（转载）Re: Acadia ，入室嫌疑犯枪杀屋主

[oldestghost]

此帖转自 锄禾 在 加州华人 的帖子：Re: Acadia ，入室嫌疑犯枪杀屋主



这不是评不评价的问题 我看媒体也只是转述了律师的话语 我不知道这算是有什么目的？ 而这个提案也确实有AB 1333 不存在你说的假的

另外美国各州法律不同 存在强城堡法和弱城堡法 德州的强城堡法确实是别人拉你车门你都可以开枪 弱城堡法像加州就是各种奇葩的规定 而且我也不明白这些法律的规定跟五毛一元的有什么关系 就事论事还能扯到政治？

你这说话还真是张嘴就来

[oldestghost]

请各位如果在美国用枪，一定要去自己看下code，判例，咨询本地da, 警察，法官和持牌律师。

别听网络胡扯，特别是中文内容。

上面是胡扯的范例。

[ferrygao]

rule number 1 必须打死

[oldestghost]

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... PE.9.htm#D

德州城堡法原文如上。

呵呵，就不翻译了。案例和陪审团指南我也不找了。

[magagop]

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... PE.9.htm#D

德州城堡法原文如上。

呵呵，就不翻译了。案例和陪审团指南我也不找了。

德州白人確實很留意城堡法：幫我換房頂的工頭，估價時不敢站在鄰居家的草坪和drive way上給我拍照，就因為沒得到鄰居允許，默認鄰居有可能衝出來開槍，我們小區車庫門晚上忘關了也啥事都沒有。

[Rather]

rule number 1 必须打死

这个是universal rule no. 1.

[Rather]

德州白人確實很留意城堡法：幫我換房頂的工頭，估價時不敢站在鄰居家的草坪和drive way上給我拍照，就因為沒得到鄰居允許，默認鄰居有可能衝出來開槍，我們小區車庫門晚上忘關了也啥事都沒有。

你这个就是瞎掰了。洪波这个叫不干涉内政，尊重私有财产。

[magagop]

你这个就是瞎掰了。洪波这个叫不干涉内政，尊重私有财产。

尊重私有財產的原因是德州可以用致命武力保護私有財產，有因為幾十刀殺人免罪且無民事責任的判例，而且經常有屋主向草坪上的可疑人士射擊的新聞。

[Rather]

尊重私有財產的原因是德州可以用致命武力保護私有財產，有因為幾十刀殺人免罪且無民事責任的判例，而且經常有屋主向草坪上的可疑人士射擊的新聞。

经常？大白天？报个报导上来。好歹我住德州好几年，还有个警察邻居。

[oldestghost]

德州白人確實很留意城堡法：幫我換房頂的工頭，估價時不敢站在鄰居家的草坪和drive way上給我拍照，就因為沒得到鄰居允許，默認鄰居有可能衝出來開槍，我們小區車庫門晚上忘關了也啥事都沒有。

我记得之前有个案子，类似自卫动枪死伤，德州da会默认交给陪审团判断开枪的合理性。

上面的条款中都有合理认为，暴力，武力威胁，重大财产损失的字眼。

那也就是说开枪后，德州由陪审团来判断是否符合以上的条件。

比如踩草地，开车门这些是否能与暴力和武力威胁，重大财产损失能等等沾上边，是否能说服陪审团。

[magagop]

经常？大白天？报个报导上来。好歹我住德州好几年，还有个警察邻居。

這個案例非常有名，我只說白天屋主人很有可能會射擊站在草坪上的人，不代表一定贏得官司。

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/cr ... 574007002/

[magagop]

另外一些案例，

https://www.kltv.com/2025/01/06/make-su ... -driveway/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/te ... y-n1282285

https://www.kbtx.com/2024/03/01/man-sen ... rong-turn/

[magagop]

我记得之前有个案子，类似自卫动枪死伤，德州da会默认交给陪审团判断开枪的合理性。

上面的条款中都有合理认为，暴力，武力威胁，重大财产损失的字眼。

那也就是说开枪后，德州由陪审团来判断是否符合以上的条件。

比如踩草地，开车门这些是否能与暴力和武力威胁，重大财产损失能等等沾上边，是否能说服陪审团。

目前看，基本上德州陪審團都認為這種情況開槍殺人有罪，二級謀殺或誤殺，但並不代表屋主一定不會開槍。
所以我發現那些白人上門在沒有鄰居屋主同意下都很小心謹慎，不敢越雷池一步。

[oldestghost]

目前看，基本上德州陪審團都認為這種情況開槍殺人有罪，二級謀殺或誤殺，但並不代表屋主一定不會開槍。
所以我發現那些白人上門在沒有鄰居屋主同意下都很小心謹慎，不敢越雷池一步。

非自卫条件下，美国每天有无数枪击事件。

Gun violence 有每个记录。

[magagop]

非自卫条件下，美国每天有无数枪击事件。

Gun violence 有每个记录。

我找的都是站草坪或停車庫道被屋主無差別射擊案例，這個也是一大堆，但基本屋主都沒贏得官司，不理解為什麼美國一些屋主那麼敏感，風吹草動就提槍開門。

[Rather]

這個案例非常有名，我只說白天屋主人很有可能會射擊站在草坪上的人，不代表一定贏得官司。

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/cr ... 574007002/

你这种就是无厘头了。你大街上走路都可能无缘无故被无关人士枪杀的。难道说你就劝人不要上街了？这个就不要我给你举例了吧。

[oldestghost]

德州财产保护的code原文如下

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY



Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) 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.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[oldestghost]

其中涉及使用致命武力/动枪的情况。

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) 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.

各位自己看自己理解。

合法的事情放手做，不合法的不做。

他人怎么做不关心。

其他州的条款差异会非常大，大部分州没有类似上面这段的code。

[Rather]

其中涉及使用致命武力/动枪的情况。

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) 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.

各位自己看自己理解。

合法的事情放手做，不合法的不做。

他人怎么做不关心。

其他州的条款差异会非常大，大部分州没有类似上面这段的code。

德州是名声在外，都以为是西部片牛仔的天下。其实德州对枪支的管理比佛州要严格很多。

[Nameless]

我删了好多帖，先锁主题一晚上。