Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
1) Dont assume you know more than everyone.
2) The homeowner doesnt have to prove a "viable and real" threat, the state has to prove that at the time the homeowner knew he didnt posess a threat (till proven guilty.. remember that one?). Once they enter someone's elses property illegally, they give reasonable proof of being a real threat. The homeowner is not obligated to turn on the lights, giving himself away in a VERY dangerous situation, to see if the intruder has a weapon. Now you can go on the law if you like but if you did in fact graduate law school you will know that in MANY cases the intent of the law is considered more heavily than the actual word usage.
3) According to self defense laws the person who feels threatened is allowed to take whatever instant action he feels necissary as long as it's not premeditated. I.E. He cant go to his car to get a gun, but if it's right next to him he's allowed to grab and use it.
|
as far as thinking i know more than everyone, i honestly don't. but someone even
mildly acquainted with the related statutes and case law of self-defense, let alone burglarly/theft would know better than to sound off with alot of the things in this thread--especially the ones who think that killing a trespasser for simply trespassing or a burglar for simply burgling is acceptable in states like Texas. the key point i've attempted to make since the first post in this thread is that people need to do two things before posting about "what is legal": 1) speak from a point of being informed, and 2) have a position that is at least somehow grounded in fact or verifiable legal documentation/cases/rulings.
secondly, self-defense is one of the few times an accused has a burden of proof at all in our legal system. whether it simply be preponderance of the evidence or reasonable doubt, they have to have a legitimate claim to the fact that they honestly believed their life was threatened. does it have to be 100% verifiable? absolutely not. does it have to show that a reasonable person in a like situation would feel/think/act the same way? yes. I'm not saying anything is ironclad, but it has to fall somewhere within the realm of reason. shooting a man in the back with a shotgun who is running away from you doesn't constitute self-defense. it may constitute home-defense, but many people in this thread failed to understand that there lies a fundamental difference in the concepts of self-defense and home-defense.
as far as going off the intent of the law rather than the letter, there I agree with you. however, in the case of burglary and the subsequent acts of homeowners taking the law into their own hands, the intent of the courts and their interpretation of the law is pretty clear--vigilante justice is not something they generally appreciate. just as with any rule of life, legal proceeding, or written legislation, there will be exceptions of the rule--the point is to make people realize that they
are exceptions, and
not the rule.