In Texas you can shoot a prostitute for $150

In My Humble Opinion
21

Yes, it is a stupid question. Very stupid, actually. We value life. What we don’t value are burglars and thieves.

The actual text of the Texas Penal Code reads as follows.

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.

22

In other words - no.

23

Is it just me or does the addition of “nighttime” to the above seem curiously inexact?

Surely this leaves too much open to interpretation. I mean is “nighttime” after dark, after 7pm, 9pm, after the evening news?

Is “nighttime” perhaps defined elsewhere in the penal code?

24

To me, a non-Texan, that reads as “yes, life might be valued, but not as much as Sony Vaio or a PS2”. Either that person leaves with the property and lives or we are legally allowing you to kill a person to make sure the property doesn’t get away.

Also, why the weird line of “nighttime”. Is dusk or dawn ok too? Also, couldn’t criminal mischief be toilet papering one’s house? That’s a shootin’.

25

And what is your opinion about this case and the jury’s decision?

26

Would you be OK with the death penalty for a convicted thief?

27

Do you feel that in this particular case the person qualified as a thief?

28

Or, to look at it another way, suppose the woman had shot the man. And then defended herself by saying he wanted to have sex with her (true) and she wasn’t consenting to the sex (also true). So she shot him to defend herself from a rape.

Not a complete picture of what happened but I’d say it was as accurate a description as claiming it was a robbery.

29

In fairness, one can distinguish between the use of deadly force to recover stolen property and its use as a punishment following conviction. In the former case, the death of the thief is incidental to the recovery of property, which is the legitimate interest of the victim; the victim is remedying an actual harm to himself. In the case of the death penalty, the thief has already been convicted, and the stolen property either recovered or deemed irrecoverable; the death of the thief has nothing to do with making the victim whole.

Now, I think both cases are disgusting; it’s absurd to kill someone over property, and it’s disgusting for the State to kill someone in their custody at all. But I could see an argument for the Texas law, but against the death penalty for theft, that is not internally inconsistent.

30

All I learned from that is that you value property. You could have just said “no”.

31

So if I get pickpocketed at night for $1 by a thief who starts to runs away, I can shoot to kill him?

32

In reaching this conclusion, did you consider Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(b)(1)?

It seems to me that it supports the opposite conclusion.

He didn’t give her the money “willingly,” because consent is not effective if it is induced by deception. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(3)(A). “Deception” means:

or

Can you explain how you reached the opposite conclusion?

33

does that mean you can kill someone and just plant your wallet on him?

34

I’ve been searching the Texas Penal Code and so far have found no definition of “nighttime.”

Maybe they use the “black thread/white thread” test. :stuck_out_tongue:

35

It certainly wasn’t a robbery.

But it was theft.

We’re all clear on the distinction, yes?

36

If I ever get ambitious enough to become a world-dominating supervillain, and I need to blow up a state to demonstrate my new moon laser to a disbelieving public, Texas will be the one.

I know there are some decent people there, but what an irredeemably awful place.

37

Well, lucky for that guy, he doesn’t have to even prove deception. “Hey, let me get some condoms first at the store with the money you just gave me”-“Nah, I’ll just shoot you instead” could just be taken care of without clogging up the courts. Or do we know that “here’s $150 and we will have the beej in a week when those sores clear up” defense. Since we don’t know the dead’s side of the story, we really don’t know if deception was caused or not.

38

I agree, it’s troubling. I don’t think anyone should be killed for stealing, whether it’s $150 or $150,000 or $1.50.

Also it does seem vaguely worded to me. I don’t understand why it would be okay to shoot someone who steals your iPhone at 11PM, but not at 11AM.

According to Wikipedia (which I realize could be wrong) TPing counts as vandalism if property damage occurs. And vandalism does count as criminal mischief. So it does sound like you could lay out a good defense for shooting and killing teenagers who are TPing your house.

39

Easily. Not having proper legal training on how to access and interpret laws, I formed an opinion as a layman. “]In reaching this conclusion, did you consider Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(b)(1)?” indeed. :rolleyes: Am I supposed to crawl away in shame because I’m not a lawyer now?

40

Does it matter that much though, as the relevant part of the penal code seems to cover robbery and theft?