Skip to comments.Has Texas’ ‘castle doctrine’ law really caused more killings?
Posted on 07/03/2012 8:14:29 AM PDT by smokingfrog
Thats unknowable, yet the headline in the Houston Chronicle would have you think Texas 2007 law is stirring up more business for the states county morgues. It says:
Texas justifiable homicides rise with Castle Doctrine
It might be a useful story except for that detour it has your mind take with the verbal gymnastics. See, theres a difference between homicides rising with the Castle Doctrine and because of the Castle Doctrine law that Texas lawmakers passed in 2007 to clarify a persons duty to retreat when fearing danger.
The storys lead anecdote was about a thief who was shot dead trying to run off with $20.29 from a taco stands tip jar, part of an increase in justifiable homicides in the Houston area in recent years. Truth is, the taco stand killing would have been justifiable even before 2007, since it was basically about protecting property. The story mentioned that, but only after leaving a false impression that two-bit pilferers are suddenly dropping like flies because of the new law dealing with the duty to retreat in the face of bodily harm.
Is this part of a pattern at downstate papers? You judge. A headline on a Beaumont Enterprise item says this:
Study finds stand your ground laws increase murder rates
Thats true, as far as the study goes. But I think Beaumont readers care about one states laws and one states murder rates, and thats Texas. The truth here is that since the 2007 law change (call it castle doctrine or stand your ground law same thing) Texas murders have gone down each year.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com ...
Eventually the homicides will die down, as criminals finally figure out that people will cap your arse if you try to harm them
All this Lynching of George Zimmerman has got the Black Racists and White Guilt Liberals in a tizzy. I swear liberals just want to take away weapons from white people...because all these gun controllers fail to take away guns from criminals
If it led to more self-defense killings of rapists, child molesters, thieves, thugs, and murderers I don’t see what the problem is.
And would it be a bad thing if more criminals were killed?. About the only thing that prevents recidivism in a career criminal is death. Since crime isn't caused by poverty or guns, but rather by individuals with the attitude that they have no obligation to respect the lives or property of others, permanently removing these individuals from society should make life easier for the rest of us. Unfortunately the really smart ones run for Kongress or get jobs in the government, so you can't get rid of them, but the dumb ones are fair game when they attack.
To me it isn’t a question of Castle Doctrine causing more killings.
The question is are those being killed asking for it by endangering the lives of innocents.
So long as the right people are getting killed, say thank you to the good citizens, and shut up.
Has welfare caused more poverty?
No more then necessary.
Only if you count criminals!!!!
The legal gun owner shoots and kills one perp, preventing the perp from killing many victims. Sounds right to me.
Criminals caused killings!!!
—Eventually the homicides will die down, as criminals finally figure out that people will cap your arse if you try to harm them—
Yup. Perps don’t fear cops with guns. They fear private citizens with guns for a lot of reasons. For starters, they might accidentally shoot someone but, more importantly, they have a LOT more latitude in using deadly force.
i.e. if you are running away with a tip jar and the only person with a gun there is a cop, you will not be shot. If it is a private citizen, you probably will be.
That is the real question. If fewer innocent people have been harmed then an increase in dead criminals is of little consequence and in actuality a cause for celebration.
Any study can prove anything for any purpose.
Before I put any weight on any study’s conclusion I want to know who conducted, who paid for it, when the study was conducted, and where it was conducted.
Those are ONLY the opening questions.
Then I want to read the questions and the answers available. Then I want to see how many times a variation of the questions were asked and if the answers were consistent question to question.
Finally I will want to know how the study was conducted and a demographic breakdown of the respondents.
Loads of work? You betcha!
But, before I board any bus I want to make sure that it is a real bus and I have a chance of getting to my destination, no it's destination. Paid for that degree of skepticism in Thailand many years ago.
The Leftist media do what they can to protect their fellow Leftists since 65% - 90% of convicted criminals surveyed said they would vote Dem if they had their voting rights restored.
It’s cut down on the harm and killing of innocent victims by criminals. It also cuts down on jail over crowding with repeat offenders.
You would shoot someone, presumably in the back, as they were running away, for a tip jar?
“Study finds stand your ground laws increase murder rates”
“The truth here is that since the 2007 law change (call it castle doctrine or stand your ground law same thing) Texas murders have gone down each year.
Since Leftists see the world in an upside down manner should it surprise us when they proclamations such as the increase in murder rates when the opposite is true?
In their eyes a law-abiding citizen shooting a criminal in self-defense is murder but not vice versa. Leftists love thugs, criminals, terrorists, murderers, rapists and every kind of predator imaginable including the animal kind such as wolves and mountain lions which they do their best to protect and increase their numbers.
—You would shoot someone, presumably in the back, as they were running away, for a tip jar?—
I’d go for the legs. ;-)
Parole Board chairman: They’ve got a name for people like you H.I. That name is called “recidivism.”
Parole Board member: Repeat offender!
Parole Board chairman: Not a pretty name, is it H.I.?
H.I.: No, sir. That’s one bonehead name, but that ain’t me any more.
Parole Board chairman: You’re not just telling us what we want to hear?
H.I.: No, sir, no way.
Parole Board member: ‘Cause we just want to hear the truth.
-Raising Arizona (1987)
H.I.: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear.
Parole Board chairman: Boy, didn’t we just tell you not to do that?
H.I.: Yes, sir.
Parole Board chairman: Okay, then.
Has Texas castle doctrine law really caused fewer burglaries?
There .... I fixed it.
I wonder how many killers read a newspaper within a day or two of killing someone? Maybe we need to take newspapers away...
Actually, first I’d try to shoot the jar out of his hand. :-)
Trying to give damn.............nope, ain’t working...
Merely Texans doing the job that Americans won't.
You might be coming IN the door as the crook is going out.
Or, you could just roll ‘im over and blast him from the front; too.
Who cares, as long the bad guys are the ones getting killed?
Actually, murders don’t go up at all because of this. Deaths might go up, but a legitimate killing is not murder.
Besides, its a good thing if more people die because of this law, because that would imply that there are fewer criminals walking around.
Kind of silly isn't it, giving up your life for the contents of a tip jar?
There are consequences for being stupid.
...and probably for shooting someone running away with just a tip jar also.
Here’s a challange for you, one that somehow I doubt you’re up to;
Give a dollar amount at which shooting the thief with the tip jar in the back is justified in your mind.
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.
Keep in mind there is no violence allowed in posts. So if a person answers your post with any number, they are advocating violence. Perhaps your question should be removed for that reason alone.
Also, you forgot $1B, even $1T. If you shoot the $1T thief in the back, you go to jail for assassinating the president. Is it justified? Would such a post be allowed on Free Republic?
Be realistic. How many tip jars have you been around that even had $100 in them? Even if there was $100 in a tip jar, it would be emptied quickly.
How much do you think is in a typical tip jar?
??? Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean you should do it, does it? Unless of course, you just want to shoot someone.
And how about this guy (Roger Kreutz) who was killed by a 19 year old stealing a tip jar?
I'm just pointing out what the law says. And how often do we find out that some of these people that end up getting shot during a robbery have a long rap sheet?
How many criminals have broken into homes and stolen guns that were later used to kill someone.
How many criminals have killed or injured someone while fleeing from the police?
I guess it’s just relative to the situation then, as to whether or not someone should be shot.
More than enough to kill a thief over.
I predicted you weren't up to the challenge..I'd never let you in charge of the tip jar!
Whose tip jar it should have a bearing on that question...
The descendants of former slave owners are to have no right to self defense. This of course includes all of those descended from those who fought for the Union. The 2d Amendment is henceforth to be governed by Pigmentation.
Never forget that 53% of our fellow voters cast their ballot for one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Democracy is a an excellent form of government in many wonderful ways. The potential for the tyranny of the stupid is not one of them.
...not enought to kill someone over, besides, I never wanted the job.
No tip jar has enough to kill someone over.
No tip jar has enough to kill someone over.
Fortunately for everyone ( except the criminals, of course) Texas has decided to codify into law a more civilized way than you have for dealing with those who would steal.
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.