17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

[Stavros]

I am not defending anyone who breaks into someone else's home, but there have been cases of 'self-defence' where, when the details are revealed, the 'self-defence' is not shown to be a spontaneous reaction to invasion, but a calculated response to someone who, perhaps living in a rough neighbourhood, is 'ready and wating' for someone to 'bring it on'. In a curious coincidence, there was a celebrated case in the UK with another 'Martin', this time a man living in 'Bleak House' (honest) who had been burgled so many times he slept with a shotgun by his bed. He shot dead one of two burglars and was put on trial for murder, and found guilty but at appeal it was changed to manslaughter.
Tony Martin (farmer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[InHouston]

And both doctrines are wanting for improvements. They both have the following form: Under certain circumstances (call them C), a person (call him P) can use deadly force to protect him- or herself without becoming liable to prosecution. But surely we can't just take P's word for it that circumstances C pertained. Yet it appears that's the way many (including some of Florida's enforcement community) would like to interpret these doctrines. SYG and Castle doctrines as currently understood do not lessen crime or increase safety. They increase the probability of violence and tragedy. More guns on the streets or in the home do not make the streets or the home safer.

And both doctrines are wanting for improvements. They both have the following form: Under certain circumstances (call them C), a person (call him P) can use deadly force to protect him- or herself without becoming liable to prosecution. But surely we can't just take P's word for it that circumstances C pertained. Yet it appears that's the way many (including some of Florida's enforcement community) would like to interpret these doctrines. SYG and Castle doctrines as currently understood do not lessen crime or increase safety. They increase the probability of violence and tragedy. More guns on the streets or in the home do not make the streets or the home safer.

Under certain circumstances means one thing and one thing only. If you are in fear of your life or physical safety. And that’s it. With a concealed handgun license and the Castle Doctrine, you can’t pull a gun on someone for cutting you off on the freeway. If you unintentionally cut someone off while making a lane change, and the person started beating you up in your car in a road rage incident, then you can use lethal force to protect “life”. And is a case that happened here not too long ago, and no charges were pressed against the person who defended himself. He was a doctor, never been in a fight with anyone, and a 200 pound lughead smashed his window out, pinned him in his car and started beating the crap out of him with a tire-iron because he didn’t agree with the way the doctor made a lane change. The doctor had no choice but to pull his weapon and fire, not to kill him, but to stop the attack. The attacker died as a result, but no charges were pressed against the doctor, and the Castle Doctrine provides no civil liability on your part from family members for wrongful death.


There was another incident where a man with a concealed handgun license, pulled his weapon and fired at a car that cut him off. The police slammed him in jail for deadly conduct and the Texas Department of Public Safety revoked his right to conceal a firearm and sentenced him to 60 days in the county jail with a felony; thereby permanently disqualifying him from renewing his right to even own a firearm at all. The law works, and it works well for people who understand it. Those who don’t, and try to usurp the law thinking they can whip out their gun because someone miffed them will have a crude awakening waiting for them by the state.



The Castle Doctrine Law here in Texas not only sanctions you by the state to defend yourself in your home, to defend your property, to defend yourself in your car, but also to defend yourself outright apart and away from all the above. The Castle Doctrine was ratified in Texas due to the rash of violent home invasions and violent car jacking’s that occur on a near daily basis in this state, and other states as well, where people are often killed by the attackers. If you’re not safe in your home or your car, then where can you be safe?


A subset of the Castle Doctrine law is the 3rd person defense statute. You are morally obligated to come to the defense of a 3rd person or their property if you witness a felony being perpetrated against them. That doesn’t imply that you’re legally obligated. The state gives you the choice to defend someone else, or to retreat. That’s what Joe Horn did in Pasadena when he saw two burglars making off with his neighbor’s property. He told the dispatcher, “I’m going to kill em”, and went out in his yard and rightfully put buck shot into the backs of those burglars that took off running. No charges were filed, and our Texas Senator Sheila Jackson Lee got pissed and tried to coordinate a civil lawsuit against him for unlawful death. The courts shut her up, told her “no”, and sent her stupid dumb-ass back to Washington.

There is no rhyme or reason for any civilian to have to endure people crawling through their windows in their homes. That’s what the law is about. They’re crazy to be doing that anyway, and need to be shot. The law provides for that defense.

[InHouston]

I am not defending anyone who breaks into someone else's home, but there have been cases of 'self-defence' where, when the details are revealed, the 'self-defence' is not shown to be a spontaneous reaction to invasion, but a calculated response to someone who, perhaps living in a rough neighbourhood, is 'ready and wating' for someone to 'bring it on'. In a curious coincidence, there was a celebrated case in the UK with another 'Martin', this time a man living in 'Bleak House' (honest) who had been burgled so many times he slept with a shotgun by his bed. He shot dead one of two burglars and was put on trial for murder, and found guilty but at appeal it was changed to manslaughter.

Tony Martin (farmer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe in the UK they convict people for defending themselves but not here. A case study in my CHL class was a Houston man who ran a recycling business, and kept waking up to find scores of recycled cans missing from his property that cost him money. He sat out at night keeping watch, and two unarmed white teenagers came crawling over his fence, and started bagging up more cans. He shot them both and killed them. Was that murder?

No. No charges were filed against him. You don’t go crawling into people’s homes and properties stealing from them or attacking them. In Texas, you’ll get shot and there isn’t a court in this state that will convict you for it. These two teenagers that did this were well on their way to escalating their crimes one day, and would have probably ended up tying up people in their homes and beating them for their cash and jewelry. You have to be out of your damn mind to go crawling onto the property of another to steal from them. You do that, you need to be shot.

[trish]

Regardless of what comprises circumstances C, we should not be compelled by law to take P's word that circumstances C were in fact present. There should be an investigation and perhaps a trail to ascertain that C was in fact descriptive of the actual situation. Otherwise you're opening the door for people to commit murder and walk free on their own say so with no risk of an investigation or a trial.

[trish]

You fear for your life and personal safety just because someone's crawling through your window?? For trespass you want to kill them? How cowardly is that? If I were on the jury, I would want to see real evidence that you feared for your life.

[Stavros]

Maybe in the UK they convict people for defending themselves but not here. A case study in my CHL class was a Houston man who ran a recycling business, and kept waking up to find scores of recycled cans missing from his property that cost him money. He sat out at night keeping watch, and two unarmed white teenagers came crawling over his fence, and started bagging up more cans. He shot them both and killed them. Was that murder?

No. No charges were filed against him. You don’t go crawling into people’s homes and properties stealing from them or attacking them. In Texas, you’ll get shot and there isn’t a court in this state that will convict you for it. These two teenagers that did this were well on their way to escalating their crimes one day, and would have probably ended up tying up people in their homes and beating them for their cash and jewelry. You have to be out of your damn mind to go crawling onto the property of another to steal from them. You do that, you need to be shot.

Your example doesn't explain why the recycling business was not better protected, which is the first line of defence. Second, you say he 'kept watch' which to me means he was pre-meditated in the killings, he was not reacting to a sudden invasion; its as if he wanted it to happen. He sounds to me like a psychopath.

As for your comment These two teenagers that did this were well on their way to escalating their crimes one day, and would have probably ended up tying up people in their homes and beating them for their cash and jewelry -this is an outrageous abuse of language, you have absolutely no idea at all what the future was for either or both of the teenagers. The comment says more about you than it does about them.

The thematic link with the thread this post is in, must relate to the state of mind that Zimmerman was in, and whether or not he shot Trayvon Martin as a spontaneous response, or had already determined that if there was a confrontation, his finger was on the trigger. I cannot get into the intricacies of US law, but natural law suggests that restraint on Zimmerman's part would have avoided a death; yes, the teenagers were wrong to go on the rob; but sitting there with a shotgun virtually begging someone to jump over the fence? That, in my opinion, is not natural.

[trish]

The NRA, once a simple organization for hunters and sportsmen, has now become a malignant tumor in the belly of what could still be a promising nation. The new rash of SYG and misconstrued castle laws are the toxic output of this sick cancer.

[giovanni_hotel]

Murder is not an acceptable response to the theft of property. That muthafucker killed two kids in cold blood for stealing......ALUMINUM CANS.

Where's the threat to the victim's life?? Where's the proportionality???

The penalty for theft is not MURDER.
WHat the fuck is wrong with Texas??? Jeezus Christ.

What I do know is that both those kids were poor and had no connections to the wealthy or powerful in their community. Only kids who are considered expendable are judged worthy of a death sentence for petty theft or trespassing.

[trish]

One obvious objection against the current rash of castle and stand-your-ground laws is they legalize justifiable homicide but forgoes the formal presentation of a justification. We just take the perp’s word for it.

The second objection is what counts for a justification, namely “fear for one’s life or personal safety.” Is that really a justification? A lot a people’s fears are simply irrational. In my mind, the only possible justification for homicide is a rational assessment that the continuance of your life depends decidedly on the termination of the other’s life; i.e. if the state can prove that there were rational choices open to the perp that would have avoided the death of the victim, then the homicide was not justifiable.

[giovanni_hotel]