What I wonder is how long it will take for a homeowner to kill someone other than the burglar, whether by mistake or due to bad aim . . .

Good point, AM.

Related but slightly off-topic, I was sent a youtube clip from a candid-camera like show that was obviously filmed in another country with stricter gun laws than the U.S. I say "obviously" because the gag involved a guy wearing pantyhose over his head/face, walking into various stores and trying to buy something or ask for help (he did nothing threatening, other than walk in wearing a stocking over his face) while a hidden camera filmed the panicked reactions of the store clerks.

My thought: "If they did that in the U.S., that dude would be blown away within the first 5 stores he tried that in."

Now, this will sound a bit European and lily-livered, but don't you think we're crossing a very, very dangerous line when we say it's acceptable to kill someone who isn't threatening your or another person's life at that moment and is actually running away? Sure, the burglar deserves punishment, but even if you do believe in a Biblical mandate for taking life (not sure I do, but I respect the Biblical grounding of those who do) the Old Testament says "a life for a life", not "a life for a stereo" or even "a life for the violation of personal space" - which is not a violation I'm belittling, by the way, as it can be truly harrowing.

Nathan

I'm neither European nor lily-livered :-), but I agree with you.

Shooting someone who is running away is just bad.

AM: No stats to back this up, but I suspect that there will be less collateral damage than deaths by the hands of criminals. Here in Texas people first learn how to handle guns, then how to care for them, shoot them, and store them. We treat guns like dangerous tools: capable of being abused, certainly, but also capable of good.

Nathan: Nice proof-texting. So, "a rape for a rape"? Is that what the OT teaches? I seem to recall the death penalty for such things as profaning the Sabbath, working on the Sabbath, kidnapping, bestiality, sodomy, cursing one's parents, or striking one's parents.

Karl: An idiot such as you describe probably would not be shot in Texas, where people are familiar and careful with weapons. He would likely get beat up, though, for being stupid.

The bottom line is that if people do not like the laws of Texas then they should not move to Texas. Y'all have every right not to live here. But if you do move here, or if you decide to visit here, don't break into someone else's home unless you're willing to accept the possible punishment.

Phaestes,

As a fellow Texan, let me just say:

"Wow"

Phaestes, are you saying:

(1) Whatever laws Texas passes are a-ok with you because if you don't like them you can always move away?

(2) Every single person in Texas is as careful as you describe with a firearm?

(3) Someone who walks into a store and does nothing whatsoever threatening except for wearing a nylon stocking over his face should be beat up?

(4) Shooting someone in the back as they run away, because you caught them trying to steal from your property, is morally justified?

(5) If you say yes to #4, the reason is . . . ? Because Texas passed a law saying so, and that's the end of it?

What else am I missing?

Karl:

You are missing at least a sense of humor: the "beat up" comment was a joke.

As for the rest of your weak-kneed points:

yes
no
see above
no
moot

It's still stupid to test people's patience and sense of safety and security by donning women's undergarments and going into stores. We don't have a law against it, though, so come on down and see what happens.

Texas is a secular state, as is the U.S. as a whole, and has the right to establish laws that it believes to be in the best interest of its people. Sometimes Texas is wrong, but more often than not it seems to be a whole lot smarter than the rest of y'all.

As Ron White notes, other states are debating whether or not to do away with the death penalty; in Texas, we're putting in an express lane.

We take life seriously. All life, not just the lives of those poor criminals who will jeopardize others for their own gratification.

Phaestes, I think you are both taking offense, and being offensive, where neither is necessary.

I read your bio on your site - very moving testimony. Please make sure you aren't bringing your old fundamentalist combativeness to bear unnecessarily, though. There's room to disagree without throwing insults around - sounds like you had a professor or two in Colorado who modelled that for you?

One of the things I enjoy about this site is that people generally express their disagreement without being disagreeable. If I was insulting in my reply, I apologize. I was pretty surprised at your attitude that if someone doesn't like a law that Texas passes they should just leave, rather than voice concern or disagreement.

Sorry: I didn't answer the question at the end of the post.

I think the new law could be a good thing but will likely suffer in the application. I do not personally believe in using lethal force to protect property; I do believe in using force. If innocent lives are threatened, lethal force is a justifiable alternative.

This law, like all laws, will be misapplied. For this reason, I am theoretically (and theologically) for the death penalty; due to the heinous nature of people and the truly blind justice and misguided legal system , however, I am not supportive of its use except in those situations where there is no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the murderer.

My belief is that Texas likely kills too many accused murderers while other states kill too few.

(To anticipate a likely question, the "express lane" comment is in keeping with my belief: there are strict and significant qualifications for someone being sent to a speedy execution. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors.)

Karl:

One of the many problems with this medium is the difficulty in detecting the tone of another's writings. I tend to be sardonic most of the time and employ hyperbole to emphasize some of my points. I forget that neither comes through as I write and others read.

I took no offense at anything you or anyone else said; my apologies if you found any of my remarks insulting or offensive. It was not my intent. I engage in such verbal jousting for sport, much like a wolf that attacks a prey it has no intention of killing. Iron on iron, you know.

As for my fundamentalist past, well, it is my past. I don't take myself very seriously anymore; I do take God and His ministry quite seriously. But I also mourn the loss of vital, virile exchanges between men without having to worry about social niceties.

Finally, I think this issue - like most issues - is one about which serious and devout Christians can debate and disagree without either leaving the orthodox position.

"But I also mourn the loss of vital, virile exchanges between men without having to worry about social niceties."

I thought Karl's remarks to you were plenty manly. He called you out on some things that you had said, as he should have. I didn't sense a lot of worry on his part.

Bill:

I wasn't thinking of Karl when I made that comment. Or you. It is a general comment about a disturbing and (seemingly) increasingly common trend I encounter.

I'm glad he called me out. But he didn't need to worry about whether I was offended or not: as I said, I'm not that important and don't take many things personally anymore.

Nathan wrote:
Now, this will sound a bit European and lily-livered, but don't you think we're crossing a very, very dangerous line when we say it's acceptable to kill someone who isn't threatening your or another person's life at that moment and is actually running away?

I happen to like the aspect of the Castle doctrine that gives the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner. What you bring up here is the part that makes me nervous.

But even before this new law, Texas has had some odd gun laws. For example, under Texas law it is justifiable to use deadly force to stop criminal mischief (like painting graffitti) at night, but not during the day. And it is justifiable to chase down a thief and use deadly force to recover your property even if after he leaves the premises as long as it is a continuous chase. But if you see him the next day with your TV or whatever, you can't shoot him to get it back.

It is also justifiable to use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property.

Of course, I guess, the lesson is don't steal stuff in Texas. :) But I too am concerned about the Biblical morality of shooting a fleeing, unarmed person. I just don't see how that's biblically justifiable. Well, unless you're shooting them in the leg... :) I don't know. Tough stuff.

As far as "whether they're threatening you", I like that the homeowner doesn't have to justify or decide that anymore. That an intruder is in your living room is enough. I like that part of it. But that's just my opinion.

Phaestes,
I'm glad Karl called you out too, because then I didn't have to do it.

Based on comments #5, and #8, I thought there was going to be a problem. But now reading you're most recent comments, I think you'll do fine around here.

But please do tone down the "wolf attacking prey" thing. Comment #10 almost seems to be coming from a different person than the one who wrote #5.

Around here, I guess we err on the sensitive side. And you are welcome here. We love to disagree here at thinklings, but doing it nicely is pretty darn important to us.

I still struggle with this medium myself. So just a personal rule of thumb: when there's a little doubt that the reader might not know I'm joking or being sarcastic, use a smiley. When there's a lot of doubt they might not know, delete it before hitting "post comment".

We've all got our pet peeves, I've learned, and sometimes we take out our frustrations with others on the person who reminds us of a past experience. So I'm trying not to do that with you. but in case it's helpful, we've had trouble around here years ago with people who threw out insults like monopoly money, and then when called on it said, "I was just joking." That gets old after a while.

Reminds me of Proverbs 26:18-19

Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, "I was only joking!"

Not saying you were doing that, but frankly we all probably need that reminder. I just re-read Proverbs 26, and I think it says a lot about blog etiquette. I won't be picking on you, but because this brought that passage to mind, is it OK with you if I do a quick main post on that passage on the blog? (I Promise not to single you out. :)

Phaestes,
I apologize if I've piled on here. I think Karl already took care of it sufficiently, frankly. Karl, good job standing up for yourself buddy. Quite godly and manly how you handled it.

Phaestes, consider this my right hand of friendship.

Hey, how did you pick that name?

Shrode:

Hey, it's your blog! You can do whatever you want. I am just a guest here and when I open my big mouth I become fair game. So I have no problem with a post referencing me: as one of Despair, Inc.'s posters said, "It may be that the entire purpose in your life is to serve as a warning for others."

Or, as I like to say, "Never underestimate the value of a bad example." Blog away: I'm happy to be of service.

Re the name and fitting in: I've been here before but only recently changed my nom de plume. I've been here in the past as "Dr Mike" or "Dr Fin/Finrod" (all of which I use on my own sites). I switched to "Phaestes" (pronounced "Festus") because Hephaestus is the Greek name for the Roman mythological god Vulcan. I recently bought a Vulcan 1600 Classic motorcycle, shortened the mythological name, and that became my biker handle. So I carried it over. (Didn't realize until just now that Phaestes was also the uncle of Agamemnon, king of Mycenae and Argos.)

Sorry for any confusion. No deception intended.

Phaestes,
You're right.
My new post is now up. I think it's awesome...but I'm biased. :)

I like this most recent comment by the way.

We're really good at self-deprecating humor over here. :)

Anyway, thanks for the reintroduction.

I've owned guns for 25 years. I took lessons from several different instructors. I am a woman living alone. I have been stalked by a psychopath for 3 years; which is the equivalent of being in a hostile foreign country at war. You never know when death is coming. However, I will not chase a man down the street and shoot him in the back if he's running off with my possessions. He can have them. That's what insurance is for. Killing a man for "things" is murder. I will however kill a man who BREAKS into my house with the intent to do me harm. NOTE: the gun doesn't come out until I hear the door breaking or glass breaking. I think this law is going a little bit too far.

Hey Phaestes. Fair point about the OT capital punishment laws, but aren't those things to be undertaken by the community? In our day, if those things can be carried over at all, surely they're the domain of the State rather than individuals? When individuals start to have the right to shoot to kill for threats to their property rather than their person, aren't we violating a Biblical principle that even the scummiest human being is made in the image of God and therefore of more value than even the coolest TV?

If you're up for this debate, then just so we know where we stand: I will mean nothing personally and take nothing personally. Promise!