Borris Smiles
This story seems a bit hypocritical in the face of the fact that Rep. Borris Miles previously opposed a stronger self defense bill. But we must remember that he hails from the Republic of Texas, and he is a former policemen.
Charges of aggravated robbery are pending against the wounded suspect, Police Spokesman Victor Senties said. Apparently no charges accrued to Rep. Miles, who said the man threw a pocketknife at him upon Miles' confrontation.
What need have they of a stronger self-defense bill, if they can already shoot someone for stealing copper wire?
--Lisa
posted by rangeragainstwar at 11:34 AM
6 Comments:
The truth is that a Texas jury would not be likely to convict someone who was just defending themselves. One obvious advantage of the change in the law would be the protection against a civil suit. In the past, there have been cases where the victim defended himself against the criminal and then was victimized yet again by the legal system because the criminal files a civil suit. Even if you win in a civil suit, you lose because of legal fees and such. You can sue the criminal to recover legal fees, but how would you collect?
cbrtxus,
You miss Ranger's sarcasm here.
This legislator voted against liberalizing self-protection laws, then shoots someone for a flimsy reason.
That is the point--the hypocrisy of it all.
Ranger believes that deadly force should only be employed for the preservation of life, and not to prevent copper tubes from being copped.
This incident proves that you should not take a knife to a gunfight. It's amazing that the person with the gun was so terrified that they had to shoot the person after they were no longer a threat.
If you shoot 'em, make sure they're dead. Ranger doesn't espouse this violence.
As I've said in previous posts, what is it about Texas?
No. I caught the sarcasm and I agree. It is hypocrisy in the case of Rep. Miles (D). It would appear that he is OK with defending himself and his own property, but not with the “common folks” defending themselves and their property. We may never know the whole story about that night. I think that it is totally possible that he was there to guard the copper. Copper theft has become an epidemic. Many construction sites have to employ guards now.
I have to disagree about your “flimsy reason” statement. If someone illegally enters your property (especially at night), it is a deadly serious situation. You don’t know if they will try to kill you. They know, but you won’t know until they try to kill you. And you have no way of knowing what weapons they have on them. They have the advantage.
If you confront them and they immediately drop to the ground and keep their hands where you can see them, then you would hold them for the police. Otherwise, you have to assume that they are a deadly threat. You owe it to yourself and your family not to bet your own life on the good intentions of a criminal. I am surprised that Mr. Miles didn’t shoot to kill. Maybe he did…
You suggest that it is wrong to employ deadly force to protect copper pipe. I assume that you would also think that it is wrong to use deadly force to protect your other property as well.
First of all, you aren’t. You are using the threat of deadly force to protect yourself while you are protecting your property. You have to decide whether or not you are willing to protect your property I guess. The police really can’t. If you believe that we shouldn’t use deadly force to protect our property, then maybe we should have a requisition form that criminals could simply fill out when they want our property. That would totally eliminate the possibility of a deadly confrontation. We could just place our new television outside the front door on a certain day and let the criminal pick it up.
What is it about Texas? Most Texans don’t worry much about assuring the safety of criminals while they engage in criminal activity. It is uncivilized I know. If criminals break into an occupied home, try to rob a business, or hijack our car, they know (or should know by now) that the law does not attempt to protect them. They could be killed by their intended victim. Such criminal activity isn't as common in Texas as it is in some of the more “civilized” states (or countries) for some strange reason.
cbrtxus,
Of course the hypocrisy resides with Rep. Smiles.
There used to be a concept in fed. law enforcement that bound states and localities, and it was called the fleeing felon rule. This was not the case here, as these men did not confront the Rep. with deadly force; they did not confront him at all.
The basis of all law enforcement in the U.S. is that all life is sacred, to include that of the perps. That also used to be one of the bedrock tenets of Christianity, until Bush branded the franchise.
If we cannot agree on that basic tenet, then there is no dialog possible.
cbrtxus may feel he is right, but he is missing a key point: the shooting occurred at a construction site.
That is far different from a private residence. Every construction contractor I've ever had contact with insures himself and the site right up to the last dollar.
So, I'm not so sure shotting someone stealing insured property is a step any rational insurance company would support.
The victim may be facing criminal charges but he has a good case for battery and unlawful shooting, or whatever they call it down there on the dark side of the earth.
Fine point, lurch.
As for the recourse available to the perp, I don't know that he has much open to him in the longhorn state--after all, he was merely winged.
Post a Comment
<< Home