Hacker News Reader

Comment by indrax | Hacker News Reader

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide#Examples_o...

Texas was the first thing to come to my mind : http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas...

The laws do seem to allow less after the fact, with good reason. My point was that we clearly allow for people to value money over lives.

When is a robbery over? The stuff never stops being yours, and they never stop running away with it.

A lot of things come into play here, but I'm pretty sure you could still post a reward, 'dead or alive'. I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely, and defend yourself if threatened in the process.

Our wild west laws are only slightly less savage than what was alleged in this case.

View on HN

> Texas was the first thing to come to my mind

From your source " the protection-of-property element of the deadly force law is “pretty unique to Texas.” ".

If this type of law is pretty unique to Texas, let's look at the Texas law, instead of necessarily simplistic summaries.

Here [1] is the actual Texas state law. The relevant section is 9.42. The law states that deadly force may only be used in the case you claim if the person meets (among other conditions) that "the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.". Section 9.42B.

So no, you're not just free to shoot people for robbery, willy nilly. There are several steps that, even in Texas, need to be met.

>When is a robbery over? The stuff never stops being yours, and they never stop running away with it.

and

>I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely, and defend yourself if threatened in the process.

is just nonsense. Even Texas requires that a person be defending their property or (Section 9.41b) "if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:" with some more constraints after that. You cannot just chase them months later and do anything.

So, "laws don't allow killing for robbery," unless there are quite a bit of other circumstances, and very few places allow it for any circumstance except when there is presumed lethal threat to the defender.

And absolutely certainly the laws do not allow Ulbrecht to hire someone to kill another no matter what the circumstances.

Please cite law statute or legal cases with links. Poorly researched news stories and opinions are much less useful.

[1] http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.h...

>I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely

The point was the motivation of protecting money. Under the Texas law, the defender doesn't need to be defending life, only seeking to recover property. Most of what you've said isn't a counterargument to what I said. Willy nilly was never a claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_...

Louisiana appears to allow lethal force just to prevent unlawful entry into a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

You're also looking at one law about one situation to dispute what I conjectured about a different situation. Is it not legal to chase down the thief yourself? If you are threatened in the process, is it not then legal to defend yourself? Are 'dead or alive' bounties not legal? The effect may well be the same.

>Are 'dead or alive' bounties not legal?

Are you claiming they are? Note I simply asked:

> Please cite law statute or legal cases with links. Poorly researched news stories and opinions are much less useful.

Nothing you've posted allows Ulbricht to hire someone to kill Green, no matter how Ulbricht obtained the money to begins with. Until you cite a law by statute you think allows this, we're done.

So... you make up an assertion I'm supposed to back up? Nice.

>Odd that laws allow for killing to prevent a robbery

Your assertion, not true as stated, and only party true except in very specific circumstances. You claim Texas; I show that's not true in such generality; you drop that line. I'll vote this one as "Not backed up."

> I'm pretty sure you could still post a reward, 'dead or alive'

Your assertion, not backed up. And wrong.

> I think it's legal to try to catch the robber yourself indefinitely, and defend yourself if threatened in the process.

Your assertion, not backed up. And wrong.

> Is it not legal to chase down the thief yourself?

Your assertion, not backed up. And wrong.

>Louisiana appears to allow lethal force just to prevent unlawful entry into a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

And now just simply move your original goalposts from robbery, since your original claim about Texas was not the slam dunk you hoped.

>Are 'dead or alive' bounties not legal?

Your assertion, not backed up. Also wrong.

Do you see why I asked for you to provide statute, since all your unbacked assertions are just wrong?

>So... you make up an assertion I'm supposed to back up? Nice.

You make up assertions, are unable to support them when asked multiple times, and then try to blame me? Classic.

The Texas and Louisiana and other laws do back up the assertion I actually made. It was a broad assertion by design. I only mentioned Louisiana because it's an even lower bar than I expected.

I'm sorry you thought my statement had 'such generality' to apply to any defense from any robbery. If you look back at the point I was making you'll see why this isn't relevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com