>> I recently heard an urban legend to the effect that in Texas, a >> valid legal defense against a charge of first degree murder is >> to claim, "Your Honor, he needed killing." Is this true?
>> And if it is true, just what are the accepted legal standards for >> convincing the court that your victim really did "need killing" ? >There is absolutely no truth to this "urban legend". About the only >defense, as in most states, is "self defense" or defending the life of >another. Texas does, however, allow you to confront and use "deadly >force" on an intruder in your home at night, unlike some states that >require you to try to escape.
Texas does have some interesting defenses that are "unwritten" -- like you can kill someone if they are diddling your wife. One famous case in my hometown concerned the Red Adair of his time, Tex Thorton. He was seduced by/seducing the female half of a hitch-hiking pair, and shot by/robbed by her husband. The pair got acquitted. The case was fictionalized in a book/movie called "Twilight of Honor." Another man in my hometown tried the same defense later, but the jury seemed unconvinced that his stout matron of a wife was a literal femme fatale.
> I recently heard an urban legend to the effect that in Texas, a > valid legal defense against a charge of first degree murder is > to claim, "Your Honor, he needed killing." Is this true?
> And if it is true, just what are the accepted legal standards for > convincing the court that your victim really did "need killing" ?
There is absolutely no truth to this "urban legend". About the only defense, as in most states, is "self defense" or defending the life of another. Texas does, however, allow you to confront and use "deadly force" on an intruder in your home at night, unlike some states that require you to try to escape.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - g...@n5abi.hou.tx.us -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I recently heard an urban legend to the effect that in Texas, a >> valid legal defense against a charge of first degree murder is >> to claim, "Your Honor, he needed killing." Is this true?
>There is absolutely no truth to this "urban legend". About the only >defense, as in most states, is "self defense" or defending the life of >another. Texas does, however, allow you to confront and use "deadly >force" on an intruder in your home at night, unlike some states that >require you to try to escape.
Up to the 1960's however, when I was researching strange laws for a paper, Texas did have an unusual law: If you were being arrested under a warrant that was "false on its face" i.e. wrong name, wrong statute cited, you were justified in using deadly force to keep your freedom. Don't know if this defense was ever used in court. It would take a chain of unusual circumstances to make it active.
ObUL: Factoid: Witches were burned in Salem, MA. Truth: They were hung.
In article <1991Jul7.171902.21...@world.std.com> l...@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>ObUL: Factoid: Witches were burned in Salem, MA. > Truth: They were hung.
No, they were hanged.
scott "choke, choke" cranston
-- +---------^> "The Spirit of Massachusetts is the Spirit of America" | < -Massachusetts Division of Tourism +-.-----. \ 7 "Right..." \_\_/ -crans...@cadence.com
In article <1991Jul8.182055.22...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, ctho...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
> Speaking of the power of the judge--wasn't the case in Texas in which > the > judge (in his charge to the jury??) stated that he didn't think the > crime > was so serious because the murdered man was only a "faggot" who deserved > it. The two men who beat the guy to death were given extremely light > sentences.
Judge Jack Hampton, here in Dallas, Texas, about 2 years ago, gave a comparatively light sentence to a young high school dropout who had gone out for a fun evening of gay-bashing and killed two men. Reportedly one was shot at close range as he knelt and begged for his life. Hampton was quoted by the local press as saying that "some victims deserve what they get", that he considered it mitigating circumstances that the victims were "queers", and that one of the victims was HIV positive, so his death didn't really count. I paraphrase here, because I don't have the clippings from the Dallas Morning Snooze at hand to quote accurately, but I don't think I am seriously misrepresenting the spirit of his remarks. I also believe that Judge Hampton was recently re-elected unopposed.
Urban legend? Nah, this is urban reality in Dallas, Texas...
Sorry, not even an ObUL to lighten up this posting, either... Anyone suppose Judge Hampton would explode like a sea gull if we fed him lots of Alka-Seltzer?
-- Paul Fowler | "If a war of races should occur between dpr...@arco.com | the wild beasts and Lord Man, I would ARCO Oil and Gas | be tempted to sympathize with the bears." Plano, TX | - John Muir
In article <1991Jul7.171902.21...@world.std.com> l...@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>ObUL: Factoid: Witches were burned in Salem, MA. > Truth: They were hung.
Umm, the witches were hanged, the warlocks were hung. *hee*
Actually, a number of 'witches' died in prison, and one 'warlock' was crushed to death under heavy stones. He was being interrogated through the simple means of piling stones on him until he confessed. His last words were (supposedly): "More weight!"
--John "he had warlocks, I'll give him that much" Wichers
-- Her eyes were cold and || John Wichers || wich...@husc4.harvard.edu harsh, which made them || 121 Museum St #2, Somerville Ma. 02143 tough to chew. - Danno || Anarchy - It's not a law, it's just a good idea. || Jesus saves sinners ... and redeems them for valuable cash prizes!!! ||
In article <1991Jul9.124934.1...@husc3.harvard.edu> wich...@husc9.harvard.edu (John Wichers) writes: >Actually, a number of 'witches' died in prison, and one >'warlock' was crushed to death under heavy stones. He >was being interrogated through the simple means of piling >stones on him until he confessed. His last words were >(supposedly): "More weight!"
Actually, that wasn't to get him to confess (though they probably wouldn't have minded him doing that); that was to get him to enter a plea. He refused to plead either guilty, not guilty, or anything else, and the trial couldn't legally start without him doing so. The bit about piling on stones was actually a recognized means of forcing a plea out of the accused, under the English law at the time.
Also, I think the Salem-folk called both males and females "witches".
John (couldn't they just have weighed him against a duck?) Ockerbloom -- =========================================================================== === j...@crl.labs.tek.com ockerbl...@cs.cmu.edu (forwarded) oc...@yalecs.bitnet (forwarded) 13461 SW Electric St., Beaverton OR 97005
In article <1991Jul9.124934.1...@husc3.harvard.edu> wich...@husc9.harvard.edu (John Wichers) writes: >In article <1991Jul7.171902.21...@world.std.com> l...@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>Actually, a number of 'witches' died in prison, and one >'warlock' was crushed to death under heavy stones. He >was being interrogated through the simple means of piling >stones on him until he confessed. His last words were >(supposedly): "More weight!"
If I remember correctly, the details on this are as follows: If one was convicted of being a witch, one's property was confiscated(and partly shared with one's accusers, hence an incentive to accuse others). The man, (don't remember the name) was accused, and wished to retain his property for his heirs. Figuring he would be convicted if he answered the charge, he refused to enter a plea.(is this right?) In any case, the normal thing to do was to interrogate by "pressing" which is basically to put a door or board on top and then pile on stones until the subject entered a plea. He refused, and died while being pressed(so, he intended to) I believe that his last words were indeed "more weight." -Ekr
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Eric Rescorla resco...@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu Yale University Department of Chemistry resco...@psun.chem.yale.edu "No his mind is not for rent--to any God or government." Peart/Dubois
> > I recently heard an urban legend to the effect that in Texas, a > > valid legal defense against a charge of first degree murder is > > to claim, "Your Honor, he needed killing." Is this true?
> > And if it is true, just what are the accepted legal standards for > > convincing the court that your victim really did "need killing" ?
> There is absolutely no truth to this "urban legend". About the only > defense, as in most states, is "self defense" or defending the life of > another. Texas does, however, allow you to confront and use "deadly > force" on an intruder in your home at night, unlike some states that > require you to try to escape.
Is there any truth to the story I heard that you need an actual physical corpse in Texas (as opposed to corpus delecti)? The story I heard was that if you pushed your victim into a vat of white hot steel, in front of 100 witnesses, you couldn't be prosecuted because there was no body.
> In article <1991Jul7.171902.21...@world.std.com> l...@world.std.com (Larry M H
> >ObUL: Factoid: Witches were burned in Salem, MA. > > Truth: They were hung.
> No, they were hanged.
Since I spent most of a summer studying the history of old New England, I feel you both are right. There were situations when witches were burned at the stake. There were also a larger percentage that died in the stocks, a particularly gruesome seating arrangement. |-) Although some female witches were hung, the practice was largely frowned upon because it exposed their undergarments, and was considered "unseemly".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- dave@kharma (Dave Laird) | (___) | The Computer Concern, Springdale SYSOP: Used Kharma Lot BBS | (O O) | Washington 509-233-8474 *HST* _____________________________| (._.) |___________________________________ ++ d...@kharma.dogear.spk.wa.us ++
>I recently heard an urban legend to the effect that in Texas, a >valid legal defense against a charge of first degree murder is >to claim, "Your Honor, he needed killing." Is this true?
>And if it is true, just what are the accepted legal standards for >convincing the court that your victim really did "need killing" ?
---------- As a practical matter if you can convince 4 out of the 12 jurors that the victim "needed killing" then you won't be convicted.
What about the hunter down in Texas who saw a State Trooper killed while making a traffic stop? He supposedly took his gun and killed the assailant right on the spot. Not only did he get off scott free but he even got to stuff and mount the body.:)
> I recently heard an urban legend to the effect that in Texas, a > valid legal defense against a charge of first degree murder is > to claim, "Your Honor, he needed killing." Is this true?
Actually, I just found out that this "urban legend" is from the book "Trial" by Clifford Irving. Although entertaining and well researched in some areas, he didn't do very well researching Texas law. In about the first 100 pages or so, I noted at least five mistakes (including this one) concerning the law. Oh well, it is fiction :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - g...@n5abi.hou.tx.us -----------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <640...@hp-vcd.HP.COM> jo...@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) writes:
>>I recently heard an urban legend to the effect that in Texas, a >>valid legal defense against a charge of first degree murder is >>to claim, "Your Honor, he needed killing." Is this true?
>>And if it is true, just what are the accepted legal standards for >>convincing the court that your victim really did "need killing" ? >---------- >As a practical matter if you can convince 4 out of the 12 jurors that >the victim "needed killing" then you won't be convicted.
>What about the hunter down in Texas who saw a State Trooper killed while >making a traffic stop? He supposedly took his gun and killed the assailant >right on the spot. Not only did he get off scott free but he even got to >stuff and mount the body.:)
:-b We did, however, have a guy in Dallas last summer who witnessed a murder in the parking lot of a mall up there. This guy "happened" to be taking his pistol to a nearby gunsmith (Texas Law prohibits the transporting of firearms unless you are going to/from a range, gunsmith, or the store where you purchased it [unless of course, you're travelling across at least three county lines and plan to spend at least 24 hours there... ;-(] and he took aim and killed the assailant as he fled in his car. (Actually, it took the guy about three blocks to die...) The guy with the gun then panicked and drove off. Police had no idea who he was until he turned himself in 48 hours later.
> Up to the 1960's however, when I was researching strange laws for > a paper, Texas did have an unusual law: > If you were being arrested under a warrant that was "false on its face" > i.e. wrong name, wrong statute cited, you were justified in using deadly > force to keep your freedom. > Don't know if this defense was ever used in court. It would take > a chain of unusual circumstances to make it active.
Texas *Criminal* Laws were totally rewritten in the early 70s (effective in 1973 I think). Almost nothing of the laws that existed before this revision remained. The reason for the total revision was that there were not only many odd laws still on the books but each offense had it's own punishment assigned with little uniformity to the ranges of punishment.
One of the strangest laws to survive into the late 60's was one in Dallas that forbid the driving of cars on Main street, doing so would scare the horses!
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - g...@n5abi.hou.tx.us -----------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1991Jul9.124934.1...@husc3.harvard.edu> wich...@husc9.harvard.edu (John Wichers) writes: >In article <1991Jul7.171902.21...@world.std.com> l...@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes: >>ObUL: Factoid: Witches were burned in Salem, MA. >> Truth: They were hung.
>Umm, the witches were hanged, the warlocks were hung. *hee*
>Actually, a number of 'witches' died in prison, and one >'warlock' was crushed to death under heavy stones. He >was being interrogated through the simple means of piling >stones on him until he confessed. His last words were >(supposedly): "More weight!"
The man (whose name I forget) crushed to death was not crushed for being a warlock, but for refusing to plead to the charge of witchcraft (ref: an American book on the Salem witch trials, called something like Witchcraft in Massachusetts, slightly dated now. Explains the whole event as mass hysteria, but isn't all that clear about what mass hysteria *is* precisely. You might say that it replaced one witchcraft with another, more acceptable form).
Had he pleaded, I believe the crushing would have stopped, and (presumably) he would have been found guilty and hanged instead. I understand that this weighting was the conventional way of dealing with those who refused to plead, although I don't know how common it was for someone to be quite as obdurate as this.
In article <1...@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk>, d...@robots.oxford.ac.uk (Dave Forsyth) writes...
[STUFF DELETED]
>The man (whose name I forget) crushed to death was not crushed >for being a warlock, but for refusing to plead to the charge of witchcraft >(ref: an American book on the Salem witch trials, called something like >Witchcraft in Massachusetts, slightly dated now. Explains the whole >event as mass hysteria, but isn't all that clear about what mass >hysteria *is* precisely. You might say that it replaced one >witchcraft with another, more acceptable form).
Whether the 'witchcraft' of Salem was mass hysteria is anyone's guess, but mass hysteria certainly exists. A few years ago, the marching band at my high school was performing in some very hot weather. For reasons I am not aware of, they were dressed in their heavy uniforms. At some point in the program, a band member passed out from the heat. At that point, they started dropping like flies. The mind can do some strange things.
The people in Salem who were affected by 'spells' could have been suffering from a similar phenomonon. Or they may have just been getting even with people they didn't like.
>Had he pleaded, I believe the crushing would have stopped, and >(presumably) he would have been found guilty and hanged instead. I >understand that this weighting was the conventional way of dealing with >those who refused to plead, although I don't know how common it was >for someone to be quite as obdurate as this.
I wonder what mental contortions they went through to justify this treatment.
In article <1991Jul8.154403.22...@cadence.com>, crans...@cadence.com (W. Scott Cranston) writes:
> In article <1991Jul7.171902.21...@world.std.com> l...@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>>ObUL: Factoid: Witches were burned in Salem, MA. >> Truth: They were hung.
> No, they were hanged.
> scott "choke, choke" cranston
I always heard they were pressed to death under heavy stones.
Aside: Here in Virginia Beach, we have a major street named Witchduck Road. The name comes from a couple of centuries back, when the deep pond at the end of that road was used for determining whether a woman was or was not a witch. The accused would be bound (not free, so she could swim) and thrown in. If she floated, she was a witch. If not, well......condolences to the family.
| Werjun / \ I don't do no drugs, man. \ / I'm hooked on phonics. |
d...@robots.oxford.ac.uk (Dave Forsyth) writes: > The man (whose name I forget) crushed to death was not crushed for > being a warlock, but for refusing to plead to the charge of witchcraft
That's JUST the way those WITCHES behave! If he didn't have anything to hide, then WHY didn't he enter a PLEA?!?!? The WITCHES are destroying everything around you, and you QUIBBLE over legal NICETIES!
If he wasn't guilty, he should have SAID "not guilty".
Sheesh. <- But that doesn't count as a vote.
Brian "froth, froth" Scearce
-- Brian Scearce (b...@robin.svl.cdc.com -or- robin!...@shamash.cdc.com) I'm thinking about a Silicon Valley WATPUB. Am I the only one here? Any opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect CDC corporate policy.
In article <2...@tamsun.TAMU.EDU>, x04...@tamuts.tamu.edu (Sean Malloy) writes: > ...(Texas Law prohibits the transporting > of firearms unless you are going to/from a range, gunsmith, or the store where > you purchased it [unless of course, you're travelling across at least three > county lines and plan to spend at least 24 hours there...
I thought the law was only one county line, and the event causing the travel was non-regular (i.e., I live in Dallas County and work in Collin County, so I couldn't carry a gun to work with me every day, even if TI allowed me to, which they don't). -- Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility ditt...@skitzo.dseg.ti.com ditt...@skbat.dseg.ti.com
Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself.
In article <1991Jul10.220354.13...@colorado.edu> fiel...@spot.Colorado.EDU (fielden j.a.) writes:
[Brian Scearce frothing at the mouth again about witches and anything remotely satanic-related because there was this guy crushed to death by rocks for not entering a plea to the charge of witchcraft deleted.]
+ If I remember correctly the reason he didn't enter a plea was that +as long as he didn't say anything they couldn't confiscate his +property.
Well, a lot of good THAT did him.
Terry "Hey, that's why I rent" Chan -- =========================================================================== ===== INTERNET: twc...@lbl.gov BITNET: twc...@lbl.bitnet "I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when I generalize, I don't care." -- Dave Barry
In article <1991Jul8.154403.22...@cadence.com> crans...@cadence.com (W. Scott Cranston) writes: In article <1991Jul7.171902.21...@world.std.com> l...@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes: < <ObUL: Factoid: Witches were burned in Salem, MA. < Truth: They were hung.
>No, they were hanged. >scott "choke, choke" cranston
Well maybe the warlocks were hung; but then they and the witches were hanged!
In article <34...@shamash.cdc.com> b...@u02.svl.cdc.com (Brian Scearce) writes: >d...@robots.oxford.ac.uk (Dave Forsyth) writes: >> The man (whose name I forget) crushed to death was not crushed for >> being a warlock, but for refusing to plead to the charge of witchcraft
>That's JUST the way those WITCHES behave! If he didn't have anything >to hide, then WHY didn't he enter a PLEA?!?!? The WITCHES are >destroying everything around you, and you QUIBBLE over legal >NICETIES!
>If he wasn't guilty, he should have SAID "not guilty".
>Sheesh. <- But that doesn't count as a vote.
>Brian "froth, froth" Scearce
>-- > Brian Scearce (b...@robin.svl.cdc.com -or- robin!...@shamash.cdc.com) > I'm thinking about a Silicon Valley WATPUB. Am I the only one here? > Any opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect CDC corporate policy.
If I remember correctly the reason he didn't enter a plea was that as long as he didn't say anything they couldn't confiscate his property. -jf
In <2...@tamsun.TAMU.EDU> x04...@tamuts.tamu.edu (Sean Malloy) writes:
>We did, however, have a guy in Dallas last summer who witnessed a murder >in the parking lot of a mall up there. This guy "happened" to be taking >his pistol to a nearby gunsmith (Texas Law prohibits the transporting >of firearms unless you are going to/from a range, gunsmith, or the store where >you purchased it [unless of course, you're travelling across at least three >county lines and plan to spend at least 24 hours there... ;-(] and he >took aim and killed the assailant as he fled in his car. (Actually, it took >the guy about three blocks to die...) The guy with the gun then panicked >and drove off. Police had no idea who he was until he >turned himself in 48 hours later.
Heard a similar story which took place in New Mexico, another state which prides itself on preserving the right to bear arms.
In many states, not located in the bleeding heart northeast, if you shoot someone who has broken into your house at night, you may not ever go to trial, and no jury would convict you. In New York city, it would become a racial incident and Al Sharpton would march on your home. Anyway, Cops have often advised people off the record, that if they shoot somebody who is prowling around *outside* your home, that your best bet is to drag the body inside and put a knife in his hand or something.
But that's not the story I came here to tell.
Apparently there was an incident of a someone attempting to break into the house throught the window. The homeowner got his pistol, and managed to scare away the would-be burglar. The homeowner chased this person down the street and shot him in the back.
What I heard was that in NM there is some law which states that you can shoot an escaping felon. Since Breaking and Entering is a felony, the shooting was legal.
I heard this from my cousin who lives in New Mexico, although I don't think he researched the facts.
Seems to me, the guy is not a felon until he is convicted in a Jury trial, otherwise the person firing is judge jury and executioner.
In article <15...@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, twc...@tennyson.lbl.gov (Terry Chan) writes...
> + If I remember correctly the reason he didn't enter a plea was that > +as long as he didn't say anything they couldn't confiscate his > +property. > Well, a lot of good THAT did him.
It didn't help him so much, but it did allow his family to inherit the property. It the property had been confiscated, his wife and children would have ended up with nothing.
- snopes
+--------------------------------+----------------------------------------- ---+ | NOTE: No part of this signature may be reproduced, stored in, or introduced | into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means | (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without prior | written permission, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in | critical articles and reviews. <mikkel...@breakr.enet.dec.com> | * David Mikkelson Digital Equipment Corporation, Culver City, CA USA * +--------------------------------+----------------------------------------- ---+
|
