Jeep Booby Traps Help
#131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
"Texas: It's like a whole 'nother Country!"
God love 'em!
"Larry Hendrick" <lhendrick@rgv.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MvM2b.16148$f76.203518@twister.austin.rr.com. ..
> Not in Texas. If someone is stealing your property at night and you have
a
> permit, shoot the bastard.
>
> --
>
>
> "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8fM2b.121$1h2.47@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com.. .
> > Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> > determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> > of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> > harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> > constitutes threat.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> > WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> > whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
> >
> > Jeepers wrote:
> > > In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
> > >>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
> > >>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That would be Texas, after dark.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> >
> > --
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> > tw
> > 03 TJ Rubicon
> > 01 XJ Sport
> >
> > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> > -- Dave Barry
> >
> > http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
> > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> >
>
>
God love 'em!
"Larry Hendrick" <lhendrick@rgv.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MvM2b.16148$f76.203518@twister.austin.rr.com. ..
> Not in Texas. If someone is stealing your property at night and you have
a
> permit, shoot the bastard.
>
> --
>
>
> "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8fM2b.121$1h2.47@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com.. .
> > Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> > determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> > of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> > harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> > constitutes threat.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> > WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> > whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
> >
> > Jeepers wrote:
> > > In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
> > >>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
> > >>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That would be Texas, after dark.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> >
> > --
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> > tw
> > 03 TJ Rubicon
> > 01 XJ Sport
> >
> > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> > -- Dave Barry
> >
> > http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
> > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> >
>
>
#132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:18:16 -0500, Jeepers
<moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote:
>In article <0l4nkvs15c1p9pt5q94k387ituv42p872j@4ax.com>,
> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:21:02 GMT, "Skippee" <newsgroups@jc-rules.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sam,
>> >
>> >Is this a current version of the law?
>> >
>> >Just curious as to whether the difference between "daytime" and "nighttime"
>> >was still on the books as such?
>>
>> If you must top post trim what's below it.
>>
>> Here is where the current (as of 77th session) Texas laws and codes
>> can be found.
>>
>> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html
>>
>> Note it doesn't have the 78th session laws on it until June 2004.
>>
>> and "nighttime" is defined as (at least in the transportation code).
>>
>> "(5) "Nighttime" means the period beginning one-half hour after sunset
>> and ending one-half hour before sunrise."
>>
>>
>John, I started this over in the Jeep NG. I'm sorry I did, it was about
>booby trapping a Jeep. The following is his contention, is he right?
>
>> > Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
>> > determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
>> > of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
>> > harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
>> > constitutes threat.
>> >
>> > So:
>> >
>> > No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
>> > WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
>> > whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
He is wrong. The issue involving property at night has nothing to do
with threat of bodily harm. The issue is the recovery of the property.
It has it's roots the stealing of cattle at night and in the case of
"criminal mischief" the practice of night riders harassing settlers.
Texas Penal code section 9
§ 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended
by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Note Section 3(A) "recovered" You don't have to go to (B).
This has been up held many time in court.
Now you can't use a Booby trap as that's covered in 9:44 but you can
shoot 'em.
Last high profile case on this was back when the gold plated wheels
were so popular. A Dallas apartment resident shot 4 people stealing
his wheels in the parking lot from his balcony at night with an SKS.
He killed 3 and wounded the 4th. The Grand Jury agreed with the law
an no billed him.
************************************************** ***
"Here's a place where we can stay
We have come to see tomorrow
We have given up today
Down among the dancing quanta
Everything exists at once
Up above in Transverse City"
"Transverse City"
Warren Zevon from
"Transverse City"
<moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote:
>In article <0l4nkvs15c1p9pt5q94k387ituv42p872j@4ax.com>,
> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:21:02 GMT, "Skippee" <newsgroups@jc-rules.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sam,
>> >
>> >Is this a current version of the law?
>> >
>> >Just curious as to whether the difference between "daytime" and "nighttime"
>> >was still on the books as such?
>>
>> If you must top post trim what's below it.
>>
>> Here is where the current (as of 77th session) Texas laws and codes
>> can be found.
>>
>> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html
>>
>> Note it doesn't have the 78th session laws on it until June 2004.
>>
>> and "nighttime" is defined as (at least in the transportation code).
>>
>> "(5) "Nighttime" means the period beginning one-half hour after sunset
>> and ending one-half hour before sunrise."
>>
>>
>John, I started this over in the Jeep NG. I'm sorry I did, it was about
>booby trapping a Jeep. The following is his contention, is he right?
>
>> > Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
>> > determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
>> > of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
>> > harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
>> > constitutes threat.
>> >
>> > So:
>> >
>> > No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
>> > WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
>> > whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
He is wrong. The issue involving property at night has nothing to do
with threat of bodily harm. The issue is the recovery of the property.
It has it's roots the stealing of cattle at night and in the case of
"criminal mischief" the practice of night riders harassing settlers.
Texas Penal code section 9
§ 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended
by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Note Section 3(A) "recovered" You don't have to go to (B).
This has been up held many time in court.
Now you can't use a Booby trap as that's covered in 9:44 but you can
shoot 'em.
Last high profile case on this was back when the gold plated wheels
were so popular. A Dallas apartment resident shot 4 people stealing
his wheels in the parking lot from his balcony at night with an SKS.
He killed 3 and wounded the 4th. The Grand Jury agreed with the law
an no billed him.
************************************************** ***
"Here's a place where we can stay
We have come to see tomorrow
We have given up today
Down among the dancing quanta
Everything exists at once
Up above in Transverse City"
"Transverse City"
Warren Zevon from
"Transverse City"
#133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:18:16 -0500, Jeepers
<moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote:
>In article <0l4nkvs15c1p9pt5q94k387ituv42p872j@4ax.com>,
> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:21:02 GMT, "Skippee" <newsgroups@jc-rules.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sam,
>> >
>> >Is this a current version of the law?
>> >
>> >Just curious as to whether the difference between "daytime" and "nighttime"
>> >was still on the books as such?
>>
>> If you must top post trim what's below it.
>>
>> Here is where the current (as of 77th session) Texas laws and codes
>> can be found.
>>
>> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html
>>
>> Note it doesn't have the 78th session laws on it until June 2004.
>>
>> and "nighttime" is defined as (at least in the transportation code).
>>
>> "(5) "Nighttime" means the period beginning one-half hour after sunset
>> and ending one-half hour before sunrise."
>>
>>
>John, I started this over in the Jeep NG. I'm sorry I did, it was about
>booby trapping a Jeep. The following is his contention, is he right?
>
>> > Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
>> > determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
>> > of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
>> > harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
>> > constitutes threat.
>> >
>> > So:
>> >
>> > No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
>> > WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
>> > whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
He is wrong. The issue involving property at night has nothing to do
with threat of bodily harm. The issue is the recovery of the property.
It has it's roots the stealing of cattle at night and in the case of
"criminal mischief" the practice of night riders harassing settlers.
Texas Penal code section 9
§ 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended
by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Note Section 3(A) "recovered" You don't have to go to (B).
This has been up held many time in court.
Now you can't use a Booby trap as that's covered in 9:44 but you can
shoot 'em.
Last high profile case on this was back when the gold plated wheels
were so popular. A Dallas apartment resident shot 4 people stealing
his wheels in the parking lot from his balcony at night with an SKS.
He killed 3 and wounded the 4th. The Grand Jury agreed with the law
an no billed him.
************************************************** ***
"Here's a place where we can stay
We have come to see tomorrow
We have given up today
Down among the dancing quanta
Everything exists at once
Up above in Transverse City"
"Transverse City"
Warren Zevon from
"Transverse City"
<moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote:
>In article <0l4nkvs15c1p9pt5q94k387ituv42p872j@4ax.com>,
> John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:21:02 GMT, "Skippee" <newsgroups@jc-rules.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sam,
>> >
>> >Is this a current version of the law?
>> >
>> >Just curious as to whether the difference between "daytime" and "nighttime"
>> >was still on the books as such?
>>
>> If you must top post trim what's below it.
>>
>> Here is where the current (as of 77th session) Texas laws and codes
>> can be found.
>>
>> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html
>>
>> Note it doesn't have the 78th session laws on it until June 2004.
>>
>> and "nighttime" is defined as (at least in the transportation code).
>>
>> "(5) "Nighttime" means the period beginning one-half hour after sunset
>> and ending one-half hour before sunrise."
>>
>>
>John, I started this over in the Jeep NG. I'm sorry I did, it was about
>booby trapping a Jeep. The following is his contention, is he right?
>
>> > Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
>> > determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
>> > of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
>> > harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
>> > constitutes threat.
>> >
>> > So:
>> >
>> > No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
>> > WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
>> > whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
He is wrong. The issue involving property at night has nothing to do
with threat of bodily harm. The issue is the recovery of the property.
It has it's roots the stealing of cattle at night and in the case of
"criminal mischief" the practice of night riders harassing settlers.
Texas Penal code section 9
§ 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended
by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Note Section 3(A) "recovered" You don't have to go to (B).
This has been up held many time in court.
Now you can't use a Booby trap as that's covered in 9:44 but you can
shoot 'em.
Last high profile case on this was back when the gold plated wheels
were so popular. A Dallas apartment resident shot 4 people stealing
his wheels in the parking lot from his balcony at night with an SKS.
He killed 3 and wounded the 4th. The Grand Jury agreed with the law
an no billed him.
************************************************** ***
"Here's a place where we can stay
We have come to see tomorrow
We have given up today
Down among the dancing quanta
Everything exists at once
Up above in Transverse City"
"Transverse City"
Warren Zevon from
"Transverse City"
#134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <to5nkvkub2531nhfegagek1n7d05drv1gu@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
> This has been up held many time in court.
>
> Now you can't use a Booby trap as that's covered in 9:44 but you can
> shoot 'em.
>
> Last high profile case on this was back when the gold plated wheels
> were so popular. A Dallas apartment resident shot 4 people stealing
> his wheels in the parking lot from his balcony at night with an SKS.
> He killed 3 and wounded the 4th. The Grand Jury agreed with the law
> an no billed him.
Thank you. I thoght so, but I was not sure.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
> This has been up held many time in court.
>
> Now you can't use a Booby trap as that's covered in 9:44 but you can
> shoot 'em.
>
> Last high profile case on this was back when the gold plated wheels
> were so popular. A Dallas apartment resident shot 4 people stealing
> his wheels in the parking lot from his balcony at night with an SKS.
> He killed 3 and wounded the 4th. The Grand Jury agreed with the law
> an no billed him.
Thank you. I thoght so, but I was not sure.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <to5nkvkub2531nhfegagek1n7d05drv1gu@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
> This has been up held many time in court.
>
> Now you can't use a Booby trap as that's covered in 9:44 but you can
> shoot 'em.
>
> Last high profile case on this was back when the gold plated wheels
> were so popular. A Dallas apartment resident shot 4 people stealing
> his wheels in the parking lot from his balcony at night with an SKS.
> He killed 3 and wounded the 4th. The Grand Jury agreed with the law
> an no billed him.
Thank you. I thoght so, but I was not sure.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
> This has been up held many time in court.
>
> Now you can't use a Booby trap as that's covered in 9:44 but you can
> shoot 'em.
>
> Last high profile case on this was back when the gold plated wheels
> were so popular. A Dallas apartment resident shot 4 people stealing
> his wheels in the parking lot from his balcony at night with an SKS.
> He killed 3 and wounded the 4th. The Grand Jury agreed with the law
> an no billed him.
Thank you. I thoght so, but I was not sure.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
>No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
>> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH.
That's because there is no state that excuses the use of deadly force absent an
imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Stopping a thief from stealing
livestock or jeeps is not enough, even in Texas.
>> The cover of night constitutes threat.
Not exactly. Darkness alone does not render a situation one where there is an
imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Read the following, which is
consistent with the law in every other state:
California Jury Instructions--Criminal CALJIC 5.12. Justifiable Homicide in
Self-Defense
"The killing of another person in self-defense is justifiable and not unlawful
when the person who does the killing actually and reasonably believes:
"1. That there is imminent danger that the other person will either kill [him]
[her] or cause [him] [her] great bodily injury; and
"2. That it is necessary under the circumstances for [him] [her] to use in
self- defense force or means that might cause the death of the other person for
the purpose of avoiding death or great bodily injury to [himself] [herself].
"A bare fear of death or great bodily injury is not sufficient to justify a
homicide. To justify taking the life of another in self-defense, the
circumstances must be such as would excite the fears of a reasonable person
placed in a similar position, and the party killing must act under the
influence of those fears alone. The danger must be apparent, present, immediate
and instantly dealt with, or must so appear at the time to the slayer as a
reasonable person, and the killing must be done under a well-founded belief
that it is necessary to save one's self from death or great bodily harm."
"In order to justify a homicide under the plea of self-defense, it must appear
not only that the defendant actually believed himself in deadly peril, but that
as a reasonable man he had sufficient grounds for his belief." (People v.
Williams, 75 Cal.App.3d 731, 739, 142 Cal.Rptr. 704, 709 (1st Dist.1977).)
Go ahead, use your firearm against jeep thieves. State prisons are full of
guys who had a "good excuse" for what they did because they read once in a
newspaper that someone else avoided punishment for doing what appeared to them
to be the same thing, and because they thought they could understand the
nuances of the law without ever setting foot in a law school.
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
>> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH.
That's because there is no state that excuses the use of deadly force absent an
imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Stopping a thief from stealing
livestock or jeeps is not enough, even in Texas.
>> The cover of night constitutes threat.
Not exactly. Darkness alone does not render a situation one where there is an
imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Read the following, which is
consistent with the law in every other state:
California Jury Instructions--Criminal CALJIC 5.12. Justifiable Homicide in
Self-Defense
"The killing of another person in self-defense is justifiable and not unlawful
when the person who does the killing actually and reasonably believes:
"1. That there is imminent danger that the other person will either kill [him]
[her] or cause [him] [her] great bodily injury; and
"2. That it is necessary under the circumstances for [him] [her] to use in
self- defense force or means that might cause the death of the other person for
the purpose of avoiding death or great bodily injury to [himself] [herself].
"A bare fear of death or great bodily injury is not sufficient to justify a
homicide. To justify taking the life of another in self-defense, the
circumstances must be such as would excite the fears of a reasonable person
placed in a similar position, and the party killing must act under the
influence of those fears alone. The danger must be apparent, present, immediate
and instantly dealt with, or must so appear at the time to the slayer as a
reasonable person, and the killing must be done under a well-founded belief
that it is necessary to save one's self from death or great bodily harm."
"In order to justify a homicide under the plea of self-defense, it must appear
not only that the defendant actually believed himself in deadly peril, but that
as a reasonable man he had sufficient grounds for his belief." (People v.
Williams, 75 Cal.App.3d 731, 739, 142 Cal.Rptr. 704, 709 (1st Dist.1977).)
Go ahead, use your firearm against jeep thieves. State prisons are full of
guys who had a "good excuse" for what they did because they read once in a
newspaper that someone else avoided punishment for doing what appeared to them
to be the same thing, and because they thought they could understand the
nuances of the law without ever setting foot in a law school.
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
>No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
>> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH.
That's because there is no state that excuses the use of deadly force absent an
imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Stopping a thief from stealing
livestock or jeeps is not enough, even in Texas.
>> The cover of night constitutes threat.
Not exactly. Darkness alone does not render a situation one where there is an
imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Read the following, which is
consistent with the law in every other state:
California Jury Instructions--Criminal CALJIC 5.12. Justifiable Homicide in
Self-Defense
"The killing of another person in self-defense is justifiable and not unlawful
when the person who does the killing actually and reasonably believes:
"1. That there is imminent danger that the other person will either kill [him]
[her] or cause [him] [her] great bodily injury; and
"2. That it is necessary under the circumstances for [him] [her] to use in
self- defense force or means that might cause the death of the other person for
the purpose of avoiding death or great bodily injury to [himself] [herself].
"A bare fear of death or great bodily injury is not sufficient to justify a
homicide. To justify taking the life of another in self-defense, the
circumstances must be such as would excite the fears of a reasonable person
placed in a similar position, and the party killing must act under the
influence of those fears alone. The danger must be apparent, present, immediate
and instantly dealt with, or must so appear at the time to the slayer as a
reasonable person, and the killing must be done under a well-founded belief
that it is necessary to save one's self from death or great bodily harm."
"In order to justify a homicide under the plea of self-defense, it must appear
not only that the defendant actually believed himself in deadly peril, but that
as a reasonable man he had sufficient grounds for his belief." (People v.
Williams, 75 Cal.App.3d 731, 739, 142 Cal.Rptr. 704, 709 (1st Dist.1977).)
Go ahead, use your firearm against jeep thieves. State prisons are full of
guys who had a "good excuse" for what they did because they read once in a
newspaper that someone else avoided punishment for doing what appeared to them
to be the same thing, and because they thought they could understand the
nuances of the law without ever setting foot in a law school.
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
>> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH.
That's because there is no state that excuses the use of deadly force absent an
imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Stopping a thief from stealing
livestock or jeeps is not enough, even in Texas.
>> The cover of night constitutes threat.
Not exactly. Darkness alone does not render a situation one where there is an
imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Read the following, which is
consistent with the law in every other state:
California Jury Instructions--Criminal CALJIC 5.12. Justifiable Homicide in
Self-Defense
"The killing of another person in self-defense is justifiable and not unlawful
when the person who does the killing actually and reasonably believes:
"1. That there is imminent danger that the other person will either kill [him]
[her] or cause [him] [her] great bodily injury; and
"2. That it is necessary under the circumstances for [him] [her] to use in
self- defense force or means that might cause the death of the other person for
the purpose of avoiding death or great bodily injury to [himself] [herself].
"A bare fear of death or great bodily injury is not sufficient to justify a
homicide. To justify taking the life of another in self-defense, the
circumstances must be such as would excite the fears of a reasonable person
placed in a similar position, and the party killing must act under the
influence of those fears alone. The danger must be apparent, present, immediate
and instantly dealt with, or must so appear at the time to the slayer as a
reasonable person, and the killing must be done under a well-founded belief
that it is necessary to save one's self from death or great bodily harm."
"In order to justify a homicide under the plea of self-defense, it must appear
not only that the defendant actually believed himself in deadly peril, but that
as a reasonable man he had sufficient grounds for his belief." (People v.
Williams, 75 Cal.App.3d 731, 739, 142 Cal.Rptr. 704, 709 (1st Dist.1977).)
Go ahead, use your firearm against jeep thieves. State prisons are full of
guys who had a "good excuse" for what they did because they read once in a
newspaper that someone else avoided punishment for doing what appeared to them
to be the same thing, and because they thought they could understand the
nuances of the law without ever setting foot in a law school.
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
#138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <20030826141658.10910.00000789@mb-m14.aol.com>,
rdbillsjr@aol.comxxxxxxxx (Robert Bills) wrote:
> Go ahead, use your firearm against jeep thieves. State prisons are full of
> guys who had a "good excuse" for what they did because they read once in a
> newspaper that someone else avoided punishment for doing what appeared to them
> to be the same thing, and because they thought they could understand the
> nuances of the law without ever setting foot in a law school.
>
Did you not read the post of Texas law? California is VASTLY different.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
rdbillsjr@aol.comxxxxxxxx (Robert Bills) wrote:
> Go ahead, use your firearm against jeep thieves. State prisons are full of
> guys who had a "good excuse" for what they did because they read once in a
> newspaper that someone else avoided punishment for doing what appeared to them
> to be the same thing, and because they thought they could understand the
> nuances of the law without ever setting foot in a law school.
>
Did you not read the post of Texas law? California is VASTLY different.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <20030826141658.10910.00000789@mb-m14.aol.com>,
rdbillsjr@aol.comxxxxxxxx (Robert Bills) wrote:
> Go ahead, use your firearm against jeep thieves. State prisons are full of
> guys who had a "good excuse" for what they did because they read once in a
> newspaper that someone else avoided punishment for doing what appeared to them
> to be the same thing, and because they thought they could understand the
> nuances of the law without ever setting foot in a law school.
>
Did you not read the post of Texas law? California is VASTLY different.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
rdbillsjr@aol.comxxxxxxxx (Robert Bills) wrote:
> Go ahead, use your firearm against jeep thieves. State prisons are full of
> guys who had a "good excuse" for what they did because they read once in a
> newspaper that someone else avoided punishment for doing what appeared to them
> to be the same thing, and because they thought they could understand the
> nuances of the law without ever setting foot in a law school.
>
Did you not read the post of Texas law? California is VASTLY different.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
>Did you not read the post of Texas law? California is VASTLY different.
I read the all of the relavant statutes in the Texas Penal Code, which is NOT
significantly different from California law as to what is required to justify
the use of force/deadly force for protection of property:
"§§ 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 (non-deadly) force against the other
under Section 9.41 (defense against trespass); 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."
"§§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a
device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is NOT designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a
substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; AND
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor
reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device."
You should read section 9.42 again, very carefully this time. You cannot use
deadly force, even at night, unless "the land or property cannot be protected
or recovered by any other means" or "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."
I rest my case.
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
I read the all of the relavant statutes in the Texas Penal Code, which is NOT
significantly different from California law as to what is required to justify
the use of force/deadly force for protection of property:
"§§ 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 (non-deadly) force against the other
under Section 9.41 (defense against trespass); 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."
"§§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a
device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is NOT designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a
substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; AND
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor
reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device."
You should read section 9.42 again, very carefully this time. You cannot use
deadly force, even at night, unless "the land or property cannot be protected
or recovered by any other means" or "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."
I rest my case.
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/...p-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com