So shooting someone for stealing beer isn't enough

[GlockOwner]

what? how? its the same shit. last year or so some dude in SA shot a man for stealing a plant from his porch, SAPD came out and.....called it a good shoot. how is someone stealing from YOUR BUSINESS any different then stealing from YOUR HOME?

Took this directly from my "When Can I legally Shoot?" book I got from TLS.

If you reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent:
- Someone with force attempting to enter your occupied Habitation, vehicle, business or employment
OR
- someone with force attempting to remove you from your occupied Habitation, vehicle, business or employment
THEN
- Texas law gives you the legal presumption that deadly force is reasonable and justified "without a requirement to retreat."

 

[RandomHero]

Took this directly from my "When Can I legally Shoot?" book I got from TLS.

If you reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent:
- Someone with force attempting to enter your occupied Habitation, vehicle, business or employment
OR
- someone with force attempting to remove you from your occupied Habitation, vehicle, business or employment
THEN
- Texas law gives you the legal presumption that deadly force is reasonable and justified "without a requirement to retreat."

theres more to it on the property side. last year was the potted plant in SA. 3-4 years ago was the drunk kid who entered the wrong house and the owner shot him in the back as he was running down the street (empty handed). maybe SA is more liberal with killing each other than Corpus?

 

[General Zod]

seems theres a bit of hypocrisy around these parts. its perfectly okay to protect your home and defend your family. it is however, not okay to protect your business and livelihood (unless its a big ticket item it seems).

Protect your home from invasion, defend your family from being attacked. Some kid running off with a twelve pack of cheap beer fits neither category. I rarely agree with TXI on threads like this, but this time I'm firmly in agreement with him. Killing for stuff just isn't justified, unless to get that stuff the perpetrator is harming somebody, threatening to harm somebody, or appears intent upon harming somebody. A snatch-and-grab isn't worth a life. This isn't a Charles Bronson movie.

 

[Renegade]

Protect your home from invasion, defend your family from being attacked. Some kid running off with a twelve pack of cheap beer fits neither category. I rarely agree with TXI on threads like this, but this time I'm firmly in agreement with him. Killing for stuff just isn't justified, unless to get that stuff the perpetrator is harming somebody, threatening to harm somebody, or appears intent upon harming somebody. A snatch-and-grab isn't worth a life. This isn't a Charles Bronson movie.

You may not think it is justified but the State of Texas does. As I pointed out in post #29, the thief is the one who decides whether or not "stuff" is worth dying for.

This is a good law and should be extended to include daytime.

 

[Driller]

It not worth the attention and legal issues to kill a person for committing that crime. Yes they are scum and as a business owner I get the frustration you have with theft but that beer just got real expensive. My biggest fear is that one day I may be in a life threatening situation and I hesitate to defend my life for fear of the legal consequences of my actions. Now you threaten my wife or kids then that's another issue and those hesitations disappear.

 

[zen1300]

Ugh the "if it was your child" argument.

I mean seriously your on a gun forum...

It wasn't an argument. I'm not arguing any point. I was just curious if there were different opinions.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[matefrio]

$100,000 to fight charges to the Grand Jury. The clerk is out his personal time etc for the trial. If QLX gets ahold of this he may need to change residences. May be out his job as well. Private life and privacy is now public.

Really worth it over some beer?

I may use the threat of force to stop theft. Pulling the trigger I'm much more aware of the losses that'll cause my family and my effectiveness as a provider and will only use deadly force to protect my life or from bodily harm.

 

[roadkill]

The shooter was the owner


Sent from my Obama phone.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Too many details missing... as usual

 

[matefrio]

The shooter was the owner

So he put his business at risk as well..........

 

[stdreb27]

That argument sucks, huh? It makes it hard to support that unreasonable argument about shooting someone over beer.

It does, because of instead of using reason or fact, it's purely attempting to illicit an emotional response.

This shooting is either right or wrong, the victim being kin or not has nothing to do with it...

I'm not necessarily opposed to your point of view. To me if I'm in that position it's an economic decision, that beer isn't worth the trouble shooting him will cause.

I've been in that position unarmed. Had stuff ripped out of my hands, and run out the door. My initial reaction was to fight... But 2nd or third time I figured it out. That stuff is just stuff and ain't worth me getting hurt.

Now on a jury, I'm not sure what I'd do...

 

[stdreb27]

It wasn't an argument. I'm not arguing any point. I was just curious if there were different opinions.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

The way I used the word argument, is as a point in the discussion. A thought or statement used to persuade the group to a certain view.

And in my option it uses an assumed strong emotional attachment to supersede whatever logic the opposition may have.
And here is the problem.

The merits of a shooting shouldn't change depending on if it's your kid or not. It's with justified or not justified based on the events that transpired that night, and leading up to the shooting...
Equal protection under the law...

Hence my strong disdain for the "how would you feel if it was your kid?" argument...

 

[Blind Sniper]

Is everyone ignoring the fact that it was a nearly 40 year old gang member with a criminal record who got himself shot, not some random kid?

 

[Renegade]

Is everyone ignoring the fact that it was a nearly 40 year old gang member with a criminal record who got himself shot, not some random kid?

Get out of here with your facts. This is about the children. If it saves one life....

 

[matefrio]

Is everyone ignoring the fact that it was a nearly 40 year old gang member with a criminal record who got himself shot, not some random kid?

 

[zen1300]

The way I used the word argument, is as a point in the discussion. A thought or statement used to persuade the group to a certain view.

And in my option it uses an assumed strong emotional attachment to supersede whatever logic the opposition may have.
And here is the problem.

The merits of a shooting shouldn't change depending on if it's your kid or not. It's with justified or not justified based on the events that transpired that night, and leading up to the shooting...
Equal protection under the law...

Hence my strong disdain for the "how would you feel if it was your kid?" argument...

Based on that logic, you would shoot your own kid or even mother if they stole beer from the store while you were working. Interesting.

The merits of the shooting would be justified.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[zen1300]

Oh, and I'm not trying to persuade anyone. Just trying to understand their thoughts.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Southpaw]

Would people here still feel the same if their child was peer pressured into stealing a 12-pack?

I know what I would do to my kid if I caught him doing that, but I sure wouldn't think shooting him was justified.

My kid would take the punishment of the crime, plus I would have him working for that shop free of pay until he paid off more than 100 times that 12-pack.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Yes, I would feel exactly the same way if my daughter was stupid enough to steal anything or commit a crime against another. What sort of person would I be if I felt any different because the POS happened to be my daughter stealing beer? I believe a thief gets what a thief deserves when they are killed or wounded by a property owner while stealing. I'm not saying the State doesn't see things differently in some cases, but I do.

Then we certainly stand apart. I flat will not kill someone over stuff. I suspect it is easy to sit behind your computer and talk about how strong one is about justice.

Actually pressing the trigger on a living person is different.

Internet bravado. In ten years of teaching over one thousand CHL students, I can count on one hand the people, when presented with the realities of using deadly force, stated they would shoot someone over stuff.

I strongly suspect you are being disingenuous.

How did you come to these conclusions?

Short of knowing the posters on a personal basis, I would say there would be no way for you to know these things about them or anyone, simply based on your experiences with over a thousand different people and the fact that they are using a computer to communicate a thought.

 

[stdreb27]

Based on that logic, you would shoot your own kid or even mother if they stole beer from the store while you were working. Interesting.

The merits of the shooting would be justified.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Read what I said.


The merits of shooting don't change based off your relation with the decreased. Whether it's your wife your grandmother or hannabal the cannibal. It makes no difference to whether the shooting is justified...

Hence your point is downright liberal in its content and merit...

 

[zen1300]

Read what I said.


The merits of shooting don't change based off your relation with the decreased. Whether it's your wife your grandmother or hannabal the cannibal. It makes no difference to whether the shooting is justified...

Hence your point is downright liberal in its content and merit...

I'm sure what point you think I have. I'm just trying to understand your logic.

I read that you think the shoot is justified. I agree the law seems to agree with that. I never argued against the law. In fact I never argued a point. Though the law is on my side, I don't think I would have shot in that situation if it was just shoplifting. My choice, my right to choose. Not asking anyone to support or condemn that decision.

I was interested in the opinions of others.
I'm trying to understand the logic behind your thinking and how far it goes. You're entitled to your opinion like everyone else. It has no impact on me.

If I've misunderstood please clarify.

You don't care if it is beer or even a pack of gum - theft is theft. The law is on your side, it's justified, shoot.

You would feel the same way if it was your kid. Not saying you wouldn't feel bad and mourn, but you would find no fault in the shooter.

If it was your store and a family member took beer or gum you would make the same decision and shoot.

Do I have that right?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2