Liberals can't follow rule of law

[SmarterthanYou]

http://www.ksat.com/news/19594250/detail.html

§ 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.

this guy should not be on trial for murder, much less even been charged.

what is it with the rule of law that you liberals have a hard time with?

 

[ib1yysguy]

He shot and killed a man over a telephone.

 

[Cancel10]

He shot and killed a man over a telephone.

So what? That's one less criminal wandering our streets.

 

[charver]

He shot and killed a man over a telephone.

Maybe it was a really nice telephone with a smart picture of a smiling bee on the front and a zany ring tone?

Think on.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

He shot and killed a man over a telephone.

see what i mean? can't abide by laws. read the fucking law.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I'm not sure what to think. I can support the guy for PWNing that other guy. Or I can support the US government in PWNing him. I think I'll support them both in their separate instances of PWNing.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

So what? That's one less criminal wandering our streets.

And the US government is taking a conservative off our streets. So what? Win-win in my book. It's not like justice or fairness comes into play anywhere here.

 

[ib1yysguy]

see what i mean? can't abide by laws. read the fucking law.

My guess is Texas is the only place in the country where people think it's okay to kill someone for stealing your phone. Double points if they're retarded.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

My guess is Texas is the only place in the country where people think it's okay to kill someone for stealing your phone. Double points if they're retarded.

property is property. people spend money on their property and it has value. protecting your property is an inalienable constitutional right.

don't start shit, won't be shit.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's the only state in the nation where it's legeal to murder someone over property. Probably the only place in the world. Justice or fairness does not come into play there. Death was not an appropriate penalty for stealing a phone, and the murder was not in self defense.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

protecting your property is an inalienable constitutional right.

Life is also an unalienable constitutional right. Funny how you folks seem to forget that? Life > property. In all instances. This man is disgusting.

 

[ib1yysguy]

By the way, this guy is being tried in San Antonio so what makes you think liberals have anything to do with it?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Life is also an unalienable constitutional right. Funny how you folks seem to forget that? Life > property. In all instances. This man is disgusting.

he wouldn't have had to worry about getting shot if he hadn't assaulted and then robbed the man that shot him, so the dead man is at fault, he paid the price. let that be a lesson......criminals need to stay away from texas.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

By the way, this guy is being tried in San Antonio so what makes you think liberals have anything to do with it?

san antonio is liberal lite, just a few degrees less liberal than austin.

 

[zappasguitar]

http://www.ksat.com/news/19594250/detail.html



this guy should not be on trial for murder, much less even been charged.

what is it with the rule of law that you liberals have a hard time with?

The robber was driving away from the victim before any shots were fired. Show everyone where the use of deadly force was immediatly necessary, as stated in the statute you posted.

This guy was just another cowardly gun nut too timid to using his gun in place of the backbone he wished he had.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

he wouldn't have had to worry about getting shot if he hadn't assaulted and then robbed the man that shot him, so the dead man is at fault,

The dead man was at fault for stealing a phone. So put him in prison, that would be justice. His summary execution without trial was not justice. The man in question had a small mark took out on him, and in response, took a huge mark out on the perp, and committed a far greater injustice.

he paid the price.

A price far greater than his crimes. Again, this was a summary execution without trial. This is illegal as per the constitutional ruling that prohibited such executions and disproportional punishment.

let that be a lesson......criminals need to stay away from texas.

So the only qualification in a justice system to you is whether or not it deters? Deterrence is the least fair method of "justice" possible. I don't even believe it to appropriately be called justice. Deterrence should only be employed as a side effect of just and proportional punishment, which this was not.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The robber was driving away from the victim before any shots were fired. Show everyone where the use of deadly force was immediatly necessary, as stated in the statute you posted.

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means;

This guy was just another cowardly gun nut too timid to using his gun in place of the backbone he wished he had.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The dead man was at fault for stealing a phone. So put him in prison, that would be justice. His summary execution without trial was not justice. The man in question had a small mark took out on him, and in response, took a huge mark out on the perp, and committed a far greater injustice.

can't do the 'time', don't do the crime.

A price far greater than his crimes. Again, this was a summary execution without trial. This is illegal as per the constitutional ruling that prohibited such executions and disproportional punishment.

so far, the federal courts have refused to call it unconstitutional, which of course it isn't seeing how the US constitution doesn't enumerate any police powers, but by all means try to have it invalidated.

So the only qualification in a justice system to you is whether or not it deters? Deterrence is the least fair method of "justice" possible. I don't even believe it to appropriately be called justice. Deterrence should only be employed as a side effect of just and proportional punishment, which this was not.

deterrence is the first step, yet obviously doesn't work for the stupid ones, so yes.......justifiable homicide works for me.

 

[Bfgrn]

Dumber than ALL...

In your tiny little pea brain, only liberals oppose gun control, have abortions or are atheists...

You've identified the excuse for all YOUR failures in life...

 

[Whomever]

property is property. people spend money on their property and it has value. protecting your property is an inalienable constitutional right.

don't start shit, won't be shit.

what about those unalienable rights of both parties?