🚀 go-pugleaf

krehn@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Karl Rehn) wrote:

>>So now you stand behind the principle that murdering (and that is the
>>legal definition of such an act) a 12 year old is valid in order to
>>insure that he does not steal another $250 television.  Nice.  This is
>
>There is a famous court case (Garner vs Tennessee, if I remember correctly)
>that involved police officers that had shot a juvenile burglar who was
>fleeing with a TV set.  They shot him because they did not believe that they
>could catch him on foot.  The result of the court case was a change in
>police procedure: since then cops are not supposed to use deadly force to
>recover property.  While that case doesn't specifically apply to civilians
>it did change what was acceptable use of force on a national scale.
>
>The primary finding was that no piece of inanimate property was worth
>more than a human life, and that principle can be easily applied to
>civilian situations.  Certainly it's an emotional appeal that will be
>very effective in a jury trial even if state laws may allow use of
>deadly force to protect property in some situations.  

A couple of local San Antonio cases (1997) may have bearing.  One was
the killing of a tagger by the building owner... The second involved an
off-duty SAPD officer and his son.  The cop's own department
fail/refused to provide protection after he received threats.  He and
his son took up positions on the house roof and fired on the vandals,
killing one, when they attacked the homestead.  Our former DA took it to
the grand jury and got a true bill for murder but the trial jury found
not guilty.

Both fell under the "malicious mischief at night" portion of �9.42.


Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
L.E.A.A., JPFO
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh
=======================================================

        "Among other evils which being unarmed brings
        you, it causes you to be despised."

        The Prince
        Niccolo Machivelli