Can anything be done via executive order in regards to SYG laws?

[jtpur]

Pandering

This may seem an aside to some, but since the initial conversation referenced Zimmerman and the probability of him being charged with a civil liberties violation, IMHO the salient point not being addressed by anyone is the fact that the USAG and the CIC have frequently demonstrated their willingness to totally disregard both settled law and the Constitution in pandering to a select group of their supporters. The bottom line is if they deem it advantageous to prosecute Zimmerman they will. The power that is inherent with being at the top has become the law of the land and will remain so as long as the populace accepts it as so.

Could not agree more. You are spot on. I did not go down this path only because I tried to demonstrate that the Law allows for individuals to be prosecuted. I do not believe Zimmerman violated any persons civil rights. I don't believe he is a racist. It matters not what I believe. If Holder wants to charge him he will. If Holder wants to charge you or me for a self defense shooting of an armed robber he will charge us. We may beat the rap, we won't beat the ride downtown

 

[Old TexMex]

(OK I don't believe States allow people to shoot 11 year olds) but Texas has a law that could permit deadly force to prevent vandalism in the night time. I recommend you don't shoot any night time vandals, even though Texas says it is ok to do so.. I am sure Mr Holder would have a different opinion on that.

It's important to maintain civility here, I imagine, and accuracy.
An 11 year old who attacks police officers or civilians can most certainly be shot, so I'm curious regarding that statement, and also the "Texas says it's o.k...." regarding shooting vandals...
I don't recognize that statute, please enlighten. It certainly NOT what 9.41 of the Texas penal code says.
Most importantly, why go off in the weeds with the inference that Texas is somehow pro- shooting? New York would be more apt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/n...-armed-teenager-in-bronx-police-say.html?_r=0
Or Detroit, or D.C. (though Dallas p.d. have 14 or 15 shootings so far this year)

 

[Old TexMex]

Just curious based on Obama and Holder's silly statements this past week. I dont think they can, but want to know.

Quite simply, they can choose to ignore any state law, and have done so, even after court finding in states favor.

 

[jtpur]

It's important to maintain civility here, I imagine, and accuracy.
An 11 year old who attacks police officers or civilians can most certainly be shot, so I'm curious regarding that statement, and also the "Texas says it's o.k...." regarding shooting vandals...
I don't recognize that statute, please enlighten. It certainly NOT what 9.41 of the Texas penal code says.
Most importantly, why go off in the weeds with the inference that Texas is somehow pro- shooting? New York would be more apt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/n...-armed-teenager-in-bronx-police-say.html?_r=0
Or Detroit, or D.C. (though Dallas p.d. have 14 or 15 shootings so far this year)

TexMex: Im not picking on Texas nor am I saying its a saying its a pro shooting State.

I also don't mean to imply that 11 year olds who attack cops could not have deadly force used against them. It was merely an illustration that States do not generally allow the shooting of 11 year olds.

To your question. 9.42 2a allows the use of deadly force to prevent "Criminal Mischief" in the night time. Yes 9.42 does refer to 9.41.

My point was I don't want a Texas resident only reading 9.42 A and going out and blast a kind for toilet papering his Oak tree at 2 am. Sometimes people only read what they want.

Having taught Texas CHL for five years its amazing how many people ask if deadly force is ok for the above described situation, because that is what they think they are reading.