The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Justifiable shootings are up in Texas since the Castle Doctrine Law was expanded in 2007. Not everybody is happy about that. What do you guys think?
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 676412.php

First things first

Since Texas in 2007 expanded its "Castle Doctrine" - in some states known as "Stand Your Ground" - justifiable killings have steadily increased, from 32 statewide in 2006 to 48 in the 2010, the Chronicle's review shows.

2006 is before the 2008 crash, so it's likely some or a good portion of that increase is due to increased crime

Secondly I disagree with any "duty to retreat", Firstly because other people don't get to decide for me after the fact if I had a reasonable method of escape, for one because if the assailant has a gun, turning your back on them is usually a bad idea but also because the people on the jury weren't there, and neither was the prosecutor or the defense attourney for that matter. None of the experienced what the shooter went through and so have no right to say whether there was a reasonable ability to retreat. Secondly because getting rid of duty to retreat is not a license to chase. it does not mean you see a suspicious man walking down the street and play vigilante, It means you call the police and if they try to break into or onto your property you can stop them.

Agree with Gendo.

I don't think we've gone feral based on the article. They show 9 deaths in Dallas, surely a tiny percentage of actual incidents. Running off with $20 shouldn't be a death sentence but it was for that petty thief.

Its good they covered the shooter's views after the shooting. No medals for any of them.

I think this will backfire on gun owners. Running down and shooting someone over a stolen tip jar should not be justified.Stories like that will raise an outcry from anti-gun crowd and it will be hard to counter, I know I couldn't. To me justifiable self defense occurs when there is a threat of bodily harm. I sympathise with the man who beat the man to death who was molesting his daughter.But that could be a gray area,if the molester was helpless on the ground and he was kicking his head in,he should have some explaining to do. If he shot him, I would say it was justifiable (as long as the guy wasn't running away), he was preventing bodily harm.
In Wisconsin there was a case where a kid underage, fled a drinking party that was being raided by the police. He ran into a house"s enclosed front porch.The home owner came out on the porch. The kid stood up and moved toward the home owner. The homeowner shot and killed the kid. This was a horrible tragedy and the homeowner did not face charges and shouldn't as he had no way of knowing that the kid wasn't a threat. He was confronted by an unidentified person and there was lot of police activity down the street. If the old law was in effect he would have a duty to retreat, I think the duty to retreat is unrealistic and could give a criminal greater opportunity for harm ( a clear target at a back or backside )
When deadly force is used not just to defend against murder, rape or other bodily harm but also to defend property when there is no preceived danger to the owner or another, it, in my view, is not justified and the more it is used the more it becomes ammuntion against people exercising the reasonable right of self defense.

I think if someone is feeling remorse after a shooting they doubt whether it was justified. If I felt truly threatened and killed an assailant the only remorse I would feel is that their family was going after me in civil court. Frivolous civil action is the cause of castle doctrine, plus ambitious DAs. I understand stand your ground but all I've seen is advance and pursue, I would not feel comfortable after that but if I stood my ground and prevailed during an attack on my life I would feel great that I prevailed and survived. Something is very wrong when an entire class of people in our society is killing each other over material possessions. If someone was in my closet I would take cover and yell at them to come out because I was armed, shooting through the closet would not be an option. I don't get this vigilantism crap.

beto wrote:I think this will backfire on gun owners. Running down and shooting someone over a stolen tip jar should not be justified.Stories like that will raise an outcry from anti-gun crowd and it will be hard to counter, I know I couldn't. To me justifiable self defense occurs when there is a threat of bodily harm. I sympathise with the man who beat the man to death who was molesting his daughter.But that could be a gray area,if the molester was helpless on the ground and he was kicking his head in,he should have some explaining to do. If he shot him, I would say it was justifiable (as long as the guy wasn't running away), he was preventing bodily harm.
In Wisconsin there was a case where a kid underage, fled a drinking party that was being raided by the police. He ran into a house"s enclosed front porch.The home owner came out on the porch. The kid stood up and moved toward the home owner. The homeowner shot and killed the kid. This was a horrible tragedy and the homeowner did not face charges and shouldn't as he had no way of knowing that the kid wasn't a threat. He was confronted by an unidentified person and there was lot of police activity down the street. If the old law was in effect he would have a duty to retreat, I think the duty to retreat is unrealistic and could give a criminal greater opportunity for harm ( a clear target at a back or backside )
When deadly force is used not just to defend against murder, rape or other bodily harm but also to defend property when there is no preceived danger to the owner or another, it, in my view, is not justified and the more it is used the more it becomes ammuntion against people exercising the reasonable right of self defense.

I basically agree with this. Using deadly force to recover stolen property is a very iffy proposition it seems to me. I know Texas law allows the use of deadly force to recover property "in the nighttime" (a rather curious stipulation), but property is replaceable and most of it is insured. That does not seem like a valid reason to use deadly force to me. If my life is threatened then it is a different matter of course.

eelj wrote:I think if someone is feeling remorse after a shooting they doubt whether it was justified. If I felt truly threatened and killed an assailant the only remorse I would feel is that their family was going after me in civil court. Frivolous civil action is the cause of castle doctrine, plus ambitious DAs. I understand stand your ground but all I've seen is advance and pursue, I would not feel comfortable after that but if I stood my ground and prevailed during an attack on my life I would feel great that I prevailed and survived. Something is very wrong when an entire class of people in our society is killing each other over material possessions. If someone was in my closet I would take cover and yell at them to come out because I was armed, shooting through the closet would not be an option. I don't get this vigilantism crap.

My father lived with remorse over killing a Japanese soldier who was about to shoot him for 40 years. He never forgot the look in "that kid's eyes". He didn't have a choice in the matter but he still regretted it.

Remorse is a human condition that has little to do with justification or motive, it has to do with heart and soul. If one has a heart, one will experience remorse regardless of circumstance.

In my mind there are two kinds of gun owners; those who hope the occasion for using a weapon never arises and those who can't wait.

In the single circumstance of my experience, retreat was autonomic; I had retreated before I was conscious of the need to do so. It was also possible. In another configuration I may have responded completely differently. Oddly enough, the arresting officer offered that had I killed the guy, there wouldn't have been any repercussions from them. Fortunately it remains academic, but I am convinced that had I done so, even though the assailant was an animal, I would feel remorse.

I am pretty sure I would be inclined to seek retreat over force as a first response again. I just never want to find out.

eelj wrote:I think if someone is feeling remorse after a shooting they doubt whether it was justified. If I felt truly threatened and killed an assailant the only remorse I would feel is that their family was going after me in civil court.

Soldiers and cops who have killed in absolutely justified self defense and still have nightmares years later will disagree with this statement.

Skeptilius wrote:

beto wrote:I think this will backfire on gun owners. Running down and shooting someone over a stolen tip jar should not be justified.Stories like that will raise an outcry from anti-gun crowd and it will be hard to counter, I know I couldn't. To me justifiable self defense occurs when there is a threat of bodily harm. I sympathise with the man who beat the man to death who was molesting his daughter.But that could be a gray area,if the molester was helpless on the ground and he was kicking his head in,he should have some explaining to do. If he shot him, I would say it was justifiable (as long as the guy wasn't running away), he was preventing bodily harm.
In Wisconsin there was a case where a kid underage, fled a drinking party that was being raided by the police. He ran into a house"s enclosed front porch.The home owner came out on the porch. The kid stood up and moved toward the home owner. The homeowner shot and killed the kid. This was a horrible tragedy and the homeowner did not face charges and shouldn't as he had no way of knowing that the kid wasn't a threat. He was confronted by an unidentified person and there was lot of police activity down the street. If the old law was in effect he would have a duty to retreat, I think the duty to retreat is unrealistic and could give a criminal greater opportunity for harm ( a clear target at a back or backside )
When deadly force is used not just to defend against murder, rape or other bodily harm but also to defend property when there is no preceived danger to the owner or another, it, in my view, is not justified and the more it is used the more it becomes ammuntion against people exercising the reasonable right of self defense.

I basically agree with this. Using deadly force to recover stolen property is a very iffy proposition it seems to me. I know Texas law allows the use of deadly force to recover property "in the nighttime" (a rather curious stipulation), but property is replaceable and most of it is insured. That does not seem like a valid reason to use deadly force to me. If my life is threatened then it is a different matter of course.

depends on the property, some of the working poor need their tractors or cars to make a living, and don't have the luxury of paying for insurance on it. When it comes to self defense, if the victim was in commission of a crime and gets shot, it's self defense, we don't have the luxury otherwise of judging what people need or don't need, and can, or can't do. One thing is sure though, if you're committing a crime, you know getting shot is a possibility, unless it's legislated otherwise.

Skeptilius wrote:Justifiable shootings are up in Texas since the Castle Doctrine Law was expanded in 2007. Not everybody is happy about that. What do you guys think?
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 676412.php

I think it has more to do with the mindset of the average Texan than the statute. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Washington has been a "no duty to retreat" state by case law since 1936 or so (State v. Hiatt, 187 Wash. 226 - 1936).

gendoikari87 wrote: depends on the property, some of the working poor need their tractors or cars to make a living, and don't have the luxury of paying for insurance on it. When it comes to self defense, if the victim was in commission of a crime and gets shot, it's self defense, we don't have the luxury otherwise of judging what people need or don't need, and can, or can't do. One thing is sure though, if you're committing a crime, you know getting shot is a possibility, unless it's legislated otherwise.

Well, there is no one response appropriate for all situations. I was really thinking of my own situation. I don't own any personal property that can't be replaced in one way or another. Others may feel differently especially if their livelihood is at stake. Still, I would have to feel personally threatened before I would pull the trigger.

rolandson wrote:

eelj wrote:I think if someone is feeling remorse after a shooting they doubt whether it was justified. If I felt truly threatened and killed an assailant the only remorse I would feel is that their family was going after me in civil court. Frivolous civil action is the cause of castle doctrine, plus ambitious DAs. I understand stand your ground but all I've seen is advance and pursue, I would not feel comfortable after that but if I stood my ground and prevailed during an attack on my life I would feel great that I prevailed and survived. Something is very wrong when an entire class of people in our society is killing each other over material possessions. If someone was in my closet I would take cover and yell at them to come out because I was armed, shooting through the closet would not be an option. I don't get this vigilantism crap.

My father lived with remorse over killing a Japanese soldier who was about to shoot him for 40 years. He never forgot the look in "that kid's eyes". He didn't have a choice in the matter but he still regretted it.

Remorse is a human condition that has little to do with justification or motive, it has to do with heart and soul. If one has a heart, one will experience remorse regardless of circumstance.

In my mind there are two kinds of gun owners; those who hope the occasion for using a weapon never arises and those who can't wait.

In the single circumstance of my experience, retreat was autonomic; I had retreated before I was conscious of the need to do so. It was also possible. In another configuration I may have responded completely differently. Oddly enough, the arresting officer offered that had I killed the guy, there wouldn't have been any repercussions from them. Fortunately it remains academic, but I am convinced that had I done so, even though the assailant was an animal, I would feel remorse.

I am pretty sure I would be inclined to seek retreat over force as a first response again. I just never want to find out.

Being a soldier is a completely different situation, as a soldier you are killing someone who in all probability is just like you, he like you is only there because of the failure of his leaders. Someone who comes at you in your home or on the street with homicide in their heart is not someone that I feel I could sit back and enjoy a cup of coffee with and talk about the kids with. Police officers have too pull the trigger in many different situations that we as ordinary citizens are not supposed to be in, thats why we have cops. The vigilanties like zimmerman need to feel bad because they didn't stand their ground they advanced.

Ever since car guns were legalized here in MO without any CCW permit needed, car jacking has gone way down. Not so much across teh river in East St Louis...

I feel much better living in a state where the survivng relatives can't sue me if their relative who was 'turning his/her life around' put me in a position to defend myself or my family. If someone tries to steal my car, I have enough faith in the Chevy anti-theft stuff that they won't get far.

As far as stuff goes, I've already traded a 32" flat screen and a Wii for my wife finding out that she both likes guns and is a damned good shot to boot.

Having to offer my throat to someone that wants to kill me or my family is not happening. Again, my sig line says why.

I no longer walk home drunk at night. There are a lot of residential areas where I would have to walk thru in order to get home. I take a cab instead.

Cab business must be (or, should be) good in Texas now.

And if you are found to have abused your rights, does you right to end up in jail:
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... 12&t=13673

Xela

eelj wrote:Someone who comes at you in your home or on the street with homicide in their heart is not someone that I feel I could sit back and enjoy a cup of coffee with and talk about the kids with.

The conversation I had with the cop who arrested my assailant went like this:

Cop: "He's very lucky that you weren't armed because if you had been and used it, we would not have had any issues."

Me: "No, I am very lucky that I wasn't armed, because if I had been I would have used it and would have to live with that for the rest of my life."

That I would not have been willing to be his friend doesn't mean that I wouldn't regret taking his life. The thing is, this is something I think about every time I pick up a gun. Still, it is because of this experience that I carry.

I trust that if somebody breaks into the house, I will have the ability to determine if they're just looking to do a smash and grab, or if their purposes are more sinister. If I feel threatened, I'll shoot to kill. If I bust in on someone who is obviously a scared kid just looking to jack the Wii (again), I'd probably let him take it and warn him not to come back. Between the fence, security lights, rosebushes, posted ADT and Beware Of Dog signs, locks, guard dogs, and alarm systems, if somebody takes the trouble to get through all that I think I can be reasonably confident that they have dire violence as their objective. There's softer targets on my street for the petty criminals.

ErikO wrote:As far as stuff goes, I've already traded a 32" flat screen and a Wii for my wife finding out that she both likes guns and is a damned good shot to boot.

So you traded a flat screen and Wii for a wife that can shoot? Unfortunately for me, I found my wife before the days of wifebroker.com.

Seriously now.

Yesterday I was driving home from a fishing trip with the family in the car and stopped at a store for some ice. I was towing a trailer, so I wasn't exactly able to easily drive away when a punk-ass kid came and harassed me in a parking lot, right in front of my wife and kids. I was just a couple steps away from the gun in my car, and I had a knife in my pocket, and wanted nothing more than this kid to leave. I didn't respond to him, but started thinking about getting the gun, and then he sped away burning his tires.

I don't know what he wanted, he was probably just being tough with his friends. I'm just glad he didn't push things any further than he did. Even though it got my blood pressure up, I'll take some verbal abuse any day over the alternative of an escalating situation.

I also talked with a deputy DA recently about a client of mine who was let into his girlfriend's house with permission of the gf, but was later found by the gf's mother the next morning after the gf left for work. The mom had no idea there was someone else in the house. The DDA said he wanted my client to know he could have been shot by the mom, and the mom would have been completely justified in shooting him.

Yossarian wrote:

ErikO wrote:As far as stuff goes, I've already traded a 32" flat screen and a Wii for my wife finding out that she both likes guns and is a damned good shot to boot.

So you traded a flat screen and Wii for a wife that can shoot? Unfortunately for me, I found my wife before the days of wifebroker.com.

I have a question/concern, is there a lawyer out there? What if the family of the guy shot for stealing 20 bucks sues under the federal civil rights law and say his rights were violated? They used the law to gain convictions of the cops in the Rodney King case who were acquitted by a local jury. That would open a can of worms and depending on the attorney general , could limit force for self defense. Is that possible?

beto wrote:I have a question/concern, is there a lawyer out there? What if the family of the guy shot for stealing 20 bucks sues under the federal civil rights law and say his rights were violated? They used the law to gain convictions of the cops in the Rodney King case who were acquitted by a local jury. That would open a can of worms and depending on the attorney general , could limit force for self defense. Is that possible?

Who is claiming self-defense? The guy stealing 20 bucks? He died apparently, and he no longer can claim self defense. He was also stealing money, and doesn't have the strongest claim of self defense to begin with.

SD is raised by an accused criminal facing charges in criminal court, and the guy in your scenario has already died. Civil rights claims are litigated in civil court, for violations of civil rights involving race, gender, religion or nationality. The dead man's family is raising a claim of civil rights violations against law enforcement, and I don't see how self defense is part of the question of whether law enforcement violated civil rights.

Skeptilius wrote:Justifiable shootings are up in Texas since the Castle Doctrine Law was expanded in 2007. Not everybody is happy about that. What do you guys think?
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 676412.php

It is a bit semantical, and we all know how the headline writers pay oh-so-close attention to the accuracy of their focus, but...
Unexplored is any correlation to a drop in shootings that are not deemed justified by legal statute but are yet considered reasonable by the prosecutor.

Yossarian wrote:

beto wrote:I have a question/concern, is there a lawyer out there? What if the family of the guy shot for stealing 20 bucks sues under the federal civil rights law and say his rights were violated? They used the law to gain convictions of the cops in the Rodney King case who were acquitted by a local jury. That would open a can of worms and depending on the attorney general , could limit force for self defense. Is that possible?

Who is claiming self-defense? The guy stealing 20 bucks? He died apparently, and he no longer can claim self defense. He was also stealing money, and doesn't have the strongest claim of self defense to begin with.

SD is raised by an accused criminal facing charges in criminal court, and the guy in your scenario has already died. Civil rights claims are litigated in civil court, for violations of civil rights involving race, gender, religion or nationality. The dead man's family is raising a claim of civil rights violations against law enforcement, and I don't see how self defense is part of the question of whether law enforcement violated civil rights.

. I am trying to be the devil's advocate on what could be problems for an expanded castle doctrine
I wasn't clear suppose in the scenario of the man being shot while fleeing with a tip jar, the shooter was a white male and the victim was another race. Could the family claim the thiefs civil rights were violated as one, he was not a threat and two (maybe this should be one) race was a factor in the shooting? Even though the shooter was clear of state charges could this be brought up

beto wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

beto wrote:I have a question/concern, is there a lawyer out there? What if the family of the guy shot for stealing 20 bucks sues under the federal civil rights law and say his rights were violated? They used the law to gain convictions of the cops in the Rodney King case who were acquitted by a local jury. That would open a can of worms and depending on the attorney general , could limit force for self defense. Is that possible?

Who is claiming self-defense? The guy stealing 20 bucks? He died apparently, and he no longer can claim self defense. He was also stealing money, and doesn't have the strongest claim of self defense to begin with.

SD is raised by an accused criminal facing charges in criminal court, and the guy in your scenario has already died. Civil rights claims are litigated in civil court, for violations of civil rights involving race, gender, religion or nationality. The dead man's family is raising a claim of civil rights violations against law enforcement, and I don't see how self defense is part of the question of whether law enforcement violated civil rights.

. I am trying to be the devil's advocate on what could be problems for an expanded castle doctrine
I wasn't clear suppose in the scenario of the man being shot while fleeing with a tip jar, the shooter was a white male and the victim was another race. Could the family claim the thiefs civil rights were violated as one, he was not a threat and two (maybe this should be one) race was a factor in the shooting? Even though the shooter was clear of state charges could this be brought up

Probably not as far as I know if you are in the commission of a crime and someone gets killed as a result, you are to blame. I'm not sure if this legally extends to your own ass getting shot, but it should

Whether illegally in my home or merely on my property, I'm pretty sure my initial response to a perp would be to shout ... FREEZE. What happens to him/her next would depend on how they reacted to my command. Hmmmm ... now if they decided to flee, empty handed, I would probably just curse at them; however, it they were leaving with my computer, which has senstive information on it, I'm pretty sure I shoot them. If I believed they were fleeing with my wallet, which contains my ID, I'm, again, pretty sure I'd shoot.