Kentucky officials seek to punish miner who reported safety violations

[ElNono]

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/12/17/2...to-punish.html

[Wild Cobra]

Just follow the greasy palms...

[Winehole23]

property is more important than men and women; the bulk and the course of the law affirm this.

[boutons_deux]

corporate profits are more important than human life and health. Real Men don't GAF about health and the environment

[vy65]

property is more important than men and women; the bulk and the course of the law affirm this.

Little hyperbolic, don't you think? Care to substantiate your claim?

[Winehole23]

look at how much space each is allotted on the bookshelf or how much consideration each receives in the rolls of the law. it isn't even a contest.

[vy65]

You can't be given the death penalty for theft. The severity of punishment reflects a clear value judgment that life is more valuable than property.

[Winehole23]

the actions of the state of KY seem to affirm the generalization, n'est-ce pas?

[Winehole23]

more of the law is devoted to protecting property than protecting people, the severity of punishment for murder totally notwithstanding.

[vy65]

Desole, mais no. I don't agree with what KY is doing, but it fails to support your claim. Again, you can't be sentenced to death for any crime involving property. Do you think the punishments proscribed by law don't reflect judgments concerning what is more important -- property or life?

But, to be fair, your claim is somewhat ambiguous: are you saying more important in the sense that more attention is paid?

[vy65]

Ah. Ambiguous indeed.

[Winehole23]

I think not. Property is perpetual; people come and go.

[coyotes_geek]

Again, you can't be sentenced to death for any crime involving property.

Well, sort of. True, that a judge or jury can't sentence you to death in a court of law over property, but here in Texas if I catch you attempting to steal my property the law does allow me to kill you regardless of whether or not you pose a physical threat to me.

[vy65]

In practice, using deadly force to protect your property is really hard to prove because you have to show there was no other reasonable alternative to preventing the (pretty serious) crime other than the use of deadly force.

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.

[FromWayDowntown]

You can't be given the death penalty for theft. The severity of punishment reflects a clear value judgment that life is more valuable than property.

If it's coupled with murder you can. In fact, murder alone won't get you the death penalty in most jurisdictions; it usually must be accompanied by another crime. It wouldn't shock me if research showed that the most frequently coupled crime is theft or some other property crime. That's just a guess, of course.

I ultimately agree that in many jurisdictions, the law's primary objective is more aimed at property protection (both real property and personalty (including money)) than protection of people; and when there's a tie, the tie is usually broken in favor of property protection.

[coyotes_geek]

In practice, using deadly force to protect your property is really hard to prove because you have to show there was no other reasonable alternative to preventing the (pretty serious) crime other than the use of deadly force.

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.

No doubt there's a lot of "grey" in the interpretation of that law, but it's still an example of an instance where the law places a higher priority on someone's property than on someone else's life.

[LnGrrrR]

You can't be given the death penalty for theft. The severity of punishment reflects a clear value judgment that life is more valuable than property.

You could get life in prison though, correct? And the quality of a life in prison is obviously much less than that of a free man. So while life may be more valuable than property, it depends on exactly which life, and which property.

[vy65]

If it's coupled with murder you can. In fact, murder alone won't get you the death penalty in most jurisdictions; it usually must be accompanied by another crime. It wouldn't shock me if research showed that the most frequently coupled crime is theft or some other property crime. That's just a guess, of course.

Felony Murder isn't simple theft. The obverse of this is true: you can't be given the death penalty for a property crime unless it's coupled with murder -- which suggests the greater emphasis on life over property.

I ultimately agree that in many jurisdictions, the law's primary objective is more aimed at property protection (both real property and personalty (including money)) than protection of people; and when there's a tie, the tie is usually broken in favor of property protection.

If we're talking sheer number of laws, sure. But in terms of severity of punishment, it's no contest. And couldn't we say that there are more property-based laws because there are more "transactions" (crimes and torts) involving property. I'd feel pretty secure saying theft is more commonplace than murder.

[vy65]

No doubt there's a lot of "grey" in the interpretation of that law, but it's still an example of an instance where the law places a higher priority on someone's property than on someone else's life.

I'm quibbling, but it's easier to justify deadly force against a person threatening you, individually, opposed to a person threatening your property. For example, a trespass on your land invokes a presumption of reasonability in defense of your self that is not available in the defense of your property. Of course, the question is: when would you have a situation where there is a threat to your property that is also not a threat to your person.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

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

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

[vy65]

You could get life in prison though, correct? And the quality of a life in prison is obviously much less than that of a free man. So while life may be more valuable than property, it depends on exactly which life, and which property.

Pretty sure you can't get life for straight up theft, but I could be wrong. Regardless, in our (societal) estimation, the death penalty is more severe than life in prison, the realities of the big house notwithstanding.

[LnGrrrR]

Pretty sure you can't get life for straight up theft, but I could be wrong. Regardless, in our (societal) estimation, the death penalty is more severe than life in prison, the realities of the big house notwithstanding.

I'm not sure actually. (I know it's hard to tell from the internet, but that was a true question mark, not a rhetorical one.) And yes, I agree that overall life is more important than property, but I do think there are shades of grey.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm quibbling, but it's easier to justify deadly force against a person threatening you, individually, opposed to a person threatening your property. For example, a trespass on your land invokes a presumption of reasonability in defense of your self that is not available in the defense of your property. Of course, the question is: when would you have a situation where there is a threat to your property that is also not a threat to your person.

Looks to me like 9.42 (2)(B) covers such a scenario. If somebody is attempting to flee your property, I don't think you can say that they pose a threat to your person anymore, yet it sure looks like you're still allowed to gun them down.

I'm trying to find the actual news story but I remember hearing about a situation like this here in Austin. Something like a guy comes home to find someone driving off with his couch so he takes out his gun and shoots the guy as he's driving away.

[vy65]

Looks to me like 9.42 (2)(B) covers such a scenario. If somebody is attempting to flee your property, I don't think you can say that they pose a threat to your person anymore, yet it sure looks like you're still allowed to gun them down.

I don't think 9.42(2)(B) applies to a simple trespass to property; it only applies to a person who has 1) committed one of the enumerated crimes - of which trespass is not one and 2) is fleeing. But this isn't what I practice, so I could be completely wrong.

[Blake]

You can't be given the death penalty for theft. The severity of punishment reflects a clear value judgment that life is more valuable than property.

The property in this case is a mine.

You can't steal a mine.

How in the world are you employed as a lawyer?

[vy65]

you've got to be kidding me, right?