Stand your ground? Pshaw, that ain't jack!

[XDM45]

Yeah, ain't gonna lie. I like the carry laws up here more.

+1 on that. Thank you GOCRA.

Already joined.

Good man. NRA and GOCRA here. I need to add SAF to the list as well.

[ex-LT]

Not all hookers are bad

I had a set of those on my '69 Firebird. Damn, I miss that car.

[XDM45]

In the South, do they have a " He needed killin' " law/defense?

[Texastransplant]

"It was dark, and I was afraid for my life."

[tazdevil]

"It was dark, and I was afraid for my life."

Problem being, he placed himself in the dangerous situation. So "unwilling participant" may no longer be viable. Plus he was already committing a crime by hiring the hooker to begin with, Pretty sure the self defense claim is tough to use then.

[Texastransplant]

"It was dark, and I was afraid for my life."

Problem being, he placed himself in the dangerous situation. So "unwilling participant" may no longer be viable. Plus he was already committing a crime by hiring the hooker to begin with, Pretty sure the self defense claim is tough to use then.

She was an escort, not illegal to hire those. Technically, under Texas law, homicide is justifiable in defense of criminal mischief after dark, the idea being that a reasonable man can assume the person commiting criminal mischief may be armed and therefore an imminent threat of life or bodily injury (the two are interchangeable under Texas law).

Wasn't on the jury so not privy to the details, but I can see how the defense framed the argument:

1. She "stole" $150---criminal mischief
2. After dark---justifiable shoot in defense of property

There has to be more to this story, IMHO.

[Heffay]

"It was dark, and I was afraid for my life."

Problem being, he placed himself in the dangerous situation. So "unwilling participant" may no longer be viable. Plus he was already committing a crime by hiring the hooker to begin with, Pretty sure the self defense claim is tough to use then.

She was an escort, not illegal to hire those. Technically, under Texas law, homicide is justifiable in defense of criminal mischief after dark, the idea being that a reasonable man can assume the person commiting criminal mischief may be armed and therefore an imminent threat of life or bodily injury (the two are interchangeable under Texas law).

Wasn't on the jury so not privy to the details, but I can see how the defense framed the argument:

1. She "stole" $150---criminal mischief
2. After dark---justifiable shoot in defense of property

There has to be more to this story, IMHO.

You're ok with that law? Because technically even if there is no more to this story, you can shoot a hooker at night for inadequate performance of duties.

[jgalt]

You're ok with that law? Because technically even if there is no more to this story, you can shoot a hooker at night for inadequate performance of duties.

Actually, assuming prostitution is illegal in TX, this logic says it might be OK to shoot one afterward even if the performance was excellent...

[Heffay]

Hey, who needs a court system anymore? So what if a few innocent people get killed. After dark, you make your own justice!

[Texastransplant]

To clarify, I'm ok wih that law if someone happens to be breaking into my car or neighbors house. I'm not ok with its application in this case.

It allows for a reasonable assumption that someone up to no good after dark may very well be armed and dangerous, therefore a lethal response may be justified.

This particular case sets a bad precedent. Obviously the Grand Jury felt it warranted a Bill to court procedings. I think the prosecutor screwed it up beyond all belief.

[Heffay]

It allows for a reasonable assumption that someone up to no good after dark may very well be armed and dangerous, therefore a lethal response may be justified.

"Reasonable" assumption?

Saying something is reasonable doesn't make it so. Like reasonable gun control laws.

This law is screwed up beyond belief. You belief a "reasonable" response to someone breaking into your car after dark is to shoot them? No need for fear of death or bodily harm?

[Texastransplant]

It allows for a reasonable assumption that someone up to no good after dark may very well be armed and dangerous, therefore a lethal response may be justified.

"Reasonable" assumption?

Saying something is reasonable doesn't make it so. Like reasonable gun control laws.

This law is screwed up beyond belief. You belief a "reasonable" response to someone breaking into your car after dark is to shoot them? No need for fear of death or bodily harm?

The assumption under the law is that one capable of commiting such an act is presumably capable of worse, under the law. That criminal busting your car window do it with his bare hands? Chances are he's armed with something painful. The law allows for that scenario. So let me be perfectly clear:

YES

Edit: Under Minnesota Law? Not gonna do it.

[Texastransplant]

Also, do you think a criminal is more or less likely to break into your vehicle if he or she knows he or she can be shot while doing so, with the full blessings of the law?

[Heffay]

Also, do you think a criminal is more or less likely to break into your vehicle if he or she knows he or she can be shot while doing so, with the full blessings of the law?

It's interesting to see people try to defend this law.

[infidel]

Also, do you think a criminal is more or less likely to break into your vehicle if he or she knows he or she can be shot while doing so, with the full blessings of the law?

It's interesting to see people try to defend this law.

It's interesting to see people try to defend those who knowingly accept the potential risks for theft in Texas. Pretty simple, don't steal and you will not get shot.