Shot for stealing gas?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Click to expand...

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:
 
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
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
(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
Click to expand...

but I believe you are out of your mind.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
sorry I looked for the article but has been archived, I do know for a fact that it was a town northwest of brownsville.
 
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.
 
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:
 
discharging a firearm into a vehicle.
Click to expand...
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:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Armed Watchmen stand vigil in city’s wealthiest homes
Replies
5
Views
541
boofus
B
Back
Top