Appropriate use of deadly force Texas style

[JohnKSa]

I'm not comfortable with this as a justification for the use of deadly force.

I wasn't presenting it as a justification, just explaining how I read the law.

Also pointing out that the law itself contains nothing that might be interpreted as valuing human life in terms of property or vice-versa.

It seems to me that if it's a valid argument in the case of property crime, it could also be used to justify the use of deadly force to prevent or stop all sorts of other crimes: drunk driving, indecent exposure, or littering, for example.

Of course it could--assuming that the public and the representatives of the public/legislators felt that was reasonable. Just as the public and the legislators believe that it is reasonable to allow people to use deadly force to protect life in many places and have passed laws reflecting that belief.

It's not clear to me that "But it's mine!" is a sufficient reason to put a petty theft in a different category from these.

That's a pretty oversimplified version of the law.

As I mentioned earlier, if one reads the law, it is fairly obvious that deadly force is allowed under circumstances where there is little to no chance that the law would be able to recover the property--in other words, under circumstances engineered by the thief/robber/burglar to make identification/apprehension/prosecution nearly impossible. The law simply allows the property owner to do what he can in a situation where the law is impotent to provide redress.

So, for example, if a thief doesn't want to be legally shot in TX for theft, he can commit theft in the daytime. It's illegal to use deadly force for simple theft in the daytime because the assumption is that if the property owner is close enough to use deadly force in the daytime he is able to see the thief and therefore the chance of being able to identify the thief to the authorities is sufficient for the law to take control of the situation. Under those circumstances the property owner can't use deadly force--he has to report the crime, tell law enforcement what he saw and what happened and then let the government deal with the crime.

If one wants to attempt to justify this law, the place to start is with that theme--the idea that the government will not tie the hands of a property owner to recover his property in a situation where the circumstances make it essentially impossible for the government to deal with the problem.

The law clearly isn't about ruling on the relative value of life vs property; it's based on the idea that if the government can't help, it steps back and allows the property owner to do what he can to resolve the situation.

 

[Evan Thomas]

If one wants to attempt to justify this law, the place to start is with that theme--the idea that the government will not tie the hands of a property owner to recover his property in a situation where the circumstances make it essentially impossible for the government to deal with the problem.

I have read the law, and I know that's the rationale behind it. I'd OK with it, if it stopped short of allowing the use of deadly force. The question Glenn raised was the moral one:

Thus, his action was moral if you go by the standard of the law of the land. If you disagree with the law's principle then in your view it was immoral.

It's really like one of Kohlberg's exercises. The action is moral under a Stage 4 Conventional morality view. A 5 or 6th level analysis might say no.

It's the principle -- permitting deadly force to recover personal property -- that I disagree with, and that principle really does come down to "But it's mine!" For that to be a justification for homicide, a culture must put a very high value on property rights.

In some cultures, "honor killings" are justifiable. In that case, the justification is basically "But he dissed me!" or "But she shamed me!" It's not that long ago that it was commonplace in France for men to be acquitted of murder in crimes passionels, and they can be treated differently in this country, as well. See this 1994 case in Maryland, in which the judge basically said that it was justifiable for a man to have killed his wife four hours after finding her with another man. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter, and the judge said he regretted having to send him to prison. In that case, the justification comes down to "But she betrayed me!"

The primary consideration in making law should be the ethical standards of the society; whether the government is always able to prevent or redress a particular crime should be secondary to that. In Texas, the standards of the community place property ahead of life in some circumstances, and that's different from the standards in other parts of the country.

It seems to me that exploring those differences is the point of this thread.

 

[JohnKSa]

It's the principle -- permitting deadly force to recover personal property -- that I disagree with, and that principle really does come down to "But it's mine!"

I would argue that the principle is more accurately described as: "We (society) see that you tried everything else and it didn't work, and we see that the criminal arranged things so that we won't be able to help you. We also see that anything else you try would place your life in danger, and we realize that you are left with only one alternative to merely standing by and allowing yourself to be victimized. Therefore we will allow you to act on your own behalf to recover the property and prevent you (a member of society) from being victimized."

In other words, minor emphasis on the property and major emphasis on coming up with a way to prevent a member of society from being victimized in a case where the law can't do anything about it. If you think about it, that's really what laws should be all about--attempting to prevent the victimization of members of society by criminals.

Just to be clear, I would never shoot anyone over property for a number of reasons, but I don't want to see the law changed either. Not because it is a law that would ever keep me from going to jail but because I believe it is a law that makes me (and the other members of society) somewhat less likely to be victimized.

 

[arch308]

I must agree with John. He stated it better than I could have. As stated earlier, if you can't protect your property then you have no real right to own property. It is the thief that causes the problem. They made the decision to steal knowing what can happen if caught.
Would I use deadly force to stop someone from stealing my lawn sprinkler? Of course not. Would I use it as a last resort to stop someone from getting away with my Harley? Damn straight. I'm not sure where I would draw a line tho.

 

[Evan Thomas]

In other words, minor emphasis on the property and major emphasis on coming up with a way to prevent a member of society from being victimized in a case where the law can't do anything about it.

But why should this include the right to use deadly force?

Your argument that it's legitimate because "... it is the criminal who makes the decision(s) that what he is stealing is worth the risk of his life" seems to be contradicted by what you wrote in an earlier post:

Just because a person breaks a law doesn't mean they give up all their essential rights. In TX, the offense of prostitution is a Class B misdemeanor (level 2 of 3 levels of misdemeanor), only one level up from a traffic ticket. How much do you believe a conviction of a mid-level misdemeanor should impair one's rights?

The theft committed by the young woman in the case we're discussing was also a Class B misdemeanor, yet the jury found that by committing it, she had, in effect, given up her right to life.

Theft is a class B misdemeanor in Texas if the value of the property or services stolen is $50 or more but less than $500, or if the property stolen is a driver's license or other identification card. (Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(2).) The punishment for a class B misdemeanor in Texas is a sentence of confinement in jail for a term of not more than 180 days a fine of not more than $2,000, or both. (§ 12.22.)

So if deliberate but minor criminality doesn't, in itself, impair fundamental rights, what ethical principle puts Person A's right not to be "victimized" ahead of Person B's right to life?

The crimes in question are viewed similarly by the law. The only difference between the two (prostitution and theft) is that one is a crime against property and the other is not.
----
*Link.

 

[arch308]

Just my take Vanya but person "B" made the decision that put his/her life in danger whereas person "A" didn't decide to be a victim. I still believe a person should be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Arch, read my post again. It points to reasons why that's a problematic argument.

 

[MLeake]

While Vanya may disagree, I think JohnKSa is correct when he says,

In effect, it is the criminal who makes the decision(s) that what he is stealing is worth the risk of his life.

Frankly, I don't care if it's a junkie supporting a habit; a teenager pulling a "prank;" you name it. I am not saying I would shoot at a kid for stealing a garden gnome in a scavenger hunt, but I am saying that the kid is in fact choosing to run the risk of watchdogs biting or cranky old guys shooting.

 

[arch308]

I really don't see the problem. The right to defend ones life and property pretty much overshadow a criminals "right to life". JMO and not backed up by anything but my own personal compass.

 

[manta49]

I really don't see the problem. The right to defend ones life and property pretty much overshadow a criminals "right to life". JMO and not backed up by anything but my own personal compass.

So if a teenager stole your a pencil out of your pocket and ran away you would feel it was proportionate response to shoot them.

 

[MLeake]

manta49, what if your teenager stole the compass my grandfather used to carry on search and rescue missions, which is my only physical memento of the man?

 

[manta49]

manta49, what if your teenager stole the compass my grandfather used to carry on search and rescue missions, which is my only physical memento of the man?

You tell me if you think its worth shooting someone for. Are you saying it depends on what they take.

 

[arch308]

Manta, that was a stupid question. Nobody is saying kill a teenager for stealing a pencil. Sometimes I think you just like to stir the pot.

 

[MLeake]

manta49, I think the thief takes his chances, in a moral sense. I would not take the shot, living where I do, as it would be unlawful.

In Texas, after dark, I will let the thief wonder what I would do.

As far as it depending on what is taken, I only raised the point because it seems to matter to you - so you must have some theoretical floor in mind.

If so, I would point out that what would be a trivial amount to a Gates, Buffett, or Bloomberg could easily be next month's rent and grocery money to another victim.

 

[manta49]

Manta, that was a stupid question. Nobody is saying kill a teenager for stealing a pencil. Sometimes I think you just like to stir the pot

I was replying to the post bellow. I think its a fair question the individual in question stole a few dollars. When do you start shooting a pencil is your personal property. Where do you draw the line steeling your watch your money a pencil.

I really don't see the problem. The right to defend ones life and property pretty much overshadow a criminals "right to life". JMO and not backed up by anything but my own personal compass

 

[Evan Thomas]

Stop bickering. This is a perfectly good thread, and there's no need to ruin it with childish squabbling.

 

[arch308]

I never said I thought justice was carried out in the shooting of the Hooker. I was talking in a broader sense like this thread has been. Common sense tells me I wouldn't consider using deadly force for a pencil, or a few dollars. $150 is not a few dollars. That's a considerable sum to many people but still I don't think I would risk the legal ramifications of a shooting for it, not because I think it was morally wrong to use deadly force to protect it but because I can't afford the legal costs.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Legal scholar tend to have negative views on evaluating the use of lethal force based on a monetary scale. The yes-no decision is whether any lethal defense of property based on value is appropriate. Most would say No.

Lethal force to defend property that is necessary for life might be a special case. The money for your needed medicine or a genetic sample that uniquely has the cure for cancer. But even then, there is always the chance that you will get the money or someone else will make the breakthrough.

Rationally, you cannot use value as a decision point if right to life is the predominate decision. Once you abandon that - then the specifics of the crime may count. In TX, the designing presumptions were that a theft at night had more of a life threat to you and the irreplaceable property loss was such that it would damage your life. You did not take the burden of hoping for the curative financial miracle.

So in our case, you may not like it - but that is not good legal principles - but if the action fit the law of the land in this unusual circumstance, the jury acted correctly. Saying you don't like it - is very surface analysis.

 

[manta49]

So in our case, you may not like it - but that is not good legal principles - but if the action fit the law of the land in this unusual circumstance, the jury acted correctly. Saying you don't like it - is very surface analysis.

Probably a stupid question I am not a lawyer. If the law in Texas says that shooting someone stealing your money etc is legal, and I assume the law makers were happy with the law and the way it was written why did the case go to court. Could this incident make them look at the law again and make changes.

 

[JohnKSa]

But why should this include the right to use deadly force?

It only allows deadly force when all other alternatives have been exhausted and any other course of action would place the property owner's life in danger. The focus is still on preventing victimization and provides that if one goes through entire the progression in the law and is left no other option, they can take it to the next level.

The theft committed by the young woman in the case we're discussing was also a Class B misdemeanor, yet the jury found that by committing it, she had, in effect, given up her right to life.

My statement was: "Just because a person breaks a law doesn't mean they give up all their essential rights." The emphasis is on the word "all". Clearly we always give up some rights when we break a law, but we never give them all up. For example, a home invader who murders and rapes gives up his right to not be shot at while he is committing the crime, but that doesn't mean he could be legally confined and tortured.

In a more closely related example, in TX, as you pointed out, a person who is committing a crime more serious than a class C misdemeanor gives up the right to use deadly force in self-defense, regardless of the circumstances; however, they clearly don't give up the right to protect their property with deadly force if the circumstances of the situation warrant it.

If the law in Texas says that shooting someone stealing your money etc is legal, and I assume the law makers were happy with the law and the way it was written why did the case go to court.

The case was to decide if the circumstances of the case were consistent with the requirements in the law that provide the justification for the use of deadly force.

In this type of case, the property owner will likely be charged and tried and will have to prove, in court, that their claim of justification is valid by presenting evidence and arguments to support that claim.

Could this incident make them look at the law again and make changes.

It certainly could. I would even go so far as to guess that if this case does provide impetus for a change it would be to include a clause like the ones in TX self-defense law that stipulate that the person using deadly force can't be involved in criminal activity that rises above a certain severity level.