How about Saudi Arabia, Qatar,Iran,Iraq and most other camel states ? In Saudi Arabia a woman was recently sentenced to 200 lashes and jail time for being alone in a car with a male friend. What on earth will women do next ! Knitting alone in the park, I shouldn't wonder !
But one has nothing to do with another, that is your problem, you are comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between crims persued after the fact and those happening in your face. If a cop had said "don't move" to a violent criminal and the criminal did move against the order given to him, there is a good chance they would still be dead, Cops kill criminals all the time without a trial. The question is should the average person be allowed to stop criminals from performing criminal acts if they "want" to stop them? Most states still allow for a citizens arrest, in that you can detain a person who you believe has committed a criminal act. If the person resists arrest, what then? Do criminals commit crimes just to humbly and quietly take their punnishment if cought, or do they tend to try and "get away"? The possition you are holding is a criminal, an illegal immigrant violent criminal's life is more important than safety, security, and possessions of non-illegals and non-criminals. I do not agree. The only people with a choice are the criminals, they choose to put themselves into harms way and to disrupt, destroy, and ruin lives through their actions. Even if a person has insurance, it only covers actual depreciated value, not replacement value and many don't even have insurance so they are screwed. Why do you want society to just stand back and be helpless victims to the bullies of the world?
No, that's not my position. You have been misinterpreting me throughout this entire subject, accusing me of being a liberal and siding with criminals over innocent people, pretty much doing the things Wez says you do. Believe me I am far from being liberal. I am however a civilized person. My position now and has been from the start is that being able to kill someone for destruction of property, theft, burglary, etc... , is basically legally allowed in Texas as a form of punishment for the crime, even though it isn't in court (another issue I have), is too excessive. My position is that I feel being able to kill someone for property crimes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. We might as well go back to cutting of hands of shoplifters. If you want to live in an archaic, dark age, society, there are plenty of Muslim countries that live under Sharia Law. I have no problem with self defense laws, because if the actor was able to fulfill their intended crime someone else could be killed or severely injured. If someone is being attacked they should have every right to defend themselves or another person that is being attacked to whatever degree the law would allow that person to defend themselves. I do have a problem with lethal force in defense of property.
So now you claim I am uncivilized if I don't agree with you? More personal attacks? You are just like Waz, you cannot support your claims and when people call you on them, you resort to personal attacks. You are siding with criminals, you believe their right to steal overrides a non-criminals right to protect his possessions. And you completely ignore how police kill criminals every day, thousands of times a day when the same criminals resist arrest. They are dying for their refusal to stop when ordered, when police or individuals try to stop their criminal acts. Again, only the criminals have a choice to not allow this situation to ever come up, how about holding them responsible for being criminals. Interesting that these dark ages places have almost no crime while every "modern" society that coddles criminals the way you want to have out of control crime. Every study on programs designed to help the poor criminals have proven that coddling criminals does not work. Only strict punnishment is a deterrent to crime. I love the way you talk of violating a criminals rights, did it occur to you that these criminals were not American citizens? The people they were robbing "were" American citizens and deserved to have someone protect their rights over the criminal desires of illegal criminals? Who protects the victims in your world? Or should innocent people just roll over and take it up the shorts? But you call anyone who does not agree with you names, and that is what proves your possition to be wrong. If you truly believed the robbers deserved to get our possessions without a fight, you would give away all your stuff but instead you want to give away "other" peoples possessions without resistance, I'm sorry but that is simply wrong. Most people cannot replace what is stolen, most robberies are never solved, most people even with insurance only get around 50% of the value of what was stolen from them, and many don' have insurance like renters. Your belief that we should all just go passive and let robbers have our stuff without a fight is damning everyone into poverty just because criminals refuse to be honest, it is their choice and I refuse to make their life easier at my families expense just to fulfill your liberal "protect the poor criminals" stand.
There you go proving Wez right again. I didn't make any personal attacks nor did I didn't call you anything. I was describing what I am. No the criminals don't have the right to steal things, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. You are either very misinformed or very old. Cops haven't been able to shoot at a fleeing felon since the early 70's. The only way a cop can use lethal force is in defense of self or others. Again I have no problem with defense of life. Sure they don't. They report that they don't have any homosexuals also. I never said anything about violating anyone's rights. (proving Wez right again) I said that the law was unconstitutional. Nope. I didn't do that. You said I did. No I don't. You said I do, not me. If you could get past yourself, and actually read what I post. You would find out that I never said this and this is a belief that you keep telling me is mine.
And by saying your side is civilized, that implies that any other possition is not civilizied, you know what you were saying, don't play word games now. In your opinion, and I respect your opinion, but you are speaking high and mighty trying to force your opinion on others and talking down your nose at anyone who does not agree with you. Clearly the people and society determine penalties for crimes, you do not have the right to be the worlds commander on legal matters. I am (well was for ten years) a LEO, if a burgler is climbing out a window and I tell him to freeze, he better freeze or I will shoot him, he will have somethign in his hands (he is robbing the place) he had a weapon in my opinion and moved in a threatening way, bang. They dont, they kill them all. The official ones anyway. Yes you did talk about the criminals rights: You know what, I am all broke up about the rights of illegal immegrants that ignore every law of the land to make innocent people victims......not. Again, stopping a criminal from committing a less then capital crime can still lead tword the criminal getting killed, kids on a joy ride die all the time running from cops and never see a courtroom. I will ask the question again: The question is should the average person be allowed to stop criminals from performing criminal acts if they "want" to stop them? Most states still allow for a citizens arrest, in that you can detain a person who you believe has committed a criminal act. If the person resists arrest, what then? Try answering it this time. Sideways by saying your civilized so by comparison, were not. It is called putting your money (in this case your property) where your mouth is, if you believe people have no rights to keep personal possessions safe from criminals, then back that up by putting your possessions at risk first, don't put everyone elses stuff on the line for theft without recourse if you refuse to do it first. Your the one saying that an illegal immegrant robber should not face harsh resistance because he would not see that level of harshness in a courtroom, that is exactly what you said. If were are not allowed to defend what we worked our butts off to earn, what can we defend, oh, that right, you say we can only defend life, everything else should be given away to criminals without resistance.
I have said this before, in another thread on this subject. I live in Nebraska. Although there is nothing specifically saying a citizen can't stop a criminal while committing a crime, the only law that specifically gives the right to detain someone in commission of a property crime is for the crime of shoplifting. I'm glad you told me that's what I meant. I didn't even realize it. Thank you oh omnipotent one. Seriously though. That's not what I meant. It's amazing you seem to know what I mean better than I do. Is it that you know better then I here or are you just a bit over defensive. If you respect my opinion, why do you keep telling me what my opinion is. Never said I was. Again thanks for making my point. You are in fear of your life, not your ipod. I'm sure, based on your definition, that the homosexuals aren't being oppressed either. You know, since we haven't found them in the showers or ovens yet. Where? No green card? Bang! No papers? Bang! Thanks for correcting me. That does sound civilized. That makes no sense whatsoever. Again. Not what I meant, but sorry your insecurities about your viewpoint made you feel that way. Again, makes no sense. I have said many times that I wouldn't kill someone for my stuff. I have no problem with killing someone if I personally or another person's life is in EMINENT danger. No, I said that nobody should be put to death on the street, for a crime that a Judge and jury couldn't sentence someone to death if they had a fair trial in front of an impartial jury of their peers, which is also a right in the Constitution. As for the illegal immigrant crap you keep bringing up, it's a moot point. Neither Joe or anyone else who does this will have any idea what the legal status of the offender is when they execute them. No. I never said to give anything away. Those are your words. As for lethal force, yes I believe that it should only be used in defense of life. To go on. You accuse me of speaking high and mighty and forcing my opinion on anyone. I have said all along that this is my opinion and as for forcing an opinion, you're the one who keeps taking what I say, interpreting it in some strange way, and telling me how I feel and what I believe. That sounds more like forcing an opinion than anything I even came close to doing. You're the one seems to that think you are so superior to me that you can tell me how I feel or what I believe. It appears that I can no longer debate this with you, because you are obviously far to obtuse. You are unwilling or unable to interpret what you read in any other way then what you want it to be, and not what it is. We ran into this in several other threads where I continually answered your posts and you continued to claim I was "dodging" your questions. I have observed you make the same claim in threads with others, that I wasn't even involved in, and as an impartial person, I could see that they too had clearly addressed your post, but you can't see it unless it's the answer you want.
In this case, a citizen attempted to stop a crime, the police could not respond fast enough to stop the crime so if the crime was to be stopped, the citizen had to do it. The point you are completely missing is based on this law, there is no requirement to call the police, the guy could have just shot the criminals and be done with it but instead, the citizen did everything he could to let the police step in and stop these criminals. Or maybe you are just dodging responsibility for what you said. You are the one communicating your points, if your not communicating correctly for me to understand what your trying to say, maybe you should be a little more clear. You don't seem to be having any problems understanding my points because I am sure to say what I mean and leave nothing to ambiguity. Sometimes I wonder why so many people need everything spelled out for them. Ok, you have burgler, most states have between 6 to 15 years for the penalty of robbing a persons house. Most robbers when busted get connected to dozzens of cases, so he is looking at between 20 and 60 years in prison if you successfully catch him in the act. Do you think he will come quietly or resist if the chance appears? Every arrest of this nature is a possible fear of life from the criminal. Hell, more troopers in south Florida die from routine traffic stops than any other stop. No, that is real oppression, but you don't see them rioting in the streets either. I say the ability to riot in the streets and "not" be killed by the government is a clear sign of not being oppressed, but hey, that is just me. Okay, I'll post it again being as your playing stupid: Your definately not talking about the helpless victims of robbers with that comment. Does being forced to sit outside and watch illegals walk off with your stuff sound more civilized? Were talking about the real world here, not some liberal daycare center where everyone magically does the right thing without laws or fear of penalties. Okay, here we go with spelling everythign out again. Your complaint was a criminal being killed when he does a crime and the crime would not count as a capital crime in a court room. My reply to that is no matter what is written on paper, criminals die every day trying to get away from crimes that also do not cout as capital crimes. The criminals in this case were ordered to stop, they kept moving and got shot. They were killed for their refusal to stop, not for stealing. Sure, the thing that drew this good neighbor to them was the theft, but as with all the other criminals who die trying to escape responsibility for their actions, they were the only ones who could have decided to not do the crime and none of this discussion would ever happen. Read above, already dealt with. But you won't give it away either is my point. You like your possessions and if someone walked into your home and started picking up your stuff and walking out the door, you would try to stop them, not just make popcorn and watch them. That jury and safe courtroom is not on the street facing death for a seconds hesitation. Criminals just don't give up easily. Sure, once you have the guy secured and he cannot possibly be a threat to anyone, I agree that the court is the best place to handle them, but they cannot protect us, they cannot stop a bullet from killing us if we refuse to be proactive about protecting ourselves. What your talking about is hindsight being 20/20. It is part of it because without the illegal being in the Country in the first place, no crime. Our tax dollars pay for this system. An illegal should not get protections from a legal system he has no right to and never has helped to support. He is outside the system, by living his life outside of the law on purpose, and committing horrible crimes against society, he is basically saying he does not want to be a part of our system. Why should he now be protected by a system he has scorned? Read above concerning being clear on your points.
You really need to understand the Constitution. The Constitution limits the powers of government, not the individual. The Second Amendment would be much more likely to apply here. What good is the right to bear arms if you cannot defend life and property? If you wish to live in commieville move to Cuba.
I do understand the Constitution. I wasn't referring to the act carried out by any person. I was saying that,in my opinion, the law that allowed the act, was in violation of the Constitution.
And you say you are not a liberal? We don't need any more ludicrous interpretations of the Constitution that encroach on individual liberty. Don't want to be killed? Don't steal. Someone might exercise his second amendment rights on you. The Bill of Rights limits state power through the 14th Amendment. Burglars are not a recognized protected class. I don't even think Ruth Bader Ginsberg will buy your new concept in constitutional law.
I'm not a liberal. My biggest gripe with this law is that it is way to vague on the requirements to use lethal force. It is like the recent law that they passed in Nebraska allowing CCW. I'm all for concealed carry, but the law had too many issues that could be exploited. Like only having to show proficiency with at firearm every 5 years and that in Nebraska, mental health records aren't able to be checked during a background investigation to obtain the CCW permit, a la Virginia Tech. If it weren't so easy to shoot someone, like some of the extreme situations I presented (kid busting up lawn ornament with a bat, etc...), and still be technically legal under the law, I wouldn't have an issue with the law. As far as lethal force to protect property, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed, but if the law was tightened up to eliminate it from being so easily abused and the wording was changed to reflect this, I wouldn't have a problem with the law. It would then just be my view and opinion.
And what average person will have his lawyer and the time to disect each situation to see if he conforms to a convoluted law to allow him to take action? You dodging my points about a legitamate fear of life if you stop a robber in the act is telling. In my opinion, this is the first law written in 40 years that took into consideration the average man's situation and understanding of the law when it was written. Hell, you can't even do the most simple every day thing at a courthouse without spending a couple thousand on a lawyer to do it for you. Our court system was never intended to be so complicated. Each case was supposed to be considered on it's own merrits and decided based on many factors, including what was best for the community. A good example for this was the old west, stealing a horse in the east would get you sometimes very light punnishment but the same crime in the old west was punnishable by death. Why the disparity? Because of the impact of the action being more severe in that area.
Here's my point on how the law should be revised. Take this post in a completely different topic, by Snafu. http://justbs.us/8047-post45.html With the defense of other's property law, the way it is written in Texas, this neighbor, who obviously couldn't identify Snaf's friend as the resident of the house, could have shot both of them, as long as he felt they would get away before the cops arrive. This isn't a "off the wall" or "ridiculous" scenario, that I made up. This is an event that really happened.
The code is quite clear; You must KNOW that a crime is being committed. Just thinking one is being committed is not sufficient. Failure to do so before shooting, will land you in prison.
Apparently you haven't read the law. You don't have to know crap. You only have to believe it's happening. Strictly up to your perspective. It seems that the neighbor in Snaf's story, must have believed they were stealing something, or they wouldn't have called the police In Texas, he could have just shot them and not even bothered the police. I'm sure they have more important things to do anyway.
I posted it. After reading it of course. I believe the language is quite clear in that the actor (shooter) will be required to display reasonable cause for believing the suspect was committing a crime. Your belief must be reasonable. However, this language is misleading and does come quite close to being a license to kill people under mistaken circumstance. I like the spirit of the law. But you're right. There is an awful lot of wiggle room, as well as room for err. I used to have to crawl into my parents house all the time when I'd forget my house key and no one was home. Often just to grab a few things and then leave again. So ya, if "Hero Joe" lived next door to me, I may have been executed for forgetting my key. Then again, I wouldn't have took off running, which gave "hero Joe" plenty of reason to believe a crime was occurring. All in all, I think Texans need to exercise great caution if they intend on shooting people for petty theft, criminal mischief or what not. The wording in the code expresses personal responsibility for ones actions. Which means, if you make a mistake, you may have to pay for it. "Hero Joe" however, did not make a mistake.
Thank you. That is my only concern with this law. The wording needs to be tightened up, because it makes it way to easy to abuse the law the way it is written.
One would think it not to long until the law is blamed for the death of an innocent person. God help us all if the innocent person is also a black person. All hell will break lose. Just look at how the blacks reacted to the justified application of this law on two black career criminal illegal immigrants. Imagine if the two guys that got killed were actually two teenagers just grabbing stuff for a sleepover.
