Morons like this is why "we can't have anything nice".COLUMBIA, Mo. – A Missouri man told police he

[Double Naught Spy]

It seems like there is a new case like this every few months. I will never understand why people think its "standing your ground" to chase someone down and shoot at them.

Sort like a lot of people don't understand that "self defense" can involve "defense of others."

They know a little about the law, but don't actually understand the law.

 

[JohnKSa]

That's what you have to do here or Frank will nit pick it to death...

[sarcasm]Which is highly undesirable because it would be better to be "nitpicked" into prison because you didn't understand the law and committed a violent felony as a result.[/sarcasm]

I suppose that some folks come here to stroke their egos by trying to prove how much they know to anonymous people on the internet, but a lot of people come here to acquire valuable information. For those who fit into the former category, complaints about people being precise when making statements about the law would make sense. Those who fit into the latter category should be grateful that there are people who are concerned with getting the details right. Because details matter.

It's far better to learn how the law works by reading about it than it is to find out in court.

To learn, one must admit to one's self that they are not all-knowing, and one must also be ok with being wrong sometimes. Those who don't accept those conditions can still learn, but not the easy way. Learning from experience is hard because you don't learn what you need to know until after you've already failed the test.

 

[Johnm1]

You beat me to it Tom. I was living in Texas when the littering slogan was created. I thought it was then, and still is, ingenious. For a littering campaign.

 

[CapnMac]

The "theft in the nighttime" language is in the current Texas Penal Code

And, thus we see how easy it is to tall ingot Tikkon's trap of relying upon former knowledge to inform present opinion.

I had already decided that, no matter the language, no property was worth deadly force even back as a Business owner and when the Business Code applied to inventory. So, I had little reason to follow changes in the Penal Code on property. Which is an error on my part. All of the conglomerated Codes of Texas (and our Nation) are my business, and I ought to take time to at least examine them.

 

[susieqz]

why do you guys fault the guy for shooting a running thief?
better to fault the law that makes it illegal.
yeah, i think i should be able to protect my property with lethal force.
i won't but only because it's illegal.
my right to shoot vermin is being infringed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

why do you guys fault the guy for shooting a running thief?
better to fault the law that makes it illegal.
yeah, i think i should be able to protect my property with lethal force.....

Too bad. You can try to use the political process to change the law, but I seriously doubt you'll ever get what you want.

The thing is that as a core value of our culture we frown on intentionally threatening or inflicting violence on another human. Doing so is, prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another in this country, and indeed in the Western World. So doing so will be excused only in extreme cases. It's been that way for hundreds of years, at least.

The "take home" message for the private citizen is, essentially, that the justification for his act of violence against another human will not be taken for granted or assumed. The reality is that no one is a "certified good guy" whose action are automatically above reproach or beyond question. So even generally honest, ordinary folks like Jerome Ersland and Markus Kaarma will wind up in prison when they resort to violence a jury finds not to be justified under the circumstances

 

[JohnKSa]

why do you guys fault the guy for shooting a running thief?
better to fault the law that makes it illegal.
yeah, i think i should be able to protect my property with lethal force.
i won't but only because it's illegal.

It's one thing to understand an action is illegal while disagreeing with the law that makes it illegal.

It's another to believe an action is legal when it is not

It's yet another thing to tell other people an action is legal when it is not.

 

[susieqz]

you know, i think any normal adult understands what stand your ground means.
i don't think you need to be a gun person to understand you can't shoot a fleeing misdemement.
i bet this guy was just looking for an out.

 

[JohnKSa]

...i think any normal adult understands what stand your ground means.

I've had to explain it to a number of them who otherwise appear to be perfectly normal. The media has spouted a lot of nonsense about SYG and there are a lot of people who believe what the media tells them.

 

[Decoy80]

I dont live in Texas but death row moves along faster it seems than in other states. Firing a bullet in defense of yourself or another person is hopefully a remote possibility for anyone who carries. The State you happen to be in and Civil liability are sure going to be factors without criminal charges being filed. Life itself is the only thing that will be worth the trouble. You will need Legal Representation

 

[Kleanbore]

why do you guys fault the guy for shooting a running thief?
better to fault the law that makes it illegal.

Specifically regarding the use of force by private citizens, each state and territory has its own laws, statutory and/or common. In the State of Missouri. there are provisions under which the necessary use of deadly force to prevent certain crimes would be justified, or excused. Running away after doing something unlawful does not fall into that category. And while citizens may act to prevent imminent crimes, they may not act to punish criminals. In Missouri, the use of force to protect force is lawful--provided that it does not rise to the level of deadly force. In the case at hand, the accused in this case surely did not really believe that the fact that he was not obliged to retreat would justify his shooting of someone running away. That character is just lucky that he did not end up depriving anyone of his life.

 

[Kleanbore]

yeah, i think i should be able to protect my property with lethal force.
i won't but only because it's illegal.

Let's examine that for a moment. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that there were provisions in the law that would permit the lawful use of deadly force when immediately necessary to protect property.

Let's assume that a citizen were to fire at a fleeing thief immediately after the commission of theft.

Now, remember what Frank Ettin pointed out: "... the justification for his act of violence against another human will not be taken for granted or assumed. The reality is that no one is a "certified good guy" whose actions are automatically above reproach or beyond question".

The shooting would be investigated. The citizen would have to provide some evidence that the item wit which the victim (and that is how the person who has been shot would be described in the police report) did in fact steal the property, and did not borrow it with permission or take it under tthe terms of some kind of agreement to pay later. Further, the citizen would have to provide some evidence that the use of deadly force had actually been necessary at the time--as a last resort.

The citizen may be able to prevail, absent contradictory evidence such as the testimony of eyewitnesses who most certainly did not see the entire encounter from beginning to end--or not.

To do so, and there would be no guarantee, the citizen would have to engage a legal representative at the outset, and to incur the costs of legal representation from that point until the case is resolved--potentially, months. "Resolved" means that any civil litigation has been dealt with, and remember that the burden of proof for the plaintiff in the civil case is a whole lot lower than it is for the state in a criminal prosecution.

The expenses would not be inconsequential. What would the value of the property in question have to be if success in the casework a foregone conclusion to make the use of deadly force a sound decision? How much, if the risk of criminal conviction or civil liability is taken into account?

No, I wouldn't shoot to protect property, even if it were legal.

And someone who did would be in far better stead if he or she had not posted in a public forum that he or she would do so.

 

[Snyper]

Exactly where did I say it couldn't be done?

Every time you keep repeating he was wrong when he said it could be done.

It can be done, therefore he wasn't "wrong" simply because he didn't spell out every last detail.

I don't expect you to admit that's what you're doing though, because it's just what you always do.

I also know if anyone else talked to others the way you do they'd be getting infractions.

 

[Theohazard]

Exactly where did I say it couldn't be done?

Every time you keep repeating he was wrong when he said it could be done.

It can be done, therefore he wasn't "wrong" simply because he didn't spell out every last detail.

C'mon, man. Have a little bit of intellectual integrity here. The guy was wrong. Multiple times he said that in Texas you can shoot someone simply for stealing something of yours. Well, in the vast majority of cases that's simply not true.

Frank never once said that it was always not true. He simply took issue with the broad statement that claimed you can shoot someone in Texas for taking your stuff. Because that's not always the case, not by a long shot. And that makes it an ignorant and irresponsible thing to say.

I don't expect you to admit that's what you're doing though, because it's just what you always do.

I also know if anyone else talked to others the way you do they'd be getting infractions.

We get it, Frank's acerbic style offends you. Apparently it offends you enough that you're willing to ignore what he's actually trying to say and instead you focus on how upset you are.

I agree that Frank could be more tactful at times, but that doesn't change the content of what he's actually saying. You should try to learn to tell the difference.

And after that you might end up learning something from his posts. I know I have.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....It can be done, therefore he wasn't "wrong" simply because he didn't spell out every last detail.....

Yes he was wrong. In the law details matter.

"In Texas you can use lethal force to recover stolen property" is not a true statement. A true statement would be, "In Texas under some circumstances you can use lethal force to recover stolen property (see Texas Penal Code 9.42)."

Those two sentences do not mean the same thing. The first sentence is not true. The second sentence is true while still leaving out the details of when one may lawfully use lethal force to recover stolen property. So even though it is incomplete insofar as it doesn't set out the circumstance under which one may use lethal force to recover stolen property, it at least puts one on notice that he really needs more information.

 

[Sam1911]

I don't think that point can be emphasized ENOUGH.

In casual conversation you can say things are one way and have that statement be "true enough" for between friends, off-the-cuff, inconsequential discussions.

When we discuss, debate, and explain matters of the any law, especially the ones governing use of force and firearms (which is precisely one of our core purposes at THR), you can say something that is so incomplete and sloppy that it is false in application and in all practicality.

The facts of the law in Texas, which cause us so much seemingly endless trouble, are NOT truly stated by saying, "...you can use lethal force to recover stolen property." Because anyone reading that would be grossly mislead, and while we repeat over and over that one should never assume that anything written at THR is legal counsel, if someone was to act on that statement, it would be a frightful shame and we don't want our members (or the visitors who browse these pages) to ever be lead astray by such a thing.

 

[Ed Ames]

[sarcasm]Which is highly undesirable because it would be better to be "nitpicked" into prison because you didn't understand the law and committed a violent felony as a result.[/sarcasm]

I suppose that some folks ....

The problem is that Frank has the role of a moderator, but behaves as an anti-moderator. The way he communicates is not a moderating influence.

For example in this case he could have simply posted something like, "There are additional factors such as whether the theft occurs at night and the uniqueness of the item taken." Nobody would take exception to that, and the information would be conveyed. Instead he opened with this: "I guess that you don't actually know anything about Texas law, because that is not accurate." It is agressively unfriendly, and crafted to put someone down instead of helping them understand. It is the sort of thing you say if you absolutely don't care about getting your idea across and just want to fan an argument.

This isn't an isolated incident. Frank is has been attacking people around here for things he considers errors for years. In a regular member you could write it off as poor social skills and move on, but when that behavior comes from a moderator it raises questions about the management of the entire forum.

And yes, I know Frank has his clique of supporters. So do your stereotypical school-yard bullies. That doesn't mean you want a bully to be a moderator.

 

[Kleanbore]

Ed, if you would like to whine about the staff, consider doing so via PM, but first consider what you are saying. I personally consider it much more important to communicate on some issues very clearly, succinctly, and without any possibility of misunderstanding or of missing the point. Among those issues are use of force law, weapons law, import regulations, ammunition substitution, and reloading questions.

Yes, it would be a little more smooth to say "there are additional factors such as", but on some things it is important to not take the risk of the reader's potential failure to fully comprehend. Will the reader stop reading after "factors"? In the internet age, it is said that some people's attention span is less than that of a goldfish.

The Texas law at hand here is probably the most poorly understood subject that comes up, and the fact that it comes up repeatedly would indicate that some of the people who frequent our board just do not pay enough attention to understand the extremely important details of the law.

We have found that when the old "don't mess with Texas" mantra is glibly thrown in, yes, a reasoned explanation of the provisions of the law is, while unquestionably valuable, is simply not always effective in getting the immediate attention of the poster.

It seems that "getting your idea across" sometimes requires great economy of words, and yes, bluntness. And if the poster is really only trying to express an ignorant opinion it may well be best to point that out up front. There's just too much at stake.

I would much rather have my feelings hurt than not receive timely or understand clearly a message about something of critical importance.

 

[djont57]

Back to morons...this time in MN.
http://www.startribune.com/minn-hom...-dead-one-wounded-in-home-invasion/412148143/

 

[Ed Ames]

LOL, "whine about the staff"... Yeah, that's a high road way to respond.

So here's the reality: you are justifying the behavior because you say there is an urgent need to convince people right away with minimum discussion that they are wrong, but being agressive and blunt doesn't actually do that. The thread here is a great demonstration. Frank didn't convince the no littering guy, and he didn't convince the silent bystanders. He affirmed the views of the people that already knew what he was going to say, and he gave a little thrill of vicarious meanness for the people who like watching others get put down, but he didn't convince the people you now say he was posting to help.

I don't have a problem with someone being as inflammatory and brash as they want to be. But if the goal is to spread knowledge in a forum like this, use the best tools. This isn't a gunfight with bullets flying around and a need to bark out orders right this second, and most people aren't going to respond well to treating it that way.

Beyond that, there is a huge difference between me being abrasive as a regular user, and moderators attacking people. Which is exactly what is happening.

 

[Sam1911]

THR is just one little corner of the world, but if we can say these things FORCEFULLY ENOUGH, maybe somebody who read something here will resist the urge to do something that life-endingly wrong.

 

[Ed Ames]

What is force, in a voluntary association such as a forum?

I think persuasion is a more meaningful measure of force, and I think leading with "you don't know anything" is not very good persuasion technique. It is actually classically bad persuasion technique and an almost textbook example of how to get your audience to close up and go defensive, rejecting your ideas en mass. As such, I don't think you can legitimately claim that it is being done to state things "forcefully enough". The forceful way, in this context, is to persuade, which generally means not leading with an attack.

Using a more moderate approach would be more forceful.

 

[TomJ]

Taking the issue of whether you can legally chase someone who stole an I Phone and shoot them aside (you can't for the reasons discussed), is there anyone on this forum who believes it's acceptable to shoot and kill a person over a stolen I Phone?

 

[Ed Ames]

...is there anyone on this forum who believes it's acceptable to shoot and kill a person over a stolen I Phone?

I would like to think not. One of the reasons I started posting here was the old S&T "Bloodlust" sticky written by Jeff White. Unfortunately, it can be impossible to know until the situation allows someone to show their true colors. "Cometh the hour..." cuts both ways.

 

[Kleanbore]

What is force, in a voluntary association such as a forum?

I think persuasion is a more meaningful measure of force, and I think leading with "you don't know anything" is not very good persuasion technique. It is actually classically bad persuasion technique and an almost textbook example of how to get your audience to close up and go defensive, rejecting your ideas en mass. As such, I don't think you can legitimately claim that it is being done to state things "forcefully enough". The forceful way, in this context, is to persuade, which generally means not leading with an attack.

Using a more moderate approach would be more forceful.

All very true, but it would depend entirely upon the willingness to listen, and the willingness to learn, of the person who is to be persuaded.

The poster here did not start a thoughtful discussion containing a specific misinterpretation or an error of detail. Such an input could be addressed with "ideas", or more accurately, with rational explanation. No, this one, which came from someone who has been with us here for a year but who has not posted frequently, was simply a glib and terribly incorrect, and oft repeated, general assertion on a subject that has the potential to lead to loss of life, prosecution and imprisonment, and/or very serious civil liability. Should the poster wish learn about the whats and whys, we can help with that, but step one is to stop him or her now, before he or she goes to another URL, from erroneously believing something that could lead to terrible consequences. There is also the issue of the risk that another reader ,skimming the discussion but not really interested in the subject at hand at present, may remember the "sound bite" and assume it is correct without wanting to read further. I'm sure that such a person would greatly appreciate having been corrected effectively with brevity and yes, even with bluntness. I certainly would.

We have had discussions on the Texas law in question go on for pages. Not everyone who needs to know the answer (and all Texans do need to know it) will read more than a few words.

Want to know how fore-end screw adjustment, glass bedding, barrel temperature, or variations in bullet weight can affect accuracy or point of impact in the shooting of a rifle? By all means, go into detail. But if one were to express an intention to use smokeless powder in a gun with damascus barrels, DON"T start responding with a discussion of pressure curves. And when someone makes a really serious error regarding use of force laws, there is nothing at all wrong with saying that that someone does not understand the subject--as long as there are no personal attacks on the person's intelligence or education, etc.