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.
I watched this on my local news tonight. A car thief was in the process of stealing a truck with the help of an accomplice in another vehicle. When he started the truck up the alarm went off, the truck's owner and his brother heard the alarm, and came outside. They followed him and shot the car thief, killing him. An accomplice escaped in another vehicle. I'm not sure how I feel about the brothers' actions toward the thief. What are your thoughts?
Violent crime is never, ever justified by property crime, IMO. Self defense is one thing, but taking someone's life over a threat to something other than a life? Let's be reasonable here.
In a civilized society, there is a reason we don't give the death penalty for theft. Ever. It is simply out of proportion to the offense - I don't care who did it or whose truck it was.
Violent crime is never, ever justified by property crime, IMO. Self defense is one thing, but taking someone's life over a threat to something other than a life? Let's be reasonable here.
In a civilized society, there is a reason we don't give the death penalty for theft. Ever. It is simply out of proportion to the offense - I don't care who did it or whose truck it was.
No violent crime was committed. You should read the article.
No violent crime was committed. You should read the article.
Oh it certainly was a violent crime. Direct from FBI.gov.
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.
Under Texas law those brothers had the right to defend themselves and their property against the violent crime of these criminals.
I don't feel that deadly force is justified to protect property outside the confines of your residence. If the thief confronts you in your own garage, and is armed, yes, or even if unarmed but you fear for your life, within the confines of your home you may well be justified.
But in this scenario they've already got your car, you chase them down and THEN shoot them? The article does not indicate if the theives were armed. If not, then it may be the owners here that are the aggressors. You're going to kill someone to get your truck back that's probably insured? That's awfully close to murder. What gives you the right to make that life-or-death choice? Is your truck worth a human life?
I believe Texas changed its laws in 2013 to expand self-defense to protect property, but in this case I wonder if chasing the thieves down the street will still count as self-defense even under that expansion. We need more info on the story - were the thieves armed? was there an exchange of fire?
Personally I would not get into a gun battle if they've already taken my car. That's why I have insurance and pay extra for full coverage.
Violent crime is never, ever justified by property crime, IMO. Self defense is one thing, but taking someone's life over a threat to something other than a life? Let's be reasonable here.
In a civilized society, there is a reason we don't give the death penalty for theft. Ever. It is simply out of proportion to the offense - I don't care who did it or whose truck it was.
Since when have we lived in a "civilized society"? In a "civilized society" people don't rob their neighbors,rape people,kidnap/kill people,beat people senseless (knockout game) for just being there,carjack innocent people or commit drive by shootings, or post revenge porn.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,158,860 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
I don't feel that deadly force is justified to protect property outside the confines of your residence. If the thief confronts you in your own garage, and is armed, yes, or even if unarmed but you fear for your life, within the confines of your home you may well be justified.
But in this scenario they've already got your car, you chase them down and THEN shoot them? The article does not indicate if the theives were armed. If not, then it may be the owners here that are the aggressors. You're going to kill someone to get your truck back that's probably insured? That's awfully close to murder. What gives you the right to make that life-or-death choice? Is your truck worth a human life?
I believe Texas changed its laws in 2013 to expand self-defense to protect property, but in this case I wonder if chasing the thieves down the street will still count as self-defense even under that expansion. We need more info on the story - were the thieves armed? was there an exchange of fire?
Personally I would not get into a gun battle if they've already taken my car. That's why I have insurance and pay extra for full coverage.
The officer in the local News Report states the accomplice began firing at the brothers. The brothers return fire at that moment.
3 vehicles, presumably traveling at a rather fast speed, when the theif occupant of one vehicle, somewhere in there placement on the roadway at any given moment, raises his gun and fires at the brothers vehicle. Noone can predict how anyone is driving at this point, including the movements of the stolen vehicle that the other theif was driving.
It is reasonable to assume that 'fight or flight' instinct would kick in immediately for anyone, given the reported scenario.
Anyone living in Texas (regardless of nationality or status), or any border state would be compelled to try to prevent their property from being taken south of Texas. It would be a miracle for it ever to be returned once it crosses that international line. Doesnt mean that stolen property is never ever recovered either, but, initially hope is lost the second you see its gone.
For most people in the bulk of Texas, a pickup is a work vehicle. Necessary for the maintenance of daily existance. Go back a few hundred years and you will find 'horse-theiving' to be a hanging offence in most areas for this very reason. It puts a serious blow to anyone's daily existance and maintenance to 'steal their horse'. Of course now, we are a bit more forgiving, and just make you do time and/or possibly pay restitution instead.
If we dont understand life from the perspective of the legal (law-abiding) citizen of Texas, then opinions are good to advance discussion when based on understanding what is actually reported to have happened.
The criminals could have used some better judgement, knowing they had been caught in the act, they could have just ditched the stolen vehicle and it is possible the chase would have ended there, with the owner taking the time to secure his property instead.
Why do criminals never seem to see when its time to just give up? *shrugs*
Last edited by ConeyGirl52; 02-14-2015 at 12:06 PM..
Reason: clarity, grammar and spelling.
I'm a liberal and the brothers were shot at. They shot back because their lives were put in danger. Read the article.
Read what article? The article in the OP says the brothers were doing the shooting. They were not shot at. Their lives were not put in danger.
But, whatever. This will either deter car thieves working for the Mexican market, or it will cause them to start carrying submachine guns.
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.
