Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 8/21/2017 7:59:34 AM EST
http://libertyparkpress.com/police-warn-protesters-texas-gun-owners-can-shoot-you-on-sight-if-you-mess-with-our-statues/#.WZn8mJkIM_B.facebook

I think that this is complete BS and likely to get you a long visit to a not so nice facility, but I might be wrong.
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 8:50:49 AM EST
Would the investigators, prosecutors, and ultimately the jurors decide it was immediate, necessary, and reasonable - to shoot somebody for tearing down a statue?

I'm going to go with, no.
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 9:00:35 AM EST
I'm no legal expert but I call complete BS on that. Don't get me wrong I'm COMPLETELY disgusted and against what these pricks are doing to our history but gunplay on a statue isn't legal. You don't own it, the individual isn't placing you, or other living people in harm. Even if I'm wrong about the law, I wouldn't draw my weapon. Hell the last gunfight I was unfortunately involved in, I ended up with a smashed out window of my truck and the lovely Harris county DA asking the police to hold my weapon in case someone showed up at a hospital with my rounds ( just some 410 buck load...geez I just hit the car window ) in them. But they kept my Judge for a year and I just placed a more deadly weapon on my night stand - no f's given. Long story short if I can't enter into a gunfight with an individual in my own yard at 0 dark 30 - drawing on someone screwing with a statue I believe would get you in serious crap.
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 9:17:21 AM EST
Let's review:

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

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. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

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.

Summary - destroying property that does not belong to you at night might incur some risk.
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 9:33:10 AM EST
Anyone who would shoot someone for tearing down or otherwise attacking a graven image is a fucking idiot who needs to go to prison.
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 9:55:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By Redneck_in_Texas:
http://libertyparkpress.com/police-warn-protesters-texas-gun-owners-can-shoot-you-on-sight-if-you-mess-with-our-statues/#.WZn8mJkIM_B.facebook

I think that this is complete BS and likely to get you a long visit to a not so nice facility, but I might be wrong.
View Quote


It is correct. Try reading the statutes before calling BS.
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 9:57:53 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ADX:
Anyone who would shoot someone for tearing down or otherwise attacking a graven image is a fucking idiot who needs to go to prison.
View Quote
Anyone who would tear down or otherwise attack a graven image is a fucking idiot who needs to go to prison, assuming they survive getting shot.

Simply put, they know the risk, their choice to take it or not.
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 3:56:21 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


Anyone who would tear down or otherwise attack a graven image is a fucking idiot who needs to go to prison, assuming they survive getting shot.

Simply put, they know the risk, their choice to take it or not.
View Quote
I completely agree, but I ain't taking the shot, because the penal code says it's ok, or one cop makes a facebook post saying you can.
Legal doesn't mean smart, and the cost incurred after the fact would not be worth it.
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 4:22:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RWM:
I completely agree, but I ain't taking the shot, because the penal code says it's ok, or one cop makes a facebook post saying you can.
Legal doesn't mean smart, and the cost incurred after the fact would not be worth it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RWM:
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


Anyone who would tear down or otherwise attack a graven image is a fucking idiot who needs to go to prison, assuming they survive getting shot.

Simply put, they know the risk, their choice to take it or not.
I completely agree, but I ain't taking the shot, because the penal code says it's ok, or one cop makes a facebook post saying you can.
Legal doesn't mean smart, and the cost incurred after the fact would not be worth it.
dammit!
We were all counting on you!
Now who's going to to it?
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 4:24:57 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rdnkar:
dammit!
We were all counting on you!
Now who's going to to it?
View Quote
I'll donate $100 to your gofundme legal defense if you wanna step up
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 4:26:49 PM EST
I would also point out the number of judges that don't think the laws apply as written.
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 6:16:00 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ADX:
Anyone who would shoot someone for tearing down or otherwise attacking a graven image is a fucking idiot who needs to go to prison.
View Quote
Its not a graven image...its a memorial to fallen soldiers, or a leader of men, who fought for their beliefs and country. I doubt very many were fighting to save slavery, as I doubt very many Northerners were fighting to abolish slavery.

And just because today's snowflake shitbag commie MF'ers get triggered by something that doesn't really affect them that all, cuz muh feelz, doesn't mean they should be tearing them down.

They deserve to be shot, I would not convict.

If someone went up to a Martin Luther King statue and tore it down and destroyed it, you think the tolerant left would sit by and chill?
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 6:48:00 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 9:39:57 PM EST
I'll take, "You could see that one coming" for $100, Alex.
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 10:36:30 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


It is correct. Try reading the statutes before calling BS.
View Quote
Are you saying that deadly force is justified against a person to protect a third person's property for criminal mischief at night JUST due to the criminal mischief?
Link Posted: 8/21/2017 10:43:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By txinvestigator:


Are you saying that deadly force is justified against a person to protect a third person's property for criminal mischief at night JUST due to the criminal mischief?
View Quote
I am stating the statutes Ryan referenced are correct and the OPs claim they are "complete BS" is false
Top Top