"The result of the new statutory system is to allow defense of property to justify a homicide, but only if the property is inside a dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. If the incident occurs outside of those areas a permittee can use reasonable force to defend his or her property, but not necessarily deadly force. [143] A permittee would not be wise to use his or her concealed handgun to defend [p.349] property outside of the three protected areas because use of a firearm could violate the limit of “reasonable force.” [144] Use of a handgun could be deadly force, even if the permittee does not intend to kill the attacker.
The present system could produce results that do not hinge on the value of the property. A man can kill to defend his decrepit car even though it is only worth a few hundred dollars, but a merchant walking to the bank with several thousand dollars cannot use deadly force to defend that money. [145] If the distinction which allows defense of property is not based on value, it becomes difficult to discern upon what it is based. Perhaps the legislature is focusing on the right of an individual to be secure while on private property. One unlawfully intruding upon that private property forfeits the right to be protected against homicide. Conversely, a person in his own home gains the right to kill to prevent unlawful entry."
I believe Dio is partially from Louisiana too. He should know that.
We’re not talking about people breaking into homes. People in this thread are saying we should just randomly kill anyone slogging through the water with a bag of groceries on his back.
Dio will likely say that Texas is a backwards state for having such a law.
What is unclear to me is where Dio’s book is – the one from which he is confidently asserting what is and isn’t a right.
I have ideas on what is and isn’t a right, too. But I suspect Dio isn’t going to accept my judgements. why he expects me to accept his judgements isn’t too clear, either.
We have a system for resolving these sorts of disputes. We elect leaders, and the leaders make laws. If we don’t like what they’ve done, we can elect new leaders who will change the laws.
I think abortion is a scourge, an absolutely evil practice. But I recognize that not everyone agrees with me, and that the law of the land favors legal abortion. I don’t scream about how “no one has the right to kill an unborn baby,” because they in fact do. I work to get the law changed, but in the meantime, I acknowledge it as the mutally-agreed-upon arbiter of our rights.
Now comes Dio into the picture. He agrees with the law concerning abortion. So that’s a valid exercise of law-making power. He doesn’t like another aspect of the law: the right to use deadly force to protect property. So that law, he says, is not only backwards, but is invalid.
Now, the backwards comment is a fair one. When he moves to saying that it’s invalid, that you have no right to use deadly force even though the law grants it… THAT’S when I think Dio is horrifically inconsistent or uninformed.
You know, you still haven’t explained to me just how Fox News was “especially racist” while they were running the same pool footage of the looters as everyone else and, as you said in your post, refrained from saying anything about race. You gonna explain that one?
The scenario that we’re talking about does not involve people protecting their own homes or buisnesses, but about whether people should be summarily gunned down merely for possessing stolen property.
Well, as it happens, I have checked the Bible, and there seems to be considerable support in some parts for killing, and considerable opposition to it in others.
Are you suggesting we base secular public policy on the Bible?
It’s specious to say that the law grants it. We are not talking about using deadly force to stop a robbery, we’re talking about the summary execution of anyone in the streets with stolen merchanise. Surely you can see the difference.
Its not that they don’t feel it would be an effective tactic. It is that they feel it would be an extremely dangerous tactic given the number of troops and law enforcement on the ground right now. They are outnumbered and anarchy reins, They would need to kill anyone that they got in a violent confrontation with because there is no place to take prisoners. They need many times the National Guard troops on the ground right now. I assume someone is working on calling up additional National Guard troops but I haven’t heard much about that in a day or so. If the additional troops were on the ground, then I would advocate a strong show of deadly force.
Brian Williams was talking about people who have been rinsing and recycling disposable diapers for three days. If that doesn’t signify the degree of utter desperation these people are feeling, I don’t know what does. There’s some kind of psychological regression going on here. Many of them have never been beyond the city limits. This is their whole world. The only world they’ve ever known. A disaster of apocalyptic proportions does scary things to the human psyche. I feel despair watching their lives unravel minute by minute. I’m not even going to try to imagine what the hell is going on in *their * heads.
Oh wow. I am from Logansport, LA in Desoto Parish but near Shreveport. I even went to Southwood High School for a while. Isn’t it funny that too people can be from the same area and yet be so different.
Even the firmest law-and-order types are clearly referring to a scenario in which looters caught in the act of stealing items with no plausible relationship to survival scrounging and who fail to disperse on command are subject to lethal force.
That, not the right to kill anyone who happens to offend them like a medieval shogun, is the authorization given to the police and National Guard under a declared state of martial law.
