Justified...
Posted on 02/13/2015 8:36:34 AM PST by Oliviaforever
I simply said I could plug you over property.
I could also claim I was in fear for my life ergo a self defense claim.
Typing in all caps doesn’t bolster your inaccurate argument at all.
Dede’s friends had reportedly burglarized several garages during the spring of 2014, searching for alcohol and small valuables. Dede apparently crept into Kaarma’s garage in hopes of stealing some beer...
This is the moral of the story: Don't burgle and certainly don't steal for no reason. This kid threw his life away trying to steal beer or something equally worthless.
Which “investigators” are we speaking of? They are supposed to stick to facts, not insert conjecture.
If Kaarma’s open garage door at 1 am is “bait” for a criminal, then all garages with doors left open are also “bait”. The absurdity only grows from there. No investigator can determine that any open garage door constitutes “bait”.
Again, come up with a wholesome reason for Dede to enter that garage at 1 am, please.
Texas’ statute re: self defense.
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
Like another poster said, Kaarma deserves a medal.
And FWICR, the girlfriend attempted to revive Dede and there was no death gunshot.
Life is too valuable to consider it a fair exchange for every type of crime.
But that is a moral, not legal, opinion. I know I got into a lot of arguments here about whether it was morally OK to kill people who illegally crossed the border, as I argued that it was a crime, but that life was sacred and should not be taken for simply violating a legal prohibition.
I know I wouldn’t want it to be legal to be shot for an illegal lane change, or for running a stop sign, or for cutting across someone’s field, all of which are illegal actions.
Why are you so eager to find an excuse to kill someone?
A conversation can start about law and order with everyone on the same page, but when it becomes clear that one of the guys is eagerly searching for an excuse to kill someone, everybody else kind of moves away from that mental case.
Justified...
Anyway, “looters will be shot on sight” will have more meaning when Obama’s plan for famine comes to fruition. People will be defending their only food supply.
Nobody is seeking “an excuse to kill someone”. The killing occurred and the question is justification, which ought to not even be in question based on the location it occurred in; but based on the actions of the slain person, it was yet justified.
If you are planning on shooting someone, or have shot someone, don’t talk about it.
“Which “investigators” are we speaking of?”
The detectives and the investigators employed by the prosecution.
“They are supposed to stick to facts, not insert conjecture.”
Nonsense, all investigations involve conjecture. It is for the courts to determine fact.
“If Kaarma’s open garage door at 1 am is “bait” for a criminal, then all garages with doors left open are also “bait”.”
Non sequitur. You are selectively narrowing the evidence you present to support your contention, rather than citing all the evidence that jurors and investigators used to come to their conclusions. This demonstrates you are not making an impartial argument, but already have a foreordained conclusion, and are cherry picking to support it.
I don’t know any other “facts” than what were in the article.
I saw come comments about bragging, recanting and the like.
Bottom line is this: Trespassing, be it with evil intent or not, can get you killed.
What makes it worse is if the testimony of Dede’s friends is true with respect to the admitted garage-hopping burglary, then it is even more justified.
Not in Texas. Please see Post #124.
Their definition of self defense does not require a belief that one’s life is being threatened.
From my POV, I cannot see any wholesome intent to the act of entering a stranger’s garage at 1 am.
You could have fooled me.
Please stop saying that, unless you can name one person who has posted here arguing that the burglar had good or wholesome intent.
That straw man has been dead for quite a few posts.
You are, you should try to be like a man, and not like this snake you keep misrepresenting.
Well okay then. You must be right and the judge and jury, who had the facts, heard the testimony, looked the shooter in the face and saw all the exhibits must be wrong. I’m sure you think that happens a lot.
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.