Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > 2+2 Communities > EDF

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 11-28-2007, 11:35 PM
MuresanForMVP MuresanForMVP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: out there
Posts: 2,706
Default Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Intent means that you intend the act. Whether the actor thinks it is lawfull doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I know, but as it's discussed here [ QUOTE ]
In criminal law, for a given actus reus ("guilty act"), the requirement to prove intent consists of showing mens rea (mental state, "guilty mind").

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

"guilty mind" is that you intend to kill. Knowledge of law is rarely an element of a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didnt read your edit, what are we even arguing about? Let's continue this thread hmm?
  #122  
Old 11-28-2007, 11:37 PM
MuresanForMVP MuresanForMVP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: out there
Posts: 2,706
Default Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[ QUOTE ]
Given that, it seems that killing fleeing burglars probably is OK. The best counterargument is probably that the killer used an unreasonable amount of force. Which is possible, but hard to tell without knowing more about the details of the shooting. Texas craziness FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yea wow, looking at that certainly makes it seem that he was justified. Texas craziness is right...
  #123  
Old 11-28-2007, 11:39 PM
ike ike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,130
Default Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[ QUOTE ]
So I actually did some research here and dug up the following:
[ QUOTE ]
§ 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.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that, it seems that killing fleeing burglars probably is OK. The best counterargument is probably that the killer used an unreasonable amount of force. Which is possible, but hard to tell without knowing more about the details of the shooting. Texas craziness FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, looks like he's 100% within his legal rights. texas is a sick place.
  #124  
Old 11-28-2007, 11:42 PM
MuresanForMVP MuresanForMVP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: out there
Posts: 2,706
Default Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To





I may be moving to Texas soon. I've been saying throughout the thread that I thought he was guilty, but if those laws posted by Bobman are true that's pretty awesome. Man I had no idea it was that drastic down there.



edit: That state should change its motto to "Texas: where it's open season on scumbags."
  #125  
Old 11-28-2007, 11:48 PM
Colonel Kataffy Colonel Kataffy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: lol lossoflivelyhoodaments
Posts: 2,606
Default Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I actually did some research here and dug up the following:
[ QUOTE ]
§ 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.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that, it seems that killing fleeing burglars probably is OK. The best counterargument is probably that the killer used an unreasonable amount of force. Which is possible, but hard to tell without knowing more about the details of the shooting. Texas craziness FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, looks like he's 100% within his legal rights. texas is a sick place.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting requirement, sucks for the guy that the incident took place in "broad daylight"
  #126  
Old 11-28-2007, 11:52 PM
istewart istewart is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,990
Default Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[ QUOTE ]

To think that someone could go to prison for this is scary as hell to me. This man didn't wake up that morning with the intent to kill two black men. He was given a set of circumstances and he acted. Was it the wrong -- probably. Would you, I or anyone else do what he did --- probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[x] Someone actually believes this
  #127  
Old 11-28-2007, 11:53 PM
MuresanForMVP MuresanForMVP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: out there
Posts: 2,706
Default Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

Is the requirement for 9.42 that it occurs during the nighttime? Like,as the end all?
  #128  
Old 11-28-2007, 11:54 PM
istewart istewart is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,990
Default Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

And FWIW, in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
This man didn't wake up that morning with the intent to kill two black men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though it's not explicit in the recording, I think most of us can assume this guy would use any chance to shoot a black dude. If they were white this almost surely would not have happened in the way that it did.
  #129  
Old 11-28-2007, 11:57 PM
Kiddmother Kiddmother is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Shortstacker Mom
Posts: 258
Default Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[ QUOTE ]
Is the requirement for 9.42 that it occurs during the nighttime? Like,as the end all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the nighttime requirement seems kind of weird. Rob us during the day but don't screw with us at night??

I was hoping to hear from the guy in BBV who had his place torn to [censored] by someone stealing a few TV's, DVD's and his belts to see what his take on this is.
  #130  
Old 11-29-2007, 12:03 AM
Kiddmother Kiddmother is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Shortstacker Mom
Posts: 258
Default Re: Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[ QUOTE ]
And FWIW, in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
This man didn't wake up that morning with the intent to kill two black men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though it's not explicit in the recording, I think most of us can assume this guy would use any chance to shoot a black dude. If they were white this almost surely would not have happened in the way that it did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Seriously that was not my take on the guy at all --- I picture him as "old school" for sure --- but I think he was intent on not letting "a thief" get away with robbing in his neighborhood in broad daylight --- I didn't get him not wanting "a black person" to get away with it. I believe his only mention of them being black was when the 911 operator specifically asked if they were white, black, hispanic, etc.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.