they thought wrong...so the laws wouldn't apply anyway. and who says they really believed that? the family was close to the levee and the home owners should know it's not theirs. and I didn't see texas law would say they could do what they did even on their property

i didn't read the law that gives people carte blanche to just open fire. and i know i'm not the only one who read it the way i did

Im sorry,
I wasnt aware that you live here.

Oh I see. You just want to argue?

obviously you did not read the law

or where it says


"""reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:"""

your on going rant is as wrong as them shooting when it comes to the actual law

Aw,,
Do I detect Fanta envy?

Obviously you weren't in the loop!

Rose knows,,,,

rose knows what??? what did i do this time??? i'm innocent i swear. the damn tarheel made me it whatever it is you think i did

You know!



The Texas deadly force law you wrote.

i'm writing laws now???

woo hoo...i'm on my way to rule the world....and i'm starting with mingle

Holy crap this still continued!!! Things took a strange turn since page 4-5

welcome to the political threads

You, and others, seem to be getting hung up on that phrase

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

Completely ignoring that a colon clearly is at the end of that line meaning it is NOT complete. One of the following two conditions must exist... Neither would appear to exist from what I saw in the OP.

--------------------------
(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
--------------------------

Please also note the "AND" at the end of this line.


--------------------------
(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.
--------------------------

So even part (b) were true, the neither of the conditions in part (3) are met either. IOW NONE of the conditions for using deadly force in a trespass situation were met EVEN IF it were a trespass situation. Those firing shots and No reason to believe they were within their rights if they knew the law

I concur Davey...and I'm unanomous in my decision

Interesting concept... unconstitutional and probably incorrect but interesting.

Ok, I'm late on this discussion so I admit to not reading all the replies. But has anyone offered the following:

Maybe we should approach this from another angle - maybe no one should be able to own 'property' as in land, fields, streams and so on. It seems to me, the only reason we're allowed to 'own' property is so the government can tax it.

Merely owning property only gives idiots the right to use deadly force to protect it. But what, exactly, are they protecting? Their privacy? (can't they go in the house and draw the cutrain?) Are they protecting the ground? (If nature can't hurt it what can a human do to hurt it?)

You know, in most neighborhoods, it's required to have a tall safety fence (in good repair) around a dog gone swimming pool. So I say, if people are allowed to own propery and feel the need to put up a "tresspassor will be shot" sign, then they better be hanging that sign at specific intervals along the circumference of the tall safety fence they should, legally be made to install.

there are people that own many acres and a fence shouldn't be necessary. if they bought the land and paid for it...it is private property. but that is not the case in the OP anyway. it wasn't private property

Sounds very communist-ik.

Maybe the governments shouldn't own property? Or how about no countries anymore?

On the other hand, what if I walk onto your lawn and start digging a big hole, then sit in it, because I feel like? Or raise a tent right front of your door. I can, nobody owns nothing. Maybe I'm just gonna go get my tan on your roof.

Pity the kid got it, especially when they weren't on the property.

But there's plenty of adults who I'd be inclined to shoot for trespass, who I have caught on property, with no trespass signs posted every 10 ft.

However, the cops here in Texas that I deal with tell me I CANNOT shoot someone for trespass. I can reasonably stop them from leaving, call the cops, and have them prosecuted, but cannot kill them. Now, if they were breaking into my home, or I thought I was in danger, it might be different, but there'd be further legal issues.

Heck, I can't even stop the arsehole neighbor from shooting his gun into my pastures, because he's not shooting at a house or building, despite the fact that he has no property of his own for a gun range. If he shoots my livestock, it's "oh well".

EquusDancer...I posted the texas laws on it already. I suspect most people use the stereotype that Texans just shoot for the heck of it and that the law says we can. WHEN IN FACT WE CAN'T.