Anonymous #2 6w

Not always, and thats why legitimate self defense protections do not end at castle doctrine.

-1

Anonymous #1 6w

Liberalism and enlightenment era liberty philosophy are literally what gave you the 2A, being anti gun is not an inherent flaw with the concept, just a common fault.

11

Anonymous OP 6w

Are there any U.S. jurisdictions which would consider this reasonable force when said person is not themselves in danger? Like legitimately this doesn’t even feel like a Canada thing to me.

16

Anonymous OP 6w

Hey respect for you actually knowing what liberalism is as a political philosophy instead of just a buzzword

17

Anonymous #2 6w

Yes, many US states protect the use of deadly force to prevent a forcible felony such as a carjacking or other form of automobile theft, example that comes to mind would be Texas.

0

Anonymous OP 6w

Does that apply when said person is not themselves within the car? This isn’t a gotcha I’m just genuinely curious. Because it feels like the explicit distance of the defendee from the robbers removes most of the usual self-defense protections.

15

Anonymous #2 6w

Yes, as the person being or not being in the car would not, in every state, change the fact of it being a forcible felony.

2

Anonymous OP 6w

I see

1

Anonymous #2 6w

This is a separate self defense protection from castle doctrine though, it has a few different names depending on which state you're referring to.

0

Anonymous #2 6w

Yeah understanding helps you to oppose people with more significance, although it is still a fun buzzword to use, especially when paired with "neo" to give you an eir of intelligence.

1

Anonymous OP 6w

One could even argue that these people are going against liberalism by excessively attacking personal liberties but thats a whole different issue

1

Anonymous OP 6w

could you cite the states in which this scenario would be considered a valid situation of self defense under the defense of preventing a forcible felony? I’d love to do some research into the actual legislation handling this topic in the states you’re referencing

1

Anonymous #3 6w

Sure, and this is based on the limited information I was able to find on news reports so correct me if I am getting anything wrong. Texas law would protect this both under the "prevention of forcible felony" and plain "stand your ground" self defense, as multiple men going to steal your car right in front of you is a reasonable expectation of imminent fear for your life in its own right in the eyes of the Texas legal system, and qualifies as a forcible felony (robbery) if you feared for life.

1

Anonymous OP 6w

Furthermore it would be protected in the third legal means of defense of property, assuming it happens during night time, even if you did not imminently fear for your life. Specifically you would have to believe that the property could not otherwise be protected or recovered, and that less lethal force/deterrence would expose you to a risk of death or serious bodily injury.

1

Anonymous OP 6w

I can’t find anything about the “prevention of forcible felony”, but that might be a misinterpretation by the news reporters of the Texas penal code including aggravated robbery as a reasonable justification for deadly force as a means of self defense. so as far as I’m aware, Texas’s self defense is covered under its penal code, section 9.31; where it does like other states require reasonable force (so for example, you can’t just shoot for any reason if you feel threatened), but unlike other

1

Anonymous #3 6w

Believe it would be texas penal code 9.32 for prevention of forcible felony and texas penal code 9.42 for the night time property defense

1

Anonymous #3 6w

states it does not require you to retreat prior to using force to defend yourself (which is where the phrase “stand your ground” comes from, it’s a nickname basically). however though, Texas penal code section 9.31 (self-defense) does lay out specific scenarios where force is justified, for example sec9.31(c) states “was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;”

1

Anonymous #3 6w

if I’m not mistaken, the example laid out in the picture in your post would be covered under that subsection (c), specifically the inclusion of robbery and aggravated robbery? this could be where the “prevention of forcible felony” comes from though, as some felonies are inherently justification for using force in self defense according to Texas’s penal code; but not all.

1

Anonymous OP 6w

Although Texas does not use the "forcible felony" definition otherwise in the penal code and thus in place of the term chose to list the crimes that constitute it for clarity: aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery

1

Anonymous #3 6w

AHH correction!! not section 9.31(c), it’s actually section 9.31(1)(c)

1

Anonymous OP 6w

9.32(a)(2)(b) has a similar declaration of explicit laws similar to 9.31(a)(1)(c) (my earlier correction was also incorrect oh my god) however 9.32(b)(1) explicitly references the persons vehicle, habitation, etc; both of which focusing on the vehicle, habitation, etc, being occupied. (b.1.a focused on occupation, b.1.b focused on forced removal from (so still occupation, but specifically being removed from))

1

Anonymous OP 6w

i have no doubts about the nighttime property defense, but 9.42 only specifies “theft during the nighttime” and “criminal mischief during the nighttime” (which I guess “criminal mischief” is broad enough to cover nearly anything though)

1

Anonymous #4 6w

We still have rights in America but I understand your apprehension to thinking that Canadians have any. As to him being trigger happy we all like to act like we'd be John Wick in a scenario like this but thats far from the case

1