Truck Box Broken Into While Neighbor Watches

[eltorrente]

WOW!!!

Those must have been valuable tools!! Like, SO valuable, that the world would explode if they fell out of your possession.

I can't believe people would want someone dead because he stole tools, a bicycle, a T.V, or whatever. That is just crazy to think about.

 

[JWarren]

WOW!!!

Those must have been valuable tools!! Like, SO valuable, that the world would explode if they fell out of your possession.

I can't believe people would want someone dead because he stole tools, a bicycle, a T.V, or whatever. That is just crazy to think about.

Guys,

The debate of using force to protect property has been done TO DEATH on here.


Let's not start a new thread on it.


The fact is that some states have provisions that allow for certain defenses and some do not. The decision to follow any course of action is a personal one, and it is one that will have to be made when IN that situation. The consequences (or lack of) is a function of the laws of that state. The morality of any course of action is a function of one's own soul and conscience.

Everyone has an opinion of the morality of defending property, and everyone here has their own ideological arguments for or against any course of action. but its all been done before.


Bottom line is to know the laws in your area, and know your own soul and conscience. Then do the best you can if you are ever so unfortunate to be in such a situation.

DO NOT get your legal advice from the internet. You WILL get what you pay for.


-- John

 

[LT1coupe]

I n TX you do have the right to protect your property, I wish more states would follow suit. I'm not saying anyone should shoot somebody over a couple of tools, but you can approach them armed without fear of being prosecuted for brandishing. Here in AZ a man can get into serious trouble confronting a BG that he caught stealing from his vehicle unless it was in the garage.

 

[Kimber1911_06238]

shooting someone over property just isn't worth it....you will go to jail. most states only allow shooting if you are in immediate danger. and besides, why would you want to shoot someone over something that can be replaced?

 

[roo_ster]

eltorrente, Kimber1911_06238, & etc.:

Y'all are probably in a situation similar to myself: insured, doing well enough so that the deductible won't keep you from putting food on the table, and do not rely on the stuff in your auto to make your living. If we were the OP's neighbor, saying "Screw it, I have insurance," is probably the most cost-effective route.

Some folks are in different circumstances. If that toolbox contained the means by which the OP's neighbor made his living, saying "Screw it, I have insurance" won't help when you got a job to complete in the ayem for your week's pay.

In a place like California, Mass, & such, it is likely too risky to do the MORAL thing and stop the perpetrator, no matter that he is running off with your livelihood.

In Texas & some other states, the risk calculus is different and not so skewed against Joe Citizen. It is NOT a foregone conclusion that Joe Citizen is going to the pokey if, in the midst of preventing a crime on his property, the perpetrator has to be stopped by means of a firearm. I read accounts of such 'round here & usually Joe Citizen does not go to jail.

Like I wrote in my first post: very situation-dependent and location-dependent. "Situation" standing for more than just the circumstances of the encounter, but the circumstances by which hte victim make their living, the local laws, is the wolf at the door (finance-wise), etc.

 

[LT1coupe]

why would you want to shoot someone over something that can be replaced?

Because it's mine & so they won't do it again

 

[Charles S]

I would just like to point out that it is entirely legal to shoot someone for criminal mischief at night in the state of Texas.

""A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/gunlaws.html#section4

Not that I would recommend it.

I am not sure I personally can justify deadly force in the defense of property, but I do not disparage those who do.

 

[HankB]

The incident described in the first post happened at night, and from the poster's location, somewhere in the Dallas area.

So instead of guessing as to what would be legal consider the relevant portion of the Texas Penal Code:

§ 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.

God Bless Texas!

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I always wonder what I'd do if this ever happened to me while I was prepared. Probably yell for him to kiss the ground as I pointed a gun in the general direction of the sky. Great if he complies, bad if he calls my bluff and runs because I won't chase him. Guess I'd then just try to give the police a proper description and be glad I stopped him this one time.

 

[MudPuppy]

Thanks Hank.

I don't know why so many people need to spout off what the law is or isn't, when they simply don't know. Law varies from location to location, it's amazing how many people don't seem to understand that.

In Texas, a man was shot fleeing after breaking into a car:
(from VPC)

Murder—Austin, Texas

* On July 8, 1998 concealed handgun license holder Paul Anders Saustrup allegedly shot and killed Eric Demart Smith after catching Smith breaking into his girlfriend's Chevrolet Suburban. According to the Austin American-Statesman, Saustrup followed Smith on foot for three blocks before shooting him twice in the back. Police found no weapons on Smith's body. According to the Travis County District Clerk's office, Saustrup is in Travis County jail awaiting his jury trial currently set for April 12, 1999.

Man, they sure make it look bad, don't they? CCW holders a "license to kill!!" Oh yeah, not guilty. Interesting they don't update the site with that?

Legal? Yup, so say the justice system. Expensive? I'm sure.

Anyway, it's not legal to drive a blue car on Sunday...(see? typing it on the internet don't make it so...)

 

[roo_ster]

FWIW, Austin is the most lefty part of Texas.

 

[MudPuppy]

Hell, Austin aint even really Texas, if you ask me.

But state law prevailed and he was found innocent.

(In general, we need to quit coddling the dirtbags, appeasing the liberal morons and start backing the law abiding citizen in protecting his freedom, possessions, and peace of mind. Too many repeat offenders when good people could be putting a stop to much of it. You think dirtbag tool box theif when home and turned good? Nope, he went two streets over and did the same thing, probably many times. Guess what he's doing tonight while you sleep? Perfect world and he'd have gotten shot and the law would have said "Good job, citizen" and there'd be one less thug out tonight.)

 

[Dravur]

"Pull the body inside the door way and then give us a call.

Don't do that. Leave everything the way it is. You do not want them to ask you why you moved the body.

 

[Big Calhoun]

I dunno...

On one hand, I can understand the advice to take a gun with you to confront the perp. This is different from saying take a gun with you and confront the perp with it. Personally, I would find it reasonable that a thief could be armed and could become hostile if you tried to confront them or get their plate information. But, again, it's a different situation than charging out with a gun in hand, confronting the thief, and notching up the hostility of the overall encounter.

Then, I'm also reminded of my CHL class. Our instructor made it perfectly clear...yes, you can shoot someone to prevent theft of your property and can shoot at nighttime for criminal mischief. However, the police that come to respond are not their to decide if you were justified, they are there to see if a law has been broken. If any aspect of the shoot looks 'dirty', they'll haul you in and let the judge do all the decision making.

 

[HankB]

In Texas, a man was shot fleeing after breaking into a car:
(from VPC)

Murder—Austin, Texas

* On July 8, 1998 concealed handgun license holder Paul Anders Saustrup allegedly shot and killed Eric Demart Smith after catching Smith breaking into his girlfriend's Chevrolet Suburban. According to the Austin American-Statesman, Saustrup followed Smith on foot for three blocks before shooting him twice in the back. Police found no weapons on Smith's body. According to the Travis County District Clerk's office, Saustrup is in Travis County jail awaiting his jury trial currently set for April 12, 1999.

Man, they sure make it look bad, don't they? CCW holders a "license to kill!!" Oh yeah, not guilty. Interesting they don't update the site with that?

Hell, Austin aint even really Texas, if you ask me.

But state law prevailed and he was found innocent.

The REST of the story is that the Austin DA, Ronnie Earle (the SAME political hack who brought bogus charges against Tom DeLay) had to work very, very hard to get an indictment in the first place. During the trial, he PERSONALLY made an appeal to the jury to convict. The result? Not only did the jury acquit, but they're said to have set a record for the shortest deliberations in Travis County history on a felony case before delivering the acquittal.

Ronnie Earle was not happy.

(And by the way . . . Austin is locally known as "Moscow on the Colorado." I do not live within the city limits, but a bit outside in the suburbs.)