re: Father and son arrested after killing catalytic converter thief

What you're describing makes you a decent, contributing member of society, yes. But the law says otherwise. Things are replaceable, lives are not.

Quoting from Katko v Briney:

"The law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property, it is the accepted rule that there is no privilege to use any force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury to repel the threat to land or chattels, unless there is also such a threat to the defendant's personal safety as to justify a self-defense"

You don't have to like it or agree but it is what it is.

quote:

---

Except you can't take someone's life defending your personal property

---

Except yes. You could, comrade.

quote:

---

§20.  Justifiable homicide

A.  A homicide is justifiable:
...
(3)  When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

(4)(a)  When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

---

quote:

---

If you think material possessions are more important than a human life I don't know what to tell you.

---

If you think people don't have the right to defend their property against people who don't value their own life as much as depriving people of their livelihood, then I don't know what to tell you.

quote:

---

What you cited is the defense of self/others law

---

I'm quite aware. Also:

quote:

---

while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

---

quote:

---

If you think people don't have the right to defend their property against people who don't value their own life as much as depriving people of their livelihood, then I don't know what to tell you.

---

By law, you typically don't have that right with respect to personal property. You can argue that you should, but that is a different question.

Horse thieves, when caught, were shot or hanged, or by some means, made an example of.
Back then, they had it right!

If you hop on the internet to defend the “rights” of thieves you’re just as big a POS as they are

quote:

---

When you decide to be a thief you accept the risk of being caught and the consequences.

---

Exactly. A rational outcome of breaking into someone’s home or property has to be possibly losing your life. We all know that these frickers aren’t going to jail for it which is why they continue to do it.

quote:

---

A rational outcome of breaking into someone’s home or property has to be possibly losing your life.

---

I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the loss of that life is automatically justified.

I was speaking philosophically. I do not know Katko v. Briney and presumably, neither does the State of Texas.

Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9, Subchapter D (Castle Doctrine)
discusses the use of deadly force for the protection of property.

You do not have to like it, but it is what it is.