Posted on 01/19/2023 3:25:44 PM PST by grundle
Look, if someone tries to steal your car or your mailbox or your garden hose, fails to steal it, runs away, and you kill them, that’s up to you. But if I’m on that jury, you’re going away for a long time (if that’s what the State law stipulates).
The shooter is hosed, imo, by his own action.
Not that I have any sympathy for the shooting victim. If your profession is stealing expensive property, getting killed is an occupational hazard. One the felon must accept.
When the guy is running away, and is not a threat you chase them down and kill them you are going to face murder charges in all 50 states.
He should not haave shot the perp when he was running away.
It’s about time to bring back the ol’ timey method of dealing with horse thieves, but for cars.
hang ‘em where you find ‘em.
Works in most of the cowboy movies.
The Perp ? You bet he did.
You try and steal my property, you are telling me you value my property more than you value you're life on this planet.
Agreed.
“Depends on where you are. It’s intentionally vague so if the cops/judge/jury don’t like you, not much can be done to save you.”
I was in Austin at the time. One of the most liberal cities in TX.
It’s the “chased after” part that got him in hot water.
Once the criminal is on the run empty-handed, unless they’ve left a dead or injured person behind, shooting at them is a bad idea. And even then, it’s State by State. In CA, you do and you’re Satan. Well...OK, in CA you’re Satan if you even HAVE a gun, but still...
It may be, but I'm getting to the point where these I simply don't care that these little thugs are removed from society. The system has failed the work-a-day folks.
nor trucks. darn near what a house cost 10 to 20 years ago.
I can see practical difficulties extending that policy to allow common citizens to do the same, but they are solvable problems.
In my area, we have DAs who refuse to prosecute car thieves because of "disparate impact" on minority communities. It should not surprise anyone that we now have the highest rate of vehicle thefts in the country. And the thieves are getting increasingly brazen and increasingly violent. Something has to give here.
I am sympathetic to the man who chased down the car thief and killed him. We will see a lot more of that in the future if DAs keep letting thieves go without prison sentences. And we will increasingly see "not guilty" verdicts when the DA is foolish enough to prosecute theft and robbery victims who retaliate against the perpetrators.
It isn't a good idea if we want "Rule of Law".
Listen!! You attempt to kill me or my wife, my kids, my dogs, my cattle....you might die. That’s a FACT.,.thefactor.
A law that forces you to watch stupidly and do nothing while someone steals the property that you need to support your family is stupid. Under that law, you are not allowed to prevent someone from burning your house down as long as they are not harming you or anyone in the house.
Maybe you missed my later post, my comments were not directed at you. I just pressed reply to your post and my usual habit is to remove the FR member’s name and substitute “all” unless I really intend to reply to something specific. In this case I did not, and I wasn’t really aware of what you had posted since you were replying to a post with agreement.
My comments about a go fund me account were a general suggestion, if somebody incurs expenses doing the job of law enforcement then others might wish to assist. Go fund me is entirely voluntary, there is no expectation involved. I don’t see why one citizen who does a good deed should have to bear the full cost of that good deed. Preventing the theft of the vehicle would be a good deed in two ways — it would deter the thief, and it would prevent the thief from going on to use the stolen vehicle in other crimes (as often happens).
Anyway, no hostile intent on my part.
This story is about a guy who tried to steal a piece of metal, failed, and was shot in the back which is against the law in that State. I’m not sure how we are now talking about you shooting someone who’s trying to steal your wife or kids. The two situations are very different.
His best hope in that sewer is a jury of retired folks.
And especially in this circumstance, where if he let his car get stolen he would be stranded in St. Louis at 2 AM.
The laws vary by State, as we all know. When I was a cop in NYC, for example, you could only shoot a fleeing felon if he was using deadly physical force against you or others (shooting over his shoulder while running away).
There are specifics and it mostly involves the time of day but it is the law, how it’s interpreted varies by scenario unfortunately
IMO it should be applicable at all times over any property
Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person’s land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor’s spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor’s care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.