DjTj Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 So, in Texas, if I see somebody run a red light you think its just fine for me to chase them down, pull a gun on them, and, if they try to leave, shoot them????The Texas statute is specifically limited to "arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during thenighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime" ... so maybe if he runs a red light at night. Does anyone know if other states have these laws? I tried to search Virginia but couldn't easily find it for free ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 True Fact: In Texas, while trying to make homosexuality illeagal, they were also trying to revoke the law against beastiality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Traffic offenses are not criminal offenses,unlike burglary which is a felony criminal act..btw...pull a gun here and you better plan on using it if needed. Fine, substitue that with swiping a piece of candy at the grocery store or cheating on their taxes (a federal offense). Suddenly the citizenry has the right to apply the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Fine, substitue that with swiping a piece of candy at the grocery store or cheating on their taxes (a federal offense). Suddenly the citizenry has the right to apply the death penalty."arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime"...if you're going to try to paint twa into a corner, at least use an example like a kid playing with matches in the backyard or trying to borrow his dad's car at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Fine, substitue that with swiping a piece of candy at the grocery store or cheating on their taxes (a federal offense). Suddenly the citizenry has the right to apply the death penalty. To defend life,property or stop the commission of a felony, not sure on the candy...but if you are willing to go thru the legal mess with a shooting try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 "arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime"...if you're going to try to paint twa into a corner, at least use an example like a kid playing with matches in the backyard or trying to borrow his dad's car at night. I'm not referring to the actual Texas law and I wasn't referring to twa's post. I was referring to the first two lines of this post... I don't think that's accurate. Joe had the right to involve himself in stopping a crime. Exersizing that right doesn't obsolve his right to protect himself. The folks committing the crime don't get special rights because they are committing a crime and this guy choose to get involved. JMS puts no restrictions on the size of the law broken. I think this type of thinking leads to the law on the books in Texas that will eventually lead to even looser laws that lead to vigilantism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 JMS, I just don't see any support that a citizen has a right to stop a crime. It's not a right. You can have a qualified privilege to do so. But even to have exercised that privilege, you have to be ready to prove certain things. Otherwise, you may have committed an assault and battery yourself. Your claim is a very dangerous one. To claim that every citizen has a right to enforce the laws is simply wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Wow I read the article thinking there was one idiot but it turns out the people writing the laws down there are every bit as dumb (and by extension...). Material possessions > the value of human life. Yeeehaw! :dunce: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I'm not referring to the actual Texas law and I wasn't referring to twa's post. I was referring to the first two lines of this post...We're going to have to wait for JMS to speak for himself on the issue of "rights," but JMS puts no restrictions on the size of the law broken. I think this type of thinking leads to the law on the books in Texas that will eventually lead to even looser laws that lead to vigilantism.I think there is a distinction to be made here between vigilantism and what these kinds of laws authorize. They are not a license for the citizenry to administer the death penalty - in fact, they are not concerned with penalties at all.If someone steals your car in Texas, you are not allowed to go to their house, shoot them, and take it back. You can only shoot if it prevents the ongoing commission of a crime. It's not punitive; it's prophylactic. And even the Texas statute, which is probably the most liberal one in the country, you must reasonably believe that shooting is the only way you can safely stop the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 We're going to have to wait for JMS to speak for himself on the issue of "rights," but I think there is a distinction to be made here between vigilantism and what these kinds of laws authorize. They are not a license for the citizenry to administer the death penalty - in fact, they are not concerned with penalties at all.If someone steals your car in Texas, you are not allowed to go to their house, shoot them, and take it back. You can only shoot if it prevents the ongoing commission of a crime. It's not punitive; it's prophylactic. And even the Texas statute, which is probably the most liberal one in the country, you must reasonably believe that shooting is the only way you can safely stop the crime. The last part is the sticky widget as far as I'm concerned. What is reasonably believe to most people that would be willing to shoot another person is, in my mind, horroific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The last part is the sticky widget as far as I'm concerned. What is reasonably believe to most people that would be willing to shoot another person is, in my mind, horroific.Yeah, if you ask me, Mr. Horn was really pushing the limits of reasonable belief in this case, but if it takes proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I would be very reluctant to convict him of murder unless he gave some really damning testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Yeah, if you ask me, Mr. Horn was really pushing the limits of reasonable belief in this case, but if it takes proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I would be very reluctant to convict him of murder unless he gave some really damning testimony. The question, more likely, is whether he will be convicted of manslaughter, or even assault. The good citizens of Texas probably want to erect a statute of him instead. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oriolesfan93p Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 JMS, I just don't see any support that a citizen has a right to stop a crime. It's not a right. You can have a qualified privilege to do so. But even to have exercised that privilege, you have to be ready to prove certain things. Otherwise, you may have committed an assault and battery yourself. Your claim is a very dangerous one. To claim that every citizen has a right to enforce the laws is simply wrong. How about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest United States All states other than North Carolina permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. Note particularly that American citizens do not have the authorities or the legal protections of the police, and are strictly liable before both the civil law and criminal law for any violation of the rights of another.[10] North Carolina General Statutes do not provide for citizen arrest, but instead provide for detention by private persons.[11] These statutes apply both to civilians and to police officers outside their jurisdiction. Citizens and police may detain any person who they have probable cause to believe committed in their presence a felony, breach of the peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property. The key distinction between an arrest and a detainment is that the detainee may not be transported without their consent. Washington does not have a specific statute granting citizen's arrest powers. However there has been several state court decisions rendered that affirm and uphold common law citizen's arrest power for (a) felonies committed in the presence of the person making the arrest or ( misdemeanors committed in the presence of the person making the arrest provided the misdemeanor also constituted a breach of the peace. From what I read a citizen has the right to stop a crime if they believe that a felony is being commited. They have the right to arrest someone, and if that person threatens their life then the local law states that this guy has the right to defend his person. I have no idea where someone would get the idea that they didn't have the right to stop a crime. They shouldn't do it because they are not trained and do not have some of the legal protection from lawsuits and such, but they do indeed have the right to make a citizen's arrest and if the person threaten's their life in the process they have a right to defend themselves. I am not saying this guy shouldn't have waited for the police and there is a possibility that the families of these people may have a lawsuit for wrongful death but that is the risk he took. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Well guys who run away some times turn around and attack from another direction. Like I said, to my mind, it all depends on whether Joe felt he was in danger..... I give every benifit of the doubt to the non criminal. If he feared for his life or safety, fire away...And I don't have any doubt that confronting criminals stepping out of your neighbors home, Joes had every reason to fear for his saftey. The fact that he still chose to involve himself doesn't dismiss the danger and it doesn't make Joe responsible for that danger. The criminals are on the hook for both.. Again just my opinion... but I would rather live in a world were people did involve themselves in stopping crime. You want to scare a criminal and send them running, just shout hey you, and watch them run, I know I have done when people have creeped around a neighbours house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 How about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrestFrom what I read a citizen has the right to stop a crime if they believe that a felony is being commited. They have the right to arrest someone, and if that person threatens their life then the local law states that this guy has the right to defend his person. I have no idea where someone would get the idea that they didn't have the right to stop a crime. They shouldn't do it because they are not trained and do not have some of the legal protection from lawsuits and such, but they do indeed have the right to make a citizen's arrest and if the person threaten's their life in the process they have a right to defend themselves. I am not saying this guy shouldn't have waited for the police and there is a possibility that the families of these people may have a lawsuit for wrongful death but that is the risk he took. Ok, I read the same thing and I don't see the word "right," in there anywhere. There is a big difference between a state "permitting" someone to do something, and having a right to do it. I agree that many, if not all states, have allowed for "privileges" to arrest people or to even kill people under certain circumstances. That is not a right. And it is not a small distinction either. There is a big and very important difference between having a right to shoot someone robbing your neighbor and being permitted to use force to prevent a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The question, more likely, is whether he will be convicted of manslaughter, or even assault. The good citizens of Texas probably want to erect a statute of him instead. :doh: Whereas the good citizens of SF would crucify him? As one of the good citizens of Texas and his hometown I think a statute is out of line,however IF the DA is foolish enough to charge him I will be donating to his defense. I would also be happy to have him live next door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Whereas the good citizens of SF would crucify him?As one of the good citizens of Texas and his hometown I think a statute is out of line,however IF the DA is foolish enough to charge him I will be donating to his defense. I would also be happy to have him live next door. Hope you don't get into a property dispute with him. You might be the next guy shot "in self defense." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Hope you don't get into a property dispute with him. You might be the next guy shot "in self defense." I fail to see the link between attempting to stop a felony and a property dispute. Could you elaborate? Is anyone that would try to stop a burglary a cold blooded killer that is a danger to others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsb84 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 2 fewer criminals on the street and people are complaining? hah. Only in America. I wouldn't mind having that guy as a neighbor either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I fail to see the link between attempting to stop a felony and a property dispute.Could you elaborate? Just protecting my property, man. My castle. Is anyone that would try to stop a burglary a cold blooded killer that is a danger to others? No, anyone who goes out of his way to shoot people after he has already called the cops and been told by law enforcement not to go outside - that guy is a danger to others. Anyone who can stop a crime easily just by yelling out his window but no - he has run out there and whip out the heat - that guy is a danger to others. Anyone who EVER goes for the firearm WHEN HE DOESN'T HAVE TO, and goes out of his way to shoot someone, that guy is a danger to others. That is what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 He's a criminal because he chased them out of the house. If he had shot them in the house, I have no problem with it. But when a criminal leaves your house without harming anyway, frankly, I see no reason to take a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 A danger to others? Funny ,Joe has lived a long productive life and the only ones I know he has endangered were criminals. I'll accept the risk and extend benefit of doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playboy1972 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 http://www.mediatakeout.com/19434/shocking_audio_man_shoots_burglars_after_9-1-1_dispatcher_pleads_with_him_not_to.html Here is the audio of the 911 call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trio Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Hmm... I don't know of anything to support the idea that a "right" to arrest or stop or kill a criminal is state dependent. Although, I do know that there is a right in the Constitution to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So, I think you are wrong on that account. sigh....:doh: no you do not have a Constitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"... dear Lord...its not even the same document... your quote is from the Declaration of Independence... "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." for the love.....you people are killing me lately.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 sigh....:doh: no you do not have a Constitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"... dear Lord...its not even the same document... your quote is from the Declaration of Independence... "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." for the love.....you people are killing me lately.... whoops.... evenso, I fail to see the right of citizens to enforce the law anywhere. And I'm pretty sure that there are fundamental right to life, liberty, and property established in the Constitution. The quote may not be accurate, but the substance of it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.