General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

L.W. Paradis
The Hill
comments

Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Man Shoots u0026 Kills 13-Yr-Old For Breaking Into Cars, Vigilante Justice Gone TOO FAR: Robby u0026 Brie" video.

A carjacking is a crime against a person, and puts a person at grave risk of injury. Hence you have a right to use lethal force. It is not a property crime.
19
How is it that no one seems to know? It is illegal -- ILLEGAL -- to use deadly force where there is no imminent threat to the safety of persons. Deadly force in defense of mere property is a crime. It's not a matter of opinion, it's the law. If these kids posed no threat to anyone's physical safety, then it was illegal to use deadly force.
14
How is that relevant? Self-defense is legal. Defending mere property with lethal force is not.
7
Then someone better tell it to you straight: it is illegal to use lethal force to defend property. If you are in the car, then you have a right to use lethal force, but only because you are defending your own safety. So, no one knows civics. Great. A country where so many people own firearms, and we have a debate about a settled question of law -- you cannot use lethal force in any state, merely to defend property. You can only use it to defend yourself and others.
7
Defense of property with lethal force is illegal. If the kid did nothing to put anyone in fear of harm to their person, then it was illegal to shoot him.
6
Defending property with lethal force is illegal.
6
The law sets a bright line, no speculation. It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of property regardless of how old the perpetrator is. That's why you can legally shoot someone attempting to carjack, but not to shoot someone attempting to break into a parked car on the street. It's a bright line, and Bri muddled it. She should have stated the law. Whether something has become a "gang initiation" is irrelevant. If these kids did not put any person at risk of physical harm, then it was illegal to shoot them. It's called self-defense for a reason.
5
This is true, and I wish Bri were crystal clear on this point: it is illegal to use deadly force in defense of property when there is no personal safety at stake. You can defend life and limb with deadly force, and you don't have to wait and see whether the offender is a juvenile, or whether he has a gun -- you have a right to personal safety. But you cannot shoot anyone for trying to break into an unoccupied car parked on the street. That is a homicide, and it is not justified unless an actual person was in danger.
5
@unboxedcharacter None of this is relevant. Lethal force in defense of property is illegal. If the kids did not put any person at risk of physical injury, then it was illegal to shoot them. A nation of gun owners is supposed to know this.
4
@marlinmurrell620 That is entirely different. A burglary of an occupied structure (house, garage, etc.) is a violent crime and you have no obligation to find out what sort of arm the burglar might be carrying. It is a crime that puts a person at risk of imminent physical harm. Of course lethal force is legal. It's self-defense: just like carjacking. It's about the risk of harm to persons, as distinct from property. How do people not know this? That is mind-boggling. It doesn't have to be your house. It can be a friend's house and you're spending the night while he's on vacation. If you are there, you can defend your personal safety.
4
@naijaplayer We have no information that a carjacking was involved. There was no one in the parked car. A carjacking is a crime against the person. Taking an empty, parked car is a property crime.
4
So Robby is SO ignorant that he doesn't know it is illegal to defend property with lethal force, regardless of the value of the property. This is the problem. People don't even know that theft of property is never a reason to use lethal force. A person has to put another person at risk of injury to justify use of lethal force.
4
Bri muddled this. It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property, everywhere. Lethal force is justified if you put any person at risk of imminent physical harm. It is never legal for defense of mere property. Social ills, etc., are irrelevant. The age of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Whether he put a person in danger of physical harm is the only question that matters. It is a bright line. We have a lot of gun owners in America, and this isn't common knowledge? Wow, just wow. Also, this is exactly why a carjacking, or a home invasion while there are people in the house, can be met with lethal force. It doesn't matter if the assailant turns out to be unarmed, or was just looking to burgle and thought the house was empty. There is no question about this. It's called self-defense for a reason.
4
False. It does not. A carjacking is not the defense of an unoccupied car, but of a person. No state allows the use of lethal force in defense of property where no person's physical safety is at risk.
4
You are right. Bri muddled this. It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property, everywhere. Lethal force is justified if you put any person at risk of imminent physical harm. It is never legal for defense of mere property. Social ills, etc., are irrelevant. The age of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Whether he put an actual person in danger of physical harm is the only question that matters. It is a bright line. She needed to state the law, and leave out the rest. Also, this is exactly why a carjacking, or a home invasion while there are people in the house, can be met with lethal force. It doesn't matter if the assailant turns out to be unarmed, or was just looking to burgle and thought the house was empty, or was only a kid. There is no question about this. It's called "self-defense" for a reason.
3
It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property, everywhere. Lethal force is justified if you put any person at risk of imminent physical harm. It is never legal for defense of mere property. Social ills, etc., are irrelevant. The age of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Whether he put a person in danger of physical harm is the only question that matters. It is a bright line. We have a lot of gun owners in America, and this isn't common knowledge? Wow, just wow. Also, this is exactly why a carjacking, or a home invasion while there are people in the house, can be met with lethal force. It doesn't matter if the assailant turns out to be unarmed, or was just looking to burgle and thought the house was empty, or was only a juvenile. There is no question about this. It's called self-defense for a reason.
3
@Mister_Durden GTA? That's the name of a video game. It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property, everywhere. Only if the kids put a person in imminent danger of physical harm would it be legal to shoot them. Inform yourself.
3
Bri muddled this. It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property, everywhere. Lethal force is justified if you put any person at risk of imminent physical harm. It is never legal for defense of mere property. Social ills, etc., are irrelevant. The age of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Whether he put a person in danger of physical harm is the only question that matters. It is a bright line. We have a lot of gun owners in America, and this isn't common knowledge? Wow, just wow. Also, this is exactly why a carjacking, or a home invasion while there are people in the house, can be met with lethal force. It doesn't matter if the assailant turns out to be unarmed, or was just looking to burgle and thought the house was empty, or was only 13. There is no question about this. It's called "self-defense" for a reason.
3
And there is a law that says you can use lethal force to defend your own safety, but not to defend property. It is illegal to use lethal force to defend mere property.
3
@Joseph1NJ Exactly. In a nation of gun owners, they don't know this??
3
Lethal force in defense of a person is legal. Lethal force in defense of mere property isn't. That's why you can use lethal force to defend yourself against a carjacking but not if the car is empty and parked on the street.
3
How is it that people don't know this? It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property. If the kids did not put person at risk of imminent physical harm, then it was illegal to shoot them. This is a bright-line rule. I thought a nation of gun owners would know the law about using deadly force. Oh well. And to hear them pontificating about crime, when they themselves don't know the law.
3
@13dove Precisely. Carjacking is a violent crime that endangers a person. Of course you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.
3
@andren8788 He happens to be not only wrong, but completely ignorant of the law, and is spreading potentially dangerous misinformation.
3
@daniellincoln2693 Irrelevant. It is illegal to use lethal force in defense of property.
2
It's illegal to defend mere property with lethal force, in every state. She muddled this by not stating that simple fact. Clearly, people don't know it anymore. If the kids did not put any person in physical danger by what they were doing, then shooting them was not justified. It is an illegal homicide. What's disturbing is that a nation of gun owners does not know the law.
2
It is illegal to defend property with lethal force. You can only defend your own physical safety with lethal force.
2
Doesn't matter. It is illegal to use lethal force unless the safety of a PERSON is in danger. Lethal force in defense of property is illegal.
2
Because it is illegal to use deadly force to defend mere property. You have a right to use deadly force to defend your own personal safety, or the safety of others. If the kids did nothing to put any person at risk of physical harm, then the man had no right to shoot them. It's really simple.
2
@apocalypticoptimist7117 How about finding out what the law is? I thought a nation of gun owners knew the law. Even Robbie doesn't.
2
@daniellincoln2693 False. It is illegal.
2
False. A break-in of an occupied home is presumed to be a risk to the safety of the persons in it, not just property. Then it would not matter if the burglar was unarmed, thought no one was home, was only 13, etc. Lethal force in defense of persons is justified. Lethal force in defense of mere property is illegal. This is a bright-line rule, and a nation of gun owners does not know? Wow.
2
@troy5140 Right. You can be justified in using deadly force to defend a person, but not to defend property. And people turn to property crimes when they have no means of obtaining the basic necessities of life any other way. What is "inconvenient?" Where did you see a contradiction? She put life before property both times. The kids who tried to steal a car were committing a crime. The person who shot them when his personal safety was not at stake, but only to keep them from getting his property, also committed a crime.
2
@norman_5623 Thank you. I am so surprised that no one seems to be clear on this. Even in Texas, the conditions you have to meet, such as attempting to use something less than lethal force, or proving that lethal force was necessary without trying other means first, ends up enriching criminal defense lawyers. (The offender won't get your property, but the lawyer will get a chunk.) Various Castle Doctrine laws have to do with occupied structures. In lots of states, you have no obligation to wait and see who is breaking into your house while you are at home, much less waiting to see whether that intruder is armed. You are presumed to be defending your life and limb, and you can use deadly force. It will not matter that the person turned out to be unarmed or under 18. :/ When a drunken kid tries to break into a house he thinks he has a right to enter, and he gets killed that way, people act surprised, but the truth is, the person inside the home is presumed to be defending himself and had a legal right to shoot. I know one kid in Colorado died right in the doorway, but the homeowner was with an infant and was not legally in the wrong (we can talk about ethics separately). The kid broke in. That is a tragedy. A nation full of gun owners doesn't know the rules. I'm shocked every day. Shoot me now, put me out of my misery. ;(
2
Or learn the laws. He was spreading real misinformation -- shooting someone over mere property is illegal. You can defend a person's life and limb with lethal force, but not property without imminent threat of harm to a person.
2
It is illegal in every state to defend mere property with lethal force. You can defend your physical safety with lethal force. It's really a bright line. She muddled it, actually. She could have just stated the law.
2
Deadly force is legal in defense of persons. It is illegal in defense of property. A nation of gun owners is supposed to know the bright line rule.
2
False. If the kids did not put any person in danger of physical harm, then using lethal force is against the law. This should have been made clear. It is always the risk to a person that counts. A parked car with no one in it does not count, except in some very unusual circumstances where the car is needed by its owner to preserve his life (in a snow storm, evacuation during a bombing raid or because of a chemical release, etc.).
2
False. The Castle Doctrine states that you may defend yourself or any other person in your home if someone breaks into your home. You can presume they intend to do harm to you. That is not defense of property, that is defense of the person's life and health. It doesn't apply to an empty house or an unoccupied car. Wow, a nation of gun owners, huh? I thought people had some idea of what the laws are around use of deadly force. You all surprise me every day.
2
@troy5140 How about her argument should start with what the law says, not what some of us would prefer, or what Robbie thinks is fair? Why take his lead and talk about feelings?
2
@Lanefasts They don't care. Their right to speculate is more important than a human life.
2
No, actually. It just goes one way. Lethal force in defense of property, where there is no imminent danger to anyone's personal safety, is illegal. If someone tells you otherwise, and you are inclined to believe them, I suggest you take the time to read carefully and inform yourself.
2
@seventhcompactor1505 blocked
2
@daniellincoln2693 No, that is exactly what you cannot do. It is not legal to defend mere property with deadly force. You can defend YOURSELF and your personal safety with deadly force. It is a bright line.
2
It's not controversial. It is illegal to use lethal force in defense of mere property. If these perpetrators did not put any person in danger of physical injury, then it was illegal to shoot them. It's called SELF-defense for a reason.
2
This is the problem. People don't even know that as a matter of law, theft of property is never a reason to use lethal force. A person has to put another person at risk of injury to justify use of lethal force.
2
@unboxedcharacter I used to want to end idiocy. Now I just want a good price for my house so that I can emigrate. Tootles, you lover of dystopia, you.
1
@unboxedcharacter There is no state where you can defend mere property with lethal force, with a small exception in Texas, but the rules are so complicated, and the requirement that you attempt non-lethal force first in almost all cases is such a gray area, that the Texas law basically means that you get your liberty but a defense attorney gets your property. $$$ The basic rule is that where depriving a person of property can put the person himself in danger (such stealing someone's car in a flood, snow storm, or during an evacuation order, or stealing someone's hunting rifle), then the person can use lethal force. See how that works?
1
@unboxedcharacter The man who shot the kid will be charged with some form of homicide, unless he was defending his own personal safety. But you are only against certain crimes and not others. And that is not "ideology." Ideology, maybe. Idiocy, sure.
1
Yes, and the law treats property and life/safety/health of persons differently. Lethal force in defense of persons is legal. In defense of mere property, it is not.
1
@michaelsieger9133 It's also illegal to defend mere property with lethal force, in every state. She muddled this by not stating that simple fact. Clearly, people don't know it anymore. If the kids did not put any person in physical danger, then shooting them was not justified. It is an illegal homicide, probably reckless, grossly negligent, or something like that.
1
Well then someone needs to tell you unequivocally that if a person does not put YOU in imminent danger of harm, then you can't used lethal force to defend your property. It is illegal to use lethal force to defend mere property, where no one's safety is threatened. It's called SELF-defense for a reason.
1
It's not just a question of ethics. He seems not to know that it's illegal to use deadly force in defense of property. If the kids did not endanger the physical safety of any person, then it was illegal to shoot them. You'd expect a nation of gun owners to know the law.
1
If a person is at home during a burglary, then they are justified in using lethal force, because that is considered self-defense. It is illegal to use lethal force to defend property.
1
@SlowPeace25 The law is what it is. You cannot use deadly force to defend property. You can use deadly force to defend persons -- their lives and their physical safety, if it is imminently threatened. That's the difference between carjackings and empty parked cars on the street.
1
@SlowPeace25 So, the fact that Robbie doesn't even know the law doesn't bother you? I'm just curious. He didn't state the law, then say homicide charges are not warranted. He made it sound like this is all about feelings or something, or the cost of replacement.
1
@SlowPeace25 I'm bothered by all law breaking, especially the younger the law breaker and the younger the victim. I don't pick and choose which laws. Maybe read up on normalcy.
1
@SlowPeace25 Of course you can. You can be the perpetrator of Crime A, and the victim of Crime B. An example might be a con artist who tries to trick a drug lord (unbeknownst to him) out of money and gets killed in the process. Lots of examples from organized crime, vice of various sorts, etc., I can't believe you never saw those mooovies. I'm sorry to hear that so few people have basic logic skills. I remember when we were told Computers (and of course Common Core) would solve all that. How come "technology advances" but life keeps getting worse?
1
@SlowPeace25 So then the owner of the car is a victim of karma, too. He's suspended from his job, he's being investigated for a homicide, and he may be prosecuted. And having a mere child interfere with his car is obviously karma. If he were a Good Person, no one would have touched his car, least of all a Child, because as we all know, Children are messengers from Higher Dimensions, revealing to us the Universal Essence, and teaching us about Who We Really Are. I'm sorry you are on such a low Spiritual Plane, but I trust that your interaction with me will improve you. I mean, your interaction with Me will improve [you]. That's what I meant to say. You're welcome! I love helping. :)
1
@SlowPeace25 He succeeded in stealing a car? His friends were riding in one, allegedly.
1
@SlowPeace25 Okay, the owner's Karma caused a Child Spirit to appear and Feloniously Steal something Precious from him, as a Soul Test. He failed. Let us pray.
1
You are describing a crime against the person, not a property crime. Robbery endangers people. It is not like having someone pick your pocket without your knowing it.
1
Actually, this is worse. It's illegal to use deadly force to defend unoccupied property sitting parked on the street. Lethal force is for defending persons and their physical safety.
1
@twatts1523 You may be right. The jury believed he may have circled back and jumped Zimmerman, but I'm not clear on why they believed that. There could have been a linguistic problem and poor preparation; his witness with whom he was on the phone at the time was not a native English-speaker.
1
@twatts1523 I don't disagree with you.
1
Irrelevant. You cannot use deadly force against someone unless they put an actual person at risk of physical harm. It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of property. If these kids did nothing to put this man at risk of harm to himself, or reasonable fear of harm (not conjecture), then it was illegal for him to shoot them. It's called self-defense for a reason.
1
It is illegal to use lethal force in defense of mere property. Lethal force is justified if you actually put any person at risk of imminent physical harm. It is never legal for defense of mere property. Social ills, etc., are irrelevant. Whether the kids actually put anyone in danger of physical harm, before or after they were confronted, is the only question that matters. It's a bright line. It's called self-defense for a reason.
1
Yeah. The real fact is that it's illegal to use deadly force in defense of property. Deadly force for self-defense is for the safety of persons, not things.
1
@elvinotero3877 So then the hypothetical is, if someone broke into your home while it was unoccupied. Someone burgled me. I would have been happy just to talk to them, I wouldn't even pursue them to send them to prison. That's me, personally. My family was robbed by the system (Enron-style malfeasance at the top cost us nearly all retirement savings, and this was at two major corporations, not one.) The burglar didn't find any money and left, without committing vandalism or even disturbing computers and small change on the kitchen table. If he had vandalized my home, in anger at not finding what he was looking for, then I'd have wanted his arse in prison for sure. This stuff is so obvious to me, personally.
1
@elvinotero3877 Yes, that is just a fact -- committing crimes is dangerous. People who do it could end up killed. Other people who encounter them at 4 am may not know their intentions, or be inclined to be generous toward them, and at that hour, they are more likely to be frightened or behave irrationally due to being woken up. It's also true that if the man was not in any danger himself, personally, then his use of deadly force was against the law. People who own and use firearms should know that fact. Gun owners are "among the most responsible citizens," isn't that the story? I'm not trying to be cute. I actually thought they had some basics explained to them at some point. My friends who use firearms know.
1
@elvinotero3877 Wow, more details: the man is a DC government employee. Yeah, one would expect he would know the law.
1
@firefighter0585 They have guns to defend themselves. Their armored trucks are not what they are defending. The fact that they are transporting money is why they need SELF-defense. If their Brinks truck were sitting empty, and then was grabbed and driven away while they were in the bank or the store, they cannot shoot the driver. Are you really a firefighter and you don't know this?
1
@seventhcompactor1505 No evidence of that so far. It was hypothetical in any event. I said over and over that if he (or, a person) was not defending himself, then deadly force is illegal. That's not one case. That's the law.
1
@seventhcompactor1505 I quote myself: "Only if the kids put a person in imminent danger of physical harm would it be legal to shoot them." That is true. In fact, it's too strong: if the kids put someone in danger, then it may be legal to use deadly force. It's not legal if that degree of force was clearly not necessary.
1
@mobilusinmobili8321 No, it's not wrong. Where did you go to law school? When did you pass the California bar (i.e., the hardest one, though New York and Delaware are quite the challenge, will accept either)?
1
@seventhcompactor1505 Oh, now I get it. Blocked.
1
@soapdispens3r It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property, everywhere. Lethal force is justified if you put any person at risk of imminent physical harm. It is never legal for defense of mere property. Social ills, etc., are irrelevant. The age of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Whether he put a person in danger of physical harm is the only question that matters. It is a bright line. We have a lot of gun owners in America, and this isn't common knowledge? Wow, just wow. Also, this is exactly why a carjacking, or a home invasion while there are people in the house, can be met with lethal force. It doesn't matter if the assailant turns out to be unarmed, or was just looking to burgle and thought the house was empty, or was in middle school. There is no question about this. It's called self-defense for a reason.
1
You're right about one thing -- feelings are irrelevant. It is illegal to use lethal force in defense of property. If no person's physical safety was put at imminent risk by these kids, then the man can be found guilty of an illegal homicide.
1
@heznise After the COVID lockdowns, I would give him a pass on that one. Or at least the benefit of the doubt.
1
@jason-ow8cq Too bad they made abortion illegal instead of letting you decide when to mandate it, huh? /s Sorry, your post is barely less absurd.
1
@dickmonddickelheimer9452 Not relevant. We are talking about what you are allowed to do when someone breaks the law.
1
@dickmonddickelheimer9452 We already agreed stealing cars is illegal.
1
Yes, she muddled this. The simple fact is that you cannot use lethal force to defend mere property. That is illegal. You can only use lethal force to defend the physical safety of a person.
1
@Iris-hx6ox False. It does not. Of the 50 states, only Texas makes a small exception, and Texas requires so many conditions, including attempting non-lethal force first, that practically speaking it means the person who does the shooting will eventually hand over their property to a defense lawyer. Inform yourself.
1
A nation of gun owners, and even Robbie doesn't know that it is illegal to use deadly force in defense of property. Only if someone puts a person at risk of physical harm is it legal to use deadly force.
1
By that logic, someone seeing the man shooting the kid should have been allowed to shoot him.
1
@robertsuchocki7908 Now the shooter will suffer grave consequences if his safety was not in danger and he used lethal force to defend an unoccupied, parked car. That is illegal.
1
Irrelevant. If they did not put any person in physical danger, then it was illegal to shoot.
1
@marlinmurrell620 False. In every state. If you are not put in any physical danger by the act of the person, you cannot shoot that person.
1
False premise. It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property, in every state. Lethal force is justified if you put any person at risk of imminent physical harm. It is never legal for defense of mere property. Social ills, etc., are irrelevant. The age of the perpetrator, time of day, etc., all irrelevant. Whether he put a person in imminent danger of physical harm is the only question that matters. Also, this is exactly why a carjacking, or a home invasion while there are people in the house, can be met with lethal force. It doesn't matter if the assailant turns out to be unarmed, or was just looking to burgle and thought the house was empty, or was "only a kid." There is no question about this. It's called self-defense for a reason.
1
Doesn't matter. Illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property.
1
False. It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property, everywhere. Lethal force is justified if you put any person at risk of imminent physical harm. It is never legal for defense of mere property. Social ills, etc., are irrelevant. The age of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Whether he put a person in danger of physical harm is the only question that matters. It is a bright line. We have a lot of gun owners in America, and this isn't common knowledge? Wow, just wow. Also, this is exactly why a carjacking, or a home invasion while there are people in the house, can be met with lethal force. It doesn't matter if the assailant turns out to be unarmed, or was just looking to burgle and thought the house was empty, or was only 13. There is no question about this. It's called self-defense for a reason.
1
@unboxedcharacter It is illegal to use DEADLY force in defense of mere property, where no person's physical safety is at risk, in EVERY state. Fool.
1
It is a bright-line law. You cannot use deadly force to defend mere unoccupied property, no matter how expensive that property is. If the kids did not put any person at risk of physical harm, then it was illegal to use deadly force.
1
@valcaron Look it up yourself, you fool. You can use lethal force to defend a person, if their physical safety is threatened. You cannot use LETHAL force in defense of mere, unoccupied property. You want references to 50 states' statutes and DC?
1
@Xyz99899 Actually, there are not. In 49 states, there are none. In Texas, the conditions that have to be met to before you can be justified in using lethal force to defend property are so extreme, it is essentially impractical. (Among other things, you have to prove necessity by trying something less than lethal first.) Your defense lawyer will get your property. But never mind, believe your Facebook Friends. They can do a GoFundMe for you.
1
@Xyz99899 You do realize that self-defense against a carjacker, or against someone who breaks into your house when you're at home, are not property crimes? They are threats to the safety of persons. Think it through.
1
@bass7100 Liar
1
@bass7100 The shooter is a black guy. He works for the DC government. They did not specify further except to say he is not in law enforcement and is currently on leave.
1
@daniellincoln2693 No, you cannot defend mere property with deadly force, and I see you are being censored because you keep saying that it is legal when it is NOT.
1
@leevy6753 Not a "feeling." Deadly force in defense of mere property is illegal. You can use deadly force to defend yourself and your own safety, not your car.
1
@anneb889 Not with deadly force, no. Not unless they themselves are in danger. A nation with a Second Amendment should know about the law. I'm surprised so few do. Signs of decay are everywhere, and not just with kids stealing cars. If only it could stop there.
1
@treyreedmd Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The person who claims it has to assert it.
1
@unboxedcharacter It is true in every state. How do people not know this? A man was prosecuted in Texas for shooting someone in the back who was running away from his house with his television set. You should know this as a matter of civics, but you even have examples on tee vee and everything, since basic rules seem to be over your head.
1
How ignorant can people be? It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property. Lethal force is justified if you put any person at risk of imminent physical harm. It is never legal for defense of mere property. Social ills, etc., are irrelevant. The age of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Whether he put a person at risk of suffering physical harm is the only question that matters. It is a bright line. We have a lot of gun owners in America, and this isn't common knowledge? Wow, just wow.
1
This is the problem. People don't even know that theft of property is never a reason to use lethal force. A person has to put another person at risk of injury to justify use of lethal force.
1
@mkrake2429 I have said exactly the opposite. What is wrong with you? It is never legal, much less ethical, to use lethal force in defense of mere property. Not EVER. That's what I said. Like, 50 times. There's really no hope, is there?
1
@krj15489 Because it is illegal to use lethal force to defend property. You can only use lethal force to defend physical safety of persons.
1
This is even worse. It is against the law in every state to defend property with lethal force. If these kids did not put any person in imminent danger of physical harm, then it was illegal to shoot them. The value of the property is irrelevant. You can use lethal force against a carjacking, or when the driver is pointing the car at you, putting you at risk of being hit, etc. You can't shoot someone just to keep a car parked on the street from being stolen. (A nation of gun owners doesn't know this? Robby doesn't know this? Wow.) Bri muddled this. She should have simply stated the law.
1
@Games_and_Music Great. A nation of gun owners, and no one seems to know that this is a bright line rule: you can't use lethal force in defense of mere property, only in defense of persons. If the kids did not put anyone at risk of physical harm, then it was ILLEGAL to shoot them. That's why it's called self-defense.
1
@013arm I certainly did my research. You are wrong. You are clearly confusing defense of the person and defense of property (repo and Brink's and so forth are agents armed to defend themselves, not money or other property). You are also wrong about Texas and either did not read or misunderstood the statute, which creates a number of conditions that must be met to use deadly force, not just that it be nighttime -- Texas is not that different in practice from other states, and is alone in having any leeway whatsoever for deadly force in defense of property. A person who shoots someone in Texas over a car might end up handing over more than the value of the car to a criminal defense lawyer. (Maybe you need to do some research?) Moreover, posts like yours are being allowed to be circulated, while mine, which state the law correctly, are being shadow banned. I refuse to create more high-quality content for YouTube and Google for free. You need to worry about a lot more than this one case, and defending the indefensible. You need to ask whether you have real free speech anymore.
1
Speculation of that nature is irrelevant. If the kids did anything at the time the man shot them to put him or anyone else in physical danger, then the shooting may be justified. Lethal force in defense of mere property is illegal. It's like saying every DUI should be prosecuted as a reckless homicide, because "this has happened before . . . hmmm."
1
@013arm FALSE. The Texas law that allows for some defense of some property is so full of exceptions, and requires "necessity" -- meaning among other things that you have to try non-lethal force first -- that in practice it is illegal there, too. The rules are so complicated that in practice, Texas is the same as the other 49: no lethal force in the defense of property. To say that all you need is for it to be dark outside (so you can't see what you're doing?) shows how foolish you are. The Texas law supports a lot of defense attorneys, lol. Some have made hundreds of thousands from a single case. You get to shoot, the lawyer gets your house.
1
No it is not the same. Lethal force in defense of persons is justified. Lethal force in defense of mere property is illegal. If these kids did not put anyone in danger of physical harm, then it was illegal to shoot them.
1
Bri muddled this. It is illegal to use deadly force in defense of mere property, everywhere. Lethal force is justified if you put any person at risk of imminent physical harm. It is never legal for defense of mere property. Social ills, etc., are irrelevant. The age of the perpetrator is irrelevant. Whether he put a person in danger of physical harm is the only question that matters. It is a bright line. She could have just stated the law. Also, this is exactly why a carjacking, or a home invasion while there are people in the house, can be met with lethal force. It doesn't matter if the assailant turns out to be unarmed, or was just looking to burgle and thought the house was empty, or if the kid was only 13. There is no question about this. It's called "self-defense" for a reason. A nation of gun owners is supposed to know that.
1
So no one knows that LETHAL force in defense of mere property is illegal. Great, just great. If the kid did anything to put any person in imminent danger of physical harm, then lethal force may be legal and moral. If he didn't, then it was illegal to shoot him.
1
It is a bright-line law. You cannot use deadly force to defend mere unoccupied property, no matter how expensive that property is. If the kids did not put any person at risk of physical harm, then it was illegal to use deadly force. A nation of gun owners, and this is news? It's called SELF-defense for a reason.
1