You can't shoot anyone in your home in Texas or El Tejon is proven right
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
A very wise person, a moderator on this board as a matter of fact, once told me that if my ire was up as much as he and some other moderators thought it had been, I was too wrapped up and needed to let it go. He's a smart guy. He was right.
It's just the internet.
Springmom
It's just the internet.
Springmom
csmkersh
Member
That sounds like Art Eatman, springmom. Level headed fellow.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Many years ago I asked a wise, bold, and usually victorious trial lawyer what effect there would be from a significant change in a state law.
"Different law? Same defendants, same judges, same juries, same prosecutors, same defense lawyers .... Same outcomes reached through different approaches."
"Different law? Same defendants, same judges, same juries, same prosecutors, same defense lawyers .... Same outcomes reached through different approaches."
RX-178
Member
As a Texas resident, and a concealed carry holder, I can say with certainty that Castle Doctrine IS NOT A 'shoot anyone you want as long as it's in your home' LICENSE!
There are very specific circumstances with which you are considered justified under Texas State Law. It may be easier to establish justification in this state than in others, but you still need to have these circumstances:
Deadly Force is justified in the following circumstances:
In defense of one's self.
In defense of a third party.
In preventing an act of rape or sexual assault.
In defense of one's property.
In defense of a third party's property.
There is a listing of what is NOT justifiable cause for deadly force, but there are instances where I would be justified, and I would not take someone's life. BUT, there is a fun mention in the lawbook on a situation where deadly force is not justified.
'Deadly force is NOT justified in the prevention of a suicide.'
That one cracks me up too
Basically, all Castle Doctrine did, was removed your duty to retreat, and duty to avoid violent confrontation. So, prior to Castle Doctrine, you could be charged with manslaughter, or murder, if they decide that you did not attempt avoid a confrontation with your attacker, or intruder. THIS has unfortunately been taken to mean that you can shoot first and ask questions later, BUT IT DOES NOT. All the criteria defining justification have not changed and if you shoot someone outside of this criteria, you have committed a criminal act, and will rightfully be held accountable to it.
Another 'Texans do this' myth, that is sadly more true than false, stems from a very unfortunate case of jumbled laws.
According to Texas state law, if you wound someone in an act of self defense, the attacker DOES have the legal right to file suit against you for injury. The suit will most likely get thrown out immediately, but it IS their right.
If you KILL someone in an act of self defense, the family of the attacker DOES NOT have the legal right to file suit against you for the death of their family member.
I personally hope that this law is changed, but as of my posting this, that is the status of the law in the State of Texas.
There are very specific circumstances with which you are considered justified under Texas State Law. It may be easier to establish justification in this state than in others, but you still need to have these circumstances:
Deadly Force is justified in the following circumstances:
In defense of one's self.
In defense of a third party.
In preventing an act of rape or sexual assault.
In defense of one's property.
In defense of a third party's property.
There is a listing of what is NOT justifiable cause for deadly force, but there are instances where I would be justified, and I would not take someone's life. BUT, there is a fun mention in the lawbook on a situation where deadly force is not justified.
'Deadly force is NOT justified in the prevention of a suicide.'
That one cracks me up too
Basically, all Castle Doctrine did, was removed your duty to retreat, and duty to avoid violent confrontation. So, prior to Castle Doctrine, you could be charged with manslaughter, or murder, if they decide that you did not attempt avoid a confrontation with your attacker, or intruder. THIS has unfortunately been taken to mean that you can shoot first and ask questions later, BUT IT DOES NOT. All the criteria defining justification have not changed and if you shoot someone outside of this criteria, you have committed a criminal act, and will rightfully be held accountable to it.
Another 'Texans do this' myth, that is sadly more true than false, stems from a very unfortunate case of jumbled laws.
According to Texas state law, if you wound someone in an act of self defense, the attacker DOES have the legal right to file suit against you for injury. The suit will most likely get thrown out immediately, but it IS their right.
If you KILL someone in an act of self defense, the family of the attacker DOES NOT have the legal right to file suit against you for the death of their family member.
I personally hope that this law is changed, but as of my posting this, that is the status of the law in the State of Texas.
K3
Member
Why?
You now put more of the burden back on the law abiding. Why should a person defending his home or life also have to be out thousands in attorney fees? Try and remember who started the situation in a home invasion/assault situation. A Texan is forced to bleed another man AND go poor all for minding his own business? Where's the justice in that?
Keep in mind that I am not talking about escalated confrontations. No need to trot out any strawmen.
kevin davis
Member
not to get into the pros and cons of the arguments here, but did no one look at the names of the three people involved? this is texas and there can still be a double standard where hispanics are concerned. especially since the shooter took off as he did. it is quite possible that if the shooters name was smith or jones, there would not have been any prosecution.
xjchief
Member
I'll never get the 10 minutes I wasted on reading this thread back.
csmkersh
Member
Kevin davis hit one of the two possible reasons the jury convicted Torres. The reasons are:
- Torres ran
- Tores is a "Mexican"
Anyway, this thread has wandered long enough and gotten far too heated, at least on my part. I ask the Jeff go ahead and close it down.
RX-178
Member
When I said 'changed', I meant that I would prefer that someone I /wound/ when I'm defending myself will no longer be able to sue me for injury either.
I don't enjoy the thought that Texas law is effectively encouraging me and other gun owners to finish people off just to avoid attorney fees.
I don't enjoy the thought that Texas law is effectively encouraging me and other gun owners to finish people off just to avoid attorney fees.
Thee seems to be a great deal of different understandings of the 'castle doctrine' as it is in Texas. I know this thread is probably done, but somehow I felt it necessary to post this:
S.B. No. 378 Known as Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground
AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used
[requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor
who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of
force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of
the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It
is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal
injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time
the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that
is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from
the defendant's [against a person who at the time of the] use of
force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of
unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues
on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued
before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in
effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in
effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
S.B. No. 378 Known as Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground
AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used
[requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor
who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of
force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of
the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It
is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal
injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time
the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that
is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from
the defendant's [against a person who at the time of the] use of
force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of
unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues
on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued
before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in
effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in
effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
K3
Member
Now THAT makes better sense to me.
divemedic
Member
The Castle Doctrine does not create a free fire zone within your home. Even though the case in this thread is a poor example, the point is valid. Simply forcing your way into someone's home is not a death sentence.
This is how an attorney explained it to me:
What the castle doctrine does is to allow a person who is in his home, or is the invitee in another's home, to assume that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters that home is there to commit a forcible felony. Note that unlawfully, assume, and forcibly are key words.
If the person who is claiming self defense knows that the person who is forcing his or her way into the house is not there to commit a felony, then the assumption allowed by the Castle Doctrine no longer applies.
If you commit an act to lure a person into your home, the assumption no longer applies. For example, you invite your boss over for dinner, and leave a note on the door for him to come on in. You cannot then shoot him and expect to be covered by the Castle Doctrine.
If you are committing a felony yourself, the assumption no longer applies. For example, you are in the middle of raping and killing a 3 year old girl, and a neighbor, drawn to the girl's screams, sees what is happening through your living room window, He breaks down your door to rescue her, and you shoot him. The castle doctrine does not apply.
This is how an attorney explained it to me:
What the castle doctrine does is to allow a person who is in his home, or is the invitee in another's home, to assume that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters that home is there to commit a forcible felony. Note that unlawfully, assume, and forcibly are key words.
If the person who is claiming self defense knows that the person who is forcing his or her way into the house is not there to commit a felony, then the assumption allowed by the Castle Doctrine no longer applies.
If you commit an act to lure a person into your home, the assumption no longer applies. For example, you invite your boss over for dinner, and leave a note on the door for him to come on in. You cannot then shoot him and expect to be covered by the Castle Doctrine.
If you are committing a felony yourself, the assumption no longer applies. For example, you are in the middle of raping and killing a 3 year old girl, and a neighbor, drawn to the girl's screams, sees what is happening through your living room window, He breaks down your door to rescue her, and you shoot him. The castle doctrine does not apply.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
The comment was made in Post #34 about folks talking past one another.
That makes for contentiousness.
Note that where "castle doctrine" laws were in the works, the Brady bunch yowled about "blood in the streets" and "license to kill". Note next that there have been some people at firearms websites who have done the Keyboard Kommando thing about, "Anybody shows up inside my house is dead, dead, dead, and that's my right!" Some of those live in Texas, or claim to.
In Texas (I'm not conversant with other states but other states are irrelevant to this thread) it has rarely been a problem for a resident in his home to be concerned about any duty to retreat. And that's based on some knowledge of actual events. The castle doctrine is "merely" a clarification, and could be seen as protection against an over-zealous prosecutor or a Grand Jury with people of an anti-gun bias.
Courtesy Owens, you can read the still-included "reasonably believes" in several places. Basically, the thrust of what Jeff was saying is that Torres needed to show the Grand Jury that the long-held "reasonable and prudent person" doctrine held in his actions.
The fact that there was a trial at all shows that Torres could not so persuade the Grand Jury.
I don't like to lock a thread in which I've been a participant, but I see no real point in carrying this one any further...
Art
That makes for contentiousness.
Note that where "castle doctrine" laws were in the works, the Brady bunch yowled about "blood in the streets" and "license to kill". Note next that there have been some people at firearms websites who have done the Keyboard Kommando thing about, "Anybody shows up inside my house is dead, dead, dead, and that's my right!" Some of those live in Texas, or claim to.
In Texas (I'm not conversant with other states but other states are irrelevant to this thread) it has rarely been a problem for a resident in his home to be concerned about any duty to retreat. And that's based on some knowledge of actual events. The castle doctrine is "merely" a clarification, and could be seen as protection against an over-zealous prosecutor or a Grand Jury with people of an anti-gun bias.
Courtesy Owens, you can read the still-included "reasonably believes" in several places. Basically, the thrust of what Jeff was saying is that Torres needed to show the Grand Jury that the long-held "reasonable and prudent person" doctrine held in his actions.
The fact that there was a trial at all shows that Torres could not so persuade the Grand Jury.
I don't like to lock a thread in which I've been a participant, but I see no real point in carrying this one any further...
Art
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Art, you've addressed directly what I tried to suggest with the story (true) about my conversation with that lawyer. Decent people don't like to countenance the lives of other people being ended without justification.
It always troubles me to see or hear anyone talk lightly about ending another person's life and looking for legal cover to do it. And I'm troubled more each time I see or hear it. I'm not talking about self-defense, but it doesn't seem that they are either.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
One important thing to keep in mind also is that running your mouth on an Internet forum and actually pulling the trigger are 2 different things.
Yes I'm somewhat concerned over our "reputation" but the fact is that the anti's don't care and they hate us regardless.
It troubles me too but for the most part it's just idle mouth running.
Very true. However, we try to hold to a higher standard on this board. Those who crow with great macho enthusiasm about how they'd shoot because this is Texas by gawd and they CAN, make us look like a bunch of bloodthirsty idiots. (Both the "us" involved in THR and the "us" in Texas, too.)
There is a sticky on the S&T forum about "bloodlust". IMHO, and it's worth what you paid for it, that prohibition on "bloodlust" ought to cover every single subforum on this site. Those Keyboard Kommandos are guilty of it and the practice should get the offending post yanked and the poster a warning. You want to stop this kind of nonsense, then prohibit it and enforce it.
And while I'm on a roll here, let me say that banning "state bashing" wouldn't be a bad thing either. I can't imagine that Jeff has a great time reading about how Illinois is home to communist pinko antigun Marxist whatevers every time he logs on. Nor those who live in California, Wisconsin, New Jersey, or any other state that's not Texas (and there ARE 49 others, despite our occasional overlooking of that fact). It is bloody POINTLESS to smack on a particular state, and it just raises the ire of our members who LIVE in that state. They already KNOW the problems in their state's gun laws. They don't need us to tell them for the four millionth time.
/high horse
Springmom
The castle doctrine is not necessarily the most permissive criteria on the books like it is in some states.
In Texas they have other statutes as well.
"Criminal mischief at night" for example that can justify lethal force even over misdemeanor property crimes outside the home in some cases.
Texas is also the only state that allows the use of deadly force in defense of property, and not just property owned by the person or household, but the property of others such as neighbors etc.
Now I agree some individuals seem a little too ready to use deadly force in thier talk. Deadly force is a serious issue, and should not be used lightly for moral reasons as well as potential consequences. Since the moral and legal issues are covered frequently let me focus on some others for a change:
You know many relationships suffer after deadly force is used in a home? There is many often unmentioned conqequences to the use of force. If you kill someone in your home and they die lying in a pool of blood, it is very likely either your wife or kids (and maybe you?) will never feel comfortable in that room and possibly that home again. Essentialy removing the comfort the home is supposed to provide.
It is also common for the emotional stress to effect one or both individuals and can be a major factor is causing a break up or divorce.
Saving your family with deadly force can in fact cause the break up of your family. It should be a last resort for a number of reasons.
Those statistics cited by Jeff White must be taken in context. Most of the text is spent covering the least likely scenarios, and as such makes them appear more likely.
The largest numbers by far are:
"acquaintance" and "stranger" with an even larger "unknown" in those who commited the act, far dwarfing the others. All the family and relationship ones combined are less than the "acquaintance" number.
That means someone casualy known is the most likely to murder. Big surprise?
The number where the relationship is "unknown" is a greater number than all the others combined. Well if they were related you can be sure it would be known. So that really just adds the majority of the "unknowns" to the number of non family members.
So essentialy a person is most likely to die by someone they just barely know or sorta know, or come into contact with on occasion.
However in reality someone choosing to date a disturbed individual or join in a love triangle filled with heavy emotions, or to hang around in bad areas or with bad people is in more danger from someone they know well.
So once again the statistics really don't tell the story of personal choices being involved. So it is not as simple as "X poses the greatest danger to the average person" as the statistics mislead you to believe. Some of the lower numbers are in fact more likely in some situations.
The same goes for the "reason" section. The number of "unknowns" and "other not specified" combined with "in argument" (big surprise, people had hostile words before a murder?) is 11,003 yet all others combined are only 1,375, or about 12.5%. So essentialy only 12.5% of the statistics are even saying anything. Yet we know that in real life certain lifestyles and certain places as well as certain occupations increase the risk of being murdered several fold. The total gang number for example might seem lower, but the percentage of gang members is much higher.
The statistics are just about deaths, mainly homicides, and don't account for the majority of incidients where the individual lives, or the millions of self defense situations a year that nobody is even injured. They only account for the deaths.
They also don't account for the fact that many are in chosen lifestyles that are far more dangerous than the norm. Drug dealers, prostitutes, drug addicts, as well as those who frequent shadey establishments known for violence (certain bars and night clubs) etc are all far more likely to be murdered or to murder eachother than what the average person faces. Nor does it take into account those who choose relationship situations with extra drama.
So really the only things those statistics say is most of those killed are barely known or unknown to eachother (with more known), and primarily over arguments and unknown reasons. Essentialy telling you NOTHING! Ironicly the family statistics which make up most of the text also altogether total a much lower percentage, and therefore are misleading because they are what most notice and focus on.
Almost none of them include a lifestyle choice which is really the more telling statistic. The gang killings really are the only statistic there which does, but in reality many of the others are the result of lifestyle choices as well.
Last edited:
From above:
Only? I don't know for sure and am not even going to guess, but, I know from what I have been told that it may be permissible, but it may not be JUSTIFIED.
Example: (presuming permissible =justified)
Someone TP'ing the trees in your front yard around midnight. You may feel justified, but will a jury agree? probably not.
Yes, lethal action is justified at times, but it will always carry consequences, justified or not.
Just my .02
Only? I don't know for sure and am not even going to guess, but, I know from what I have been told that it may be permissible, but it may not be JUSTIFIED.
Example: (presuming permissible =justified)
Someone TP'ing the trees in your front yard around midnight. You may feel justified, but will a jury agree? probably not.
Yes, lethal action is justified at times, but it will always carry consequences, justified or not.
Just my .02
rjohnson4405
Member
MakAttack:
Haha, very nice. Statistically speaking in this case you are correct.
Haha, very nice. Statistically speaking in this case you are correct.
Zoogster,
rjohnson got it right.
I am aware of the problems with the statistics, I was making a joke about how the statistics perhaps weren't the best way to formulate how to expect a violent confrontation.
I mean, come on, you didn't see the humor in me telling people to be the sister of a maniac?
rjohnson got it right.
I am aware of the problems with the statistics, I was making a joke about how the statistics perhaps weren't the best way to formulate how to expect a violent confrontation.
I mean, come on, you didn't see the humor in me telling people to be the sister of a maniac?
It's somewhat hard to believe there's even an argument about this. If I truly believe at the moment I pull the trigger that my life or the life of another is in danger then the legal ramifications of the shooting are secondary to the purpose of the shooting. If I don't believe I am (or another person is) truly being threatened, I won't pull the trigger. Using good judgement within that moment is the key thing.
- Status