ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amber Guyger , Dallas incidents , murder cases , police incidents , police misconduct charges , shooting incidents , Texas cases

Closed Thread
Old 30th August 2019, 08:45 AM   #561
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,558
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
"Legal experts say that mistake-of -fact allows her actions to be interpreted as though she were in her home."
"La la la can't hear you"
Because your interpretation of "mistake of fact" is an insane flight of fantasy that would mean no law would be enforceable in Texas.

I can counter your entire argument with literally any person being convicted of any crime at any point in the history of Texas. Why didn't the "I thought the situation was different LOL can't touch me" save them?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 30th August 2019 at 08:47 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 08:58 AM   #562
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,511
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because your interpretation of "mistake of fact" is an insane flight of fantasy that would mean no law would be enforceable in Texas.

I can counter your entire argument with literally any person being convicted of any crime at any point in the history of Texas. Why didn't the "I thought the situation was different LOL can't touch me" save them?
A) it's not my interpretation

B) a jury or finder of fact has to be convinced that the mistake was reasonable

You are not an idiot. You understand those two simple points. What is with this act you keep putting on?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 09:02 AM   #563
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,135
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because your interpretation of "mistake of fact" is an insane flight of fantasy that would mean no law would be enforceable in Texas.

I can counter your entire argument with literally any person being convicted of any crime at any point in the history of Texas. Why didn't the "I thought the situation was different LOL can't touch me" save them?
Sometimes the "I thought the situation was different" does save them.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...er-6563251.php
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2019, 02:04 PM   #564
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,718
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
We used to play those kinds of games in elementary school, Darat.



Your post has nothing to do with my question. The question was: if you allow that she could reasonably think she was home, would it not mean that should be expected to defend that home?



That requires a yes or a no.
My answer was very clear.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 08:45 AM   #565
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,184
How the conversation went:

POLICE CHIEF: Soooo, what do you think the chances of a conviction are?

PROSECUTOR: It's gonna be tough, i'd say 50%

POLICE CHIEF: http://www.wbap.com/2019/08/30/dalla...-guyger-trial/
Quote:
In two different memos, officers were told they won’t be granted time off from the time the trial gets under way through at least the first week of October.

Detectives were also told to have their uniforms, helmets, gas masks, and other gear ready.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 08:50 AM   #566
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,112
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Sometimes the "I thought the situation was different" does save them.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...er-6563251.php
???

The man in your story was convicted of manslaughter and is currently serving 15 years. The jury had the option of convicting him of murder, so maybe you consider the lesser sentence being "saved".

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...o-10802227.php

Just another example that cops aren't lawyers, and some local PD's decision not to charge someone on the spot doesn't really say much about the law.

The "I made a whoopsie" defense is not as strong as some here make it out to be.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 3rd September 2019 at 08:53 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 08:53 AM   #567
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
"Legal experts say that mistake-of -fact allows her actions to be interpreted as though she were in her home."
"La la la can't hear you"
FTFY. I've only seen you post to an individual lawyer that made it extremely clear that she has to tie her mistake-of-fact to shooting Jean. Something that hasn't been done. As was pointed out a bit earlier, there still has to be a threat.

Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
How the conversation went:

POLICE CHIEF: Soooo, what do you think the chances of a conviction are?

PROSECUTOR: It's gonna be tough, i'd say 50%

POLICE CHIEF: http://www.wbap.com/2019/08/30/dalla...-guyger-trial/
Did you mean to link to a different article? I didn't see that conversation anywhere in your link.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 09:04 AM   #568
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,184
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
FTFY. I've only seen you post to an individual lawyer that made it extremely clear that she has to tie her mistake-of-fact to shooting Jean. Something that hasn't been done. As was pointed out a bit earlier, there still has to be a threat.



Did you mean to link to a different article? I didn't see that conversation anywhere in your link.
I assumed that's how it went.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 09:23 AM   #569
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,511
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
FTFY. I've only seen you post to an individual lawyer that made it extremely clear that she has to tie her mistake-of-fact to shooting Jean. Something that hasn't been done.
Seriously? That's what the discussion is down to? Pluralization? You'll notice that the prosecutor also considers the whole case coin flip odds.

Quote:
As was pointed out a bit earlier, there still has to be a threat.
Right. What Schulte said was that if the jury buys mistake-of-fact, she is entitled to acquittal. Texas precedent allows for shooting any intruder on sight (shudder), so it is a rubber stamp if mistake-of-fact is accepted. The threat is being on someone's property (an intruder) in Texas. They don't have high bars for being justified in shooting.

I don't get where you guys think that she has to prove self-defense. Have there not been enough stories in the news about Texan justified shootings to make it clear that she does not have to prove anything in order to shoot? She only needs to convince them that mistake-of-fact was reasonable, and it rolls on autopilot from there.

I would hope the jury would not consider her shooting to be defensive, too, but I'm not holding my breath. On what grounds could they ignore precedent?

eta: I posted Schulte's analysis because so many here are spouting off like they know all about Texas criminal law. I'm pretty confident no one does. So unless you have a more authoritative source, I am deferring to mah dood.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 3rd September 2019 at 09:30 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 09:46 AM   #570
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Seriously? That's what the discussion is down to? Pluralization? You'll notice that the prosecutor also considers the whole case coin flip odds.
It's not an irrelevant point. I haven't seen other prosecutors or lawyers discuss the case. I have no idea if this guy is on point, or if he's misinterpreting the law, or if he's just not factually correct on this case. I have absolutely no doubt that what he feels he's saying is true, but one person saying it isn't enough to convince me. Hell, one source isn't even enough to pass journalistic integrity. This isn't some personal attack on you, it's just my observation.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Right. What Schulte said was that if the jury buys mistake-of-fact, she is entitled to acquittal. Texas precedent allows for shooting any intruder on sight (shudder), so it is a rubber stamp if mistake-of-fact is accepted. The threat is being on someone's property (an intruder) in Texas. They don't have high bars for being justified in shooting.
That is not the way I'm viewing what he said. To tie it in there still needs to be a threat. Which is exactly what someone posted up top. If he's sitting on his couch, or even at the counter, or comes to the door, or so on. There's still no threat there. I even think the castle doctrine requires you to be in your house, I know you've argued that it can extend to other places, but even that is up for debate.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I don't get where you guys think that she has to prove self-defense. Have there not been enough stories in the news about Texan justified shootings to make it clear that she does not have to prove anything in order to shoot? She only needs to convince them that mistake-of-fact was reasonable, and it rolls on autopilot from there.

I would hope the jury would not consider her shooting to be defensive, too, but I'm not holding my breath. On what grounds could they ignore precedent?

eta: I posted Schulte's analysis because so many here are spouting off like they know all about Texas criminal law. I'm pretty confident no one does. So unless you have a more authoritative source, I am deferring to mah dood.
You can defer to absolutely anyone you want, but others can also call that an appeal to authority. I don't even know if the guy you linked to is a decent lawyer. I am taking his statement exactly in its context. As a lawyer that is making a claim based on the evidence he has, which is still incomplete.

This is what I've found from another Texas lawyers website:

Quote:
When Does Stand Your Ground Apply?
According to the Texas stand your ground law, you are allowed to use force to protect yourself in your home, vehicle, or place of work if you were:
  • Rightfully present at that location.
  • Not engaged in any illegal activities.
  • Attacked without provocation.
None of those reasons are able to be used here. First, she wasn't rightfully present at that location, which again we can use the mistake of fact. She actually was engaged in illegal activity, she was trespassing, but again mistake of fact. Lastly though, and the biggest one to me, she was NOT attacked without provocation. In fact, she wasn't attacked at all, she was the attacker. I am all happy with discussing those merits, but I really don't feel that lawyer is correct. Feel free to ride or die with him, that's all good. That doesn't mean other people are wrong for disagreeing you and him.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:02 AM   #571
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
This is what I've found from another Texas lawyers website:



None of those reasons are able to be used here. First, she wasn't rightfully present at that location, which again we can use the mistake of fact. She actually was engaged in illegal activity, she was trespassing, but again mistake of fact. Lastly though, and the biggest one to me, she was NOT attacked without provocation. In fact, she wasn't attacked at all, she was the attacker. I am all happy with discussing those merits, but I really don't feel that lawyer is correct. Feel free to ride or die with him, that's all good. That doesn't mean other people are wrong for disagreeing you and him.
But this wouldn't be stand your ground, but castle doctrine if she reasonably believed it was her home. As such she would be using deadly force to protect her property no need of any kind of threat to any person at all.

https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground

https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-fo...ense-in-texas/

This is clearly a castle doctrine case not a stand your ground case and offing burglars is a right in Texas. Remember crimes against property merit lethal force in Texas not just crimes against people.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:12 AM   #572
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But this wouldn't be stand your ground, but castle doctrine if she reasonably believed it was her home. As such she would be using deadly force to protect her property no need of any kind of threat to any person at all.

https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground

https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-fo...ense-in-texas/

This is clearly a castle doctrine case not a stand your ground case and offing burglars is a right in Texas. Remember crimes against property merit lethal force in Texas not just crimes against people.
Uhm, did you read the bhwlawfirm link? It does not support your case at all. From that link:

Quote:
Texas law provides for a justifiable defense at trial when using deadly force if the person claiming self defense:
  • Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary;
  • Had a legal right to be on the property;
  • Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and
  • Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used
None of those really apply here either. Again, it requires that deadly force be immediately necessary. Why would it have been here? In that article it even says:

Quote:
For example, a homeowner in his own home does not have a duty to retreat and may use deadly force to protect himself against an armed intruder
Jean was not armed at all, she had no legal right to be on the property (mistake of fact), she certainly provoked him by screaming **** at him, and she was engaged in criminal activity; trespassing. Now, yes, mistake of fact can play a role, but I'm seeing nothing here that gets her to meet the requirements to use EITHER the castle doctrine or stand your ground. It's just not there if you ask me. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it seems like a pretty easy case to make.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 3rd September 2019 at 10:14 AM.
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:21 AM   #573
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,511
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
It's not an irrelevant point. I haven't seen other prosecutors or lawyers discuss the case. I have no idea if this guy is on point, or if he's misinterpreting the law, or if he's just not factually correct on this case. I have absolutely no doubt that what he feels he's saying is true, but one person saying it isn't enough to convince me. Hell, one source isn't even enough to pass journalistic integrity. This isn't some personal attack on you, it's just my observation.



That is not the way I'm viewing what he said. To tie it in there still needs to be a threat. Which is exactly what someone posted up top. If he's sitting on his couch, or even at the counter, or comes to the door, or so on. There's still no threat there. I even think the castle doctrine requires you to be in your house, I know you've argued that it can extend to other places, but even that is up for debate.
I hear you, and I am not claiming that my surrogate is the ultimate authority. However, I am claiming that he is the only credible authority presented, being a prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in Dallas. Lacking anyone else with actual expert knowledge of the subject matter, is it not reasonable to provisionally defer to him?

Quote:
You can defer to absolutely anyone you want, but others can also call that an appeal to authority. I don't even know if the guy you linked to is a decent lawyer. I am taking his statement exactly in its context. As a lawyer that is making a claim based on the evidence he has, which is still incomplete.
Citing or quoting an expert is not an appeal to authority. If it were, we could dismiss the evidence of every claim of every expert ever, based on that alone.

Regarding whether he is a decent lawyer/criminal defense attorney/prosecutor, I defer to the judgement of the Dallas Observer in citing him for interview. I trust that they vetted their source professionally, but that is of course not a guarantee.

Quote:
This is what I've found from another Texas lawyers website:



None of those reasons are able to be used here. First, she wasn't rightfully present at that location, which again we can use the mistake of fact. She actually was engaged in illegal activity, she was trespassing, but again mistake of fact. Lastly though, and the biggest one to me, she was NOT attacked without provocation. In fact, she wasn't attacked at all, she was the attacker. I am all happy with discussing those merits, but I really don't feel that lawyer is correct. Feel free to ride or die with him, that's all good.
Okay, but you are citing Stand Your Ground laws. I don't believe anyone is claiming SYG applies here? I may be wrong on that.

Quote:
That doesn't mean other people are wrong for disagreeing you and him.
That's true. More than one are flatly claiming mistake-of-fact simply doesn't exist, though, which is the reason I tried to find someone with expertise in the matter, commenting on this case specifically.

Any differing opinions from someone with similar credentials would be most welcome. I was intentionally trying to find an assertion that self-defense would not apply to Guyger. I couldn't find one.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:22 AM   #574
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Uhm, did you read the bhwlawfirm link? It does not support your case at all. From that link:



None of those really apply here either. Again, it requires that deadly force be immediately necessary. Why would it have been here? In that article it even says:



Jean was not armed at all, she had no legal right to be on the property (mistake of fact), she certainly provoked him by screaming **** at him, and she was engaged in criminal activity; trespassing. Now, yes, mistake of fact can play a role, but I'm seeing nothing here that gets her to meet the requirements to use EITHER the castle doctrine or stand your ground. It's just not there if you ask me. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it seems like a pretty easy case to make.
But again you don't need the person to be threatening if you are defending property, so if it was her house killing someone you find inside would likely be legal as you are protecting your property.

I certainly don't like this but if the wrong apartment gets waved away Texas really does think it is fine to kill people who are trespassing on your property as long as a a reasonable person thinks they are trying to steal from you.

You only need to deal with an armed intruder if you are claiming to fear for your life, if you are claiming to fear for your stereo you don't need them to be armed. The Joe Horn killing shows you can grab your gun and confront people in Texas and killing them is all nice and legal.

Thieves on your property are an easy legal kill in Texas after all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Ho...ng_controversy
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:26 AM   #575
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But again you don't need the person to be threatening if you are defending property, so if it was her house killing someone you find inside would likely be legal as you are protecting your property.
Ok, but that is not what your link and the example given shows. So either you're saying your evidence is wrong, or I'm understanding it wrong.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
I certainly don't like this but if the wrong apartment gets waved away Texas really does think it is fine to kill people who are trespassing on your property as long as a a reasonable person thinks they are trying to steal from you.
I don't find this claim to be accurate.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You only need to deal with an armed intruder if you are claiming to fear for your life, if you are claiming to fear for your stereo you don't need them to be armed. The Joe Horn killing shows you can grab your gun and confront people in Texas and killing them is all nice and legal.

Thieves on your property are an easy legal kill in Texas after all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Ho...ng_controversy
I don't find one instance to make a compelling case, and I'm certainly not claiming to be an ultimate authority.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:31 AM   #576
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Any differing opinions from someone with similar credentials would be most welcome. I was intentionally trying to find an assertion that self-defense would not apply to Guyger. I couldn't find one.
At about a minute in you can see the civil rights attorney say the same things that have been on my mind. The things she didn't say in the phone call were things like "I thought he had a gun", or "he was coming right at me". She didn't say in the call that she was threatened at all, which is part of the castle doctrine I linked to it earlier.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Now we can say he's bias because he's defending the family in a civil court, but it is what it is.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:39 AM   #577
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,232
Everything I read about Texas Castle doctrine says it wouldn't apply even if she was at her own apartment. My understanding is that some actual occupant of the "castle" has to be in the apartment/home/vehicle/whatever for it to apply.



https://www.uslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:42 AM   #578
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Everything I read about Texas Castle doctrine says it wouldn't apply even if she was at her own apartment. My understanding is that some actual occupant of the "castle" has to be in the apartment/home/vehicle/whatever for it to apply.



https://www.uslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/
So that's where the theoretical "mistake-of-fact" would come into play. I completely agree that even if she were in her own apartment it wouldn't get her off, but for the other reasons. The fact he wasn't armed, that she was screaming at him (provoking), etc.

Even reading through the link ponderingturtle provided the hugest difference between the two was that Horn told the dispatcher that the individuals were coming towards him, something that was witnessed by an on-duty police officer. That's completely and entirely different than this case.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:43 AM   #579
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,511
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
At about a minute in you can see the civil rights attorney say the same things that have been on my mind. The things she didn't say in the phone call were things like "I thought he had a gun", or "he was coming right at me". She didn't say in the call that she was threatened at all, which is part of the castle doctrine I linked to it earlier.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Now we can say he's bias because he's defending the family in a civil court, but it is what it is.
Yes, but precedent has extended castle doctrine to firing on intruders, threatening or not. Their mere presence has been interpreted as 'threat enough'.

In my state, and many others, this wouldn't fly. But in Texas, it does.

Plus the attorney in the video says that in his opinion, this was racist because...well, he doesn't give the slightest reason. IMO, this knocks his credibility down a notch or two. If Schulte said the matter is sexist in his opinion, and couldn't show the slightest reasoning for that, I would knock his credibility down a few pegs as well
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:45 AM   #580
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yes, but precedent has extended castle doctrine to firing on intruders, threatening or not. Their mere presence has been interpreted as 'threat enough'.

In my state, and many others, this wouldn't fly. But in Texas, it does.

Plus the attorney in the video says that in his opinion, this was racist because...well, he doesn't give the slightest reason. IMO, this knocks his credibility down a notch or two. If Schulte said the matter is sexist in his opinion, and couldn't show the slightest reasoning for that, I would knock his credibility down a few pegs as well
In the video I watched he said he felt race played a factor because she went into the place and "saw a black man and was intimidated".

I have no seen any evidence of the first part I lit up. Is there some such evidence available?
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:53 AM   #581
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Ok, but that is not what your link and the example given shows. So either you're saying your evidence is wrong, or I'm understanding it wrong.



I don't find this claim to be accurate.



I don't find one instance to make a compelling case, and I'm certainly not claiming to be an ultimate authority.
The actual law

"Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


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.




Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

"

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...htm/PE.9.htm#D

Shooting people fleeing with your property after a burglary is legal in Texas. There are some terms that the definition I am fuzzy of but in Texas protecting property is a valid reason to open fire, see the above law.

I am not saying it will be interpreted in this way or should be, but there is a decent chance she will be getting a settlement for wrongful termination from the police department.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:53 AM   #582
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,511
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
In the video I watched he said he felt race played a factor because she went into the place and "saw a black man and was intimidated".
...which means he claims she could see him clearly, and he knew her feelings. That's some heavy-duty clairvoyance claimed. Or he just made it up.

Quote:
I have no seen any evidence of the first part I lit up. Is there some such evidence available?
I linked Texas lethal force statutes a couple pages back. You can shoot if you simply believe that the person is about to commit a robbery. That's one low-ass bar.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:55 AM   #583
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Everything I read about Texas Castle doctrine says it wouldn't apply even if she was at her own apartment. My understanding is that some actual occupant of the "castle" has to be in the apartment/home/vehicle/whatever for it to apply.



https://www.uslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/
Generally sure, but most states with castle doctrines don't permit lethal force in defense of property like Texas does.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 10:58 AM   #584
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
...which means he claims she could see him clearly, and he knew her feelings. That's some heavy-duty clairvoyance claimed. Or he just made it up.



I linked Texas lethal force statutes a couple pages back. You can shoot if you simply believe that the person is about to commit a robbery. That's one low-ass bar.
Exactly few other states specifically allow lethal force to protect property alone, only protection of people. That is something that makes texas different and hence this case different. Merely believing he was a non threatening burglar is enough to chase someone down and kill them in texas while most other states it is murder plain and simple.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:00 AM   #585
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Again, deadly force being "immediately necessary". Something that hasn't been shown in this case at all. There isn't even a little bit of a reason to think that it was necessary.

Ok, though. I'll drop it and we'll wait to see what happens. The horn case didn't even make it to trial, the grand jury acquitted him. No such luck here, so I feel like I'm on the right course, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:01 AM   #586
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Exactly few other states specifically allow lethal force to protect property alone, only protection of people. That is something that makes texas different and hence this case different. Merely believing he was a non threatening burglar is enough to chase someone down and kill them in texas while most other states it is murder plain and simple.
Jesus, come on man. That's not even close to true. Chase someone down and kill them? LoL get the **** out of here. That wouldn't be legal no matter what unless you're an on-duty cop that witnessed the robbery. Once the people are off your property you can't just slaughter them. That level of hyperbole does you no justice, and it's completely and entirely wrong.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:02 AM   #587
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Again, deadly force being "immediately necessary". Something that hasn't been shown in this case at all. There isn't even a little bit of a reason to think that it was necessary.
Sure, there are a number of things to be shown but they do not include feeling threatened or being threatened only feeling that he was stealing her stuff. So if the mistake in facts about it being her apartment are not enough there is a fairly good chance she will walk.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:05 AM   #588
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,139
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Again, deadly force being "immediately necessary". Something that hasn't been shown in this case at all. There isn't even a little bit of a reason to think that it was necessary.

Ok, though. I'll drop it and we'll wait to see what happens. The horn case didn't even make it to trial, the grand jury acquitted him. No such luck here, so I feel like I'm on the right course, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
"reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"

The full quote is harder to dismiss if you accept that the "reasonably" will be decided by people who you would likely not consider to be reasonable.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:07 AM   #589
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Jesus, come on man. That's not even close to true. Chase someone down and kill them? LoL get the **** out of here. That wouldn't be legal no matter what unless you're an on-duty cop that witnessed the robbery. Once the people are off your property you can't just slaughter them. That level of hyperbole does you no justice, and it's completely and entirely wrong.
Yes pursute in the case of stolen property is allowed.

"Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
cts 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.




Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
"


https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...htm/PE.9.htm#D


Texas laws are crazy.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

Last edited by ponderingturtle; 3rd September 2019 at 11:10 AM.
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:09 AM   #590
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,139
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Jesus, come on man. That's not even close to true. Chase someone down and kill them? LoL get the **** out of here. That wouldn't be legal no matter what unless you're an on-duty cop that witnessed the robbery. Once the people are off your property you can't just slaughter them. That level of hyperbole does you no justice, and it's completely and entirely wrong.
Nope. Welcome to Texas.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:10 AM   #591
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
"reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"

The full quote is harder to dismiss if you accept that the "reasonably" will be decided by people who you would likely not consider to be reasonable.
Texas might be red, but from everything I can tell Dallas is not. That's why the lawyers are doing everything in their power to move the trial from Dallas to somewhere else by claiming that they can't get a good jury pool. I believe that was shot down when the gag order put in effect.

The main reason I won't dismiss the jury as being willing to let her off the hook is because Dallas has a better chance of getting POC on the jury. All it takes is one hold out for a mistrial, but I think the state has a good chance to prosecute if they want to put forth the effort or if some of the evidence is irrefutable. They brought in more than 200 witnesses and planned to interview more...per one of the articles I read. I don't know if they are eyewitnesses or what, but it does appear the city is doing their due diligence.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:13 AM   #592
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Nope. Welcome to Texas.
I'll concede the fact, as it does appear I'm wrong, but that article isn't characterizing the Horn case properly. I'll take the time to dig up the other cases to see if I can find inconsistencies in those as well.

Horn claimed the people came on his property, he said on the phone that they entered his property, and a cop witnessed it as well.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:15 AM   #593
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Texas might be red, but from everything I can tell Dallas is not. That's why the lawyers are doing everything in their power to move the trial from Dallas to somewhere else by claiming that they can't get a good jury pool. I believe that was shot down when the gag order put in effect.

The main reason I won't dismiss the jury as being willing to let her off the hook is because Dallas has a better chance of getting POC on the jury. All it takes is one hold out for a mistrial, but I think the state has a good chance to prosecute if they want to put forth the effort or if some of the evidence is irrefutable. They brought in more than 200 witnesses and planned to interview more...per one of the articles I read. I don't know if they are eyewitnesses or what, but it does appear the city is doing their due diligence.
Oh that might be true but that doesn't justify making claims about how chasing down burglars and killing them is not legal in texas. Texas has rather expansive premissions for when someone can shoot.

So she might be less likely to get a friendly jury there than other places in texas but the law isn't as solidly against her as you seem to think. It gets to what a reasonable person would think and not a clear case of her being wrong.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:16 AM   #594
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,139
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Texas might be red, but from everything I can tell Dallas is not. That's why the lawyers are doing everything in their power to move the trial from Dallas to somewhere else by claiming that they can't get a good jury pool. I believe that was shot down when the gag order put in effect.

The main reason I won't dismiss the jury as being willing to let her off the hook is because Dallas has a better chance of getting POC on the jury. All it takes is one hold out for a mistrial, but I think the state has a good chance to prosecute if they want to put forth the effort or if some of the evidence is irrefutable. They brought in more than 200 witnesses and planned to interview more...per one of the articles I read. I don't know if they are eyewitnesses or what, but it does appear the city is doing their due diligence.
It's not a Red Blue thing here. I am fairly liberal and I own guns. Hell, my Swedish neighbor has a concealed carry permit. People here like their guns and they like their gun laws to be on the side of the victim/homeowner. That this case turns that dynamic on its head is interesting, but not enough to dismiss their established jurisprudence.

I hope I am wrong. It would renew my faith in my fellow Texan a bit. But I fear that your optimism is misplaced. She may get some lesser charge, but I don't see her getting Murder, even though I think she should.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:19 AM   #595
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I'll concede the fact, as it does appear I'm wrong, but that article isn't characterizing the Horn case properly. I'll take the time to dig up the other cases to see if I can find inconsistencies in those as well.

Horn claimed the people came on his property, he said on the phone that they entered his property, and a cop witnessed it as well.
Why does that matter? you are permitted lethal force in defending a third persons property as well as your own.

"Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care."

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D...htm/PE.9.htm#D

Seeing people robing your neighbor is all the justification you need to shoot in texas.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:20 AM   #596
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Oh that might be true but that doesn't justify making claims about how chasing down burglars and killing them is not legal in texas. Texas has rather expansive premissions for when someone can shoot.

So she might be less likely to get a friendly jury there than other places in texas but the law isn't as solidly against her as you seem to think. It gets to what a reasonable person would think and not a clear case of her being wrong.
Yes, I retracted my statement because I'm a grown man that is able to admit when I am not reading something properly.

As for the rest, I'll stick with my thoughts that she would still be guilty no matter what. Right now we have a stalemate of, what appears to be, people who want her to go to jail and people who want her to go to jail but don't think she will because of the Texas laws.

I am still of the mindset that there are key pieces to her story missing (which her story has changed a few times), and there being no threat while she is in fact the one committing a crime. In none of the other cases were people on property or in places that didn't belong to them. That's a pretty big difference.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 3rd September 2019 at 11:23 AM.
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 11:22 AM   #597
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,754
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Why does that matter? you are permitted lethal force in defending a third persons property as well as your own.
It matters because accurate reporting and representing the truth in a factual way is important to me? I know, I'm weird like that. I'm just a sucker for the truth I guess.

In the Horn case, he also made several claims that they were coming for him, he communicated to them, one of them ran at him, the other ran at him and then away from him. There are a bunch of differences.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 12:01 PM   #598
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,151
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
....
Seeing people robing your neighbor is all the justification you need to shoot in texas.
If that's true -- and I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you think -- doesn't the shooter still have to be sure that his assessment is correct? Suppose he sees strangers carrying stuff out of his neighbor's house and opens fire. It turns out that the neighbor is moving, or selling his old furniture, or giving it to his relatives that you've never met, or donating it to Goodwill. Is the shooter still justified? A basic presumption of defense of person and property is that the shooter had no reasonable alternative to killing somebody. If he had time to retreat or call the cops or even say "Hey! Whatchoo doin'?," his claim is weakened.

There's also a basic moral belief, taught pretty much by all religions, that life is more valuable than property. Killing somebody to defend yourself or your family or even a stranger against attack? Maybe a sad necessity. Killing the teenage crackhead who grabs your TV? Maybe not so much.

Last edited by Bob001; 3rd September 2019 at 12:02 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 12:09 PM   #599
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
If that's true -- and I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you think -- doesn't the shooter still have to be sure that his assessment is correct? Suppose he sees strangers carrying stuff out of his neighbor's house and opens fire. It turns out that the neighbor is moving, or selling his old furniture, or giving it to his relatives that you've never met, or donating it to Goodwill. Is the shooter still justified? A basic presumption of defense of person and property is that the shooter had no reasonable alternative to killing somebody. If he had time to retreat or call the cops or even say "Hey! Whatchoo doin'?," his claim is weakened.
There seems to be some room in that

"Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care."

If the or at the end of 1 was an and it would be clearly only in cases of relatives or ones that you had some kind of agreement in place. So it does seem to limit that but the or at the end of 1 makes it seem that those do not need to be in place.

And again it gets into reasonable person issues. A reasonable person would need to know that it wasn't their neighbor or such.

Quote:
There's also a basic moral belief, taught pretty much by all religions, that life is more valuable than property. Killing somebody to defend yourself or your family or even a stranger against attack? Maybe a sad necessity. Killing the teenage crackhead who grabs your TV? Maybe not so much.
Not in texas.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2019, 01:08 PM   #600
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,558
The whole "Well I'm just saying what the jury might say" still comes across as rather distasteful and sideways apologetics to me.

Mainly in that nobody who is bouncing everything off that talking point really seems to think that's a problem to be solved.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.