Posted on 11/21/2011 10:46:05 AM PST by marktwain
actually in Texas we still have the sundown law you can legally shoot someone just for steeling property after sundown written back in the cattle rustling days. And the Texas Castle law does say now for defense of property. There was a case in Dallas where a guy killed someone robbing his garage and he got no-billed.
So let’s hear your wording for a law that will always prevent those honestly defending themselves from ever going to court, while also protecting innocent people from being murdered by those falsely claiming self defense. Honestly, I want you to provide the example.
I beg to differ.
“Reasonable” means that the jury can use their own judgement as to “If they were in that person’s shoes at that time, with that situation, would they have shot him?”
I’d rather put my trust in the jury in this case, rather than a bunch of pinhead lawyers, especially the DA and the judge.
I just looked it up. Thanks for the clue about Dallas and the garage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy In my mind the guy was dumb. Police were coming and he decided to put himself in a bad situation, in the yard with the burglars. Yes, he had a right to go into his yard and a right to defend himself but it was a bad place to be. If he had sniped them from a distance just to protect his property, I think we’d be looking at another USSC case.
Here you go - it is very good:
It's about 45 minutes of good info, well worth the time to watch. Enjoy!
On this post? lol Laws are not made in less than 10,000 words increments.
I'm not laughing. Please share with us how you are going to write a law that automatically determines innocence or guilt, but doesn't allow the guilty to walk (without a trial).
And criminal laws are rarely long. Shorter and clearer is best, with juries deciding the issue of applicability. Only regulatory laws run more than a few paragraphs.
The 10 Commandments and the Bill of Rights are both prime examples of concise brevity.
Here is the Pennsylvania self-defense law in its entirety. It is accompanied by background statements and a list of definitions, but here is the law:
The General Assembly finds that:
(1) It is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(2) The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a home is a person's castle.
(3) Section 21 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania guarantees that the "right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
(4) Persons residing in or visiting this Commonwealth have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles.
(5) No person should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack outside the person's home or vehicle.
Short and sweet, but a DA and possibly then a jury must still decide whether a homicide was self-defense. It is impossible to write laws that do not require human judgment to enforce.
I agree very dumb idea.
I have to disagree. MSL, as you stated upthread, he had the right to go into his yard, and he had the right to defend his property. In this case, he also set an example to a demographic that requires instantaneous punishment for transgressions, or it just doesn’t sink in to their heads. I feel it was a good move, however callous others may see that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.