Texas Man Shoots Teen Over Vehicle Burglary

Even if it is legal to take a human life to protect property, I don't think it is justifed on moral grounds...Not to mention the civil lawsuit which could drain you of everything you have left that the criminal did not have the opportunity steal...It just ain't worth it to me...However,if I determine my life or other innocent bystander is in danger or with severe physical harm...I'll stop the criminal with deadly force if necessary and worry about civil lawsuits latter.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with you, but..

Is it possible that "Its not worth it to you" because you haven't been repeatedly stolen from?
Or you haven't had your last $20.00 stolen from you, so you couldn't eat for the rest of the week?

If it is ok to steal, as long as its done in a non violent manner, then why not make it legal?

Is it possible that you actually have a moral responsibility to protect what belongs to your family, even if it means using "deadly force".?
 
Personal morality has nothing to do with it. The greater good of a peaceful society requires us to resist banditry and lawlessness. By not dealing with the problem today, here and now, you personally, are in all likelihood condemning others without the means to defend and resist to serious harm and injury, or worse. That's where personal morality needs to be.
 
back in the day, you didn't steal a horse because you knew you would hang. If you did steal a horse you knew ahead of time you'd hang if you got caught.
 
Even if it is legal to take a human life to protect property, I don't think it is justifed on moral grounds.
Click to expand...
The reason why we have laws is because things like morals and ethics are personal decisions. If you don't want stop somebody from stealing your hard earned belongings, that is your decision. What you claim as not being justified on moral grounds has no business in what is justified on moral grounds of the shooter. He may have felt 100% morally justified. So whose morals do we go with? Neither. We go with what is said in the law.

back in the day, you didn't steal a horse because you knew you would hang. If you did steal a horse you knew ahead of time you'd hang if you got caught.
Click to expand...

Back in the day, plenty of horses were stolen. Back in the day, people also figured they would get away with the crime. Back in the day isn't today, but criminals always figure they won't get caught.
 
Assuming the facts as given by the criminal gang, the shooter is guilty of criminal homicide IMO.

The wonders of modern technology: looking down into the 2100 block of salisbury ave:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2100+...--AMj8ymrfqYw35UC-IEOw&cbp=12,273.43,,0,14.44

I am not in favor of using lethal force even in the hypothetical case of preventing someone I know is fleeing with my property after a burglary, because in an urban environment there's not just the legal requirements for lethal force to consider, but the possibility that your bullets will end up causing property damage/loss or injury to others not engaged in the burglary.

The location of this crime (either a vehicular burglary or a criminal homicide or both) was just behind some businesses and one residential side-street away from a city street. Not the best location to be shooting anyone outside unless you are very sure that it is necessary from a competing harms perspective (a criminal presenting an imminent threat of severe injury would be just about the only thing that qualifies, IMO).

If it is ok to steal, as long as its done in a non violent manner, then why not make it legal?
Click to expand...

In your view, making something a crime should always authorize victims to use lethal force to prevent the crime (or future crimes) if the criminal(s) are fleeing?
 
I can't speak for any other state than my own. In Kentucky, if a person is fleeing your house, carrying a TV and your wife's jewelry, you cannot use deadly force. The key is "fleeing." If a person is illegally entering your home you are justified in using deadly force. It does not protect you if they are leaving.

In Kentucky the shooter would or could be tried for manslaughter or murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and multiple counts of wanton endangerment.
 
Taking the article at its own merits, with no extenuating circumstances(and there usually are), if I would be sitting on the jury, the shooter would be convicted.
Click to expand...
Short, It is a good thing a newspaper article and a police report are not acceptable as sole evidence for a murder/homicide/self defense trial.
Also, the testimony of cohorts and felons falls under hard scrutiny quite often. I am neither defending the shooter nor agreeing that I would do the same in this case...

I will say I would quickly consider it if legal where I was at.

I do not buy insurance to protect my possessions from loss due to any means. I buy fire extinguishers and know how to use 'em... I also take many preventative measures to avoid the need to deploy them.

Same goes for theft protection. I do not try to lure thieves to my property or vehicle with flashy high ticket items in plain sight.

I am an honest hard working guy but I am also an absolutist in regard to personal accountability.

My moral compass does not place human life on any certain pedestal just because the critter is a human being. In a place that allows the use of lethal force for property protection, I would deploy firearms with a quickness...

I would consider the risk of my property breaking when the BG drops it when I shoot than his own condition or health...

I accept the risks of my behavior choices and expect others to the same.
I have a semi conservative "risk versus reward ratio" requirement and realize others may not and some of these have no concern for my health, wellbeing nor my Pursuit of Happiness I am guaranteed.

Brent
 
I kind of hope he gets convicted, unless more evidence shows up to prove he had a better reason. I know that won't make me popular around here, but I don't own anything that I consider to be worth ANYONE'S life. I'd have gotten the License plate # and vehicle description and let the cops deal with it. And for the "critters" comment, I wouldn't shoot them either unless they were actively destroying something.

I'm a firm believer that deadly force should be reserved as the LAST option when your life is in danger. If they were breaking into his house, I'd have shot them too as you don't know how they'd react if they found you inside. In their car and fleeing as soon as you open the door is NOT a threat to your life. There was obviously no confrontation as they were FLEEING the scene not confronting the home owner.

These types of incidents are the Bradey Bunches bread and butter. You know some Anti-gun group will use these types of incidents as an excuse for tighter gun control.
 
In their car and fleeing as soon as you open the door is NOT a threat to your life. There was obviously no confrontation as they were FLEEING the scene not confronting the home owner.
Click to expand...

Just because a bad guy is in flight does not mean that he isn't a threat. It may not be a direct threat to the shooter, but may be a threat to others. In other words, just because the bad guys were in flight doesn't mean the shooter didn't have a valid reason to shoot.
 
Just because a bad guy is in flight does not mean that he isn't a threat. It may not be a direct threat to the shooter, but may be a threat to others. In other words, just because the bad guys were in flight doesn't mean the shooter didn't have a valid reason to shoot.
Click to expand...

And now you're clairvoyant and playing god. You can try and justify what this guy did, but based on your reasoning every single one of us should be shot or placed in jail on the off chance we may hurt someone. This isn't the dark ages, killing a 17 year old for a stupid mistake where no physical altercation took place is just idiotic. Neither one of us knows why this kid broke into a car, or even if he was just some passenger who may have said "I want nothing to do with breaking into this guys car". I don't believe in "guilt by association".
 
Just because a bad guy is in flight does not mean that he isn't a threat. It may not be a direct threat to the shooter, but may be a threat to others. In other words, just because the bad guys were in flight doesn't mean the shooter didn't have a valid reason to shoot./QUOTE]

:eek:
Click to expand...
 
And now you're clairvoyant and playing god. You can try and justify what this guy did, but based on your reasoning every single one of us should be shot or placed in jail on the off chance we may hurt someone.
Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong. First of all, I am not trying to justify what this guy did, but simply pointing out a logic flaw in the belief that just because somebody is in flight from the shooter that the person in flight isn't still a danger to others. In fact, I think this guy did wrong by shooting based on the current information.

As for playing god, no. This has been argued several times in court and Texas law allows for this. However, there is no evidence presented thusfar that the shooter was shooting to protect against harm to himself or any third party. Once again, just pointing out flaws in the statement made and not arguing on behalf of the shooter. You most definitely can shoot a person in flight from you in order to protect others imminently endangered by that person.

This ain't New Jersey.
 
DNS said:
You most definitely can shoot a person in flight from you in order to protect others imminently endangered by that person.
Click to expand...
I think the key word here is "imminent." A fleeing would-be burglar may or may not be armed. You may even KNOW that he has a gun -- but he's now in a vehicle, speeding away from you. He isn't shooting at you. He isn't pointing the gun at you. He's removing himself from the area of operations with all deliberate haste. And the street is empty of other people. So the (alleged) perp is not shooting at or pointing a gun at anyone else, either.

So ... how is he an "imminent" threat to anyone? And in most (if not all) states, the threshold for the use of deadly force is an "imminent" threat of death or serious bodily harm.
 
There are already enough unavoidable reasons to shoot someone. We'd all be better off pondering ways to avoid the avoidable than thinking of reasons to shoot someone unnecessarily.
 
And the "imminent" part in florida requires an IN PROGRESS or PERSONALLY WITNESSED violent felony of which arson is one...
Murder, rape, violent ag assault (maybe), violent acts against the elderly and children (usually) and women (sometimes)...

Brent
 
Even if it is legal to take a human life to protect property, I don't think it is justifed on moral grounds...
Click to expand...

I don't agree.

There are folks out there that depend on their "property" for their livelihood, and the loss of their "property" could have catastrophic, and possibly irreparable consequences.

A work van or truck, tools, tractors, are all examples of "property" that many depend on to scratch out an existence from one day to the next. The loss of this "property" can lead to loss of employment, home, etc, and I fully support those who would use deadly force to defend their "property".
 
What if - the fleeing burglar has take the last doses of medicine needed for treatment. New doses could be sent for a week.

That's the idea of irreplaceable property.

Imminent - guy shoots up a school, heads to his car carrying his AK-47, starts to drive away. On the way to another?
 
Just because a crook is running away doesn't mean that he can't pull a gun and fire at a homeowner over his shoulder. In this case, however, the guy who shot the thief is likely to be in a pot load of trouble, unless the thief was armed. That's just my opinion; take it for what you think it's worth.
 
does anyone read the laws

the law is very clear that you can shoot a fleeing felon that has committed a crime in the state of Texas. the man was shot in the commisson of a crime.
So I don’t understand why everyone is saying he is going to get burned.
For some of you look up a man called Joe Horn, he shot two guys in the back while they were fleeing a house robbery…. No bill by the grand jury
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top