Stone Oak: defense against break in (insurance, crimes, house)

[chud]

This happened walking distance from my house, and I'd just like to salute this person for defending himself and his property.

Stone Oak SUV owner shoots 2 burglary suspects, kills 1 | News - Home

Thank you for making our neighborhood safer.

[sapphire]

Sa-lute! It would behoove some of these lowlifers to take notice and maybe think twice about their plans. You just never know who's going to react this way. But they won't, and next week we'll be reading about another homeowner in the same situation, reacting in the same way. Thinning out the herd.

[TXStrat]

This sends a clear message to those that perpetrate this type of crime, if you continue to steal, taking the fruit of the labor of others, you do so at your own peril. News like this usually puts a damper on crimes of this type for a few weeks.

[Torpedos]

these criminals should know that i am now broke. there is really nothing to steal from my house that is of value. If one does peep in my window i will assume the worse and have to shoot. Hopefully not kill them. At least maim them a bit.

[majormadmax]

Per the Texas Penal Code...

§ 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.

[Hedgehog_Mom]

I think it's horrible to kill someone over a car.

I like my cars, but if someone was stealing one of them, I'd stay inside and call the police. My cars are insured. I have guns for home defense, but those are to protect my kids if someone breaks in while we're home. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I killed someone because they were stealing my car. If my life was in danger, I would be able to deal with it, but I'm not going to kill someone and risk my soul over a Toyota.

He's also lucky that the thieves didn't have a gun and didn't shoot him instead.

[StanStelle]

I know a lot of my Stone Oak neighbors and eventually try to find out their stance on firearms. A significant percentage seem to be gun owners and I try to be nosy about it so I can see what precautions they take for storing it. This is a kid friendly area and our kids criss-cross the neighborhoods on play dates and I want to make sure my kid won't wind up in a home where someone is careless about it. I came from a hunting family where gun safety was drilled at a young age, but the majority of these aforementioned people started as adults and merely took a safety course. Some are even nervous about owning one. Events like the one that happened yesterday also leave me concerned about the possibility of a bullet ricocheting into another home.

[perticusrex]

Originally Posted by Hedgehog_Mom

I think it's horrible to kill someone over a car.

I like my cars, but if someone was stealing one of them, I'd stay inside and call the police. My cars are insured. I have guns for home defense, but those are to protect my kids if someone breaks in while we're home. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I killed someone because they were stealing my car. If my life was in danger, I would be able to deal with it, but I'm not going to kill someone and risk my soul over a Toyota.

He's also lucky that the thieves didn't have a gun and didn't shoot him instead.

I know we are probably in the minority, but that thought ran thru my head when I heard the story this morning

I agree with you and what you said. I wouldn't shoot to kill someone for ripping off my Toyota either. Its insured, and yeah its a hassle to go thru the insurance and blah blah blah and it would probably really **** me off too, but I don't know how I would reconcile within myself having killed someone over it, even if that person were a "lowlife."

[sapphire]

The Castle Doctrine was extended to include protection of your vehicle in 2007. Six years ago. The lowlifes need to update their handbooks to reflect the changes. I don't think they read the memo.

[HillCountryHotRodMan]

Originally Posted by sapphire

The Castle Doctrine was extended to include protection of your vehicle in 2007. Six years ago. The lowlifes need to update their handbooks to reflect the changes. I don't think they read the memo.

The doctrine also allows necessary lethal force to protect oneself in the workplace.

I read on the news that the homeowner confronted the thief first, then was turned on, thus firing first shots. So he wasn't just protecting his vehicle, he was defending himself.