rick458
Member
Viking6
The police WERE being called by the Man's wife
The police WERE being called by the Man's wife
Typical media reaction to DGU
- Thread starter jsalcedo
- Start date
- Status
Harold Mayo
Member
I guess the kid shouldn't have been stealing his car, huh?
Hypnogator
Member
I simply fail to see what some THR members find wrong with this situation. Are we entitled to attempt to thwart the theft of our property? Yes! Are we entitled to arm ourselves to protect ourselves when we do so? Yes! (As long as we don't live in MA, NJ, MD, IL, or CA, I guess.) Are we entitled to use deadly force to protect ourselves if our lives are threatened? Of Course (even in the preceding states).
Had the thief abandoned his crime and run off, I doubt he would have been shot. He chose to endanger the life of his intended victim in a deadly game of "chicken." What happened to him was an entirely foreseeable result of his actions.
The case, too, is illustrative of the fact that we must think through the consequences of our actions. Not just the perp, in this case, but the victim, as well. He went out to confront a criminal armed with a deadly weapon that he actually wasn't mentally and emotionally prepared to use. As others before me have stated, it would have been more prudent to remain in the house and call 911.
Had the thief abandoned his crime and run off, I doubt he would have been shot. He chose to endanger the life of his intended victim in a deadly game of "chicken." What happened to him was an entirely foreseeable result of his actions.
The case, too, is illustrative of the fact that we must think through the consequences of our actions. Not just the perp, in this case, but the victim, as well. He went out to confront a criminal armed with a deadly weapon that he actually wasn't mentally and emotionally prepared to use. As others before me have stated, it would have been more prudent to remain in the house and call 911.
TexasVet
Member
I've got to agree that no one has a right to use deadly force to protect property from theft.
_________________________________
Texas law acknowledges that EXACT right in the circumstances presented here. It is exercised reguarly here and nobody except the poor whiny liberals and university profs ever think twice about it.
_________________________________
Texas law acknowledges that EXACT right in the circumstances presented here. It is exercised reguarly here and nobody except the poor whiny liberals and university profs ever think twice about it.
Matthew Courtney
Member
This criminal was not shot for stealing a car. He was shot for behaving in a manner that caused the car's owner to reasonably fear for his life.
To the poster who said he had no right to fire after the car passed him, that is absurd. If someone shoots at me and I dive out of the way, you would have me wait until he again points his gun at me before I can fire.
If someone has just used deadly force in a manner likely to kill me, and still is in control of that medium of force, I may act now in self defense. You suggest that the shooter should have waited until the kid had put the car into reverse and approached him again before shooting. By then it would have been too late! He may have shot the kid and then been crushed to death by the car.
This is a good shooting. As far as the expression of sorrow, I am sure that we are all sorry that parents who fail to adequately supervise their teenagers allow these sorts of tragedies to occur. I'm pretty sure that is what he meant.
To the poster who said he had no right to fire after the car passed him, that is absurd. If someone shoots at me and I dive out of the way, you would have me wait until he again points his gun at me before I can fire.
If someone has just used deadly force in a manner likely to kill me, and still is in control of that medium of force, I may act now in self defense. You suggest that the shooter should have waited until the kid had put the car into reverse and approached him again before shooting. By then it would have been too late! He may have shot the kid and then been crushed to death by the car.
This is a good shooting. As far as the expression of sorrow, I am sure that we are all sorry that parents who fail to adequately supervise their teenagers allow these sorts of tragedies to occur. I'm pretty sure that is what he meant.
I am bringing this thread back up because I would like to know what happened to Alejandro Avila. Did he go to jail? Did he get sued and if he did what happened?
What came of the 13 year old car thief who was shot?
I cannot find any follow up news stories.
What came of the 13 year old car thief who was shot?
I cannot find any follow up news stories.
Bear Gulch
Member
"Dozens of pellets entered Campbell's head. Several still are lodged in his brain". Please get me his address, I'd like to mail him some slugs.
richyoung
Member
"I've got to agree that no one has a right to use deadly force to protect property from theft. "
HORSEPUCKY! Why do banks and armored cars have armed guards? Why is their property more important than mine? KILL THIEVES!
HORSEPUCKY! Why do banks and armored cars have armed guards? Why is their property more important than mine? KILL THIEVES!
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Somewhere on this earth, there's a criminal's relative with enough integrity and courage to say: "He was a vicious, unprincipled vermin who got what he deserved." There's got to be.
Y'know, not that you've mentioned it, I never heard any follow up either. Florida's courts are notoriously slowly moving beasts.
This case is remarkably similar to one even now wending it's way through the legal process. (Forgive me if this has already been reported on...)
Manslaughter charge recommended against officer
White cop. Black teenager. Teen "borrows" his uncle's car, and takes it to the high school dance. The only problem is, the teen (who lacks a driver's license) doesn't stop in the parking lot. He drives the car through the open areas of the school campus, on sidewalks, etc. (Probably just trying to show off.)
This school happens to serve "troubled youths". Because of this, a decent supply of off-duty officers have been hired to oversee the dance. One officer, in his first year of employment, gives numerous orders to the teen to halt, which the teen ignores. The officer sees the teen heading for a crowd of other kids, so he draws his weapon and fires two shots. One shot enters the teens head, killing him. Good shoot, except that there are no witnesses that will corroborate the officer's statement that he had to save the "crowd" of other teens. No one will even say they were part of the "crowd" that was threatened.
How it will play out is a crapshoot, mainly because under Florida law, you can only use lethal force in defense of life, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Both cases hinge on a lawyer's ability to convince a jury that his client felt that he (or an innocent bystander) was in danger.
Vegas gives much better odds...
This case is remarkably similar to one even now wending it's way through the legal process. (Forgive me if this has already been reported on...)
Manslaughter charge recommended against officer
White cop. Black teenager. Teen "borrows" his uncle's car, and takes it to the high school dance. The only problem is, the teen (who lacks a driver's license) doesn't stop in the parking lot. He drives the car through the open areas of the school campus, on sidewalks, etc. (Probably just trying to show off.)
This school happens to serve "troubled youths". Because of this, a decent supply of off-duty officers have been hired to oversee the dance. One officer, in his first year of employment, gives numerous orders to the teen to halt, which the teen ignores. The officer sees the teen heading for a crowd of other kids, so he draws his weapon and fires two shots. One shot enters the teens head, killing him. Good shoot, except that there are no witnesses that will corroborate the officer's statement that he had to save the "crowd" of other teens. No one will even say they were part of the "crowd" that was threatened.
How it will play out is a crapshoot, mainly because under Florida law, you can only use lethal force in defense of life, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Both cases hinge on a lawyer's ability to convince a jury that his client felt that he (or an innocent bystander) was in danger.
Vegas gives much better odds...
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
bingo!
I have asked that same question to numerous politicians, cops, attorneys, etc. and never have I been given an answer that didn't resemble "Uh, well, you're just a SERF, and uh, those people are HIRED TO PROTECT PROPERTY." You see, it's OK to shoot people over property if you're paid to do it and it's not your property you're protecting, or if you're a cop and the theft equates to a felony.
This country was founded on the idea that personal property ownership WAS sacrosanct. How far Political Correctness has taken us.....
I.C.
I have asked that same question to numerous politicians, cops, attorneys, etc. and never have I been given an answer that didn't resemble "Uh, well, you're just a SERF, and uh, those people are HIRED TO PROTECT PROPERTY." You see, it's OK to shoot people over property if you're paid to do it and it's not your property you're protecting, or if you're a cop and the theft equates to a felony.
This country was founded on the idea that personal property ownership WAS sacrosanct. How far Political Correctness has taken us.....I.C.
Crosshair
Member
I know this thread is getting long, but I have to ad my $.02.
I am in college, my car is one of my most valuable possessions. If anyone tries to take it and run me down in the prosess, I will do whatever it takes to stop them. If I loose my car, then I can't get to work, I can't get to the college. I own a bike, but even that wouldn't work. The amount of time I have between end of class and work is a half hour on many day's. Getting 7 miles across town in heavy traffic on a bike and arriving to work on time is a dream at best. That would cut down on my income and further hamper me. In the winter I would be completley screwed. I can't use my bike and bus service here stinks. I would probably be able to get to work, but school would be out of the question. The U is over 5 miles away and with winters in ND, that is just not going to happen.
I agree, hang the horse thieves. If he survives, well, let it be a lesson.
I am in college, my car is one of my most valuable possessions. If anyone tries to take it and run me down in the prosess, I will do whatever it takes to stop them. If I loose my car, then I can't get to work, I can't get to the college. I own a bike, but even that wouldn't work. The amount of time I have between end of class and work is a half hour on many day's. Getting 7 miles across town in heavy traffic on a bike and arriving to work on time is a dream at best. That would cut down on my income and further hamper me. In the winter I would be completley screwed. I can't use my bike and bus service here stinks. I would probably be able to get to work, but school would be out of the question. The U is over 5 miles away and with winters in ND, that is just not going to happen.
I agree, hang the horse thieves. If he survives, well, let it be a lesson.
mfree
Member
"The problem is that you have NO right to commit violence against another person, especially if your life isn't in direct danger."
I'll give you a loaded shotgun. Here, stand in front of your car and give me the keys. I'll gun the engine a bit and launch pretty quickly straight towards you, and I dare you *not* to shoot me. Or you'll simply get run over.
Is your moral code up to the point where you'd allow someone to break several of your bones and do permanent damage, perhaps kill you, before you'd hurt them?
I have the right to preserve my life, period.
I'll give you a loaded shotgun. Here, stand in front of your car and give me the keys. I'll gun the engine a bit and launch pretty quickly straight towards you, and I dare you *not* to shoot me. Or you'll simply get run over.
Is your moral code up to the point where you'd allow someone to break several of your bones and do permanent damage, perhaps kill you, before you'd hurt them?
I have the right to preserve my life, period.
HankB
Member
You can argue back and forth all day about what the law is, but let's take a look at what Texas Penal Code section 9.42 actually states:
)
I do expect a civil suit will be filed.
I'm not a lawyer, and in places like California the guy would be in deep you-know-what, but it would appear to be a good shoot under Texas criminal law. (God bless Texas!
)I do expect a civil suit will be filed.
Let me point out something here... an average family car is going to cost anywhere from $13,000 (Saturn base model) to $30,000 (mini-van)... that vehicle may be the only way they can get back and forth to work... How much of your life is spent working to pay for that car? How much of your life will be screwed if you can't get to work and get the money necessary to support your family?? I submit that the criminal is not just stealing an item, he is stealing part of your life. I don't know about you but $30,000 is close to 3/4 of a year of my life.
Gung-Ho
member
No, they are.
Gung-Ho
member
The above is a prime example of why this country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Re: Rich Youngs' statement
You hit the nail on the head Rich. Rich or important folks can protect their money or valuables, but we unwashed are not supposed to. A bank will kill to protect their money if possible, as in the case of armored car guards. It really is reasonable. In NY, if you have money or diamonds to protect, then step up and get your permit. If poor and your life is in danger, don't worry, the law will spare no effort for 15 minutes to try to find out who killed you. Only money is worthy of use of deadly force. How sick is that. What that does is to put "important, rich" folks in a different category, worthy of having guns, and worthy of using them. Case in point, Carl Rowan. Black anti gun zealot in Washington DC where no one is even supposed to have a personal handgun, much less protect property with one. He went out at nite to confront a brazen criminal that was SWIMMING IN HIS POOL, proceeded to shoot him. (can't remember if fatally, but I don't think so) Now you know that you or I would be dead meat in those circumstances. But Carl? NO CHARGES. Them and us, and only them are worthy.
You hit the nail on the head Rich. Rich or important folks can protect their money or valuables, but we unwashed are not supposed to. A bank will kill to protect their money if possible, as in the case of armored car guards. It really is reasonable. In NY, if you have money or diamonds to protect, then step up and get your permit. If poor and your life is in danger, don't worry, the law will spare no effort for 15 minutes to try to find out who killed you. Only money is worthy of use of deadly force. How sick is that. What that does is to put "important, rich" folks in a different category, worthy of having guns, and worthy of using them. Case in point, Carl Rowan. Black anti gun zealot in Washington DC where no one is even supposed to have a personal handgun, much less protect property with one. He went out at nite to confront a brazen criminal that was SWIMMING IN HIS POOL, proceeded to shoot him. (can't remember if fatally, but I don't think so) Now you know that you or I would be dead meat in those circumstances. But Carl? NO CHARGES. Them and us, and only them are worthy.
Rowan shot the kid in the butt as he swam. No charges
Another frothing at the mouth anti gun columnist Art Buchwald ran off some
teenagers who were breaking into his New York City townhouse. No permit
no license. When asked why he had an ilegal gun in NYC even though he was
an advocate of banning all guns Buchwald said:
"People need something to defend themselves"
No charges for him either
I guess its the "all for me and none for thee" syndrome.
Going back to the original article I too am curious on what happened to the car theft victim now that it is two years later.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked