In article <bieijr010kl@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote:


Learn to read.

Off topic. Take it to tx.guns.

I am a Texas CHL Holder. I had to test to get it. This is part of the
test.

It is regularly in the news.

> (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


-----= 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! =-----

 

In article <bieing010nm@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote:

> "Jeepers" <moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
> news:moomesa-6CBA4D.16400325082003@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> > In article <1kv2b.34498$la.467682@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>,
> > "JeepTJ" <jeeptj@shaw.caNOSPAM> wrote:
> >
> > > I can almost understand if someone is stealing to feed their family
> (milk,
> > > bread, etc). But you can't feed jeep parts to your son. That guy
> should be
> > > shot in the back.
> > >
> > > My 2 cents.
> >
> > Your 2 cents equals murder.
> >
>
> Not murder in Texas if the thief has your property or is trying to take your
> property.
>
>
If it turns out he is dangerous, perhaps. But one has to live with the
shooting decision.


-----= 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! =-----

 

In article <bieing010nm@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote:

> "Jeepers" <moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
> news:moomesa-6CBA4D.16400325082003@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> > In article <1kv2b.34498$la.467682@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>,
> > "JeepTJ" <jeeptj@shaw.caNOSPAM> wrote:
> >
> > > I can almost understand if someone is stealing to feed their family
> (milk,
> > > bread, etc). But you can't feed jeep parts to your son. That guy
> should be
> > > shot in the back.
> > >
> > > My 2 cents.
> >
> > Your 2 cents equals murder.
> >
>
> Not murder in Texas if the thief has your property or is trying to take your
> property.
>
>
If it turns out he is dangerous, perhaps. But one has to live with the
shooting decision.


-----= 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! =-----

 

In article <zMA2b.5058$Pd3.399185@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:

> RB,
> and your a Native American?????

Naw, he's TEXAN. We were a country once.


-----= 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! =-----

 

In article <zMA2b.5058$Pd3.399185@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:

> RB,
> and your a Native American?????

Naw, he's TEXAN. We were a country once.


-----= 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! =-----

 

In article <bJF2b.3772$Jh2.1904@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"YJ" <Jeepaholics@earthlink.net> wrote:

> In Texas as the rest of the west there once was a time when you hung from
> a
> > tree for stealing a horse.

They don't hang for long.


-----= 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! =-----

 

In article <bJF2b.3772$Jh2.1904@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"YJ" <Jeepaholics@earthlink.net> wrote:

> In Texas as the rest of the west there once was a time when you hung from
> a
> > tree for stealing a horse.

They don't hang for long.


-----= 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! =-----

 

I don't see anything in there that specifically states that the use of
deadly force is permittable against another person where no personal
threat is present. In fact, it specifically state that:

(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, the BS stands.

Russ B wrote:

> "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:%Vu2b.3550$UW7.1897@newssvr22.news.prodigy.co m...
>
>>BS. Next?
>>
>
>
> BS yourself! Here is a snippet straight off of the Texas Penal Code,
> available for your perusal at
> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...tml#pe010.9.32
>
> SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
>
>
>
> § 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, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
> Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
>
>
> § 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.
>
>

--
__________________________________________________ _________
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)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

I don't see anything in there that specifically states that the use of
deadly force is permittable against another person where no personal
threat is present. In fact, it specifically state that:

(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, the BS stands.

Russ B wrote:

> "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:%Vu2b.3550$UW7.1897@newssvr22.news.prodigy.co m...
>
>>BS. Next?
>>
>
>
> BS yourself! Here is a snippet straight off of the Texas Penal Code,
> available for your perusal at
> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...tml#pe010.9.32
>
> SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
>
>
>
> § 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, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
> Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
>
>
> § 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.
>
>

--
__________________________________________________ _________
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)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

That's the point I'm trying to make, thanks.

YJ wrote:

> TEXAS.
>
> But iffy at best. A friend of mine was awakened by someone stealing bricks
> (yes, BRICKS) from his yard. He leaned out the window and put a 30.06
> through the guys head. That stopped the theft. He almost bankrupted himself
> with lawyers fees to get out of it. The big thing in Texas is if the sun has
> gone down. Thats the rub. Dark, you're probably OK, with lawyers fees....
> Daylight, only if your life is endangered.
>
>
> "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:TMu2b.3547$UW7.1764@newssvr22.news.prodigy.co m...
>
>>Which state allows using deadly force when life isn't endangered???
>>
>>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:27:38 GMT, the following appeared in
>>>rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, posted by kevin
>>><kevin@el.net>:
>>>
>>>Check your state laws, but I believe you'll find that *no*
>>>state allows unattended booby traps. And using lethal force
>>>when life isn't endangered is also usually a no-no, although
>>>this varies by state.
>>
>>--
>>________________________________________________ ___________
>>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)
>>________________________________________________ ___________
>>
>
>
>

--
__________________________________________________ _________
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)
__________________________________________________ _________