Florida Man Stands His Ground

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Peregrine**

Smacks wrote:
There is no expectation for people to use their discretion, or respond with a proportional amount of force, it's just straight to lethal force.

Uh, no. Nowhere is there an expectation that you go straight to lethal force in any situation but a violent attack where the use of force in self defense is justified. Throwing popcorn, holding a phone that might be a gun, etc, are not acceptable situations for the use of any force. If you go straight to lethal force in those situations you will go to prison and nobody will have any sympathy for you.

What US law and culture actually accept is going straight to lethal force when threatened with violence or attacked. If someone pulls a knife on you and tries to stab you there's no obligation to consider if there are lesser degrees of force that might get the job done, you are being attacked with lethal force and can respond appropriately. There is no second-guessing about whether you could have run away successfully, or if the attacker would have caught you and stabbed you in the back. There is no concern about "discretion" to avoid causing harm to someone who has forfeited their right to life by violently attacking an innocent victim. And I greatly prefer a culture and legal system where, when you are faced with a violent attacker, you can use whatever means are necessary to make sure that you survive, instead of worrying about what the law allows you to respond with as someone is actively trying to kill you.

Contrast that with UK culture, where even the police don't carry guns, and everyone and their dog knows that it's not lawful to kill someone for throwing popcorn at you, or for throwing their phone at you, or to preemptively kill someone because you're concerned they "might" punch you.

Everyone in the US knows this, especially the people who have had to pass a test on the legal use of force in self defense to get their concealed handgun permits.

**Smacks**

Peregrine wrote:
Smacks wrote:
There is no expectation for people to use their discretion, or respond with a proportional amount of force, it's just straight to lethal force.

Uh, no. Nowhere is there an expectation that you go straight to lethal force in any situation but a violent attack where the use of force in self defense is justified.

I think you might be getting the wrong end of the stick here. I agree that there is no legal justification, my point is about mixed messages to the public. It has already been stated in this topic, and I've seen plenty of times before. Look...

Vaktathi wrote:
it's generally assumed that in the US, if someone is in your home unknown unannounced and uninvited, that a self defense situation exists by default.

And we all know a "self defence situation" in America means: "get the gun".

Peregrine wrote:
Contrast that with UK culture, where even the police don't carry guns, and everyone and their dog knows that it's not lawful to kill someone for throwing popcorn at you, or for throwing their phone at you, or to preemptively kill someone because you're concerned they "might" punch you.

Everyone in the US knows this, especially the people who have had to pass a test on the legal use of force in self defense to get their concealed handgun permits.

Evidently, this guy didn't know that he wasn't supposed to kill someone for throwing popcorn, and he was a cop (I can find many more like him). OR perhaps he did know, and just drew his gun reflexively. In either case the guy is a ticking time bomb of stupidity, and you have created the perfect environment for him to go off. I don't believe that he's a so called "bad apple", there are potentially thousands more just like him, who just haven't had anyone throw popcorn at them yet.

**Peregrine**

Smacks wrote:
I think you might be getting the wrong end of the stick here. I agree that there is no legal justification, my point is about mixed messages to the public. It has already been stated in this topic, and I've seen plenty of times before. Look...

Vaktathi wrote:
it's generally assumed that in the US, if someone is in your home unknown unannounced and uninvited, that a self defense situation exists by default.
And we all know a "self defence situation" in America means: "get the gun".

That's true because "stranger in your house" is inherently a violent situation, or at least a situation where a reasonable expectation of violence exists. If someone breaks into your house while there are people present it's assumed that they are willing to accept a confrontation with the residents, because otherwise they would have ensured that nobody was home before breaking in. And if you are required to verify that they are actually armed and attempting to hurt you before you can do anything that's a good way to get yourself shot/stabbed/beaten/etc. The option that best protects the innocent victim's life is that lethal force can be used immediately.

And note that this does NOT excuse the use of lethal force when there is clearly no threat. If the intruder tries to run as soon as they hear that someone is home you don't get to shoot them in the back as they're heading out the door. You can't blow away a salesman the moment they step onto your porch. Etc. If you shoot someone in that kind of situation you're going to prison.

Evidently, this guy didn't know that he wasn't supposed to kill someone for throwing popcorn, and he was a cop (I can find many more like him). OR perhaps he did know, and just drew his gun reflexively. In either case the guy is a ticking time bomb of stupidity, and you have created the perfect environment for him to go off. I don't believe that he's a so called "bad apple", there are potentially thousands more just like him, who just haven't had anyone throw popcorn at them yet.

And yet we don't have all those thousands of "stand your ground" murders over trivial offenses. The obvious conclusion here is that he is a "bad apple", a violent

with anger problems no matter what badge he used to carry. The "stand your ground" issue appears to be nothing more than an attempt to get out of responsibility for murder, a murder that is the theater equivalent of road rage violence.

**Smacks**

Peregrine wrote:
And I greatly prefer a culture and legal system where, when you are faced with a violent attacker, you can use whatever means are necessary to make sure that you survive, instead of worrying about what the law allows you to respond with as someone is actively trying to kill you.

To be fair, the idea that anyone needs to worry about the law in the UK when someone is trying to kill you, is utter nonsense. However, if you have a gun in the house (as many rural homes do), and you discover a burglar, you could not assume a "self defence situation by default", unless they have a weapon or they attack, it would be considered unjustified to kill them (and rightly so, though the likelihood of a burglar with a gun in the UK is also much lower). Perhaps that is also the situation in America, but if it is, there sure seem to be a lot of people who don't know it.

**Peregrine**

Smacks wrote:
To be fair, the idea that anyone needs to worry about the law in the UK when someone is trying to kill you, is utter nonsense.

But that's the situation you've created by having laws limiting the use of force to the minimum that is "necessary". The idea that you can just do whatever you need and not worry about the law is nonsense, that's essentially saying "someday in the future we may or may not send you to prison for what you're about to do, after we analyze every detail of this situation with plenty of time to second-guess you, but don't worry about that". The only way to have a situation where you don't have to worry about the law is to assume that any level of force is justified in self defense once a credible threat of violence is presented.

However, if you have a gun in the house (as many rural homes do), and you discover a burglar, you could not assume a "self defence situation by default", unless they have a weapon or they attack, it would be considered unjustified to kill them (an rightly so). Perhaps that is also the situation in America, but if it is, there sure seem to be a lot of people who don't know it.

How do you know if they have a weapon? It's dark, you're still fighting off the brain fog of just being woken up by someone breaking down your door, and they sure aren't going to announce that they have a weapon. You either act immediately on the assumption that they have a weapon and are a threat, or you accept that if they do have a weapon you're going to get shot/stabbed/whatever before you can confirm the presence of a weapon and prepare your own. Sucks to be them if they didn't have a weapon, but perhaps they should have thought of that before committing a crime and putting themselves in a situation where being shot is a possibility.

**Frazzled**

Vaktathi wrote:
Spetulhu wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
I think we're at a point where there are fundamental differences in basic worldview on the whole "SYG" matter that this discussion is not going to solve.

You don't say? :-)

I'm probably more heavily armed than quite a few people even Americans would call "gun nuts". I've got a house full of axes and knives (go on, find me a Finn who doesn't own a single knife) and I'm the custodian for a gun safe containing my own, my brother's and my father's guns. That's a truckload of blades, enough shotguns to kill a zoo of rabbits, enough .308 and Swedish 6.5mm rifles to kill a herd of moose and a few .22 plinking pieces that could still kill someone in a pinch. And three chainsaws. So potentially I could stab or shoot any burglar with more choppa/dakka than your average Ork mob.

But that's usually not needed because, well, our burglars know people won't shoot them so they don't bring artillery on the job. An armed criminal over here is most often a drug dealer or bike gang member (funny enough criminal bike gangs usually deal in drugs) and he has zero interest in pointing his gun at some random citizen, he got it to keep himself and his stash safe from other armed criminals. He'll throw his gun on the floor if the police come for him since he knows they don't want to kill him either.
Most criminals aren't really looking to hurt anyone. Most people acknowledge that. The problem is the person who find them in their home doesn't know that for sure, and weird things happen when people get surprised, confronted, etc. Also, quite frequently, mind altering substances are in play which complicates things further. Additionally, a lot of these instances don't necessarily involve some unknown masked criminal breaking in and doing dastardly things, it may be the neighbors kid high out of his skull on PCP or the sister's ex boyfriend looking for a quick cash score from a place he's had the opportunity to case beforehand or a pissed off friend of a friend who got kicked out of the party for being a spanker and wants to cause trouble and gets carried away, and that can get real awkward. Ultimately, in my town we've had three people killed by homeowners in home invasions over the last year or so, only one of which was a random break in while the others apparently had some sort of previous interactions. Now, that's out of a metro population of nearly three million, but it does happen. Likewise, in some places in the US, those drug dealers or bikers breaking in absolutely won't hesitate to resort to violence if caught. There are some areas with reputations for good reason. They are rare, isolated exceptions, but absolutely exist. The US is just kind of a weird place relative to other developed nations.

Culturally, even with guns removed, the US just has more violence in general than most other developed nations. People also have...less respect for police authority in the US than in other nations, and are willing to be more aggressive. That's just a cultural anti-authoritarian streak, which while not unique to the US, is probably more aggressive in the US than most other developed nations. Relative to say, Japan, where almost nobody would refuse a police officer who asked to see their bag, that just wouldn't be socially acceptable, in the US police officers are instead frequently going to get a "**** off bacon grease, get a warrant!", and that carries over into willingness to get into confrontations with police as well for a variety of reasons.

US violence rates are higher more in line with the rest of the Americas.

**Smacks**

Peregrine wrote:
that's essentially saying "someday in the future we may or may not send you to prison for what you're about to do, after we analyze every detail of this situation with plenty of time to second-guess you, but don't worry about that"

In practice, you actually have a lot a lot of leeway regarding the proportional amount of force. You aren't expected to gauge it perfectly, and there are, in fact, good legal precedents for that. So long as you can reasonably show that you were acting in self defence, and not out of malice, the defence should be accepted.

Peregrine wrote:
The option that best protects the innocent victim's life is that lethal force can be used immediately.

Well, respectfully, that seems to be quite a typical attitude in the US, and it's a point I have already addressed, and made part of my argument. Firing immediately may be the right choice, or it might be a terrible choice, it actually depends on the situation.

Peregrine wrote:
How do you know if they have a weapon? It's dark, you're still fighting off the brain fog

By the same measure, if it's dark and you're fighting off brain fog, how do you know it's not one of your kids rummaging about in the kitchen?

**Frazzled**

In practice, you actually have a lot a lot of leeway regarding the proportional amount of force.

What is your expertise in making that statement?

**Smacks**

Frazzled wrote:
In practice, you actually have a lot a lot of leeway regarding the proportional amount of force.

What is your expertise in making that statement?

I'm just paraphrasing what expert judges have said during trials -- "If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action." -- Lord Morris

As I said, in the rest of that paragraph you quoted: there is a legal precedence for it. Morris also said "A jury will be told that the defence of self-defence will only fail if the prosecution show beyond reasonable doubt that what the accused did was not by way of self-defence."

EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that Self Defence in the UK is not an affirmative defence like in many parts of the US. For example, you don't have to admit a crime, but claim extenuating circumstances. You are presumed innocent, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show that you are not. In the US, it's often the other way around, with the burden of proof being on the defendant to show there were extenuating circumstances.

**jouso**

Frazzled wrote:
In practice, you actually have a lot a lot of leeway regarding the proportional amount of force.

What is your expertise in making that statement?

I can tell you about 4 high profile cases that happened in Spain.

- Break-in with a knife, owner shoots the burglar as he was charging him knife in hand. Dead burglar, no problem.
- Two thugs were holding and beating the owner of a nightclub to get the night's cash. Brother (a competitive pistol shooter) shot one in the head, other in the chest. Both dead, no problem.
- Bother-in-law of a famous family in the jewelry business chases a burglar to the street and shoots him in the back. Gets suspended prison sentence because of "insurmountable fear". I'm sure lawyer quality played a part there, should have gotten off worse.
- Off-duty police officer has a road rage episode and shoots another driver twice in the head after his and other car bumped on the highway. Tried to push self defence because the other car "crashed deliberately onto him". Still pending, but this one is likely to get some time.

**Henry**

Peregrine wrote:
, that's essentially saying "someday in the future we may or may not send you to prison for what you're about to do, after we analyze every detail of this situation with plenty of time to second-guess you, but don't worry about that". The only way to have a situation where you don't have to worry about the law is to assume that any level of force is justified in self defense once a credible threat of violence is presented.

That's a BS representation of British law Peregrine. In these cases people are only convicted if their actions are found to be "grossly disproportionate" to the situation.

As Smacks says, there is a lot of leeway regards what is proportional force (my experience is a government provided legal brief at least once a year, and often more, for the last 17 years designed to cover this exact topic).

**Vaktathi**

jouso wrote:

Pre-86 guns that run into the thousands. They don't exist for the common mortal. And still you cannot fire any explosive round with those mortar since they're destructive devices.

I'm well aware of US gun laws, I've hunted there (AK, TX and MT) and once went to an IPSC shoot back when I was good enough

I was so close to getting into the FA business a couple weeks ago...then I was sadly reminded that I'm still trying to cobble together a down payment for a house

But primarily I was just referring to the legal requirements, the market prices for such things obviously are another level of issue altogether

Smacks wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Smacks wrote:
There is no expectation for people to use their discretion, or respond with a proportional amount of force, it's just straight to lethal force.

Uh, no. Nowhere is there an expectation that you go straight to lethal force in any situation but a violent attack where the use of force in self defense is justified.
I think you might be getting the wrong end of the stick here. I agree that there is no legal justification, my point is about mixed messages to the public. It has already been stated in this topic, and I've seen plenty of times before. Look...

Vaktathi wrote:
it's generally assumed that in the US, if someone is in your home unknown unannounced and uninvited, that a self defense situation exists by default.
And we all know a "self defence situation" in America means: "get the gun".

It means that the gun is warranted, not that you *must* use a gun, but it's assumed that you're in active danger and that it's not practical nor realistic to expect someone to know exactly what the intentions of someone else are and that the potential for violence is already high, meaning use of a firearm is not inappropriate.

You can't shoot someone in the back running away, you can't shoot people someone just to protect property (e.g. if they're breaking windows on your car in the driveway), you can't set traps or ambush people, you can't shoot someone who has surrendered or is incapacitated or has clearly indicated they are attempting to disengage or anything like that. And proportionality is taken into account, if a burly 35 year old dude shoots a 12 year old girl trying to slap him, that dude is going to prison for murder, if that 12 year old girl manages to get a firearm and that 35 year old burly dude is trying to swing a closed fist at her head she won't be punished for pulling that trigger. But there's a wide leeway given in regards to proportionality, if you're coming at me with the intent to get into a physical brawl, that can turn lethal into a couple seconds even if that isn't the intent, and to expect people to just run away or keep an array of different self defense tools available that they select by first judging the threat level in the midst of the situation, or that alternate tools are as effective in stopping threats, is not reasonable.

Evidently, this guy didn't know that he wasn't supposed to kill someone for throwing popcorn, and he was a cop (I can find many more like him). OR perhaps he did know, and just drew his gun reflexively. In either case the guy is a ticking time bomb of stupidity, and you have created the perfect environment for him to go off. I don't believe that he's a so called "bad apple", there are potentially thousands more just like him, who just haven't had anyone throw popcorn at them yet.

There probably are, but that's also thousands out of hundreds of millions, and we're talking about this case because it's exceptional and shocking and offensive. donkey-caves exist everywhere.

**Kap'n Krump**

Peregrine wrote:

Everyone in the US knows this, especially the people who have had to pass a test on the legal use of force in self defense to get their concealed handgun permits.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, at least in theory, but probably the most worrisome part of this story (besides someone getting shot) is that the shooter wasn't some twitchy methhead, but a retired police captain. If anyone in the world should have known when and how to apply lethal force, it should have been someone like him.

That's the hope anyways.

**Frazzled**

Kap'n Krump wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

Everyone in the US knows this, especially the people who have had to pass a test on the legal use of force in self defense to get their concealed handgun permits.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, at least in theory, but probably the most worrisome part of this story (besides someone getting shot) is that the shooter wasn't some twitchy methhead, but a retired police captain. If anyone in the world should have known when and how to apply lethal force, it should have been someone like him.

That's the hope anyways.

Some posters might argue thats the person you least want to test on legal shooting...

**jouso**

Vaktathi wrote:
jouso wrote:

Pre-86 guns that run into the thousands. They don't exist for the common mortal. And still you cannot fire any explosive round with those mortar since they're destructive devices.

I'm well aware of US gun laws, I've hunted there (AK, TX and MT) and once went to an IPSC shoot back when I was good enough

I was so close to getting into the FA business a couple weeks ago...then I was sadly reminded that I'm still trying to cobble together a down payment for a house

But primarily I was just referring to the legal requirements, the market prices for such things obviously are another level of issue altogether

Why is it that prices are so inflated? Because the US of A decided the 2nd amendment did not apply to full auto guns post-86.

Just like it may one day decide on mag capacity or caliber.

**Peregrine**

Kap'n Krump wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with you, at least in theory, but probably the most worrisome part of this story (besides someone getting shot) is that the shooter wasn't some twitchy methhead, but a retired police captain. If anyone in the world should have known when and how to apply lethal force, it should have been someone like him.

That's the hope anyways.

There's a difference between knowing the law, and obeying the law. There are plenty of violent criminals who know their actions are illegal but do it anyway because they don't care about the law. And some of them even carry badges.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henry wrote:
That's a BS representation of British law Peregrine. In these cases people are only convicted if their actions are found to be "grossly disproportionate" to the situation.

As Smacks says, there is a lot of leeway regards what is proportional force (my experience is a government provided legal brief at least once a year, and often more, for the last 17 years designed to cover this exact topic).

Then what exactly is the difference between UK law and US law (and US and UK culture) that Smacks is making such a big deal about? Under US law you don't get to use "grossly disproportionate" force either. If you shoot someone because they slapped you you're going to prison.

**Frazzled**

Unless your wife employs the "he needed killin your honor" defense of course. My wife tells me the judge has to release the wife after that.

EDIT: This is what I don't see what they are on about. The standard is generally the same. Thats why Captain Old Fart is going down hard for this, because he doesn't meet the test to reasonable persons absent other evidence.

**KTG17**

skyth wrote:
I wish the laws in the US had that violence as a means of self defense could only be used as a last resort, and only as much violence as needed to stop the situation.

Unfortunately, as Smacks mentions, there's a culture encouraged by the gun lobby that it's okay to use violence as a first resort to solve problems...That backing off, de-escalating, and running away shouldn't be used.

I actually have a problem with this thought process. Ask yourself how many fist fights have you been involved in? Realize that you could have died from a single punch to the wrong spot in anyone of them.

Typically fights between kids aren't meant to go down to serious harm, but between adults that can be another story. Even if you arent killed by a blow, you might be rendered unable to fight back, then who knows what will happen.

If someone has attacked you, your first immediate concern should be for yourself, not the well-being of the person attacking you. If you have to kill in order to prevent harm being done to you by an attacker, so be it.

It might be noble to think that during the mad seconds of a fight you can go through several hypothetical options to disarm an attacker, however I think unless you are trained in it, its very likely that thought process will only bring yourself more harm.

Gun culture has nothing to do with it. If all you have is a baseball bat, use it.

**Frazzled**

This is why full auto wiener dogs are important. If attacked you don't have to do anything. They will immediately sense their prey and then its "NO NO NOT THE FACE!" time.

**Henry**

Peregrine wrote:
Then what exactly is the difference between UK law and US law (and US and UK culture) that Smacks is making such a big deal about? Under US law you don't get to use "grossly disproportionate" force either. If you shoot someone because they slapped you you're going to prison.

I couldn't say without having knowledge of US law. UK law uses two important words - "proprtionate" and "reasonable". I assume US uses something very similar. As for culture that may come down to the legal possession of weaponry and what effect this has upon the escalation to violence. Obviously in the UK weaponry is not allowed. That doesn't stop people causing injury and death with their hands but it does give the impression that the temptation to escalate is reduced (I emphasise impression as I've never researched the violent crime numbers between the two countries).

**Ouze**

Henry wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Then what exactly is the difference between UK law and US law (and US and UK culture) that Smacks is making such a big deal about? Under US law you don't get to use "grossly disproportionate" force either. If you shoot someone because they slapped you you're going to prison.

I couldn't say without having knowledge of US law. UK law uses two important words - "proprtionate" and "reasonable". I assume US uses something very similar.

I didn't want to retype it but in general

Ouze wrote:
In the US, you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe yourself or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. All of these concepts vary by state, some being looser and some being tighter, but this is the most common phrasing.

Then, there are 3 different scenarios governing use of force across the US.

Duty to retreat: In some states, you are required to attempt to escape. If a home invader breaks into your house, you must attempt to flee your home, and can only use deadly force if you cannot escape. If a guy breaks in and chases you with a knife, in your house, and you shoot him without trying to escape the house, you can be prosecuted.

Castle doctrine: In other states, you have a duty to retreat, but it doesn't apply to your home - you do not have to attempt to flee your home before employing deadly force, again using the same reasonable/imminent criteria. Castle doctrine states commonly extend to your vehicle as well when you're in it. If a guy breaks into your house you have a strong defense against prosecution, if you're being carjacked you can defend yourself, if you see someone stealing your car and you shoot them - you're gonna go to jail. Make sense?

Stand your ground: In SYG states, you do not have a duty to retreat from any place you legally have the right to be. It's not a license to kill, you can't go into your neighbors house and decide to shoot him because "you felt scared". It simply means that if you reasonably believe yourself or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, you don't have to attempt to flee if you have the right to be where you are. To be honest I think this is the most reasonable version of a self-defense law.

**Henry**

I had seen that previous post Ouze. So far as I am aware we have nothing like those other laws over here, they tend to complicate matters - either your use of force is reasonable or it is not, there's no need to confuse the matter further. This may be where the difference between use of force laws are the greatest between the two sides of the Atlantic.

My understanding is that we have one exception for being in your own house and that is that the use of force goes from being allowed so long as it is not disproportionate to so long as it is not grossly disproportionate. Don't ask me what the difference is. I have a suspicion but couldn't give you a definition.

**Ouze**

Well, we have similar laws here. Functionally whenever self-defense no longer becomes so, really. There was a case where there had been some break-ins and so a guy left his garage door open with a purse in plan view, and then shot an exchange student who came into the garage - he went to jail. Another where a guy caught 2 teenagers breaking into his house, and then after shooting them executed one who was still alive. Also went to jail. Just 2 examples offhand but I think it's more alike than not.

**Prestor Jon**

Only New Hampshire has Duty to Retreat laws for the home. 14 other states have Castle Doctrine laws but Duty to Retreat Laws governing altercations in public places. The other 35 states have SYG laws and Castle Doctrine laws.

Self defense law wording varies by state but they all have some qualifier, typically "reasonable" to create a standard that must be met in the eyes of the DA if the day chooses not to prosecute or the jury if the case goes to trial.

Of course there's also Texas, where it's legal to use lethal force to prevent a burglar from successfully fleeing the scene after dark.
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-41.html
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42.html

**Frazzled**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Only New Hampshire has Duty to Retreat laws for the home. 14 other states have Castle Doctrine laws but Duty to Retreat Laws governing altercations in public places. The other 35 states have SYG laws and Castle Doctrine laws.

Self defense law wording varies by state but they all have some qualifier, typically "reasonable" to create a standard that must be met in the eyes of the DA if the day chooses not to prosecute or the jury if the case goes to trial.

Of course there's also Texas, where it's legal to use lethal force to prevent a burglar from successfully fleeing the scene after dark.
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-41.html
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42.html

Actually Texas is very expansive. Basically theft of property where stopping the theft can't occur in another fashion. I am actually not onside with this personally, and its a matter of some interpretation. You shoot someone over a radio and you're going to get prosecuted. Shooting car thieves at night, I'm just fine with though.

**Prestor Jon**

Frazzled wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Only New Hampshire has Duty to Retreat laws for the home. 14 other states have Castle Doctrine laws but Duty to Retreat Laws governing altercations in public places. The other 35 states have SYG laws and Castle Doctrine laws.

Self defense law wording varies by state but they all have some qualifier, typically "reasonable" to create a standard that must be met in the eyes of the DA if the day chooses not to prosecute or the jury if the case goes to trial.

Of course there's also Texas, where it's legal to use lethal force to prevent a burglar from successfully fleeing the scene after dark.
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-41.html
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42.html

Actually Texas is very expansive. Basically theft of property where stopping the theft can't occur in another fashion. I am actually not onside with this personally, and its a matter of some interpretation. You shoot someone over a radio and you're going to get prosecuted. Shooting car thieves at night, I'm just fine with though.

What about car stereo thieves at night? Bear in mind you don't know if the thief is a cat person.

**Henry**

Frazzled wrote:
Shooting car thieves at night, I'm just fine with though.

And that right there is the difference in culture we've been discussing.

**Frazzled**

What about car stereo thieves at night? Bear in mind you don't know if the thief is a cat person.

1. Legally its perfectly legal. morally, fine by me too.
2. I just assume anyone messing with my car is in fact a cat person, and thus have no souls.

And that right there is the difference in culture we've been discussing.

This is true. In the US, its not culturally acceptable to be without a car, unless you're a Yankee from NYC of course. Then you have orange hair and say "bigly" a lot.

In Texas this developed from the horse / long distance / arid conditions here, where stealing someone's horse was effectively a death sentence. For many years it was considered a capital crime here.

**d-usa**

Are there more states besides Florida moving to change the law to require the prosecutor to prove that SYG was not a factor rather than requiring defendants to prove that they acted appropriately under SYG?

**Frazzled**

Not that I am aware of. Those NYC Yankees in Florida are really feisty about the whole issue...