This is what gives the rest of us a bad name

[JohnKSa]

to bad it wasn't in texas at night on his own property. he could have "blown them away" legally.

First of all, that is not what TX law says; it's a good deal more complicated than that. Secondly, if the situation DOES fall within the legally defined set of circumstances that allows the use of deadly force to protect property, then the law allows you to do so on behalf of another.

You may not go to jail, but you'll most likely get to go to court at least once--probably twice. It better be over more than $5; I can pretty much guarantee you that you'll be out a good deal more than that before it's all over.

 

[shortydog]

then the law allows you to do so on behalf of another.

did not know that.
but i see this.....

§ 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.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

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.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.42.00

 

[JohnKSa]

Section 9.41 also applies. Before you can even begin to consider the use of deadly force, force (not deadly force) must be justified as defined by Section 9.41.

 

[buckster]

Rural areas

It was not the city with LEO's 3 mins away. It was rural with the only witness to a crime. I'm my humble non LEO opinion, he should of chased him to get the license #, and kept the gun to pull if the perp came toward him with a weapon. The perp needs to be prosecuted for the theft, the farmer needs to be required to take a training class to get his CCW, and the officer should have to go to Officer Jack McLamb's retraining school because he either wasn't trained right or he has a ego issue.This would be good for all.

 

[USN_JWS]

I agree 100% with liliysdad.

One of the reasons that crime is so rampant is that we're being conditioned to not resist it for any reason. 5 bucks isn't worth it? How about 500? No? Your vehicle? Tools, gasoline, livelyhood? Some of us may be missing Liliysdad's point I think.

Men are not chased down and held at gunpoint for 5 bucks worth of stolen gas, but for gas to be not stolen. It's the principle of the issue and not the dollar amount. Lets quit empowering the thieves to get bolder and cross more lines by getting on the net and saying to the world, Oh, I'd let the guy go. Oh how the thieves must laugh when they hear that sentiment.

Is only the defense of life precious enough to defend with lethal force? Ok, so you'd let the rapist go too because your wife is still living? I'd probably draw down on someone siphoning my gas too. OTOH, I'd probably give him some if he had enough respect to knock on my door and ask.

I agree. It is the principle.

 

[DonR101395]

Boy, you are addressing the most right wing consevative good 'ol boy you'll likely ever meet. Never lived in a city of more than 5,000. I served with the 1st Army, and both my sons served in Iraq. So don't be giving me any of that big city liberal society garbage. There is a big difference between being conservative and being stupid! Folks where I live know how to handle theives, know how to protect our kin and our property, go to church AND have more sense in our trigger fingers and exercise better judgement than you've demonstrated so far. Counseling my foot. It's only because The Good Lord made us both that I don't tell you what I really think.

Boy, from your original post you're not the most right wing or conservative I'll likely ever met. You may be a good ole' boy. I congratulate you on your service and your sons. I never mentioned anything about a big city and when you were in the Army you lived in many cities larger than 5,000. I'll agree there's a difference between conservative and stupid. I never said what the guy did wasn't stupid. I said good for him and it was stupid to charge him with more than the idiot he chased down.
Feel free to tell me what you think the Good Lord is forgiving.

 

[Mini14]

Hmmm.... In WV, we have the Lisa Bittinger Court decision of 1990. If it is life or limb menaced, you can use deadly force; it does not have to be inside
your own house to be legitimate self-defense.

While I applaud the farmer's actions, I understand the rationale behind charging him; it is however, not a condonable rationale.

Solution? Work to change the law to the Texas one.

 

[Maser]

I'm going to have to side with CCW laws here. There was no life threatening acts here so therefore no reason for a firearm to even be present.

 

[liliysdad]

There was a disparity in force. A reasonable man would easily believe that a 28 yr old in the commission of a crime could easily hard a 70 something man. Thus, the presence of the firearm is warranted, IMO.

Like I said before, do I think he did the smartest thing? No, but he did do the right thing.

 

[Bud Helms]

This is ripe for L&P.

Moving.

 

[govmule84]

Boy, that was intellectual

Man, PBP, I sometimes think you are a pretty smart cookie.

I dunno about you all...but if a man took $5 of my gas...I wouldn't take my gun out. Make it $50. Or $500. Or if he took the car or truck I drove (In an imaginary world, cause I don't have either), my weapon would reside where it does almost all the time....my holster.

I'm not sure how or why any of you carry, but MY weapon is a DEFENSIVE tool. It's to get me out of a scrape I might not get out of, and that's it. I'm not a Superman, or anything else, but another good ole' boy trying to make it to tomorrow. Blasting after some dude at 7o mph? Fine. Keep the gun in the truck, and get on the horn with 911 with plates, and a direction and description.

I don't condone stealing, but Lord...the extenutating circumstances...good grief...what if the guy was just tanked up? I know I've done some silly things when I drank, and I am sure one or two of you could concede you have too. That's no reason to die. What if the poor guy was RELATED to the neighbor and had permission? Or...what if the guy was just stealing gas? Really, would that many of you shoot him? Or pull your piece? It just ain't worth it, man. Somebody wants my wallet? Sure. Take it. I'd rather he explain to God why he was stealing than have to formulate my own story on why I shot a man desperate enough to steal.

MY gun comes out when I feel the need to destroy something. I'm not about to tell any of you how to use or carry your weapons, but I consider mine my last ditch...and this does not qualify, in my mind.

 

[Edward429451]

Maybe they do not realize it but the only people who feel the need to steal are druggies, degenerates, and desperate social-deviate criminals with circumstances brought about by their own doing.

The rich never have any extra, and the poor never miss any meals. This is a fact. Sit back and ponder the big picture. We've all gone through tough times before and somehow things have a way of working out. I've been helped by people, and have helped others. The integrity I hold in my heart will not allow me to steal from another and I understand that things will be ok.

Call it Karma, God, good luck, intelligence, whatever. There is no reason to steal. I see a lot of fat poor people, they don't miss any meals. My work takes me into everyone's home. I see the poor widows who still have a B&W tv and hardly any furniture, I see the people who live in half a million dollar homes. I get more flak about money from the seemingly richer folks. They have more irons in the fire and the same if not worse money problems than the poor.

The principle still stands as truth. If we discard our principles for even a low dollar amount, we are buying into the lie that perpetuates and encourages crime. If you stick up for the criminal in this case, you have no right to complain about crime. The 5 dollar thief will cross more boundries and become a 500, 5000, or 500K dollar thief based on his realization that you will let him go. Where will you draw the line?

I'm not saying that I would have shot the thief. I dang sure would have drew down on him and held him. Maybe then he would realize that stealing is the wrong road to go down, get discouraged and get his own job and learn some integrity.

PBP, what have you done to take a bite out of crime? Who's side are you on anyway? Do you think that only felonious grade assault criminals should be stopped and all lesser criminals be let go? If I promise to not threaten or endanger you & your family's personal safety, can I come empty your house and drive away with impunity? Can I take your livelyhood (tools, computers, whatever you use to make money with). Do you have a dollar amount that you'll draw the line at? (Easy now, this is just discussion, no attack.)

 

[littlmak]

I'm a little suprised by all the negative comments about the old guy bringing a shotgun with him while he's following a man he knows commited at least one crime, and may very well be guilty and capable of many more. Yet, how many of you young, strong, martial arts types won't leave your bedrooms W/O a gun strapped to some part of your body because a BG might walk past you today?

 

[HiltonFarmer]

This is getting way out of control ladies and gentlemen. I've included a few quotes just to prove my point and then I'll exit to take what views or criticisms are offered.

First of all, the media embellishes everything it tells you the reader so knowing that, maybe the story isn't exactly as it really happened.

Recent example,

an RCMP officer in Vanderhoof BC shot to death what he perceived to be a BG. The officer was cleared of the event and nothing was thought of about the incident for almost a year until the coroner's inquest. At that inquest, the officer in question said to the inquiry that he fired three shots at the BG while laying down as he had fallen and the BG kept coming at him.

It turned out the BG was drunk out of his mind and had a plastic bag in his pocket which the officer thought to be a gun

Ooops

One of the attending officers at the scene (his partner) said he was standing up while he was firing his service weapon. Hmmmm? Things changed.

The media is taking this and running with it for all it's worth. Anti gunners and every other activist group will have a feeding frenzie on this action that the older gentleman thought to be consisitent with his ethics and values.

My point - we weren't there. Three people can tell you what actually happened and one of them is dead - one is feeling bad enough he actually took another human being's life while trying to cover his butt end and the other - well who knows - is she telling the truth or did he have an affair with her and she's trying to screw him over? or ... is the media making a mountain out of a mole hill?

Liliysdad said:

Basic, fundamental laws, such as Don't Kill, Don't Rape, Don't Steal, must be upheld.

These make up 3 of the ten commandments

and now it is in the hands of the Prosecutors and Judges assigned this case.

Then there's sure to be a political catalyst in this somewhere - someone will benefit by making this an issue - and who really cares after all - I'm sure there could have been a myriad of better ways to deal with the situation.

WayneinFL said:

I walked to the back of the office and used the restroom and stood there contemplating. I saw a tank with 500 gallons of diesel fuel, and thought geez I should have bought a diesel. Then I thought there's got to be four acres of grass here. Who the heck mows the grass? I stood there about five minutes lokking at the grass. I turned around to leave and directly behind me was a door with a sign that read "There may be no more than 4 gallons of gasoline stored in this room at any time" I opened the door and sure enough there were two full two gallon gas cans in there. I laid two dollars on the shelf and used one can to fill my car. I left the empty can there, and drove to the gas station.

So let me get this straight - after the lady said "No", you stole the gas anyway suggesting that leaving the money made it OK? Do we apply the same tactics with yourself? How would that make you feel?

If I wasn't home I wouldn't begrudge him grabbing some out of the shed on a farm I don't even live on.

Of course not, the stuff in there isn't yours so why would you.

Boy, from your original post you're not the most right wing or conservative I'll likely ever met. You may be a good ole' boy. I congratulate you on your service and your sons. I never mentioned anything about a big city and when you were in the Army you lived in many cities larger than 5,000. I'll agree there's a difference between conservative and stupid. I never said what the guy did wasn't stupid. I said good for him and it was stupid to charge him with more than the idiot he chased down.

Backpeddling now?

Playboypenguin said:

I would also not hesitate to use my own again if there was a threat to the life of myself, a loved one, or an innocent person. I not only pessess the ability to use a firearm but the judgement to know when it is appropriate.

Let's pray we don't have to take another's life. If faced with a life or death situation, I choose life. I'll do as Playboypenguin does -

I possess the ability to use a firearm and the judgement to know when it is appropriate. I will protect my rights and freedoms but I will do it in a civilized manner first. Sorry all - no shoot first and ask questions later.

Hiltonfarmer

 

[DonR101395]

Quote:
Boy, from your original post you're not the most right wing or conservative I'll likely ever met. You may be a good ole' boy. I congratulate you on your service and your sons. I never mentioned anything about a big city and when you were in the Army you lived in many cities larger than 5,000. I'll agree there's a difference between conservative and stupid. I never said what the guy did wasn't stupid. I said good for him and it was stupid to charge him with more than the idiot he chased down.

Backpeddling now?

Nope, it looks as if your reading abilities are the same as his. You read what you wanted to hear, not what I said which was:

"Let me get this straight, the guy takes his wife/girlfriend and 3 year old child to steal gas and you think the farmer gives gun owners a bad name?
What is the world coming to "

and

"I have read and know the statutes. I also married an LEO. Just because it's in a statute book doesn't mean it's "right". If you want to steal you should accept whatever happens to you and anyone with you while you commit your crime. If you don't want your wife and kid hurt don't bring them with you to the scene of a crime. If you don't want hurt don't commit a crime.
As to your other ridiculous comments about sharia law etc. nobody ever said anything about sharia law except you. If you want to live in a liberal society where it's ok to steal and your punishment will be a slap on the wrist and some counseling for your poor, misguided, unfortunate soul. I hear Europe is accepting visitors by the thousands."

I don't see anywhere in either of those posts where I should or would backpeddle. Would I chase a guy down and call the cops and ask if I could blast him. No, but I'm not going to fault the for doing it, and I think it's ridiculous for this farmer to be charged with a violent crime, while the guy who stole, endangered a kid, endangered his wife/girlfriend, then endangered the public by running when he got caught is getting a slap on the wrist. If you can't understand that then you're a lost cause joining the rest of the liberal nanny state ilk.

 

[HiltonFarmer]

This really is out of control

No, but I'm not going to fault the for doing it, and I think it's ridiculous for this farmer to be charged with a violent crime

I guess holding someone at gunpoint is the same as stealing gas in your opinion seeing as how you appear to be of the same mindset.

If you can't understand that then you're a lost cause joining the rest of the liberal nanny state ilk.

Sorry, I didn't know my political beliefs had anything to do with whether or not the actions of a 74 year old man gave gun owners a bad name. I thought that the opinions (and they are only that) I shared had everything to do with the media. Not whether his actions were right or wrong.

HiltonFarmer

 

[kiov]

I think the old guy should have been let go, with a reminder that he was risking a lot to catch a petty thief. That said, the young guy is lucky he wasnt stealing off one of the montana ranches around flathead lake I grew up, cause he'd be dead.

 

[DonR101395]

Yes it is.......

I guess holding someone at gunpoint is the same as stealing gas in your opinion

What, now you're not even making sense?

seeing as how you appear to be of the same mindset.

What mindset would that be? If you don't want to take a chance at being scared, hurt, injured, maimed or killed stay out of my house uninvited and don't steal from me. Guilty as charged. I don't think that is too much to ask from a "civilized" society.

 

[pipoman]

It seems to me that if the thief had not been driving 70 neither would his pursuer. Who is to blame for the 'high speed chase'?

I do live on a farm and have had thefts. You had better believe I would hold someone at gunpoint who is on my property...especially at night. Would I chase them? Only long enough to get a tag number. Would I shoot them? Let them charge me on my property while I am holding them for LEOs or pull a weapon on me and see what happens.

I have lawfully stolen more cars off of peoples property day and night than just about any car thief on the planet (somewhere north of 5,000, lost count several years ago). I have been caught a fair number of times and usually left with the car anyway. If when I was discovered I ran away I probably wouldn't be writing this right now. Running results in a chase or irrational actions on the part of the pursuer.

This whole incident could have been avoided if the thief would have pulled his car over and waited for LEO. If he really was concerned for the safety of his family that is what he would have done...he wasn't concerned about his family (which the farmer was probably unaware of), he was concerned about being arrested for theft.

 

[DonR101395]

+1 Well said Pipoman