Don't do the crime....

[Lunyfringe]

1)As for all those who are willing to hand over their property to thieves, that is exactly why we have such thefts.

2)The individual who defended his property is why thieves think twice before stealing. Well, the smarter ones do.

3)It is a person's legal right to protect their property, and Texas' penal code allows it. Actually, so does Illinois...

1) Nobody was talking about "handing over" their property... and there are lots of ways to deter thefts... starting with not leaving your keys in a running vehicle, perhaps? It's not "exactly" why we have these thefts- it's a factor... And I'm not going to tell somebody else they should go to jail, and pay tens of thousands of dollars to lawyers just on the 0.00001% chance that a future thief would hear about their case and re-think their life choices. Even if the possible penalty is death, if they don't think they'll get caught, there will be (see #2)

2) There is no shortage of stupid, or of people willing to take risks for a reward. Especially in urban areas. We could go on and on about all the stupid that people do every day with little chance of reward.

3) And you may not be charged- or you could be charged and have to pay legal fees to defend yourself. I somehow doubt me telling a jury "majormadmax said it was ok" would be an viable defense. Even if you are acquitted, it could cost well into 5 figures or even 6 figures to pay your lawyer(s)... I will assess the situation and make a snap judgement as to whether deadly force is worthwhile.

ETA... all this is said without knowing what the circumstances were of the shoot... If I thought anybody's life was going to be in danger without stopping him, that's going to make my decision. And I firmly agree that if you're going to shoot, shoot for center mass (of the perp)...

 

[Moonpie]

I was taught "don't do stupid stuff". Lots of "stupid stuff" going on in this story BUT at the end of the day the stupid LT is alive and NOT in jail and the stupid-er perp is not alive and in a grave.

 

[MTA]

Good shoot. One less dindu in the world. Too bad his retarded sister wasnt in the passenger seat

 

[AustinN4]

1 crime had already been committed. This shooting could've prevented further crime. If someone steals a gun from my house and starts to run away, am I justified in shooting them even though they aren't pointing the gun at me and my life is not in any danger?

That was Illinois. This is Texas. Do not confuse the 2 again or we'll send you back the England.

 

[AustinN4]

Deleted

 

[Moonpie]

And I do not buy that "They didn't know what they were doing was wrong" crap either.
They damn well DO know.
Why do they ALWAYS run off as fast as they can go?
They know.

 

[AustinN4]

Actually, so does Illinois...
Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

The way I read that is that deadly force can only be used against a forcible felony. Thief did not use force in stealing the car. Sorry, bad shoot.

 

[AustinN4]

Deleted

 

[Lunyfringe]

This is Texas, not Illinois. Do not confuse the two again or back to England you go.

would they deport him, or just put him in a Texas prison?

 

[Moonpie]

would they deport him, or just put him in a Texas prison?

Naaaaa…..just make him sit on a fire ant nest for an hour.

 

[easy rider]

I think there was fault on both sides. If someone were to steal my car, I'm not sure I would shoot them either, but on the other hand, but on the other hand I'm sure if more people got shot trying to steal a car, there would probably be less attempts.

 

[Lunyfringe]

Naaaaa…..just make him sit on a fire ant nest for an hour.

with or without force-feeding honey?

 

[billyb4u64]

“When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?”

When has it ever become legal to steal a car?

Maybe if her concern for her brother had been properly channeled before he died, he might have been a law abiding citizen and still alive.

Thou shall not steal other peoples stuff could be hasardous to their health !!! Just a Jeep ! But not his jeep !

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

 

[majormadmax]

The way I read that is that deadly force can only be used against a forcible felony. Thief did not use force in stealing the car. Sorry, bad shoot.

Funny how the Chicago district attorney--of all people--disagrees with you!

 

[Lunyfringe]

Funny how the Chicago district attorney--of all people--disagrees with you!

different state, different laws. Being a public official certainly doesn't hurt, either... especially somewhere corrupt like NY, Chicago or LA
In Colorado he'd be in cuffs... unless the right person responded. Property does not justify deadly force there.
Know the laws of the jurisdiction(s) you carry in, or you could be in for a world of hurt.

example: http://www.westword.com/news/robert-wallace-shooting-make-my-day-law-meets-gran-torino-5826462

 

[AustinN4]

Funny how the Chicago district attorney--of all people--disagrees with you!

And you are going to believe a Chicago DA? ROTFL!

 

[SloppyShooter]

IANAL, nor do I play a lawyer on TV... seek legal council.

But I can quote Texas statutes:
Texas Penal Code (2017)

Chapter 9. Justifications Excluding Criminal Responsibility

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

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.


Since it also refers to 9.41:
Texas Penal Code (2011)

Chapter 9. Justifications Excluding Criminal Responsibility

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

This is a lot to read....is this gonna be on Judge Judy anytime soon?

 

[Lunyfringe]

This is a lot to read....is this gonna be on Judge Judy anytime soon?

Reading is fundamental

 

[billyb4u64]

WHERE THERE IS DOPE THERE IS HOPE ! PASS THE JOIT MY , MY, BADDD

different state, different laws. Being a public official certainly doesn't hurt, either... especially somewhere corrupt like NY, Chicago or LA
In Colorado he'd be in cuffs... unless the right person responded. Property does not justify deadly force there.
Know the laws of the jurisdiction(s) you carry in, or you could be in for a world of hurt.

example: http://www.westword.com/news/robert-wallace-shooting-make-my-day-law-meets-gran-torino-5826462

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

 

[SloppyShooter]

The moral of the story: drive a vehicle with a large trunk.