Seriously. Do better than some knee jerk emotional reaction to factual statements. There is almost unlimited precedence for LEOs fucking this kind of situation up far more badly than what actually happened.Feel free to eat a dick.
The difference being that the police are the ones responsible for maintaining law and order FOR citizens, and are better equipped to deal with it. Doesn't mean they always do, but they are typically better trained than civilians.Yeah bro. Police never end up with carnage and chaos over an armed car thief.
GTA 5 taught me it do be like that.
Let me paint you a different picture than the one being repeatedly painted in this thread. You let him steal the truck and report it stolen. The cops see him in traffic, run the tags, go for the arrest. The perp, you know the guy that pulled a gun and shot the owner, yeah, that guy. Makes different but equally reckless decisions, a police chase ensues. He plows through a car carrying kids to their soccer game. (since some of you have already played the "won't someone please think of the children!" card) Or a pregnant woman. Or he plows through multiple vehicles injuring or even killing multiple victims. Or he shoots some of the cops, other motorist, pedestrians. The list goes on. We are playing what if? and the list of answers to that question are nearly endless.
The potential for chaos and carnage isn't constrained to the scenario that played out, and what could have gone wrong but didn't. Until the laws change, what the guy did was kosher. You don't have to like or agree with it. My contention is that failure to consider the alternative of allowing the police you pay taxes for to handle it, could have had even worse results. Making any what if? argument silly IMO.
As to the dumbass questions about how do you know he was even the guy that stole the truck? Who gives a shit. He was guy willing to shoot and kill the owner instead of waiting for LEOs and working it out that way.
And come at me however you want in response. I am not budging from my position and neither are you. Ain't P&N grand?
The difference being that the police are the ones responsible for maintaining law and order FOR citizens, and are better equipped to deal with it. Doesn't mean they always do, but they are typically better trained than civilians.
I do think that upon confrontation, the owner attempted to handle it properly by detaining them and waiting for the police to arrive. I'm just not convinced that he needed to confront the thief himself.
I am not contending that. Again, don't have to like or agree with what he did. But until the laws change is was acceptable behavior. And considering how brief and poor LEO training is in most places, I am not convinced many of them are any better qualified than a military vet or well trained citizen.The difference being that the police are the ones responsible for maintaining law and order FOR citizens, and are better equipped to deal with it. Doesn't mean they always do, but they are typically better trained than civilians.
I do think that upon confrontation, the owner attempted to handle it properly by detaining them and waiting for the police to arrive. I'm just not convinced that he needed to confront the thief himself.
I guess I am according to your shitty standards.Are you grass fed?
Yeah, your reverence for life is what exudes from your hostile responses.I guess I am according to your shitty standards.
Feel free to fuck off because I feel life is more important than self defense.
If that's what actually happened. Dead men tell no tales. Not sure how many eye witnesses either.If the thief hadn't attempted to add murder to the theft, I imagine he'd still be alive, just in jail. Truck owner tried to secure his property without deadly force, but someone thought a truck was worth more than life and started shooting. At that point you do what you need to do to not die, Texas or anywhere else. I don't like citizens playing cops, but I do think it's important to note that the gunfire wasn't initiated by the truck owner. Remember, if it comes down to you or them - send flowers.
...
I have to admit that if it were my truck, I'd immediately confront them while hopefully remembering in the moment to call the Po-Po. Fwiw, I don't carry. Also, these days, I'm old but I'm slow. But, I guess, I'm a little bit primitive that way. MY FUCKING VEHICLE, you know?I do think that upon confrontation, the owner attempted to handle it properly by detaining them and waiting for the police to arrive. I'm just not convinced that he needed to confront the thief himself.
What more details are needed? Some here say he's making a citizen arrest. Others he's being a vigilante. Yes the thief shot first, but only because the truck owner already escalated the matter. Self defense isn't when you started the encounter. In a civilized society, he'd be charged for manslaughter. Sadly because he's in Texas, he's being proclaimed a hero. A hero of idiots.
Maybe use ur gun and shoot out all the tires. Much cheaper to replace tires than fix errant bullets. Ain’t going nowhere fast with 4 flats, even on a truck.I am sure he did that though. Would you just stand there as they came back and would drive away with your vehicle? Or would you do something? Suppose you were carrying and you know there is a high probability he was too.
Unless one is made of money I think most people would act. America has chosen that guns is a factor in every confrontation so it is what it is. IMO.
Yea, that was my idea as well, but with a knife, anyway these kind of things is easy from behind a desk and 20/20.. In the situation, emotions, adrenaline etc....Maybe use ur gun and shoot out all the tires. Much cheaper to replace tires than fix errant bullets. Ain’t going nowhere fast with 4 flats, even on a truck.
That reads like you are suffering cognitive dissonance. But actually understand what you mean, being a fellow Florida man. It'll be the hurricanes that chase me out, not the crazy they put in the water here. I am a future climate refugee.I'll be moving when I'm able to a more sane state but the insanity is nation-wide.
If that's what actually happened. Dead men tell no tales. Not sure how many eye witnesses either.
Come on man. You are reaching further than Reed Richards here. He is implying that maybe "Han shot first." The other dude is dead so how can he contest it. You'd think he'd put a couple more in the GF and say she went for the gun if that was the case. While dead men tell no tales, if the GF makes it, she certainly could.You're not seriously implying the owner paid the guy to drive his truck with his girlfriend and be his willing purge victims are you??
Video and def. audio should clear that up.Come on man. You are reaching further than Reed Richards here. He is implying that maybe "Han shot first." The other dude is dead so how can he contest it. You'd think he'd put a couple more in the GF and say she went for the gun if that was the case. While dead men tell no tales, if the GF makes it, she certainly could.
. . .I am sure he did that though. Would you just stand there as they came back and would drive away with your vehicle? Or would you do something? Suppose you were carrying and you know there is a high probability he was too.
Unless one is made of money I think most people would act. America has chosen that guns is a factor in every confrontation so it is what it is. IMO.
I am in California. I am not carrying. And he isn't either.Suppose you were carrying and you know there is a high probability he was too.
umUnless one is made of money I think most people would act.
absolutely not, I would call the authoritiesWould you just stand there as they came back and would drive away with your vehicle?
follow from a long distance, update the 911 dispatcher where my vehicle is going, follow traffic lawsOr would you do something?
no. Even in Texas this guy could have called the authorities.America has chosen that guns is a factor in every confrontation so it is what it is
Why shouldn't he? Who is really lying? What the link tells us is that the man tracked down his truck. Do we know what that means. To me it means he had a way to locate his truck like when my phone tells me where I parked my car. When the purported thief pulled a gun and fired on the actual owner the owner had every right to defend himself, but the way I read the link is that he voluntarily put himself in harms way which to me means he voluntarily put himself in a position where he could justify killing another person over a stolen truck. That was, in my opinion, a dick move. We have no idea if he was the actual thief or the motive for it if he was. I can think of many reasons where I or someone else might be impelled and justified in stealing a truck and would be glad it had been mine.Lies.
The thief was killed for his attempt to shoot and kill the owner.
That is absolutely justifiable self defense on the owner's part.
Did he HAVE to get into that situation? No.
Did he have every right to confront the thief? Yes.
Responsibility is on the thief for escalating it to a shootout.
And you blame the victim, who is the owner.
If you didn't steal something, would you happily sit and wait for the police at gunpoint? Or is it possible you would fear for you and your girlfriends safety? Even if he was the actual thief, fear for his and his girlfriends safety could still be the catalyst as the truck owner approached him at gunpoint, and we don't really know his demeaner when doing so, specially when he was most likely running on anger and pure adrenaline, which interferes with rational thought. This is a perfect example of why you should contact the police and let them do their job that they are trained for.If he didn't steal it, he'd be happy to wait for the police to clear things up.. but clearly he wanted to shoot his way out of it and endanger his own life and his girlfriends.
Overall, what difference does it make since he initiated the shootout.
I don't feel this is totally accurate. When the owner of the truck pulled his gun on the occupants, he implied deadly force will be used. which means he did not try to secure his property without deadly force. The minute he pulled his gun he demonstrated deadly force was immanent. Just because he didn't pull the trigger doesn't imply deadly force wasn't in play. You don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it. So you can't say he tried without deadly force because pulling a gun is the first step of deadly force. We Also don't know the demeaner of the truck owner, as he was most likely angry and running on adrenaline. It's very possible that the man in the truck guilty or not of stealing it, feared for his life beings he had a gun pointed at him, and it had nothing to do with stealing the truck, but that of self preservation and fear for his own life, not that of going to jail. But we will never know what his motives where.If the thief hadn't attempted to add murder to the theft, I imagine he'd still be alive, just in jail. Truck owner tried to secure his property without deadly force, but someone thought a truck was worth more than life and started shooting. At that point you do what you need to do to not die, Texas or anywhere else. I don't like citizens playing cops, but I do think it's important to note that the gunfire wasn't initiated by the truck owner. Remember, if it comes down to you or them - send flowers.
Ideally the guy should have maintained surveillance on his truck, routed cops to his location and let them handle it. Maybe he did and was tired of waiting? I feel like more details are needed but ultimately this kind of thing shouldn't result in someone getting killed. That thief could have been a good guy, maybe a dad to someone, maybe was going through times hard enough to compel him to steal vehicles. No getting back to a better place in life now though, whereas trucks can be recovered or replaced. I hope all the rednecks rejoicing over this story eventually come to understand that, though I admit it's unlikely. This kind of act makes you a celebrity in the South, has for a long time.
That's probably what would have happened if he had just waited for the cops...but instead, he shot the truck owner...turning the attempt to detain him i to a self-defense gunfight.
Come on man. You are reaching further than Reed Richards here. He is implying that maybe "Han shot first." The other dude is dead so how can he contest it. You'd think he'd put a couple more in the GF and say she went for the gun if that was the case. While dead men tell no tales, if the GF makes it, she certainly could.
Why that? I'd be surprised if there's a .22 though. Its just not manly enough.And I'm curious what calibers they were.. like a .22 vs a 9mm or what?
What dank said was that we do not know all the details of the situation. Your fourth version of truth is bull shit because what the evidence is is only what somebody interprets it to be. Evidence and facts can be quite different things. And there was no way on earth that dank was implying what you questioned him of saying. I don't see a joke but rather you defending your psychologically defective notions of the proper use punishment as a preventative of crime. It looks more like you are looking to relieve your feelings of anger by seeing somebody else hurt. You need help with that as we all do.Was a joke since I thought dank69 was reaching for something without actual proof leading to it.
As always there's 4 versions of the truth: two of the opposing sides, what we individually think happened and the actual truth based on the evidence.
That said the shell casings and where they were found, should also tell the story where the shooting occurred. And I'm curious what calibers they were.. like a .22 vs a 9mm or what?