Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, let's stick to the fact that it's illegal for a citizen to track down a thief and kill him.
OK lets stick to the facts. You would be wrong on that. Texas has thoughtfully made it legal to use deadly force for citizens to recover property in the process of being stolen.
Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable
if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
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
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.
OK lets stick to the facts. You would be wrong on that. Texas has thoughtfully made it legal to use deadly force for citizens to property in the process of being stolen.
Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable
if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
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
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.
Operative word in what you bolded: Immediately.
Now, does that mean immediately after they commit the theft? For example, if a thief stole money out of a safe in someone's house and the homeowner shot him down in the driveway, the homeowner was within his rights. However, if he chases the thief into another neighborhood and shoots him down, then he may not be protected by the law.
We'll see how this pans out. It will be up to interpretation. However, by the letter of the law, the thief wasn't shot immediately after the crime was committed.
Also,
The truck could have been recovered and that truck was not going to put any other innocent bystander's life in danger.
They did immediately go after them. But no matter, the point has been made here.
i.e. You now have changed your post from "It's Illegal" to "may be Illegal". This is why you stick to facts and your hypothetical situations are irrelevant. You are welcome.
They did immediately go after them. But no matter, the point has been made here.
i.e. You now have changed your post from "It's Illegal" to "may be Illegal". This is why you stick to facts and your hypothetical situations are irrelevant. You are welcome.Haha no. You were schooled on Texas law.
Actually, I wasn't.
They did immediately go after them, however, when they shot and killed the thief, it wasn't an immediate action (shooting and killing the thief). The act of "chasing down" is not immediate. Not difficult to understand.
If they chased these guys and at the time they shot and killed the thief was beyond an immediate action (which it appears to be), then they are no longer protected by law. What they did would be ILLEGAL.
No, they didn't have the right to protect themselves.
That is the problem right there, you don't believe they had the right to protect themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
Lets see
you can't afford car insurance, but you can afford 2 Hand canons with bullets to shoot at would be Thief's
How much does a gun and some bullets cost compared to the difference between liability insurance and full coverage? I'll wager you that the insurance will cost much more over just a couple of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman619
If i were on the Grand Jury i would send these two clowns to Jail for a little while. As gun owner myself, the last thing we need are, vigilante clowns making all us responsible gun owners look bad.
If you choose to have a gun just for hunting, that is your choice. The brothers had guns to protect themselves, and when the felons decided to point a gun at them, they chose the best way to do so was to fire at the thieves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATG5
In certain situations when you are putting bystanders in danger, and when you are not TRAINED or MENTALLY EQUIPPED to handle a situation like police officers should be, then no, defer to the police. Your whatever that was stolen is not worth the life of some innocent bystander caught in the crossfire. End of discussion.
Some of you are so blinded by the 2nd amendment right, it really cuts off your ability to think logically and understand which situations are okay to reasonably defend yourself and when to defer to the proper authorities because the risk far outweighs the reward.
Sheesh.
It comes right back to the ability to defend yourself.
I don't feel that anybody should only be allowed to defend themselves from a thug pointing a gun at them if they have specialized training.
If you feel that only people who can afford to go through such training should be allowed to defend themselves from someone pointing a gun at them, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATG5
Would you have been okay with the outcome even if someone had been hit and killed by a stray bullet, so long as the thief was killed?
No one was hit.
There have been many times that innocent people have been struck by stray police fire. Should we disarm police to keep it from ever happening again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys
The only time it's reasonable to kill someone is when they are trying to do you serious bodily harm.
The thieves aimed a gun at the brothers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATG5
Operative word in what you bolded: Immediately.
Now, does that mean immediately after they commit the theft?
How much more immediate can be seeing the robbers take your truck?
Sorry, but most likely they will be no-billed due to Texas law.
The only way they will be indicted is if people allow their emotions to overrule the law. It's happened before.
You said the truck was stolen at gunpoint. That was a blatant lie. You made up lies instead of arguing the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Phx Native
So, your saying that because someone stole my truck, and I file a claim with my insurance company that causes MY rates to go up because someone stole my truck, that if I catch them in the act, I have no right to defend my property ?
It is simple, the truck is mine, if someone tries to steal it, they will be dealt with with the harshest means possible, if they don't wish this, then the answer is easy, DON"T STEAL.
You don't have the right to engage in a high-speed pursuit and fire wildly at someone in your stolen truck. And if the truck means so much to you why would you shoot it and run it off the road? A destroyed truck is better than a stolen truck? These two vigilantes just wanted to kill someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
If a fleeing suspect points a gun at police, should the cops not be allowed to protect themselves by firing at the thief?
You do not the authority that the police do. You're not allowed to recklessly endanger the lives of others to get a truck back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
So only police should be allowed to defend themselves?
The brothers were never in danger. They were the only danger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
How do you know they had theft insurance?
So in your world no one should be expected to have theft insurance but thieves should always expect to be pursued and gunned down?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable
if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
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
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.
They did immediately go after them, however, when they shot and killed the thief, it wasn't an immediate action (shooting and killing the thief). The act of "chasing down" is not immediate. Not difficult to understand.
If they chased these guys and at the time they shot and killed the thief was beyond an immediate action (which it appears to be), then they are no longer protected by law. What they did would be ILLEGAL.
Wrong. It was immediate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
