27 People Dead, Mostly Children, at Connecticut Elementary

[slucero]

You would probably have some problems coming your way if you shot someone in the back when they're running away. You have to be in direct fear of your life. A guy running away with your kid's trike doesn't fit that.

Don't you live in Texas? See below for how the Texas law is written. Certainly, in the ridiculous example that I gave, you would be correct. No other state would ever allow for this, because it's flat out absurd! That said, it's Texas! Texas would break off and become its own country tomorrow if they had the option.

In Texas (c), the law for using deadly force in defense of property is not new and is very broad. Texas law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe that this is necessary and the only way to prevent a serious crime such as burglary or theft or to prevent someone from fleeing with stolen property from your home or property.

Texas law (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm) goes even further by adding the justifiable use of deadly force to protect someone else's property if a person "reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property." This means that you can use deadly force in Texas not only to protect your own property, but also the property of someone else. There have been incorrect reports in the media that you may only do this in Texas if you have been formally asked or legally required to protect the property of someone else. However, this is not a provision of the law as it is currently written.

What is the source of this deadly force definition? I've never heard of using deadly force to keep people from stealing civilian property, especially where it says using deadly force authorized to keep someone from fleeing with stolen property. From my experiences, it is my understanding that the only time you can legally shoot someone is when they pose imminent thread of great bodily injury and death to others, such as reaching for something that could be a gun or other type of weapon. Even if a guy is running away from taking money from a bank, you can’t shoot him while he’s running away, unless he’s firing a gun or using some other type of weapon towards people as he’s running away.

It's called "Castle Doctrine"... and has been around since the 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine


It's been law in Texas since 2007. What Enigma869 quoted you was directly from the Texas Penal Code.

Here's a link that shows the section amended (shown below): http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html

Below is a copy of the Texas Castle Doctrine also known as Texas Castle Law or as Texas Castle Bill
______________________________________

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [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 actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [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].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

[The Sushi Hunter]

I read the document that you pasted but I don't see on it anywhere where it says:

In Texas (c), the law for using deadly force in defense of property is not new and is very broad. Texas law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe that this is necessary and the only way to prevent a serious crime such as burglary or theft or to prevent someone from fleeing with stolen property from your home or property.

Burglary and theft is different from robbery. From what I understand, robbery is different from burglary and theft because robbery is forcefully taking away someone's property from them while burglary and theft is taking property without force to the owner and without the owners knowledge. Keep in mind, this is my understanding and common knowledge of the differences between burglary, theft and robbery, not an official definition by any means.

You would probably have some problems coming your way if you shot someone in the back when they're running away. You have to be in direct fear of your life. A guy running away with your kid's trike doesn't fit that.

Don't you live in Texas? See below for how the Texas law is written. Certainly, in the ridiculous example that I gave, you would be correct. No other state would ever allow for this, because it's flat out absurd! That said, it's Texas! Texas would break off and become its own country tomorrow if they had the option.

In Texas (c), the law for using deadly force in defense of property is not new and is very broad. Texas law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe that this is necessary and the only way to prevent a serious crime such as burglary or theft or to prevent someone from fleeing with stolen property from your home or property.

Texas law (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm) goes even further by adding the justifiable use of deadly force to protect someone else's property if a person "reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property." This means that you can use deadly force in Texas not only to protect your own property, but also the property of someone else. There have been incorrect reports in the media that you may only do this in Texas if you have been formally asked or legally required to protect the property of someone else. However, this is not a provision of the law as it is currently written.

What is the source of this deadly force definition? I've never heard of using deadly force to keep people from stealing civilian property, especially where it says using deadly force authorized to keep someone from fleeing with stolen property. From my experiences, it is my understanding that the only time you can legally shoot someone is when they pose imminent thread of great bodily injury and death to others, such as reaching for something that could be a gun or other type of weapon. Even if a guy is running away from taking money from a bank, you can’t shoot him while he’s running away, unless he’s firing a gun or using some other type of weapon towards people as he’s running away.

It's called "Castle Doctrine"... and has been around since the 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine


It's been law in Texas since 2007. What Enigma869 quoted you was directly from the Texas Penal Code.

Here's a link that shows the section amended (shown below): http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html

Below is a copy of the Texas Castle Doctrine also known as Texas Castle Law or as Texas Castle Bill
______________________________________

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [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 actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [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].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

[The Sushi Hunter]

The FBI are trying to piece together his smashed up hard drive to see if his online footprint will reveal any motive for the killing, but they strongly believe he made use of devil-worshiping and suicide sites and boasted of his murder plans on message forums.

It's a sick fucking kid people, not GUNS!

Yep.

[slucero]

I read the document that you pasted but I don't see on it anywhere where it says:

In Texas (c), the law for using deadly force in defense of property is not new and is very broad. Texas law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe that this is necessary and the only way to prevent a serious crime such as burglary or theft or to prevent someone from fleeing with stolen property from your home or property.

ya my bad.. what Enigma posted isn't from the Texas Penal Code.. it was a quote from someone paraphrasing the meaning of the Texas Penal Code section. It is entirely 100% accurate.

What I posted is the amended portion from the Texas Legislature Act that amended the Texas Penal Code in 2007, and is currently law. I've highlighted the portions that give a person the right to defend their property with lethal force.

Below is a copy of the Texas Castle Doctrine also known as Texas Castle Law or as Texas Castle Bill
______________________________________

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [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 actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A)unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [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].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

[scarygirl]

Handing out guns to teachers? Are all you people completely retarded?

The statistics doesn't lie. More guns = more gun fatalities. All the second amendment yammering doesn't mean much, when people die needlessly. Not to mention the harm caused by the American gun manufacturing and the subsequent export to Mexico.

What would Jesus do?

Tell you to stop using his name in vain.

Jesus and GI Jim: 1, Parfait: NOTHING!

[Boomchild]

Notice how Obama and others are focusing on the issue of the weapons used and said little if anything about the help these people need to address their mental problems?

Yeap, that's exactly right. This is because Obama and the others are doing what makes their voter base happy. Addressing the real issue of mental illness would only piss off many of his followers.

Biden made a statement today about what he is going to do now that Obama put him charge of looking to revising gun laws. He spoke about the CT. shooting and said they also need to see "what role" the shooters mental condition played in it. Boy is he dense. It had everything to do with what he did. That is unless we start to believe that guns can talk and the guns talked him into it.

[steveo777]

I can't believe how inordinarily busy the sports shops are around here. People are buying huge hoards of ammo. One store, as witnessed by someone I work with went through cases of 1000 rounds each.....about 40 cases in about 45 minutes. They had to keep going in back and bringing out more. Sales of weapons are also way up and I mean way up! People are arming themselves either because they are expecting something serious or they are afraid they won't be able to obtain ammo or weapons, not sure which. It's getting kind of creepy.

[majik]

Handing out guns to teachers? Are all you people completely retarded?

The statistics doesn't lie. More guns = more gun fatalities. All the second amendment yammering doesn't mean much, when people die needlessly. Not to mention the harm caused by the American gun manufacturing and the subsequent export to Mexico.

What would Jesus do?

Tell you to stop using his name in vain.

Jesus and GI Jim: 1, Parfait: NOTHING!

What DID Jesus do ? NOTHING!

[Boomchild]

I can't believe how inordinarily busy the sports shops are around here. People are buying huge hoards of ammo. One store, as witnessed by someone I work with went through cases of 1000 rounds each.....about 40 cases in about 45 minutes. They had to keep going in back and bringing out more. Sales of weapons are also way up and I mean way up! People are arming themselves either because they are expecting something serious or they are afraid they won't be able to obtain ammo or weapons, not sure which. It's getting kind of creepy.

The way I look at it is the way people react when weather reports call for snow storms. What does the public do? They make mad dashes to the food stores and wipe the bread and milk shelves clean. Stock up like they will be snowed in for weeks even when the weather reports are not even close to that type of event. For some reason people panic and over react to rumors or reports.

[steveo777]

I can't believe how inordinarily busy the sports shops are around here. People are buying huge hoards of ammo. One store, as witnessed by someone I work with went through cases of 1000 rounds each.....about 40 cases in about 45 minutes. They had to keep going in back and bringing out more. Sales of weapons are also way up and I mean way up! People are arming themselves either because they are expecting something serious or they are afraid they won't be able to obtain ammo or weapons, not sure which. It's getting kind of creepy.

The way I look at it is the way people react when weather reports call for snow storms. What does the public do? They make mad dashes to the food stores and wipe the bread and milk shelves clean. Stock up like they will be snowed in for weeks even when the weather reports are not even close to that type of event. For some reason people panic and over react to rumors or reports.

I guess that is the reality of KNEE JERK. People tend to be reactionary and our politicitians and the media make it far worse than it needs to be. OVERPRESCRIBED in the worst sense. Think about it. How many bullets do you really need in your house in the event of a home invasion? I say if you can't bring the attacker down in the first few rounds, 990 more probably isn't gonna save you either. Infact, if you fire that many, you'll probably have the house come down around you.

[artist4perry]

Handing out guns to teachers? Are all you people completely retarded?

The statistics doesn't lie. More guns = more gun fatalities. All the second amendment yammering doesn't mean much, when people die needlessly. Not to mention the harm caused by the American gun manufacturing and the subsequent export to Mexico.

What would Jesus do?

Tell you to stop using his name in vain.

Jesus and GI Jim: 1, Parfait: NOTHING!

What DID Jesus do ? NOTHING!

Saved my eternal soul, paved the way for the salvation of the world, taught us all how to be kindly, loving, and selfless, was scourged with a whip till near dead, died an excruciatingly painful death for no crime at all.......I say he paid it all. My question is for the world...what did Parfait do? (I am kidding Parfait! LOL! Your O.K. when your not being obtuse. )

[majik]

Handing out guns to teachers? Are all you people completely retarded?

The statistics doesn't lie. More guns = more gun fatalities. All the second amendment yammering doesn't mean much, when people die needlessly. Not to mention the harm caused by the American gun manufacturing and the subsequent export to Mexico.

What would Jesus do?

Tell you to stop using his name in vain.

Jesus and GI Jim: 1, Parfait: NOTHING!

What DID Jesus do ? NOTHING!

Saved my eternal soul, paved the way for the salvation of the world, taught us all how to be kindly, loving, and selfless, was scourged with a whip till near dead, died an excruciatingly painful death for no crime at all.......I say he paid it all. My question is for the world...what did Parfait do? (I am kidding Parfait! LOL! Your O.K. when your not being obtuse. )

Really?

[artist4perry]

Handing out guns to teachers? Are all you people completely retarded?

The statistics doesn't lie. More guns = more gun fatalities. All the second amendment yammering doesn't mean much, when people die needlessly. Not to mention the harm caused by the American gun manufacturing and the subsequent export to Mexico.

What would Jesus do?

Tell you to stop using his name in vain.

Jesus and GI Jim: 1, Parfait: NOTHING!

What DID Jesus do ? NOTHING!

Saved my eternal soul, paved the way for the salvation of the world, taught us all how to be kindly, loving, and selfless, was scourged with a whip till near dead, died an excruciatingly painful death for no crime at all.......I say he paid it all. My question is for the world...what did Parfait do? (I am kidding Parfait! LOL! Your O.K. when your not being obtuse. )

Really?

He taught us...now some people ignored or didn't get the message....read the book again.

Love thy neighbor
Turn the other cheek
Love thy enemy....how many can do this?
He did it all

[majik]

Handing out guns to teachers? Are all you people completely retarded?

The statistics doesn't lie. More guns = more gun fatalities. All the second amendment yammering doesn't mean much, when people die needlessly. Not to mention the harm caused by the American gun manufacturing and the subsequent export to Mexico.

What would Jesus do?

Tell you to stop using his name in vain.

Jesus and GI Jim: 1, Parfait: NOTHING!

What DID Jesus do ? NOTHING!

Saved my eternal soul, paved the way for the salvation of the world, taught us all how to be kindly, loving, and selfless, was scourged with a whip till near dead, died an excruciatingly painful death for no crime at all.......I say he paid it all. My question is for the world...what did Parfait do? (I am kidding Parfait! LOL! Your O.K. when your not being obtuse. )

Really?

He taught us...now some people ignored or didn't get the message....read the book again.

Love thy neighbor
Turn the other cheek
Love thy enemy....how many can do this?
He did it all

He also said forgive them for they know not what they do and most Christians didn't get that message either. Jesus is not doing too well.

[artist4perry]

Handing out guns to teachers? Are all you people completely retarded?

The statistics doesn't lie. More guns = more gun fatalities. All the second amendment yammering doesn't mean much, when people die needlessly. Not to mention the harm caused by the American gun manufacturing and the subsequent export to Mexico.

What would Jesus do?

Tell you to stop using his name in vain.

Jesus and GI Jim: 1, Parfait: NOTHING!

What DID Jesus do ? NOTHING!

Saved my eternal soul, paved the way for the salvation of the world, taught us all how to be kindly, loving, and selfless, was scourged with a whip till near dead, died an excruciatingly painful death for no crime at all.......I say he paid it all. My question is for the world...what did Parfait do? (I am kidding Parfait! LOL! Your O.K. when your not being obtuse. )

Really?

He taught us...now some people ignored or didn't get the message....read the book again.

Love thy neighbor
Turn the other cheek
Love thy enemy....how many can do this?
He did it all

He also said forgive them for they know not what they do and most Christians didn't get that message either. Jesus is not doing too well.

Jesus did it right...we because of free choice screw it up...anyway I was just kidding around with Parfait and not looking for a debate on Jesus. It is your prerogative to believe or not to believe.

[majik]

Handing out guns to teachers? Are all you people completely retarded?

The statistics doesn't lie. More guns = more gun fatalities. All the second amendment yammering doesn't mean much, when people die needlessly. Not to mention the harm caused by the American gun manufacturing and the subsequent export to Mexico.

What would Jesus do?

Tell you to stop using his name in vain.

Jesus and GI Jim: 1, Parfait: NOTHING!

What DID Jesus do ? NOTHING!

Saved my eternal soul, paved the way for the salvation of the world, taught us all how to be kindly, loving, and selfless, was scourged with a whip till near dead, died an excruciatingly painful death for no crime at all.......I say he paid it all. My question is for the world...what did Parfait do? (I am kidding Parfait! LOL! Your O.K. when your not being obtuse. )

Really?

He taught us...now some people ignored or didn't get the message....read the book again.

Love thy neighbor
Turn the other cheek
Love thy enemy....how many can do this?
He did it all

He also said forgive them for they know not what they do and most Christians didn't get that message either. Jesus is not doing too well.

Jesus did it right...we because of free choice screw it up...anyway I was just kidding around with Parfait and not looking for a debate on Jesus. It is your prerogative to believe or not to believe.

I got that, Jesus was an enlightened being no doubt and like all enlightened beings was misunderstood a lot. Wasn't trying to offend.

[FinnFreak]

Handing out guns to teachers? Are all you people completely retarded?

The statistics doesn't lie. More guns = more gun fatalities. All the second amendment yammering doesn't mean much, when people die needlessly. Not to mention the harm caused by the American gun manufacturing and the subsequent export to Mexico.

What would Jesus do?

Tell you to stop using his name in vain.

Jesus and GI Jim: 1, Parfait: NOTHING!

What DID Jesus do ? NOTHING!

Saved my eternal soul, paved the way for the salvation of the world, taught us all how to be kindly, loving, and selfless, was scourged with a whip till near dead, died an excruciatingly painful death for no crime at all.......I say he paid it all. My question is for the world...what did Parfait do? (I am kidding Parfait! LOL! Your O.K. when your not being obtuse. )

Really?

He taught us...now some people ignored or didn't get the message....read the book again.

Love thy neighbor
Turn the other cheek
Love thy enemy....how many can do this?
He did it all

He also said forgive them for they know not what they do and most Christians didn't get that message either. Jesus is not doing too well.

Jesus did it right...we because of free choice screw it up...anyway I was just kidding around with Parfait and not looking for a debate on Jesus. It is your prerogative to believe or not to believe.

I think Parfait's hypothetical question was intended to contain the thought: "if Jesus lived in our times, would he be a spokesperson for the NRA or Gunowners of America?"

- I think NOT.


...and I have NO problem with people owning guns... only people who do a sloppy job keeping them safe.


John -

[artist4perry]

Handing out guns to teachers? Are all you people completely retarded?

The statistics doesn't lie. More guns = more gun fatalities. All the second amendment yammering doesn't mean much, when people die needlessly. Not to mention the harm caused by the American gun manufacturing and the subsequent export to Mexico.

What would Jesus do?

Tell you to stop using his name in vain.

Jesus and GI Jim: 1, Parfait: NOTHING!

What DID Jesus do ? NOTHING!

Saved my eternal soul, paved the way for the salvation of the world, taught us all how to be kindly, loving, and selfless, was scourged with a whip till near dead, died an excruciatingly painful death for no crime at all.......I say he paid it all. My question is for the world...what did Parfait do? (I am kidding Parfait! LOL! Your O.K. when your not being obtuse. )

Really?

He taught us...now some people ignored or didn't get the message....read the book again.

Love thy neighbor
Turn the other cheek
Love thy enemy....how many can do this?
He did it all

He also said forgive them for they know not what they do and most Christians didn't get that message either. Jesus is not doing too well.

Jesus did it right...we because of free choice screw it up...anyway I was just kidding around with Parfait and not looking for a debate on Jesus. It is your prerogative to believe or not to believe.

I got that, Jesus was an enlightened being no doubt and like all enlightened beings was misunderstood a lot. Wasn't trying to offend.

No offense taken!

[artist4perry]

Do you guys get the word kidding? I got what Parfait was saying we were just yanking his chain on his wording...

You folks are so literal!

[The Sushi Hunter]

I still don't see where it says or how someone would interpret from that document:

In Texas (c), the law for using deadly force in defense of property is not new and is very broad. Texas law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe that this is necessary and the only way to prevent a serious crime such as burglary or theft or to prevent someone from fleeing with stolen property from your home or property.

If someone did shoot someone who was simply fleeing with stolen property, they would be prosecuted for attempted murder or murder. Now if the guy fleeing jumps in a car and starts to speed away and your chasing him, if he tries to run you over, then yeah, he's using the vehicle as a weapon and you can secure his liberty for that. But just running away with stolen property without a weapon isn't shoot to kill material I'm afraid.

[slucero]

I still don't see where it says or how someone would interpret from that document:

That's the actual Texas Penal Code, not some document.

That's why the beginning of the it says:

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

What follows is the language that is amended to the Texas Penal Code. Although the legal language is a bit abstract, the meaning is still obvious to me, and the court Texas judges that have already "seen it" and ruled. It's been law in Texas for 5 years.

That you can't see it, I can't help you there.

[The Sushi Hunter]

That document that you pasted is quite clear to me actually. And no where on it does it say someone can shoot a person who is fleeing (running away) with property they stole. The document is very clear that you can shoot someone if you're threatened by someone. Someone fleeing (running away) with your property isn't threating your life.

But hey, if you want to shoot someone for running away with your property, I'm all for it just as long as it's not me behind the trigger. I'll be happy to see another criminal removed from society. But I'll also enjoy reading the article about the shooting, your trial, prosecution and conviction.

[slucero]

That document that you pasted is quite clear to me actually. And no where on it does it say someone can shoot a person who is fleeing (running away) with property they stole. The document is very clear that you can shoot someone if you're threatened by someone. Someone fleeing (running away) with your property isn't threating your life.

But hey, if you want to shoot someone for running away with your property, I'm all for it just as long as it's not me behind the trigger. I'll be happy to see another criminal removed from society. But I'll also enjoy reading the article about the shooting, your trial, prosecution and conviction.

If a person had entered your property, without your consent, to rob you.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Then this (above) makes it lawful in Texas to use lethal force to protect yourself, and your property from being taken.

That should be quite clear to you, but as I said... if you can't understand that... I can't help you.

[The Sushi Hunter]

That document that you pasted is quite clear to me actually. And no where on it does it say someone can shoot a person who is fleeing (running away) with property they stole. The document is very clear that you can shoot someone if you're threatened by someone. Someone fleeing (running away) with your property isn't threating your life.

But hey, if you want to shoot someone for running away with your property, I'm all for it just as long as it's not me behind the trigger. I'll be happy to see another criminal removed from society. But I'll also enjoy reading the article about the shooting, your trial, prosecution and conviction.

If a person had entered your property, without your consent, to rob you.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Then this (above) makes it lawful in Texas to use lethal force to protect yourself, and your property from being taken.

That should be quite clear to you, but as I said... if you can't understand that... I can't help you.

Exactly. Robbery is completely different than fleeing (running away) with your stolen property. With robbery there is that element of being threatened. Someone fleeing with stolen property doesn't have that element in it as robbery does so you can't shoot someone who is fleeing (running away) with stolen property.

[slucero]

That document that you pasted is quite clear to me actually. And no where on it does it say someone can shoot a person who is fleeing (running away) with property they stole. The document is very clear that you can shoot someone if you're threatened by someone. Someone fleeing (running away) with your property isn't threating your life.

But hey, if you want to shoot someone for running away with your property, I'm all for it just as long as it's not me behind the trigger. I'll be happy to see another criminal removed from society. But I'll also enjoy reading the article about the shooting, your trial, prosecution and conviction.

If a person had entered your property, without your consent, to rob you.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Then this (above) makes it lawful in Texas to use lethal force to protect yourself, and your property from being taken.

That should be quite clear to you, but as I said... if you can't understand that... I can't help you.

Exactly. Robbing is completely different than fleeing (running away) with your stolen property.

The person had to steal it before deciding to flee... so lethal force is still legal.

[The Sushi Hunter]

In the commision of a robbery yeah. But someone can steal something without you even being present. Like if your garage door is open and your not home. A guy comes up and sees something he wants and takes it. That's theft/stealing. So he starts walking down the street with the property and you come home and see him walking away with your shit. He sees you and starts fleeing with the stolen property. You shoot him as he's fleeing (running away). Your going into custody, trial and prison plain and simple. Tell it to the judge and let him decide.

[Rick]

Tell it to the judge and let him decide.

Only a small percentage of stolen property is ever returned to the owner. Although the price of ammunition has skyrocketed, it's still cheaper to shoot someone than let them get away with things you saw fit to get a job and buy. That's the rub. You work hard for what you have and some dickbrain thinks they can just take it from you? Fuck him. I say ventilate his ass.

[slucero]

In the commision of a robbery yeah. But someone can steal something without you even being present. Like if your garage door is open and your not home. A guy comes up and sees something he wants and takes it. That's theft/stealing. So he starts walking down the street with the property and you come home and see him walking away with your shit. He sees you and starts fleeing with the stolen property. You shoot him as he's fleeing (running away). Your going into custody, trial and prison plain and simple. Tell it to the judge and let him decide.

You are still wrong.

Houston Crime
Deputies: Homeowner shoots burglar caught taking property

khou.com
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Updated Wednesday, Nov 28 at 6:01 AM

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Deputies ... 30391.html

HARRIS COUNTY, Texas — A northwest Harris County homeowner fought back against two burglars Tuesday night and ended up shooting one of them.

It all happened at a home on Morgensen Drive at Zada Park Lane sometime before 8 p.m. Tuesday, according to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

The sheriff’s office said a homeowner came home and noticed an upstairs light was on that wasn’t supposed to be. He went back to his car, got his gun, and headed back to the house.

Deputies said as he was heading inside, the thieves were on the way out with stolen property. That’s when the men tried to take off. One managed to get away, but the other ended up in a scuffle and then was shot by the homeowner.

The injured man sped off in a car but turned himself in to authorities at a gas station on Veterans Memorial and W Mount Houston. He was sent to the hospital in stable condition.

Investigators said the wounded suspect didn’t make it far because his older model Lincoln Town car, complete with Houston Texans window flags, had two flat tires. A description of the other suspect involved in the burglary was not available.

Deputies said the homeowner carries a concealed handgun license.

[StevePerryHair]

In the commision of a robbery yeah. But someone can steal something without you even being present. Like if your garage door is open and your not home. A guy comes up and sees something he wants and takes it. That's theft/stealing. So he starts walking down the street with the property and you come home and see him walking away with your shit. He sees you and starts fleeing with the stolen property. You shoot him as he's fleeing (running away). Your going into custody, trial and prison plain and simple. Tell it to the judge and let him decide.

You are still wrong.

Houston Crime
Deputies: Homeowner shoots burglar caught taking property

khou.com
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Updated Wednesday, Nov 28 at 6:01 AM

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Deputies ... 30391.html

HARRIS COUNTY, Texas — A northwest Harris County homeowner fought back against two burglars Tuesday night and ended up shooting one of them.

It all happened at a home on Morgensen Drive at Zada Park Lane sometime before 8 p.m. Tuesday, according to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

The sheriff’s office said a homeowner came home and noticed an upstairs light was on that wasn’t supposed to be. He went back to his car, got his gun, and headed back to the house.

Deputies said as he was heading inside, the thieves were on the way out with stolen property. That’s when the men tried to take off. One managed to get away, but the other ended up in a scuffle and then was shot by the homeowner.

The injured man sped off in a car but turned himself in to authorities at a gas station on Veterans Memorial and W Mount Houston. He was sent to the hospital in stable condition.

Investigators said the wounded suspect didn’t make it far because his older model Lincoln Town car, complete with Houston Texans window flags, had two flat tires. A description of the other suspect involved in the burglary was not available.

Deputies said the homeowner carries a concealed handgun license.

Im NOT taking Sushi's side, trust me! But this might not be the best example. It's the one caught in the "scuffle" who got shot. Scuffle could mean his life felt threatened?

[The Sushi Hunter]

Tell it to the judge and let him decide.

Only a small percentage of stolen property is ever returned to the owner. Although the price of aluminum has skyrocketed, it's still cheaper to shoot someone than let them get away with things you saw fit to get a job and buy. That's the rub. You work hard for what you have and some dickbrain thinks they can just take it from you? Fuck him. I say ventilate his ass.

Yeah, I hate it when I go outside and see those fuckers digging through my bins on recycle day. Their stealing, shoot them too!