Deadly Force in Texas: Kidnapping vs. Aggrevated Kidnapping

Hometown » Texas

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Deadly Force in Texas: Kidnapping vs. Aggrevated Kidnapping

Posted: 9/18/2014 7:54:17 PM EDT

So we learned today that ISIS plotted to have their members in Australia kidnap random people off the street, behead them and use those beheadings as a terror tool.

This got me thinking about the law in Texas governing the use of deadly force.

The statute specifically states that deadly force is justified in defense against aggravated kidnapping.

Texas law differentiates between kidnapping from aggravated kidnapping thusly:


Sec. 20.03.  KIDNAPPING.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.
View Quote

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the abduction was not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force;

(2) the actor was a relative of the person abducted; and

(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the victim.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:

(1) hold him for ransom or reward;

(2) use him as a shield or hostage;

(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;

(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;

(5) terrorize him or a third person; or

(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

OK, so let's say you're out walking your doggy. A van pulls up, the side door slides open, two guys jump out and start trying to force you into the van. If you pull your gun and shoot them, then are you breaking the law? Seriously, how in the hell are you supposed to know what their intent is? That's a double edged sword right there! If you don't know what their intent is then are you to assume that they have no intent to inflict bodily harm on you? Isn't it a more logical assumption that if someone is trying to kidnap you then they fully intend to inflict bodily injury or sexual assault on you?

I think this law is fucked up. If they want to punish someone for kidnapping differently than someone for aggravated kidnapping then that's one thing, but to limit the victim's self defense to situations where you have to interpret the aggressor's intentions, that's no good!

I know what I would do if someone tried to force to abduct me. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

I still think it's fucked up though.

Or, am I misinterpreting the statutes on self defense?

Posted: 9/18/2014 8:42:13 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
So we learned today that ISIS plotted to have their members in Australia kidnap random people off the street, behead them and use those beheadings as a terror tool.

This got me thinking about the law in Texas governing the use of deadly force.

The statute specifically states that deadly force is justified in defense against aggravated kidnapping.

Texas law differentiates between kidnapping from aggravated kidnapping thusly:

Sec. 20.03.  KIDNAPPING.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.

View Quote

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the abduction was not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force;
(2) the actor was a relative of the person abducted; and
(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the victim.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:
(1) hold him for ransom or reward;
(2) use him as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

OK, so let's say you're out walking your doggy. A van pulls up, the side door slides open, two guys jump out and start trying to force you into the van. If you pull your gun and shoot them, then are you breaking the law? Seriously, how in the hell are you supposed to know what their intent is? That's a double edged sword right there! If you don't know what their intent is then are you to assume that they have no intent to inflict bodily harm on you? Isn't it a more logical assumption that if someone is trying to kidnap you then they fully intend to inflict bodily injury or sexual assault on you?

I think this law is fucked up. If they want to punish someone for kidnapping differently than someone for aggravated kidnapping then that's one thing, but to limit the victim's self defense to situations where you have to interpret the aggressor's intentions, that's no good!

I know what I would do if someone tried to force to abduct me. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

I still think it's fucked up though.

Or, am I misinterpreting the statutes on self defense?

View Quote

I think you misunderstand they way the self defense laws work. Shooting someone is against the law. Even if they try to shoot you first. What the self defense laws do is offer you a defense in court as to why your conduct (shooting someone) in a particular situation is justified and therefore, excludes you from criminal responsibility.

What matters was what was reasonable for you to believe at the time.

And in the case of kidnapping how they gonna get you in the van, in your scenario?

Posted: 9/18/2014 8:59:15 PM EDT

[#2]

So are you going to go without a fight? Would they not have to inflict serious bodily injury on you to get you into the van? or why would they be kidnapping you if not to harm you, hold you for ransom or something else covered under this statue? Think about it. Also if you heard one of them say something like "this guy is dead meat" or "we're going to fuck you up" or something similar. Sounds like justification for deadly force to me. Any type of kidnapping like you describe is aggravated in nature. The other kind referenced in the law is more like so couple are driving down road guy and girl get into argument and she wants out of the car. He does not let her out. She went with him voluntarily, got in an argument and now she wanted out of car but he will not stop the car to let her out. Cops get called or involved. He didn't touch her, threaten her or do anything else other than not stop the car until he gets to his destination. He just wanted to keep talking or keep argument going and he technically committed kidnapping by keeping her against her will. Could also be charged with unlawful detention too depending on elements of offense and other factors. Not a perfect example but you get the idea.

Posted: 9/18/2014 9:09:23 PM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:

And in the case of kidnapping how they gonna get you in the van, in your scenario?

View Quote

Well, two guys jump out and try to grab and you pull you into the van.

Posted: 9/18/2014 9:10:18 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:

So are you going to go without a fight?

View Quote

Me? No.

I'd rather tame my chances with a jury.

Posted: 9/18/2014 9:36:17 PM EDT

[#5]

Projectile vomit, pee, poop on them. Who wants to mess with that?

Posted: 9/18/2014 9:39:23 PM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:

I think you misunderstand they way the self defense laws work. Shooting someone is against the law. Even if they try to shoot you first. What the self defense laws do is offer you a defense in court as to why your conduct (shooting someone) in a particular situation is justified and therefore, excludes you from criminal responsibility.

What matters was what was reasonable for you to believe at the time.

And in the case of kidnapping how they gonna get you in the van, in your scenario?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
So we learned today that ISIS plotted to have their members in Australia kidnap random people off the street, behead them and use those beheadings as a terror tool.

This got me thinking about the law in Texas governing the use of deadly force.

The statute specifically states that deadly force is justified in defense against aggravated kidnapping.

Texas law differentiates between kidnapping from aggravated kidnapping thusly:

Sec. 20.03.  KIDNAPPING.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:(1) the abduction was not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force;(2) the actor was a relative of the person abducted; and(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the victim.(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:(1) hold him for ransom or reward;(2) use him as a shield or hostage;(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;(5) terrorize him or a third person; or(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

OK, so let's say you're out walking your doggy. A van pulls up, the side door slides open, two guys jump out and start trying to force you into the van. If you pull your gun and shoot them, then are you breaking the law? Seriously, how in the hell are you supposed to know what their intent is? That's a double edged sword right there! If you don't know what their intent is then are you to assume that they have no intent to inflict bodily harm on you? Isn't it a more logical assumption that if someone is trying to kidnap you then they fully intend to inflict bodily injury or sexual assault on you?

I think this law is fucked up. If they want to punish someone for kidnapping differently than someone for aggravated kidnapping then that's one thing, but to limit the victim's self defense to situations where you have to interpret the aggressor's intentions, that's no good!

I know what I would do if someone tried to force to abduct me. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

I still think it's fucked up though.

Or, am I misinterpreting the statutes on self defense?

I think you misunderstand they way the self defense laws work. Shooting someone is against the law. Even if they try to shoot you first. What the self defense laws do is offer you a defense in court as to why your conduct (shooting someone) in a particular situation is justified and therefore, excludes you from criminal responsibility.

What matters was what was reasonable for you to believe at the time.

And in the case of kidnapping how they gonna get you in the van, in your scenario?

You are mistaken. In some states, particularly those with mixed quality laws like Texas, that is the case. In others self defense is not an affirmative defense but in a case of self defense there is no crime.

Posted: 9/18/2014 9:44:24 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:

Well, two guys jump out and try to grab and you pull you into the van.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

And in the case of kidnapping how they gonna get you in the van, in your scenario?

Well, two guys jump out and try to grab and you pull you into the van.

They "try to grab me"? Well no, I probably will not shoot a couple of yahoos who try to grab me.

I see where you are going. Depending on the circumstances, location, time of day, size of the two, their aggressiveness, etc., I might use physical force, pepper spray, draw down, or fire. Too many variables to even remotely try to give a definitive answer here.

What are the chances to ISIS guys are pick you off of the street? lol

Posted: 9/18/2014 9:47:13 PM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:

You are mistaken. In some states, particularly those with mixed quality laws like Texas, that is the case. In others self defense is not an affirmative defense but in a case of self defense there is no crime.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
So we learned today that ISIS plotted to have their members in Australia kidnap random people off the street, behead them and use those beheadings as a terror tool.

This got me thinking about the law in Texas governing the use of deadly force.

The statute specifically states that deadly force is justified in defense against aggravated kidnapping.

Texas law differentiates between kidnapping from aggravated kidnapping thusly:

Sec. 20.03.  KIDNAPPING.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:(1) the abduction was not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force;(2) the actor was a relative of the person abducted; and(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the victim.(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:(1) hold him for ransom or reward;(2) use him as a shield or hostage;(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;(5) terrorize him or a third person; or(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

OK, so let's say you're out walking your doggy. A van pulls up, the side door slides open, two guys jump out and start trying to force you into the van. If you pull your gun and shoot them, then are you breaking the law? Seriously, how in the hell are you supposed to know what their intent is? That's a double edged sword right there! If you don't know what their intent is then are you to assume that they have no intent to inflict bodily harm on you? Isn't it a more logical assumption that if someone is trying to kidnap you then they fully intend to inflict bodily injury or sexual assault on you?

I think this law is fucked up. If they want to punish someone for kidnapping differently than someone for aggravated kidnapping then that's one thing, but to limit the victim's self defense to situations where you have to interpret the aggressor's intentions, that's no good!

I know what I would do if someone tried to force to abduct me. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

I still think it's fucked up though.

Or, am I misinterpreting the statutes on self defense?

I think you misunderstand they way the self defense laws work. Shooting someone is against the law. Even if they try to shoot you first. What the self defense laws do is offer you a defense in court as to why your conduct (shooting someone) in a particular situation is justified and therefore, excludes you from criminal responsibility.

What matters was what was reasonable for you to believe at the time.

And in the case of kidnapping how they gonna get you in the van, in your scenario?

You are mistaken. In some states, particularly those with mixed quality laws like Texas, that is the case. In others self defense is not an affirmative defense but in a case of self defense there is no crime.

No, I am not "mistaken". He posted this in a Texas thread, referenced Texas law, and my responses are per Texas law.

Self defense is not an affirmative defense in Texas, by the way, It is a defense to prosecution.

Posted: 9/18/2014 9:59:30 PM EDT

[#9]

I didn't say it was an affirmative defense in Texas. There are three ways it can go. Affirmative defense is one, absolute defense is another and you can also word the law to exclude self defense entirely from the criminal homicide statute, which at least one state has done.

You posted in such a manner as people would believe it a general answer. You should let them know it is specific to Texas.

Posted: 9/18/2014 10:04:29 PM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
They "try to grab me"? Well no, I probably will not shoot a couple of yahoos who try to grab me.

I see where you are going. Depending on the circumstances, location, time of day, size of the two, their aggressiveness, etc., I might use physical force, pepper spray, draw down, or fire. Too many variables to even remotely try to give a definitive answer here.

What are the chances to ISIS guys are pick you off of the street? lol

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

And in the case of kidnapping how they gonna get you in the van, in your scenario?

Well, two guys jump out and try to grab and you pull you into the van.

They "try to grab me"? Well no, I probably will not shoot a couple of yahoos who try to grab me.

I see where you are going. Depending on the circumstances, location, time of day, size of the two, their aggressiveness, etc., I might use physical force, pepper spray, draw down, or fire. Too many variables to even remotely try to give a definitive answer here.

What are the chances to ISIS guys are pick you off of the street? lol

What are the chances? Extremely low. Almost certainly won't happen to me. Far more likely that I'd get mugged or robbed, which is still highly unlikely and will probably never happen to me either.

But that's what everyone says, until it does happen to them...which is why we carry guns in the first place.

Posted: 9/18/2014 10:13:29 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
I didn't say it was an affirmative defense in Texas. There are three ways it can go. Affirmative defense is one, absolute defense is another and you can also word the law to exclude self defense entirely from the criminal homicide statute, which at least one state has done.

You posted in such a manner as people would believe it a general answer. You should let them know it is specific to Texas.

View Quote

Is this NOT a Texas forum, with Texas references?

You missed Defense to Prosecution and Exceptions.

What states use an "absolute defense" in criminal law, and which state "excludes self defense entirely from the criminal homicide statute"?

Posted: 9/18/2014 10:22:00 PM EDT

[#12]

I would probably get ready to draw.

It may not be ISIS, but I may be about to become a victim of a robbery or assault.

Posted: 9/18/2014 10:30:55 PM EDT

[#13]

Why do you guys even reply to this GD troll?

Posted: 9/18/2014 10:33:48 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:

I would probably get ready to draw.

It may not be ISIS, but I may be about to become a victim of a robbery or assault.

View Quote

Doesn't even have to be ISIS. Kidnapping is a huge part of the Cartel's business model too.

Either way, they'll grab quick and want you breathing. They aren't going to jump out with guns and risk shooting their target before they accomplish their goal.

As txinvestigator points out, it's unlikely to happen to you, or me...but so are any of the things that we carry guns to defend ourselves from. Don't stop us from training, practicing and planning.

Posted: 9/18/2014 10:36:01 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:

Why do you guys even reply to this GD troll?

View Quote

I think it's a valid question, specifically for Texas. Maybe it's far fetched, but let's hope it stays far fetched.

Posted: 9/19/2014 12:20:13 AM EDT

[#16]

I don't know what their intent is or what they have planned for after they abduct me, and I'd say it's pretty reasonable to believe they're planning something that would qualify it as aggravated kidnapping (why else would they be doing it?).

Besides, while I'm being abducted is not the time to be worrying about what the law says. Two guys trying to get me into a van are going to end up dead before I end up in that fucking van.

Posted: 9/19/2014 2:41:53 AM EDT

[#17]

Simply put they didn't want folks shooting an ex spouse because they kept a child too long after visitation hours were over.

Posted: 9/19/2014 10:18:22 AM EDT

[#18]

Is there anything you can't get prosecuted for in Texas? I mean, if defending yourself against kidnapping, armed robbery, attempted murder or whatever is something you have to defend yourself against in court, that sort of begs the question of whose side the authorities are on here.

Being jailed and financially ruined for defending yourself against violent attack doesn't seem very American to me.

Posted: 9/19/2014 10:24:15 AM EDT

[#19]

America isn't very American anymore

Posted: 9/19/2014 10:45:41 AM EDT

[#20]

As a disinterested third party you shouldn't shoot someone's ex-wife, ex-husband, babydaddy, babymomma, or whoever over what usually boils down to a temporary custody dispute. You don't know any background info or who the parties are and what you might think is a kidnapping could really be the person with legal custody trying to get their child back from another party has previously taken the child. That is one reason why the CHL class tells your limits. There is a big difference between defense of another where you have no idea what is happening or what the "victim's" state of mind is and self defense where you know what your state of mind is and you know no one is supposed to be grabbing you off the side of the street and pulling you into a van. Remember the case here about a year ago where a guy said he saw a domestic dispute/fight in a parking lot and shot the man involved and then the woman involved said there was nothing going on and she didn't know why someone just came up and shot him? If people try to snatch you up off the side of the road, in a parking lot, you driveway, or anywhere else you should treat it as a deadly force situation. Unless you are the ISIS member and they are the CIA, either way, bad things are going to happen to the person being pulled into the van. It is just like the difference between a possibly armed person coming up to you in your car and saying "Get out of the car" and a possibly armed person coming up to you in your car and saying "Move over." There is a reason they want you to stay in the car and it's not because they need a navigator.

Posted: 9/19/2014 11:19:08 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Sec. 20.03.  KIDNAPPING.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.(b)  It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1)  the abduction was not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force;

(2)  the actor was a relative of the person abducted;  and

(3)  the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the victim.

(c)  An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 20.04.  AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:

(1)  hold him for ransom or reward;

(2)  use him as a shield or hostage;

(3)  facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;

(4)  inflict bodily injury on him  or violate or abuse him sexually;

(5)  terrorize him or a third person;  or

(6)  interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.

(b)  A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

(c)  Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d)  At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place.  If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

View Quote

The bolded red part is the key factor in the kidnapping statute for 20.03. If the person is not a family member, then you're justified in using deadly force under the 20.04(4) statute if you reasonably believe that you are being abducted and either going to have bodily injury inflicted upon you, or that you will be terrorized or a third party will be terrorized by your abduction (bolded in blue).

Long story short, someone attempts to abduct you and you have no idea who they are, use whatever force you feel is appropriate to defend your life.

Posted: 9/19/2014 12:42:09 PM EDT

[#22]

Sec. 20.03. KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.
...

Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:
...

View Quote

I understand the point motown_steve is trying to make. How can the intended victim of a kidnapping be expected to know the intentions of the perpetrator?

Also, how can non-aggravated kidnapping be less serious a crime than robbery? I can replace my wallet and jewelry, but I can't replace my body or my life...

Posted: 9/19/2014 1:55:53 PM EDT

[#23]

If they are pulling you into the van, I don't think you need to worry about whether its kidnapping our not, wouldn't it be the case that if you don't know them, you would then be in fear of serious bodily injury or death and in defense of another, if two guys are using force to drag someone else into the van, doesn't that in most cases escalate it to aggravated, it doesn't always have to involve a weapon.

Posted: 9/19/2014 4:55:36 PM EDT

[#24]

Just the fact that we can have this discussion, will likely preclude it being attempted by these muslim pigs.

I think if it does happen, it will definitely be in a gun free school zone, or something.

Posted: 9/19/2014 5:41:57 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

Well, two guys jump out and try to grab and you pull you into the van.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

And in the case of kidnapping how they gonna get you in the van, in your scenario?

Well, two guys jump out and try to grab and you pull you into the van.

It won't be that simple...they will have someone try to distract you...ask you for the time...bum a smoke...or "hey buddy". Or if you're prior military or active duty, find your name on social media and then act like they know you...THEN...zap your ass with a stun gun and throw you into the van.

They will do their best to get you when your guard is down.

I'm with you...I will take my chances with the jury.

Posted: 9/19/2014 6:04:38 PM EDT

[#26]

I will make you a deal OP.

If you ever have a black panel van slide up to you sideways on the curb A-Team style and two ISIS or IS guys in full black robes jump out and attempt to drag you into the van...

You can shoot them both and when the first responding officer arrives you can tell them that officer hkusp9 from the internet told you that you were allowed to shoot any IS terrorists that attempts to abduct you. They will contact me through our secret channels with which all officers communicate and I will get you out of the capital murder charge.

There, feel better now OP?

On a side note, have you had your prostate checked for cancer, checked your cholesterol levels, made sure that the seatbelts and brakes on your vehicle are functioning correctly, installed carbon monoxide detectors in your home, cut out heavy drinking and smoking, etc?

These things are much more likely to kill you than IS terrorists in vans dragging you off of sidewalks.

Posted: 9/19/2014 6:16:49 PM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:

I will make you a deal OP.

If you ever have a black panel van slide up to you sideways on the curb A-Team style and two ISIS or IS guys in full black robes jump out and attempt to drag you into the van...

You can shoot them both and when the first responding officer arrives you can tell them that officer hkusp9 from the internet told you that you were allowed to shoot any IS terrorists that attempts to abduct you. They will contact me through our secret channels with which all officers communicate and I will get you out of the capital murder charge.

There, feel better now OP?

On a side note, have you had your prostate checked for cancer, checked your cholesterol levels, made sure that the seatbelts and brakes on your vehicle are functioning correctly, installed carbon monoxide detectors in your home, cut out heavy drinking and smoking, etc?

These things are much more likely to kill you than IS terrorists in vans dragging you off of sidewalks.

View Quote

You sure about that?

http://images.inquisitr.com/1486120/isis-in-america-40-islamic-state-fighters-may-have-returned-to-u-s/

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tracks-threats-against-west-by-al-qaeda-affiliate-in-syria-1411083639?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12595499785223203469604580162480782554228.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mike-mccaul-identify-ISIS-US/2014/09/18/id/595528/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/28/justice/texas-terror-arrests/index.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2662515/The-Texan-jihadis-FBI-arrest-recruiter-boasted-contacts-British-terrorists-fighting-Somalia-second-US-citizen-detained-en-route-join-ISIS-Syria.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/19/opinion/ghitis-australia-isis-plot/index.html

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/08/22/fbi-homeland-security-bulletin-asks-police-to-be-aware-of-isis/

Posted: 9/19/2014 6:19:38 PM EDT

[#28]

If you find your prostate trying to kill you, destroy it. Likewise with other threats. Simple, really.

Posted: 9/19/2014 7:10:10 PM EDT

[#29]

Geez, dont you guys carry a rape whistle?
Just use that and they will let you go.
Then you wont have to mess with a possible trial and all.

Posted: 9/20/2014 9:39:46 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:

Well, two guys jump out and try to grab you andpull you into the van.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

And in the case of kidnapping how they gonna get you in the van, in your scenario?

Well, two guys jump out and try to grab you andpull you into the van.

That makes it aggravated kidnapping. Law seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

Posted: 9/21/2014 2:50:31 PM EDT

[#31]

Kind of off topic, but if a couple of ISIS goat-fuckers ever abduct me, please drop a nuke on my ass. The bigger the better.

Posted: 9/22/2014 11:27:04 AM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
Is there anything you can't get prosecuted for in Texas? I mean, if defending yourself against kidnapping, armed robbery, attempted murder or whatever is something you have to defend yourself against in court, that sort of begs the question of whose side the authorities are on here.

Being jailed and financially ruined for defending yourself against violent attack doesn't seem very American to me.

View Quote

You can't simply say it was self defense to get away with murder. The investigators and prosecutors have to investigate to determine that themselves. I don't believe they are all out to get you. I believe that they will prosecute when the evidence demands it. Certainly there are anti-self defense prosecutors out there but I like to believe they are in the minority.

If it's clearly self defense the prosecutor may choose not to prosecute and even if they do prosecute, the grand jury may still no-bill you. Either of those situations and you don't get financially ruined or have to spend years in court.

There is always the chance that you f'ed up and had a bad shoot or that you get Zimmerman'd but I'll take those chances if life or limb is at stake.

Posted: 9/22/2014 12:26:43 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
That makes it aggravated kidnapping. Law seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
That makes it aggravated kidnapping. Law seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

It isn't quite that simple. Even non-aggravated kidnapping can involve the actual use of deadly force:

Sec. 20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by:
(A) force, intimidation, or deception; or
...
(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by:
(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found; or
(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.
...
Sec. 20.03. KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.
...

The difference between kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping appears to be the intent of the perpetrator.

I wouldn't expect a problem from a prosecutor if the kidnapper used or threatened to use deadly force however.

Posted: 9/22/2014 2:48:55 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:

It isn't quite that simple. Even non-aggravated kidnapping can involve the actual use of deadly force:

The difference between kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping appears to be the intent of the perpetrator.

I wouldn't expect a problem from a prosecutor if the kidnapper used or threatened to use deadly force however.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
That makes it aggravated kidnapping. Law seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

It isn't quite that simple. Even non-aggravated kidnapping can involve the actual use of deadly force:

Sec. 20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by:
(A) force, intimidation, or deception; or
...
(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by:
(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found; or
(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.
...
Sec. 20.03. KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.
...

The difference between kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping appears to be the intent of the perpetrator.

I wouldn't expect a problem from a prosecutor if the kidnapper used or threatened to use deadly force however.

Once your reasonable believe that deadly force is imminent, you move from protection against agg kidnapping to simply protecting yourself from deadly force.

Posted: 9/22/2014 3:16:36 PM EDT

[#35]

Fox News is reporting that ISIS has issued a new statement today urging followers to kill random citizens in the US and other coalition nations and a White House has stated that some Americans who traveled to Syria to train with ISIS have returned to the US.

Posted: 9/22/2014 6:50:16 PM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
Fox News is reporting that ISIS has issued a new statement today urging followers to kill random citizens in the US and other coalition nations and a White House has stated that some Americans who traveled to Syria to train with ISIS have returned to the US.

View Quote

Bring it. Once one or two of these happen, you'll see a lot more people OC'ing rifles. I don't enjoy saying this, but I'll sure as shit be one of 'em.

Posted: 9/22/2014 7:35:01 PM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:
Bring it.

View Quote

Simple as that. Some of us are prepared.

Posted: 9/23/2014 8:18:38 AM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
Fox News is reporting that ISIS has issued a new statement today urging followers to kill random citizens in the US and other coalition nations and a White House has stated that some Americans who traveled to Syria to train with ISIS have returned to the US.

View Quote

Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United

Posted: 9/23/2014 11:02:46 AM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:

Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Fox News is reporting that ISIS has issued a new statement today urging followers to kill random citizens in the US and other coalition nations and a White House has stated that some Americans who traveled to Syria to train with ISIS have returned to the US.

Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United

Wouldn't surprise me. It's more than a little Alex Jones-ish, but I wouldn't put it past the CIA, particularly if they were the tool that was chosen by the Obama Regime to overthrow Assad.

That said, even if the CIA did help ISIS get back on their feet and tried to use them to overthrow Assad, that doesn't mean that the CIA is controlling, or ever had any control over them. It also doesn't mean that ISIS is secretly our buddies and is just playing along with this whole Jihad thing. It also doesn't mean that they don't want to kill Americans or attack us here.