Another Texan Defends His Neighbor

jad0110 said:

Good info to know, thanks for posting it TR. I was scratching my head over this one until you enlightened me. Though that may be permissible legally in TX, try it in NC and you'll probably wind up with more jail time than the crook

Click to expand...

That portion of Texas law is pretty much unique among the 50 states. All of which simply reinforces the concept that people who live in one state, under one set of laws, generally should not do too much spouting off regarding the legality or illegality of something in another state unless they actually know what the law says in that other state.

MinnMooney said:

If your life or someone else's life is threatened, I'm all for your idea but I refuse to shoot someone who poses no threat to me but is getting away with things.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, nobody is likely to force or require you to shoot at someone who is stealing your property. It's a personal choice. In most states, the choice isn't even (legally) available. Thankfully, in Texas it IS a choice.

If your life or someone else's life is threatened, I'm all for your idea but I refuse to shoot someone who poses no threat to me but is getting away with things.

Click to expand...

Everyone as to make their own decisions both morally and legally. I don't condemn your decision I'm just on the other side.

I worked for those things, I gave up hours of my life I will never get back. Sure my insurance may replace some if the stuff but then my premiums go up once again I'm working for something I will never get back.

I'm doing OK in life but what happens when the break into the little old lady on SS who is barely getting by; how is she going to replace what she lost.

I have no use for thiefs they aren't worth hanging with a new rope.

I worked for those things, I gave up hours of my life I will never get back.

Click to expand...

"An eye for an eye" sounds just fine to me. But taking away all the remaining hours of someone's life because he took a few dozen of yours doesn't strike me as a reasonable thing.

"An eye for an eye" sounds just fine to me. But taking away all the remaining hours of someone's life because he took a few dozen of yours doesn't strike me as a reasonable thing.

Click to expand...

What if one of the boxes he's stealing contains medication you know your neighbor needs to stay alive?

What if your neighbor is barely getting by, a widow on social security and foodstamps. They are taking the window air conditioner and it's 107 degrees outside?

When is "stuff" not just "stuff" any more?

It's easy to make blanket statements but things are rarely black and white.

There's ALWAYS the chance that defending property might very well save a life, so having the laws in place to protect you makes sense which is why we have this law in Texas.

Sometimes "stuff" keeps people alive. It's not just stuff then........

"Neither were you, judge."---Minn Mooney

Oh come off your high horse. Dialogue is permissable the last time I checked, and if you're an advocate for no-nothingism, maybe the guy is right. The law in TX is different from northern states. What's next? A guy can't even express himself?

[BruceRDucer checks his blood pressure, takes large doses of coffee, and meditates on the sensibility of Texas.]

Or let me put it this way. It's a firearms forum and self defense is discussed, and if you affirm the right to self-defense, you will be making "judgements" any time you pull a weapon for self defense. So how does one come up with an argument that says you cannot "judge" anything? Of course you can judge things. That's every human being's job.

I see nothing wrong with what happened. Who am I to doubt the guy on whether or not when the guys "reached for something" that the shooter did not feel as if his life was in danger?

Even from a moral standpoint, a thief got shot doing his 'trade'. I can't feel bad for the guy because , like others have noted, this guy and his buddies could end up breaking into your house. Maybe this time your wife and kid are home and they feel like they want to do more than just steal a t.v.

What if one of the boxes he's stealing contains medication you know your neighbor needs to stay alive?

What if your neighbor is barely getting by, a widow on social security and foodstamps. They are taking the window air conditioner and it's 107 degrees outside?

When is "stuff" not just "stuff" any more?

It's easy to make blanket statements but things are rarely black and white.

There's ALWAYS the chance that defending property might very well save a life, so having the laws in place to protect you makes sense which is why we have this law in Texas.

Sometimes "stuff" keeps people alive. It's not just stuff then........

Click to expand...

So the argument is that we shoot everyone who steals anything, on the premise that it might, somehow, save the victim's life?

Grandma lives in between Burnet and Kingsland. She had some things stolen out of her garage, but judging from what they took, I suspect it was methheads or teenagers they made off with some beer, a few tools, and a can of oil.

I still wish I was there when it happened so I could've unleashed the hound on them. Just wrong stealin' from folk.

So the argument is that we shoot everyone who steals anything, on the premise that it might, somehow, save the victim's life?

Click to expand...

That's not what I said.

What I said was you can never make a blanket statement that shooting someone over "property" is a bad thing.

There is always the possibility that there is more to the story, so it's good to have a law in place to protect people if they believe it necessary to use deadly force to protect property.

I'd prefer to live in a state where that option is afforded me, on the off chance that it ever actually DOES get to a point where I believe deadly force to protect property is necessary.

What I said was you can never make a blanket statement that shooting someone over "property" is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

I suppose this is probably true. Shooting terrorists who are attempting to steal a nuclear warhead isn't going to spill any beer in my neighborhood.

But honestly, how often do the victims of theft die as a result of that theft? It's rare enough that I cannot honestly think of an example. But this thread is not the first example we have recently seen of someone being shot in the back for stealing a VCR, or some silverware, or other typically burgled items. I just can't get behind that, and I believe that any law justifying it is wrong.

That portion of Texas law is pretty much unique among the 50 states.

Click to expand...

Lucky you . Then again, TX has some screwy laws of their own, from what I understand. One of the few states that bans open carry, at least for now. I hope that changes for you soon.

Quote:
If your life or someone else's life is threatened, I'm all for your idea but I refuse to shoot someone who poses no threat to me but is getting away with things.

Everyone as to make their own decisions both morally and legally. I don't condemn your decision I'm just on the other side.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It would be good to have the option, not that I would necessarily use it. I would think that such laws may have at least some deterence effect, so we all would benefit in that regard, even if some of us choose not to fire upon fleeing criminals.

Just a hypothetical, but if a thug is in my neighborhood trying to flee that I know for a fact to be violent/dangerous (because he had just done something terrible to someone where I live), I would at least want the legal option to act in order to prevent him from doing the same to others in the future.

Quote:
"Even if what he did isn't chargeable, it's immoral and just plain wrong. Go for the license number and let the police nab them. "

We don't know if the vehicle had a license plate displayed. Incidentally, have you noticed how close you have to be to a licnse plate to read it quickly and accurately?

Also, we don't know whether the vehicle was stolen; in that case, getting the license number serves no purpose.

A word of advice to residents of the other 49: If you visit Texas, don't mess with the property and posessions of others...

What I find interesting is that if the criminals were to be arrested for this theft, they would not face the death penalty.

I don't live in Texas, no, but this doesn't sound right to me either. Nobody had their life threatened by this, or so it seems. The shooter says he felt threatened, but the thief was hit in the back of the neck while fleeing in a car.

Yes a thief does make his decision to rob a house, but does he deserve to die for it? That I think is the root of this debate.

Should you be able to defend your property when your life is not threatened? That, I do not know.

What this character saw was three people in a car that was parked in the carport and carrying some thing to that car from his neighbor's home. What he thought he saw was a burglary in progress. What he could have been watching was three people who had just purchased some items from his neighbor and was picking them up.

NOW - we know that wasn't the case but he obviously didn't think the possibilities through very well and THAT is why I think he was very wrong in shooting the backseat rider in the neck (a person who posed absolutely no threat to him).

Hindsight is 20/20 but he wasn't working with hindsight. He was working on assumptions and machoism.

If I'm ever on the jury, I hope I have the courage to do the right thing, not necessarily the legal thing.

Click to expand...

I don't believe there's a difference.

See jury nullification? hxxp://www.fija.org/

I hope he gets off too, But this would have been a great chance to be a good witness. In VA, the man would be in jail already. Firing at the car of thieves driving awy from his neighbors house after breaking in. From what is here, there is no proof that his(or anyone elses) life was in danger.

Did this happen at night? It seems the law is a bit more lenient on the use of lethal force at night.

No, MinnMooney, I wasn't there either. But neither did I judge the man's actions. What I did was say that the "homeowner in question apparently acted completely within the scope of the law...." Apparently. We have to wait on the Grand Jury and possibly the trial jury to know for sure.

Gun control, he hit his target. The perils of crime. You might get shot. The odds of that is going up. That's a good thing for all in that area. Hero!

Good people unite.

Well, see this is a case where I think full-auto would be useful.

Thieves make the decision to steal. If they think it may very well cost them their lives, then likely they will come up with another way to make a living.

bdickens said:

We have to wait on the Grand Jury and possibly the trial jury to know for sure.

Click to expand...

We will?

No charges have been filed against the homeowner.

Click to expand...

Yes a thief does make his decision to rob a house, but does he deserve to die for it?

YES, he does. When we start shooting these theiving ba$&#rds, they will think twice before sneaking into someone else's property and taking what does not belong to them.
Alaska does not have good laws like Texas on this matter, but after a local man and his ladyfriend were robbed at gunpoint in their own home, the man got mad and got his shotgun. As the cowards were leaving his yard, he used the shotgun to permanently end their chosen careers.
A job for the grand jury....NO TRUE BILL !! the only RIGHT way for it to come out.

But honestly, how often do the victims of theft die as a result of that theft? It's rare enough that I cannot honestly think of an example. But this thread is not the first example we have recently seen of someone being shot in the back for stealing a VCR, or some silverware, or other typically burgled items. I just can't get behind that, and I believe that any law justifying it is wrong.

Click to expand...

While you may not personally feel comfortable taking a life to protect the goods you worked hard for, why should you be entitled to make that decision for someone else? I wouldn't shoot over property either but it isn't my sweat equity in my neighbors stuff. Should the guy struggling to make ends meet have to just deal with it when someone tries to take his work truck or the tools out of it he uses to make a living? Should the 70 year old guy next door have to just go get a part time job because some criminals wanted to steal stuff from his garage? Should criminals get to walk off with someone's heirloom silverware?

Don't steal and you won't be shot. If you steal from me I won't shoot you, but who knows about what you'll find in the next house. Crime is dangerous, you hold your own life in your hands when you decide to become a thief. I actually want crime to be dangerous, maybe people will think twice about it when its not easy money. Don't expect all of the world to consider a theives life as precious as you do.

If you are a housebreaking thief. You are playing with your life. You are giving control of your life to another. That another (homeowner) has the legal right to take your life away from you especially in the event it is perceived that his life is going to be taken away.

Click to expand...

Whether or not a person his a housebreaking thief has NOTHING to do with threatening to take a person's life. In Texas, you may use the threat of lethal force to stop a burglary as the neighbor did. This precedes castle doctrine. Once he was threatened, the incident had NOTHING to do with the burglary and he had the right to defend his life. Once again, that preceded castle doctrine. Texans have always had the right to protect themselves. And now, especially now, everything he did was within the scope of the law (assuming the report was accurate).

A life is too precious to waste.

Click to expand...

Really? Why do burglars, robbers, etc. continually risk it as if it was worthless?