Human rights lawyer to Trump: Shooting people for stealing things is murder

[TemplarKormac]

I think killing a looter is against the law. Your wrong.

What you think and what's the law are two different things entirely.

Looting is stealing. Theft. That is against the law.
Trespassing is against the law.
Breaking and entering are against the law.
Burglary is against the law.
Arson is against the law. A felony.

And if you own the property and are there when these rioters engage in this behavior, you are well within your rights to protect yourself and your property.

 

[Mac-7]

Yeah, no. When sentiment like the image below exists, shooting is justified. When people destroy your property and your livelihood, shooting is justified. People have a right to defend their property.

View attachment 342558

yet your wrong.

So is your punctuation, spelling, and grammar. But then again, that's all the argument you had, wasn't it?

I think killing a looter is against the law. Your wrong.

Maybe in minnesota, I dont know

but there are 49 other states where the law may be different

Possibly in some states, I remember I read something about it awhile ago.
-------------------------------------------------------

Even in states with "stand your ground" laws, there are limits on when deadly force is allowed. Some states have a duty to retreat, which requires people to retreat from the threat as much as possible before responding with force. But nearly all states limit the use of deadly force under stand your ground laws to defending yourself in the face of great bodily harm or death, not your storefront. So, shooting someone who may kill or seriously injure you might be defensible, but shooting a person who steals from your store may not be.


Defending Your Castle


Many states also employ what's known as the "castle doctrine," which, while similar to stand your ground, is limited to real property like your home or, in some states, your place of business. Generally speaking, the castle doctrine simply removes the duty to retreat if you are already in your house or store. However, the threat of death or personal injury must still be present before you can respond with lethal force.


So, even though you might not get into trouble for posting a "Looters Will Be Shot" sign, you may get in trouble for shooting looters. According to some reports, New Orleans police officers were authorized to shoot looters in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But some of those officers were convicted of murder for doing exactly that.

Are 'Looters Will Be Shot' Signs Legal? - FindLaw

As often happens as storms approach and residents and business owners evacuate, the signs get posted: "Looters Will Be Shot." Most people just chuckle, a few people get worried about armed vigilantes, and a few others think, "they'll get what they deserve." And while the First Amendment may...

blogs.findlaw.com

Protection of One’s Own Property
Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:

1. He is the owner of the land;
2. He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
3. He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

 

[Penelope]

Yeah, no. When sentiment like the image below exists, shooting is justified. When people destroy your property and your livelihood, shooting is justified. People have a right to defend their property.

View attachment 342558

yet your wrong.

So is your punctuation, spelling, and grammar. But then again, that's all the argument you had, wasn't it?

I think killing a looter is against the law. Your wrong.

Maybe in minnesota, I dont know

but there are 49 other states where the law may be different

Possibly in some states, I remember I read something about it awhile ago.
-------------------------------------------------------

Even in states with "stand your ground" laws, there are limits on when deadly force is allowed. Some states have a duty to retreat, which requires people to retreat from the threat as much as possible before responding with force. But nearly all states limit the use of deadly force under stand your ground laws to defending yourself in the face of great bodily harm or death, not your storefront. So, shooting someone who may kill or seriously injure you might be defensible, but shooting a person who steals from your store may not be.


Defending Your Castle


Many states also employ what's known as the "castle doctrine," which, while similar to stand your ground, is limited to real property like your home or, in some states, your place of business. Generally speaking, the castle doctrine simply removes the duty to retreat if you are already in your house or store. However, the threat of death or personal injury must still be present before you can respond with lethal force.


So, even though you might not get into trouble for posting a "Looters Will Be Shot" sign, you may get in trouble for shooting looters. According to some reports, New Orleans police officers were authorized to shoot looters in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But some of those officers were convicted of murder for doing exactly that.

Are 'Looters Will Be Shot' Signs Legal? - FindLaw

As often happens as storms approach and residents and business owners evacuate, the signs get posted: "Looters Will Be Shot." Most people just chuckle, a few people get worried about armed vigilantes, and a few others think, "they'll get what they deserve." And while the First Amendment may...

blogs.findlaw.com

Protection of One’s Own Property
Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:

1. He is the owner of the land;
2. He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
3. He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

Deadly force? I see it is in Texas. I can't believe property is worth a life. Wow.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This should be an interesting debate. Under the law, is the national guard allowed to shoot people who are looting target? President Trump that looters will be shot.
(Please cite the relevant law when answering the question. Thanks).

Perhaps there are variations by state, but in Minnesota, deadly force when applied to protecting property appears requiring meeting a national security standard:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2017-title32-vol4/xml/CFR-2017-title32-vol4-part632.xml

 "632.4Deadly force.(a) Deadly force is destructive physical force directed against a person or persons (e.g., firing a lethal weapon). Use it only in extreme need, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be used.

"Use deadly force for one or more of the following reasons only1) In self-defense, when in imminent danger of death or serious injury.(2)

"To protect property related to national security, when reasonably necessary to prevent—(i)

"Threatened theft, damage, or espionage aimed at property or information specified by a commander or other competent authority as vital to national security. (See paragraph (b) of this section.)(ii)

"Actual theft, damage, or espionage aimed at property or information which, though not vital, is substantially important to national security. (See paragraph (b) of this section.)"

Statute(s)	Minnesota Statutes Section 609.06 (authorized use of force)
Use of Reasonable Force	Situations where a person may use reasonable force against private citizens: Resisting or aiding another to combat an offense against the person; Resisting a trespass or other unlawful interference with property; To prevent the escape of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; A parent/guardian/teacher exercises authority over a child/student; A common carrier against a passenger who refuses to obey lawful requirements for passenger conduct; To restrain a person with mental illness or developmental disabilities from self-injury or injury to others.
Justifiable Use of Self-Defense	To successfully use self-defense, the following conditions must be present: There was no aggression by the defendant; The defendant believed that they were in imminent danger of great bodily harm; The defendant's belief was reasonable; and There was no reasonable possibility of retreat available for the defendant to avoid the threat.

Minnesota Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Minnesota Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and other related topics, see FindLaw's section on Minnesota Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

 

[miketx]

Looters should be shot on sight along with progressive filth.

Says the anonymous coward hiding in his basement.

Don't have a basement faggot, all looters and progressive filth should be shot on sight.

 

[miketx]

Yeah, no. When sentiment like the image below exists, shooting is justified. When people destroy your property and your livelihood, shooting is justified. People have a right to defend their property.

View attachment 342558

yet your wrong.

So is your punctuation, spelling, and grammar. But then again, that's all the argument you had, wasn't it?

I think killing a looter is against the law. Your wrong.

Maybe in minnesota, I dont know

but there are 49 other states where the law may be different

Possibly in some states, I remember I read something about it awhile ago.
-------------------------------------------------------

Even in states with "stand your ground" laws, there are limits on when deadly force is allowed. Some states have a duty to retreat, which requires people to retreat from the threat as much as possible before responding with force. But nearly all states limit the use of deadly force under stand your ground laws to defending yourself in the face of great bodily harm or death, not your storefront. So, shooting someone who may kill or seriously injure you might be defensible, but shooting a person who steals from your store may not be.


Defending Your Castle


Many states also employ what's known as the "castle doctrine," which, while similar to stand your ground, is limited to real property like your home or, in some states, your place of business. Generally speaking, the castle doctrine simply removes the duty to retreat if you are already in your house or store. However, the threat of death or personal injury must still be present before you can respond with lethal force.


So, even though you might not get into trouble for posting a "Looters Will Be Shot" sign, you may get in trouble for shooting looters. According to some reports, New Orleans police officers were authorized to shoot looters in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But some of those officers were convicted of murder for doing exactly that.

Are 'Looters Will Be Shot' Signs Legal? - FindLaw

As often happens as storms approach and residents and business owners evacuate, the signs get posted: "Looters Will Be Shot." Most people just chuckle, a few people get worried about armed vigilantes, and a few others think, "they'll get what they deserve." And while the First Amendment may...

blogs.findlaw.com

Protection of One’s Own Property
Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:

1. He is the owner of the land;
2. He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
3. He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

Deadly force? I see it is in Texas. I can't believe property is worth a life. Wow.

Says the criminal lover who wants to allow thieves to steal what ever they like.

 

[Richard-H]

If police were predominantly black, and they were murdering white people for insignificant crimes, you can bet your ass that white men would be committing every type of violence imaginable to put a stop to it.

But they'd call themselves 'freedom fighters' or such.

 

[miketx]

If police were predominantly black, and they were murdering white people for insignificant crimes, you can bet your ass that white men would be committing every type of violence imaginable to put a stop to it.

But they'd call themselves 'freedom fighters' or such.

You'd like to believe that but it's not true. If that happened to my relative I'd go after the person who did it, not some completely innocent person or store. You're really stupid.

 

[miketx]

This should be an interesting debate. Under the law, is the national guard allowed to shoot people who are looting target? President Trump that looters will be shot.
(Please cite the relevant law when answering the question. Thanks).

Perhaps there are variations by state, but in Minnesota, deadly force when applied to protecting property appears requiring meeting a national security standard:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2017-title32-vol4/xml/CFR-2017-title32-vol4-part632.xml

 "632.4Deadly force.(a) Deadly force is destructive physical force directed against a person or persons (e.g., firing a lethal weapon). Use it only in extreme need, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be used.

"Use deadly force for one or more of the following reasons only1) In self-defense, when in imminent danger of death or serious injury.(2)

"To protect property related to national security, when reasonably necessary to prevent—(i)

"Threatened theft, damage, or espionage aimed at property or information specified by a commander or other competent authority as vital to national security. (See paragraph (b) of this section.)(ii)

"Actual theft, damage, or espionage aimed at property or information which, though not vital, is substantially important to national security. (See paragraph (b) of this section.)"

Statute(s)	Minnesota Statutes Section 609.06 (authorized use of force)
Use of Reasonable Force	Situations where a person may use reasonable force against private citizens: Resisting or aiding another to combat an offense against the person; Resisting a trespass or other unlawful interference with property; To prevent the escape of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; A parent/guardian/teacher exercises authority over a child/student; A common carrier against a passenger who refuses to obey lawful requirements for passenger conduct; To restrain a person with mental illness or developmental disabilities from self-injury or injury to others.
Justifiable Use of Self-Defense	To successfully use self-defense, the following conditions must be present: There was no aggression by the defendant; The defendant believed that they were in imminent danger of great bodily harm; The defendant's belief was reasonable; and There was no reasonable possibility of retreat available for the defendant to avoid the threat.

Minnesota Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Minnesota Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and other related topics, see FindLaw's section on Minnesota Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Then why did they arrest the pawn shop owner who shot the looter?

 

[Dick Foster]

This should be an interesting debate. Under the law, is the national guard allowed to shoot people who are looting target? President Trump that looters will be shot.
(Please cite the relevant law when answering the question. Thanks).

Me to so called human rights asshats. Stealing and destroying other people shit is against the law and running amok breaks down society as a whole. Either get the fuck out or risk having your worthless stupid dumb ass blown away.

 

[Richard-H]

If police were predominantly black, and they were murdering white people for insignificant crimes, you can bet your ass that white men would be committing every type of violence imaginable to put a stop to it.

But they'd call themselves 'freedom fighters' or such.

You'd like to believe that but it's not true. If that happened to my relative I'd go after the person who did it, not some completely innocent person or store. You're really stupid.

What if there was a history of abuse by the local police?

The failure of the local police to immediately arrest the officers responsible for this murder shows that there is an ongoing culture of abuse.

Holy shit - this country was born out of a protest against a tea tax.

Perhaps, according to your logic, the founding fathers should have just sent someone to kick King George in the shin?

 

[miketx]

If police were predominantly black, and they were murdering white people for insignificant crimes, you can bet your ass that white men would be committing every type of violence imaginable to put a stop to it.

But they'd call themselves 'freedom fighters' or such.

You'd like to believe that but it's not true. If that happened to my relative I'd go after the person who did it, not some completely innocent person or store. You're really stupid.

What if there was a history of abuse by the local police?

The failure of the local police to immediately arrest the officers responsible for this murder shows that there is an ongoing culture of abuse.

Holy shit - this country was born out of a protest against a tea tax.

Perhaps, according to your logic, the founding fathers should have just sent someone to kick King George in the shin?

You're an idiot.

 

[Richard-H]

This should be an interesting debate. Under the law, is the national guard allowed to shoot people who are looting target? President Trump that looters will be shot.
(Please cite the relevant law when answering the question. Thanks).

Me to so called human rights asshats. Stealing and destroying other people shit is against the law and running amok breaks down society as a whole. Either get the fuck out or risk having your worthless stupid dumb ass blown away.

Blowing someone's dumb ass away for stealing or destroying other people's shit is murder, dumbass!

 

[Mac-7]

Deadly force? I see it is in Texas. I can't believe property is worth a life. Wow.

For people who work hard for what they have property is worth fighting for

 

[BluesLegend]

Fine, looters show up and Nancy Pelosi's house and loot it apparently Dems are okay with this. Loot her fridge full of high end ice cream, then rip the fridge out of her house and loot that too.

 

[Mac-7]

Yeah, no. When sentiment like the image below exists, shooting is justified. When people destroy your property and your livelihood, shooting is justified. People have a right to defend their property.

View attachment 342558

yet your wrong.

So is your punctuation, spelling, and grammar. But then again, that's all the argument you had, wasn't it?

I think killing a looter is against the law. Your wrong.

Maybe in minnesota, I dont know

but there are 49 other states where the law may be different

Possibly in some states, I remember I read something about it awhile ago.
-------------------------------------------------------

Even in states with "stand your ground" laws, there are limits on when deadly force is allowed. Some states have a duty to retreat, which requires people to retreat from the threat as much as possible before responding with force. But nearly all states limit the use of deadly force under stand your ground laws to defending yourself in the face of great bodily harm or death, not your storefront. So, shooting someone who may kill or seriously injure you might be defensible, but shooting a person who steals from your store may not be.


Defending Your Castle


Many states also employ what's known as the "castle doctrine," which, while similar to stand your ground, is limited to real property like your home or, in some states, your place of business. Generally speaking, the castle doctrine simply removes the duty to retreat if you are already in your house or store. However, the threat of death or personal injury must still be present before you can respond with lethal force.


So, even though you might not get into trouble for posting a "Looters Will Be Shot" sign, you may get in trouble for shooting looters. According to some reports, New Orleans police officers were authorized to shoot looters in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But some of those officers were convicted of murder for doing exactly that.

Are 'Looters Will Be Shot' Signs Legal? - FindLaw

As often happens as storms approach and residents and business owners evacuate, the signs get posted: "Looters Will Be Shot." Most people just chuckle, a few people get worried about armed vigilantes, and a few others think, "they'll get what they deserve." And while the First Amendment may...

blogs.findlaw.com

Protection of One’s Own Property
Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:

1. He is the owner of the land;
2. He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
3. He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

Deadly force? I see it is in Texas. I can't believe property is worth a life. Wow.

Says the criminal lover who wants to allow thieves to steal what ever they like.

In some cities liberal DAs refuse to prosecute thieves if the value is under $750!

that is insanity

 

[Meathead]

Looters should be shot on sight along with progressive filth.

Says the anonymous coward hiding in his basement.

Why, are you out looting?

 

[TemplarKormac]

This should be an interesting debate. Under the law, is the national guard allowed to shoot people who are looting target? President Trump that looters will be shot.
(Please cite the relevant law when answering the question. Thanks).

Perhaps there are variations by state, but in Minnesota, deadly force when applied to protecting property appears requiring meeting a national security standard:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2017-title32-vol4/xml/CFR-2017-title32-vol4-part632.xml

 "632.4Deadly force.(a) Deadly force is destructive physical force directed against a person or persons (e.g., firing a lethal weapon). Use it only in extreme need, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be used.

"Use deadly force for one or more of the following reasons only1) In self-defense, when in imminent danger of death or serious injury.(2)

"To protect property related to national security, when reasonably necessary to prevent—(i)

"Threatened theft, damage, or espionage aimed at property or information specified by a commander or other competent authority as vital to national security. (See paragraph (b) of this section.)(ii)

"Actual theft, damage, or espionage aimed at property or information which, though not vital, is substantially important to national security. (See paragraph (b) of this section.)"

Statute(s)	Minnesota Statutes Section 609.06 (authorized use of force)
Use of Reasonable Force	Situations where a person may use reasonable force against private citizens: Resisting or aiding another to combat an offense against the person; Resisting a trespass or other unlawful interference with property; To prevent the escape of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; A parent/guardian/teacher exercises authority over a child/student; A common carrier against a passenger who refuses to obey lawful requirements for passenger conduct; To restrain a person with mental illness or developmental disabilities from self-injury or injury to others.
Justifiable Use of Self-Defense	To successfully use self-defense, the following conditions must be present: There was no aggression by the defendant; The defendant believed that they were in imminent danger of great bodily harm; The defendant's belief was reasonable; and There was no reasonable possibility of retreat available for the defendant to avoid the threat.

Minnesota Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Minnesota Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and other related topics, see FindLaw's section on Minnesota Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

The statute allows for reasonable use of force against someone who is attempting to "interfere with property" which I assume includes looters and rioters trying to steal from and destroy businesses.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This should be an interesting debate. Under the law, is the national guard allowed to shoot people who are looting target? President Trump that looters will be shot.
(Please cite the relevant law when answering the question. Thanks).

Perhaps there are variations by state, but in Minnesota, deadly force when applied to protecting property appears requiring meeting a national security standard:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2017-title32-vol4/xml/CFR-2017-title32-vol4-part632.xml

 "632.4Deadly force.(a) Deadly force is destructive physical force directed against a person or persons (e.g., firing a lethal weapon). Use it only in extreme need, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be used.

"Use deadly force for one or more of the following reasons only1) In self-defense, when in imminent danger of death or serious injury.(2)

"To protect property related to national security, when reasonably necessary to prevent—(i)

"Threatened theft, damage, or espionage aimed at property or information specified by a commander or other competent authority as vital to national security. (See paragraph (b) of this section.)(ii)

"Actual theft, damage, or espionage aimed at property or information which, though not vital, is substantially important to national security. (See paragraph (b) of this section.)"

Statute(s)	Minnesota Statutes Section 609.06 (authorized use of force)
Use of Reasonable Force	Situations where a person may use reasonable force against private citizens: Resisting or aiding another to combat an offense against the person; Resisting a trespass or other unlawful interference with property; To prevent the escape of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; A parent/guardian/teacher exercises authority over a child/student; A common carrier against a passenger who refuses to obey lawful requirements for passenger conduct; To restrain a person with mental illness or developmental disabilities from self-injury or injury to others.
Justifiable Use of Self-Defense	To successfully use self-defense, the following conditions must be present: There was no aggression by the defendant; The defendant believed that they were in imminent danger of great bodily harm; The defendant's belief was reasonable; and There was no reasonable possibility of retreat available for the defendant to avoid the threat.

Minnesota Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on Minnesota Self-Defense Laws. For more information on this and other related topics, see FindLaw's section on Minnesota Criminal Laws.

statelaws.findlaw.com

.

Then why did they arrest the pawn shop owner who shot the looter?

See previous reply.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump the thug president.