• 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

vauge said:
If the levee was not owned by the couple shooting - then its murder.

If they were indeed on private property, stupid parents for offroading in an area with a sign about trespassing.
Click to expand...
And if the parents missed the sign? I've been hunting many times and realized I was on someone's property. If one sign is not placed within sight of the next (and still even in that case since your attention may be on tracking for instance) then these signs, which become old and barely readable quite rapidly don't provide a clear warning. If you intend to shoot people who enter your land then you should be required to fence it off so there is no mistake.

But I think the jist of the post is, a 7 year old was shot for trespassing... Because gun owners are so careful and accidents and mistakes never happen. :roll: I just wonder how the land owners felt threatened enough to use lethal force in the first place?
 
Slippery Slope said:
How does that square with the guy who shot the guys running from his neighbors house?
Click to expand...
IIRC, that guy was not charged because the prosecutors found that his actions were within the limits of TX law.
 
Slippery Slope said:
But I think the jist of the post is, a 7 year old was shot for trespassing... Because gun owners are so careful and accidents and mistakes never happen.
Click to expand...
Strawman. No one makes that claim.
 
Slippery Slope said:
How does that square with the guy who shot the guys running from his neighbors house?
Click to expand...

Actually, he wasn't charged because he stayed on his property.. and ordered them to stop.

They both charged him, and he shot them in self-defense. You should look up these things before you try and use them.
 
vauge said:
If the levee was not owned by the couple shooting - then its murder.

If they were indeed on private property, stupid parents for offroading in an area with a sign about trespassing.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

What unlawful force was the seven year old using or threatening to use?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What unlawful force was the seven year old using or threatening to use?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What unlawful force was the seven year old using or threatening to use?
Click to expand...

Goobieman was making the point that TX law doesn't guarantee the wonton ability to shoot someone just cause their on your poperty... Much to the disagreeance of our hoplophobic guys in this thread's belief.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not in TX.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

...how can it be self defense of yourself and a third person if there is no direct threat to your life? Isn't self defense called self defense because there is an actual threat to you?
 
stevenb said:
Goobieman was making the point that TX law doesn't guarantee the wonton ability to shoot someone just cause their on your poperty... Much to the disagreeance of our hoplophobic guys in this thread's belief.
Click to expand...
Actually, my point was that under TX law, you can use deadly force in certain instances where your life is not directly threatened -- you can use it in defense of your property, the property of a third person, and to keep perpretrators from leaving the scene of a crime.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
...how can it be self defense of yourself and a third person if there is no direct threat to your life? Isn't self defense called self defense because there is an actual threat to you?
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the excerpt form TX law, previously referenced and posted.
 
Goobieman said:
Actually, my point was that under TX law, you can use deadly force in certain instances where your life is not directly threatened -- you can use it in defense of your property, the property of a third person, and to keep perpretrators from leaving the scene of a crime.
Click to expand...

Ah, I was confuzzled.
 
Hatuey said:
Hmmm...so rights CAN be abused....interesting.
Click to expand...

Uh....duh! That doesn't mean everyone else's rights should be curtailed. It means the rednecks committed a crime. The right is to keep and bear arms. It doesn't grant the authority to shoot seven year olds.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not according to section 9.33 that you yourself posted. You could try reading that section of code again. What it doesn't mean is hat a third person can shoot willy nilly to protect third party property.
 
Hatuey said:
Hmmm...so rights CAN be abused....interesting.
Click to expand...

You know those evil conservatives always denying that rights can be abused. :roll:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Not according to section 9.33 that you yourself posted. You could try reading that section of code again. What it doesn't mean is hat a third person can shoot willy nilly to protect third party property.
Click to expand...
9.33 notes that you can ise deadly force to protect a third person or the property of a third person in all of the circumstances that you can use it do defend yourself or your property.

In that, you do NOT have to be directly threatened with bodily harm to use that deadly force.
 
Goobieman said:
Not in TX.
Click to expand...

yes in Texas.

Someone posted this...(you):

(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.

Again....who was the seven year old threatening and how?
 
Goobieman said:
9.33 notes that you can ise deadly force to protect a third person or the property of a third person in all of the circumstances that you can use it do defend yourself or your property.

In that, you do NOT have to be directly threatened with bodily harm to use that deadly force.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Goobieman said:
Actually, my point was that under TX law, you can use deadly force in certain instances where your life is not directly threatened -- you can use it in defense of your property, the property of a third person, and to keep perpretrators from leaving the scene of a crime.
Click to expand...

Their property wasn't harmed.

There was no third person under threat.

And no crime was being committed requiring deadly force.

If they have a road in the back of their property, they need to determine if an easement's been established, and if it has been, they can't legally prohibit it's use. If it hasn't been established, they need to physically block access to prevent the creation of an easement.

What they can't do is shoot seven year olds under any circumstances that don't involve the child's possession of a firearm or grenade that presents an immediate threat to them.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Again....who was the seven year old threatening and how?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom