If you gamble with your life, you're bound to lose eventually, and I just struggle to feel sympathy for those who knowingly ruin their own lives with full conscience of the consequences.
I have the right to defend my property.
It is up to the criminal justice system to investigate and determine if you are lying.
This situation is no different.
Yeah, I realize I'm with water over my head as I don't understand US laws at all, and how it can legal to kill other people like that.
A rock to the head can be quite deadly; every situation will have its own important nuances still.
No, there are many places where you want to think twice about responding to violence with violence, because if your violent response is deemed exaggerated, you end up being the one worse off on day of judgement.
Technically I suppose you could get away with killing if it can be shown that your life was in immediate danger, and not in the "old hobo waves a knife so cop shoots him in the back from thirty feet away" way like in the US. In practice that never happens, because it is very difficult to show that the only thing you could've done was to kill. Even if someone had you at gunpoint. Someone waving a rock or a knife? Lol no, unless you emerged out of a struggle with stab wounds or broken bones.
I think most would agree that waiting to shot until you are suyre you will emerged out of a struggle with stab wounds or broken bones is too late.
In many other parts of the world, someone having a weapon out is not sufficient evidence to show that they were going to murder you in 2 seconds unless you did it first. Even if they seemed angry and threatening. A threat of violence is not violence, a weapon is not violence, and an unstable person is not violence, and even violence doesn't justify killing unless that violence was life threatening.
That's the difference. The question here isn't about what they could in theory do. If you're going to kill someone in self defense, you'd better have very convincing evidence or other means to show that they were in fact about to kill you. Without signs of struggle, that evidence can be quite hard to procure.
So what do you do in this situation? If you can run, you run. If someone chases you with a knife and you can't outrun them, that's already much better for your self defense claim than if you just decided to shoot them the moment you got scared.. If you can fight or shoot back, you don't have to kill them, just respond enough to fend off the immediate threat. If you're not good enough with guns to make a non-lethal disarming shot, then I don't recommend bringing a gun (not that it'd be legal here anyway, guns are for sport and hunting). Your self defense can be regarded as exaggerated even if you didn't intend it that way. So if you accidentally make a lethal shot or accidentally punch someone to death, you're on the hook for it.
This suggests to me that you don't know much about guns, gun safety, or gun laws. I'm not trying to be insulting, but saying something like that indicates that you really have no idea what you're talking about. No use-of-force experts recommend attempting a "non-lethal" shot with a gun. In fact, you'd almost certainly get in more trouble for doing that than for killing the person, at least in the US.
A gun is a lethal weapon, and there is no way to reliably perform a "non-lethal" shot. If you shoot someone in the leg, they can very easily bleed out. Aiming for the arm or hand makes it extremely likely that you will miss and hit someone/something downrange.
I agree that there is no way to reliably perform a "non-lethal" shot which gets us back to my previous message: you'd better not bring a gun to a knife fight if you don't want to end up sitting in jail for killing. Use-of-force experts here would not recommend shooting at all if there's any chance a missed shot is going to hit someone downrange, unless again it can be shown that killing is absolutely the only choice left.
However, if you read the news here, you find that the police regularly manage to hit a leg and thus disable the assailant without killing them. Every time this happens, there's going to be an investigation into whether gun use was justified. And if the assailant ended up dying, it'd be much worse for the cop.
I don't know if they're specifically instructed to aim for legs, but maybe it's easier to stop bleeding than to revive someone with a bullet in the heart.
Then it seems like we're on the same page? You shouldn't be shooting at all unless you're trying to kill the person. You shouldn't be trying to kill the person unless it's absolutely the only choice left. Given that it's the only choice left, potentially hitting someone downrange is a regrettable but possible outcome. Given that you're trying to kill someone, aiming somewhere other than center mass has an unacceptable risk of missing or not disabling the person.
> If you're going to kill someone in self defense, you'd better have very convincing evidence or other means to show that they were in fact about to kill you.
I don't understand this at all. A mentally unstable person shouting threats and approaching me with a deadly weapon is 150% enough evidence that my life is in danger. I can't see any other possible rationalization.
It is a complete failure of the state to make someone scared of defending themselves against legitimate threats.
Do you have any sources for that story? I would be interested in reading them because what you are describing sounds so idiotic that it seems like a parody of anti-communist talking points.
If someone wants to abuse a castle doctrine law there are already easier ways to do that.
I’m also not aware of any stories where the existing laws have been abused to kill people legally (eg, shooting someone, planting them in your house or as a carjacker). Although maybe they are just so successful they aren’t caught.
So let's posit that you are 100% correct - Rittenhouse went there with the explicit goal of shooting people, killed multiple people, and was not convicted of any crime. Do you think anyone looks at that scenario and thinks "and it was totally worth it, I want to do that too"? He's going to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He's 18 and effectively has no chance of living a normal life unless he moves to another country and disappears. He very easily could have been killed by skateboard guy, or knocked out by jump kick guy and beaten to death, or shot by Grosskreutz.
So if you're going to use an affirmative defense ("Yes I did it, but it was justified") then that seems like a pretty big risk, especially if there's no real evidence the victim was a cat thief.
Think of all the failure that went into someone making this statement with a straight face. Federal, state, local, moral. Just wow. “Your anarchy is my justice” is the rallying cry of every criminal out there.
The state losing its monopoly on violence is the definition of a failed state. Other places you’re welcome to murder people for stealing from you are likely Somalia, parts of El Salvador, the Sudan, Western Sahara and uh, I want to say cartel controlled states in Mexico. Not exactly sterling examples of well run areas. Even there it’s due to absence of state control, not outright abdication.
See the problem? You weren't stealing anything. They just thought you did. In most other places on earth, if you were really unlucky, you'd get arrested and put on trial, until it became clear that you really didn't do anything wrong. In Texas, apparently, instant game over is an acceptable outcome. Sure, the shooter would also get in trouble, but that's not going to help your spouse and children, is it?
Edit: typo
I would guess that many Texans who support the use of deadly force in this situation accept this difference. Personally I feel there should be no death penalty, but also believe individuals should generally be allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property. I'm worried about cases or mistaken identity or collateral damage, but that should be an empirical question rather than one of justice.
whoa, easy there fella! Don't go giving this guy any more zanny ideas. He'll call another special session just for it (no governor has called this many). The wackier the idea, the better he'll like it.
Edit: Did you even bother to read the law before you commented?, the first fkin line, and (b), Line (1) burden of proof is on the defendant, not the prosecution, it will be judged by his peers. The (2) will fail if protestors are on allowed/blocked road ways and will only apply if protestors are illegally on non-permitted road ways.
(1) the person operating the motor vehicle was exercising due care; and (2) the person injured was blocking traffic in a public right-of-way while participating in a protest or demonstration. (b) This section does not affect a person's liability for an injury caused by grossly negligent conduct.
what else can I google for you? While I agree the "whole state" is a really big brush to be painting with, it's not an inaccurate description of what the state legislature is doing.
I don't think asking for clarification was an unreasonable ask. Too many people today use emotional charged rewordings to describe things. It's honestly hard at times to know what people are referring to anymore.
You can dismiss anything because no proof, or you can prove to yourself yay/nay. It took seconds to find the specific texas legislation. It's not like it was hidden. You can then come back and say, "hey i tried looking for this in a websearch, but it was too muddled. got something more definitive?" vs "i don't believe you so the onus on you."
That aside, people supporting their own claims with evidence provides a whole host of secondary benefits. It makes it more clear makes it more clear who is claiming what, it pushes back somewhat on the problem of "it takes an order of magnitude more effort to produce bullshit than to refute it", and it prevents some obnoxious debate tactics that reduce discussion quality.
To be honest it don't understand why anyone would advocate any other convention on a discussion board. It seems super short sighted to me.
If the sources they provide are biased and therefore suspect, that is a separate concern that can then be addressed. But having some source for your claims is table stakes for an intelligent discussion.
> (1) the person operating the motor vehicle was exercising due care; and
That law clearly states twice that "due care" needs to be taken otherwise it's not applicable. So compare and contrast this with the original claim by the parent commenter:
> legal for car drivers to mow down pedestrian protesters
I call bullshit on that. Thanks for the link.
similarly:
>(b) This section does not affect a person's liability for an injury caused by grossly negligent conduct.
That is to say, you're not allowed to just mow them over.
Sources are nice not because they magically add quality to a post, but because you can check them for yourself.
>I call bullshit on that. Thanks for the link.
Sometimes hyperbole just isn't the right thing, but I seriously doubt the original poster honestly believes laws were created that allowed for mowing down of citizens willy nilly. Pedantic people go nuts and throw out the rest of the conversation on a caveat rather than keeping focus on the discussion. Laws were written that allows for a defense after running people over with your car. There's plenty to be left to the interpretation of lawyers to argue and judges to decide.
It basically says if someone is protesting in the middle of the road and a driver taking reasonable precautions hits them they aren’t liable.
Seems entirely reasonable to me.
No, in order to stop protesters from blocking traffic, then that is all the police need to do. The protestors can always protest in a park or literally anywhere other than in the middle of roads.
In a just society, some group's right to protest does not take priority over everyone else's right to travel and use roads. Roads do not belong to activists, and no activist group has a right to shut down public roads without arranging this with police ahead of time so that appropriate detours can be made for normal traffic.
Sorry, but no civil rights gains were made as a result of people harassing pedestrians and motorists. They were made despite these selfish tactics, not because of them. These types of tactics significantly set back the civil rights movement in the U.S. just as the watts riots set back African American rights.
Always be suspicious when an angry mob tries to justify antisocial behavior with claims of "the greater good". It is never about the "greater good", but is always about theft, domination, and harassment, and it always ends up hurting your cause.
> protests “causing some degree of inconvenience are to be expected and, up to a point, tolerated” in a democratic society that recognised the right to freedom of assembly.
(but in this particular case, the protesters went too far by breaching earlier court orders.)
Whether it ends up hurting their cause in this case remains to be seen. They were trying to be jailed before the COP conference began, but despite continued illegal protest nothing much happened until afterwards.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/17/nine-insulat...
This is why most areas in the U.S. which are concerned about rule of law (some areas have "progressive prosecutors" that put activism above the rule of law) do not allow protestors to do this, and they make sure that the legal code discourages things like blocking highways or shutting down traffic.
> I'm glad you agree
Please don't assume my opinion. I tried to keep my comment neutral.
You can't imagine ever being in a position of non-privilege and needing to protest in order to be treated fairly, can you?
> It was introduced in response to a widely publicized incident in Tulsa last May when a pickup truck drove through a crowd that had gathered on an interstate to protest the police killing of George Floyd.
> The truck, which was pulling a horse trailer, hit and injured three people, including a 33-year-old man who was left paralyzed from the waist down after falling from an overpass.
> The Tulsa County District Attorney's Office announced in July it would not press charges against the driver, writing in a memo that he, his wife and two children were all "in a state of immediate fear for their safety" and had been the victims of a "violent and unprovoked attack by multiple individuals who unnecessarily escalated an already dangerous circumstance by obstructing an interstate highway."
I, however, don't know much about the specifics of the case in order to have an opinion about what the DA did. My only opinion is that the new laws are risky, as anyone can claim they were scared for their lives, especially in places where black people are considered 'scary'. I'm not a law expert but I'd be willing to bet that if a black dude ran over a pack of armed proud boys would have resulted in a completely different law. And for anyone asking why I say that, look up the Mulford Act.
Your argument is disingenuous.
>How is it possible to kill someone with your car while exercising "due care"?
It is extremely easy to kill someone with a 2 ton piece of metal traveling 70+ miles an hour.
Surely, even if you don't believe a protestors has ever been on a low visibility road, you can understand that they could be. There are limitations to how fast cars can react to pedestrians being where they aren't supposed to be.
You say that as if it's uncommon for protesters to be protesting on non-permitted roadways. I think it's quite common.
Also, is there a difference between being "illegally on non-permitted road ways" and jaywalking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Attack_...
Do not stop the car. Do not get out. Do not surrender. Kill as many as you need to save yourself.
that's not a tactic. that's an isolated incident in a riot which occurred 30 years ago.
the GP said protestors had developed a tactic, implying recency, frequency, and deliberate planning; not that rioters had done it one time, spontaneously, in one isolated incident, 30 years ago.
that's what I meant by "false." GP said something false, so I identified it as false.
it wouldn't make a difference, because arguing that you can commit murder in response to theft is obviously completely ridiculous, and flies in the face of all relevant legal principles and precedents going back at least to the root of our legal system, the Magna Carta of 1215.
but I am nonetheless curious what on earth you are driving where the catalytic converter costs ten thousand dollars.
There's a reason why we give people the right to defend their life and property with violence. It keeps people civil.
Hell we let people get away with mowing down jaywalkers in LA. Why is it any different for a thief?
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/catalytic-converter...
By the way a new converter for a Honda is 3k right now. We didn't even discuss repairs and missed work from having to deal with it.
Sounds easy with a tech income. Not so much when you're working a minimum wage gig.
Read more. Comment less.
> Denny suffered a fractured skull and impairment of his speech and ability to walk, for which he underwent years of rehabilitative therapy.
Would you rather just take your chances?
And equating largely peaceful protests with the LA riots is really a mistake. The LA riots turned violent very quickly, while the BLM marches stayed peaceful by and large with the exception of right-wing agitators who started looting and fires under false flag operations.
As people asked for some duckduckgo results -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60cqUPxYThY
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/05/09/cop-in-texas-looks-o...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12158537/protesters-attacked-c...
https://news.yahoo.com/youtube-removes-anti-blm-livestream-2...
In the two cases where protestors attacked a vehicle or its occupants either the driver already had an altercation with protestors or the vehicle struck a protestor. The original comment I was replying to implied that there was lots of footage of protestors attacking people in cars. This doesn't show any evidence of that. I still haven't seen any evidence that there is a problem of protestors attacking random cars and their occupants.
false.
But weren't actually aimed at destroying american democracy, so there's that...
... And orders of magnitude more people. Per-capita, the capitol riot is obviously more violent, and that's the only way it makes sense to measure violence. Otherwise I could say that ISIS members are less violent than catholics.
In this instance they appear to be the ones doing the pushing (of protestors) and pulling (of horses).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5CnkBVEJ0Y
Neither the driver or the protesters should have been acting like a-holes, but the driver has a higher standard of care given that they're operating a 3+ ton hunk of metal and plastic.
If so, could the protestors then start shooting the driver in for of self defense?
Even if the law does not exist could the protestors could use self defense to shoot the driver anyway?
I live in a neighboring state and we get a lot of Texan tourists. You can't get them to honor a stop sign or even drive on the right side of the road with anything less than the threat of deadly force. It's utterly exhausting.
edit: in the interest of a having worthwhile discussion, let me acknowledge that there's an over-generalization here. Sorry about that. But, in the interest of valuing expertise, let's also keep in mind that Texas has to be experienced to be understood.
That being said: It isn't a capital crime and shouldn't be. If people can legally justify deadly force without self-defense (e.g. finding someone under their vehicle and shooting them) then the law itself is a problem.
If the state wants to make things a capital crime they should just do so directly, because at least then you get your day in court, a jury who could nullify, and lawmakers have to suffer the political ramifications of killing a bunch of petty thieves.