"Well, here it goes buddy"

[MrFun]

For example -- does the law permit a property owner to use a gun on an unarmed thief who was trying to steal your car, plasma television, or some other valuable piece of property?

[Ecthy]

You're the American. You tell us.

[MrFun]

But I'm not an American lawyer -- maybe someone like Imran is more suited to answering this question.

[Ecthy]

All I know is a friend of my family got charged with battery after stabbing with his key a number of teens who attacked him. Having done it in his own defense wouldn't help, he only got rid of the charge when he argued that he had been defending his briefcase. Of course this is the East German family narrative pointed against the evilness of the capitalist system.

[Asher]

Imran is not the kind of lawyer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
For example -- does the law permit a property owner to use a gun on an unarmed thief who was trying to steal your car, plasma television, or some other valuable piece of property?

Of course not (except perhaps in Texas... but I dunno if the law allowing deadly force to protect property ever went through... otherwise...). Deadly force can ONLY be used in response to potential deadly force. Never to protect merely property.

[Ecthy]

Imran is not a very kind lawyer.

It's understood.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course not (except perhaps in Texas... but I dunno if the law allowing deadly force to protect property ever went through... otherwise...). Never to protect merely property.

Wrong in tezas. Texas has had for decades deadly force to protect your own property from theft in certain situations. While the law appeared to have some significant qualifications on its face, they are heavily fact and intention loaded, and the practical result is that there is little chance someone will be indited for killing a thief who was carry off a felony amount of loot.

[Lefty Scaevola]

As for citizen grand juries, they can reach pretty damn far to let 'good guys' off for smaering 'bad guys'. There was a case in aArizona that I recall from law school days. A citizen shot and killed an unarmed thief breaking into his car, with a scoped rifle, some dozens of meter away, through a locked, steel security gate. No Billed on 'self defense'.
As for the relative value of property vs human life, a sizable portion of the population, enough to have reasonable chance of getting a few on any jury, view a thief's or burglar's or street criminal's life as a NEGATIVE value. Just one of those unintended results that can come from empowering citizens

[DanS]

An unintended consequence? Are you sure it was unintended?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Nope.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Of course not (except perhaps in Texas... but I dunno if the law allowing deadly force to protect property ever went through... otherwise...). Deadly force can ONLY be used in response to potential deadly force. Never to protect merely property.

So United States is still a somewhat civilized country.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
As for citizen grand juries, they can reach pretty damn far to let 'good guys' off for smaering 'bad guys'. There was a case in aArizona that I recall from law school days. A citizen shot and killed an unarmed thief breaking into his car, with a scoped rifle, some dozens of meter away, through a locked, steel security gate. No Billed on 'self defense'.
As for the relative value of property vs human life, a sizable portion of the population, enough to have reasonable chance of getting a few on any jury, view a thief's or burglar's or street criminal's life as a NEGATIVE value. Just one of those unintended results that can come from empowering citizens

That was a bad decision on part of the jury. How many more steps would they take to find free-for-all vigilantinism as morally and legally acceptable?

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun


So United States is still a somewhat civilized country.

Wrong in tezas.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Wrong in tezas. Texas has had for decades deadly force to protect your own property from theft in certain situations. While the law appeared to have some significant qualifications on its face, they are heavily fact and intention loaded, and the practical result is that there is little chance someone will be indited for killing a thief who was carry off a felony amount of loot.

Lefty is correct. I'd add that you can also use deadly force to protect the property of others, and that includes shooting people who are running away after committing a robbery.

I've copied the relevant parts of the statute here:

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; (9.41 just says he needs to use force to stop them getting away – Ag.) 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.

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.

It seems pretty clear that Horn had a good case under current Texas law, the fact that current Texas law is bat**** insane notwithstanding.