I agree that deadly force should only be used to protect life and bodily harm. However, in Texas, it is legal to protect property with deadly force. This is why Joe Horn didn't go to jail for murder. I recommend against it. I'd rather be out a few thousand dollars worth of 'stuff' then deal with the publicity and hounding involved in killing someone. I must say I prefer having the option to protect my property with deadly force. I hope the thieves keep this in mind as well.
dj On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > gruff, > I don't know what you mean by the forum turning political and > moralist. I thought we had a pretty good discussion going. > And I wanted to add to your self defense discussion. (this is fresh in > my mind because I'm studying for the bar exam) Self defense can only > be obtained by using reasonable force. Reasonable force is determined > by looking at what force is being used against the defender. If the > person is coming at you with fists, and is about the same size as you, > then you can't pull a gun out and shoot them, this would be > unreasonable. Also, you can't use deadly force to defend property. > Sometimes people get confused about this because self defense is > obviously viable in a home invasion situation. However, the rationale > behind the home invasion self defense is that you are protecting your > life and your families life, not your valuables or your physical > home. When someone invades your home, there is a presumption that you > have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. > I think its important that we understand the self defense defense when > having a gun discussion, because it often turns into straw man > argument about people protecting their belongings by deadly force and > how human life is more precious than worldly goods. So thanks for > bringing it up. > > On Feb 2, 10:54 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: >> How did a forum on guns turn so political and moralist? >> >> Fact: The U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled last year that the 2nd >> Amendment covered every citizens' right to own and possess a gun >> except those legally so prohibited. >> >> Fact: In the vast majority of crimes committed with guns, those guns >> were acquired illegally -- usually theft or purchase on the black >> market. >> >> Fact: There is no way to prevent tragedies such as Columbine other >> than the family, friends and authority figures seeing the devolution >> of the perpetrator's mental condition before the tragedy and treating >> him or her. >> >> Fact: Anyone who wants a gun can lay their hands on one, legally or >> illegally. >> >> Fact: In most states in the U.S. -- the only country I can speak for >> with some credibility -- self defense is a viable defense in the use >> of a weapon against another -- but only until the threat is removed or >> quashed. In other words, if someone breaks in your house and when you >> confront them they turn and run, the threat is removed and the >> resident no longer has the availability of self defense as a defense >> should he (or she) shoot the intruder in the back. In other words, >> self defense is only viable while the threat exists. Once the threat >> is removed, self defense is no longer viable. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
