In my opinion this is just murder.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Reiko

That depends on who compiles the statistics.

When I want your opinion I'll beat it out of you!

[SlowwHand]

That's one instance of Texas. Nothing is glossed over on anything here. This is what happens and this is what we do about it. It's a mindset and is the reason I have no sympathy on punishments. I know, they know, all know.

[Reiko]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


When I want your opinion I'll beat it out of you!

yeah yeah che-boy

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I think we are kind of saying the same thing. I think it is defacto considred a theat if someone is inside your house against your will committing a felony. If it happens outside your house you probably have some explaining to do.

In Texas it wouldn't matter

Look at this provision

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

I read this to mean I can shoot the guy fleeing with my stereo in the back

I got this from herehttp://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc.html
let me know if its inacurate since some of the clauses that allow using deadly force at night strike me as unusal

BUt it probably means that in Texas I can see someone breaking in to anothers house and go over there to kill them. Look at 9.43(1) since its an "or" and you don't need to meet the tests in (2)


THis is why I keep saying you need to look at the jurisdiction. IN Canada self -defence and defence of another is the only justification for using deadly force. Other places have broader scopes

[Lefty Scaevola]

You missed the note in the legislative history about the law being an incentive for burglars, robber, etc to move from Texas to Canada.

[Krill]

Wow. No other way around it. Wow.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So Gepap, you aren't concerned that the murder rate in NYC is higher then for Texas as a whole?

No, because unlike you, I have common sense and I seem to be able to differentiate between 8 million people living in the most dense populated part of the United States, and 24 million people in the second larges state in the United States.

I do like the fact that NYC is a safer city than Dallas, Fort Worth, or Houston.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou070605_tj_homiciderate.1c91bb8f.html

Houston's homicide rate 2nd highest in nation

02:48 AM CDT on Wednesday, June 6, 2007

By Rosanna Ruiz / Houston Chronicle

Chau Nguyen's 11 News report Houston's homicide rate surpassed Dallas' in 2006 for the first time in more than a decade and is now the second-highest among the nation's largest cities, according to figures released Monday by the FBI.

Houstonians were killed at a rate of 18.2 per 100,000 residents last year, a number that had gone unmatched since 1995 when the FBI began posting crime statistics online. Dallas' homicide rate was higher than Houston's in all of the previous 11 years.

The two cities' homicide rates were almost identical last year. But Houston's rate increased nearly 12 percent as Dallas' rate declined more than 8 percent. Houston has seen an uptick in homicides since more than 100,000 Louisiana residents fled to the city after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Only Philadelphia now has a higher homicide rate than Houston on the list of the nation's 10 largest cities. San Antonio ranks seventh on the list, while Dallas is fifth.

Texas' cities are a scary place.

[Krill]

I'll go to NYC if someone will fly me there to check out its' safety...

[GePap]

Having checked stats, Fort Worth is actually safe, but Dallas and Houston remain hell holes.

[Krill]

Lok, all of the sodding US is a hell hole aparty from the NE.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Krill
Lok, all of the sodding US is a hell hole aparty from the NE.

Nahh-- nopthing wrong with the northwest either.

In fact all the bits close to Canada are ok

[Krill]

Even with the RMCP?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Krill
Even with the RMCP?

Whats that?

Do you mean the RCMP-- ie the Mounties

[Krill]

yup

[Flubber]

THOUGHT THAT

but why would that impact my view on the nothern US