There is no conflict here. One is not using force to specifically kill as a penalty - force is being used to recover the property.

Killing the criminal is a bonus effect of the use of lethal force.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

You may have missed it in the 40+ pages of this thread, but in Texas, the way the law is written, he was justified in killing them regardless.

We allow the use of deadly force to protect property. Shooting them in the back is perfectly legal. In fact, had he shot them in the back, as they were running down the street 500 yards from his home, it would STILL be perfectly legal.

We take a very dim view of thieves down here.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Heh thankfully i have 40 PPP settings and its only 16 pages long for me, might get a bit daunting otherwise! Strange really, i mean its the same smount of posts either way...i clicked to see who had made the most posts in the thread at one point and there had been exactly 2500 views and 600 posts, of which a quarter were mine!

Okay, but then why did you dismiss my analogy with the repo man? It is not a substantially different situation. The guy is acting for the owner of your car, he is in effect repossessing his property. if you try to prevent it, you are a thief, and why shouldn't he shoot you?

No not at all, firstly the repo man only has the car as collaterol or as the item; the property itself would belong to the entity the repo man may work for if a court order is passed saying as much, or at least i think that's the way it works.

Also i would assume that he would not enter the property illegally if he had a right to reposses the property. He would have a lawful contracted right to reposses whatever he came to claim, i.e. the car.

Yeah. That's why I wrote "in effect". Don't see why it would change anything.

Argh. My point exactly.

No but then why would anyone shoot them? I think the scenario is unlikely, i've never heard of folks shooting at repo men!

Say nobody knew who the person was the most they would like with horn is tell them to freeze and not to move, i would assume the repo guy would oblige, not wanting to get his head shot off and all....

That's a high risk assumption considring the life or death of man while doing his job is at stake, according to this law in Texas.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Repossessions are covered under a completely different set of laws, and by retaining the car, you are not committing theft but rather a breach of contract.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Yes it is - which is why it is in the best interests of the person doing the repossession to advise the person in possession of the vehicle that he is there to legally take it.

There are a completely different set of laws which cover repossession. I'm not even going to pretend I understand those.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I'm not so sure about that.

It wasn't even his own property to begin with & his safety was never in danger. If it was, he was the one who put it danger by venturing outside after being instructed by the 911 operator to stay inside.

Shooting two people in the back & killing them over a minor property theft puts that guy on a lower level of scum than the the thieves he shot & I hope they throw the book at him & the families of the dead guys sue him & take his house away from his heirs.

I was sitting around bored earlier today, and thinking of this thread for some reason. Let's take, at face value, that Texas law allows for citizens to make the determination that someone is a thief, and, apparently, determine whether that theft is felony, misdemeanor, or breach of contract the way a trained official such as a police officer might. Let's also assume that Texas law allows civilians, unlike police officers, to gun people down in the commission of such a theft, after rendering their layman's legal verdicts.

Now, since a civilian has no real training in distinguishing types of theft from one another or even that a theft is occurring, there are likely to be some understandable mistakes, no? Let's say that I'm walking down the street with my friend Horn, and we happen upon a man with a crazy look in his eyes, shoddy clothes, and a suspicious demeanor. He's walking out of a very ritzy looking house, carrying a television and looking around furtively.

Naturally, being good citizens, Horn and I approach him, force him to get down on his knees and open his mouth, put the gun in it, and squeal with delight as all manner of brains, blood and gore coat us in the sticky spray of justice. As we're exchanging high-fives and cries of "wait til the guys here about this", however, a woman screams and runs out of the house calling our noble deed 'murder' because the man, in fact, lived there and was her husband.

Now, clearly a mistake has been made, but shouldn't Texas law allow for these sorts of "oops-es"? After all, Horn and I saw what really, really looked like a felony being committed, and we were just doing our civic duty. How were untrained civilians like us supposed to know better? We were simply preventing the theft of some stranger's property when no one had asked us for any help. No life is more important than a random person's property, and these things will happen.

And, furthermore, let's say that we give the wife a heartfelt apology for the little misunderstanding and leave her to prepare for her closed casket funeral and make our way home. Now, let's say the police show up and want to arrest us. On the one hand, they are the police, but then, on the other hand they are attempting to kidnap and forcibly detain two people just acting in their natural capacity as citizens. Should we shoot the policemen or not?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

This also made me thing of another question if I find myself living in Texas. Let's say that I'm new to the neighborhood, and have yet to meet my new neighbor, Horn. I put on the pants I wear when I paint my house (ripped and stained) and decide I want to fix the back door to my place. So, there I am with some tools, working on the back door. It's entirely possible that I look like a burglar. Should I tuck a gun into my waistband, so that I can shoot Horn before he gets a chance to shoot me, naturally viewing this as a chance to go pop a burglar? That is, if I move to Texas, am I best served to shoot neighbors first and ask questions later?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson