Assuming the article correctly stated the facts, it appears that at the time he fired he was not in imminent danger. It's never okay to use deadly force to defend personal property.
Cool. I’d still vote not guilty. The scrote was stealing three pistols and a machine gun. In the end it comes down to a jury, and I would not convict him.
Many laws in many states disagree (as do I).
It seems to be in Texas.
Says who?
I believe it is in Texas. And I disagree with your premise. Thievery is incremental murder. They're stealing the time of your life you took to earn the money to buy things. So, deadly force against thieves? Meh.
It’s never okay to use deadly force to defend personal property.
***It’s upheld in Texas.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4052546/posts
Maybe in your state it isn’t. It is absolutely okay and legal in other states, like Texas.
[[It’s never okay to use deadly force to defend personal property. ]]
Huh? Of course it is OK. Many states declare that it is. Noone has a right to steal your property. Heck even during the riots in LA people were onmthemrooftops,on the rooftops, stores from looters, and they had every right to,
do so. Store owners in many states are justified in shooting looters.
Did someone hack your account? Or do you really believe that communist nonsense?
In a few more months when the grocery store shelves are empty and millions of Brandon's "migrants" are roaming the countryside like a swarm of locusts, raiding houses looking for food, you might have to reconsider that idea.
That's why they're here. And to vote in November.
Never say never?
Suppose a winning unsigned 100 million dollar lottery winning ticket was in the car? Or the perp is hijacking an armored truck full of unmarked bills? Or a very effective, difficult to procure, life saving medication that was being delivered to a gravely ill patient? And the perp had a gun and was waving it at you?
I no longer agree with that proposition.
I do not care what the "law" says.
In this case there was a fleeing felon in a car with stolen firearms. Reads like an "imminent danger to the community" to me. Had a police officer been the victim of this carjacking, it would have been ruled a justified shooting.
The State does not want subjects who can resist violent predators. That is because the State is the biggest predator out there.
It’s never okay to use deadly force to defend personal property.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Huh?
Here in Texas it sure as hell is.
Well, that depends on specific state law.
Stopping the theft of a class 3 weapon and firearms/ ammunition in general sounds pretty reasonable.
Maybe trying to stop the vehicle by gunfire, but if the thief drove towards and then past the man, I’d be looking for a reasonable belief that the thief was a lethal threat. I don’t think one has to be continually at risk to meet the three legged lethal force equation.
We shall see.
My state doesn’t provide for such lethal force protection of property.