More on Hero Joe.

[ImWithStupid]

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?

 

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.

[hugo]

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.

[ImWithStupid]

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'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.

[timesjoke]

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.

 

 

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.

[ImWithStupid]

Here's my point on how the law should be revised. Take this post in a completely different topic, by Snafu.

 

Many moons ago a buddy and I decided to ride some bikes to the liquor store. Well he didn?t have the key to his shed and so we took the hinges off to obtain the bikes we were going to use. A helpful neighbor saw us and called the cops thinking we were stealing the bikes.

http://Off Topic Forum.com/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.

[Jhony5]

Here's my point on how the law should be revised. Take this post in a completely different topic, by Snafu.

 

http://Off Topic Forum.com/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.

[ImWithStupid]

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.

 

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful

interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or

criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;

 

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.

[Jhony5]

Apparently you haven't read the law.

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.

 

You don't have to know crap. You only have to believe it's happening.

Strictly up to your perspective.

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.

[ImWithStupid]

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.

 

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.

[Jhony5]

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.

[ImWithStupid]

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.

 

Jesse and Al would be climbing over each other to start the riot.