Teenage Girl Shot And Killed In Texas Because Of Stand Your Ground Law - Polidicks

Burglary is not a capital crime, homeboy. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Hell, the act of entering illegal is just a misdemeanor. You'd catch more time for cheating on your taxes.

You shouldn't be at risk of death if breaking into someone's house, you should be at risk of going to jail

[QUOTE=Lankist;36723654]Burglary is not a capital crime, homeboy. [/QUOTE] Maybe if robbers shouted this really loud when they broke into a house, they wouldn't get shot.

[QUOTE=RaxaHax;36723709]Maybe if robbers shouted this really loud when they broke into a house, they wouldn't get shot.[/QUOTE] Or maybe if you don't decide to shoot everyone who looks at you the wrong, way, you won't be going to prison. You people seem to be under the impression that you wouldn't get charged for doing the kind of stupid shit you're saying. Do I need to explain what self defense is again? Because shooting robbers does not constitute self defense, anywhere, under Supreme Court precedence.

[QUOTE=James*;36723684]You shouldn't be at risk of death if breaking into someone's house, you should be at risk of going to jail[/QUOTE] Ideally, perhaps, but how is the owner going to subdue a home invader in a non-lethal fashion, especially if the invader has a lethal weapon him/herself?

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36723744]Ideally, perhaps, but how is the owner going to subdue a home invader in a non-lethal fashion, especially if the invader has a lethal weapon him/herself?[/QUOTE] How about don't subdue them and let the police do it, especially if they have a lethal weapon

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36723744]Ideally, perhaps, but how is the owner going to subdue a home invader in a non-lethal fashion, especially if the invader has a lethal weapon him/herself?[/QUOTE] You're implying wholly different crimes are inherent to the crime of Breaking and Entering and Grand Larceny. A judge doesn't give two shits [I]if[/I] the invader [I]might[/I] have had a weapon. You need to know that they do AND that they intend to use it on you before you defend yourself, at which point you [I]CAN'T[/I] just up and use lethal force however much you want. If someone's just up and robbing your house, you let them and fucking leave. You don't turn the situation into Tombstone. Fuck your stuff. Do I need to explain what legally constitutes self defense again? Because shooting a robber doesn't. Had the man in this case been the one to kill this girl, he would be going to prison.

[QUOTE=James*;36723763]How about don't subdue them and let the police do it, especially if they have a lethal weapon[/QUOTE] If the invader has murderous intentions, you will likely be dead for several minutes before the cops arrive. Running away, as Lankist suggests, can occasionally be an option, but if you have a family and/or no good escape route then you're at the mercy of the invader. Again, this is assuming that the invader has intent to kill, which is admittedly a very difficult thing to discern in a situation like this.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36723817]If the invader has murderous intentions, you will likely be dead for several minutes before the cops arrive. Running away, as Lankist suggests, can occasionally be an option, but if you have a family and/or no good escape route then you're at the mercy of the invader.[/QUOTE] You don't get to use defensive measure until that "if" becomes a certainty. Period. The law doesn't recognize "if." [QUOTE=Lankist;36719346]The two criteria for self defense are: (1) a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to defend himself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force and (2) the use of no more force than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Both of these must be proven in court for a charge of murder or manslaughter to be mitigated as self defense. Note #1. "against IMMEDIATE use of unlawful force." The fact that someone is in your house doesn't qualify. It must be demonstrable that you had legitimate reason to think they were going to harm you beyond your own paranoia. They brandished a weapon at you. They pursued you. They said "I'm going to fucking kill you." They fell in a hostile posture. etc. etc. On #2, this is the most important in terms of lethal force. If someone is running at you unarmed, you aren't justified in shooting them eight times in the face. Similarly, if they flee the scene, you CANNOT shoot them. If they are incapacitated, you cannot kill them. Your goal should never be to kill them, for that matter, merely to stop them. All of these people saying they would kill? Yeah. Those people would be violating provision #2 and they would be going to prison for intent to kill and not to stop.[/QUOTE]

Why are you guys arguing on this site? The average user here is a dumb fucking poser troll trying to look e-tough by posting how much more ass they'd kick and heads they'd shoot in if this 'happened to them!' Just ignore these morons, they're just children who know nothing about the world or life.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36723833]You don't get to use defensive measure until that "if" becomes a certainty. Period.[/QUOTE] And by the time that "if" becomes a certainty, it could be way too late for you to do anything to defend yourself.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36723817]If the invader has murderous intentions, you will likely be dead for several minutes before the cops arrive. Running away, as Lankist suggests, can occasionally be an option, but if you have a family and/or no good escape route then you're at the mercy of the invader.[/QUOTE] Why would they have murderous intentions? How often do people break into your house with the sole intention of killing you?

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36723878]And by the time that "if" becomes a certainty, it could be way too late for you to do anything to defend yourself.[/QUOTE] Too bad. You have no legal right to use deadly force before it is absolute necessity, and if you do you're expected to prove you had no other recourse. Deal with it.

[QUOTE=James*;36723881]Why would they have murderous intentions? How often do people break into your house with the sole intention of killing you?[/QUOTE] It's a hypothetical situation, but it's also VERY difficult to judge an invaders true intentions. If they're unarmed, chances are good they're just there to rob the place and get out as soon as they can. In that case, shooting them would be unnecessary and even criminal. But if they break into your house brandishing a knife or a gun, it is entirely reasonable to assume that they intend to inflict severe, even deadly harm. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36723911]Too bad. You have no legal right to use deadly force before it is absolute necessity, and if you do you're expected to prove you had no other recourse. Deal with it.[/QUOTE] So I should just let the invader kill me or fatally wound me before I attempt to fight back, is that what you're saying?

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36723927]So I should just let the invader kill me, is that what you're saying?[/QUOTE] I'm saying you should fucking run. Get out. You aren't justified in self defense before you're actually, provably in danger. This is the law: [quote]The two criteria for self defense are: (1) a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to defend himself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force and (2) the use of no more force than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Both of these must be proven in court for a charge of murder or manslaughter to be mitigated as self defense. Note #1. "against IMMEDIATE use of unlawful force." The fact that someone is in your house doesn't qualify. It must be demonstrable that you had legitimate reason to think they were going to harm you beyond your own paranoia. They brandished a weapon at you. They pursued you. They said "I'm going to fucking kill you." They fell in a hostile posture. etc. etc. On #2, this is the most important in terms of lethal force. If someone is running at you unarmed, you aren't justified in shooting them eight times in the face. Similarly, if they flee the scene, you CANNOT shoot them. If they are incapacitated, you cannot kill them. Your goal should never be to kill them, for that matter, merely to stop them. All of these people saying they would kill? Yeah. Those people would be violating provision #2 and they would be going to prison for intent to kill and not to stop.[/quote] "Immediate use of unlawful force." Not "hypothetical, near-future use of unlawful force." Immediate danger. Not "they might kill me later if I don't escalate this situation to a showdown." Feel free to fight the law. It will win.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36723956]I'm saying you should fucking run. Get out. You aren't justified in self defense before you're actually, provably in danger. [/QUOTE] And what if that isn't an option? Or if you have a family who is in just as much danger as you are?

This is how you know she was stupid, incredibly, moronically stupid: A burglary(home unoccupied) is a nothing crime, the police probably wouldn't even take fingerprints. The burglar doesn't risk getting killed by the occupants, and doesn't risk committing a crime that would attract a lot of attention from the cops, such as accidentally killing the occupants. She led an armed home invasion. This is the worst possible choice since it will get a full investigation from the cops, and it has the most potential for getting someone killed...and it was in TEXAS!

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36724002]And what if that isn't an option? Or if you have a family who is in just as much danger as you are?[/QUOTE] Stop ignoring the fucking law. All of your questions would be answered if you'd actually read it. [quote]The two criteria for self defense are: (1) a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to defend himself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force and (2) the use of no more force than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Both of these must be proven in court for a charge of murder or manslaughter to be mitigated as self defense. Note #1. "against IMMEDIATE use of unlawful force." The fact that someone is in your house doesn't qualify. It must be demonstrable that you had legitimate reason to think they were going to harm you beyond your own paranoia. They brandished a weapon at you. They pursued you. They said "I'm going to fucking kill you." They fell in a hostile posture. etc. etc. On #2, this is the most important in terms of lethal force. If someone is running at you unarmed, you aren't justified in shooting them eight times in the face. Similarly, if they flee the scene, you CANNOT shoot them. If they are incapacitated, you cannot kill them. Your goal should never be to kill them, for that matter, merely to stop them. All of these people saying they would kill? Yeah. Those people would be violating provision #2 and they would be going to prison for intent to kill and not to stop.[/quote] [quote]"Immediate use of unlawful force." Not "hypothetical, near-future use of unlawful force." Immediate danger. Not "they might kill me later if I don't escalate this situation to a showdown." Feel free to fight the law. It will win. [/quote] [B]IF YOU ARE NOT UNDER IMMEDIATE, DIRECT AND PROVABLE THREAT, YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF.[/B] You cannot shoot someone because they MIGHT threaten you. Period. End of story. Make as many hypothetical scenarios about families as you want. That's the law. This is established Supreme Court precedence that won't be changing any time soon, no matter how much you insist you're justified. If you shoot someone and you can't justify yourself on both criteria in front of a judge, you will be going to prison.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36724029]Stop ignoring the fucking law. All of your questions would be answered if you'd actually read it. [B]IF YOU ARE NOT UNDER IMMEDIATE, DIRECT AND PROVABLE THREAT, YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF.[/B] You cannot shoot someone because they MIGHT threaten you. Period. End of story. Make as many hypothetical scenarios about families as you want. That's the law. This is established Supreme Court precedence that won't be changing any time soon, no matter how much you insist you're justified. If you shoot someone and you can't justify yourself on both criteria in front of a judge, you will be going to prison.[/QUOTE] "No more than reasonably necessary" is a PHENOMENALLY vague phrasing and can mean completely different things based on each case. I can't think of a court on the planet (though they probably exist) that would send YOU to jail for lethally defending yourself [U][B]if[/B][/U] you can prove there was reasonable cause to think your life or the life of others was in peril, and this goes double in any state that has the Castle Doctrine or a law similar to it.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36724286]"No more than reasonably necessary" is a PHENOMENALLY vague phrasing and can mean completely different things based on each case.[/QUOTE] Uhh, no, not with further precedence. As I've said already, intentionally killing is never considered reasonable. Your goal is to end the danger, not to end a life. If you say you consciously intended to kill, and if you're dumb enough to fucking say "they were asking for it" or "they deserved it," you're going to prison. It's not vague at all. It's well-defined and tested in precedence. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36724286]I can't think of a court on the planet (though they probably exist) that would send YOU to jail for lethally defending yourself [U][B]if[/B][/U] you can prove there was reasonable cause to think your life or the life of others was in peril, and this goes double in any state that has the Castle Doctrine or a law similar to it.[/QUOTE] "They were in my house" is not reasonable cause. Mountains of federal precedence dictate that. Castle Doctrine is state-level legislation. Ever heard of the Supremacy Clause? Castle can fuck right off if you did something federal precedence says was unnecessary.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36724029]You cannot shoot someone because they MIGHT threaten you.[/QUOTE] In this case, wasn't the girl killed by her own accomplice? Thus that proved that someone with her had a gun and that they used the gun and obviously had intent to use it since it actually killed somebody. Breaking into someone's home armed with a weapon [b]is[/b] a threat. So I don't see how the home owner could even be charged at all.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36724438]Uhh, no, not with further precedence. As I've said already, intentionally killing is never considered reasonable. Your goal is to end the danger, not to end a life. If you say you consciously intended to kill, and if you're dumb enough to fucking say "they were asking for it" or "they deserved it," you're going to prison. It's not vague at all. It's well-defined and tested in precedence. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] "They were in my house" is not reasonable cause. Mountains of federal precedence dictate that. Castle Doctrine is state-level legislation. Ever heard of the Supremacy Clause? Castle can fuck right off if you did something federal precedence says was unnecessary.[/QUOTE] I think the problem I have in understanding is that, by what you have been telling us, the Castle Doctrine is not valid in ANY case or for any reason because, as you have also told us, the taking of a life is never justified in any case or for any reason. Unless I have completely misunderstood what you've been saying, that's what I've gathered. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Jim_Riley;36725030]In this case, wasn't the girl killed by her own accomplice? Thus that proved that someone with her had a gun and that they used the gun and obviously had intent to use it since it actually killed somebody. Breaking into someone's home armed with a weapon [b]is[/b] a threat. So I don't see how the home owner could even be charged at all.[/QUOTE] At this point we're talking about related situations rather than the one in the OP.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36724029] [B]IF YOU ARE NOT UNDER IMMEDIATE, DIRECT AND PROVABLE THREAT, YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF.[/B] [/QUOTE] Hold on Mr. Intruder, do you have a weapon? I need to know, because if not, feel free to take all my stuff and leave, for I cannot defend myself nor my property.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36725087] At this point we're talking about related situations rather than the one in the OP.[/QUOTE] Oh. Just hypothetical scenarios for arguments sake? Never mind then...

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36724286]"No more than reasonably necessary" is a PHENOMENALLY vague phrasing and can mean completely different things based on each case. I can't think of a court on the planet (though they probably exist) that would send YOU to jail for lethally defending yourself [U][B]if[/B][/U] you can prove there was reasonable cause to think your life or the life of others was in peril, and this goes double in any state that has the Castle Doctrine or a law similar to it.[/QUOTE] The word 'reasonably' is used all throughout law, it's SUPPOSED to be vague, not because these laws are written stupidly, but because it is determined through the judge, the courts are supposed to determine whether or not the actions were actually reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Seriously, they're supposed to teach you this stuff in school, it's important and it applies to you.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36725127]Hold on Mr. Intruder, do you have a weapon? I need to know, because if not, feel free to take all my stuff and leave, for I cannot defend myself nor my property.[/QUOTE] i'm sorry that you aren't allowed to kill someone for taking your stuff, instead of for, you know, threatening your life.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;36725190]The word 'reasonably' is used all throughout law, it's SUPPOSED to be vague, not because these laws are written stupidly, but because it is determined through the judge, the courts are supposed to determine whether or not the actions were actually reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Seriously, they're supposed to teach you this stuff in school, it's important and it applies to you.[/QUOTE] Is that not what i said? I said that it means different things based on each case.

[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;36725030]In this case, wasn't the girl killed by her own accomplice?[/QUOTE] yes. That's why the home defender isn't being charged. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36725127]Hold on Mr. Intruder, do you have a weapon? I need to know, because if not, feel free to take all my stuff and leave, for I cannot defend myself nor my property.[/QUOTE] No, you can't. Your property is not worth lives under any legal definition. Everything you own can burn to the ground. That doesn't give you the legal authority to take lives.

I hate when things like this become debatable. I mean, she was trespassing, whichever redneck shot her had his right. And it is a bad idea to break into homes in Texas. I live here, my friend has a .44 Magnum in his room and he's like 19. My friends 11 year old sister has a small pink gun that actually works I think, I never saw what type of gun it was though. Everyone and their mother has guns over here.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;36725190]The word 'reasonably' is used all throughout law, it's SUPPOSED to be vague, not because these laws are written stupidly, but because it is determined through the judge, the courts are supposed to determine whether or not the actions were actually reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Seriously, they're supposed to teach you this stuff in school, it's important and it applies to you.[/QUOTE] "Reasonable" is defined via precedence.