[crazed_ss]

Did anyone see this?

http://www.10news.com/news/9322430/detail.html

SPARKS, Nev. -- Police said woman was shot in the leg with a shotgun by a man who saw her and two others siphoning gasoline from vehicles in Sparks, Nev.

Sarina Ellis, 22, was taken to a hospital with nonlife-threatening injuries.

Police said the alleged shooter, Alden Noring, turned himself in shortly after the predawn incident Monday. Noring now stands accused of battery with a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm into a vehicle.

According to police, Ellis, along with 25-yera-old Allen Dixon and 43-year-old Katrina Myrick-Davidson, were siphoning gas when Noring awoke and went outside with a shotgun to confront them.

Police said Noring was involved in a similar shooting in 1995.


lol.. doesnt look like a very smart move.

[Zrex]

In Texas, I think it would have been a good shoot. Any experts?

[DoubleTapDrew]

In Texas, I think it would have been a good shoot. Any experts?

There isn't enough info. If they threatened him then I would think so. If they were siphoning gas and he snuck up and popped a shell into them unannounced then no, I don't think that would be a good shoot in any state regardless of stand your ground laws.
Kinda sucks there is a law against discharging a firearm into a vehicle even if it's yours! What if I want to put down an old beat up farm truck we have in a glorious hail of gunfire???
I'm sure the damage to his truck was more than the cost of the gas they stole. The fact he's done something similar before won't help his case.
Police said Noring was involved in a similar shooting in 1995.

[Zen21Tao]

I have family that lives deep in the country (rural America) where steeling gas will get you peppered in the rear with rock salt. :D

[Hawkmoon]

There isn't enough info. If they threatened him then I would think so. If they were siphoning gas and he snuck up and popped a shell into them unannounced then no, I don't think that would be a good shoot in any state regardless of stand your ground laws.
Yeah, there is enough info -- unless the guy works third shift and sleeps during the day. Texas is unique in that you can LEGALLY use lethal force to protect your property, as well as your life ... at night. So the comment that it would probably be a good shoot in Texas was correct.

[nvshooter]

The guy over-reacted, but them rustlers deserve a tall tree and a short rope...

[Minator]

In Texas, I think it would have been a good shoot. Any experts?

If it was dark outside or early morning it would have been. law states someone on your property at night/early morning that you even think their going to steal or damage your property, and if there in the process of taking your property and you think your not going to get it back you can legally shoot/kill them. law is 50+ years old ill see if I can copy it from an old post i read that quoted the actual law from some gov website.

Now if he was charged of assault with a firearm which wasnt a legal shoot he would have gotten a felony so he wouldnt have been able to get a gun very easily in the first place and he would have an additonal charge of illegal possesion of a firearm which wasnt stated in this article. So the prior charge can be pretty much thrown out of the whole equation.

I read in a newspaper awhile back a rancher had illegals breaking his fence and leaving garbage all over the place. pretty much destroying his land, he waited out one night with some family and shot 13 of them down in the south west part of texas he wasnt charged with anything due to the fact they were trespassing. Also I dont think we have a law down here on shooting vehicles on the news it showed a story about a CHL holder emptying a mag into the back of her car, which the theif got out of the and ran showing some sighn of inteligence the women wasnt charged with anything even though it was in the middle of the city.

Another example I dont know if any of you have seen those repos shows, but there was one they showed of a man in dallas shooting at the repo men driving down the street he got out of the vehicle the repo men knocked him down and took his pistol when the cops got there he was given back his gun got no ticket and got this truck back.

And quite frankly if someone was stealing my $3 a gallon gas they would become aqainted with the butt of my rifle and if they tried to run while the police were on there way and they were on my property they would get some ventilation in their vehicle as well.:cuss:

[Standing Wolf]

I doubt I'll ever understand why criminals always expect to be treated legally.

[qlajlu]

I doubt I'll ever understand why criminals always expect to be treated legally.
In England they have more rights than the property owner! :mad:

[Low-Sci]

Seems like a thing to shoot someone over. Yeah, they shouldn't have been stealing gas, but I think gunfire was kind of over the top for a reaction.

Guys who do this stuff give gun owners a bad name. Gives the anti-gun masses one more thing to pick at. How many conversations that day do you think ended with "So you want a gun so you can shoot people for messing with your car?"

[ProficientRifleman]

In Texas, it would be a justified shooting, if it was to prevent the theft of one's property in the night.

I'm not a lawyer, but this kind of case has been considered before.

Once in the late 80's a man shot another man who was reposessing his pick-em-up truck...at night. He killed the repo man and was cleared of all charges.

[one-shot-one]

LEAGALITY OF IT WILL BE WORKED OUT IN THE COURTS.
I HOWEVER WILL NOT CRY FOR CRIMINALS WHO GET THEMSELVES KILLED OR INJURED WHILE COMMITING THEIR CRIME, I DON'T CARE WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ARE STEALING.:neener:

[atlctyslkr]

What about using bean bag shot? I would think that in ANY state using a less lethal form of ammo may buy you some points. Farmers have been using standard shells reloaded with rock salt to protect orchards and other crops for years. I knew plenty of kids growing up down in south Georgia that got a blast trying to steal from peach orchards. As far as I know there was never a prosecution.

[Zen21Tao]

I doubt I'll ever understand why criminals always expect to be treated legally.

The problem is that we are a society of laws and in the laws eyes everyone is innocent until proven guilty. In my gun I want to say that criminals caught in the act don't decerve to be treated legally (an eye for an eye). Howver, in my mind I know that not treating an "alleged' criminal legally is a slippery slope where government officals can just roust up and punish anyone they claim is a criminal. The end result could very well be the abuse of power to maintain control over the populus and we don't want that.

[Zrex]

What about using bean bag shot?

What about hitting them with a fluffy pillow?
:scrutiny:

[saddlebum]

thieves should be shot no matter what they steal.too bad it isn't a federal law.

[Shipwreck]

If it was dark outside or early morning it would have been. law states someone on your property at night/early morning that you even think their going to steal or damage your property, and if there in the process of taking your property and you think your not going to get it back you can legally shoot/kill them. law is 50+ years old ill see if I can copy it from an old post i read that quoted the actual law from some gov website.

Now if he was charged of assault with a firearm which wasnt a legal shoot he would have gotten a felony so he wouldnt have been able to get a gun very easily in the first place and he would have an additonal charge of illegal possesion of a firearm which wasnt stated in this article. So the prior charge can be pretty much thrown out of the whole equation.

I read in a newspaper awhile back a rancher had illegals breaking his fence and leaving garbage all over the place. pretty much destroying his land, he waited out one night with some family and shot 13 of them down in the south west part of texas he wasnt charged with anything due to the fact they were trespassing. Also I dont think we have a law down here on shooting vehicles on the news it showed a story about a CHL holder emptying a mag into the back of her car, which the theif got out of the and ran showing some sighn of inteligence the women wasnt charged with anything even though it was in the middle of the city.

Another example I dont know if any of you have seen those repos shows, but there was one they showed of a man in dallas shooting at the repo men driving down the street he got out of the vehicle the repo men knocked him down and took his pistol when the cops got there he was given back his gun got no ticket and got this truck back.

Gotta love Texas :neener: :neener:

[MechAg94]

I think the general idea is you ought to confront them (at a distance) first. Then they can't say you just came out shooting.

[Sindawe]

thieves should be shot no matter what they steal.too bad it isn't a federal law.Yeppers. Don't wanna get shot at, don't mess around with other peoples property.I read in a newspaper awhile back a rancher had illegals breaking his fence and leaving garbage all over the place. pretty much destroying his land, he waited out one night with some family and shot 13 of them down in the south west part of texas he wasnt charged with anything due to the fact they were trespassing. Do you happen to recall what paper this was in?

[gunsmith]

be sucking some one elses gas for awhile

[Henry Bowman]

Not shot for stealing gas, shot while stealing gas. :banghead:

[jem375]

hell yes shoot them, it's still stealing.....if gas prices keep going up, I won't be able to park in the street anymore because of gas theft....it's coming if gas gets as high as it is in Europe...

[ball3006]

The rear tank is the only one that operates, bad valve on the other, so I disconnected it from the fuel line. I then put a few gallons of sugared watered gas for weight. I park the truck out in front of the house. The other tank door is secured. I am waiting for someone to siphon that tank....hehehehe....chris3

[#shooter]

What's the deal with Texans being able to shoot trespassers at night or dawn and not during the day time? :confused: Does trespassing only happen at night?

[one-shot-one]

another part of the law is that you do not have a reasonable expectation of retrieving stolen property, guess that darkness makes that harder.

[Mannlicher]

Probably an over reaction, but darn it , the only sympathy I can find is for the shooter, not the 'victims'.

[mindwip]

The rear tank is the only one that operates, bad valve on the other, so I disconnected it from the fuel line. I then put a few gallons of sugared watered gas for weight. I park the truck out in front of the house. The other tank door is secured. I am waiting for someone to siphon that tank....hehehehe....chris3

LOL i love that.:D i would only hope the BG does NOT come back and damage your car for the damage to his. But i guess it would be hard to tell what car it came from if he does more then one.:neener:

[tuckerdog1]

What about hitting them with a fluffy pillow?

Laughing so hard my eyes are tearing up. Thanks.

Tuckerdog1

[freebird]

Rigth or Wrong, I bet they won't do that again:)

[Otherguy Overby]

ball3006:

My pickup has two tanks....
The rear tank is the only one that operates, bad valve on the other, so I disconnected it from the fuel line. I then put a few gallons of sugared watered gas for weight. I park the truck out in front of the house. The other tank door is secured. I am waiting for someone to siphon that tank....hehehehe....chris3

I might keep insecticide in that spare tank.. No sense having them come back if they've a sweet tooth... :)

[Warren]

Does not matter to me if it is not a "good shoot" or is an "overreaction" if I'm on that jury I would vote NOT GUILTY.

[Zrex]

Does not matter to me if it is not a "good shoot" or is an "overreaction" if I'm on that jury I would vote NOT GUILTY.

Unfortunately thats why they would never let people like us on a jury.

[mindwip]

Unfortunately thats why they would never let people like us on a jury

thats why you lie, and say how stupid you are, you never readbooks, or the newspaper, just watch and csi all day. And your iq is 75.

[Zen21Tao]

thats why you lie, and say how stupid you are, you never readbooks, or the newspaper, just watch and csi all day. And your iq is 75.

In other words say you are a Liberal. :D

[mindwip]

In other words say you are a Liberal

:neener: :what: :D :neener: :D THAT HURT

[Werewolf]

This is a really strange thread... :confused: Very few see any problem with shooting the folks stealing the gas (me either).

But! A month or two ago there was another thread where a gas station owner shot a guy that stole gas as he was driving away. Exactly the opposite response - most folks said it was bad to shoot a guy for stealing gas.

Wierd, schizophrenic, new members - man I just don't get this place sometimes.

[Double Naught Spy]

Minator said,If it was dark outside or early morning it would have been. law states someone on your property at night/early morning that you even think their going to steal or damage your property, and if there in the process of taking your property and you think your not going to get it back you can legally shoot/kill them. law is 50+ years old ill see if I can copy it from an old post i read that quoted the actual law from some gov website.


Please do post the law that says we Texans can use preemptive lethal force because we "think" somebody is going to steal or damage our property, but I believe you are out of your mind. Preemptive lethal force because you think something property-related might happen doesn't fly, not even in Texas.

--------------------------------------------------

However, I don't know why folks cry about the ethics of lethal force in such matters as the commission of a crime. There are inherent risks in committing a crime against another, such as stealing gas. The critical ethics here pertain to stealing since the criminal is the one risking his/her life for something as cheap as gasoline.

[huaco]

IMHO the more people who get shot while stealing the better. It will reduce stealing in the long run. Stealing is a choice and a bad choice. It needs to be a very dangerous choice. It would be great if it could be applied across the board.

You can argue the legality and morality of it 'till the cows come home. Theft is a crime that will happen on a large scale as long as it's something people can expect to commit without serious consequence.

[Zrex]

Here is what the law actually states:



§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[Minator]

(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

but I believe you are out of your mind.

double naught spy,
I guess I am out of my mind since it clearly states right before you TO PREVENT Who would have thought, lol.

Do you happen to recall what paper this was in?
sorry I looked for the article but has been archived, I do know for a fact that it was a town northwest of brownsville.

[Double Naught Spy]

To prevent a crime from happening isn't the same as "even thinking" it might happen. Just because you see a person standing on your property, you can't shoot him just because you think he might commit a crime. You must have justification for the use of lethal force to show you were preventing a crime.

You hear a noise and go outside at night and find a guy standing next to your house shaking a spray paint can, cap off on the ground, you could argue you thought he was going to 'tag' your house as there would be no other reasonable justification for the guy standing there at night with a can of spray paint, shaking it up as directed before it is sprayed.

You see a flicker of light out in your yard at night and investigate. You find a guy lighting a molatov cocktail that he has not yet thrown. You could argue that you believed he was about to commit arson, apparently of your home since he was in your yard, as you could see no other reason for him being there and holding a lit molatov cocktail.

This is much like the Ft. Worth convenience store clerk that shot and paralyzed a female police officer when officers ran into the convenience store with masks on and guns drawn. "Knowing" he was about to be robbed, the clerk popped the first gunman. His shoot was 100% justified even though a cop got shot because the cops failed to identify themselves. He was trying to prevent being robbed when he shot the cop.

Even a lifetime membership card to the Psychic Friends Network won't provide you with justification for using lethal force against another who is on your property at night in Texas, simply because you "think" that person was going to commit a crime.

[Minator]

Im not going to argue with your all knowing 2,000 posts.:barf:

I made a broad generalization at no time did I say I was stating word for word. :banghead:

[PCGS65]

discharging a firearm into a vehicle.

In the air,the ground. Soon we might not be able to shoot a gun but they will let us own them.
Disclaimer, I do not agree with what this man did. JMO:)