@Devereaux your right about that , but remember WV is “Almost Heaven”
3 Likes
Sorry! Didn’t realize I was talking to John Denver! 
3 Likes
No it isn’t and YOU can’t just shoot someone on your property unless they are threatening you with a weapon or you feel your life is in danger. now if they are in your house you are free to use deadly force. You have no more gun freedom than a lot of states. and if you think you can shoot someone unarmed trying to steal a lawn chair go ahead. we will see you in prison.
4 Likes
?What about taking off with your $8,000 stereo set. Or $10,000 of jewelry. I believe both are acceptable in TX, but not elsewhere.
2 Likes
If they’re in your house, yes you can shoot them. but if they are stored outside and are not armed or present a danger or run, you can’;t shoot them. hell if you could just shoot somebody for coming on your property then why aren’t the landowners shooting the illegals camped out on their land…Cause it’s against the law.
3 Likes
My read of this link says that it is NOT illegal to shoot someone stealing your stuff. There ARE some caveats, but over all, a person has the legal right to shoot someone taking your stuff from your home. THAT is NOT LEGAL in any other state; you HAVE TO HAVE a “reasonable concern” - as would a “reasonable person” - that your life or serious injury were at risk.This is not even accepted in Castle Doctrine in any state I know.
Your turn 
3 Likes
As for why the landowners aren’t shooting the illegals, one word - FEAR. They live mostly in solitary homes on ranches along the border. Shoot the illegals and expect the cartels to “visit” you with a small force to extract retribution. I kind of understand their POV.
3 Likes
Prey For Peace… 
Assuming you intend that spelling it is thought provoking, I like it
I thought you meant no TX is not the only state, damn it Rick don’t be a bummer.
2 Likes
Yes, I did mean the spelling. 
2 Likes
Well thats where you need a 50 cal belt fed on a tripod . Sitting in front and behind the house …
2 Likes
@Belt-Fed has enough arms to protect whats his but he aint got enough hands to weild them all . 
1 Like
“Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”
Or latin
“Kill them, for the Lord knows those that are His”.
Or as we say in Modern language
Killem all and let God sort em out !
3 Likes
From what I have found in a quick search Texas is like about every other state that has castle doctrine or stand your ground laws . You cannot shoot someone for simple trespass or theft . The only time you are justified is if they are an immediate threat to you or others of death or bodily harm .
3 Likes
Appalachian High, Almost Heaven West Virginia
3 Likes
Only one of the Greatest Songs ever written , it is also one of the most popular songs in Ireland . It is sang in every pub in the entire country.
And has appeared in movies as well.
2 Likes
That’s how Attorney Andrew Branca (author of The Law of Self Defense) describes it. It’s very unique to Texas.
The biggest legal caveat is that to legally shoot one of the named types of criminals who is not threatening your life, it has to be nighttime.
The biggest practical caveat is that you have to convince a jury that your use of lethal force is “immediately necessary.” How practical that is depends on how red your county is.
3 Likes
Texas rednecks and Moses
I find it fascinating how this Texas law very clearly derives from the Book of Exodus, from a passage I cited here recently:
Exodus 22:1 If, while breaking in, the thief is discovered, and he is struck and dies, [it is as if] he has no blood. 2 If the sun shone upon him, [it is as if] he has blood. He shall surely pay; if he has no [money], he shall be sold for his theft.
(The continuation of the chapter concerns the restitution the thief must pay, assuming he survives.)
There is an interesting dependency in the passage on the sun shining. From the literal meaning of the verses, if the sun is not shining on him (i.e. at night) he has no blood, and there is no guilt for killing him. But during the daytime, there is. That is peculiarly specified in the Texas statute, which is why I think the Texas lawmakers were referring to Exodus.
The Jewish take on Exodus 22
Jewish sages tried to dig deeper at the motivation for the Biblical law. They asked, what connection does the sun have with a man’s guilt? Guilt is in the mind and heart! Rather, they concluded that the mention of the sun was figurative or for example. Its mention indicates clarity, as the sun clarifies the darkness, that the burglar intended not to kill, but merely to steal.
How would a defender know that the burglar was not willing to kill? The sages give the example of if the burglar was his father, and the father would not kill his son. Then it is clear, and there would be guilt for killing him. What difference does it make whether the sun is shining? It’s just that Scripture speaks of the common case, and it is commonly difficult to recognize people at night.
If so, the Jewish sages were even more redneck than the Texas law, in a certain way. Under Torah law, a burglar could be killed even during the day. This Texas law does not allow that.
Further, there is an additional benefit to the defender, in that the burglar is halachically (meaning, according to Torah law) presumed to have killing intent, unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
4 Likes
Castle doctrine
Even though other states do not have a lethal defense of property statute, they do have something which is related to Exodus 22. That is the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine says, in a nutshell, that your home is your castle. You can presume that someone forcibly breaking in presents a threat to the lives of those within. If so, a person who unlawfully breaks into an occupied dwelling may be killed in lawful defense of those inside the dwelling.
Some states also include in the “castle” the attached landed property of the dwelling (“curtilage”), an occupied place of business, an occupied vehicle, or similar.
Note however the differences from the Texas law. You are not allowed to kill in defense of the property per se. You are permitted to kill because the structure is protecting the lives of those within. You are actually protecting lives, not property, under the castle doctrine.
This also means that you have no permission to kill in defense of a structure, under the castle doctrine, if there is nobody inside.
Also caveat: I’m not a lawyer or a rabbi. Consult those for their respective areas of expertise, not me.
4 Likes
Sounds good to me I will just shoot em all in the legs
2 Likes