Big Texas; Big Gun Rights

[Radio Frequency X]

Criminals Beware

DALLAS (Reuters) - Criminals in Texas beware: if you threaten someone in their car or office, the citizens of this state where guns are ubiquitous have the right to shoot you dead.

Governor Rick Perry's office said on Tuesday that he had signed a new law that expands Texans' existing right to use deadly force to defend themselves "without retreat" in their homes, cars and workplaces.

"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature," Perry said on his Web site.

The new law, which takes affect on September 1, extends an exception to a statute that required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception was in the case of an intruder unlawfully entering a person's home.

The law extends a person's right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force, the governor's office said.

Should these types of gun laws be restricted by the federal government?

 

[Mister_T]

Man that's a tough one.

I really can't say I have a definite stance on the issue. I think it would depend on what kind of impact these laws have on crime rate.

 

[kateyes]

As the right to bear arms(and presumably to use them) is guaranteed in the US Constitution--I am not sure I understand the poll. I also don't quite understand why Gov. Perry found it necessary to extend the right to use deadly force beyond the home to automobiles and the work place. In theory it would give someone the right to defend themselves against an armed attacker anywhere. I was under the impression(perhaps mistakenly), we already had that right.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

As the right to bear arms(and presumably to use them) is guaranteed in the US Constitution--I am not sure I understand the poll. I also don't quite understand why Gov. Perry found it necessary to extend the right to use deadly force beyond the home to automobiles and the work place. In theory it would give someone the right to defend themselves against an armed attacker anywhere. I was under the impression(perhaps mistakenly), we already had that right.

In most states, if you could have escaped, but you choose to shoot an invader, you can be convicted for murder.

 

[kateyes]

Really, I thought if they entered your home illegally and you felt threatened ( and who wouldn't feel threatened if an intruder entered your home?) it was within your rights (maybe not sensible but within your rights) to shoot the intruder.

"Rockford District Judge Steven Servaas, who would hold the preliminary hearing if charges were filed against Clarke, said a citizen has a right to use deadly force "if a number of things occur." Servaas said he wasn't aware of the details of the Cedar Springs case and couldn't discuss it since no charges have been filed.

In the case of self-defense, a person needs to show he had no reasonable way to retreat, he said. He might be able to run from a knife, but not a gun, for instance, Servaas said. And they are not likely to face charges for shooting a burglar inside their home, Servaas said. "The rule of thumb is, if someone is breaking into your house, you have no duty to retreat from your house," Servaas said. "That's your last bastion."

OR

"Don Martin, Tyler Police Department, said, "Just like police officers, you sometimes have split seconds to make that decision. But if you are in fear of your life, if you're in fear of serious bodily injury to you or others in your home, then the bottom line is you have the right to protect yourself."

OR

"In a statement released through his spokesman Wednesday, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said: ?We're not disputing that Mr. Dixon had a right to shoot the person who broke into his house. But he had no right to have that gun.?" (he was charged with possesion of an unlicensed weapon-but not for shooting the inturder).

OR
"That's what we call "self-defense", but in our homes, Minnesota law gives us even more latitude.

"You're also allowed to kill someone who is trying to break into your home if you believe that they are going to commit a felony in the home," said Failinger.

Here's what the law says: Taking a life is not authorized except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which one reasonably believes exposes one to great bodily harm or death or preventing the commission of a felony in one's place of abode."


These examples all relate to intruders--but you have to wonder whether any charges would have been filed against a person who shot one of the postal workers who when ballistic, or the day trader in Atlanta who killed several co-workers etc.

 

[Mister_T]

Really, I thought if they entered your home illegally and you felt threatened ( and who wouldn't feel threatened if an intruder entered your home?) it was within your rights (maybe not sensible but within your rights) to shoot the intruder.

In L.A. you can only shoot the intruder if he is in your house and that only flies sometimes. His body must be completely in your house. So if you shoot him as he's crawling through your window, then you're screwed. Also, if it looks like the intruder was trying to run away, then it's off to jail you go.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that it's fine.

In fact, I thought that we could do it anyway. I was shocked to hear yesterday that Texas law previously required people to try to retreat from their homes if their homes were invaded... and then use force or deadly force if they can't get away.

I know of several instances in my hometown where deadly force was used - police officers and judges have been very sympathetic to homeowners and business-owners who defend their homes (etc) with deadly force.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In L.A. you can only shoot the intruder if he is in your house and that only flies sometimes. His body must be completely in your house. So if you shoot him as he's crawling through your window, then you're screwed. Also, if it looks like the intruder was trying to run away, then it's off to jail you go.

That makes no sense to me - he could be reaching out the window to get a gun that he'd left there.

As far as I'm concerned, a person invading a home takes their life into their own hands - forfeiting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I know of a case in my hometown where a teenager was harassing a neighborhood by knocking on doors at 3am with a golf-club. A homeowner shot him and killed him through the door -- it served as a warning for the city, but the homeowner was scott free claiming self-defence.

 

[Mister_T]

That makes no sense to me - he could be reaching out the window to get a gun that he'd left there.

As far as I'm concerned, a person invading a home takes their life into their own hands - forfeiting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I know of a case in my hometown where a teenager was harassing a neighborhood by knocking on doors at 3am with a golf-club. A homeowner shot him and killed him through the door -- it served as a warning for the city, but the homeowner was scott free claiming self-defence.

You think that's ridiculous, check this out. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts

 

[Comprehend]

Criminals Beware



Should these types of gun laws be restricted by the federal government?

No. most state laws do not have the retreat requirement. I am surprised Texas did, but now they are just coming in line with the rest of the country. It doesn't make any sense to require one to retreat before they may lawfully defend themselves. It also makes for complicated law.

 

[Comprehend]

As the right to bear arms(and presumably to use them) is guaranteed in the US Constitution--I am not sure I understand the poll. I also don't quite understand why Gov. Perry found it necessary to extend the right to use deadly force beyond the home to automobiles and the work place. In theory it would give someone the right to defend themselves against an armed attacker anywhere. I was under the impression(perhaps mistakenly), we already had that right.

You are correct in most states, a few however have a retreat requirement such as Texas and Florida. Florida got rid of theirs a year or two ago, Texas just now it seems.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You think that's ridiculous, check this out. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts

We see in the case that the legal opinion is that the perp will lose his suit.

 

[kateyes]

Well, I have to say the retreat issue doesn't make any sense to me. For most people your home is your last retreat, to be told to leave it in the hands of an intruder goes against pretty much every instinct you could have. The change in Texas makes more sense to me now.

It is ironic though--I was once told by a policeman, that if the intruder was all the way in the house--that constituted a threat and could be acted upon with "deadly force".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, I have to say the retreat issue doesn't make any sense to me. For most people your home is your last retreat, to be told to leave it in the hands of an intruder goes against pretty much every instinct you could have. The change in Texas makes more sense to me now.

It is ironic though--I was once told by a policeman, that if the intruder was all the way in the house--that constituted a threat and could be acted upon with "deadly force".

Me too.:beach:

 

[Mister_T]

We see in the case that the legal opinion is that the perp will lose his suit.

The fact that it would even get that far is ridiculous to me.

 

[Mathematician]

So if someone flips me off at a stop light, I can shoot him dead if I prove I interpreted it as a threat?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts

Ah, the freerepublic. Got to love people who accuse you of being a terrorist.

 

[Comprehend]

So if someone flips me off at a stop light, I can shoot him dead if I prove I interpreted it as a threat?

nope. you have to prove that a reasonable person would have considered that your life was in imminent danger.

 

[Mathematician]

Ok, sounds good to me. The states shouldn't be "interpreting" constitutional amendments, though. That's the job of the Supreme Court.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

nope. you have to prove that a reasonable person would have considered that your life was in imminent danger.

Easier to prove if they're dead.

 

[Comprehend]

Ok, sounds good to me. The states shouldn't be "interpreting" constitutional amendments, though. That's the job of the Supreme Court.

what amendment are you referring to?

Also, if states are to apply a constitutional amendment, they must first interpret/understand what it means... I don't get what you mean.