Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: Nebor
Wasn't me. I'm not being investigated. And neither is the business owner in this case. Texas law requires a grand jury be convened for every homicide, but they will be presented with no evidence, and the DA and defense attorney will both argue against an indictment.
Dereliction of duty is a federal crime or don't they know that?
Originally posted by: Nebor
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.
Originally posted by: MadRat
Originally posted by: Pabster
Every business owner has the right to defend and protect their property, up to and including deadly force if necessary. Perhaps incidents like this will deter the idiots running around stealing copper in the future. What a waste of time.
Wrong. Coming from you I'd expect this.
They do not have a right in Texas, the D.A. is merely being a prick to the criminals shot dead by not presenting evidence to the grand jury. There are clear federal statutes about this type of behavior and when GW is out of office I hope the new guy - whomever it is - takes steps to fix Texas. The problem with presidents running the federal A.G.'s office is for stuff like this. They turn a blind eye to justice as they see fit.
It would be convenient to shoot every criminal in every case. But as a previous poster suggested, the public simply goes overboard with a right like that. Allowing such asinine behavior is sure to turn more people against gun ownership.
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.
Originally posted by: Citrix
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...
You don't get out much do you. After he takes your Rolex and your wallet, he very well might just kill you because he doesn't want to go to jail, and you can send him there if you give his description to the police.Originally posted by: 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.
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.
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: 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.
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.
Originally posted by: 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?
Originally posted by: 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.
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.
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Craig234
I think it's foolish for people to only be concerned about justice after the crime is committed. Misguided ideology can be the enemy to effective crime prevention ('don't spend a cent on anything to reduce crime, it's simply their choice not to commit the crime, end of story').
I didn't want to quote your whole post, for length reasons, but you must ride to work every day on a god damn unicorn, make a bunch of lollipops, and then head home over the rainbow.
Your viewpoint is unrealistic in the face of someone stealing from you, directly in front of you. Especially when it's $10,000 at a time from your discount furniture store. They could be stealing the food from your mouth.
I respect life too, Craig. I don't believe in the death penalty. I think the prison system should be geared more towards it's stated goal of rehabilitation instead of mere punishment. I understand and know for a fact that a poor economy will cause more crime. But your unwillingness to resist crime simply lowers the cost, and makes crime more likely to be committed in aggregate.
I respect you, and I respect your property. I treat others with respect, and their things with the same care I afford my own things. But if you think you can steal the things that I"ve worked hard for? 100% guaranteed to be the biggest, and last mistake you've ever made.
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: Nebor
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.
His attitude breeds crime because he thinks the criminal deserves more rights than the victim.
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: jonks
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.
You don't get out much do you. After he takes your Rolex and your wallet, he very well might just kill you because he doesn't want to go to jail, and you can send him there if you give his description to the police.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Craig234
I think it's foolish for people to only be concerned about justice after the crime is committed. Misguided ideology can be the enemy to effective crime prevention ('don't spend a cent on anything to reduce crime, it's simply their choice not to commit the crime, end of story').
I didn't want to quote your whole post, for length reasons, but you must ride to work every day on a god damn unicorn, make a bunch of lollipops, and then head home over the rainbow.
Your viewpoint is unrealistic in the face of someone stealing from you, directly in front of you. Especially when it's $10,000 at a time from your discount furniture store. They could be stealing the food from your mouth.
I respect life too, Craig. I don't believe in the death penalty. I think the prison system should be geared more towards it's stated goal of rehabilitation instead of mere punishment. I understand and know for a fact that a poor economy will cause more crime. But your unwillingness to resist crime simply lowers the cost, and makes crime more likely to be committed in aggregate.
I respect you, and I respect your property. I treat others with respect, and their things with the same care I afford my own things. But if you think you can steal the things that I"ve worked hard for? 100% guaranteed to be the biggest, and last mistake you've ever made.
Other than the defense of killing over property crimes, that's the most reasonable post I ever recall you making, Nebor. And I'm not opposed to the use of force to defend your property, as I said, as long as every reasonable effort is made for the confrontation to not turn violent. I have a lot more sympathy/empathy for the criminals than you, but I have quite a bit for the victim as well and think the crime does need to be opposed.
It's a bit odd though that you did not say a word about the prevention issue.
Originally posted by: Thump553
Originally posted by: Citrix
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...
Rather than ask me to do free legal research for you, I suggest rather that you provide SOME authority for the proposisiton that it is the law in Texas that you can use deadly force to defend property when no one's life was put in danger. As I indicated that is contrary to the great weight of American jurisprudence. But I'm certainly not going to give a free legal opinion about Texas law over the internet.
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: jonks
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.
You don't get out much do you. After he takes your Rolex and your wallet, he very well might just kill you because he doesn't want to go to jail, and you can send him there if you give his description to the police.
Re-read what I wrote above. It seems you are missing the distinction I make between killing over property where there is no threat or danger to human life and where there is such a threat.
If I am being robbed, THERE IS A SUCH A THREAT TO MY LIFE AND I CAN USE FORCE, INCLUDING DEADLY FORCE, TO RESIST. Clear? When a person is being mugged, their life is in danger and they can shoot the fucker as soon as they get a chance, in order to end the event or discourage or prevent it, but NOT once the mugger is running away with the loot, and the DANGER HAS PASSED.
Say someone breaks into your home, you get the drop on them, disarm them, and call the police, and sit there with a gun trained on them until the cops show. Would you advocate executing this person before the cops arrive because he someday might come back to get revenge on you? Careful, because this answer will say a lot about you and the type of world you think we should live in.
You also seem to think that advocating against using deadly force when there is no threat to anyone's life is a position of weakness instead of a position personal morality. I don't advocate killing over property. Nebor would shoot someone in the back if they ran away with his laptop, I would not. Not out of weakness, but because I don't believe taking someone's life over a laptop is worth it.
Originally posted by: cruzer
Don't think of it as killing a criminal, think of it as a retroactive abortion. Liberals love abortion, right?
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: jonks
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.
You don't get out much do you. After he takes your Rolex and your wallet, he very well might just kill you because he doesn't want to go to jail, and you can send him there if you give his description to the police.
Re-read what I wrote above. It seems you are missing the distinction I make between killing over property where there is no threat or danger to human life and where there is such a threat.
If I am being robbed, THERE IS A SUCH A THREAT TO MY LIFE AND I CAN USE FORCE, INCLUDING DEADLY FORCE, TO RESIST. Clear? When a person is being mugged, their life is in danger and they can shoot the fucker as soon as they get a chance, in order to end the event or discourage or prevent it, but NOT once the mugger is running away with the loot, and the DANGER HAS PASSED.
Say someone breaks into your home, you get the drop on them, disarm them, and call the police, and sit there with a gun trained on them until the cops show. Would you advocate executing this person before the cops arrive because he someday might come back to get revenge on you? Careful, because this answer will say a lot about you and the type of world you think we should live in.
You also seem to think that advocating against using deadly force when there is no threat to anyone's life is a position of weakness instead of a position personal morality. I don't advocate killing over property. Nebor would shoot someone in the back if they ran away with his laptop, I would not. Not out of weakness, but because I don't believe taking someone's life over a laptop is worth it.
Wrong. you can still shoot the bastard.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Craig234
I think it's foolish for people to only be concerned about justice after the crime is committed. Misguided ideology can be the enemy to effective crime prevention ('don't spend a cent on anything to reduce crime, it's simply their choice not to commit the crime, end of story').
I didn't want to quote your whole post, for length reasons, but you must ride to work every day on a god damn unicorn, make a bunch of lollipops, and then head home over the rainbow.
Your viewpoint is unrealistic in the face of someone stealing from you, directly in front of you. Especially when it's $10,000 at a time from your discount furniture store. They could be stealing the food from your mouth.
I respect life too, Craig. I don't believe in the death penalty. I think the prison system should be geared more towards it's stated goal of rehabilitation instead of mere punishment. I understand and know for a fact that a poor economy will cause more crime. But your unwillingness to resist crime simply lowers the cost, and makes crime more likely to be committed in aggregate.
I respect you, and I respect your property. I treat others with respect, and their things with the same care I afford my own things. But if you think you can steal the things that I"ve worked hard for? 100% guaranteed to be the biggest, and last mistake you've ever made.
Other than the defense of killing over property crimes, that's the most reasonable post I ever recall you making, Nebor. And I'm not opposed to the use of force to defend your property, as I said, as long as every reasonable effort is made for the confrontation to not turn violent. I have a lot more sympathy/empathy for the criminals than you, but I have quite a bit for the victim as well and think the crime does need to be opposed.
It's a bit odd though that you did not say a word about the prevention issue.
It's a bit late for prevention when somebody is walking off with your things.
Originally posted by: cruzer
Don't think of it as killing a criminal, think of it as a retroactive abortion. Liberals love abortion, right?