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.
Well...item number one is "Texas". That gives you a discount on smarts right there.
It feels good...the bad guy got what was coming to him.
But, the senseless nature of driving down a highway blasting away at a moving target? I give you item number one: Texas.
Maybe a more sane solution would have been to follow the vehicle while alerting the police via cell phone to intercept the perpetrator.
At the end of the day "The Brothers" are going to be indicted for murder/manslaughter. Kind of destroys the 'feel good' factor, doesn't it?
Um. Wrong. Generalization and sterotyping is showing a lack of smarts on YOUR part. I and other Texans, believe that if the brothers were not being threatened, they used excessive force and should be punished. If you read the article, there is a possibility the brothers will be indicted for their actions, depending on whether the DA determines they were acting in self defense. Vigilante justice is not OK here either. But it will take an investigation to make that determination, just as it does in all states.
And in an even saner world before that, you could shoot a horse thief. It's the world that you describe, where criminals are coddled, that has led to the one we live in now. That experiment failed.
Yea this is what I was thinking. 100 years ago you could have faith that the law would take care of these clowns, in some states they would hang for this. We have to many do gooder liberals crying for the criminals rights, and now they get 15 appeals, reduced sentences and if they do any real time its a year or two. Stealing a truck is a big deal, and they should go away for a long time. Do it more than once then you should hang just like in the "good ole days". These "cowboys" as they are being called did what they did to protect their property, as they knew the law wouldn't. The police likely wouldn't even catch them, as they are so limited on what they can do by do gooder laws. Even if caught they knew nothing would be done, they would be out in days on bail. Look at how the modern liberal world reacts to the police shooting that criminal in Missouri, the system and the law has been blamed for that, not the criminal. The police have been neutered, they have no real power against the truly criminal. I agree with the other poster on here that expressed disappointment that the accomplice got away. It shows a need for the truck owner to go to the range and do some practice shooting. Maybe next time he'll get them both.
Interestingly, Austin is commonly thought of by Texans as the place in the state where people don't think clearly and have the least common sense.
Because Austin has a more educated populace and that runs contrary to modern conservative principles. Book learnin' is fer queers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
It's a hypothetical example that did not occur. So your point is nonsense.
Reckless endangerment is a charge for a reason.
Quote:
I'm more likely to get killed by the people who stole the truck.
We don't know if those thieves ever killed anyone. We know that the brothers have. Your hypothesis is flawed because you decided the brothers were righteous from the start.
.... Your hypothesis is flawed because you decided the brothers were righteous from the start.
I didn't make a hypothesis. I stated fact. The thief died because of the bad and irresponsible choices he made. Period. If he hadn't stolen that truck he'd be alive today.
Whether or not the brothers have charges brought against them is irrelevant to that fact.
I didn't make a hypothesis. I stated fact. The thief died because of the bad and irresponsible choices he made. Period. If he hadn't stolen that truck he'd be alive today.
Whether or not the brothers have charges brought against them is irrelevant to that fact.
You said the thieves were more likely to kill you than those brothers. That is not a fact.
It's a hypothetical example that did not occur. So your point is nonsense.
I'm more likely to get killed by the people who stole the truck.
I may have quoted the wrong post originally, but I'll go ahead and speak to your second point.
You're more likely to get killed by the people who stole the truck in large part due to the fact they were fleeing from two civilians shooting at them.
The biggest issue here is both parties (the criminals who stole the truck and the people chasing after) are putting innocent bystanders in danger by their actions. It's also a case of cause and effect here - the thieves are fleeing because they're being shot at by civilians.
Just because someone stole something from you doesn't give you the right to go all John Wayne on them and endanger others who may get harmed from your actions.
The only time I recall when shooting someone fleeing is legal is when the person has been known to have committed a forcible felony. Auto-theft is not a forcible felony. Of course, I am in Florida and Texas law may be different.
In regards to Texas law, this gets a little murky. I'm guessing they will be no-billed.
And to the Texas haters, jealous much?
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.
