Home robbery

[bushpilot]

the entitlement comes in part from the government hand outs...
if you dont HAVE to work then why shouldnt you have everything
anyone else has...

its hard to learn the value of a dollar (much less a life) when you dont
have to do anything for it.

 

[powerboatr]

he he he
outstanding
whoo ahhhh bang bang
love it, good on em
bang your dead scumbag

 

[Fire1]

the "castle" law will allow you to shoot 'em as they
run or walk away too...let 'em steal the stuff...and shoot em
as they drive off....just make sure you kill 'em...dont want
anyone to testify against you.

No, it will NOT legally allow you to do that. I'll allow you to read the proposal for yourself to see what IS allowed and or changed from current Law.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?K2DocKey=odbc%3a%2f%2fTLO%2fTLO.dbo.vwCurrBillDocs%2f80%2fR%2fH%2fB%2f00103%2f1%2fB%40TloCurrBillDocs&QueryText=deadly&HighlightType=1

 

[bushpilot]

read that again.........


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
1-1 AN ACT
1-2 relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
1-3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
1-4 SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
2-1 unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
2-2 place of business or employment; or

2-3 (3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
2-4 kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
2-5 robbery, or aggravated robbery.

2-6 (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
2-7 where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
2-8 whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
2-9 at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
2-10 using force as described by this section.

 

[powerboatr]

read that again.........


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
1-1 AN ACT
1-2 relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
1-3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
1-4 SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
2-1 unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
2-2 place of business or employment; or

2-3 (3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
2-4 kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
2-5 robbery, or aggravated robbery.

2-6 (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
2-7 where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
2-8 whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
2-9 at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
2-10 using force as described by this section.

robbery

yep thats it

 

[Fire1]

§ 29.02. ROBBERY[0]. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.



If there is no "bodily injury" and the suspect is simply walking/running away they are now no longer threatening or placing you in fear of IMMENENT bodily injury or death, there was not per legal definition a "Robbery" and you there for may not use deadly force.


The Castle Doctorine ammendment really just removes the requirement in Texas that "if a reasonabe person in the actor's situation would not have retreated" portion. This allows you to use deadly force in areas other than your home that you may LEGALLY be present in without the requirement of FIRST retreating. It may also remove the ability for a person you legally used deadly force against to seek civil damages.

There are other sections of the Penal Code that MAY allow you to use deadly force in the defense of your property on a person whom is fleeing the scene. But that section is not related to the Castle Doctorine amendment so is there for moot.

 

[bushpilot]

i stand some what corrected...like most legal-ease its left to
the interprtation and depends on which side youre on.

i see robbery...AND read that its not necessary for me to retreat
before i use "force"...

i still say shot 'em BUT make sure they
cant testify against you. no jury of your peers will convict...

 

[Frankenstien]

uhm.... no body.... no foul?.....

 

[Fire1]

Yeah the laws are not written well for us regular people to understand. I only know some of this regarding use of force due to it being somewhat of an interest to me. But now days I would not bet on the jury of your peers not convicting. There are some pretty liberal ones out there that feel criminals have rights.

I'll end my hijack now.

 

[bushpilot]

But now days I would not bet on the jury of your peers not convicting. There are some pretty liberal ones out there that feel criminals have rights.

understand...but those wouldnt be MY peers either...