Would you kill kill an intruder?

[Separatist Peoples]

Yeah. Easily.

lol itg

I'd love to see you handle what I do, buddy. You ever scrape a person off a freeway with a shovel before? Cuz thats what happens when you get thrown out of the vehicle when it flips at 80 miles an hour.

[Wikkiwallana]

It's lovely that your logic makes no distinction between an armed robber and a kid walking home from school who decides to take a shortcut through your yard. Really touching that.

I love how you assume that people who wish to defend themselves are unhinged nut jobs who are all out for blood and don't have a modicum of commonsense.

I don't assume that about all advocate of self defense. I assume that about him, specifically because of the way he explained his position.

[Godular]

Exactly. TS, you're wrong.

Cite the law that states this, for Texas.

Please.

Your wish is my command insofar as it relates to proving you a fool.

The Self Defense Laws Of Texas



The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS


"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Self Defense Statutes
(Texas Penal Code)

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Deadly Force in Defense of Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

Defense of Another Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Protection of the Property of Others


"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

Reasonable Belief

"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."

"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost

"Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable."

"A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time."

Self Defense Definitions

"Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."

"Aggravated assault is committed if a person commits Assault (qv.) and causes serious bodily injury to another, or causes bodily injury to a peace officer, or uses a deadly weapon."

"Burglary is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Enters a building, or any portion of a bulding, not open to the public with intent to commit a felony or theft, or 2) Remains concealed in a building with the intent to commit a felony or theft."

"Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person."

Bolding mine.

I see I have actually been shortchanging my response. If the perpetrator runs away, I cannot shoot him. If he runs away with my stuff in his arms, bitch goin' down.

[Norstal]

ITG brigade.

Its not nearly so hard when you've seen people die before. I deal with that all the time. Injuries sustained at vehicle accidents and structure fires are a whole lot worse then gunshot wounds.

Killing is different than seeing dying people...

[Des-Bal]

Your law does. My country doesn't and as an individual I don't. Shooting someone without giving them a chance to surrender without any danger to yourself is completely diffrent from killing soemone walking towards you/threatening you with a knife.

Your responsibility to preserve their life ends when they create the threat against your own. By announcing your presence you may create a more volatile situtaion.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Its not nearly so hard when you've seen people die before. I deal with that all the time. Injuries sustained at vehicle accidents and structure fires are a whole lot worse then gunshot wounds.

Killing is different than seeing dying people...

This. The former causes nightmares for the rest of your life.

The latter makes you a bit sick to your stomach and turn your head, and maybe nightmares for a few months at most. You get over the latter, but not the former.

[Greater Herzegovina]

Weapons are not dangerous for the intruder, they're dangerous for you!
Just ask yourself, could you live with the fact that you killed someone?

I've killed many men in my time. I remember their faces, but I can live with the fact I killed them.
The question is, who is smarter? You, or your opponent? Which can handle the situation more.

You can always shoot in his limb, without killing 'em.
It's much better when you send him to the jail, isn't it? Just kill 'em is easy, he deserves a greater punishment.

[Horsefish]

Your responsibility to preserve their life ends when they create the threat against your own. By announcing your presence you may create a more volatile situtaion.

I do suppose it depends on the context.
Someone walking up the stairs towards where your family is sleeping with a weapon? Understandable if you shoot him. Across the room trying to unplug you tv? Should have to say something indicating you have a gun and will use it.

[Lessnt]

I've killed many men in my time. I remember their faces, but I can live with the fact I killed them.
The question is, who is smarter? You, or your opponent? Which can handle the situation more.

You can always shoot in his limb, without killing 'em.
It's much better when you send him to the jail, isn't it? Just kill 'em is easy, he deserves a greater punishment.

He can sue if you only wound.

[Godular]

I've killed many men in my time. I remember their faces, but I can live with the fact I killed them.
The question is, who is smarter? You, or your opponent? Which can handle the situation more.

You can always shoot in his limb, without killing 'em.
It's much better when you send him to the jail, isn't it? Just kill 'em is easy, he deserves a greater punishment.

YOU DO NOT SHOOT TO WOUND. YOU SHOOT TO STOP.

[Norstal]

I've killed many men in my time. I remember their faces, but I can live with the fact I killed them.
The question is, who is smarter? You, or your opponent? Which can handle the situation more.

You can always shoot in his limb, without killing 'em.
It's much better when you send him to the jail, isn't it? Just kill 'em is easy, he deserves a greater punishment.

Shoot to wound is harder than it looks.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

I've killed many men in my time. I remember their faces, but I can live with the fact I killed them.
The question is, who is smarter? You, or your opponent? Which can handle the situation more.

You can always shoot in his limb, without killing 'em.
It's much better when you send him to the jail, isn't it? Just kill 'em is easy, he deserves a greater punishment.

Brachial.

Femoral.

You can always shoot in his limb, without killing 'em.
It's much better when you send him to the jail, isn't it? Just kill 'em is easy, he deserves a greater punishment.

Shoot to wound is harder than it looks.

Shoot to wound is when shoot to kill goes wrong.

lol itg

I'd love to see you handle what I do, buddy. You ever scrape a person off a freeway with a shovel before? Cuz thats what happens when you get thrown out of the vehicle when it flips at 80 miles an hour.

Picking up arms and legs off the road and pulling charred corpses out of burnt wrecks is different from killing someone point blank, bro.

[Greater Herzegovina]

But if they are trying to surrender or escape you do not shoot them.

Well, yes. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it. I wouldn't shoot in the back, but that's about it. If I don't have to alert him I won't. Also, to the quote asking if I could live with killing someone: Yes. I'd sleep like a baby.

You think so but the real life is different.

[Separatist Peoples]

Killing is different than seeing dying people...

This. The former causes nightmares for the rest of your life.

The latter makes you a bit sick to your stomach and turn your head, and maybe nightmares for a few months at most.

Right. Because watching a woman die right in front of you while screaming for her child, and knowing that she might have lived if we had worked a little harder, a little faster, is so much better then blowing a guy away because he was trying to jack your tv. Or your daughter. Clearly you have no experience with how the former feels. I can't imagine I'd feel anything but grim satisfaction at the latter, having dealt with with circumstances like the former.

[Kreanoltha]

You can always shoot in his limb, without killing 'em.
It's much better when you send him to the jail, isn't it? Just kill 'em is easy, he deserves a greater punishment.

YOU DO NOT SHOOT TO WOUND. YOU SHOOT TO STOP.

Correct. You don't shoot to kill either. You shoot until the threat stops moving. He's probably dead, but, eh, semantics.

[Wikkiwallana]

I was actually thinking about this the other day, and wondering this: just what percentage of breaking and entering is done while the residents are home? How is having a gun going to stop someone who waits until the house is empty? Why are you defending guns with a scenario that assumes all or at least most burglars are too stupid to wait for people to go to work, on vacation, at a funeral, or pretty much use any sense at all besides "guns are dangerous".

The main point of your argument is right, nobody can stop an intruder if he enters when the occupants are out. You are correct on that.
However, the fact that it does and will happen from time to time is a good enough reason for them. There is also the important fact that the criminal can never know if there is really anyone left in the house, short of the owners locking up the place tight in a very obvious way before going onna holiday. The implied threat of force is never really gone.

Then I know what the follow-up secondary argument is; If the numbers don't support it, then why have guns that violate (my) moral principles? At least, this is the vibe I'm getting from the underlined part.

The answer to that is simply that there are few or no drawbacks to having them in the first place, practically, statistically and (rightfully) legally in places where they are allowed. Criminals are hardly affected from any legislation and gun control, and the -why- of that I leave you to just do some Internet research and find out yourself.

Please excuse me if I misinterpreted the point of your post.

Mildly. My point was that better defense could be made. Do I respect a reasonable ability for the average citizen to own guns for self defense? Yes. Do I think America is overly gun happy? Also yes. But my issue with the OP was the scenario being used, not with gun ownership.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

This. The former causes nightmares for the rest of your life.

The latter makes you a bit sick to your stomach and turn your head, and maybe nightmares for a few months at most.

Right. Because watching a woman die right in front of you while screaming for her child, and knowing that she might have lived if we had worked a little harder, a little faster, is so much better then blowing a guy away because he was trying to jack your tv. Or your daughter. Clearly you have no experience with how the former feels. I can't imagine I'd feel anything but grim satisfaction at the latter, having dealt with with circumstances like the former.

Then I'd recommend you visit a psychologist.

I did for a few months.

It helped.

[Godular]

YOU DO NOT SHOOT TO WOUND. YOU SHOOT TO STOP.

Correct. You don't shoot to kill either. You shoot until the threat stops moving. He's probably dead, but, eh, semantics.

Exactly. Shooting to wound leads to possible collateral damage like the five year old girl sleeping across the street taking one to the temple. You want to shoot until the opponent ceases being a threat. At that point, your grounds for shooting him go away.

[Kreanoltha]

This. The former causes nightmares for the rest of your life.

The latter makes you a bit sick to your stomach and turn your head, and maybe nightmares for a few months at most.

Right. Because watching a woman die right in front of you while screaming for her child, and knowing that she might have lived if we had worked a little harder, a little faster, is so much better then blowing a guy away because he was trying to jack your tv. Or your daughter. Clearly you have no experience with how the former feels. I can't imagine I'd feel anything but grim satisfaction at the latter, having dealt with with circumstances like the former.

To be perfectly honest I can't either. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[Separatist Peoples]

Right. Because watching a woman die right in front of you while screaming for her child, and knowing that she might have lived if we had worked a little harder, a little faster, is so much better then blowing a guy away because he was trying to jack your tv. Or your daughter. Clearly you have no experience with how the former feels. I can't imagine I'd feel anything but grim satisfaction at the latter, having dealt with with circumstances like the former.

Then I'd recommend you visit a psychologist.

I did for a few months.

It helped.

Just because it affected you doesn't mean it would affect everybody else. Please bear that in mind.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Then I'd recommend you visit a psychologist.

I did for a few months.

It helped.

Just because it affected you doesn't mean it would affect everybody else. Please bear that in mind.

It has clearly affected you, though, based on your statements.

[Separatist Peoples]

Just because it affected you doesn't mean it would affect everybody else. Please bear that in mind.

It has clearly affected you, though, based on your statements.

Yeah, but I deal with it. I'm no good to anybody if I let it get to me, now am I?

[Lessnt]

Well, yes. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it. I wouldn't shoot in the back, but that's about it. If I don't have to alert him I won't. Also, to the quote asking if I could live with killing someone: Yes. I'd sleep like a baby.

You think so but the real life is different.

I think I could get over it.
I have a natural ability to forget selectively.
Maybe I would feel bad for about 5 months.
Then It would be mostly forgotten.

[Kreanoltha]

Correct. You don't shoot to kill either. You shoot until the threat stops moving. He's probably dead, but, eh, semantics.

Exactly. Shooting to wound leads to possible collateral damage like the five year old girl sleeping across the street taking one to the temple. You want to shoot until the opponent ceases being a threat. At that point, your grounds for shooting him go away.

At that point it is generally desecration of a corpse.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

It has clearly affected you, though, based on your statements.

Yeah, but I deal with it. I'm no good to anybody if I let it get to me, now am I?

Very true.