Get off my neighbors lawn (or why I live in TX)

[Tyche]

So, he shot two thieves dead who weren't personally threatening him, something that if done by the cops, would lead to a total shit storm. Not even the State would be allowed to execute thieves.

Did he even give the two guys a warning before he shot?

This seems to be the popular response, and while it is true, it's irrelevant. Texas law allows it for a civilian.

[Beckwin]

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

These requirements not found; the man is in violation of the law. Even stupid backwards Texas law.

[Beckwin]

It could have been prevented if that shitty old man had just followed directions and stayed in his house.

Or if the shitty thief had just followed the law and stayed in his house.

Two wrongs make a right, eye for an eye till nobody can see.

To do eye for an eye implies one person takes your eye, so you take theirs. Correct?

Well, if he takes your eye, and you don't take his.. you still lost an eye. If he does it again, guess what? You're blind anyway, same as the eye-for-an-eye scenario, the only difference is the guy who took your eyes can still see.

In a world where there's no eye-for-an-eye, only criminals can see. Kinda like the argument against gun bans.

Stop trolling; we have law enforcement so that incidents like this one, essentially a life for someone else's pair of glasses, don't happen. Punishment comes in the form of prison sentences, not vigilantism. It's the Castle Doctrine, not the Frank Castle Doctrine anyway.

[Kuya]

So, he shot two thieves dead who weren't personally threatening him, something that if done by the cops, would lead to a total shit storm. Not even the State would be allowed to execute thieves.

Did he even give the two guys a warning before he shot?

This seems to be the popular response, and while it is true, it's irrelevant. Texas law allows it for a civilian.

Oh ok.

Secede Texas?

[Lordwafik]

Stop trolling

LOL, all of his posts are 90% Troll 10% content, you're basically asking him to stop breathing.

[Tyche]

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

These requirements not found; the man is in violation of the law. Even stupid backwards Texas law.

And you failed to bold the most important part.

The actor reasonably believes that....

Edit, he only has to meet one of those requirements, not all.

[Khamsin]

It could have been prevented if that shitty old man had just followed directions and stayed in his house.

Or if the shitty thief had just followed the law and stayed in his house.

Two wrongs make a right, eye for an eye till nobody can see.

To do eye for an eye implies one person takes your eye, so you take theirs. Correct?

Well, if he takes your eye, and you don't take his.. you still lost an eye. If he does it again, guess what? You're blind anyway, same as the eye-for-an-eye scenario, the only difference is the guy who took your eyes can still see.

In a world where there's no eye-for-an-eye, only criminals can see. Kinda like the argument against gun bans.

Stop trolling; we have law enforcement so that incidents like this one, essentially a life for someone else's pair of glasses, don't happen. Punishment comes in the form of prison sentences, not vigilantism. It's the Castle Doctrine, not the Frank Castle Doctrine anyway.

Well, you're right, vigilantism is bad. I was just expressing my problem with the saying "eye for an eye till nobody can see".

Although would this even be considered vigilantism since this happened during the act of trespass? I always thought vigilantism was more about finding criminals who aren't currently in the act of committing a crime, and enforcing your own brand of justice on them.

Again, I don't consider any particular action or item worth someone's life, and would certainly not condone hunting someone down afterward to kill them. However, in the heat of the action, adrenaline is pumping, you see someone in the actual act of a felony, I consider anything that happens to the criminal on par with an accident or risk they should have been willing to take.

In other words, it would be nice if criminals were entitled to basic civil rights and protected by law when not in the act of committing a felony. However, during the act of a felony, they should be temporarily stripped of their rights and protection. If somebody breaks into my house (in Washington) and stubs their toe, they can sue me. This would solve that.

[Khamsin]

Stop trolling

LOL, all of his posts are 90% Troll 10% content, you're basically asking him to stop breathing.

Only in heated controversial debate threads.

Somebody besides Swampdonkey has to take that side!

[Tyche]

Stop trolling

LOL, all of his posts are 90% Troll 10% content, you're basically asking him to stop breathing.

Only in heated controversial debate threads.

Somebody besides Swampdonkey has to take that side!

No <3 for me

[Remyo]

this gets my "Fuck Yea Guns!" seal of approval.

[BIGSTIC]

Think I could get him to move next door to me. Seriously :D

Last house I lived at the neighbors literally watched my ex-wife slash my cars tires and smash my window while I was away for the weekend. They left a note on the door telling me they saw it. How helpful they were

[Correction]

Think I could get him to move next door to me. Seriously :D

Last house I lived at the neighbors literally watched my ex-wife slash my cars tires and smash my window while I was away for the weekend. They left a note on the door telling me they saw it. How helpful they were

So you expected them to risk life and limb for your car? How inconsiderate of them to put their personal safety over your physical property.

[Beckwin]

Think I could get him to move next door to me. Seriously :D

Last house I lived at the neighbors literally watched my ex-wife slash my cars tires and smash my window while I was away for the weekend. They left a note on the door telling me they saw it. How helpful they were

So your neighbors paid attention to your house, watched a property crime, and then left you a note basically offering themselves as witnesses should you choose to press charges, and no one got hurt in the whole ordeal?

I'll take your neighbors over some crazy piece of shit old man with an itchy trigger-finger.

[Remyo]

Think I could get him to move next door to me. Seriously :D

Last house I lived at the neighbors literally watched my ex-wife slash my cars tires and smash my window while I was away for the weekend. They left a note on the door telling me they saw it. How helpful they were

So your neighbors paid attention to your house, watched a property crime, and then left you a note basically offering themselves as witnesses should you choose to press charges, and no one got hurt in the whole ordeal?

I'll take your neighbors over some crazy piece of shit old man with an itchy trigger-finger.

I would prefer the opposite, blow that bitch away. :D

[Tyche]

I don't want him living beside me >.> I'm always locking my keys in my house and having to find a way to break in.

[Correction]

Think I could get him to move next door to me. Seriously :D

Last house I lived at the neighbors literally watched my ex-wife slash my cars tires and smash my window while I was away for the weekend. They left a note on the door telling me they saw it. How helpful they were

So your neighbors paid attention to your house, watched a property crime, and then left you a note basically offering themselves as witnesses should you choose to press charges, and no one got hurt in the whole ordeal?

I'll take your neighbors over some crazy piece of shit old man with an itchy trigger-finger.

I would prefer the opposite, blow that bitch away. :D

Yup you're totally contributing to the discussion.

[Plow]

Just to clarify my own point of view, I would never consider tailgating worthy of the death penalty. I don't think a bit of bumper paint is worth someone getting killed.

On the other hand, if it does end up happening, I'd just chalk it up to an accident and not prosecute the driver involved. It may not have been an actual "accident" per se, but you never know how people will react when you brake-check them, and it was an outcome that could have been prevented by simply not driving like a granny in the first place.

Is driving like a granny a felony? At least use an example from the following selection, if you're going to make an analogy like that: assault/battery, arson, murder, rape, kidnapping.

Those are felonies like burglary/robbery. Tailgating and driving like a granny aren't exactly in the same league.

Same league? I'm just pointing out ad absurdum how empty your argument is. It can be word-substituted to justify any kind of consequence to someone doing anything against the law. Try inserting "littering" or "noise violation" or similar nuisance-crime.

Ever heard of context? Word-substitution to justify consequences to other activities only work if the substitution is comparible. And last time I checked, driving like a granny or littering was not comparable to robbery, either by the law or by common perception. And I've never known of a case where someone shot someone for littering and was acquitted in court. But insert other felonies like murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. and there have been cases where someone was killed in response to those crimes. And the jury let them go.

Ok fine, substitute having an ounce of pot in their pocket, which is enough to be charged with possession with intent to sell, which is a felony.


Happy now? Is it worth shooting somebody in the back as they run away now?

[archibaldcrane]

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

These requirements not found; the man is in violation of the law. Even stupid backwards Texas law.

And you failed to bold the most important part.
The actor reasonably believes that....
Edit, he only has to meet one of those requirements, not all.

Thank you.

You can get super semantic into what "reasonably believing you have a legal duty" means, but yes, the guy felt he had a duty, a not-unreasonable duty to his neighbor, to protect the guy's property and did so.

Basically hate this law or this man all you want, but don't hate the grand jury. He was just fucking barely within his legal limits.

I personally have trouble getting too worked up over it other than the feeling of excitement over that 911 call, and I don't know what that means.

[killerx]

I wouldn't shoot some one over a neighbors house, but i can deff say i would over mine. A saying i have heard around here is if your going to shoot them you better make sure you shoot them dead. The dead can't sue your ass lol.

and im sorry but lol "you hear the shot gun clickin im goin"

[Beckwin]

You can get super semantic into what "reasonably believing you have a legal duty" means, but yes, the guy felt he had a duty, a not-unreasonable duty to his neighbor, to protect the guy's property and did so.

This guy has no reasonable legal duty to do anything except listen to the 911 dispatcher, who informed him that police officers (people who do have legal duty to intervene) were en route. And again, there was a plainclothes on site when the shooting occurred.

He defied reasonable action (the counsel of the dispatcher, waiting safely inside his own home merely witnessing the crime) and expressed his intent for murder. Fuck this guy.