Wife's Car Stolen Last Night! Stop the SOB with a Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A couple of posters have made reference to Texas when it comes defending one's property. Here's a little more on Texas law:

A Texan has the right to use deadly force to defend his property under the cover of darkness. He does not have to be in fear of his life.

An example:
Several years ago a car was being repossessed at night. The home owner heard the noise and thought his auto was being stolen. He grabbed a rifle and ran out the door and saw his auto being towed away by a tow truck. The home owner fired and killed the driver. I may stand to be corrected, but I think the grand jury no billed him.

I'm not too sure I want to kill someone over sheet metal, but the law let's me.

Joe
 
I agree with Glenn that the chest-beating gets a little old. That doesn't mean I have to like getting stuff stolen though. Personally, I wouldn't shoot somebody over property unless I felt I was threatened physically since the financial and legal consequences can be severe, even if you are cleared. That doesn't even take into account the psycological and emotional ramifications, as Glenn pointed out. I know Texas says I can shoot somebody for a misdemeanor after dark, but I don't think I could shoot somebody for tagging my garage at midnight, it just isn't worth it on all levels. Case in point happened in Austin a couple of years ago. A guy happened upon someone breaking into his car at night. When confronted, the BG left, making threats over his shoulder. Our Hero, get this, got into his car and followed the guy, yelling for him to stop, etc. then got out of his car and again confronted the BG, who proceeded to make more threats about his "homies" coming to kill Our Hero, who then shot BG when he said it looked as if BG was suddenly reaching for something. No gun on BG. Our Hero was no-billed (eventually), but it cost him a lot, not just financially. This guy did just about everything wrong. The thing was, is that his girlfriend was with him, so maybe he wanted to be a big man in front of her, which goes back to what Glenn was saying about letting some other part of you anatomy besides your head do the thinking for you. Of course there were tearful interviews with the BGs family about how he was a "good boy who went astray" blah, blah, blah. Bottom line is that they were both stupid. It's cliche, but the best defensive tool is your brain.
 
Is the crime rate in Texas lower because you can shoot a BG for taking your car? If the BG is just taking a shovel out of the back of your PU, are you still gonna shoot him? Maybe just in the leg? What if he's taking your kids baseball out of your frontyard? blast him? What if it's your neighbors kid taking the baseball? That oughta teach him!! What if it's your kid swiping your neighbors baseball? Well, that's okay neighbor he had it coming. Are we still on for the BBQ Saturday night? Oops, I forgot, the funeral is Saturday.

Do you have a dollar value at what you will kill someone over? Anything under $4000, just shoot em in the foot?


Oh yeah, sorry about your car. :(
------------------
bullet placement is gun control

[This message has been edited by muleshoe (edited April 10, 2000).]
 
Call it chest pounding or whatever you want, but I'm standing by my comments. If you want to try and take the time to justify every action by how much it might cost you in time or money, then go ahead. I am sure that the criminal will appreciate the extra get away time! I for one think that you must make up your mind how you would react to a situation before it occurs so that you can assess the situation and then react according to your preset plan. Of course, I would not shoot first and ask questions later, but, after trying every other avenue (loud voice, physical intimidation, mag light to the head, pepper spray, whatever...) I will escalate to the final step - deadly force.

I spent plenty of time in the Marines and really don't feel adversely affected by pulling the trigger. So, that being said, leave me and mine alone or pay the consequences. Of course I would not put my family or life in jeopardy, but I would react according to what the law says I can do! My family comes before me in EVERYTHING. I make sure that this is the first consideration in EVERYTHING. I can afford a few thousand in legal fees. The emotional cost is negligable to me.

A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man only once! I intend to only die once! Thank you very much!

refusing to be kinder and gentler,

canis :)

And a question,

How come everytime someone states their mind on something and it seems even remotely aggresive, it is referred to as chest pounding? When some of you folks state your minds about emotional this and that, I would like to call it "milk-sopping", but I don't. Are we so far removed from our natural instincts that we can't even relate to them anymore? I hope not!

[This message has been edited by CANIS (edited April 10, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by CANIS (edited April 10, 2000).]
 
To be fair, the original poster was not asking if he could walk outside, say something witty and cap everyone within ten feet of his car. Those of you who keep asking "Would you kill over a stolen car?" Are missing a point--only one or two posters have even left the door open to such an action. The original question was about going outside, confronting the thief with a deadly weapon, and holding him for police. The weapon was to be there only for use if the thief attacked the homeowner. That means he's NOT being killed over stealing a car. He was being held for police over stealing a car, he got killed for trying to kill the homeowner.

Current law (unless you're Texan) doesn't allow that, because current law says that if you do hold him, then it will be YOUR FAULT if he charges you or pulls a gun because you chose to come outside. Well, that's bullsh** easily disproven--think about this. A cop catches you climbing out a window, draws his gun, and orders you to stop. Is he about to shoot you? Hell no, he's going to take you into custody. Now, same situation, but when the cop tells you to stop, you pull out your own revolver. NOW will the cop shoot you? Of course.

So would you then say that the cop killed you for stealing, even though he would have let you live after he caught you stealing if you hadn't escalated the situation? Well, why is it any different for a private citizen? Obviously it's different because we're either less valuable or less trustworthy than the average LEO, or both.
 
In Florida deadly force to protect property is illegal, unless deadly force is being used in the taking.

Philosophically, this sucks. My property is worth more to me than the life of anyone who would take it by force, intimidation or just plain thievery.
 
I don't know if I'd shoot or not, but I look at it this way - That car out front represents a lot of after tax dollars that took me many, many hours to earn. the POS IS stealing my life, not all at once, just in chunks. He shouldn't ask the question if he won't like the answer.

OTOH, I've often though that petty thieves should be shot for their lack of ambition. I guess I just don't have much use for thieves in general. M2
 
Numbers--

Careful with the "darkness" clause-- case law no longer suports that aspect of the book law.


All-- Deeeeeep breaths, and recognize the consequences of your actions are best considered in calm deliberation rather than the heat of the moment.

There are lives that must unfortunately be taken on occasion. I hope that no one here must be put in the position of having to take one. Do not, if you could at all avoid it without retreating from your home, take a life unnecessarily. It will plague you in ways you haven't yet considered. I've never done it.

I live in a state (TX) where I can shoot a man to prevent him from stealing my TV set (good riddance to it!). My chest is as hairy as the next guy's. My machismo is as big as the next fella's. And folks, as much as it sux, sux, sux, to see the SOB profit from the fruits of MY labors, the thought of living with myself after shooting him over it when I could have chosen another path is far more bleak.

Regards and :(,
Matt

[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited April 10, 2000).]
 
numbers, the incident you spoke of occurred in Houston. He as no billed. Within a year he had gone through a divorce and committed suicide as a result of the stress. Glenn, I think the $5000 figure might be a little steep. All shootings in Texas are referred to a GJ and some people go unrepresented. Although retired, I have Roger Zimmerman as my attorney and he is much cheaper than that. It pays to shop around.
 
I thank everyone for their input. I'm still pis***, but now realize that in todays society, material victimization is a reality without the vaseline! But if this was 1848 and the SOB was stealing my horse, I would, if I could :mad:
 
Got the $5000 mean figure from Karl Rehn, Jeff. You're an Austin boy IIRC. Ever meet him? Does a nice training job.

As far as natural instinct - whatever.
Even in justifiable students as in the Hatori case in Louisiana, the shooter did not come away unscarred by the experience.
Also, I thought we have evolved beyond using the simple territorial responses of other mammals. Even they sometimes just drive the opponent away.

For those who listen, use of force is to accomplish a goal. If the goal is to feel
good in jail - do it.

Chest-pounding is used by me to describe in a deliberately perjorative fashion folks who use violence and aggression based on emotion and without rational thought.

If that is milk-toastishness, then tell me where it is on the menu as I will continue to make rational decisions about the use force.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:
numbers, the incident you spoke of occurred in Houston. He as no billed. Within a year he had gone through a divorce and committed suicide as a result of the stress [/quote]

I wonder how much of the stress that ended in suicide resulted not from guilt, but from the demonization by friends, family and of course our “justice” system....

If you were a criminal, and you knew you put yourself in mortal danger every time you tried to take what wasn't rightfully yours, or if you knew the average citizen would hold you at gunpoint until the police arrived, wouldn't you at least think twice? Call me crazy, but I would.

I'm not advocating indiscriminately taking a life to protect material property, but if every peaceful citizen had the right to at least confront the criminal with gun in hand, do you think property crimes would increase or decrease?

And why have we turned into a nation of cowards who believes every act perpetrated by a criminal is not his fault? Why do we demonize the law abiding for actively thwarting criminal activity? It makes me wonder-- all these sheeple and psychologists who think criminal behavior is a result of upbringing, society, bad parents, blah, blah, blah-- how would they feel if a "reformed" murderer, rapist or career burglar moved in next door? Better yet, would they let that "reformed" criminal date their daughter? If the answer is no, then I submit they are mere spineless hypocrites.

I don’t think the person who started this thread was trying to imply we should all live life like we’re in a Dirty Harry or Charles Bronson movie. But then, the point remains: if you don’t want to get shot, don’t try to take what is not yours!

Why should we let the criminals hold us hostage in our own homes? Why should the laws be designed to protect the bad guy? Why does it seem the laws are set up to take the right to security in person and property away from the people? I’ll tell you why—because it takes power away from the people. It makes the massive bureaucracy of our judicial system seem necessary. It takes away another valid reason to own firearms, and thus defend RKBA. And most importantly, it makes our big government, their endless laws, their intrusion into our lives, and even the police seem that much more necessary than they really are. (I don’t mean to attack police—they are necessary, but they should not be expected to be the “shepherds” of the helpless flock).

Don’t buy the argument that giving people the right to defend their person and property will cause our nation to collapse into vigilante chaos. I trust American people to be wiser than that.

For those of you who think defending your home or property with a gun is foolish, just remember that it’s also a good deterrent for future crime.

Good will never triumph over evil unless it is willing to do what is necessary to win.
 
If this were 1848 the theft of ones hoss could quite possibly mean death of previous owner, that was why hoss-thieves were dealt with quickly and thoroughly. If you were stuck out a hundred miles or so from civilization without your hoss, you may never be seen again. If a sod-buster had his plow-hoss stolen he may not be able to feed his family. His horse truely was his livelyhood. I rather doubt the loss of your car will cause your family to starve to death. If so, then maybe we could all pitch in a few bucks to get you by.

I don't think I could shoot a BG for stealing my car, no more than I could shoot him for swiping my kids baseball out of the front yard. I can get by without the car for a while, and the baseball. I'm not so sure I could sleep well at night having killed someone for a few dollars, $5 or $5000 or $25,000, makes no difference. If you will shoot for a $25,000 car, then by the same logic he should also die for a $5 baseball. Now if Mr. BG is in my casa it's a whole different story. He then becomes a threat to me and mine, and deserves whatever happens to him.

------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
Not worth the effort of arguing about it anymore...

[This message has been edited by CANIS (edited April 10, 2000).]
 
muleshoe, we had a guy legally shot in the back over $2. Criminal walks up to a fellow with a knife and asks for money. Victim hands over $2 which is stuffed in the pocket. Criminal not happy with a small haul asks for the victims watch. Victim hands over watch and draws pistol. Criminal drops knife and watch. Turns to run with $2 in his pocket. Shot in the back and dies. Shooting is justifiable.

Texas does not dictate the value of a human life, it simply allows the victim to decide what value a human life has. The criminal has already, by choice, surrendered his right to live by committing certain crimes. If the victim views the criminal as vermin than he may kill him. If a life is worth more than a car or $2, then you may stand there and watch your car drive off. Since I have lived in Texas people have been legally killed over a hubcap, a lawnmower, a bicycle, spray painting the side of the house, and cars. I am sure there are others that I am not aware of. It is the victims choice. The criminals fate is in the hands of the victim. I like it, less govt intrusion.
 
Okay, I'll ask the question again. Is the crime rate in Texas lower than the rest of the country because you can shoot a BG for $2?

------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
First of all...
Deliverer is extremely PO'd...rightly so.
Yes insurance will replace the car, but his rates will go up. He will pay for the privilege of having the car stolen for years.
I believe he is venting, and that is his right.

I also believe, given where he lives, he wouldn't kill the thief and he knows the penalties. Santa Monica is a level beyond Red, even in Calif....Tom Hayden got his political start there and there are even more glaring political examples.

Give the guy a break

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
My attached garage IS part of my house. Trespassing in my garage is the same as trespassing in my house. Would I like to shoot the SOB if I caught him attempting to steal my car? Hell yes! Should I shoot? Most probably no. I would prefer that my 105 pound german shepherd dog remove about 25 pounds of flesh from the fleeing felon. I think that would be much more satisfying!


(Gooood boy. Here's a biscuit for ya.)



------------------
In Fine Regemus
(In the End We Shall Reign)
 
Muleshoe,
"Okay, I'll ask the question again. Is the crime rate in Texas lower than the rest of the country because you can shoot a BG for $2?"

Well, I don't have the figures for Texas, but as a matter of fact, the crime rate *is* lower in Comal County (just north of San Antonio) than in Bexar County (San Antonio proper). Thieves know our Grand Juries in *this* county side with honest ownership - not theft, assault, etc.

What bothers me about your question is the apparent intent to put a dollar figure on acceptable theft. At what dollar amount (if any) *would* I be justified in using force in your opinion?
-----

All,

Several people here seem to advocate permitting theft of any material object. So long as the thief does not represent a threat of serious bodily injury or death to the owner - the owner should just call 9-1-1, file a police report, and get on with his financially injured, but oh, so moral life.

This is practical - no legal involvement.
This is sane - no consequent mental anguish.
This is moral - life (even of a thief) is beyond value.

If such is the case, then sell all your guns. Somebody might find and use them in a "hurtful" manner.

What if you had a firearm (unloaded, disassembled and locked in an appropriate container in your locked car trunk, of course!) and you had an auto accident? (Not your fault, of course.)

What if your car was towed to a junkyard before you got out of the hospital and some teenage victim of child abuse found your gun, took it, and hurt himself or someone else??? Oh, MY!! :eek:

Think of the mental anguish to you, your family and friends, the thief and his family and friends. It just isn't worth it. NO item of violence can be secured adequately to protect the poor thieves of our society.

And protecting the human parasites of our society must be the goal of so many "practical" and "moral" people of our society - of our "village".

Gee. Why don't we all take the locks off our homes so the poor burglars aren't at risk of getting a splinter when they kick our doors in? Gee, they might sue! Gee, I might have mental anguish! Gee.... :eek:

The subject gives me gas.... :mad:

If he wants to burn down my house, I should just get my family out and not interfere?

Where do we draw the line?
Since when do the thieves have more rights than honest folk?
What's happened to America?

For the record:
- No, I wouldn't shoot a car thief stealing my car.
- Yes, if I stood in front of the car and he tried to run me down, I'd shoot him - especially if the incident took place on my property or property under my control.
- Yes, I'm angry that our nation of cowards forces me to become part of their lowest common denominator.

My guts are with Canis, but I hear Glenn (and hate it).

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top