Anti Gun Rights Lawmaker Shoots thief - Page 3

**Sirusblk** · 07-15-2007, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judge_Leo

Hypocrite: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.

Glance again and you will see that the Texas castle doctrine bill also provides civil immunity to those that use deadly force to protect themselves. When I spoke of him using the law as his defense he will not only be exonerated of criminal charges he will be immune from a civil suit by the man who was shot.

There are just two components to the law that he voted against, the right to stand your ground and defend yourself with deadly force if the situation escalates to extreme violence and civil immunity if forced to do so.

In voting against the bill rep. Miles either felt that his constituents shouldn't have one or both of those rights under the law. Now he claims that it was his right to shoot the man and he will get civil immunity after having done so.

Ok I'm just gonna sugest this but maybe he was against use of deadly force. He didn't kill the man he shot if I remember correctly, I believe he shot him in the leg. Am I correct? :/

**TheFeniX** · 07-16-2007, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Nope, but in this particular case we are talking about guns and his use of a gun in his self defense. Since we are talking about guns and the use of guns in self defense it only made sense to me to talk about guns in self defense. Now if he jumped down the stairs and gave him the vulcan death grip then we'd be talking about something completely different. But heck, the title of this thread is "Anti Gun Rights Lawmaker Shoots Thief" so I assumed we would be limiting ourselves to his use of guns.

The use of deadly force and firearms can be related, but they are two separate issues. If you say using a firearm is unacceptable, then you are saying all forms of deadly force are unacceptable in self-defense situations.

By a legal definition, hitting someone in the head with elbows is the same thing as shooting them. They're both uses of deadly force.

Quote:

Good enough?

No, because defending yourself and/or your property is not "law enforcement."

Quote:

For the sake of being arguementative I'll say Batman doesn't use firearms or deadly force. His whole thing was to scare the crap out of criminals. The "scare them straight" approach as it were. But point taken. I do believe I mentioned that the only information provided so far about the bill in question was that 1 link in the thread. As such my information was based on that 1 link and the information contained therein because my access to the internet is somewhat...restricted at the moment.

I can relate, but 90% of the "anti self-defense" or "anti-firearm" arguments are all based around people who do not understand the laws or have major misconceptions about them.

Quote:

Yes it is considered deadly force and a threatening action I think I covered that as well, so glad you agree with me that such an action was the justification he took for drawing his gun. I just found it amusing that the suspect threw a pocket knife and not a throwing knife or a dagger (or the article clipping misnamed the weapon thrown).

Seriously, who carries throwing knives? They were probably using the knife to cut the wire (or something else) and he just threw it out of desperation.

Here's the problem: if he had throw that knife at a cop, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Quote:

The former, in most cases, tend to be rather unbalanced and unsuitable for throwing to my experience while the later are deadly in skilled hands. If you've ever tried to throw a knife without practice you will notice it tends to wobble in the air quite a bit and be inaccurate. Its actually even odds of getting hit with the blade or the hilt or if the blade will twist and you'll just get smacked with the flat. Of course since the suspect is unnamed and no information is provided we don't know if he was someone who you'd half expect to wave the blade around and almost cut himself in the process or kill people through force of will and a pair of paperclips.

The point is moot because a reasonable person would assume the knife was thrown with the intent to kill or cause bodily harm. It's the same line of reasoning why even mentioning you have a weapon (even if you don't) during a robbery, automatically upgrades it to "armed robbery."

Quote:

On a related note someone did come at me with a pocket knife before. Twice actually. I laughed both times. The first time he almost cut his fingers off when the blade started to close and the second I just hit him with the butt of my decommisioned M1A1 rifle. Good times in highschool NJROTC drill.

Anecdotes aside, neither of those situations involve a thrown knife.

And if you want to use anecdotes: I threw my tactical folding knife at a wall 10 feet away once and sunk it all the way to the hilt into the sheetrock. Does this make me a master-knife thrower? No. Does this mean I can do it all the time? No. Could I even do it 10% of the time? Maybe.

But I'm still not going to take those odds when it's being thrown at me.

Quote:

The wonderful thing about the world we live in is that things are not always black and white, but can be considered various shades of grey...and three dimensional. What if, lets suppose, he was sneaky about it. Now, if you wanted to do Recon in real life would you sneak down a hall then open the door on the opfor and yell "Who's there?" Do we catch terrorists by standing on street corners and yelling "Would all terrorists please give themselves up to the nearest police officer. Thank you". What has this got to do with your statement?

The world isn't black and white: we agree. This is why I advocate law abiding citizens having more options. So when they gray areas do come up, they have more leeway than the criminal. Old self-defense laws had many areas set in stone. The more options I have, the better off I am.

All the gun control lobbies fears about expanding self-defense laws didn't come true. There were no massive spikes in vigilantism. Concealed handgun carries are not starting fire-fights in the streets. In fact, everything just kept rolling along like it always did. Except now criminals have to worry about more than just cops.

Quote:

Well the series of events as put forward by the article was:

Rep came down stairs
Rep spotted 2 suspicious characters
Rep yelled at 2 suspicious characters
Suspect drew pocket knife and threw at Rep
Rep drew gun
Rep fired gun at suspect

Now if between numbers 2 and 3 he stopped and did the whole 'retreating' bit then there would've been no knife thrown and no gun fired.

Who knows what was going through his head. At the time, he might have thought it was two punk kids that would run at the first sight of him.

Quote:

Instead he probably would've gotten to the room upstairs (where he was before without being noticed) and able to inform the authorities. This isn't a simple equation of "If you see them, then they see you" but it is totally possible for the Rep to see them without being seen and thus able to get away without incident. He could also, you know, 'back away' which would not involve turning around and running. Especially since I find the 'turn and run' approach to be rather noisy at best and a bad idea when you want to avoid notice.

I'd still rather him have the option to retreat rather than being forced to.

Quote:

Refer to above list. The act of the Rep yelling at the 2 suspicious characters brought attention on him and forced a conflict. Since he was upstairs when they attempted the robbery, and thus we assume unnoticed by the robbers, then there was no conflict in the actual robbery. They also did not threaten him, unless he's leaving that part out of the statement and skipped straight to the 'they threw a pocket knife at me'. Then again, that's entirely possible for him to gloss on facts like an actual verbalized threat.

It sounds like him telling them to leave provoked the incident. Like I said, when I see someone milling around my front yard, my first instinct is to find out why they're there, not sneak back inside and call the police.

Quote:

Yes, its called being an arm-chair general. We can talk about the actions of others and either condemn or commend them, but we cannot experience it for ourselves. That being said, yes, it does swing both ways. For as many people who say "he could've" there are those that say "he shouldn't've" and it still doesn't change the "he did". Its equally possible for people to read into his motives and put reasons on actions that may have never crossed his mind. The world will never know...unless he writes a book or something.

I will generally put more faith into the man who wasn't committing a felony that night.

Quote:

True. However I'm also an idealist and I feel that more thought should go into the act of protecting yourself beyond "I pull the trigger and the threat is gone". There is always the threat of escalation when you try to counter something. If people stop thinking before they fire, than criminals will stop finding reasons to hesitate before firing themselves. Its a very slipery slope of an arguement though.

Statistically it just doesn't happen that way. The more rights private citizens are given in their self-defense, the more criminals back down. Most criminals do not want a fight. They want easy targets that will give them everything they want without a peep. Just look at violent crime statistics when a state passes self-defense laws. If anything, it's not hurting the community.

Quote:

Good to know. I did not know that since, you know, all my information at work is limited to those links. I also fail to see how this fits in with the whole 'he's a hypocrite' thing, but any information is better than no information.

I never called him a hypocrite. I am in this thread solely to help people revise their thoughts on self-defense.

**Tarenth** · 07-16-2007, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

I never called him a hypocrite. I am in this thread solely to help people revise their thoughts on self-defense.

This part made me chuckle. So we both agree that self defense is good and that his actions were justified. But while I was posting a statement as a counter to the people saying he was a hypocrite because of his actions, the two of us are having a debate about something we both agree upon, yet talk in circles around. ^_^

To reiterate:
I'm not in this thread to revise people's thougths on self-defense. The title and content before my post seemed to slide towards two majority view points.

Fox News is not truely 'news'
The Rep was a hypocrite

I'm not even going to touch the 'fox news' part, but from the information given I don't really see how people can condemn the rep as a hypocrite.

I could probably try and discuss the finer points of the law, but since I don't even understand the law myself it would be like a blind man describing a sun rise. So I'll let smarter people than me do all the legalise talk. We could start a new topic and discuss the finer points of self defense legislature I suppose. That way we won't get side tracked with a topic of "Anti-Gun Rights Lawmaker Shoots Thief" and talk about guns and hypocracy.

**CingularDuality** · 07-16-2007, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

Ok I'm just gonna sugest this but maybe he was against use of deadly force. He didn't kill the man he shot if I remember correctly, I believe he shot him in the leg. Am I correct? :/

I'm sorry, but are you implying that shooting somebody in the leg is not deadly force?

Holy crap am I done with this thread...

**CingularDuality** · 07-16-2007, 01:52 AM

OK, leaving this thread benefits nobody. Let me try educating people instead. If you're interested in Texas law in this area, here's a great post from AR15.com:

Quote:

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
Its time to consider the application of deadly force in the Great state of Texas in light of the new laws. Why is it time? Because I am renewing my CHL and I feelthat its my civic duty to educate myself far in excess of the minimum standards that the license requires.

So, Lets review the laws: Chapter 9 of the penal code is the starting point:

Quote:

§ 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section
38.01.
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or
known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended
use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Quote:

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

The problem with this is that the DA will argue that the jury should infer "Deadly Force" based upon the actions of the defendant. How else does one determine Mens Rea?

Quote:

§ 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even
though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or
using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also
recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the
justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a
prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent
third person.

Biggie for the Rambo types out there. You must be able to account for each and every bullet that you send downrange!

Quote:

§ 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct
is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any
remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

You can still get sued!

Quote:

§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

This is interesting: This doesn't seem to apply if another section of the justification code would apply. Its essentially a catchall provision and therefore open to interpretation.

Quote:

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he [red]reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself [/red] against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is [size=3][red]not justified[/red]: [/size=3]
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor [red]sought [/red] an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Quote:

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect 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 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.

There is a duty to retreat per a(2) unless someone is breaking into your home.

How does the new castle doctrine affect this section?

Thus, we must consider what is one's habitation?

How about an attached shop/garage v. an unattached shop or garage?

Quote:

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Quote:

§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, [green]but not deadly force[/green], against another
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.

This is an odd one isn't it. So you can use deadly force to save the other's life, unless he is commiting suicide?

Quote:

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, [size=4]movable [/size=4] property is justified in using [green][size=3]force [/size=3] [/green] against another when and to the degree the actor [red]reasonably believes [/red] the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

So, one an use Force, BUT NOT "DEADLY FORCE" to prevent a car jacking. No nighttime requirement in this statute.

This appears to interlock with the above statute regarding threats as force in that it indicates that showing a firearm is not deadly force under some circumstances.

Quote:

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Quote:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

So, we now have to delve into the definition of Robbery, Burglary, aggravated Robbery and "Criminal Mischief in the night" to get a clear picture of when we may use deadly force to protect our property.

Stealing a car?
Breaking into a car with no intent to steal the car?

Quote:

§ 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.

So, if your neighbor's car is getting stolen, it looks like you can intercede with deadly force?

New Laws (lifted from Renegade007's thread):

Quote:

TSRA Bill Status Report

Final Updated 5/23/07 80th Legislative Session

Castle Doctrine/“Stand Your Ground Legislation~SB 378 by S Senator Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio)/Rep. Joe Driver (R-Garland)

Proposed legislation would establish a presumption in law that if a criminal unlawfully enters or intrudes into your home, occupied vehicle or place of business, that he is there to cause death or great bodily harm, and you may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against him. The bill would also explicitly state in law that you have no “duty to retreat” from a criminal attack if you are in a place you have a right to be and you are not engaged in unlawful activity. Lastly, the proposal would limit the ability of criminals and their families to sue victims for killing or injuring their attackers.

First Bill signed by Governor Perry this legislative session!

I find that actually reading the laws help a great deal in understanding them. Pay attention to "and" and "or" statements, as well as keeping an eye out for "presumptions" and the word "reasonable". They are all VERY important.

**Sirusblk** · 07-16-2007, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I'm sorry, but are you implying that shooting somebody in the leg is not deadly force?

I believe deadly force is when you aim for the head. A shot to the leg isn't enough to kill someone I believe. I admit I could very, very, very wrong but thats the way I see it now. One could say he saw it the same way. That's my opinion on it, I'm not saying in any way it's close to the truth.

**CingularDuality** · 07-16-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

I believe deadly force is when you aim for the head. A shot to the leg isn't enough to kill someone I believe. I admit I could very, very, very wrong but thats the way I see it now. One could say he saw it the same way. That's my opinion on it, I'm not saying in any way it's close to the truth.

It can be deadly force if you PUNCH someone in the head! Please read my latest post and educate yourself.

**Tarenth** · 07-16-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

I believe deadly force is when you aim for the head. A shot to the leg isn't enough to kill someone I believe. I admit I could very, very, very wrong but thats the way I see it now. One could say he saw it the same way. That's my opinion on it, I'm not saying in any way it's close to the truth.

Now this I can correct you on and I can use Cingular's long lengthy informative post and give you a cliff note on the important part to you.

Quote:

"Deadly force" means force that is intended or
known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended
use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

If you shoot someone in the leg and they bleed to death then they are just as dead as if you put a bullet between their eyes. To my understanding using a potentially lethal weapon as a weapon constitutes deadly force. The only case where it wouldn't be deadly force was if you fired it into the air to scare or gather attention or possibly just waved it around in the air in a nonthreatening manner.

And yes as Cingular states a punch can be considered a use of deadly force. The old joke "My hands are deadly weapons and I need a license to wear gloves to conceal them" isn't really much of a joke if its true and you really can kill people with your bare hands.

**Sirusblk** · 07-17-2007, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

It can be deadly force if you PUNCH someone in the head! Please read my latest post and educate yourself.

I apologize, I responded before your long and lengthy and quite educating post. I am now all the more educated

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links