Garland Business owner's son kills suspected copper thief

Status
Not open for further replies.
Copper is going for 3.45/Lb now locally. I can buy M Copper pipe at Homey Depot, take it to the yard, and make 1.75 per foot PROFIT.

Sheet iron is going for $245/ton. yep, $12.25/100 Lbs.

Converters are hovering around $100-150 EACH.


Expect more of these stories in the coming months.
 
Copper is going for 3.45/Lb now locally. I can buy M Copper pipe at Homey Depot, take it to the yard, and make 1.75 per foot PROFIT.

Sheet iron is going for $245/ton. yep, $12.25/100 Lbs.

Converters are hovering around $100-150 EACH.


Expect more of these stories in the coming months.
Click to expand...

which home depot is this? I go there almost daily... compared to the local "mom and pop" plumbing stores thier prices are high.
 
Confrontation sounds like a violent act to me. One of the reports stated there was a confrontation between the perp and the owner's son.

Climbing onto a roof with the intent to commit a crime (he had various tools with him - I'm sure he wasn't there to repair the A/C unit) is a crime. Criminal trespass, IIRC.
 
§ 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.
 
We have insurance to help protect us from the financial damage of things like copper theft or car theft. We have defensive weapons to protect our lives.
Click to expand...
Insurance will not cover the cost of closing your store while the AC is repaired. Insurance will cover only a small part of the repair after the deductible is paid. Insurance will cancel your coverage if they decide you are a bad risk as evidenced by repeated claims in a short period.

If someone steals your car, you can almost certainly get a rental car in short order at nominal cost and in most places you can probably procure reliable replacement transportation for under 1K without too much trouble--it would NOT force you to close your store or lose any significant amount of time at work. STILL, if your car were stolen three or four times in the space of a few days, it would change from a nuisance to a serious financial burden. At some point you'd have to take some action beyond passively replacing your vehicle or it would have a serious negative impact on your finances and your life in general.

Again, this is NOT about an isolated incident costing a little annoyance and a few bucks. This is about repeated thefts and resulting damage costing thousands in repairs as well as additional loss of income due to forced store closures. At some point a person realizes that if he takes no action he's going to lose his source of income.

These thieves KNOW that the business HAVE to get their units repaired--that means that for them the copper is a renewable resource they can tap every few days. The police are either unconcerned or ineffective, the bottom line is that if something's going to be done the property owners are going to have to do it.
 
At some point a person realizes that if he takes no action he's going to lose his source of income.
Click to expand...

Is that anything like the way the government is running the country?? Like my first post said, government doesn't want you to shoot thieves as they in government would all get shot. They want a civil society so they can steal from you without fear of recourse.

Heck, you start shooting the little thieves and next thing you know the big guys will get hurt. We can't have that, it just isn't civilized:uhoh::scrutiny:
Why else would government be against physical force to protect ones life and property??

jj
 
Again, this is NOT about an isolated incident costing a little annoyance and a few bucks. This is about repeated thefts and resulting damage costing thousands in repairs as well as additional loss of income due to forced store closures. At some point a person realizes that if he takes no action he's going to lose his source of income.-JohnKSa
This isn't even about a one-time theft by the bad guy. The fact is that he'd been there both of the two nights before to do the same thing and that is why the store owner's son posted himself as a guard. The thief also had an existing criminal record with both the Garland and Dallas police departments. He didn't withdraw when the shooter identified himself, but only after he'd confronted the shooter and was then shot.
As far as letting the police know what I was doing in regards to protecting my own property including placing an armed guard, as long as I am not violating the law, it is none of their business.
 
B yond said:
Laws aside, is it moral to shoot someone over copper?
Click to expand...
Unquestionably.

Elza said:
It rather depends upon the situation. I wouldn’t shoot someone over a $30 VCR. I would be PO’ed, rant for a while, and buy a new one.

However, if someone were stealing my A/C equipment the situation changes. We are talking a lot of money to repair/replace. It would have to go down as a claim on my homeowners insurance. After about three claims on your homeowners insurance you will find yourself canceled. Once one company has refused to insure you finding replacement coverage is difficult and very expensive. This would cost me money for years to come.

In the case sited by the OP it is a business. He can’t operate without insurance nor can he afford to continue replacing lost equipment out of his pocket. Losing the business eliminates his entire income. It all depends upon the situation.
Click to expand...
Moral relativism. Invalid. What you are doing is putting a price on a human life. You're saying a scumbag's life is worth $50 but isn't worth $5,000. Slippery slope argument, and all that.

IMHO, it's either moral to shoot a thief or it's not. Dollars should not (IMHO) enter into the discussion.
 
Laws aside, is it moral to shoot someone over copper?
Click to expand...

In my book it dang sure is..... The co. I work for is located in the "bad" side of town. We cant keep anything without going to extreme measures, they will steal anything they can get their hands on. They are like cockroaches and are nothing but worthless scum. If it was legal here like in texas to shoot tresspassers id make sure a few of them werent here anymore.
Sure its just a battery out of a truck, or your extensions cords missing, or your fence cut thru or your CCTV smashed, windows busted out of vehichles for a few pieces of change....... theives probably cost us $30,000+ every year in replacement costs and labor.... and thats just us, not counting whomever else they are pilfering from. :cuss:
 
I first saw this thread as "Garand Business owner's son kills suspected copper thief" and I thought what idiot would break into a Garand store. I don't feel much pity for the guy after some local copper thieves DESTROYED a local private schools HVAC to the point where they had to cancel classes.
 
copper "piracy" is very common here in az. ive seen bolt cutters fused to powerlines, had the power go out cause of some stupid tweaker getting into the converter stations, ect.
 
Byond, if you want to depend on insurance companies and some other big brother program to protect you, that is fine with me. I'll just point the theives in your direction as you will let them have their way with your property. The moment you confront someone stealing from you, your life is in danger whether you know it or not.
Click to expand...

Confronting and executing are very different things.

I really think everything to be said about this topic has been said. We're just going around in circles now.
 
Morals and ethics are not legal considerations. For those of you who don't think it was moral or ethical to shoot the burglar, then you don't have to shoot burglars when they steal from you. However, your morals are just that, yours. I will just stick with the law.
 
Aguila Blanca: Moral relativism. Invalid. What you are doing is putting a price on a human life. You're saying a scumbag's life is worth $50 but isn't worth $5,000. Slippery slope argument, and all that.

IMHO, it's either moral to shoot a thief or it's not. Dollars should not (IMHO) enter into the discussion.
Click to expand...
My error for lack of clarity. I meant it not from the moral aspect but from one of practicality.

Something cheap isn’t worth the legal hassles one is likely to incur. Morally I couldn’t care less what happens to the thief up to and including a hole in the ground. His life is totally worthless as far as I’m concerned.

From a practical standpoint it could turn out to be the most expensive VCR in history due to my lawyer’s fees.
 
I have always said: "Being a criminal should be dangerous."
Click to expand...

Which is why we're in the mess we've gotten ourselves into in this country. I don't look at it so much as "people taking the law into their own hands", I look at it as "government taking the law away from the people." If the people can't protect themselves and their property and we as LEO's are under no obligation to protect any individual or their property, you've just given the country over to the criminals. We're always talking about due process for the criminals, where is due process for the victims? Oh, right, the criminals took that away from them when they decided their rights trumped those of the victim, whatever the crime.

A criminal caught in the act has a right to the same due process he afforded his victim. If the victim chooses to hand him over to the state, that's up to the victim. In this case, we have a criminal who was handed over to the state many times over and the state failed in its obligation to the victims. Who's really at fault here? Certainly not the next victim...
 
Why else would government be against physical force to protect ones life and property??
Click to expand...

Here in Texas, government ISN'T against physical force to protect one's life and property.

Jeff
 
Another thread about the worth of a thief versus property.

You cannot put a value on human life. A thief will do it for himself.

I am willing to shoot a person trying to steal my property. Is it an absolute? No. It is my choice what I will defend with lethal force.

I likely will not shoot a kid stealing a push lawnmower. Stealing my tractor or livestock is another matter entirely. The point is that choice is mine when it comes to dealing with thieves.

I will call the law beforehand if I have a chance to. I will shoot to wound if possible. But any property I choose to defend will not leave my land if I am still breathing.

As flyboy already posted, under my state constitution I do have the right to defend property using force.

That settles the legal issue right there. I likely will not lose in criminal or civil court for any death or injuries incurred while defending my property.

So now we have to take a look at the moral issues involved in defending property with lethal force. The concept that defending property is not worth taking the life of a thief is fairly new in relative terms to established law and values through history.

The question is now why it is morally wrong to defend property with lethal force?
 
Entering private property uninvited is a violent act. It's an invasion.
Click to expand...

Where does the violence come in?

If I'm out in the woods and I walk past one of those "private property no trespassing signs" and I a violent criminal? Should I be shot for it.

This is a very slippery slope. At which point does entering private property call for lethal force? When does it not?

From the OP it wasn't clear, at least to me, that the deceased was actually in the process of stealing. He was trespassing on a rooftop with some tools (probably was in the process of stealing, but innocent until proven guilty, right?).

I'd like to know if the shooter gave him the opportunity to flee, or if he just shot him on sight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Holdups in Texas are a risky thing to do....
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Sylvilagus Aquaticus
S
W
  • Locked
Suspected burglar killed by shop owner
Replies
5
Views
654
Covey Rise
C
4
  • Locked
What can a guy do when his mom is being robbed?
Replies
24
Views
2K
Malone LaVeigh
M
D
  • Locked
(TN) Station owner kills gunman
Replies
10
Views
866
bratch
B
earlthegoat2
  • Locked
Here is a good one: Houston taco stand owner kills tip jar thief
Replies
2
Views
844
Justin
Justin
Back
Top