From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Texas law, a light reading (Killing in defense of possessions?)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 23:10:24 GMT

In article <24468@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

>Yes, I just reworded them, that's all. They can still be taken together.

You miss the point--the sections of the statute *must* be taken together.

>Are you a law student or lawyer, or just humor impaired? :) Geez!

Are your jokes so reliably funny that when readers don't laugh at them
it's their fault? If so, you should blow off your Usenet gig and try for a
spot on Leno.

>>Not at all. You have to have a reasonable belief that they're perpetrators
>>of the specified crimes. "Loitering" is neither perpetrating nor fleeing.
>
>I'll have to disagree, in certain areas, suburban neighborhoods, where
>this type of loitering doesn't go on except for the general purpose
>of criminal mischief, it is enough to go out and confront them, and
>you are allowed to shoot if any threatening moves or actions are taken
>by those loitering. 

Not in Texas. Not under Texas law, which is what we were talking about.

>>"Criminal mischief" does not refer to "all types of crimes." It refers
>>to a specified set of particular crimes involving damage to property.
>>(See Texas Penal Code 28.03.)
>
>There aren't to many crimes that can be perpetrated on one's property
>that aren't either damage to property or threats to one's person. Again,
>this covers almost all types of crimes on one's property. (Drug deals
>would probably fall into this category, as I'm sure when confronted
>either threats would evolve, or a cop would come up and say "Gee, you
>shot this guy and look at all the coke/crack/drug of choice. Guess he
>threatened you first?" Homeowner "Yeah....????" Cop "ok, that's how
>we'll write it up." Done. Ask a cop after he comes to your house after
>a crime has been committed about how you can protect your property.

Please, try not to invent the law. The specifics of "criminal mischief" are
listed in the Texas Penal Code, Sec. 28.03. No amount of undergraduate
philosophizing here will make up for failing to look up the law.

>You must at least be a law student.

I must at least be that.

>You think so? I do remember vaguely that the first part was considered
>reasonable in some case, and further evidence that your first instinct
>is supposed to be self-preservation is the analogy to unmarked police
>cars, and to not stop for them. In actuality, one would probably say
>"He entered my house, I feared for my life." and that would be enough.

This isn't the hypothetical case you first described. 

>You are humour-impaired, as well as lacking a working sarcasm detector.

And you, of course, are an infallibly funny fellow, whose wit is so
scintillating that it reflects poorly on those who choose not to laugh
at it. Or at least that's what you'd have us believe.

>This was partially a tongue-in-cheek explanation, as I don't agree with
>everything, but it makes more sense in general than the situation in
>DC where there are lots of guns, but honest citizens are forbidden to
>own them. Go figure why crime is so bad and many innocents get hurt.

What does DC have to do with a question about Texas law? 

>Remember that we're talking about commission of a crime on one's property.

No, we're not.

>Quit thinking like a lawyer, where everything must 
>be spelled out to its complete conclusion, and use a little common sense. 
>This is the real world, not a courtroom.

If ceasing to think like a lawyer means making up the law as I go along,
you'll surely forgive me if I choose to forgo following your example here.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung