Destroying property in the midst of a dispute, even your own property, is an act of violence and intimidation, and as such, is an implied threat of violence against the person with whom you are arguing. Even if you say “no, it isn’t”, it’s very hard to argue that the other person should not in any way feel threatened by your violent acts.
I for one would firmly believe that you’re no longer “under control” and that I have reason to believe that violence against my person is imminent.
The one doing the breaking is going to lose this argument in court, every single time.
Well, domestic violence laws have spun a life of their own. Like everything else in this country, we go from one extreme to another. It used to be that if you beat your wife, it was considered a private, marital matter.
Now, the state wants to step in at the first sign of an argument and be the referee.
You know, I’d never really thought about this sort of thing, pretty much assuming that if it was yours, you had the right to break it. But, upon looking a few things up, I find that there’s a statute in my state about it. Let me quote the two adjacent statutes, from Texas Penal Code, chapter 28, titled “Arson, Criminal Mischief, and Other Property Damage or Destruction”:
What’s bothering me is that last phrase: “…if another person has an interest that the actor is not entitled to infringe.” It was my understanding (bearing in mind that I don’t much deal with the civil side of things) that, even though both partners in a marriage have an interest in community property, that either partner in a marriage has full rights to do what they wish with community property. Sell it, burn it, give it away, spend it on Hummel figurines, whatever. So, before I do further research, that would seem to me like being “entitled to infringe”. But, I’ll keep poking around.