Car Carry Questions

[Bithabus]

shooting someone for vandalizing a car (be it day or night) will not usually end up well for the shooter (reagrdless of age).

I'm interested in this. Can you cite some examples? Thanks

 

[Bithabus]

I have a question that has a twist to it concerning a minor.
He understands about going to and from his car and keeping it concealed.

He asked about his car being vandalized and it being at night.

What if he lives in a apartment complex and he sees/hears his car being vandalized at night. How would being a minor in a apartment complex parking lot with a handgun play out ??
Just seems to me that would cause him some serious legal problems. ???

By "minor" do you mean under 18?

 

[Texan2]

I'm interested in this. Can you cite some examples? Thanks

Tennessee vs. Garner

 

[Texan2]

I'm interested in this. Can you cite some examples? Thanks

Generally, shooting people who are not putting anyone's life/safety in danger is going out on thin ice.
Not sure what examples you are looking for. Can you get away with doing it? maybe....but it will be an expensive learning experience. That archaic Texas law about shooting people at night is weak and I wouldn't rely on it to maintain my freedom. then again, I wouldnt shoot someone for vandalizing my car either.

 

[Bithabus]

Tennessee vs. Garner

The night time vandal would be getting shot to stop his destruction of property, not to arrest him.

 

[Bithabus]

Generally, shooting people who are not putting anyone's life/safety in danger is going out on thin ice.
Not sure what examples you are looking for. Can you get away with doing it? maybe....but it will be an expensive learning experience. That archaic Texas law about shooting people at night is weak and I wouldn't rely on it to maintain my freedom. then again, I wouldnt shoot someone for vandalizing my car either.

I'm looking for examples of cases involving people shooting criminals to stop them from committing criminal mischief in the nighttime.

 

[Texan2]

i will see what I can come up with if you are looking for specific cases. I would imagine they are few. Most have enough sense not to shoot when not placed in fear for their life. Not to mention the crucifixion that would take place when you got sued in civil court.

 

[Bithabus]

i will see what I can come up with if you are looking for specific cases. I would imagine they are few. Most have enough sense not to shoot when not placed in fear for their life. Not to mention the crucifixion that would take place when you got sued in civil court.

Thanks.

If the shoot is found to be justified (according to ch. 9) civil immunity will apply.

 

[Renegade]

Not a Texas case, but Carl "pool shooter" Rowan was a well known case.

In Texas Jerry Casey is a well known theft at night case.

 

[Bithabus]

In Texas Jerry Casey is a well known theft at night case.

The repo man shooter. He got no-billed, right?

 

[Fred B.]

By "minor" do you mean under 18?

I'm showing my age.

I meant 18,19 & 20 year olds.

What I was getting at and wanting an answer to was not the problems involved with anyone of any age shooting someone vandalizing his car but being 18-20 y/o in a apt. complex parking lot with a exposed handgun.

Would the open possession of a handgun vs a rifle/shotgun present a legal problem ?
This act would be occurring in response to his car being vandalized.

 

[txinvestigator]

It matters not the age. Self-defense is available to everyone.

The same justifications allowing you to use force allow for the display of a weapon.

 

[Bithabus]

I'm showing my age.

I meant 18,19 & 20 year olds.

What I was getting at and wanting an answer to was not the problems involved with anyone of any age shooting someone vandalizing his car but being 18-20 y/o in a apt. complex parking lot with a exposed handgun.

Would the open possession of a handgun vs a rifle/shotgun present a legal problem ?
This act would be occurring in response to his car being vandalized.

If he is "directly en route" to his car, then he is exempt from the law prohibiting carry of handguns.

 

[Renegade]

The repo man shooter. He got no-billed, right?

Correct. Harris County too.

 

[txinvestigator]

If he is "directly en route" to his car, then he is exempt from the law prohibiting carry of handguns.

You are correct.

 

[Texan2]

The night time vandal would be getting shot to stop his destruction of property, not to arrest him.

Tennesee v. Garner addressed more than the arrest, it addressed the use of deadly force to stop theft. I know that the law allows for deadly force under certain circumstances "at night". my original point was that shooting someone that is not threatening you is very very risky. I didnt say it was illegal....I said I wouldn't risk my freedom on a 100+ year old statute.

 

[Fred B.]

Thanks for the replies. Understand.

 

[Bithabus]

Tennesee v. Garner addressed more than the arrest, it addressed the use of deadly force to stop theft.

No, it didn't. That case was about the force a Peace Officer may reasonably use to effect arrest. The court ruled that deadly force to stop a fleeing felon (unless the felon presents immediate danger etc) is a violation of the suspect's 4th amendment rights. Only the government can violate a person's 4th amendment rights. It has no bearing on the issue of whether a private citizen may use deadly force to protect his property.

I know that the law allows for deadly force under certain circumstances "at night". my original point was that shooting someone that is not threatening you is very very risky. I didnt say it was illegal....I said I wouldn't risk my freedom on a 100+ year old statute.

Why? Being old does not make a statute weak. I bet the justification for deadly force to prevent murder is 100 years old. Is that a bad idea?

So, why is it risky? If you are correct there should be examples of people being sent up the river. You may be correct and I'd be very interested to read the cases.

 

[Texan2]

Why? Being old does not make a statute weak.

In many cases it does.
there i s another current thread where the conversation is about the open carrying of long guns and how even thought it is legal, people get arrested for it. So while it may be technically legal, like shooting folks who vandalize your car, it is not recommended in many places.

 

[Texan2]

I bet the justification for deadly force to prevent murder is 100 years old. Is that a bad idea?

So, why is it risky?

I believe the murder statute is older...and also much more sound. Its risky because not all DA's will see things the way you do. As stated numerous times now, I have not said it was illegal, merely dangerous and potentially expensive, depending on where you live.