View Full Version : you loot, I shoot
frostfire
11-21-2007, 14:04
saw these signs in New Orleans, but Joe Horn put this to practice in Texas. AM and TR discussed this exact scenario in a different thread.
Crime doesn't pay vs. trigger-happy.
LE folks & lawyers, what's your take?
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5538780
(11/15/07 - KTRK/PASADENA, TX) - A dramatic 911 call from the Pasadena man who allegedly shot and killed two men accused of burglarizing his neighbor has been released. The dispatcher tried to talk him out of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At about 2pm Wednesday, Joe Horn called 911 from inside his Pasadena home. He says he saw two men break into his neighbor's house. Horn tells police that he is armed with a shotgun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL 911 AUDIO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hurry up, man. Catch these guys, will ya? I ain't gonna let them go, I'm gonna be honest with ya," said Horn on the 911 call. "I'm not gonna let them go. I'm not gonna let them get away with this (expletive)."
Horn and the dispatcher spent more than seven minutes on the phone, much of that with the dispatcher trying to convince Horn not to go outside.
"I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot," said Horn.
"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?" responded the dispatcher. "It's not worth shooting someone over this."
"I don't want to, but if I go out there to see what the hell is going on, what choice do I have?" said Horn.
"I don't want you to go out there. I asked if you could see anything out there," said the dispatcher.
Horn tells the dispatcher that he understands his rights and even makes reference to the September 1 expansion that gives homeowners greater protection from prosecution should they choose to confront someone breaking into their home.
Before he can be convinced otherwise, Horn tells police he sees the burglars coming out of his house.
"He's coming out of the window right now," said Horn to the 911 dispatcher. "I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window."
"Don't, don't , don't go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?" said the dispatcher.
"(Expletive), they just stole something," said Horn to the dispatcher. "I'm sorry. I ain't gonna let them get away with this. They got a bag of something. I'm doing it."
The dispatcher can't stop Horn, who takes the phone with him as he goes outside.
"Move, you're dead," Horn, who took the phone outside with him, could be heard saying to the suspects.
Then three gunshots could be heard.
Horn admits later on the 911 call that he did, in fact, fire those shots. The names of the two men shot have not yet been released pending identification and notification of their next of kin. Horn has not been arrested or charged with any crime. A police investigation is still underway. This case likely will end up in the hands of a Harris County grand jury.
TtownBeatdown
11-21-2007, 14:18
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5309288.html
I don't think he did anything wrong except saying he was going to kill them before he actually did.
Good ol' Texas!
Just read the article. Outstanding IMHO.
This guy could be my neighbor anyday.
Americans have the right to defend themselves, and those around them.
Holly
The Reaper
11-21-2007, 14:42
For defense purposes, he sure made a lot of statements that could be used against himself.
Since the benefit goes to the person employing lethal force if they were defending themselves or their property, I think he should have been less macho and more fearful in his statements. In the transcript, he sounds eager to go out of his way shoot them.
If you call 911, the call is going to be recorded and every word you say is going to be analyzed. There is no point in talking to the dispatcher after reporting the location and nature of the crime, descriptions of the perps and yourself, that you are armed, concerned for your safety, and prepared to defend yourself.
If he had shouted something more along the line of "Oh my God, please don't hurt me!" before firing, and forensics showed that they were moving towards him when he fired, he would in all likelihood not be charged or sent before a grand jury in this jurisdiction. As it is now, he sounded eager to shoot, and is going to have to account for his actions in court. Even if he is acquitted, there will be significant legal costs to defend himself.
Not saying that they didn't deserve it, or that the shooting was not justified. Just pointing out that this does not help those who support the castle doctrine, and that your words can come back to hurt you.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Yep, they sure do! They sting very badly. Why do you think while watching "COPS" at 1900hrs. EST on Court TV that when an officer Tasers somebody he is constantly yelling orders at the subject to comply or else? Now having Tasered people myself, what is really running through my mind while screaming commands is I am laughing my butt off. But that will never come out on the witness stand. :o
NousDefionsDoc
11-21-2007, 15:04
Lot of turning away from the social contract lately...
Lot of turning away from the social contract lately...
Como?
For defense purposes, he sure made a lot of statements that could be used against himself.
Since the benefit goes to the person employing lethal force if they were defending themselves or their property, I think he should have been less macho and more fearful in his statements. In the transcript, he sounds eager to go out of his way shoot them.
If you call 911, the call is going to be recorded and every word you say is going to be analyzed. There is no point in talking to the dispatcher after reporting the location and nature of the crime, descriptions of the perps and yourself, that you are armed, concerned for your safety, and prepared to defend yourself.
If he had shouted something more along the line of "Oh my God, please don't hurt me!" before firing, and forensics showed that they were moving towards him when he fired, he would in all likelihood not be charged or sent before a grand jury in this jurisdiction. As it is now, he sounded eager to shoot, and is going to have to account for his actions in court. Even if he is acquitted, there will be significant legal costs to defend himself.
Not saying that they didn't deserve it, or that the shooting was not justified. Just pointing out that this does not help those who support the castle doctrine, and that your words can come back to hurt you.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Greetings Sir.
Wanted to ask a question, and hope it is okay?
Suppose this is a learning tool...If confronted with similar situation, what would be the appropriate course of action? Variables being neighbor is not at home, elderly, etc...(Personally, if the situation were mine...I'd do the same thing.) But, is it the wrong response?:confused:
Holly
When a police dispatcher tells you to do something, you do it! No questions asked. They should be treated just like a uniformed officer on the scene. I have worked with various dispatch centers during my 10 years on our VFD and they are outstanding the huge majority of the time. These guys were slime, no question. But that is not a capital offense. How do you know they didn't stick their hands in the air and surrender? When the police are near at hand they are the ones trained to handle these situations, not crazy old farts with a shotgun. I live in Harris County.
The Reaper
11-21-2007, 17:44
Hmm.
Where I came from, and I was a dispatcher for several years, I was not sworn and could no more order people to comply than any other stranger on the phone.
What is their authority based on?
TR
Depends where you are in the county. I'll admit, I am not certain about Pasadena. In Houston, the FD handles calls. Where I live, they ask the nature of the emergency and then either transfer you to the Fire/EMS dispatch or the appropriate law enforcement agency.
Como?
I know that Wikipedia doesn't get the love around here that it appears to do elsewhere, but this is a pretty good intro to the social contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
HTH
Books
Firebeef
11-22-2007, 09:25
I can't speak for Texas, but dispatchers in Colorado could just as easily be the people who call you during dinner and ask if you have a few minutes to fill out a survey. That being said....most are well trained and do a hell of a job.... a thankless job at that. Several of our Fire dispatchers are top notch. Calm, anticipate needs, communicate threats (and BS) quickly and efficently. They carry no authority though, and if I had a dispatcher on the phone while I watched someone ransacking my own house, I think I would have to hang up before I went and communicated my recorded intent to do bodily harm to another human being (in this instance I use the term HB very loosely).
NousDefionsDoc
11-22-2007, 09:44
I know that Wikipedia doesn't get the love around here that it appears to do elsewhere, but this is a pretty good intro to the social contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
HTH
Books
Not bad.
An Army buddy of mine was selling a pickup in Pasadena, TX back in 1991. The prospective buyers killed him and stole the truck. They we never caught and the truck was never recovered.
I've listened to the tape of this incident several times and the dispatcher never told Mr. Horn that the police were on the way. If he'd known that the cops were, say, two blocks away, he might not have engaged the scum.
Pat
Remington Raidr
11-24-2007, 01:58
I was a dispatcher. 3d shift, O dark thirty, 911 call. "Some guy is coming through my window". I talk to the guy, my partner gets squads going. "He's crawling in on top of the dresser in front of the window. I have a gun, can I shoot the guy?" I tell him I can't make that call, my partner updates the squads that the caller is armed and prepared to shoot, squads still still enroute. "Stop or I'll shoot man!""I mean it, I will shoot you" "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT" . . . BOOM!
We both jumped in our chairs. Partner advises squads shots fired and tones out the paramedics. Caller tells me "I shot him". I asked if he hit him and where. Caller advises me guy was still proned out on top of the dresser and not moving. Asked the caller if he can get to an exterior door. Front door. Told him take the gun with him, unload it at the front door, leave the gun on the deck and step outside with his hands where the officers can see them. Squads updated with description of caller. Contact made, scene secured, medics in. This occurred two minutes away from the regional trauma center. Meds load and go.
Talked with the Lt. on the paramedic rig later, said guy shoulda died. .44 round entered just inside of his left shoulder traveled down his torso missing all the vital organs, down his left leg, and blew out his left heel. Life as he has known it is over.
Officer investigates, Mr. Unlucky MF comes home drunk off his ass, tries his key in the door and it doesn't work, he thinks cause he is too drunk to make it work, so, as he had apparently done many times before, he goes around to his bedroom window to climb in. Ever notice how houses in some subdivisions are architecually identical? Unlucky MF was three doors off, and so drunk he did not notice the person screaming at him from "his" bed. At the time, my state did not have a "defense of castle" privilege for the use of deadly force, but no criminal charges were filed.
Mr. MF and his attorney bring a civil suit. Pop quiz, hotshots. What result and why?
Well, you have Chicago listed as place of residence so I would figure that he (the shooter) got screwed big time for owning a pistol, and for discharging it within city limits.
Retired W4
11-24-2007, 09:33
It's the early 90's (before TX concealed carry law), two girls sit in a pickup truck on the bank of Lake Worth (Ft. Worth, TX), enjoying the sunshine. Mr. Numbnuts comes up, grabs the girl in the drivers' seat, tries to pull her out of the car (car-jackin). The girl in the passenger seat pulls out a .38 revolver from her purse and shoots Mr. Numbnuts in the face. Result: Car-jackin OVER! Grand Jury result: No Bill!
As for a civil suit in Illinois, I'm no legal HotShot, but my guess is the home owner probably had a judgement against him. That is one of many reasons I will not live in that state. I don't even like passing through.
One thing is for sure. Those Pasadena burglars won't do that again.
Doczilla
11-24-2007, 10:24
I guess anything can happen in Texas, BUT...
Shooting someone who is climbing in your bedroom window is one thing. Going outside to chase down and shoot someone who is fleeing the scene with stolen property is quite another.
I'm not saying that they didn't deserve to be removed from the gene pool. On an emotional level I agree with the homeowner. The court may not see things that way, though. The right to defend yourself usually, in the strict legal sense, does not allow you to pursue and kill someone for a property crime.
'zilla
"Hurry up, man. Catch these guys, will ya? I ain't gonna let them go, I'm gonna be honest with ya," said Horn on the 911 call. "I'm not gonna let them go. I'm not gonna let them get away with this (expletive)."
"I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot," said Horn.
"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?" responded the dispatcher. "It's not worth shooting someone over this."
"I don't want to, but if I go out there to see what the hell is going on, what choice do I have?" said Horn.
"(Expletive), they just stole something," said Horn to the dispatcher. "I'm sorry. I ain't gonna let them get away with this. They got a bag of something. I'm doing it."
1. This guy should teach a class on what not to say. He's an absolute idiot who sounds like he is just itching to go out and blast these guys. Dumb. Not once did he state or imply that he feared for his or his neighbor's safety, merely that "they stole something" and "he's not letting them get away with it." Nice. Dumbass.
2. I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment, and the Castle Doctrine. If you break into my home, I should be able to kill you. However, I do not support the idea that the Castle Doctrine should apply to other people's castles...not for a second.
Why? Well, it is pretty simple for me to know who is welcome in my home, and who is an intruder. After all, I am the one giving permission. It's pretty cut and dried. With a neighbors castle, there is just too much room for error.
Look, I have had to crawl through a window in my own home (long story), pick a lock after locking myself out, etc., and I have done these things at some pretty weird hours. I don't like the idea of my goofy assed neighbors thinking that they are justified in shooting me as I hang out a window, simply because it's 3am and too dark to recognize me.
Same goes for shooting my kid if he/she has snuck out (unknown to me) and is trying to sneak back in their window late at night. Let me decide whether or not they deserve to be shot. LOL
We get -tons- of false prowler/burglary in progress reports every night at work. Long story short, neighbors call saying tat some unknown dude is breaking into the house next door, or hauling out a TV, etc. We get there, and 99.9999999% of the time, it is a friend, moving company, or family member that the neighbor just doesn't know or recognize, and who has the homeowner's permission to be doing whatever it is they were doing.....
On one call, for example, a lady in the hospital had called her brother and asked him to go to her house, crawl in though the kitchen window, and get her keys and purse (she had been transported by ambulance, and didn't get this stuff). He complied, and the neighbors called on him. We snatched him up, and quickly figured out that there was no harm/no foul. There are tons of examples like this.
Imagine if, instead of calling, all of these nosey neighbors thought that they had the right to go out and shoot these "burglars."
I just don't think the average neighbor has access to enough info to make life and death decisions about who has a right to be on their neighbors property. Too much room for error.....way too much.
Remington Raidr
11-24-2007, 10:55
Well, you have Chicago listed as place of residence so I would figure that he (the shooter) got screwed big time for owning a pistol, and for discharging it within city limits.
Ah, geez, not the big City, but the area.
As it relates to the thread story. Mr. MF gets (drum-roll)
zip, zero, nada, bupkis
Why?
Cause he was on the phone with me, and his clear, multiple warnings were recorded for posterity, so the 911 blade can cut both ways.
In this case, you have a guy using deadly force in defense of property. Generally, even in the defense of yourself or others, most states have a duty to retreat if you can. Retreat, hell, this guy attacked, after being advised (not ordered, as dispatchers are generally non-sworn positions except in the Big City) by the dispactcher (using best Chris Rock voice) "I wouldn't do that shit if I wuz you, man.
Even the most anti-criminal, pro-police citizen has to give a hard look at taking a life solely in the defense of property. I think he could be charged and convicted of a lesser offense, such as Reckless Injury, and will get probation, but will lose every red cent he has. He should get an attorney and do his financial planning now. Every property transfer he makes to relatives will later be scrutinized by the Bankruptcy Court, and that is where he is heading, because I don't care what kind of good hands you are in, all insurance policies have exclusions for intentional acts, and it doesn't get more intentional than this. Keep us posted on the eventual outcome. It will be instructive, as all court cases are meant to be.
Remington Raidr
11-24-2007, 11:28
We get -tons- of false prowler/burglary in progress reports every night at work. Long story short, neighbors call saying tat some unknown dude is breaking into the house next door, or hauling out a TV, etc. We get there, and 99.9999999% of the time, it is a friend, moving company, or family member that the neighbor just doesn't know or recognize, and who has the homeowner's permission to be doing whatever it is they were doing.....
Imagine if, instead of calling, all of these nosey neighbors thought that they had the right to go out and shoot these "burglars."
On the other hand . . . true story . . . taxpayers get back from two week vacation to find a burglary. Responding officer interviews neighbors across the street. Did you know they were on vacation. Yes. Did you see anything suspicious. Yes. What. Four guys in a moving truck (later, determined to have been a stolen vehicle). But you knew they were on vacation? Yes. Did you call us? No. Why? Well, they were minorities and I didn't want to be a racist.
They weren't that bad, as they left THE PAINT ON THE WALLS.
Don't be a trigger-puller unless you absolutely HAVE TO. If your spidey-sense is tingling, it is tingling for a reason. Call the po-po. Be a good witness, get the plate number, WEAPONS, which hand they were held in, color of the vehicle, two-door, four-door, the direction, the bumper sticker, the big dent, the clothes, the broken window, which tail light/head light was out, and testify, as long and as often as it takes. You CAN be a part of the evildoers nightmare.
Retired W4
11-24-2007, 11:36
Subchapter D, 9.43 is particularly important in this case.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00
The incident I mentioned in a previous post happened while I was a registered voter and resident of Tarrant County, TX (Arlington). Just like the time four punks were stealing some guys wheels off his car in an apartment complex parking lot. The owner came out with an SKS and opened fire, reloaded and shot some more. The mother of one shot up punk cried "He was a good boy! He never did anything wrong!" Grand Jury result: No Bill!
These incidents where of great interest to me, as home invasions, gang violence, and car jacking where epidemic, just as they are in Chicago. The difference is the law sides with the REAL victims of these crimes in Texas.
The Reaper
11-24-2007, 12:17
Generally, even in the defense of yourself or others, most states have a duty to retreat if you can.
None of the multiple states I have lived in and had CCWs in have had this requirement.
Sounds like you have absorbed some Northern liberal-think.
Citation of your source for this, please.
TR
Told him take the gun with him, unload it at the front door, leave the gun on the deck and step outside with his hands where the officers can see them.
I'm glad it all turned out well, but I think I may have ignored this bit of advice until I was well away from the immediate area (the other side of the house doesn't meet my standards for this) and I actually saw the flashing lights approaching. For all I know, Mr. MF may have an armed, trigger happy buddy helping him up to the window.
Remington Raidr
11-24-2007, 19:58
I'm glad it all turned out well, but I think I may have ignored this bit of advice until I was well away from the immediate area (the other side of the house doesn't meet my standards for this) and I actually saw the flashing lights approaching. For all I know, Mr. MF may have an armed, trigger happy buddy helping him up to the window.
Sorry, we had the perimeter but my guys don't want to shoot the wrong guy, I agree with you and I did tell him we were onscene before he moved.
AND a research assignment from TR! I am ON IT!:D
Remington Raidr
11-25-2007, 02:27
Reseach continues, because things have changed since I was in school. Keep in mind, if you cold-cock him or drill him, the jury instruction will be the same:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"Even before the new laws, claims of self-defense were often accepted, said Gary Kleck, who teaches criminology at Florida State University.
"In the South," he said, "they more or less give the benefit of the doubt to the alleged victim's account."
Now, I understand that NYT is not gospel, and will try to reseach the issue in Free Pineland, or as close I can get, but your doubt has been validated. Must be that Robin Sage training.:D
and futher:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.1.html
print this and keep it in your ruck if you find yourself in similar circumstances, but the best course is to avoid the circumstance.
and for you Lone Star bubbas:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm
and finally, for the instant case, with a kicker for your sandbox types:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6052/is_2000_Nov/ai_71829401/pg_10
TR, if you need further, AL or CSB are in Dixie, or we will have to discuss a retainer, and I just HATE that.
Retired W4
11-25-2007, 07:07
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB00378I.htm
is a Texas Senate bill introduced for consideration. The current Section 9 (Use of Deadly Force) was posted by me previously, and includes Defence of Property of a Third Person, which is what the shooter in Pasadena was doing. The antidotal evidence about previous shootings was entered here to give some historical perspective on the leanings of the Grand Juries that have considered like incidents.
My completely uneducated and uninformed, non-professional Texas Bubba guess is the results of the Grand Jury impaneled to consider this case will be: No Bill! That, of course, will be based on the current laws of the state of Texas, regardless of what people in other states think the law should be.
Maybe some of the TX lawyers on the board can tell me if I'm completely screwed up.
AGaillard
11-26-2007, 13:21
http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/1/case.html
This may be relevant to the situation with Mr. Horn. In Garner it was ruled that deadly force is not authorized against a non violent non threatening suspect even if they flee after notice was given of the intent to arrest. Being a deputy if I had arrived at the scene and witnessed them exiting the window I could not use deadly force to arrest them unless I could articulate a threat against myself or a third party. The threshold may be lower for Mr. Horn, and I do not know if the suspects displayed weapons. He should be comended for being willing to defend his neighbor's property, and I hope his peers in Texas feel the same way.
CoLawman
11-26-2007, 15:23
Mr. Horn committed murder. The only question in my mind is to what degree, manslaughter or murder. His statements indicate his frame of mind, even prior to the confrontation. He is going to shoot them for stealing property. He is not saying I am going to shootthem if they pose a threat to me, I am going to shoot them as they are committing a burglary.
There is a reason we have due process, it is to avoid vigilantism such as this. I am an advocate for using deadly force in defense of one's own property. I even believe that a person who enters a residence poses a risk to the occupants, but a neighbor secure in his own residence and in communication with LE. Sorry but this idiot needs to do some jail time.
To be willing to kill someone for a piece of property is a strong indication of this individuals "right from wrong" wiring. My money says that Mr. Horn is not an upstanding citizen, with prior arrests.
Mr. Horn needs to do some prison time.
We live in the country in Ms. Our sheriff is a personal friend of mine and would do anything he could to help me in a time of need. The sheriff also states " it will take 45 minutes for a deputy to get to your house, do what you think is right."
We had a drunk guy pull into our long circle driveway and pull within 6 ft of our house, the only reason he stopped is because I had a pump 12 guage stuck in his window for the last 15 feet he drove. I hoped that I WOULD NOT HAVE TO SHOOT, BUT I was prepared to do so to protect my property and end the potential threat to my wife and children.
My wife called 911 while the event was occuring and our instructions were, keep the guy in the car and if he tried to get our, shoot him.
It also took 45 minutes before the first deputy got here.
All places in this country are not urban and in the rural areas we still must react to a situation before the law arrives.
clapdoc sends.
Doc, my responce time is better here, about 30 Mins. A friend kids called me and 911. Strange men where checking out their home.
I drove there, 10 minute drive from my house. Blocked their drive with my truck and secured the A/O. It took almost 40 mins after the 911 call for a Deputy to arrive.
One has to beable to what has to done to protect without fear of being victimized by the courts.
Hollis,
You are absolutely correct.
clapdoc sends.
brownapple
11-26-2007, 20:53
To be willing to kill someone for a piece of property is a strong indication of this individuals "right from wrong" wiring.
I find this an interesting comment, and far more indicative of your ideas of what is right than the subjects.
Thomas Jefferson came very, very close to writing "Life, Liberty and Property" in the Declaration of Independence. One of the few pretty much universal beliefs between the founding fathers, from Madison to Franklin, Jefferson to Washington; was the belief that property was worth killing or dying for.
What does that say about their "right from wrong" wiring?
CoLawman
11-26-2007, 23:19
I find this an interesting comment, and far more indicative of your ideas of what is right than the subjects.
Thomas Jefferson came very, very close to writing "Life, Liberty and Property" in the Declaration of Independence. One of the few pretty much universal beliefs between the founding fathers, from Madison to Franklin, Jefferson to Washington; was the belief that property was worth killing or dying for.
What does that say about their "right from wrong" wiring?
Regarding the wording of the Declaration of Independence, I believe your interpretation of "their" usage of the word "property" is at odds with the scholars. The Declaration was written for the intended audience of an oppressive government. The implied threat to "their" property was the King not some thief.
Our founding fathers were wrong on several issues, which eventually led to amendments to the constitution. A few glaring examples of them being wrong;
Not until 1865 was slavery abolished.
Not until 1870 was "Race no bar to vote" amendment passed.
Not until 1920 were women given the right to vote.
I might add that during the era of Jefferson et al a person was not allowed to vote unless they were a property owner.
In no way am I denigrating the greatness of our founding fathers. They were not immune to influences of their time and place. While writing such phrases as "unalienable rights" they failed to consider how ludicrous and hypocritical those words were ,considering the elephant in the room serving them refreshments.
We no longer hang horse thieves! I believe that is a good thing. We no longer lynch people, again a good thing. Since around 1978 or 1979 we no longer give police the authority to shoot a "fleeing felon". Once again a good thing.
I believe our grandchildren and great grandchildren will look back at some of our archaic laws and wonder how we could have been so primitive. Abortion comes to mind.
You are correct in stating I gave my opinion as to what is right. That was the purpose of my responding to this topic. I have no problem with an individual arming himself and going to his neighbors aid. My problem lies with the taking of two lives for a television or some items? Seems pretty straight forward to me. If a cop is not allowed to shoot under the same circumstances, then a murder has occurred.
I would like to add, again, I am fully supportive of residents being allowed to use deadly force against an intruder. Totally different set of circumstances!
brownapple
11-27-2007, 01:42
The same generation that those people who objected to theft by the King of England were also a generation that went and banded together to defend each others property from bands of Indians, from pirates, etc. As you pointed out, they hung horsethieves.
Obviously, they considered property of more value than you do. And the franchise related to that value(btw, women had the right to vote in some states when the Constitution was signed. Same for free blacks). Personally, I think universal sufferage is one of the great stupidities of modern America. If a person can't be bothered to provide some basic service to their nation (whether it is property ownership, service or taxpaying), why should they have a voice in the running of the nation?
Now a jury has a duty to decide the issue of right and wrong in regards to actions like that described. And I expect one will. They'll decide whether it was murder or not.
I'm just curious what qualifies you to judge someone else's ideas of what is right and wrong and decide that your opinion of what is right is the criteria for a statement about someone's mental state (which is how I read your comment on the subject's values and his "wiring")? To decide (on the basis of limited information) that a man committed murder?
Remington Raidr
11-27-2007, 08:03
It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. As requested by TR, with Pineland cites where applicable (caveat: I have not reviewed the actual NC cases and have redacted cites from other jurisdictions), the looooong answer:
§ 109. Duty to retreat
Although it has been held that retreat is not a condition precedent of the use of ordinary physical force in self-defense, it has also been held that the duty to retreat must be observed before force may be invoked.
The question whether one who is neither the aggressor nor a party to a mutual combat must retreat has divided the authorities. Generally, retreat is not a condition precedent of the use of ordinary physical force in self-defense, especially where immediate action appears to be necessary for self-protection. Even if one can safely retreat, he or she is not required to do so before using non-deadly force in self-defense. There is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be, even though it has been held that a person has a duty to retreat when threatened by another person who also dwells in the same place. There is no duty to retreat where the person assaulted is in his or her own home, or in a place of business, or on his or her premises.
However, according to some authorities, the duty to retreat must be observed if reasonably possible or before force may be invoked. In this connection, it is held that the principle of retreat is salutary if reasonably limited, and that the issue of retreat arises only if the accused resorted to deadly force. In other words, the accused must make all reasonable efforts to withdraw from the encounter before resorting to the use of deadly force. Hence, it is not the nature of the force defended against which raises the issue of retreat, but rather the nature of the force which the accused employed in his or her defense. If the accused does not resort to deadly force, one who is assailed may hold his or her ground whether the attack upon him or her is of deadly or some lesser character.
In accordance with such principles, the one assaulted may not meet force with force if he or she has a reasonable opportunity to withdraw and avoid the conflict, and it so appears to him or her acting as an ordinarily prudent person.The issue on the duty to retreat is not whether in retrospect it can be found that the accused could have retreated unharmed, but rather whether the accused knew the opportunity was there, and in such inquiry the total circumstances including the attendant excitement must be considered.
Use of deadly force
An innocent victim of assault need not retreat before using deadly force if the victim believes the use of such force is necessary for self-protection and the belief is based on reasonable grounds. N.C.—State v. Allen, 141 N.C. App. 610, 541 S.E.2d 490 (2000).
No duty to retreat
There is no duty to retreat from one's own home when acting in self-defense in the home regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident, although any use of force must be reasonable under the specific circumstances of each case. N.C.—State v. Everett, 592 S.E.2d 582 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
Porch part of home for purposes of the no retreat rule
Relative's residence
Relative's residence that defendant was staying at for a week or two while he looked for work was not his own "home," and thus, defendant had a duty to retreat from assault at the residence. N.C.—State v. Everett, 592 S.E.2d 582 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
In front of residence
A victim of an assault with a deadly weapon was under no duty to retreat but could exercise his right of self-defense and stand his ground and defend himself by use of all force and means apparently necessary where accused approached victim in front of the victim's residence carrying a loaded bow with arrow pointed at the victim.
Reason for criticism
Much of the criticism goes not to its inherent validity but rather to unwarranted applications of the rule; for example, it is correctly observed that one can hardly retreat from a rifle shot at close range, but if the weapon were a knife, a lead of a city block might well be enough.
Atrocious assault case
Question of retreat could arise in atrocious assault case only if accused intended to use deadly force.
Awareness of escape route
In the case of use of deadly force in self-defense, individuals who are attacked must attempt to retreat if they are consciously aware of an open, safe, and available avenue of escape.
Public place
In a public place one who chooses to stand his ground and fight where presumptively there is an avenue of peaceful retreat is in a poor posture to claim self-defense.
CJS ASSAULT § 109
and
§ 211. Defendant's premises
In general, a person is not obliged to retreat where, being without fault in bringing on the difficulty, the person is assaulted while in his or her dwelling house, office, or place of business, or on his or her premises.
Generally, a person need not retreat or seek to escape, even though he or she can do so without increasing his or her danger, but may lawfully resist even to the extent of taking life if necessary, where, being without fault in bringing on the difficulty, the person is assaulted while in his or her own dwelling house, in his or her place of business,or on his or her premises. Persons in their own homes assaulted or placed in apparent imminent danger of great personal injury, have the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, even to extent of taking a life if such persons actually believe, and circumstances and surrounding conditions are such that reasonably cautious and prudent person would believe, a danger of death or great personal injury to be imminent at the hands of the assailant.
The "castle doctrine" is derived from the principle that one's home is one's castle and is based on the theory that if a person is bound to become a fugitive from his or her own home, there would be no refuge for the person anywhere in the world. The castle doctrine is relevant only to acts of self-defense that take place in the dwelling, and it has no application to a conflict outside the home. One need not have a proprietary or leasehold interest or be a permanent resident of the place before the person can avail himself or herself of the doctrine. Rather, the person need only be a member of the household, however temporarily, with an intent to make that place his or her residence, in order to invoke the "castle doctrine.”
The rule that a person assailed in his or her own dwelling is not bound to retreat is the same whether the attack proceeds from some other occupant or from an intruder. The rule is applicable even if the assailant is lawfully present. Thus, in the case of an attack by a houseguest or a friend, there is no duty to retreat in the home. There is no duty to retreat from one's own home before resorting to lethal force in self-defense against cohabitant with equal right to be in home.
However, under some authorities the exception to the doctrine of retreat applicable to an owner, tenant, or other occupier of premises repelling an attack by a person engaged in the commission of a crime is not available to repel an attack by a co-tenant or roommate, and one must attempt to retreat in the face of a deadly attack by a co-occupant. In this connection, a man attacked in his or her own dwelling may stand his or her ground only if the attacker is not a member of the household, and where both participants are residents, both have a duty to retreat and cease the fight. There is a limited duty to retreat within the residence to the extent reasonably possible.
Extent of dwelling to which doctrine applicable.
The castle doctrine applies to all areas of a dwelling, be it a room within the building, a basement or attic, or an attached appurtenance such as a garage, porch, or deck. A person who is rightfully occupying a room or part of a house is not obliged to retreat when the person is attacked while in his or her room or rooms, although this may not be the case if the attacker has equal access to the room.
Motor vehicle.
A defendant's automobile cannot be equated with his or her home, and thus the defendant has a duty to retreat from a confrontation.
Common-law rule
At common law, a person who, through no fault of his or her own, is assaulted in his or her home may stand his or her ground, meet force with force, and if necessary, kill the assailant, without any duty to retreat.
N.C.—State v. Pearson, 288 N.C. 34, 215 S.E.2d 598 (1975).
N.C.—State v. Stevenson, 81 N.C. App. 409, 344 S.E.2d 334 (1986).
No safer place to which to retreat
N.C.—State v. Stevenson, 81 N.C. App. 409, 344 S.E.2d 334 (1986).
Defendant temporarily present in dwelling of another
N.C.—State v. McLaurin, 46 N.C. App. 746, 266 S.E.2d 406 (1980).
CJS HOMICIDE § 211
Not that it will affect the legality of Horn's actions, but I think in time there will some vey interesting facts arise which the public is not yet aware of.
The Reaper
11-27-2007, 08:40
So in NC, there is no duty to retreat in any part of one's home before employing deadly force, and in other locations only as a reasonable person would deem safe.
Given the inherent rules regarding the use of deadly force, turning one's back to escape a person who has already presented a lethal force threat to oneself or others would seem to be unreasonable, would it not? If the other person is armed with a firearm and has presented a threat, how do you safely retreat? Can we outrun a bullet? Other weapons, presented within their respective ranges to justify the use of deadly force, are likely unsafe to withdraw from as well, unless the threat disarms himself or withdraws.
I am not maintaining that what the homeowner did in the first post of this story did was prudent, or even legal. If, however, the thieves had been breaking into HIS home, and he had been INside, he could have shot them both as they entered without legal concerns.
I am still waiting for you to prove your statement:
Generally, even in the defense of yourself or others, most states have a duty to retreat if you can.
Most would be defined as 26 states or more, and I am not buying that. We can pretty much write off any retreat requirement in the South, Midwest, or West (minus Kali, who knows whether you can defend yourself at all there). How many states require you to retreat from a deadly threat within your own home? I do not believe that very many require this level of restraint.
TR
The same generation that those people who objected to theft by the King of England were also a generation that went and banded together to defend each others property from bands of Indians,
I'm sure that the Indians had a quite different perspective on who that property belonged to, and who was defending what was rightfully theirs....:D
In all seriousness, I have a question for those who are advocating the use of lethal force in defense of property... especially third party property.....
What is the smallest (least valuable) item worth killing someone over? Someone breaking into a home or stealing a car are pretty cut and dried, but what about a 16 year old running off with the neghbor kid's skateboard? Shoot him? The guy stealing a six pack of beer from the convenience store.... shoot him? The college kids who do a "gas and go" at the gas station? Light them up?
Where is the line drawn?
brownapple
11-27-2007, 10:28
I draw the line where I individually choose. I don't suggest that I should tell you where to draw the line. Theft is theft.
Since around 1978 or 1979 we no longer give police the authority to shoot a "fleeing felon". Once again a good thing.
I have often pondered this one. How many times do we hear of high speed pursuits that kill or seriously injured innocent bystanders? I would prefer the shotgun blast to the head of a fleeing perp, when it can be executed, than the death of a Mom in a minivan any day of the week. “You fly….you die” would be a great deterrent.
monsterhunter
11-27-2007, 11:24
I'm sure that the Indians had a quite different perspective on who that property belonged to, and who was defending what was rightfully theirs....:D
In all seriousness, I have a question for those who are advocating the use of lethal force in defense of property... especially third party property.....
What is the smallest (least valuable) item worth killing someone over? Someone breaking into a home or stealing a car are pretty cut and dried, but what about a 16 year old running off with the neghbor kid's skateboard? Shoot him? The guy stealing a six pack of beer from the convenience store.... shoot him? The college kids who do a "gas and go" at the gas station? Light them up?
Where is the line drawn?
I would say the line was much clearer sometime ago. The general rule then was you may fire on a fleeing felon. A 16-year-old running off with a skateboard is a misdemeanor and would not fall under this old law. The same for the beer run and the gas and go. A burglar is a felon, and is usually not some kid doing a crime of opportunity. The line seems pretty clear to me.
Today for the average LEO, deadly force is only for those who present a risk of death or serious injury to someone in imminent danger. If it was up to me, I would go back to the old way. But quite honestly, It's not up to me and in the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter what I think.
I draw the line where I individually choose. I don't suggest that I should tell you where to draw the line. Theft is theft.
I am in agreement here. First No One should mess with another person, period. If a person chooses to mess with another, they give that person the right to deal with the situation. Bullys would cease to exist. Abuse and the justification of abuse is just too common. No one has the right to abuse another person.
Obviously it is more complicated than I presented here.
CoLawman
11-27-2007, 11:54
The same generation that those people who objected to theft by the King of England were also a generation that went and banded together to defend each others property from bands of Indians, from pirates, etc. As you pointed out, they hung horsethieves.
It is important to point out the distinction between theft and robbery. The example you use is robbery. The taking by the use of force against a person. Repelling attacks against pirates or "indians" meant an armed attack.
Obviously, they considered property of more value than you do. And the franchise related to that value(btw, women had the right to vote in some states when the Constitution was signed. Same for free blacks). Personally, I think universal sufferage is one of the great stupidities of modern America. If a person can't be bothered to provide some basic service to their nation (whether it is property ownership, service or taxpaying), why should they have a voice in the running of the nation?
Basing arguments in a debate on the merits of practices and customs long ago cast aside as barbaric, elitist and ignorant is futile in my humble opinion.
I'm just curious what qualifies you to judge someone else's ideas of what is right and wrong and decide that your opinion of what is right is the criteria for a statement about someone's mental state (which is how I read your comment on the subject's values and his "wiring")? To decide (on the basis of limited information) that a man committed murder?
My opinion was nothing more than a perfunctory review of the limited facts and an assumption based on that review. It was certainly not intended to offend those with opposing opinions.
I draw the line where I individually choose. I don't suggest that I should tell you where to draw the line. Theft is theft.
You might draw the line where you chose, such as Mr Horn, and be subjected to the law of the land. I do not determine the line, the law determines that line. You are absolutely correct, theft is theft, and how we as a society deal with a thief has long ago been settled. Go against those laws and you suffer the consequences.
monsterhunter
11-27-2007, 11:56
CoLawman,
I just can't agree with you on several of your points, but first off, let me just say that the slavery issue is not one of them. But deadly force against a burglar, especially after given the opportunity at gun point to give up. I just don't have a problem with that (personally that is). There once was a time when a person who stopped them would be applauded. I'm all for hanging a horse thief and shooting a fleeing felon. I look back on some of the old laws and wish we were using them today.
I've seen the same criminals victimize the same people over and over again. No matter how much education, opportunity, hugs or whatever they are given, they still just rotate in and out of jail/prison. Even some murderers go free after a period of time. It just doesn't seem right. How many RAP sheets have I seen than run off of the printer and just spill out onto the floor? I can't even recall. Maybe their victims can.
When my house was burglarized, my kids cried a lot. Not so much because of what was taken, but because their safe place was no longer safe in their minds. "Dad, are they coming back? What if you were gone and we were home?" I would have rather have replied by telling them they won't be back because the neighbors took them out.
As a nation, I believe we've taken some great strides in the right direction over the years. I also feel we've lost ground in others. I still abide by the law despite my personal feelings. It's just that IMHO, your arguments are mostly your opinion only, and not necessarily a fact.
phalanx-warrior
11-27-2007, 13:01
Thought this may be of some interest, as some of the laws relating to the use of deadly force to protect a person and their property has recently changed.
Protecting Neighbor's Home Self-Defense?
Testing "Castle Doctrine," Grand Jury To Decide If Texas Man Was Right To Kill Burglars
HOUSTON (CBS) ― It will be up to a Texas grand jury to decide whether a man who fatally shot two men he thought were robbing his neighbor's home acted within the state's self-defense laws.
The man, who is in his 70s, shot the two suspected burglars Wednesday afternoon in a quiet subdivision of the Houston suburb of Pasadena. He confronted the men as they were leaving through a gate leading to the front yard of his neighbor's home.
No identities have been released.
Police say that just before the shootings, the man called 911 to say he heard glass breaking and saw two men entering the home through a window.
911: "Pasadena 911. What is your emergency?"
Caller: "Burglars breaking into a house next door."
A police spokesman says the man told the dispatcher that he was going to get his gun and stop the break-in.
Caller: "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"
911: "Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"
The dispatcher repeatedly urged the man to stay calm and stay in his own home, reports CBS News correspondent Hari Sreenivasan.
911: "I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."
Caller: "I understand that, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself."
A Texas law strengthening a citizen's right to self-defense, the so-called "castle doctrine," went into effect on Sept. 1. It gives Texans a stronger legal right to use deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.
The telephone line then went dead, but the man called police again and told a dispatcher what he was doing.
Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.
He shot one suspect in the chest and the other in the side.
Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said a legal expert.
If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in the shooter's favor, defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor, told the Houston Chronicle. "That could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role."
The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property.
It "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth told the newspaper. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle
Remington Raidr
11-27-2007, 13:09
So in NC, there is no duty to retreat in any part of one's home before employing deadly force, and in other locations only as a reasonable person would deem safe.
Given the inherent rules regarding the use of deadly force, turning one's back to escape a person who has already presented a lethal force threat to oneself or others would seem to be unreasonable, would it not?
Yes.
If the other person is armed with a firearm and has presented a threat, how do you safely retreat?
You can't.
Can we outrun a bullet?
No.
Other weapons, presented within their respective ranges to justify the use of deadly force, are likely unsafe to withdraw from as well, unless the threat disarms himself or withdraws.
I am not maintaining that what the homeowner did in the first post of this story did was prudent, or even legal. If, however, the thieves had been breaking into HIS home, and he had been INside, he could have shot them both as they entered without legal concerns.
I am still waiting for you to prove your statement.
I withdraw my statement.
Most would be defined as 26 states or more, and I am not buying that. We can pretty much write off any retreat requirement in the South, Midwest, or West (minus Kali, who knows whether you can defend yourself at all there). How many states require you to retreat from a deadly threat within your own home? I do not believe that very many require this level of restraint.
You could be right.
TR
This has been instructive.
The Reaper
11-27-2007, 13:29
Thought this may be of some interest, as some of the laws relating to the use of deadly force to protect a person and their property has recently changed....
I believe that this is the incident that started this thread, if you read it through.
TR
82ndtrooper
11-27-2007, 13:43
I agree with CoLawman.
Mr. Horn does nothing to help our cause. That cause being the defense of property and ones self under the current and new Castle Doctrine adopted by most states. In this case Texas. I'm a Right to Keep and Bear Arms supporter, and it's protection under the 2nd Amendment. Like many here I too keep a shotgun at the ready beside my bed and a pistol. If someone comes into my home I am going to still exercise a prudent and reasonable man standard before pulling the trigger just because I can.
In this case it seems the liberals are right. Give a man a gun and permission to shoot and you'll find someone that is itching to exercise his right with his shotgun. In this case Mr. Horn is all too ready to ignore any reasonable man standard and or a direct deadly threat. Yes, the Castle Doctrine allows us to use lethal deadly force in defense of our property and our home, but it's not a "carte blanche" to shoot any human beings just because they are egressing through your back yard. Some of you might disagree.
Had these two men approached his door, tugged on it, possibly broken the glass to gain entry, then I'd be applauding two shots of OO buck to the brain bucket, but not this case.
Mr. Horn is now the poster boy for the Brady Campaign. Thanks Mr. Horn for becoming the stereotypical gun totting hillbilly that the pro gun control advocates want us to be. :rolleyes:
I made the decision a long time ago that I would never retreat and would rather fight to the death rather than surrender.
Human life has gotten very cheap in the U.S.A. due to the liberals diluting our laws. I never believed I would see people getting killed for a pack of cigarettes, but I have.
The use of lethal force is a personal decision that you will have to live with for the rest of your life.
However, I have seen hesitation get people killed.
Remember this, when you are alive, you can always get a good lawyer, but dead is dead and all of the lawsuits and good intentions will not bring you back.
Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.
clapdoc sends.
frostfire
11-27-2007, 14:17
HOUSTON (CBS) ― ..........
The telephone line then went dead, but the man called police again and told a dispatcher what he was doing.
Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.
This is why it's crucial to always go to the original source aka. the actual recording. After a while, people start to paraphrase the actual transcript loosely following their own agenda.
If you read the starting post or listen to the recording, the phone line did not go dead and his actual words were "move, you're dead"
Either way, he went overboard
I draw the line where I individually choose. I don't suggest that I should tell you where to draw the line. Theft is theft.
So if you were King for a day, where would the law draw the line? Under what circumstances is theft punishable by lethal force?
So if you were King for a day, where would the law draw the line? Under what circumstances is theft punishable by lethal force?
It depends on the situation and the people involved.
Get a big dog, they keep the run of the mill riff raff away.
The problem with hind sight is that we know the outcome as things have already unfolded. We don't know how things will end at the beginning of the event. As ClapDoc stated, he has seen people killed for a pack of cigarettes. Once a thug innitiates criminal action against a citizen where will it end and how far it will go in violance is unknown.
It is not the cost of the pack of cigarette that is at stake, it is everything that that the vicitim can loose that is at stake. Personally I would not trust a criminal with my life or any other person's life.
CoLawman
11-27-2007, 18:25
I have often pondered this one. How many times do we hear of high speed pursuits that kill or seriously injured innocent bystanders? I would prefer the shotgun blast to the head of a fleeing perp, when it can be executed, than the death of a Mom in a minivan any day of the week. “You fly….you die” would be a great deterrent.
High speed pursuits are a menace to society. Many LE agencies have already tightened the requirements needed to engage in a pursuit. I believe deaths of innocents have been averted due to those changes. Most pursuits are a result of traffic violations rather than a serious criminal offense. The proper way to insure the public safety is curtailing unnecessary pursuits. In my opinion.
82ndtrooper
11-27-2007, 18:41
"I'm not going to let them get away with this" This quote taken from the transcripts is damaging to his credibility, especially since he was not in harms way and on the phone with the 911 dispatcher inside of his own residence.
"Burglars breaking into a house next door" Clearly his castle was not being burglarized and he was not faced with a deadly threat to his own personal life.
"I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?" This demonstrates that he is going to use deadly force and has asked for permission from the dispatcher to do so. What other means aside from deadly force did he have in mind ? Citizens arrest ?
"I have a right to protect myself too sir" From what ? Burglars across the street but not at his residence nor inside his residence ?
"An the laws have changed in this country since September 1st, you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself" Burglars at this time are supposedly not a direct threat to him, so what was he protecting himself against ? Details here are not clear, but at this point it appears that he is making a critical decision to create the buzz saw not react to being placed into that buzz saw unwillingly.
"Get the law over here quick, I managed to get one of them, he's in the yard over there and the other one is running down the street, I had no choice" What's interesting about his statement to the dispatcher is "he's in the yard over there" Did he fire across the property line ? Did they enter his yard and flee when he said "Dont move or your dead" ? Police officers themselves would have reholstered and began a foot pursuit. Again the details here are not clear, but it's apparent to me that Mr. Horn was perfectly safe, had no need to defend himself from a threat that was not present and used excessive force when it was not necessary. And, he was told to stand down multiple times by the dispatcher.
Mr. Horn is an idiot.
If I witness two men burglarizing the town home across the street I'm not going to grab the Benelli, leave my premisis and jump start the buzz saw to which I could have avoided by simply staying on the phone with the dispatcher, gave detailed descriptions of the perps, possibly license plate numbers, and vehicle description and the direction in which the vehicle fled.
He obviously does not know the law to which he referred to on the phone with the dispatcher. He's not and old man, he's only 61 and that ain't old so the "Poor Boy old man" defense won't cut it.
CoLawman
11-27-2007, 18:42
CoLawman,
I just can't agree with you on several of your points, but first off, let me just say that the slavery issue is not one of them.
Would you please clarify which "points" you disagree with.
It's just that IMHO, your arguments are mostly your opinion only, and not necessarily a fact.
Again your statement is difficult to respond to without clarification. I have stated several historical facts to support my opinion of a single incident. Is it my recounting of historical facts that are wrong? Or is it that you disagree with my opinion on Mr. Horn's actions?
It depends on the situation and the people involved.
Unfortunately, that's too vague and lacks the necessary uniformity to be of any legislative value. In all seriousness, we all complain about how "soft" the law is on criminals, so what would you want the law to be?
What would the limitations be? Can a juvenile get shot for stealing a box of condoms? Is there a minimum value on the property, or can you choot a dude for pocketing a pack of chicklets?
Personally, I believe that lethal force should be reserved only for situations when your life, or the life of another is at risk or you (or another) are at risk of serious bodily injury.............. I think any attempt to legislate a lethal force option for theft is impractical, but I am interested in seeing how you guys would work it out.
brownapple
11-27-2007, 20:09
So if you were King for a day, where would the law draw the line? Under what circumstances is theft punishable by lethal force?
I'm not King, will never be King, and have absolutely no desire to inflict my value system on others.
brownapple
11-27-2007, 20:17
Btw., could this: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/LawAndJusticeLinks/Story?id=3914709&page=1
Have anything to do with the changes that monsterhunter noted? Or the "evolution" of law-enforcement as demonstrated by CoLawman?
Ambush Master
11-27-2007, 21:37
The State of Texas!!!
Someone grabbing a lawnmower out of a yard constitutes "Petty Theft", a misdemeanor. You are cleared to "Brandish" a firearm and "Threaten", but not to use Deadly Force.
Once the "Plane" of any "Portal" of a Residence or place of Business is crossed and a theft takes place, it becomes a Burglary, which is a Felony!!!
When a Felony takes place, Deadly Force is JUSTIFIED!!!!
OK, these dudes ripped off a home, that luckily was not occupied!!! Next time, what will happen when the homeowner(s) are present!!! It has been seen and proven in the DFW area, that they have gotten bolder and bolder with an escalation in violence against the RESIDENTS!!!
By the act of these perps, they are showing the path that they wish to head down, and the citizen that stops them is PREVENTING future violence on their fellow Law Abiding Citizens!!!
What it has come down to, is that if these people are not stopped, innocent lives WILL be lost.......it's just a matter of time.
The LEOs can't be everywhere, and if I am in a store, gas station, driving down my block and see a crime in progress, I will engage!!
Thankfully the Laws here are now affording protection to those that make a "Justifiable Shoot"!!
Later.
Martin
monsterhunter
11-27-2007, 21:51
Our founding fathers were wrong on several issues, which eventually led to amendments to the constitution. A few glaring examples of them being wrong;
Not until 1865 was slavery abolished.
Not until 1870 was "Race no bar to vote" amendment passed.
Not until 1920 were women given the right to vote.!
Historical facts with the dates? Yes.
"...glaring examples of them being wrong." Are they wrong, or is it a product of the culture of the time. Slavery has been an issue since recorded history. I don't agree with it, but I'm also living at a much later time. "Race no bar to vote" was not new in every state. Again, was a fragile new union able to embrace this concept at this period? Women given the right to vote...another cultural concept not ready to be embraced by all in 1775-1776. My point here is that they were only wrong in you opinion.
In no way am I denigrating the greatness of our founding fathers. They were not immune to influences of their time and place. While writing such phrases as "unalienable rights" they failed to consider how ludicrous and hypocritical those words were,considering the elephant in the room serving them refreshments.
I agree completely with the first part of this. IMHO, it's a fact. The second part about "ludicrous and hypocritical" to me is your opinion and not a fact (based of the first part if nothing else). They cannot be expected to think with a 21st century mind set. Their circumstances, not only in time and culture, but in the fragile state of putting together a union.
We no longer hang horse thieves! I believe that is a good thing. We no longer lynch people, again a good thing. Since around 1978 or 1979 we no longer give police the authority to shoot a "fleeing felon". Once again a good thing.
We don't hang horse thieves. You said that was your belief. I'll give you that sir. Your stated opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong here: lynching was mainly accomplished by a mob, forcibly taking a suspect from the custody of law enforcement and enacting punishment without a trial. I don't believe "we" did this. Unruly mobs exist today and they sometimes kill, taken from law enforcement or no. Not shooting a fleeing felon a good thing. Your opinion it is a good thing? Yes. A fact that it is good, debatable. My opinion? No.
I believe our grandchildren and great grandchildren will look back at some of our archaic laws and wonder how we could have been so primitive. Abortion comes to mind.
I look at how things are becoming and wonder what is happening to us. Some changes are for the better. However, concerning our response to crime, theft is becoming such a non issue that few are deterred. About a hundred years ago, the going rate was eight years for each count. It seems now it is hard to get a petty theft even filed. How many chances do we give someone these days? Enough to victimize the innocent time and time again. How many horse thieves (or car thieves) get picked up on their first offense? Most I've captured make it a routine. The consequences are minimal.
If a cop is not allowed to shoot under the same circumstances, then a murder has occurred.
Sir, are you kidding? Neither one of us can make this judgement. Do I think this guy extended himself beyond the scope of the law? It sure appears so. Murder? That's for a jury presented with more of the facts that what we have here.
I would like to add, again, I am fully supportive of residents being allowed to use deadly force against an intruder. Totally different set of circumstances.
I agree with you here as a matter of fact, at least the way the laws are written in my area. Do I like it personally? Not at all.
All I was trying to convey was that some of the above is not all fact. There appears opinions mixed in with them, which also appeared to me to be stated as facts.
monsterhunter
11-27-2007, 22:04
Btw., could this: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/LawAndJusticeLinks/Story?id=3914709&page=1
Have anything to do with the changes that monsterhunter noted? Or the "evolution" of law-enforcement as demonstrated by CoLawman?
Sir,
My opinion is both. The criminals are getting harder as law enforcement, at the direction of the liberal minded, gets softer. How many cop killers would be out on the street today and killing, if the penalties they faced (for their prior crimes) were a hundred years older?
GratefulCitizen
11-27-2007, 22:09
It has been seen and proven in the DFW area, that they have gotten bolder and bolder with an escalation in violence against the RESIDENTS!!!
By the act of these perps, they are showing the path that they wish to head down, and the citizen that stops them is PREVENTING future violence on their fellow Law Abiding Citizens!!!
What it has come down to, is that if these people are not stopped, innocent lives WILL be lost.......it's just a matter of time.
AM has gotten to the root of the issue:
If society back-steps, criminals will advance.
Tolerating criminal behavior, for the sake of de-escalation, does not work.
We need only to look at the methods employed by terrorists on 9/11 to understand this.
I do not know where the line should be drawn in these shoot/no-shoot situations.
These situations are not the problem, they are the symptom.
The problem is: criminals, like terrorist, are encouraged over the course of their career by retreat.
The solution is: fight back against, or intervene upon, all criminal behavior, no matter how petty, every time. Never cooperate. Never tolerate.
Offering no resistance to criminals is the same as "appeasement" in the early stages of WWII.
Don't pass the buck to the next victim.
All citizens should be enouraged to act like the citizen-sovereigns they are and defend their country against domestic threat.
Martin, I again completely agree.
Long ago I was driving home at night, I saw in a parking a group of young men grab a gal and pulled her into the back seat of a car. This was in California and I did not have a weapon of any kind. I spun around and pulled in to that parking lot confronting the young men. A friend who was also driving by pulled up too .
We separated the boys and the gal, only to find out, they where just playing around. The gal got pretty choked up that some strangers would actually stop and do something.
I am really glad it worked out the way it did, I was not sure what I was going to do, but I was going to do something. Not my most intelligent move, I just did not see any other options.
I'm not King, will never be King, and have absolutely no desire to inflict my value system on others.
Understood. However, my point was that a blanket statement such as "lethal force should be authorized to protect proporty" is useless unless we can find a practical way to implement it and codify it into law.
We all can see that there are very undesireable consequences to authorizing lethal forces in the case of all thefts (juveniles, extremely minor or petty thefts), so we need to hash out a workable law if we want it to be taken seriously. Nobody wants their 13 year old to be shot and killed for pocketing a peice of Double Bubble in a convenience store, so where do we draw the line?
If we cannot or will not come up with something practical, then we have to look at the theory itself as unreasonable.
monsterhunter
11-27-2007, 22:21
GratefulCitizen,
I agree with you completely. I once responded to an elderly lady who had been beaten down by a teenager as he took her purse. She didn't resist. He did it as he was snatching it from her arm.
Most of these criminals, in my experience, are predators. They prey on the weakest and do not count on someone stepping up.
Hollis,
My hat is off to you. Well done sir on coming to the aid of a stranger.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Enough of the soapbox for me. Goodnight all.
Btw., could this: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/LawAndJusticeLinks/Story?id=3914709&page=1
Have anything to do with the changes that monsterhunter noted? Or the "evolution" of law-enforcement as demonstrated by CoLawman?
I would say that it has much more to do with the weaponry that the criminals now have access to.
Years ago, when we found a thug with a gun, it was a Raven arms .25, a Saturday Night Special, A Lorsen, or some other small caliber, off name piece of crap. Now, these dudes are packing AKs, M4s, Mac10s, and even Uzis. More firepower, better ammo, and the ability to put more rounds down range on us in a short period of time.... not only that, they are rounds that will shred our vests...
Back in March, I got into a car chase with 3 dudes that had jsut mowed down 5 people in a drive by. The rear passenger leaned out on me with an M4, 200 round drum mag attached, and lit me and my partner up at 4 points during the chase. that didn't happen 10 years ago.
I chased a felon the other day who wrecked out, took off, and broke into a home to try to hide from me. Had an Uzi (loaded) in the car.
A buddy of mine got sprayed with a Mac10 earlier this year.
Our training and tactics are better than they have ever been (LE as a whole), and we aren't "going soft," we are just facing new weaponry that wasn't in the arsenal a decade ago.
brownapple
11-27-2007, 23:09
Understood. However, my point was that a blanket statement such as "lethal force should be authorized to protect proporty" is useless unless we can find a practical way to implement it and codify it into law.
I have never understood this fascination with "codify it into law".
We don't need laws to live by. We need morals and values. Those aren't defined by laws, they are defined by people.
It's simple. John Wayne said it in "The Shootist" as well as it can be said.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them."
As for the bits about criminals and how they are armed? During prohibition, criminals were rather well armed as well. The difference was that law enforcement agencies like the FBI, etc. took it to wage war on those criminals instead of worrying about the legal ramifications of dealing with them. I don't blame you, LEOs need to be aware and concerned with their careers and the consequences of their actions on their careers. With that in mind, you shouldn't be too concerned with citizens who are willing and able to make a difference.
CoLawman
11-27-2007, 23:25
Historical facts with the dates? Yes.
"...glaring examples of them being wrong." Are they wrong, or is it a product of the culture of the time. Slavery has been an issue since recorded history. I don't agree with it, but I'm also living at a much later time. "Race no bar to vote" was not new in every state. Again, was a fragile new union able to embrace this concept at this period? Women given the right to vote...another cultural concept not ready to be embraced by all in 1775-1776. My point here is that they were only wrong in you opinion.
I appreciate you giving me the sole credit for recognizing the need to amend the constitution. But it would not be fair for me to take any of the credit. I would say that the amendments to the constitution were a result of the "will of the people." You might want to examine the requirements under proposition and ratification to amend the constitution. This should clear up any misuderstanding regarding my opinion being solitary.
I agree completely with the first part of this. IMHO, it's a fact. The second part about "ludicrous and hypocritical" to me is your opinion and not a fact (based of the first part if nothing else). They cannot be expected to think with a 21st century mind set. Their circumstances, not only in time and culture, but in the fragile state of putting together a union.
Obviously, not all the founding fathers were in favor of slavery. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay were outspoken critics of slavery,as were many other notables. In fact John Adams never owned a slave. So much for the argument that they could not be expected to think with a 21st Century mindset.
We don't hang horse thieves. You said that was your belief. I'll give you that sir. Your stated opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong here: lynching was mainly accomplished by a mob, forcibly taking a suspect from the custody of law enforcement and enacting punishment without a trial. I don't believe "we" did this. Unruly mobs exist today and they sometimes kill, taken from law enforcement or no. Not shooting a fleeing felon a good thing. Your opinion it is a good thing? Yes. A fact that it is good, debatable. My opinion? No.
Okay it is settled then, my opinion, is in fact, nothing more than an opinion supported by my understanding of the facts. I really do find it tedious to end or begin each sentence with IMO. I would like everyone just to treat my opinions as nothing more than an opinion. I will not, nor will my heirs, be responsible for the attachment of too much importance in my stated opinions.
I look at how things are becoming and wonder what is happening to us. Some changes are for the better. However, concerning our response to crime, theft is becoming such a non issue that few are deterred. About a hundred years ago, the going rate was eight years for each count. It seems now it is hard to get a petty theft even filed. How many chances do we give someone these days? Enough to victimize the innocent time and time again. How many horse thieves (or car thieves) get picked up on their first offense? Most I've captured make it a routine. The consequences are minimal.
Thanks for doing what you can in serving your community.
Sir, are you kidding? Neither one of us can make this judgement. Do I think this guy extended himself beyond the scope of the law? It sure appears so. Murder? That's for a jury presented with more of the facts that what we have here.
I can. Does it matter to Mr. Horn what I think? Nope, unless they call me in to work the case. You state that it appears he extended himself beyond the scope of the law. If he did, then what would the offense be since lives were taken by a person who extended himself beyond the scope of the law?
[QUOTE]I agree with you here as a matter of fact, at least the way the laws are written in my area. Do I like it personally? Not at all.
:confused:
All I was trying to convey was that some of the above is not all fact. There appears opinions mixed in with them, which also appeared to me to be stated as facts.
I agree that some of my post was an opinion based on facts. I further agree that all of my facts were consistent with my opinion.
brownapple
11-27-2007, 23:34
John Adams also believed that only the "select" should serve in government, that the majority of the people were incapable of doing so, or deserving of the rights of franchise (the vote). He was the last of the Federalist Presidents, and Frederalism has often been compared to monarchy.
Not exactly a 21st Century view, now is it?
CoLawman
11-28-2007, 00:10
John Adams also believed that only the "select" should serve in government, that the majority of the people were incapable of doing so, or deserving of the rights of franchise (the vote). He was the last of the Federalist Presidents, and Frederalism has often been compared to monarchy.
Not exactly a 21st Century view, now is it?
And his opinion was not a majority opinion. Much like your opinion regarding who is deserving of the right to vote. So if I understand the intent of your question, my answer would be; No, your opinion is not exactly a 21st Century view. I would go even further and state that your view was not even a popular view in the 18th Century.
I would say that it has much more to do with the weaponry that the criminals now have access to.
Years ago, when we found a thug with a gun, it was a Raven arms .25, a Saturday Night Special, A Lorsen, or some other small caliber, off name piece of crap. Now, these dudes are packing AKs, M4s, Mac10s, and even Uzis. More firepower, better ammo, and the ability to put more rounds down range on us in a short period of time.... not only that, they are rounds that will shred our vests...
Back in March, I got into a car chase with 3 dudes that had jsut mowed down 5 people in a drive by. The rear passenger leaned out on me with an M4, 200 round drum mag attached, and lit me and my partner up at 4 points during the chase. that didn't happen 10 years ago.
I chased a felon the other day who wrecked out, took off, and broke into a home to try to hide from me. Had an Uzi (loaded) in the car.
A buddy of mine got sprayed with a Mac10 earlier this year.
Our training and tactics are better than they have ever been (LE as a whole), and we aren't "going soft," we are just facing new weaponry that wasn't in the arsenal a decade ago.
Doesn't this type of thing have to do with escalation? Back in the day criminals started carrying revolvers, so the police started to. Then the criminals started carrying semiautos, so the police did. The criminals then moved to higher caliber weapons, so the police wear body armor. Now the criminals have automatic weapons, so the police now carry assault rifles.
IMO, it's not the police that need to change tactics, it's the courts and the lawyers that allow these people to get off for minor things. Example: They arrested a guy a few weeks back in Miami for exposing himself to a minor. Turns out he had been arrested somewhere around 60 times before that for the same thing. How is he still allowed to walk around free?
Also I believe the politicians need to keep their hands out of police work just like they need to keep their hands out of the military. I think a lot of police departments are hindered not by their officers, but by the policies inflicted on them due to people outside trying to control things and worrying about re-elections and playing nice.
As far as the guy in the OP, I agree with most, he was stupid and should be locked up for it.
I have never understood this fascination with "codify it into law".
We don't need laws to live by. We need morals and values. Those aren't defined by laws, they are defined by people.
Then enact laws that reflect the morals and values. Simply put, you cannot imprison someone for breaking a moral belief.... You need a legal system with well defined laws in order to operate a criminal justice system.
Regarding the prohibition, organized crime members were extremely well armed... I'm referring to the arms that I am taking of of Joe Blow street level thug, who has no organizational involvement.
brownapple
11-28-2007, 00:44
I would go even further and state that your view was not even a popular view in the 18th Century.
Then I suggest you study a bit more history. You are incorrect.
brownapple
11-28-2007, 00:52
Then enact laws that reflect the morals and values. Simply put, you cannot imprison someone for breaking a moral belief.... You need a legal system with well defined laws in order to operate a criminal justice system.
Somehow, plenty of societies have managed to enforce societal mores without the need for a gazillion laws and lawyers. Common law isn't codified, but it works just fine. And if you don't believe that prisons aren't filled with people who have broken moral beliefs... Why do you think they were convicted? Because the jury thought they were good people who broke the letter of the law? Or because the jury thought they did something wrong?
Regarding the prohibition, organized crime members were extremely well armed... I'm referring to the arms that I am taking of of Joe Blow street level thug, who has no organizational involvement.
From what I know of prohibition (and actually, the 40 years before it), a large portion (likely the majority) of criminals had organizational involvement. Then again,, Bonnie & Clyde did not. Neither did the Barrows.
Somehow, plenty of societies have managed to enforce societal mores without the need for a gazillion laws and lawyers. Common law isn't codified, but it works just fine. And if you don't believe that prisons aren't filled with people who have broken moral beliefs... Why do you think they were convicted? Because the jury thought they were good people who broke the letter of the law? Or because the jury thought they did something wrong?
Even the most primitive of societies codified their laws.... or at least wrote them out so everyone knew what they were. From the Hammurabi Code to the Ten Commandments, societies have recognized the need to say, "Here, this is what you can and cannot do.....any questions, look at the tablets. If you do this, we are flogging you."
My point is not that we need to make a gazillion laws and employ a like number of lawyers, simply that you cannot enforce a belief or code fairly and uniformly, or even expect people to follow it, if it is not spelled out and recorded somewhere. Our society is far too diverse, and holds too many differing moral codes, to rely on the "moral law of the land." It won't work. Hell, we have hard enough times trying to enforce what is spelled out in black and white.
In regard to juries, I beleive that many people are convicted simply because they broke the letter of the law, regardless of whether they did something "wrong" or not. Just as there are numerous cases where the jury believed that the defendant did do something wrong, and yet the jurors are forced to render a not guilty finding sue to a lack of evidence or technical faux pas. It happens.... Unfortunately, I have seen it.
brownapple
11-28-2007, 03:12
Show me where British "Common law" is written down. For that matter, show me where the laws of any native American tribe are written down.
Codification is not necessary to have a workable system.
Btw, your example of a non-conviction just demonstrates the weakness of a codified legal system. If the Jury knows the person did something wrong, but has to release him on a technicality? That isn't justice. That is a complete and total failure.
You aren't making your argument very well.
Show me where British "Common law" is written down. For that matter, show me where the laws of any native American tribe are written down.
Codification is not necessary to have a workable system.
Btw, your example of a non-conviction just demonstrates the weakness of a codified legal system. If the Jury knows the person did something wrong, but has to release him on a technicality? That isn't justice. That is a complete and total failure.
You aren't making your argument very well.
The best of the pre-Saxon compendiums of the common law was reportedly written by a woman, Queen Martia, wife of a king of a small English kingdom. Together with a book on the "law of the monarchy" by a Duke of Cornwall, Queen Martia's work was translated into the emerging English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.). When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law.
By the 14th century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow
The above is from the American Law Dictionary. While much of the English Common Law was intitially unwritten (the most basic parts, such as "don't hit your neighbor with a brick," it was quickly codified through court decisions, publications, etc.....
Native Americans had no written laws because they had no system of writing..... everything was passed down orally, including their laws, and their communities were small enough to pull that off. Try that in a country of 300 million, with a huge (and ever growing) immigrant population of radically different backgrounds, languages, and cultures, and I think you will have a problem. Comparing the system that worked for a small, culturally homogenous tribe (that spoke a single language) and the 21st Century US is apples and oranges to say the least.
Finally, I don't see the fact that juries require the govt to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and makes them adhere to the letter of the law when prosecuting someone (even when the jury thinks they did something wrong) as a "complete and total failure." Quite the opposite. Sure, as a cop I would like to see my bad guys go away, but the rational side of me is glad that the govt has to toe the line before they can just lock someone up and throw away the key. I merely brought up that example to counter your point that juries base verdicts on whether or not they the suspect did something "wrong," and not necessarily the letter of the law.... in my experience, that is not the case. Besides, if we are having these "failures" as you call them when there are written codes and guidelines in place, how jacked up would our system be if there was nothing other than a "you know wrong when you see it" type system? I can'tr see any way that would provide better results.
BTW, I think I am making my argument pretty well. LOL I have explained what I think the guidelines for lethal force should be, why the dude in the original post didn't meet them, and why we need to clarify the boundaries for the use of lethal force to defend third party property. Seriously, I am all ears as to how your system of unwritten laws would work, why it is better, and how we could apply it in a manner that would work given our diverse population, various moral codes, languages, and backgrounds. I'm always open to a better way of looking at things.
The Reaper
11-28-2007, 06:17
I would say that it has much more to do with the weaponry that the criminals now have access to.
Years ago, when we found a thug with a gun, it was a Raven arms .25, a Saturday Night Special, A Lorsen, or some other small caliber, off name piece of crap. Now, these dudes are packing AKs, M4s, Mac10s, and even Uzis. More firepower, better ammo, and the ability to put more rounds down range on us in a short period of time.... not only that, they are rounds that will shred our vests...
Back in March, I got into a car chase with 3 dudes that had jsut mowed down 5 people in a drive by. The rear passenger leaned out on me with an M4, 200 round drum mag attached, and lit me and my partner up at 4 points during the chase. that didn't happen 10 years ago.
I chased a felon the other day who wrecked out, took off, and broke into a home to try to hide from me. Had an Uzi (loaded) in the car.
A buddy of mine got sprayed with a Mac10 earlier this year.
Our training and tactics are better than they have ever been (LE as a whole), and we aren't "going soft," we are just facing new weaponry that wasn't in the arsenal a decade ago.
I have a serious disagreement with this, but perhaps things are that much different in your neighborhood. This looks like an ad copy written by the Bradys or the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. Are we advocating a renewal of the AWB? Are Cop Killer bullets out on the street again? Are we blaming the physical appearance or characteristics of a weapon for the felonious intent of the perp?
Where are the criminals getting these weapons? An M-4 is a $1000 weapon and has (in variants) been available to the public for more than 20 years. Nothing new there. Pretty hard to conceal in street clothes as well. An Uzi is even more expensive, and has been sold in the US for more than 20 years also, but no new ones have been imported since well before 1994. The 16" barrel on the imported versions is usually sufficient to scare most people from carrying one. And the fact that is is essentially a huge, 8 pound, 9mm pistol, unless it is a Class 3 weapon. MAC-10s have not been made for years, I saw my first one in 1972. Again, in semi- format, a large unwieldy pistol. In full-auto, it is one of the most inaccurate, hard to control weapons I have ever used. BTW, Bonnie and Clyde used Thompson SMGs and BARs in the 1920s and 30s. Are these guns you are finding stolen, or are you alleging that these criminals walk into a store, plunk down a grand, show ID, and fill out the 4473s?
Publicly available ammo today is no more capable of of penetrating vests that any time in the past. A rifle round will generally defeat a vest. Rated handgun threats will not. How many officers were killed last year by a shoot through of a rated round on a vest? In 25 years of service around the planet and a lot of gun hunting, have never seen a 200 round drum for an M-4. Can you send me some details?
Finally, I would rather have a bunch of them spraying and praying, than one good ole boy who takes his time to aim, and fires one well-placed round.
TR
I have a serious disagreement with this, but perhaps things are that much different in your neighborhood. This looks like an ad copy written by the Bradys or the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. Are we advocating a renewal of the AWB? Are Cop Killer bullets out on the street again? Are we blaming the physical appearance or characteristics of a weapon for the felonious intent of the perp?
TR
I'm not advocating the renewal of the AWB in any way shape or form, nor am I saying anything about the characteristics of weapons, attempting to explain how the thugs are getting them, etc......I am simply telling the truth when I say that we are facing off against bigger and better weaponry now than we were a decade ago. It is one of the reasons that we were recently authorized to carry M4s in our vehicles.... the powers that be got tired of seeing us completely and totally outgunned...
I'm not commenting on the ergonomics of the Uzi, or the Mac10, or saying that they are superior weapons. What I am saying is that a thug with 30 rounds of 9mm has a better chance of hitting me than a thug with 6 rounds of .38 special. A thug with 200 rounds of 5.56 has a better chance of getting lucky and hitting me than a dude with 10 rounds of .25 auto, and that a thug with 7.62x39mm is gonna put a helluva hurt on my vest, where that Lorsen .32 auto (which was a common gun to come across back in the day) is only going to hurt...... a lot. Simply put, we are seeing a lot more of the higher capacity, higher caliber weapons now than we were before.
As far as where they are coming from? They are mostly stolen, I realize that. We recently got info that a bunch of FNP90s were stolen off of a train while being shipped through our AO, and that they were bing sold by a local thug for $700 a piece. A ban wouldn't really affect that.
Plus I'm kinda fond of the 2nd Amendment.
I know that a man making one well placed shot is more dangerous than someone spraying..... trust me, I've unfortunately been on the wrong end of a muzzle flash more than once. But I also know that a guy who sprays 30 rounds (or 200) at me has a better chance of getting lucky with one than a guy who can only spray 8.... especially when it is coming out of a Raven Arms .25.
So, in closing, I am not advocating the return of an AWB, the Brady Bill, or any of that nonsense. I am merely reporting the facts as I, and a bunch of cops at other larger metro depts, have experienced them, and am offering a possible reason that the number of LE deaths has spiked..... If it sounds bad, I apologize, but it is what it is.
The Reaper
11-28-2007, 09:09
mdb:
Do you have any stats for the number of officers hit with 5.56x45 fired by perps recently versus ten years ago?
Shot at is one thing, hit is another, as we all understand. I am not sure that an untrained individual with a big, bulky, high-cap weapon spraying and praying is that much more dangerous than letting an individual with a small concealed weapon close to you, knowing that criminals are aware of your body armor, and are alleged to be aiming for the head these days.
Not attacking you, or your opinion, just want to see if the stats support your position.
Whether you mean to or not, your comments are the basis for attempts to restrict certain weapons, magazines, ammo, etc.
TR
mdb:
Do you have any stats for the number of officers hit with 5.56x45 fired by perps recently versus ten years ago?
Shot at is one thing, hit is another, as we all understand. I am not sure that an untrained individual with a big, bulky, high-cap weapon spraying and praying is that much more dangerous than letting an individual with a small concealed weapon close to you, knowing that criminals are aware of your body armor, and are alleged to be aiming for the head these days.
Not attacking you, or your opinion, just want to see if the stats support your position.
Whether you mean to or not, your comments are the basis for attempts to restrict certain weapons, magazines, ammo, etc.
TR
TR,
I honestly don't have the stats, and admit that I am only offering a possible theory based upn my own personal experience, as well as conversations that I have had with officers from other large midwestern depts. If you want, I'll get in touch with our number crunchers at the PD and see what they have on record.
Looking back, I understand that the things I have said could be used by anti-gunners to cry for the renewal of the AWB or Brady, but know that wasn't my intent. I am about as pro gun as they come.
And I understand that I'm not under attack.... this has been an informative exchange for me.
I'll check with the number geeks and see what they have. PM en route.
monsterhunter
11-28-2007, 13:03
Two different people coming up with two very different opinions after being presented with the same facts is common. Basic concept as two why we have Republicans and Democrats.
It seems to me the Republican mind set meets action with reaction in a more simple manner. Crime committed, punishment distributed.
The Democrat mind set ponders the reason for the problem in the first place. The impoverished lifestyle, no father, poor school system, etc . . . How about a rehabilitation program to start with? Why don’t we get some midnight basketball so they won’t get bored and join gangs? Have some anger management classes, drug diversion, G.E.D. classes, boot camp programs, Beat the Street, Amer-I-Can. The list is endless.
Opportunity after opportunity is passed out. RAP sheets taller than me and the person is out on the street again.
Not everyone needs the end of a rope, but it sure appears lots more no longer get it than desperately deserve it. About 15 years ago, the statistic of 80% was given to inmates in a large So. Cal. jail. This is the amount that continuously revolve through the system. I remember seeing some of the same individuals myself year after year.
My point after all this rambling? If crime and punishment was more like it was in earlier years of this country, the turnover rate of these inmates would not be the same. The chronic repeat offender would be greatly diminished. You can get a will of the majority of the people to go along with a lot of crap. Especially if candy coated with a bunch of “feel good want to believe it’s true” crap. Don’t spank that child, don’t hang that horse thief, don’t shoot that fleeing felon. I hope my grandchildren look back and say, “I sure am glad our country pulled its head out.”
Team Sergeant
11-28-2007, 13:47
I'm not King, will never be King, and have absolutely no desire to inflict my value system on others.
You could have fooled me.
GratefulCitizen
11-28-2007, 22:14
Understood. However, my point was that a blanket statement such as "lethal force should be authorized to protect proporty" is useless unless we can find a practical way to implement it and codify it into law.
We all can see that there are very undesireable consequences to authorizing lethal forces in the case of all thefts (juveniles, extremely minor or petty thefts), so we need to hash out a workable law if we want it to be taken seriously. Nobody wants their 13 year old to be shot and killed for pocketing a peice of Double Bubble in a convenience store, so where do we draw the line?
If we cannot or will not come up with something practical, then we have to look at the theory itself as unreasonable.
This argument is similar to the gun control argument.
Here's the parallel:
Gun control laws disarm law-abiding citizens, they do not disarm criminals.
Use of force laws restrain the wise person, they do not restrain the fool.
Attempting to "codify" all this is an attempt to restrain the fool.
The fool will still be foolish no matter what is written on a piece of paper somewhere.
This "codification", however, will prevent a wise person from taking wise action.
Remington Raidr
11-29-2007, 00:55
would not the codification of the law allow the citizen to act at the point of decision, rather that hesitate, to his detriment?
brownapple
11-29-2007, 01:51
You could have fooled me.
I'm interested in not having others' value systems inflicted on me. It strikes me that making statements about the mental wiring of an individual based on a single source of information is the sort of judgement that leads to inflicting just that.
Years ago, I witnessed a car stolen from in front of the house that I lived in at the time. Between the distance out to the street and the fact that I was looking out the dormer window, I didn't think I could effectively stop the theft, but I was able to inform the police and took some photos of the thief as he broke into the car. 200 mm f2.8 on Kodachrome 64.
Now, the thief drove that car about a mile and a half and then stopped and robbed a candy store. He killed the owner of that store. He was caught a few miles down the road because of the call regarding the car.
I turned the film over to the Police as well as my statement. When the individual in question came to trial, the Judge ruled that the photos were not to be admitted as evidence as "prejudicial against the defense". I understand that the defendent eventually served a total of 4 years in prison.
My experience is that codification of law just gives lawyers more reasons to exist and more loopholes to work with. The nature of language and life is not precise to such an extent that it is possible to define an exact line for everything. In the end, we still have to rely on a jury and their opinion of what is right and wrong.
Smokin Joe
11-29-2007, 04:21
Not to hijack this thread but I wanted to point two things out.
Since around 1978 or 1979 we no longer give police the authority to shoot a "fleeing felon". Once again a good thing.
We can in AZ
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00410.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
13-410. Justification; use of deadly physical force in law enforcement
A. The threatened use of deadly physical force by a person against another is justified pursuant to section 13-409 only if a reasonable person effecting the arrest or preventing the escape would believe the suspect or escapee is:
1. Actually resisting the discharge of a legal duty with deadly physical force or with the apparent capacity to use deadly physical force; or
2. A felon who has escaped from lawful confinement; or
3. A felon who is fleeing from justice or resisting arrest with physical force.
High speed pursuits are a menace to society. Many LE agencies have already tightened the requirements needed to engage in a pursuit. I believe deaths of innocents have been averted due to those changes. Most pursuits are a result of traffic violations rather than a serious criminal offense. The proper way to insure the public safety is curtailing unnecessary pursuits. In my opinion.
I totally disagree with this shift in Law Enforcement philisophy over the past few years. I think a more aggressive approach would be the better approach. If you fail to yield, we put a 50 cal round through your engine block (from a helicopter). If you run and try to carjack a second car, we put a 50 cal round through your chest. The message to the public would be hard and fast. If you let everyone run, only your law abiding (realtive term) citizens will yield.
Just my .02 cents
82ndtrooper
11-29-2007, 07:38
I'm interested in not having others' value systems inflicted on me. It strikes me that making statements about the mental wiring of an individual based on a single source of information is the sort of judgement that leads to inflicting just that.
Years ago, I witnessed a car stolen from in front of the house that I lived in at the time. Between the distance out to the street and the fact that I was looking out the dormer window, I didn't think I could effectively stop the theft, but I was able to inform the police and took some photos of the thief as he broke into the car. 200 mm f2.8 on Kodachrome 64.
Now, the thief drove that car about a mile and a half and then stopped and robbed a candy store. He killed the owner of that store. He was caught a few miles down the road because of the call regarding the car.
I turned the film over to the Police as well as my statement. When the individual in question came to trial, the Judge ruled that the photos were not to be admitted as evidence as "prejudicial against the defense". I understand that the defendent eventually served a total of 4 years in prison.
My experience is that codification of law just gives lawyers more reasons to exist and more loopholes to work with. The nature of language and life is not precise to such an extent that it is possible to define an exact line for everything. In the end, we still have to rely on a jury and their opinion of what is right and wrong.
Sir:
I'm in agreement with not having others value systems impossed on myself. This would include a religion that I have no interest in embracing, such as Islamic faith, or snake handling in a run down barn in southern Kentucky that has been painted to appear like a church sanctuary.
What you witnessed out your window is where I am curious. You seem to advocate that you would have preferred to have been given the legal authority to have used deadly force, justified by the fact the criminal in your post would murder a clerk only 30 minutes later before he was apprehended by police.
Further examination of your thoughts on the matter would also hold true of assuming that because I own an military style rifle that I may be predisposed to murder. This is much like the pro gun control advocates predisposition towards any firearm that is not a simple bolt gun or grand dads over and under shotgun. Would you advocate arresting every single patron of a bar or tavern before he leaves the establishment under the assumption that he or she is going to kill someone after he turns the key to ignite the ignition of his or her automobile ? In other words, let's arrest the patron on the way to his automobile in the parking lot just by the inference that he may have had one drink too many, or that he may not have any alcohol what so ever.
Should we start arresting members of a rod and gun club under the suspician that he or she is secretly being indoctrinated as a member of an extreme right wing separtist group ? These questions seem to give the codification of laws a more rational and logical approach to enforcing a social contract, be it directly or indirectly.
It's tragic that what you witnessed would later become a murder, and in a perfect world where we could see 30 minutes into the future our actions would have prevented such a tragic incident. What if the person you witnessed was me and I was attempting to get into my sisters automobile with her permission while she lay's in the hospital and does not have access to her keys ? Would it not be just as tragic to shoot me in those circumstances ?
brownapple
11-29-2007, 08:00
Sir:
I'm in agreement with not having others value systems impossed on myself. This would include a religion that I have no interest in embracing, such as Islamic faith, or snake handling in a run down barn in southern Kentucky that has been painted to appear like a church sanctuary.
What you witnessed out your window is where I am curious. You seem to advocate that you would have preferred to have been given the legal authority to have used deadly force, justified by the fact the criminal in your post would murder a clerk only 30 minutes later before he was apprehended by police.
Not what I am suggesting at all. Had I been on the ground floor, I probably would have gone out and tried to stop him. And I likely wouldn't be here. Given where I was, I did exactly what I thought was appropriate. My choice. Not the laws., My point in the story was that the "codification" of the law created the situation where the film of his stealing a car wasn't considered by the jury. Last time I checked, I thought the Constitution said criminal charges were heard by a jury. When the codification of the law interferes with the jury's opportunity to hear any and all evidence, it isn't trial by jury anymore, it's someone's (the author of the legislation) value system being inflicted on us.
The Reaper
11-29-2007, 08:07
I have to agree with SJ.
When we lived in Tampa, a lib mayor was elected who issued a "no pursuit" policy and took the shotguns out of patrol cars as they were visually disturbing and "too aggressive".
Tampa had a serious crime wave, and for a time (during this policy) actually experienced an auto theft rate exceeding that of Newark, the car theft capital of the nation. That policy took Tampa from somewhere around 50th in the nation for auto theft to number one, in less than two years.
Patrol officers told us that if they were driving on the interstate and a car rolled by at 100mph, and the driver refused to pull over after the initial hit on the lights and siren, even if the tags came back as a stolen vehicle or with warrants on the owner, they had to let it go.
The other problem is that the people who were driving these cars and refusing to stop were frequently kids or were intoxicated, so the accident rate went up as well, as they stole cars and drove them without regard for safety, possible injuries to themselves or others, damage to their vehicle, or impact on their insurance rates. Clearly, if I were driving drunk, and knew that if I just refused to stop and drove on at a high rate of speed, I would be left alone, then I would probably do just that. Why would I stop, get arrested, lose my car, and have to go to court when refusing to stop and heading to a buddies' house to sleep it off (or on to the next bar) was an easy option?
The mayor was turned out and the winner re-implemented a reasonable pursuit policy. Within a year, the theft rate was back to historical norms around 50th in the nation.
I am not convinced that pursuits equal more damage and injuries. If I were king, I would forbid news helicopters from participating in the chase, meaning that the perps get no national TV time, and would look for a directed energy weapon that would kill the car's electronics and bring the chase to a quick conclusion. In the meanwhile, I think a reasonable pursuit policy is essential to safe streets. I like to see an early piling on, deployment of spikes, and a safe PIT as soon as possible. Then, frankly, a controlled ass-whippin' should ensue.
As far as shooting felons goes, I think there is a world of difference between shoplifting and burglary. In NC, Burglary in the 1st degree used to be a capital offense. You don't find a lot of nice kids and Rhodes scholars breaking and entering homes and hauling out loot. I think that the castle doctrine and the ability for LE to shoot fleeing felons under certain circumstances is the way to go, but knuckleheads should understand that you can't extend it to go hunting felons off your property. This guy did exactly what the anti-gunners predicted would happen. At the same time, I hope he gets a jury of his peers and they render a just verdict, and people learn the right lessons from his experience.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
CoLawman
11-29-2007, 10:31
[QUOTE=Greenhat;190259]I'm interested in not having others' value systems inflicted on me. It strikes me that making statements about the mental wiring of an individual based on a single source of information is the sort of judgement that leads to inflicting just that.
Then the only resolution would be to prohibit the posting of thoughts or opinions that might be in conflict with your value systems. :rolleyes:
CoLawman
11-29-2007, 10:49
SJ and TR,
I believe pursuits are necessary with certain guidelines. Pursuit policies have been "curtailed" to decrease the risk to the citizens. I think a no pursuit policy is extreme, and unreasonable, as is the practice of pursuing all who fail to yield to a law enforcement vehicle.
brownapple
11-29-2007, 11:28
[QUOTE]
Then the only resolution would be to prohibit the posting of thoughts or opinions that might be in conflict with your value systems. :rolleyes:
Nah. Just law enforcement officers and lawyers.
The Reaper
11-29-2007, 11:32
CoLawman:
I understand your point.
At the same time, people who have done little or nothing wrong do not flee the popo.
The driver probably doesn't decide to run because of an unsafe equipment or ten over cite.
What if the car that ran and you decided to pass on had a child in the trunk being abducted?
What if the 9/11 hijackers had been run in for any of the traffic violations they committed?
Timothy McVeigh, who actually was apprehended off of a simple traffic stop? If he had run on the stop, for a simple violation, and not been pursued, would he have been caught before he blasted again?
I believe in the "broken window" theory, and giving a guy a pass who decides to attempt to elude is sending him a strong message that he can do that, and more, every time. "Failure to stop..." here in NC is viewed as very serious business.
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree. Nothing personal.
TR
The Reaper
11-29-2007, 11:33
Nah. Just law enforcement officers and lawyers.
Is there a smilie missing in this post somewhere?
TR
CoLawman
11-29-2007, 12:04
TR,
I do not think we are that far apart on this issue. I just believe it is a public safety concern. Here are some statistics ( a bit old) yet telling;
Fatalities in Crashes Involving Law Enforcement in Pursuit 1994-1998
Deaths
Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Suspects 283 249 267 194 198
Bystanders 102 127 118 111 114
Officers 3 10 5 1 2
Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting Systems -- ARF, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 2000
Endnotes
(1.) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting Systems - ARF, Fatalities in Crashes Involving Law Enforcement in Pursuit 1998 (Washington, DC, 2000).
from the same report:
Police pursuit records provide some frightening statistics. First, the majority of police pursuits involve a stop for a traffic violation. (8) Second, one person dies every day as a result of a police pursuit. (9) On average, from 1994 through 1998, one law enforcement officer was killed every 11 weeks in a pursuit, (10) and 1 percent of all U.S. law enforcement officers who died in the line-of-duty lost their lives in vehicle pursuits. (11) Innocent third parties who just happened to be in the way constitute 42 percent of persons killed or injured in police pursuits. (12) Further, I out of every 100 high-speed pursuits results in a fatality. (13)
My opinion is probably biased. As a teenager I endured the loss of my cousin to a high speed pursuit in Cassopolis Michigan. He and two of his buddies were being pursued for a traffic violation. All three were killed when their car plunged into a lake.
Another recent incident took the life of one or our officer's teenage daughter. She tried to elude local LE due to her being intoxicated.
In both instances the license plate of the vehicle was known to LE when the pursuit began.
I wish we could pursue in every instance, but that does not seem practical. Policies need to be in place that dictate when a pursuit is justified. Stolen vehicles, felons, etc. I believe are appropriate justification if all attendant circumstances allow. The restraints I speak of are no different that a shooting scenario. There are those instances where an officer must not respond by firing his weapon if it cannot safely be done.
CoLawman:
I understand your point.
At the same time, people who have done little or nothing wrong do not flee the popo.
The driver probably doesn't decide to run because of an unsafe equipment or ten over cite.
What if the car that ran and you decided to pass on had a child in the trunk being abducted?
What if the 9/11 hijackers had been run in for any of the traffic violations they committed?
Timothy McVeigh, who actually was apprehended off of a simple traffic stop? If he had run on the stop, for a simple violation, and not been pursued, would he have been caught before he blasted again?
I believe in the "broken window" theory, and giving a guy a pass who decides to attempt to elude is sending him a strong message that he can do that, and more, every time. "Failure to stop..." here in NC is viewed as very serious business.
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree. Nothing personal.
TR
When I first came on, we had a "chase it till the wheels fell off" pursuit policy. A few dead citizens later, we curtailed that.
Now, we pursue only if the vehicle has been used in conjunction with a violent crime, has been taken during a violent crime, or the driver/passengers are wanted for a violent offense. Anything else, and we back off. Of course, we have air assets, so our chopper just gets overhead, follows until they bail out, and then we collapse on them and take them into custody.
TR, I truly used to believe what you do.... that people who have done little or nothing wrong do not flee the po po. I believed that every person who did not stop was a bank robber, rapist, had a kid in the trunk, etc... but that simply was not the case. In my years wearing the blue uniform, I have learned that the vast, vast majority run for little reason, if any at all. People would run because they -thought- they had a traffic warrant (when in fact they didn't), because they were suspended, had no license, no insurance, had a beer in the car, a little bag of weed, a single joint, you name it..... all petty city offenses. I can honestly say that the majority of the chases we used to be involved in ended up with our saying, "Why the f*ck were you running?" It simply wasn't worth the risk to the general public.
To be honest, I like the new chase policy. I don't want cops chasing some dude at 120 through my neighborhood because he didn't use a turn signal. It sure as hell isn't worth my wife and kid getting killed over, or anyone else's family members. It isn't worth it..... cut them loose and catch them another day. Bad guys never leave the AO, and they'll pop up again.....
I hate to say it, but one of the reasons the chases had to be curtailed was that officers weren't using common sense when pursuing vehicles. Cops didn't have enough sense not to go 100 thrugh a school zone (at 3pm) over a dude with a broken tail light, and the public got fed up with it.... depts started to look at the risk/reward of getting into these chases, and found that the benefit of catching 98% of these dudes wasn't worth the risk that was posed by vehicles going down residential streets at mach 1, blowing stop signs, and running up into yards and through houses. I agree with them. We should chase the violent ones, but I simply don't see the sense in risking the general public's lives over some dude who doesn't want a careless driving ticket.
Many people say, "well, nobody will stop then." That hasn't been the case. Vehicles flee from us at about the same rate that they did before we pulled back the reigns on chases, and the new policy has actually made us operate in a smarter fashion. Back in the day, if we saw an occupied stolen, we would light it up ASAP, hoping it wuld run (yeah, I was young and stupid). Now, we back off, follow it from a distance, get other cars into the area, get the helo overhead, get stop sticks set up in a perimeter, and then (and only then), do we light it up... many times, we'll just box them in at an intersection, takedown style. It's much safer for the public and us.
It's really easy to fall into the "what if" trap....... well, what if the guy is a mass murderer, what if this, what if that...... I know, because I've done it. But we have to remember (as LEOs) that our primary responsibility it to protect the public, and that we can only act upon the facts that we know at the time. I can't shoot some dude and say, "well, what if he had a gun." If a car takes off after you try to stop it for expired tags, all we know for sure is that we have a city violation on the car, and that we are engaging in a chase that could very well result in the loss of life of an innocent person...... with only that at our disposal, you have to make the best decision you can at the time, which is to back off, go to their house, and wait for the car to show up...
What I would like to see is a law where any vehicle that runs is placed into a computer database, and is subject to seizure and auction upon being located by LE. Wanna run from me? Fine..... If/when we find that car (which we very often do), then we tow it, sell it, and give the proceeds to the PD or public schools. Doesn't matter who was driving, who owns it, etc....... Make people take responsibility for who is driving their car, and these chases (for no good reason) will slow way the hell down.
Just my .02
The Reaper
11-29-2007, 14:39
What I would like to see is a law where any vehicle that runs is placed into a computer database, and is subject to seizure and auction upon being located by LE. Wanna run from me? Fine..... If/when we find that car (which we very often do), then we tow it, sell it, and give the proceeds to the PD or public schools. Doesn't matter who was driving, who owns it, etc....... Make people take responsibility for who is driving their car, and these chases (for no good reason) will slow way the hell down.
Just my .02
So someone steals my car, and you are going to seize and auction it off?
I think there is a little document called the Constitution that addresses that policy.
TR
So someone steals my car, and you are going to seize and auction it off?
I think there is a little document called the Constitution that addresses that policy.
TR
No, not stolen autos. If it is a reported stolen car, or we find out (upon finding it) that it has been stolen (unknown to the owner), then it is returned to them.
I'm talking about the times when people run from us, and we find the car parked in the owner's driveway 2 hours later. We knock on the door, and the owner says, "well, a friend of mine borrowed it." When asked the friends name, all he can come up with is "Bob."
We know damned well that the owner was probably driving, but we can't ticket or arrest him because we can't place him behind the wheel, and he can't be gigged just for being the owner.... We also can't do anything about the fact that he is lying his ass off about who had his car (if a friend or family member had it). People know this, and it is why they dump the car as quickly as possible after an aborted pursuit...... they know our hands are tied.
In the above case, being able to seize the car would close that loophole... we seize drug vehicles, even if the owner isn't the one in it when the drugs are sold, so why not vehicles the elude us and endanger the general public?
I found long ago that thugs aren't afraid of jail..... they are afraid of being hit in the pockets. Make them fear losing their ride, and they will quit running for stupid BS.
...I'm talking about the times when people run from us, and we find the car parked in the owner's driveway 2 hours later. We knock on the door, and the owner says, "well, a friend of mine borrowed it." When asked the friends name, all he can come up with is "Bob.".....
And when you drive up, see the car is not in the driveway, wake up the owner ask him "Where is your car?", he says "In the driveway", looks and sees it's missing and you tell him "Well, we tried to pull it over 2 hours ago but it took off so we came here."
A week later you find it stripped in a back alley.
If the crooks find out they can run and get away with it they will run. If people out for a thrill ride in an unreported stolen car see the lights they will run. No big deal the cops will just go to the owner's home:D Yeeeeehaawwww, lets hit the road.
And when you drive up, see the car is not in the driveway, wake up the owner ask him "Where is your car?", he says "In the driveway", looks and sees it's missing and you tell him "Well, we tried to pull it over 2 hours ago but it took off so we came here."
A week later you find it stripped in a back alley.
If the crooks find out they can run and get away with it they will run. If people out for a thrill ride in an unreported stolen car see the lights they will run. No big deal the cops will just go to the owner's home:D Yeeeeehaawwww, lets hit the road.
As I stated earlier, the statistics from my dept do not support your position that "if people find out they can run, they will run." We restricted our chase policy 8 years ago, and have not seen an increase in the number of fleeing vehicles.
Also, most of the fleeing vehciles that we encounter are not stolen, and are actually being operated by the owner or with the owner's permission. The vehicles usually find their way home sooner or later. If we started seizing them when we found them, people might think twice before lending their car out to a thug or trying to outrun us.
I found out long ago that jail doesn't scare most thugs, but losing their car or money does. Threaten to lock them up, they smile.... threaten to impound their ride, they beg you not to....
Since criminal deterrents aren't always working, let's add a financial one in there as well....... it's worked in some places already.
Smokin Joe
11-29-2007, 18:13
I work in a rural county that is next to one of the largest Native American Reservation in the U.S. My primary AOR is an area that people MUST travel through in order to get back to the reservation.
Native Americans come to town to shop, eat, get gas, and some like to drink excessively, as well as bootleg. I could care less about boot legging as it is not a law that I can enforce (its a federal statue not a state one). However, I do VERY much care about all of the DUI drivers in my AOR. They and tweakers are the biggest threat to my community.
We have a "reasonable pursuit policy" our policy basically says that only the primary officer on the pursuit or the on duty supervisor can terminate the pursuit. But these guys have a safe haven if they make it to the reservation. A majority of my stops result in a DUI arrest. A majority of my stops are from chicken shit equipment violations, not using a turn signal, or 10 mph over. However, with my experience and the shifts that I work (by choice) I will chase everyone in to the ground that runs from me.
Why you may ask? Because, I cannot express to you (nor do I wish to reflect) on how many fatality or near fatality traffic accidents I have dealt with in my short 2 years on the road. The only thing that sucks more than dealing with a fatality accident because some asshole decided to get hammered again and drive home (where ever their home is). Is watching a young child scream to death (literally). On the heels of that nothing will cut through your heart faster than watching and hearing a 7 year old girl scream to death while you sit there waiting for the helicopter knowing that the rest of her family is dead in the car next to you.
That is why I advocate a more aggressive pursuit policy.
Just my .02 cents YMMV
I work in a rural county that is next to one of the largest Native American Reservation in the U.S. My primary AOR is an area that people MUST travel through in order to get back to the reservation.
Native Americans come to town to shop, eat, get gas, and some like to drink excessively, as well as bootleg. I could care less about boot legging as it is not a law that I can enforce (its a federal statue not a state one). However, I do VERY much care about all of the DUI drivers in my AOR. They and tweakers are the biggest threat to my community.
We have a "reasonable pursuit policy" our policy basically says that only the primary officer on the pursuit or the on duty supervisor can terminate the pursuit. But these guys have a safe haven if they make it to the reservation. A majority of my stops result in a DUI arrest. A majority of my stops are from chicken shit equipment violations, not using a turn signal, or 10 mph over. However, with my experience and the shifts that I work (by choice) I will chase everyone in to the ground that runs from me.
Why you may ask? Because, I cannot express to you (nor do I wish to reflect) on how many fatality or near fatality traffic accidents I have dealt with in my short 2 years on the road. The only thing that sucks more than dealing with a fatality accident because some asshole decided to get hammered again and drive home (where ever their home is). Is watching a young child scream to death (literally). On the heels of that nothing will cut through your heart faster than watching and hearing a 7 year old girl scream to death while you sit there waiting for the helicopter knowing that the rest of her family is dead in the car next to you.
That is why I advocate a more aggressive pursuit policy.
Just my .02 cents YMMV
Just FYI, we are also allowed to chase all probable DUIs (in addition to the dangerous felony types). I agree with you, DUIs should not be disregarded. Also, if you work the highway, you have a better chance of ending a pursuit without someone getting hurt. I work in the inner city, and brother, the streets are packed with innocent pedestrians, heavy traffic, etc..... It's a helluva lot harder to chase someone here without someone else getting hurt.... bad. This is why we have to be a little more careful about what we decide to chase, as every chase we get into is going to endanger numerous lives.
brownapple
11-29-2007, 20:12
Is there a smilie missing in this post somewhere?
TR
Yep. Oops. ;)
GratefulCitizen
11-29-2007, 22:29
I work in a rural county that is next to one of the largest Native American Reservation in the U.S. My primary AOR is an area that people MUST travel through in order to get back to the reservation.
Native Americans come to town to shop, eat, get gas, and some like to drink excessively, as well as bootleg. I could care less about boot legging as it is not a law that I can enforce (its a federal statue not a state one). However, I do VERY much care about all of the DUI drivers in my AOR. They and tweakers are the biggest threat to my community.
We have a "reasonable pursuit policy" our policy basically says that only the primary officer on the pursuit or the on duty supervisor can terminate the pursuit. But these guys have a safe haven if they make it to the reservation. A majority of my stops result in a DUI arrest. A majority of my stops are from chicken shit equipment violations, not using a turn signal, or 10 mph over. However, with my experience and the shifts that I work (by choice) I will chase everyone in to the ground that runs from me.
Why you may ask? Because, I cannot express to you (nor do I wish to reflect) on how many fatality or near fatality traffic accidents I have dealt with in my short 2 years on the road. The only thing that sucks more than dealing with a fatality accident because some asshole decided to get hammered again and drive home (where ever their home is). Is watching a young child scream to death (literally). On the heels of that nothing will cut through your heart faster than watching and hearing a 7 year old girl scream to death while you sit there waiting for the helicopter knowing that the rest of her family is dead in the car next to you.
That is why I advocate a more aggressive pursuit policy.
Just my .02 cents YMMV
While on my bid route, I drive Hwy 89 (part of SJ's AOR, I believe) up to 500 miles/day (two round-trips).
Anyone who is willing to run is unlikey to observe speed limits, is more likely to ignore passing lanes, and, in this area, is very likely to be drunk.
If they are let go, and they drive this area regularly, it is only a matter of time until repeated behavior kills someone.
Additionally, if someone runs in this area, there is a chance they are transporting meth.
I worked many night shifts (at my former 2nd job) with a Navajo PD officer (also moonlighting) who was working narcotics.
He shared the experiences he had in this area.
This is a major north-south meth corridor. If someone runs, they probably have a reason.
During the course of a workweek, you would not believe the incredible number of reckless driving incidents I witness and sometimes have to avoid (not easy when running at 8 tons).
If these mere traffic offenders are allowed to run from LEO's, they eventually will kill someone.
By all means, Smokin Joe, chase everyone who runs.
It will definitely save lives.
(if they need a little bump from the brown truck, let me know:D )
>>Smokin Joe: Was that a shootout that occured today around MP 448?
GratefulCitizen
11-29-2007, 22:38
would not the codification of the law allow the citizen to act at the point of decision, rather that hesitate, to his detriment?
This is a good question.
Use of force laws are, for all intents and purposes, ROE for civilians.
I am assuming that "codification" means specific language addressing several contigencies, etc.
What do the QP's have to say about this?
How do ROE's affect decisiveness?
Smokin Joe
11-30-2007, 04:25
GratefulCitizen,
PM sent
Two more fatal shootings in the Houston area in the last two days. Both shooters invoking the new Castle Law. One seems pretty righteous. Older man just out of the hospital kills a thief who was trying to break into his house. The other involved a man walking two doors down to his neighbors house to complain about how fast the daughter and boyfriend were driving down the street. An argument ensues and the homeowner shoots him on the front porch. The man was unarmed. The prosecutor has not filed charges yet because he is studying the new law that does not require the homeowner to retreat. Someone told me my kid was speeding through the neighborhood, I would be giving hell to my kid, not shooting the messenger. Texas, you gotta love it or lose your mind.
CoLawman
11-30-2007, 18:59
Colorado went through the same confusion upon the passing of their "make my day law." It will take some well publicized cases before people understand the limits as to when they can shoot and invoke the Castle defense.
In the meantime........don't be a pizza guy. :D
60_Driver
11-30-2007, 21:58
The State of Texas!!!
Someone grabbing a lawnmower out of a yard constitutes "Petty Theft", a misdemeanor. You are cleared to "Brandish" a firearm and "Threaten", but not to use Deadly Force.
Once the "Plane" of any "Portal" of a Residence or place of Business is crossed and a theft takes place, it becomes a Burglary, which is a Felony!!!
When a Felony takes place, Deadly Force is JUSTIFIED!!!!
I think this is what all the teeth gnashers are missing.
The law in Texas, and a link was thoughtfully provided by Retired W4, allows the use of deadly force to protect the land and property of a third person *at night*.
Not long ago, in the US, it was quite legal and considered proper to hand out a death sentence for theft of property. We all know the penalty for horse stealing...it's only quite recently that we've evolved the "enlightened" idea that no property is worth killing over. Probably part of the same trend that holds every human life as sacred, no matter what atrocities its bearer commits with it...
For my part, I shall keep to the old ways and old penalties, and enjoy my native state of Texas. You others are free to enjoy Colorado, North Carolina, or whatever other "enlightened" state you reside in.
But I would recommend you keep your mitts off my stuff after dark...
The other involved a man walking two doors down to his neighbors house to complain about how fast the daughter and boyfriend were driving down the street. An argument ensues and the homeowner shoots him on the front porch. The man was unarmed. The prosecutor has not filed charges yet because he is studying the new law that does not require the homeowner to retreat. Someone told me my kid was speeding through the neighborhood, I would be giving hell to my kid, not shooting the messenger. Texas, you gotta love it or lose your mind.
While many will boast and cheer actions such as this ("don't mess with Texas," etc.,) the fact is that when people act in unreasonable manners such as this, they hand anti-gunners more ammo with which to fight for more restrictive gun laws. They are playing into the stereotype, proving the anti-gunners right, and making it harder for the rest of us.
I don't applaud actions such as this.... they p*ss me off. All it takes is a handful of dumbasses to screw it up for all of us...
GratefulCitizen
12-01-2007, 00:13
While many will boast and cheer actions such as this ("don't mess with Texas," etc.,) the fact is that when people act in unreasonable manners such as this, they hand anti-gunners more ammo with which to fight for more restrictive gun laws. They are playing into the stereotype, proving the anti-gunners right, and making it harder for the rest of us.
I don't applaud actions such as this.... they p*ss me off. All it takes is a handful of dumbasses to screw it up for all of us...
I reiterate:
Just as gun-control laws are ignored by criminals,
use-of-force laws will be ignored or misconstrued by idiots.
Tightening up use-of-force laws will not prevent idiots from being idiots,
it will only take away reasonable options from reasonable persons.
Also,
Texans have the laws they want.
If this hurts political movements in another state, that is the other state's problem.
This is why many people choose not to live in states which disrespect their citizens' rights.
Remington Raidr
12-01-2007, 00:42
I reiterate:
Just as gun-control laws are ignored by criminals,
use-of-force laws will be ignored or misconstrued by idiots.
Tightening up use-of-force laws will not prevent idiots from being idiots,
it will only take away reasonable options from reasonable persons.
Also,
Texans have the laws they want.
If this hurts political movements in another state, that is the other state's problem.
This is why many people choose not to live in states which disrespect their citizens' rights.
Riiiiight, so did the rest of Dixie for about 100 years, until some atrocity affected the federal system at the CONSTITUTIONAL level. They are already in the wire. Maybe you can seceed back to Mexico. Pretty lax gun control SOTB.:eek:
I reiterate:
Just as gun-control laws are ignored by criminals,
use-of-force laws will be ignored or misconstrued by idiots.
Tightening up use-of-force laws will not prevent idiots from being idiots,
it will only take away reasonable options from reasonable persons.
I know that, and you know that, but many people (including legislators) don't buy it..... so everytime some idiot decides to pull a stunt like this, it makes it that much easier for gun legislation to be pushed through, which is what pro gun individuals (such as myself) don't want to see.
You can say, "that's your problem, not ours," but if sweeping federal legislation gets handed down, it will be everyones' problem.
GratefulCitizen
12-01-2007, 01:50
I know that, and you know that, but many people (including legislators) don't buy it..... so everytime some idiot decides to pull a stunt like this, it makes it that much easier for gun legislation to be pushed through, which is what pro gun individuals (such as myself) don't want to see.
You can say, "that's your problem, not ours," but if sweeping federal legislation gets handed down, it will be everyones' problem.
A few questions/comments:
1. How do you suggest idiots be prevented from acting like idiots?
2. How many states have adopted shall-issue laws in the past 25 years,
and what have been the consequences?
3. How many states have loosened use-of-force laws in the past 25 years,
and what have been the consequences?
4. What were the political consequences of the federal assault weapons ban?
5. How many LEO's had nation-wide concealed carry rights 5 years ago?
6. You claim to be pro-gun, so why do you advocate appeasement and compromise?
I fail to see the point in owning a weapon if I am not allowed to use it.
Tightening use-of-force laws is gun-control repackaged.
They're losing the battle for possesion, so they will attack instead the use thereof.
Media sensationalism notwithstanding, the gun-control movement has been losing to the pro-gun movement in the majority of states for 20+ years.
I welcome any attempt by the congress to pass more gun-control laws.
It will help the election efforts of the politicians I support.
I suppose I am open to some compromise with the gun-control crowd:
If the gun control acts of 1934, 1968, 1986, and all associated legislation are repealed, I will not demand they allow me unlicensed access to mortars, LAWs, recoilless rifles, and their ammunition.
(grenade launchers might be open to debate :D)
CoLawman
12-01-2007, 02:00
I think this is what all the teeth gnashers are missing.
The law in Texas, and a link was thoughtfully provided by Retired W4, allows the use of deadly force to protect the land and property of a third person *at night*.
Not long ago, in the US, it was quite legal and considered proper to hand out a death sentence for theft of property. We all know the penalty for horse stealing...it's only quite recently that we've evolved the "enlightened" idea that no property is worth killing over. Probably part of the same trend that holds every human life as sacred, no matter what atrocities its bearer commits with it...
For my part, I shall keep to the old ways and old penalties, and enjoy my native state of Texas. You others are free to enjoy Colorado, North Carolina, or whatever other "enlightened" state you reside in.
But I would recommend you keep your mitts off my stuff after dark...
Are you ever gone during the day? :D
A few questions/comments:
1. How do you suggest idiots be prevented from acting like idiots?
2. How many states have adopted shall-issue laws in the past 25 years,
and what have been the consequences?
3. How many states have loosened use-of-force laws in the past 25 years,
and what have been the consequences?
4. What were the political consequences of the federal assault weapons ban?
5. How many LEO's had nation-wide concealed carry rights 5 years ago?
6. You claim to be pro-gun, so why do you advocate appeasement and compromise?
1. It's not possible to prevent some people from acting like idiots. But we need to call them out for being the idiots that they are rather than attempting to justify their actions or championing them. That just makes the rest of us lose credibility and look like nutjobs.
2. I don't have the numbers. Do you?
3. Same answer as to number 2.
4. Depends on who you ask...
5. Not many
6. How is saying that a dude is a dumbshit for shooting his neighbor (for complaining about his daughter's driving) a form of appeasement? My only point was that the more times crap like this happens, the more likely we are to see backlash in the form of gu control legislation. If we use the castle doctrine to defend indefensible actions such as this, then we run the risk of the doctrine being revoked down the road.
Look, I know that we have made progress the past 8 years..... but the tifde can turn the other way just as quickly. Doesn't take too many "I shot my neighber cause he looked at me funny.... and it was dark outside" incidents to f*ck it up for all of us.
GratefulCitizen
12-01-2007, 11:13
1. It's not possible to prevent some people from acting like idiots. But we need to call them out for being the idiots that they are rather than attempting to justify their actions or championing them. That just makes the rest of us lose credibility and look like nutjobs.
2. I don't have the numbers. Do you?
3. Same answer as to number 2.
4. Depends on who you ask...
5. Not many
6. How is saying that a dude is a dumbshit for shooting his neighbor (for complaining about his daughter's driving) a form of appeasement? My only point was that the more times crap like this happens, the more likely we are to see backlash in the form of gu control legislation. If we use the castle doctrine to defend indefensible actions such as this, then we run the risk of the doctrine being revoked down the road.
Look, I know that we have made progress the past 8 years..... but the tifde can turn the other way just as quickly. Doesn't take too many "I shot my neighber cause he looked at me funny.... and it was dark outside" incidents to f*ck it up for all of us.
1. When you say "call them out" do you mean that legislative action should be taken?
2. IIRC, 35 states have adopted shall issue laws in the past 25 years, and Alaska went to a Vermont-style law (they also issue a permit for reciprocity purposes).
I have seen no evidence presented (by a hostile media) of an associated increase in gun crime.
3. Fair enough, this is a little harder to research. In the past 25 years, several states, Florida and Colorado among them, have loosened use of force laws.
I have seen no evidence presented (despite the dire predictions of a hostile media) of an associated increase in violence.
4. It is my assertion that it affected the 1994 congressional elections, and eventually, the 2000 presidential election.
I could be wrong.
6. One could infer from your several posts that you advocate tightening (codifying) use-of-force laws.
I do take issue with this statement.
It assumes the actions are indefensible, therefore the castle doctrine is not a defense. (begging the question)
That is an issue which will be determined by a judge and jury under the laws of the state where it occured.
Concerning this statement, what course do you propose to prevent the tide from turning?
I am also curious as to why you say "8 years".
Much of the progress happened prior to Bush being elected, and happened at the state level.
I am only trying to understand what your positions are on the tightening/loosening of use-of-force laws, and how you have reached your conclusions.
CoLawman
12-01-2007, 13:48
6. One could infer from your several posts that you advocate tightening (codifying) use-of-force laws.
Use of force is codified in all 50 states! Are you advocating we do away with statutes that define "use of force"? :munchin
GratefulCitizen
12-01-2007, 14:41
Use of force is codified in all 50 states! Are you advocating we do away with statutes that define "use of force"? :munchin
I should have been explicit rather than implicit.
Clarification: when "codify" has been referenced in this thread, it seems to imply that use-of-force laws should be more specific and restrictive.
My comment was made with that context in mind.
I was unclear, I apologize for the confusion.
Admittedly, when Colorado did some "codifying", it left more power in the hands of the citizen.
From the Colorado Revised Statutes:
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
********************
In reference to Greenhat's earlier arguments(common law, etc):
from the Colorado Revised Statutes:
18-1-702. Choice of evils.
Annotations
The "choice of evils" defense has its roots in the common-law doctrine of necessity, and has long been recognized in criminal law under the latter description. People v. Robertson, 36 Colo. App. 367, 543 P.2d 533 (1975).
:munchin
Ambush Master
12-01-2007, 14:53
Let's go back to last April when I posted this article:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=164328&highlight=TSRA#post164328
The SCOTUS has made several Rulings that come down to: YOU do not have a RIGHT to Protection by/from the Government (Law Enforcement Agencies)!!!
Take care.
Martin
GratefulCitizen
12-02-2007, 00:04
The other involved a man walking two doors down to his neighbors house to complain about how fast the daughter and boyfriend were driving down the street. An argument ensues and the homeowner shoots him on the front porch. The man was unarmed. The prosecutor has not filed charges yet because he is studying the new law that does not require the homeowner to retreat. Someone told me my kid was speeding through the neighborhood, I would be giving hell to my kid, not shooting the messenger. Texas, you gotta love it or lose your mind.
While many will boast and cheer actions such as this ("don't mess with Texas," etc.,) the fact is that when people act in unreasonable manners such as this, they hand anti-gunners more ammo with which to fight for more restrictive gun laws. They are playing into the stereotype, proving the anti-gunners right, and making it harder for the rest of us.
I don't applaud actions such as this.... they p*ss me off. All it takes is a handful of dumbasses to screw it up for all of us...
mdb23, I was trying to remember why I had trouble figuring out your opinion on this.
Now I remember:
And for the record, I am not against this guy shooting the dirtbag. I am just saying that, given our current laws, he could be in for a long legal battle.
I am one of those cops who thinks that you should be able to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed, who illegally enters your home. No retreating, no second guessing..... bad guy is in your house, he goes down for the dirt nap.
This is from a thread last summer (post #35):
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=175215#post175215
...still a little confused as to where you stand. :confused:
There is a difference between burglarizing a property and brandishing a knife at the homeowner, and getting your butt shot off for going to your neighbor's home (unarmed) and asking him to get his daughter under control. Apples and oranges, and my stances on those issues reflect that.
To be really short, I believe that people should be able to kill burglars that break into their homes. I don't think the castle doctrine should apply to third party property (for reasons that I have stated), and I think that shooting someone for griping about your daughter's driving, whether they are on your porch or not, is ridiculous.
Even in cases that I think of as "bad" shoots, I still don't cry out "oh the humanity" if a shitbag gets shot. I just cringe, knowing that the anti gun crowd has one more example of how irresponsible we, as gun owners, can sometimes be.
GratefulCitizen
12-02-2007, 21:14
There is a difference between burglarizing a property and brandishing a knife at the homeowner, and getting your butt shot off for going to your neighbor's home (unarmed) and asking him to get his daughter under control. Apples and oranges, and my stances on those issues reflect that.
To be really short, I believe that people should be able to kill burglars that break into their homes. I don't think the castle doctrine should apply to third party property (for reasons that I have stated), and I think that shooting someone for griping about your daughter's driving, whether they are on your porch or not, is ridiculous.
Even in cases that I think of as "bad" shoots, I still don't cry out "oh the humanity" if a shitbag gets shot. I just cringe, knowing that the anti gun crowd has one more example of how irresponsible we, as gun owners, can sometimes be.
Thank you for the clarification.
I am generally in agreement with your stated positions.
Sorry for any confusion, sometimes typed communication leads to misconceptions.
Stay safe out there. :lifter
dr. mabuse
12-04-2007, 15:46
Going way back in the thread, TR was spot on. Be careful what you say before shooting someone if there are witnesses or you are being recorded. Do what you need to do yet, it CAN go to trial even if you did it "by the book".
In Texas, as a practical matter, a person was never really expected to retreat in their house (or as a guest in another person's house), hotel room, motor coach, camper, (local legal domicile) etc., before the new law.
When I was re-qualifying as an instructor with the Texas DPS, I had a good discussion with their legal counsel, David Wise, regarding the new Castle Doctrine. Although it does mention situations involving being attacked at the workplace or in your vehicle, he said that the concept of "legal presence" was quite strong in the new law.
That is, if you didn't start or escalate the confrontation, weren't involved in a criminal activity, and were legally o.k. as to location and what you were doing, then you don't have to try to get away.
That's the problem with CHL issues. There are 3 things to consider. The written law, what actually happens on the street and what will likely happen with the Grand Jury or criminal court. Ignorance of these 3 possible factors can be a very expensive lesson.
It troubles me though when I see students falling off the deep end with emotional "either/or" extreme thinking. Not conducive to good health...;)
If you live in the DFW area and have nothing better to do, come over to AFT in Grand Prairie tonight and visit awhile. :munchin
I just saw a glimpse of what is to be on tonight on the "O'Reilly Factor" tonight. It looks like they are doing a segment on the shooting. Again, this was just a glimpse so I could be wrong.;)
GratefulCitizen
12-04-2007, 22:57
I just saw a glimpse of what is to be on tonight on the "O'Reilly Factor" tonight. It looks like they are doing a segment on the shooting. Again, this was just a glimpse so I could be wrong.;)
Just saw the segment.
I wonder if they actually read the Texas law regarding justification:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
It seems as if he's somewhere between § 9.42 and § 9.43 .
The commentators think a jury trial would result in aquittal, technical minutiae of the law notwithstanding.
<edit>
If you look closely at § 9.43 (2)(A), you can see how effective a neighborhood watch program would be in Texas. :eek:
Thanks for the post and link GC.
I read 9.42, jumped up and read 9.41 - got worried, then read 9.43 and went "Well, that's nice."
Bracholi
02-16-2008, 17:19
Probably part of the same trend that holds every human life as sacred, no matter what atrocities its bearer commits with it...
Hitler would get a slap on the wrist for being the poor confused man he was.
I would also add about the pursuit policies:
We've (the country) all moved to Community Oriented Policing now. All 'ROE' or Use of Force regulations you have are for that specific community. It's why Rural, TX (Fictional) Police department is run differently from Urban, TX (Also fictional) police department. No two departments will or should ever be run the same.
Sorry for preaching to the choir on that one. That's just what I gained from starting my college career in Safety and Security Administration (Criminal justice).
What I gained from criminology is that all crimes are crimes of opportunity. It just depends on how far one is willing to go to take advantage of that opportunity.
Loadsmasher
07-01-2008, 09:54
Mr. Horn is apparently off the hook. Local radio thought that because the deceased were illegal immigrants there would not be a civil suit, fat chance.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/30/burglary.shooting.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home was cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.
Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.
Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.
"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.
Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.
The two Horn suspected of committing burglary, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.
The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.
"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."
Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.
It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.
The new Texas civil immunity law was in effect when the shooting took place. Since the shooting was justified, Horn is covered. Talk radio needs to get a clue.
In addition, the AP story is incorrect w/r/t the use of deadly force to protect another person's property. There is absolutley no requirement that a third party have first requested your protection of their property. This kind of misinformation by the news media will only serve to confuse people.
Team Sergeant
07-01-2008, 12:18
It's nice to hear the good people of Texas have not lost their minds.
I wonder if I could purchase a property close to where Joe lives.;)
Team Sergeant
It's nice to hear the good people of Texas have not lost their minds.
I wonder if I could purchase a property close to where Joe lives.;)
Team Sergeant
Better yet, move next door to me. We'll combine our yards and build a shooting range! :D
dr. mabuse
07-01-2008, 21:00
Horn "may" be covered. The "Castle Doctrine" hasn't been rigorously tested per se in court yet. See SB 378 Wentworth. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm
"It is an affirmative defense to a civil action..."
Affirmative defense doesn't mean anyone is automatically off the hook for anything. I've seen people in court go through the time/money wringer even when they did everything by the book. Still could be substantial time and/or hassle factors for the 61 year old.
Just like having a CHL in Texas gives one an "affirmative defense" to prosecution, but no "automatic pass".
Our Texas CHL is not a hunting permit.....yet.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the first home invader is blown away in DC. In one of the FBI'S many studies. When Criminals were interviewed they all had one common denominator. Their biggest fear when committing a crime was the Armed Citizen. Particularly Burglars/Home Invaders.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the first home invader is blown away in DC. In one of the FBI'S many studies. When Criminals were interviewed they all had one common denominator. Their biggest fear when committing a crime was the Armed Citizen. Particularly Burglars/Home Invaders.
I wonder where dogs that are trained to bite (or just plain dogs) fall on that list? Not trying to hijack the thread... just thinking out loud.
The Reaper
07-02-2008, 08:45
It will be interesting to see what happens when the first home invader is blown away in DC. In one of the FBI'S many studies. When Criminals were interviewed they all had one common denominator. Their biggest fear when committing a crime was the Armed Citizen. Particularly Burglars/Home Invaders.
Well, DC had said that no one would be prosecuted under the old law if they lawfully managed to get their long gun assembled or unlocked and justifiably killed a home intruder.
Lots of ways to weasel out of that one (if you survive), and I would not trust the authorities, especially the DA, to honor that statement.
As always, better tried by twelve than carried by six.
TR
swatsurgeon
07-02-2008, 11:47
I believe the DC chief of police also thinks that if a rapist has a condom in their pocket , it will be effective (for it's recommended purpose). A broken down weapon is always useful as a blunt object t beat someone with...(it's intended purpose)
ss