That unsupported assertion means nothing.Posted by SabbathWolf: You guys are so off base in regards to the laws "here," that it isn't even funny.
Unless we never leave our own jurisdiction, we need to know.How they are other places.....I have no idea and don't really care.
It is widely understood that Texas is alone in allowing the use of deadly force to defend moveable, tangible property (under some circumstances only). You need to understand that too.
Use of Force "includes" the use of a weapon and deadly force if needed.
...deadly force is justified if needed to defend against death or serious harm.
Right from the code that you quoted.
You seem to have that backwards. Threats do not constitute deadly force.Deadly Force alone however, does not include making threats.
I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean.Yet Deadly Force sites Use of Force as it's foundation.
They both include the actual application of using a weapon.
It's the same exact thing minus making threats first.
We cannot tell whether you are uneducable or just being argumentative for the fun of it. Neither is helpful to the other members or to our cause.Either way, I'm tired of arguing with people who just don't get it and never will.
I think I'll go mow the grass.
Okay. Come Monday, why don't you visit an attorney and get some qualified legal advice.
Until then I suggest that you cease spouting this line of unhelpful and irresponsible advice here.