Copper thief shot dead

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: jonks
And when a teenager is shot dead for going on a roof to get back a frisbee or baseball or something, it will be called a tragedy, but what can you do, it's part of the cost of defending property by blowing people away. If a few teenagers have to die so someone doesn't steal my copper, so be it.

Either human life is worth more than material things, or it's not. When your life is not in danger, shooting and killing someone is just not warranted.

Insert certifiably insane argument here: "I buy material things with my hard earned money so when someone steals from me they are stealing my life and I have a right to defend my life"

So at what value does lethal force become acceptable to defend property? $50,000? $100,000? Say someone occupies your house while you're gone during the day. You're just going to let them have your home, right? I mean, it's just property.

Your attitude breeds crime by lowering the costs involved. My attitude deters crime by increasing the costs involved. It's pretty much that simple. If you pamper criminals, there will be more of them.

Oh, and for those talking about state laws, a number of states allow the use of deadly force to protect property, though I don't know of any that go to the extent Texas does in allowing the defense of a third party's property.

IMO, and in the overwhelming majority of states, deadly force is never justified in defense of property. Somehow all the states outside texas have managed to not have rampant crime without giving citizens the right to kill over property. When there is no danger to human life, there is no reason to kill. It's very simple, and it prevents accidental deaths of innocent people.

Your analogy isn't about theft, it's about trespass. If someone is occupying my house I call the police and have them escorted out. If they are trespassing and refuse to leave I am allowed to use FORCE to eject them. Until they present a reasonable danger to me or my family, DEADLY force is not warranted.

Like I said, your way of doing things lowers the cost of crime, making crime more prevalent.

The fact that you would let someone walk up to you and take everything you own while you desperately called the police (who may or may not show up) speaks to flaws in your philosophy.

The business owner in this case told the guy to stop, the burglar did not stop, so he died. So he first made the choice to engage in a criminal enterprise. Then he made the choice to disobey the property owner. He 100% deserves what he got. This is black and white in my mind, without any of the grey area from the Joe Horn case.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: jonks


IMO, and in the overwhelming majority of states, deadly force is never justified in defense of property. Somehow all the states outside texas have managed to not have rampant crime without giving citizens the right to kill over property. When there is no danger to human life, there is no reason to kill. It's very simple, and it prevents accidental deaths of innocent people.

Your analogy isn't about theft, it's about trespass. If someone is occupying my house I call the police and have them escorted out. If they are trespassing and refuse to leave I am allowed to use FORCE to eject them. Until they present a reasonable danger to me or my family, DEADLY force is not warranted.

Like I said, your way of doing things lowers the cost of crime, making crime more prevalent.

The fact that you would let someone walk up to you and take everything you own while you desperately called the police (who may or may not show up) speaks to flaws in your philosophy.

The business owner in this case told the guy to stop, the burglar did not stop, so he died. So he first made the choice to engage in a criminal enterprise. Then he made the choice to disobey the property owner. He 100% deserves what he got. This is black and white in my mind, without any of the grey area from the Joe Horn case.

The fact that you think I'd let someone walk up to me and take everything I own while I desperately called the police (who may not show up) speaks to your inability to comprehend the "no deadly force to protect property" argument.

When someone robs my person, my life is in danger, hence I get to use force, up to and including deadly force, not to protect my belongings, but because it is foreseeable that the person robbing me may kill me in the act. I do not approve of deadly force to save a Rolex (which I don't have) but I approve of deadly force where a criminal has created a danger to the possessor of the property he seeks to take.

That is the distinction. So let's at least argue the same point.

As to the facts in this case, if the owner reasonably felt in danger, he had a right to defend himself in the course of protecting his property. Clear? He is allowed to tell someone robbing him or trespassing to halt. If that person appears to become aggressive or reach for a weapon, the owner may then use force, even deadly, to protect himself. It is no longer about property at that point.

But one should not be able to simply kill another person just over property theft. The human danger element MUST be present. Texas law allows one to fire upon a person fleeing with property, or who is engaged in criminal mischief at night. I find those statutes objectionable as they permit deadly force absent specific danger.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: jonks
But one should not be able to simply kill another person just over property theft. The human danger element MUST be present. Texas law allows one to fire upon a person fleeing with property, or who is engaged in criminal mischief at night. I find those statutes objectionable as they permit deadly force absent specific danger.

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: jonks
But one should not be able to simply kill another person just over property theft. The human danger element MUST be present. Texas law allows one to fire upon a person fleeing with property, or who is engaged in criminal mischief at night. I find those statutes objectionable as they permit deadly force absent specific danger.

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

Well now we've distilled the argument at least

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: jonks
But one should not be able to simply kill another person just over property theft. The human danger element MUST be present. Texas law allows one to fire upon a person fleeing with property, or who is engaged in criminal mischief at night. I find those statutes objectionable as they permit deadly force absent specific danger.

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

Well now we've distilled the argument at least

Someone stealing is putting themselves at risk of death, IMO. You can dance around it and say that you would use force to stop someone, but that can easily escalate to deadly force. What do you expect a 70 year old woman to do as a 25 year old ex-con loads her TV, computer and VCR into his van?

 

[Skitzer]

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

Wow ..... this speaks volumes. You are an angry dangerous person.
We'll be reading about you in the papers some day.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: jonks
But one should not be able to simply kill another person just over property theft. The human danger element MUST be present. Texas law allows one to fire upon a person fleeing with property, or who is engaged in criminal mischief at night. I find those statutes objectionable as they permit deadly force absent specific danger.

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

When you are being prosecuted, can you hold up a cardboard sign saying something like: "Sup ATP&N...It's me, Nebor"?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

Wow ..... this speaks volumes. You are an angry dangerous person.
We'll be reading about you in the papers some day.

If you ever do, it'll be just like the story in the OP. I'm not one to lay down and let thieves walk all over me.

I'm not angry, or particularly dangerous. Just a regular guy who wants to keep what he's earned. The idea that someone who would fight a criminal is an "angry dangerous person" is ludicrous.

It baffles me how many Americans these days are simply willing to take everything laying down.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: jonks
But one should not be able to simply kill another person just over property theft. The human danger element MUST be present. Texas law allows one to fire upon a person fleeing with property, or who is engaged in criminal mischief at night. I find those statutes objectionable as they permit deadly force absent specific danger.

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

When you are being prosecuted, can you hold up a cardboard sign saying something like: "Sup ATP&N...It's me, Nebor"?

It's not illegal in Texas, if you reasonably believe you wouldn't otherwise recover your property.

What do you suppose happened with the guy in the OP? He was waiting for the criminal, gave him the ultimatum to stop or die, and then shot and killed him.

Don't you think you'd be happier in another state where you could properly coddle the criminals you adore?

 

[ericlp]

Well, another death for theft. I believe your gonna trespass and bring your tools to steal something off your property ... I am glad that these idiots are getting what they deserve.

I think these owners should have a few pit bulls. That would stop anyone from coming on to the property.

Just remember if your gonna pull these stunts... Make sure the MoFo is DEAD! You don't want to have a court case on your ass it makes it much simpler if the thief dies and can't come back to sue the shit out of you for his hospital bills.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Skitzer

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

Wow ..... this speaks volumes. You are an angry dangerous person.
We'll be reading about you in the papers some day.

If you ever do, it'll be just like the story in the OP. I'm not one to lay down and let thieves walk all over me.

I'm not angry, or particularly dangerous. Just a regular guy who wants to keep what he's earned. The idea that someone who would fight a criminal is an "angry dangerous person" is ludicrous.

It baffles me how many Americans these days are simply willing to take everything laying down.

The idea that someone would fight crime isn't a sign of an "angry, dangerous person". The ideal that someone would shoot a person in the back over a couple hundred dollar laptop most certainly is however.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: jonks
But one should not be able to simply kill another person just over property theft. The human danger element MUST be present. Texas law allows one to fire upon a person fleeing with property, or who is engaged in criminal mischief at night. I find those statutes objectionable as they permit deadly force absent specific danger.

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

Well now we've distilled the argument at least

Someone stealing is putting themselves at risk of death, IMO. You can dance around it and say that you would use force to stop someone, but that can easily escalate to deadly force. What do you expect a 70 year old woman to do as a 25 year old ex-con loads her TV, computer and VCR into his van?

I expect her to resist in her own right or call the police. If she holds a gun on a guy and he tries to enter her house to steal she has a right to shoot b/c we don't put the burden on the homeowner to guess what the crook has in mind. If he has already gotten a tv out into a truck and is getting ready to flee, she doesn't get to kill him. If he tries to come back for the computer is walking towards her house, refuses to stop, she can shoot b/c she doesn't know if he is going to just steal or attack her.

Human danger, not mere protection of possessions.

For the record, I don't think you're an angry dangerous person, we just have different ideas about when force is acceptable. Many of your posts in the past have been more measured than the folks who said that even if they disarmed a housethief and got them on their knees they'd shoot them in the head while waiting for the police.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: jonks
But one should not be able to simply kill another person just over property theft. The human danger element MUST be present. Texas law allows one to fire upon a person fleeing with property, or who is engaged in criminal mischief at night. I find those statutes objectionable as they permit deadly force absent specific danger.

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

When you are being prosecuted, can you hold up a cardboard sign saying something like: "Sup ATP&N...It's me, Nebor"?

What do you suppose happened with the guy in the OP? He was waiting for the criminal, gave him the ultimatum to stop or die, and then shot and killed him.

Can you show where he gave the ALLEGED perp the ultimatum? While you are at it, I'm still waiting for you to show where you got the $10k figure from also?

 

[OutHouse]

copper thieves have been stealing copper from Denver's light rail tracks. the problem is the wire they are stealing is part of the mechanism used to stop the light rail train.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well since he has the guy in the midst of the crime he should have called the cops and waited for them to show up.

I understand shooting someone who enters your house etc, but shooting someone who is of no danger to you is a little extreme.

I agree to that. So long as the police exist we may as well use them. A camera/video recorder of the criminal in the act goes a long way.

The person who introduces violence into the encounter should be guilty of the violence that results from it.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I'm not familiar with Texas law, but I think the assumption that many posters made here that lethal force in protection of your property is allowable is probably wrong. That would be contrary to the vast body of US law-since the founding of our country. Lethal force to defend life is a completely different matter.

That said, metal thieves are getting out of control. Just this morning there was a letter in our local paper about a theft of those small bronze flag holders from veteran's graves. Many cities are also having a problem with manhole cover thefts (for the steel). Hopefully the Christian concept of a hell afterlife is valid.

States have laws on pawnshops that are reasonably effective in preventin thieves from fencing their goods there. We need similar laws for scrap metal dealers. What honest businessman would buy an armload of graveside flag holders from some junkie?

maybe you should make yourself a but more familiar with Texas law before you post...

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Skitzer

If I see someone walking off with my laptop, they're getting one in the back. Simple.

Wow ..... this speaks volumes. You are an angry dangerous person.
We'll be reading about you in the papers some day.

If you ever do, it'll be just like the story in the OP. I'm not one to lay down and let thieves walk all over me.

I'm not angry, or particularly dangerous. Just a regular guy who wants to keep what he's earned. The idea that someone who would shoot someone in the back because he has walked away with your notebook is an "angry dangerous person" is right on the mark.

It baffles me how many Americans these days are simply willing to place value on a life.

Fixed it for you.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
.... "cleanup on isle 4". More states need to make the laws such that you can defend your life and your property any way you see fit.

:roll:
So if Nebor catches you ripping him off he should be able to torture your ass with a cattle prod?

na just you. i would sell tickets to the event too!

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: Nebor
you must ride to work every day on a god damn unicorn, make a bunch of lollipops, and then head home over the rainbow.

I pretty much totally agree with you on the gun issues and defending yourself but this unicorn raibow thing you use in your posts makes you sound like an epic tard. Why not just argue your point intelligently?

 

[rpanic]

People that do these crimes do it for a living it?s not a one time deal. They are causing thousands of dollars of damage for a few dollars and putting people?s lives at risk in some cases. If I could have been able to shoot the guy that stole my catalytic converter from my truck a couple of month ago I would have but I live in CA so even if I had caught him nothing would have happened and he would still be stealing. I called several repair shops to get quotes all of which told me they do about 3 repairs a week for thieves stealing catalytic converters. These metal thieves are nothing more than parasites causing misery onto others.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jonks
And when a teenager is shot dead for going on a roof to get back a frisbee or baseball or something, it will be called a tragedy, but what can you do, it's part of the cost of defending property by blowing people away. If a few teenagers have to die so someone doesn't steal my copper, so be it.

Either human life is worth more than material things, or it's not. When your life is not in danger, shooting and killing someone is just not warranted.

Insert certifiably insane argument here: "I buy material things with my hard earned money so when someone steals from me they are stealing my life and I have a right to defend my life"

I take it that you feel that people do not have common sense when determining what is theft. The government has enough faith in judges to allow them the flexibility of determining sentence; most people also have that same type of judgment.

It is because of the swinging pendulum of coddling the criminals that you are seeing the response to it.

Coddling has not reversed the crime rate; try another way.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well since he has the guy in the midst of the crime he should have called the cops and waited for them to show up.

I understand shooting someone who enters your house etc, but shooting someone who is of no danger to you is a little extreme.

The police don't come. We're talking about the same city where 2 men were shot to death on the main road through town in the dead of night... and weren't found until a jogger came across them the next morning.

This guy has called the cops repeatedly, and they don't come. Are you telling me you'd sit idly by, watching someone steal $10,000 from you, which might be several months of hard earnings to you? Fuck that.

He might have come for the copper, but he left with lead.

Not if the bullets were copper jacketed.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: rpanic
People that do these crimes do it for a living it?s not a one time deal. They are causing thousands of dollars of damage for a few dollars and putting people?s lives at risk in some cases. If I could have been able to shoot the guy that stole my catalytic converter from my truck a couple of month ago I would have but I live in CA so even if I had caught him nothing would have happened and he would still be stealing. I called several repair shops to get quotes all of which told me they do about 3 repairs a week for thieves stealing catalytic converters. These metal thieves are nothing more than parasites causing misery onto others.

So you're telling me they just let thieves go in CA?
I'm sorry ..... don't buy it. The California prisons are full of thieves.
C'mon tell it like it is ..... you're pissed off and you'd just like to shoot the guy to relieve your anger ..... be honest about it.
I can't believe anyone would take a human life over a few hundred dollars. This totally astounds me.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess we need to add Garland County to the short list of Texas "good ol' boy legal network" counties that need investigating.

Congresswoman calls for investigation in Horn case

The recent grand jury decision to not levy charges against Joe Horn is continuing to reverberate.

At a Sunday news conference, U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, called for a congressional investigation into Harris County. She cited recent legal system controversies in calling for the probe, including the high-profile case involving the Pasadena resident.

[...]

Meanwhile, Jackson Lee cited not only the Horn case but several other problems within the Harris County law enforcement community as an impetus for an investigation.

Problems in the Harris County Sheriff?s Office, Harris County Jail, the District Attorney?s Office and Houston Police Department crime lab were also cited.

The mounting problems, Jackson Lee said, raises questions about how partial the system can be. She called for congressional hearings into any biases in the Harris County court system and a federal investigation of the sheriff?s office.

?With the many misgivings surrounding the Harris County legal system, it is fair to say that this local judicial system has been tarnished,? she said at the news conference.

http://www.hcnonline.com/site/...1&dept_id=532238&rfi=6

The city of Garland is in Dallas county. The Sheriff of Dallas County is a lesbian latina born to migrant workers. Yes, quite the "good ol' boy" system we have 'round here.

Let's not forget, She hates the idea of civilians having guns too.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: rpanic
People that do these crimes do it for a living it?s not a one time deal. They are causing thousands of dollars of damage for a few dollars and putting people?s lives at risk in some cases. If I could have been able to shoot the guy that stole my catalytic converter from my truck a couple of month ago I would have but I live in CA so even if I had caught him nothing would have happened and he would still be stealing. I called several repair shops to get quotes all of which told me they do about 3 repairs a week for thieves stealing catalytic converters. These metal thieves are nothing more than parasites causing misery onto others.

So you're telling me they just let thieves go in CA?
I'm sorry ..... don't buy it. The California prisons are full of thieves.
C'mon tell it like it is ..... you're pissed off and you'd just like to shoot the guy to relieve your anger ..... be honest about it.
I can't believe anyone would take a human life over a few hundred dollars. This totally astounds me.

There was a case where I live where copper thieves stole a few thousand dollars worth of cable by destroying air conditioning units on a building which will end up costing over $250,000 to repair. There have been cases where street lights and other infrastructure are ruined which can put people's lives at risk and/or cause a great deal of discomfort and misery (imagine not having any air conditioning in the hot summer).

I agree with rpanic in that I feel these crimes are very serious -- so serious that I don't feel bad if I hear that one of them died (whether being shot at or accidentally electrocuting themselves) while trying to steal copper.