Texas Justice, An Example To Us All

[DMT]

I think Lucky's dispassionate response to the legal side of things is something we should all be grateful about.

Indeed.

[DMT]

Actually, you're the one who's wrong.


Why the crappy, snarky response? I also agree that people should not shoot and kill intruders, unless they fear for their life. Lo and behold, the law agrees with me in the majority of states in the union. It's okay to disagree on that point. So thank YOU for playing.

Go back and read what I've posted in this thread. I was using the fact that people are allowed to shoot intruders as a less justifiable response than killing someone who is raping one's 5-year-old daughter. And the snarky response was because swampy replied as if he was right, and as Lucky's reply--the former Texan Judge's reply--shows, he was not. But thanks for weighing in.

[Fresno Bob]

Although this wasn't the case in this particular instance, the bloodlust and mob justice that people here on RJ are so quick to applaud makes me sick.

If i come upon someone raping a child, any child, doesnt even have to be my kid, I'll try to kill them. No child molester rapes just one kid, and they dont stop until they are stopped.

[DMT]

There are a handful of states that "stand your ground" laws --- the same law that allowed George Zimmerman to shoot and kill that boy in Florida. Texas, to no one's surprise, is one of them. They are in the minority in this country. New Mexico, for example, not only does not have a stand your ground law but does not have any "Castle" doctrine (upon which all the shoot to kill laws are based).

Since you still are snarking away as if you're correct, let me flesh this out.

You asked "So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it ok to shoot an intruder who has come into one's home?"

So, unless you were asking specifically about Texas (which was not stated in the question), you were due to be corrected since you were wrong. In the majority of states in the union, it is not "ok" to shoot an intruder who has come into one's home.

As an aside, I believe that Lucky's response, assuming he was responding about Texas' laws, was incorrect. Arkansas does not have a "stand your ground" law but does have some Castle Doctrine protections for homeowners.

You're welcome for me weighing in. Hope things are clearer for you now.

No, they're not. I guess I need to spell it out clearly that I was talking about Texas, but considering this is where the incident happened and Lucky had alluded to his experience as a Judge in Texas, I thought it was implied.

As for your aside, I'll trust the former Judge's response over your's. But feel free to try to prove him wrong. You start out with Texas then flip to Arkansas so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I look forward to you arguing with a former Texan judge about Texas law.

[swampdragon]

wait - I am not trying to be snarky

I thought and do think that you can't just shoot and kill someone just because they break into your house.

[B-Fly]

No, they're not. I guess I need to spell it out clearly that I was talking about Texas, but considering this is where the incident happened and Lucky had alluded to his experience as a Judge in Texas, I thought it was implied.

As for your aside, I'll trust the former Judge's response over your's. But feel free to try to prove him wrong. You start out with Texas then flip to Arkansas so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I look forward to you arguing with a former Texan judge about Texas law.

Lucky is a judge in Arkansas. I believe that's the only state where he has been a judge.

[Lucky]

No, they're not. I guess I need to spell it out clearly that I was talking about Texas, but considering this is where the incident happened and Lucky had alluded to his experience as a Judge in Texas, I thought it was implied.

As for your aside, I'll trust the former Judge's response over your's. But feel free to try to prove him wrong. You start out with Texas then flip to Arkansas so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I look forward to you arguing with a former Texan judge about Texas law.

I don't think I alluded to being a Judge in Texas. I was admitted to the bar and practiced there, but never was a judge.

Even with stand your ground laws, there has to be some threat at the time the deadly force is applied.

Edit: B-Fly beat me to the punch on that one...only a judge here in Arkansas. Interestingly, while I was in Texas the law was that you didn't have to be a lawyer to be the judge of certain courts. There was a high school kid who was elected one year, apparently because he was the only Republican on the ballot in a very Republican district. You also didn't have to be a lawyer to represent a corporation. I was in a trial one time in which I was the only lawyer. It was a frustrating experience.

[DMT]

I don't think I alluded to being a Judge in Texas. I was admitted to the bar and practiced there, but never was a judge.

Even with stand your ground laws, there has to be some threat at the time the deadly force is applied.

My mistake.

The only reason I even brought that up was to compare this situation with one in which a person has shot an intruder because they felt threatened. If shooting an intruder is justified in certain cases then how can catching someone in the act of raping one's 5-year-old daughter and then beating him to death not be justified? If the killer had a gun, or other deadly weapon other than his fists, would it have been justified to kill him with those weapons in order to protect his daughter? If not, why not?

[DMT]

I would also try to stop most crimes in progress, as would most people, but in the vast, vast majority of cases it's not a crime in progress --- it's rumor of a crime or something similar.

I generally have very little faith in the American legal system (apologies to those within it on RJ), but it sure beats vigilante justice.

From the evidence this appears to be one of those cases. I'm not advocating vigilante justice either but catching a rapist in the act of violating one's 5-year-old daughter is about as justifiable of a situation as there could possibly be to killing a perpetrator.

[Lucky]

Here's our deadly force statute. Our castle doctrine was extended to curtilage in 2007, and the domestic language is pretty new, but the majority of the law has been this way for a long time.

5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:

(1) (A) By retreating.

(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:

(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or

(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or

(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.

(c) As used in this section:

(1) "Curtilage" means the land adjoining a dwelling that is convenient for residential purposes and habitually used for residential purposes, but not necessarily enclosed, and includes an outbuilding that is directly and intimately connected with the dwelling and in close proximity to the dwelling; and

(2) "Domestic abuse" means:

(A) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members; or

(B) Any sexual conduct between family or household members, whether minors or adults, that constitutes a crime under the laws of this state.


I believe Arkansas is the only state in the South without a stand your ground law. The Legislature will almost certainly go red this Fall, so we'll probably get one then.

[Lucky]

My mistake.

The only reason I even brought that up was to compare this situation with one in which a person has shot an intruder because they felt threatened. If shooting an intruder is justified in certain cases then how can catching someone in the act of raping one's 5-year-old daughter and then beating him to death not be justified? If the killer had a gun, or other deadly weapon other than his fists, would it have been justified to kill him with those weapons in order to protect his daughter? If not, why not?

It all boils down to what the situation was when the lethal blow was struck. If the rape had already been stopped, and the bad guy was no longer a threat, then there was no threat to justify deadly force.

It may not sound right to you, but if the father had found the situation and shot the guy in the head, there wouldn't be a problem. Once a bad guy is disabled, you can't proceed to kill him, no matter what horrible thing he has done. Stand your ground doesn't apply here, because that law deals with the duty to retreat, which wasn't an issue in this case.

As for the situation with a burglar, it goes back to the castle doctrine, based upon the notion that "every man's home is his castle", and he has an absolute right to defend it.

[heyelander]

I think comparing a fist fight with shooting someone is sort of apples and oranges. If you pull a gun on a person you pretty much immidiately have the upper hand. If you shoot them you certainly are ahead. conversely, if you pull someone off your daughter or tackle them... at least me, I'd feel threatened at that point. Not being use to this situation, I'd probably fight until the fight was obviously over. If the guy was laying on the ground and got kicked repeatedly while he was unconscious, or the guy stomped on his head, or slammed it into the ground repeatedly... yeah, too much... but I think the line between no more danger is a bit greyer in a fist fight.

I'm willing to assume the prosecutor and grand jury received some info from the ME office and made a decision based on it.

[DMT]

It all boils down to what the situation was when the lethal blow was struck. If the rape had already been stopped, and the bad guy was no longer a threat, then there was no threat to justify deadly force.

It may not sound right to you, but if the father had found the situation and shot the guy in the head, there wouldn't be a problem. Once a bad guy is disabled, you can't proceed to kill him, no matter what horrible thing he has done. Stand your ground doesn't apply here, because that law deals with the duty to retreat, which wasn't an issue in this case.

As for the situation with a burglar, it goes back to the castle doctrine, based upon the notion that "every man's home is his castle", and he has an absolute right to defend it.

I understand the differentiation from a logical standpoint, but it would be utterly ridiculous IMO to try to convict in this case. How is the killer less culpable if he'd been in possession of a firearm or if someone had handed him one before he killed him? "Well sir if you'd gotten a deadly weapon first, it would have been ok to kill him, but since you used your fists and struck the fatal blow while his d$&k wasn't actually still inside your daughter, you're going to prison." Sorry to be graphic but any justice system that would convict someone in such a case is anything but. Thankfully they did not.

[Lucky]

I understand the differentiation from a logical standpoint, but it would be utterly ridiculous IMO to try to convict in this case. How is the killer less culpable if he'd been in possession of a firearm or if someone had handed him one before he killed him? "Well sir if you'd gotten a deadly weapon first, it would have been ok to kill him, but since you used your fists and struck the fatal blow while his d$&k wasn't actually still inside your daughter, you're going to prison." Sorry to be graphic but any justice system that would convict someone in such a case is anything but. Thankfully they did not.

Agreed, it would be next to impossible to convict, even if they wanted to. My main point is that the question deserves some thought.

[Fresno Bob]

Yeah, yeah. However, it almost never works out like this. What really happens, in real life, is people still have this uber-macho attitude but don't happen upon the violation as it's being perpetrated. They hear about some rapist (or whatever criminal) --- like that woman a few years ago that told her husband that their daughter was being molested by the neighbor --- and go after him. Except for, oops, the neighbor was actually totally innocent and the husband murdered him in cold blood.

I'm just not that impressed with pseudo-macho bullsh!t about "yeah, I'd kill a (blank) for committing (blank) crime." I would also try to stop most crimes in progress, as would most people, but in the vast, vast majority of cases it's not a crime in progress --- it's rumor of a crime or something similar.

I generally have very little faith in the American legal system (apologies to those within it on RJ), but it sure beats vigilante justice.

Ill give you that, im not killing anyone over a rumor