From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Texas law, a light reading (Killing in defense of possessions?)
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:49:30 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

First off, let's say I posted this with the intent of getting some response.
comments below are just to point out a few facts, and that's all....

In talk.abortion, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <24426@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:

>I note that you seem to be taking the sections independently; in fact,
>the statute requires that they be taken together.

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

>Remember that 9.41 addresses all use of force, not just the use of deadly
>force. Sec. 9.42, which addresses the use of deadly force, incorporates
>the requirements of 9.41 and adds some additional requirements.

I was only looking at them from the perspective of deadly force. The
additional implications were for others to assess for themsleves.

>>with the person stealing it having no claims on it. (iow, it can't be
>>your wife taking a car when she files for separation.)

>It can't even be the repo man.

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

>>In other words, a couple of creeps loitering around your car at night
>>in an otherwise quiet neighborhood would fall into this category.

>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. These neighborhoods dont's have loiterers at night,
being as there are no stores or anything else to attract them. I wish
I could recall a specific case, but the only things that come to mind
are the police shooting armed/unarmed ederly women in Dallas and the
mass murder in Killeen. :(

>>Also,
>>this broadens the crime definition to include other crimes than theft
>>or mere protection of your own property, in actuality spreading to all
>>types of crimes (criminal mischief).

>"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.
You'll find that they would like to help you protect yourself, at the
cost of some of the 'rights' the courts have given criminals.

You must at least be a law student.

>The paragraph you refer to requires not merely belief, but *reasonable*
>belief.

>> All that's
>>required is "all criminals are violent and carry guns. Just look at
>>TV, the news, not the shows." and "If I shot him, my chances of recorvering
>>my property are pretty much 100%. If I let him go, the possibility drops
>>to nil."

>This hypothetical belief on the part of a hypothetical defendant would
>not be taken as a "reasonable belief" in Texas courts.

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.

>>That would seem a bit paranoid, don't you think? Anyway, there had to
>>be some limitations, such as some proof of criminal intent or something,
>>as if there wasn't, you could shoot anyone ffor any reason and claim
>>that there was some criminal intent taking place.

>Not in Texas, you can't. If the evidence doesn't support your claim of a
>reasonable belief that a crime is taking place, you'll go to prison for
>anything from assault to murder (depending on how much damage you do to
>the person you use deadly force on).

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

>> Shooting someone who
>>is in the commission of a crime *is* perfectly legal, however.

>Not unless the *other* requirements of deadly force statute are met.

Remember that we're talking about commission of a crime on one's property.
Think about what this means in the general sense, and how one would
know that a crime is being committed. (Hint: Illegal stock trading does
not normally qualify here, as most would never know, even after being
told) We're talking about breaking and entering, burglary, robbery,
rape, theft, arson, and vandalization here. Not the more obtuse and 
less obvious crimes. 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.

Ron

Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion