Deadly Force

[ERNIEB]

A grim subject, but recent events around here have me thinking. Not having cable or dish our TV reception is limited to local stuff and that means San Antonio. Two incidents within a week of each other has caused a firestorm of controversy in the Alamo city.
A used car dealer after having been burgled several times, moved a cot into the back room to protect his property. He didn't have to sleep on his cot too many nights until he was awoken at 2:30 am by the sounds of a break in. He incountered two figures in the dark and fired his pistol at them. It turned out to be a 12yo and a 14 yo. The 12yo was seriously but not fatally wounded.
The next incident was just a couple of days later. A home owner who raises fighting chickens in his backyard, and has had several of his flock stolen, heard his chickens squawking at 4:30 am. He grabed a rifle ran out in the yard and spotted two chicken thieves trying to make a get away. He fired, and one fell dead. When the Police arrived they discovered the dead theif was a 14yo boy. Laying beside him was a sack of baby chicks. His accomplice turned out to be his 20yo brother in law. This boy had not been to school in months, and although his mother denies it, there is clear evidence that he had been living in a broken down car outside of a friends house.
So far the police have not filed charges against either shooter. Although a grand jury hearing is probable.
Now to my point. I had always thought that a persons life or someone elses life had to be indangered before deadly force could be used. I've heard police officers say that if you intend to shoot someone crawling into your window make sure he falls inside the house. I thought this was bad advice because someone crawling in a window does not automatically mean ones life is in jeopardy, no matter which side of the window he fell on. The local news media has been saying that in Texas a person may use deadly force to protect his property if the thieft is during the hours of darkness, and if the persons does not beleve he could retrive his property by any other means.
So who can tell me about how other states veiw the use of deadly force? I'm also curious to know how others here feel about it. Does it depend on the value of what is being stolen?
A chicken or a tractor? It may not be something you want to think about, but what would you do?

Ernie

 

[Von]

Boy talk about shot first and ask questions later! Last year I got robbed at my antique shop. (shop lifter) He ran out the door before I could stop him and there were other people in the shop at the time. So I could not give chase as I didn't know if he had any accomplices. I gave the police his plate # and they nabbed him about 20 min. later. Still had my stuff on him, about $50.00 worth. Anyway the cop said next time if they don't stop when you ask them to and are running out the door to just shoot them! Said it would be alright as I would just be protecting my livelyhood. Seems fair to me, I work hard for my money, don't need some drugged up thud robbing me for whats left after the Govt. gets thru with me! Also took a class on criminal justice when in college, all you have to say is the thug said " I am going to kill you". That is the worst threat one can make on someone, and justifys extreme force. I don't care how old they are. if they are doing it now at 14 yrs. old, there is little chance that they are going to stop anytime soon. And are more likely to get more violent, and bolder as they get older.

 

[scotd1]

ERNIEB,
I teach CCW classes in Tennessee and know a little about the use of lethal force as it pertains to Tennessee law, I would suspect the other 49 states have very similar laws.
Under TN. law the ONLY legally justified reason to use lethal force is to protect yourself or a 3rd party from death or grave bodily harm. (period)
This applies to all persons including LEO's. Protecting personal property, no matter the value, is not a factor. I would be very surprised if the law in Texas allowed the use of lethal force to protect personal property. If I were either one of the shooters in your stories I would be very nervous about my future.

 

[Bird]

ERNIEB, this can get to be a very technical (and highly emotional) topic. Texas' justifiable homicide statues were quite liberal until the new penal code went into effect the first of 1974 (the old penal code was written in the horse and buggy days). They're a bit more restrictive now, but probably still considered quite liberal in a lot of states. And I suppose I have some mixed feelings about the subject myself. I don't like thieves, burglars, hijackers, killers, rapists, etc. and if someone shoots one, that's fine with me. However, I don't want to do it myself if there's any way to avoid it. But if I'm around when someone breaks into my home, I will stop him by whatever means it takes. I don't have a copy of the current penal code handy, and wouldn't trust my memory to quote from it, but if you get a chance at a library sometime, you might read the section on justifiable homicide. However, you have to not only read and consider the statutory law, you need to read and consider court cases (judicial interpretation) related to the law. In either case (unless the law has changed since I retired, which is quite possible) theft at night is justifiable homicide and the value of the property being stolen is not a factor.

Bird

 

[Jag]

scotd1, Texas law as quoated by ERNIEB is correct, ie theft at night..... is that way. And for your general information a lot of self defense laws change as you cross the Mississippi River, and go west till you drop into the ocean, No telling what could happen to one in CA.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Scotd 1,

I've noticed that people in a "profession" tend to communicate in acronyms, assuming that the rest of the world will understand (or at least be impressed). I'm not accusing you of ostentation, because I don't know you,...but this is a sore-spot with me.

The reason is that during a 37 year fire-dept. career, I watched the ranks gradually filling with a different "type" of individual, as the emphasis shifted from fire-fighting to "emergency medical" service.

Their are a great many "Dr. wannabees" who seem to ignore the fact that their use of "med-talk" is doing little to soothe the frightened patient, ...in fact, may be adding to their anxiety, as they are talked "about", rather than "to" and in a "foreign" language that tells them nothing, ... " poor ignorant fools".

As my tone probably makes evident, this infuriated me. There are a great many caring and thoughtful medics out there, of course, I just wish they would straighten-out "the others" about this issue.

Anyway, off the soapbox, and back onto the point: LEO's I got, ...CCW??

And how well-defined (and uniform) is the concept of "Grave bodily harm"?

An example; let's say some freak is "only" threatening to cut off my finger, and I have a gun in my other hand, ...guess who just-got-shot!?

Or "just" going to punch me in the face, you know, "good 'ol John Wayne movie brawl-style" (Oops! hit you in the eye with my ring and blinded you! ...sorry!")

People who threaten or assault others should have NO protection from retaliation, in my book. If you don't want to accept the risk that there may be great cost, leave people alone. Nobody "owes you" the right to do them ANY-HARM-AT-ALL!

To let the "thug" dictate the terms of the encounter is most definitely cart-before-horse.

By the way, the finger-cutter in my example, may have been "only" 14 . Not a problem. You know why 14(12, 8, whatever) year olds don't stick their hands on a glowing red burner on the stove? They KNOW it will burn them. Shame-on-us for letting them remain uncertain about the consequenses of theft, violence, etc.

Violence begets violence? ...Neither I nor any of my cousins (reasonably well-behaved children - now well-adjusted law-abiding adults) were ever confused about the difference between the application of our father's belts to-our-backsides, and "criminal" violence.

About that finger, (or eye), ...insurance companies and lawyers can/do put "dollar-values" on body parts. And by their line of (so-called) reasoning, the thugs life is worth more than my finger or eye.

But if I remember the question correctly, it was "what do you think?" NOT "What is the LAW?"!

I THINK my guitar playing , say, or my seeing, is worth more than his "right" to do wrong. My reasoning is simple, ... I'm the good-guy, ..he's the BAD GUY. I'ts inherently "appropriate". I only care what lawyers say because they've managed to warp this basic concept into the upside-down cake we have now for THE LAW. Shakespeare was right!

Larry

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Bird,

Can you tell us why a night-time "bad-guy" is a worse character (deserves to die) than a daytime one?

Is the stuff he takes more valuable at night? Is the (6'4", armed, doped-up) bad-guy more "frightening" at night? How frightening is "frightening-enough"?

Not quarreling with you ( a definite good-guy, I think). Just looking for some "reason" in these laws!

Larry

 

[jimmoore]

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court has made many rulings saying that you cannot take a life to protect property. Deadly force may only be used to protect the life of yourself or a third party. Deadly force may be used on a fleeing felon only if he has caused serious bodily injury or death to another and if not apprehended imediately would cause further injury or death to others. The bleeding heart liberals all seem to be federal judges!!

jim

 

[GlueGuy]

Just lurking Larry, but I think the night vs. day is whether you have an oportunity to really identify the "bad guy" or not. Given the fact that it's usually dark at night, making finer points of identification (14yo? 18yo? 32yo?) becomes a lot harder. Likewise, it might be very difficult to tell whether this person is carrying a weapon.

Likewise, someone coming through a window at night is highly suspicious.

Oh. And what the heck is CCW? In my jargon dictionary, it's Counter Clock Wise. Is it harder to teach CCW than CW? /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif - Sorry, that just sorta "came out"....

The GlueGuy

 

[Bird]

<font color=blue>Can you tell us why a night-time "bad-guy" is a worse character (deserves to die) than a daytime one?</font color=blue>

Nope, Larry, I really can't; however, I think GlueGuy is right. In addition to the statutory law and case law I mentioned earlier, you sometimes also need to read the legislative notes to determine exactly what the legislators thought and intended, and why. I suppose every state has some "unusual" laws on the books, or old and obsolete laws. Until 1974, the law that was used in Texas to charge people with illegally carrying handguns started out, "Whoever shall carry on or about his person, saddlebags, or portfolio any pistol, dirk, dagger, . . .." It contined to name a number of weapons and as you might guess was written a long time ago. And then the statute made an exception for anyone "traveling." Of course, that generated a question as to how far you have to go to be "traveling." Reading old court cases showed that there were times, years ago, when some courts decided if you were going out of your home county, that met the requirement. In later times, seems most courts decided that you only met the requirement if you were going to be away from home overnight. Unfortunately, a lot of folks can read a statute and think they know what the law is, but it's frequently changing, just as the U.S. Supreme Court "changes" our Constitution. And now I'm rambling on a topic that's too complex for the time and space on the forum./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

One last comment, though. In 1974 we also did away with the old "seduction" statute in Texas that made it a 2 to 10 year felony to seduce an unmarried female under the age of 25 years by promise of marriage./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif If she had been married, or was over 25, she was supposed to know better, and if, once prosecution had begun, he agreed to marry her, that barred further prosecution, except that he could still be sent to prison if the marriage was terminated in less than 2 years through no fault of hers./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif Now when I first heard of that law, I figured that probably no one had ever been sent to prison by it, but one day in the law library, I looked up the cases; quite a number of them; entertaining reading even if of no other value to me./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif There actually were a number of men who had the choice of being "sentenced" to at least 2 years of marriage or 2 to 10 in prison./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Bird