Wednesday, October 16, 2013

You Know What We Haven't Had In A While?

An addition to the DGC. Thankfully, Shane W. is on the job!

Neighbor shoots, kills burglar
SAN ANTONIO -- A man was shot to death on the South Side early Sunday but police so far are saying the shooting was justified.

Police believe the man was trying to break into a home or car, around 3 a.m. Sunday in the 100 block of Beatrice.
That's about all the article has to say about the incident, other than police don't believe the shooter will face charges. Now, in Texas you are justified in using deadly force over property, so it really doesn't matter whether it was a car or a house. I'm a little conflicted on this myself - while I understand and agree that your property is by extension your money (which is by extension your time and energy), so that it is worth protecting, I don't know if I'd say it was worth killing over.

Although, since it is certainly worth protecting, it's quite possible that the Texas law is written that way so that if you were to protect your property and the goblin were to attack, you'd be in the right for plugging them quick. I see nothing wrong at all with sticking a 12 gauge in the face of the guy trying to break into your car - if he happens to get himself shot when he reaches for something in his coat, well, he should have chosen his line of work better, no?

Plus, I understand the visceral, violent reaction to the thought of someone else touching my truck...

Dead Goblin Count: 447

That is all.


Armed Texan said...

First, the article states that it was a home or a car. If it were just a car, I might have the same reservations as you but since journalists are idiots, we just don't know what happened.

Also, every homicide in Texas must go before a grand jury regardless of whether the police or DA believe it justified or not. Hence the father in Shiner Texas who beat the life out of his daughter's rapist at the time he caught the evil a-hole in the act still had his case before a grand jury (and justly no-billed) even though everyone agreed he did nothing wrong.

Bob S. said...


I think some of the issue regarding lethal force for "just a robbery" is related to the idea of the activity in isolation.

Sure, it is 'just property' and it can be replaced. But how often do lethal confrontations take place where the thug in question has made clear his intentions?

It isn't an isolated act; it is the cumulative activities that lead up to the shooting -- thug(s) break in or try, thugs not just making a quick grab but sticking around, confrontation ensues -- so far all according to Hoyle.

And then what?
That is where most people stop. They don't consider that the thug(s) don't want to go to jail, don't want to be interrupted,etc and act on those desires.

That is the key -- the thug(s) act -- either threatening, heading toward the armed defender, or appearing to do so.

By the way, Texas law is written so the thug doesn't have to attack for lethal force to be justified.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.,

Evyl Robot Michael said...

In the old days, horse thievery was punishable by death. Not that the property of your horse had more value than the life of the goblin, but because stealing a horse might be a death sentence to its rightful owner. If some low-life is trying to steal your vehicle where not having mode of transit may put your life at risk, I have a hard time believing that it's not worth killing over. Heaven forbid I should ever be the test case, but depending on the details, this might be completely legit.

Baddog said...

Taking property of another equals making that person your slave. Anyone taking the fruit of my efforts is asking for lumps.