Anonymous #2 11w

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

-1

Anonymous #1 11w

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 11w

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 11w

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

17

Anonymous #2 11w

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 11w

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 11w

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 11w

I see

1

Anonymous #2 11w

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 11w

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 11w

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

1

Comment Deleted

0

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 11w

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

Comment Deleted

0

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 OP 11w

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 #4 11w

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