Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,525
They can if they "believe" a cellphone, wallet, or whatever else is a gun.
Man fires at juveniles breaking into cars, gets 1st Degree Murder Charge for his trouble
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
General Geoff
Member
Which is why I said threat of deadly force, not use of it.
Police, particularly American police, are notorious for threatening deadly force to obtain compliance.
Different subject entirely. The subject was that of holding a suspect at gunpoint.
Self defense is not the same thing. And "believe" may not cut it--there must be a reason for such a belief (the definition of a reasonable belief).
It may not be difficult to convince the triers of fact that there was a sound basis for such a belief, but those quotation marks are inappopritiate.
An empty threat, if force may not be used, and criminals know that.
We are speaking of lawful acts.
Too much screen fiction here.
General Geoff
Member
We may be having two different conversations here.
I have been commenting on why people threaten others with deadly force, not when one would legally be justified in doing so. Not condoning, just answering a previous question.
Jim Watson
Member
Early days of what we now call DEI, a police department near here had a cadette who thought she was justified in shooting someone who would not show identification. I trust and hope she got remedial instruction before being let out in public.
You were addressing law enforcement. Things have changed considerably. Officers face unreasonable scrutiny when they touch someone, not to mention draw a weapon. They are extremely reluctant to threaten anyone. What once was is not what is.
Using lethal force on fleeing persons who were not a threat is going to have a difficult time fitting under the self defense bar.
Using lethal force solely in defense of property is going to fail to fit under the self defense bar.
Exiting your home ...
Jim Watson
Member
Victim yells "Stop, thief."
Thief shoots at victim.
Victim shoots thief.
Who's at fault?
My Dad said that once upon a time, nighttime burglary of an occupied dwelling was a capital crime.
In my younger days, it was common for a proprietor to stake out his business at night to personally defeat intruders.
We don't do that any more.
Thief shoots at victim.
Victim shoots thief.
Who's at fault?
My Dad said that once upon a time, nighttime burglary of an occupied dwelling was a capital crime.
In my younger days, it was common for a proprietor to stake out his business at night to personally defeat intruders.
We don't do that any more.
General Geoff
Member
I'm glad things have changed for you, but here in Allentown the police still routinely brutalize suspects even after they are cuffed and on the ground.
fastbolt
Member
Well, the deliberate, willful use of deadly force against someone who isn't presenting an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to you, but is apparently only approaching your personal property (or the personal property of others on the street?), meaning outside of your residence? 
The reported previous incidents where the suspect (shooter) also used deadly force in an inappropriate manner, but had been lucky to not have wounded or killed anyone? Hmmm.
Considering how we've sadly seen how even some peace officers who have received training in the reasonable and appropriate use of deadly force have made grievous mistakes of judgment in the use of deadly force, it's not hard to imagine how someone who has only received the lesser training required for being a security guard might make serious mistakes of judgment in simple situations. Damn. Sigh.
The reported previous incidents where the suspect (shooter) also used deadly force in an inappropriate manner, but had been lucky to not have wounded or killed anyone? Hmmm.
Considering how we've sadly seen how even some peace officers who have received training in the reasonable and appropriate use of deadly force have made grievous mistakes of judgment in the use of deadly force, it's not hard to imagine how someone who has only received the lesser training required for being a security guard might make serious mistakes of judgment in simple situations. Damn. Sigh.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
Old item from Playboy.
Bleeding Heart: "Do you think your stereo is worth somebody's life?"
Hardnose: "The SOB should make up his mind about that before he breaks in my house."
Things are different now.
Bleeding Heart: "Do you think your stereo is worth somebody's life?"
Hardnose: "The SOB should make up his mind about that before he breaks in my house."
Things are different now.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 25,481
Not in Texas.
www.nbcnews.com
Texas man tracks down alleged truck thief and holds him at gunpoint before fatally shooting him
“The bad guy is the one dead, yes,” San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said. “Look, he was trying to recover his property."
www.nbcnews.com
Jim Watson
Member
M Ayoob once wrote of the guy who jumped in his second car and chased down the thief driving his first car.
He caught up with him about the same time the police did.
The cop said: "You caught him, you clean him."
Things are different now.
He caught up with him about the same time the police did.
The cop said: "You caught him, you clean him."
Things are different now.
Texas is the only US jurisdiction in which it is lawful to use deadly force to protect moveable, tangeabel property.
However, had this incident occurred in Texas, the shooting would not have been justified. The defender had not been specifically requested by the actual owners of the cars down the street to protect them for him.
If I Ilived in Texas, I wouldn't even consider using deadly force to protect property. There are too many if-thens in the law; I would be judged by people who ere not there, and the consequences could be extremely severe; and I've never liked settling with attorneys over billable hours.
The evidence "as reported" presents an incident in which end-intent(s), decisions, actions and reactions occurred/changed within seconds.
And as a "Layperson" on a jury , I decide guilt or innocence as charged -- not the lawyers, not even the judge.
I admit the judge might attempt a directed verdict, but then again as a "Layperson" on a jury, I'd regard that as a usurpation...
-- and rather negatively so -- if I vehemently disagreed w/ it. ... and I still have the last word... even then.
While I'm not a lawyer (and as the saying goes, certainly not your lawyer
), I have nevertheless spent innumerable undergraduatehours in tort law, criminal law and international law due to my highly-probable time anticipated (and borne out) in courts martial.
One thing I (and juries as I increasingly found out) despised was either (or both) the prosecution and/or ADCs playing words games.
In closing I would then reiterate that is is the jury's prerogative (and duty) under the Law to determine guilt.
And if that "layperson" jury perceives that Law being twisted apart from its intent or clear meaning, that jury will find it out.
Remember boys & girls, I did say that -- with the facts as presented so far -- the guy is guilty of 2nd degree.
He ain't gettin' off.
Yeah, that's the way violent incidents unfold.
On the basis of the evidence and the law as explained to you by the judge, I hope.
Based upon the totality of the evidence, and within the law.
Based on the media report, there is no basis for an acquittal. The killing was deliberate and willful. It did not involve self defense. The man went outside and willfully advanced toward the suspects. The cars involved were down the street and did not belong to the shooter, thus negating a possible heat-of-the-moment defense.
I can’t offhand pinpoint when things changed, if they even really did change; but that lethal force may not be used to protect property is addressed in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (published in installments from 1765 to 1769).
I’ll see if I can find the exact language, but I won’t be able to get to it for a few days.
If one want an analysis of when to use lethal force, including the property debate that goes back 100s of years:
Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice) 1st Edition
by Fiona Leverick (Author)
Sorry I missed the rest of the discussion. I would argue that this strategy of deterrence is ineffective. It requires someone - property owner or guard - to wait for the bad behavior to begin and only then interrupt it. Things like motion activated lights and loud car alarms are more likely to discourage the bad behavior. Effective deterrence creates a situation where the potential gain - something for nothing, dozens of dollars in used car parts, or hundreds of dollars in phones or guns left in vehicles - is far outweighed by the difficulty or effort of the action. There need to be additional barriers that are obvious in order for the potential offender to skip this target and move on to another.
On the other hand, in a more hypothetical and less legally constrained world, there are stories of ancient thieves being deterred by the remains of their predecessors being mounted on spikes or hung in a cage near the property. A gruesome statement that may have had a cooling effect on crime within sight.It seems to me, that if you aren't ready to use lethal force on each of the offenders immediately and effectively then a firearm is the wrong tool. Lethal force stops bad behavior. I think this guy may have had a more defensible legal position if he had shot the kids ON PURPOSE in order to halt the danger to himself and others instead of using a reckless "warning shot" to discourage the robbery.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 25,481
Yes, God bless Texas.
I didn't see that information in the article but its got pay stuff up now.
I wouldn't consider it for a lot of the property I own but if someone, is pouring gasoline on my house and has a road flair in the other hand, we might be in trouble.
There is -- were I on the jury AND based on what has been reported to date -- basis for acquittal of 1st degree murder.
The prosecutor AND the judge can claim/direct all they want... But I as the juror have the final say as to application of the Law, and the degree of pre-meditation as I see it ... to the accused crime.
That why we have jury trials.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
