really believe to be your car - is it OK to blast away at them? The problem in this case is that a real armed intruder shot and killed an unarmed imaginary intruder.

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

I get the problem which is why it's an interesting debate.

I like your hypothetical about the car. It's one that gives me pause. My initial reaction is that a person is not entitled to protect their property with deadly force but they are entitled to use deadly force to protect themselves or others. I'm having a hard time thinking of a scene riot that meets that burden involving a car thief.

Oops just thought of one. What if you thought your child was in that car. Then maybe you could argue that the decision to use deadly force would have been reasonable if it was actually your car.

I think I missed my calling I should of been a lawyer lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Texas is different. In Texas, one can use deadly force not just to protect a person, but also to protect personal property, including to “retrieve stolen property at night,” during “criminal mischief in the nighttime” and even to prevent someone who is fleeing immediately after a theft during the night or a burglary or robbery, so long as the individual “reasonably” thinks the property cannot be protected by other means. This law recently garnered attention when lawyers used the provision to defend a man acquitted in the deadly shooting of an escort who refused to have sex with him.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property, even if the thief is fleeing, after dark.



https://thinkprogress.org/three-sel...en-worse-than-stand-your-ground-b425742ff724/

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

It would be really interesting to see how your sceneries would shake out in texas.

Here's a weird thought

What if you fire your gun straight in the air to scare the car thief and the bullet comes down and kills somebody. Is that an accidental death in Texas or is the person who fired the gun charged, or the car thief charged for someone being killed in the commission of a crime he was committing?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

I think that there was no report of seeing any weapon and not even any report of a sudden move or attack. There was simply the allegation that commands were given (not heard by any neighbors) to a silhouette (15 feet away?) and then two shots were fired at the (allegedly unresponsive?) silhouette.

Click to expand...