self defense when there are no witnesses

What should be apparent to you is we already have many many many laws making a variety of acts illegal. How many more do you want, what do you want added that would give you the Utopia you seek. You made it illegal or more difficult to own certain weapons in Australia yet a person recently killed 8 people with a knife in a horrific mass killing. What laws are you passing there in your attempt a Utopia?

 

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/

The "use of deadly force" only applies to self-defense of the person and not property under the laws of the United States except with the "Castle Doctrine" that allows the use of deadly force to protect property (as you accurately noted). Using deadly force exclusively to protect property is murder because it's unrelated to self-defense of the person.

Of note during a carjacking there is a threat to the person and in such cases the use of deadly force is justifiable. It's not justifiable to shoot a person that just hijacked your car and is fleeing from the scene as they no longer represent a threat to the person. This is no different than shooting a burgler in the back when they try to flee your home. Once they turn to depart (especially if they're carrying your flat screen TV that means both of their hands are occupied) they no longer represent a threat.

 

The law is different in each state. In Texas, it's open season on burglars, car jackers, and armed robbers.

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.


(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.




Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:


(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

I don't believe it's utopian to support laws that protect the Inalienable Rights of the Person or to oppose laws that infringe upon those Inalienable Rights.

For example I highly support environmental protection laws and laws that prevent the mass destruction of nature because those actions violate the Inalienable Rights of the People. At the sametime I oppose immigration restrictions on those that would come to the United States for peaceful purposes (e.g. jobs or to be with family) because those immigrants aren't violating anyone's Inalienable Rights.

I'm a strict Constitutionalist but find hypocracy by many "Second Amendment" gun-nuts.

They accurately point out that "assault weapons bans" are fundamentally stupid because they address appearance as opposed to functionality (e.g. a .223 caliber AR-15 is functionally identical to a .223 caliber semi-automatic hunting rifle) but then complain about these laws even though they can purchase a functionally identical rifle. Their argument is not based upon the 2nd Amendment but instead is based upon "appearance" and the 2nd Amendment does not protect the appearance of a firearm. What the firearm looks like is not a 2nd Amendment issue.

 

Apparently it is, if the appearance is the basis for attempting to prohibit its ownership.

 

Illegal aliens bring diseases, tax our healthcare, educational, insurance, and law enforcement budgets. I've lost 3 friends to the crimes of illegal aliens. I guess their inalienable right to life didn't matter. The families of Sherry Hanus, Bobby Montez, and Lovella Milsap might disagree with you. Sherry and Bobby's killer skipped bail and is probably still living in Mexico 28 years later. My dad shut his business down when he retired and left several people without a job because he couldn't compete with companies who hire illegal aliens and pay them less than minimum wage on a cash basis. I guess my dad's right to pursue wealth legally doesn't matter. He tried to give the company away to keep his crew working, but nobody wanted to take the responsibility. I guess my son being expected to wait behind a roomful of illegal aliens in the ER when he had meningitis is to be expected.

Just because you don't live near the border doesn't mean that Americans' rights aren't violated by illegal immigration.

 

I've edited out the racial stereotyping but will address this. The Rights of the People are violated by criminals and, as I noted, we all should support laws that address the violations of the Rights of the Person. The immigrant coming to the United States for employment or to be with their family is not violating anyone's Rights.

Returning to this thread the accused could be a US Citizen or an "illegal" Immigrant and it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether it was murder or self-defense. Unfortunately studies have established that the "race" of the accused is very influential in whether they're convicted or not and while racism shouldn't exist in our criminal justice system it unquestionably does.

 

So my personal losses from illegal aliens are "racial stereotyping"? I guess Texans don't have rights?

 

I just have to step in. First, and most importantly, there is a small thing called process. It serves to keep the riff raff out. Everyone who wants to be a citizen is required to go through this process. Many illegals do not come here for an honest living. Many are currently occupying space in prison across the country for drug and murder related events. How did they get here? one can assume, since they didn't have even a greencard, that they are here purely illegally.
Here's the rub, those Inalienable Rights you speak of are codified for citizens of the US, not interlopers.
But hey, what the hell, throw the doors open and let 'em all in. Drug dealers, gunrunners, thieves and banditos alike. Hell, let's scrap our entire system here and install a Mexican form of government, make 'em all feel right at home.
but you better break out your extra checkbook, cuz it's gonna really cost the US.....

 

And I believe that anyone desiring to pass more laws making something even more illegal than it already is, is seeking Utopia.

Too many environmental laws have already proven to be fallacy and are aimed at the Utopia environmentalists desire. Immigration restrictions are designed to prevent illegal entry not legal entry. We are after all a nation of laws. Ignoring that will lead to the opposite of the Utopia pro-immigration seek. Fact based laws for criminal control, environmental concerns, and immigration would be welcome. Alas they are a rare occurrence.

I find that most of the hypocracy belongs to the anti-gun nuts.

If they are functionally identical why would you find it odd they complain. That's kinda lame isn't it? I mean some like yellow cars, some like sporty cars, some like luxury cars. If something is functionally identical why would it matter to a strict constitutionalist how a pro-gun citizen desires to make a weapon look?

No you are incorrect, they are saying if something is functionally identical, why would the kooky anti-gun nuts care how it appears? That makes perfect sense to me. BTW I don't like yellow cars.

 

I'm not sure how related this is to the topic, but here's another story I came across:

Revered Jonathan Ayers was a 28-year-old Baptist minister from northern Georgia. Ayers (who was white) had a reputation for being the type of Christian who didn’t spend all of his time on a soap box preaching about sin and salvation—he actually put his money where his mouth was, became active in his community, and did things to help people. Tragically, that cost Ayers his life when, on September 1, 2009, he gave a woman named Johanna Jones Barrett $23 to help her pay her rent.

Undercover narcotics officers who had been trailing Barrett suspected that she was selling crack cocaine, and when Ayers gave her $23, they began trailing Ayers. When Ayers left a gas station/convenience store after using an ATM and saw three plainclothes officers pointing their guns at him, he had no idea they were cops. Ayers, who obviously thought they were gang members or carjackers, tried to escape but was shot and killed. Not surprisingly, no drugs were found in either Ayers’ vehicle or on his dead body, although after the fact one of the officers made a dubious claim that before the killing Barrett had sold him $50 worth of crack cocaine.

None of the officers were ever charged.

Isaac Singletary was an 80 year old man living in Jacksonville, Florida who was shot by undercover narcotics officers in 2007. Singletary lived in a poor neighborhood and often had to deal with drug dealers operating near his residence. He saw two individuals whom appeared to be engaging in illegal activity outside his home. When the two refused to leave when he shouted at them, he retrieved his gun from his home in an attempt to scare them off. The two individuals he believed to be drug dealers were in fact undercover officers. Without declaring themselves to be police, the officers demanded that Singletary drop his weapon and then opened fire when he refused. He received multiple gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead after being taken to a nearby hospital.

 

Or if he was thinking logically run the sods over.................

A car is a much much deadlier weapon in those circumstances

 

If they are illegal, then they are breaking our laws. Yes, it can and DOES cause harm to people in more indirect ways.

- - - Updated - - -

Sad, but you must remember that the police are human beings and human beings are fallible. Sorry but there are ALWAYS going to be mistakes, errors in judgment made because people are imperfect.

 

Exercising of an inalienable (natural) right by definition never harms another person even if that action is prohibited by statutory law.

 

ergo, our Right to self-defense, with a firearm, is a must

 

That's not necessarily true, and is part of what this thread is about. One of the natural human rights is the right to defense, and in some cases that can involve preemptive use of deadly force. This is really a tricky area because there is a huge potential for one's rights to infringe on others here. So the question really is when exactly is preemptive deadly force ethically justified? And even if it is ethically justified, should it be legally sanctioned?

The line between self defense and murder is not always a clear one, and I think the laws ought to explicitly reflect that. In other words, I think this is an issue that should be carefully considered and more clearly delineated in the written laws, because right now it is a nebulous area.

 

I don't believe that invading other countries is a "right." It is illegal and no countries allow people to enter, for a multitude of reasons, such as communicable diseases, a history of crime/violence, etc.

A lot of times illegals will commit violent crimes and then flee the country. If there is no record of such people, there is no way to catch them.

 

If on a jury I would acquit regardless of the circumstances, or the crime.

Anyway, self-defense should be an affirmative defense. If you can't prove it, that's tough - but again, it doesn't take much to throw some reasonable doubt on the situation.

People massively overestimate how possible it is to hold up a lie under consistent examination and rigorous questioning. Holes start to show in your story, you get events mixed up out of order, or you miss some things which the evidence prove cannot be.

I support the castle doctrine and stand-you-ground laws, which merely extend that lack of duty to retreat outside the home.

 

This is interesting because it really takes us from the Inalienable (Natural) Right (e.g. Right of Self-Defense against acts of aggression) to the "Freedom to Exercise" that Inalienable Right that many fail to consider. The "Freedom to Exercise" a right refers to the actions that a person may or may not take based upon the Inalienable Right. The Inalienable Right exists without statutory definition while the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right is subject to statutory definition which is what is pointed out.

The laws governing the use of deadly force are fairly common between all of the states.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/

As noted in the original hypothetical case the fact that the defendent first states the second man drew his firearm but then later states he removed the firearm from the holster implies that he wasn't actually acting in self defense because a holstered firearm does not represent "an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm."

 

The Inalienable (Natural) Rights of the Person exist outside of statutory law and nation-states are based solely upon statutory laws. A person, outside of statutory law, could freely walk from Mexico City to Denver CO based upon their Inalienable (Natural) Right of Liberty and a law prohibiting that is a violation of the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person.

 

Maintaining liberty means sometimes bad guys get off. In this scenario, there is no solid proof to convict. Since this scenario included a CC with no record, his story is very plausible. Even if this guy had not had a carry license, he should not be convicted of murder without proof.

 

I could not disagree with you more. I don't think it is a right to enter another country without permission or documentation. It would be really silly to allow that.

 

Then by the same token you don't believe a person should be allowed to express their political opinions without "permission or documentation" because we'd be addressing the identical Right of Liberty in both cases.

 

you rarely shift eh goal posts. brief note: You should be aware that the illegals don't have Rights in Mexico. No more that Aussie's have a Bill of Rights.
They want Rights? Let 'em line up like our Founding Fathers did. Until then, it's just the mewlings of a sick and decadent country

 

Illegal immigration is not a recognized or protected right. A backlog in the legal immigration system is not a legal excuse for committing a felony by entering without permission.

Are you, or are you not, one of those who states that the law is the law, when it comes to defending firearm restrictions? If you are, then it cuts both ways.