[bitwize]

Some states, like Texas, still have the "needed killin'" defense: if a person accused of murder can prove to the jury that the victim needed killin', the jury will not convict (or will convict on a lesser charge). You have to pass a high bar to need killin': generally the defense only works if the accused can show that while not in immediate danger of life and limb, they felt sufficiently credibly threatened by the victim to believe they were at continual risk of injury or death if they didn't strike first.

In most other states, homicide is only justifiable under the higher threshold of being in immediate danger.

[dragonwriter]

It's not clear if you are referring to jury nullification here (which is not particular to Texas), to the reduction of murder to voluntary manslaughter by heat of passion (which is not particular to Texas), or to some actual special aspect of Texas law (perhaps some part of the operation of the imperfect self-defense rule under Texas law). Could you provide more detail?

[Bartweiss]

This made me curious too, so I went looking. Texas self defense law seem thoroughly standard for a southern/rural state. It has 'stand your ground' rules and a low charge rate for claims of self-defense, but neither is unusual.

There are only two exotic elements I can find. First, Texas permits the use of deadly force to stop some non-violent criminals (e.g. burglars, robbers) from escaping with property. Second, it allows deadly force over theft and criminal mischief only at night.

That last clause is pretty bizarre, but none of it adds up to anything like "needed killin". Deadly force to recover property is somewhat unusual, but that wouldn't apply to the case in the article either.

[dsfyu404ed]

>That last clause is pretty bizarre

It makes more sense if you consider it the other way around. Theft and criminal mischief are considered violent crimes for the purposes of self defense if they happen at night.

The line between theft and burglary is blurry and subjective when you're talking about situations where someone is stealing something from someone's property at night and said theft causes them to be woken up and respond. The law is basically saying that for the purposes of self defense theft can be considered burglary by default in those cases.

[ChickeNES]

Possibly a reference to this case: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/father-not-charged-in-...

[cjohnson318]

This is not a facet of Texas law, or reflective of law in any other state. Sometimes jurors choose not to penalize or convict a person for homicide in extenuating circumstances. This is more about the nature of trial by jury in America, than the specific legal code of Texas.

[vorpalhex]

See the recent case of the man who was convicted after punching a white supremacist in the face.. and charged with a $1 fine.

[cjohnson318]

See it where? This anecdote sounds more like a jury or a judge making an exception in an extenuating circumstance, than the exercise of an existing law, or precedent.

[vorpalhex]

How was this an exception? The attacker was charged, they chose to give a (very) lenient punishment with the circumstances considered.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/charlottes...

[cjohnson318]

It is an exception because it is not representative of most assault charges in the US. Getting charged for assault, and then a pat on the wrist, for punching a Nazi is by definition an exceptional event. Rolling Stone, a cultural icon, does not gamble advertiser money on boring, unexceptional events.

[rocqua]

I thought that (beyond the death penalty) the jury does not get to determine sentencing, just guilt.

[vorpalhex]

Depends on the Jurisdiction.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/charlottes...

[CydeWeys]

So killin' wasn't involved?

[dylan604]

Your going to need to show some proof that exists. Sure, there is the stand your ground type of rules, but that a self-defense situation. "Needed killin" sounds like some people outside of Texas believe Texas hyperbole.

[LorenPechtel]

Sounds like Texas got it right. Normally the law expects you to go to the police if the threat isn't imminent--but that assumes the police can do something about it. Generally they can't.

[cjohnson318]

No. This idea of "innocent because X needs killing" is a bad idea. Everyone's idea of "needs killing" is different. Imagine how this hypothetical law would work out for minorities. It would not go well.

[pavel_lishin]

[citation needed]