That's a good question! The article didn't say so I'm not sure. But that's probably a misdemeanor or a civil fine or something. Read more
I am right about the castle law, and Wikipedia says the exact same thing I just said. Read more
So like, usually when someone is stealing large sums of money they're doing so using force of some kind. Like an armed robbery or whatever. That's a different situation—in that case, you are in danger. Read more
No, a castle law gives you the right to protect yourself/use force against an intruder. Generally, deadly force is only allowed under a castle law where the homeowner (or renter, I guess) reasonably believes that serious bodily injury, death, or peril is imminent. Read more
He's saying that she stole it because she tried to leave with the money without "rendering services." Gilbert says that her "pimp" was waiting in a car outside and was helping her with the theft. Read more
There are no appeals since he was acquitted. That's it. The judge didn't set aside the verdict, so that's it for this case. Read more
No, the law is insane because it allows people to use deadly force against another human being to recover property. JUST PROPERTY. Not to protect yourself, your body, or the bodies of your loved ones, but your property alone. That is insane and apparently unique to Texas. Read more
No, listen. LISTEN TO ME. The law does not say "you can only act in self-defense if you are 100% certain that you will die if you do not." The law says, "you may use reasonable force (sometimes deadly force is reasonable) to defend yourself if you are reasonably certain that death or serious injury is imminent." Read more
Here's a better analogy based on the hypothetical you've given me. The couple gives the man a pizza, thinking he's going to give them something in exchange. He does not, in fact, give them anything in exchange. So the couple kills him and takes back the pizza. Read more
What you're describing isn't analogous to this case at all. What you're saying is, shouldn't people be able to defend themselves if they're reasonably certain that harm/injury/death is imminent? The law says yes. Yes, those people can use reasonable force to defend themselves. (Because it is themselves and not their pi… Read more
Actually, I did a quick legal search on this and I couldn't find another state that has a similar defense with respect to use of deadly force to recover property. So, yeah, in another state a judge very well may have refused to allow that defense and would not have given an instruction to the jury on that defense. Read more
Defense of self/defense of others is completely different from defense of property alone. If those people had killed a man to protect their pizza, that would've been completely fucked. Read more
an order of protection is different from a TRO Read more
why should it matter if the government appeared? why would they? sarah's lawyers went to court requesting an injunction, brought their petition and all their shit, and it was granted. not every party needs to be present for that. Read more
Agree! Awareness is key. I hope people click the link I included at the bottom of the article to find out how to become an organ donor. Read more
I'm not saying she's barred from filing suit, but a First Amendment claim is probably a non-starter because there's no government actor. (She'd just have to find another way to sue—some others have suggested she file something under the Indian Religious Freedom Act instead.) Read more
Brian, I'm happy to hear you're doing well and I'm sorry for the health issues you've suffered. My larger point is to bring awareness to the fact that organs don't just fall from the sky. This entire issue is fraught with emotion because yes, in order for an organ to become available, someone has to die (this isn't… Read more
Alright. Read more