-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Texas Beer Bandits shot
- Thread starter hamourkiller
- Start date
imported post
If someone takes a penny from the ashtray of someone else's car and runs off.... you chase after them and can kill them if they are big enough to hurt you.
Also, nobody answered my question. Does the law allow for you to do this if it is not your own property? The store owner is NOT who shot them. The clerk shot them. This is going to end up making some Walmart employee think it's OK to shoot you in the back because they think you've stolen a candy bar. Imagine the person at the door being busy for a second as you walk by. You get out the door and they yell at you to stop. You don't hear them. They then shoot you in the back to "prevent" the possible theft.
I know they aren't sure if you've stolen it, but still it just seems like such a loosely defined law will end up encouraging this kind of thing to happen. I certainly hope it doesn't, but I will not be visiting Texas anytime soon because of this law specifically. I don't want to have some simple confusion result in a gunfight, as I will fire back if I'm cornered and fired upon for no reason.
Here's the thing, that comparison should have read:
If someone takes a penny from the ashtray of someone else's car and runs off.... you chase after them and can kill them if they are big enough to hurt you.
Also, nobody answered my question. Does the law allow for you to do this if it is not your own property? The store owner is NOT who shot them. The clerk shot them. This is going to end up making some Walmart employee think it's OK to shoot you in the back because they think you've stolen a candy bar. Imagine the person at the door being busy for a second as you walk by. You get out the door and they yell at you to stop. You don't hear them. They then shoot you in the back to "prevent" the possible theft.
I know they aren't sure if you've stolen it, but still it just seems like such a loosely defined law will end up encouraging this kind of thing to happen. I certainly hope it doesn't, but I will not be visiting Texas anytime soon because of this law specifically. I don't want to have some simple confusion result in a gunfight, as I will fire back if I'm cornered and fired upon for no reason.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Weak 9mm wrote:
Now as to the topic in general:
Saying: "Well, ya know, it was legal in the location in which it occurred and stealing people's stuff, regardless of what it is, is dangerous and rightfully so" is not the same as, "Hell, yeah, I would do the same thing! Actually hoping it happens sometimes and I bait my yard with pennies and candybars hoping to lure children so I can shoot them." (note that is intentionally way over the top to make a point).
This was not a case of a child stealing a candy bar or any other alternative scenario. This was a case of two people who are old enough to know society's mores and that there are laws against theft stealing what is basically a recreational beverage. Now they know that in some places you very well may be shot if you steal. I personally wouldn't have shot in that situation based on the information in the article, however, I have no sympathy for the thieves. Whether or not they knew that they could get shot over it is irrelevant IMO. The grabbed and ran so obviously they knew they were doing something wrong. The only question here is consequences. They certainly must have been aware that they could be arrested and go to jail for theft. That the consequence was greater than they may have expected is just tough toenails as far as I am concerned.
ETA: If the shooting was illegal in TX, then the clerk should face appropriate charges for his actions. If the clerk's action was illegal I still have no sympathy for the thieves, however, I also have no sympathy for the clerk for whatever charges he faces.
Weak 9mm wrote:
I didn't quote you. I was making a general comment to the thread and the general discussion.
Now as to the topic in general:
Saying: "Well, ya know, it was legal in the location in which it occurred and stealing people's stuff, regardless of what it is, is dangerous and rightfully so" is not the same as, "Hell, yeah, I would do the same thing! Actually hoping it happens sometimes and I bait my yard with pennies and candybars hoping to lure children so I can shoot them." (note that is intentionally way over the top to make a point).
This was not a case of a child stealing a candy bar or any other alternative scenario. This was a case of two people who are old enough to know society's mores and that there are laws against theft stealing what is basically a recreational beverage. Now they know that in some places you very well may be shot if you steal. I personally wouldn't have shot in that situation based on the information in the article, however, I have no sympathy for the thieves. Whether or not they knew that they could get shot over it is irrelevant IMO. The grabbed and ran so obviously they knew they were doing something wrong. The only question here is consequences. They certainly must have been aware that they could be arrested and go to jail for theft. That the consequence was greater than they may have expected is just tough toenails as far as I am concerned.
ETA: If the shooting was illegal in TX, then the clerk should face appropriate charges for his actions. If the clerk's action was illegal I still have no sympathy for the thieves, however, I also have no sympathy for the clerk for whatever charges he faces.
imported post
Imagine if meet my mom at the mall and I ask her for a dollar or something from her car. My mom says, "sure go out and get a dollar from my glovebox, the car's unlocked." A crazy crimestopper sees her park without me in the car a few minutes prior. I go out, get the money and the crazy pulls out a gun and points it at me. He starts yelling at me to stop and since I have no idea what the hell he's doing other than pointing a gun and screaming, I try to run while simultaneously pulling my weapon. He gets off a number of shots and hits and kills me. It seems perfectly possible to me that some idiot would do this, thinking he was being a good samaritan, if in fact this law allows you to "protect" others property.
I like how calling you an idiot one time and rather indirectly at that, somehow means that everything I said had no reason and was "all name calling and insults."
Imagine if meet my mom at the mall and I ask her for a dollar or something from her car. My mom says, "sure go out and get a dollar from my glovebox, the car's unlocked." A crazy crimestopper sees her park without me in the car a few minutes prior. I go out, get the money and the crazy pulls out a gun and points it at me. He starts yelling at me to stop and since I have no idea what the hell he's doing other than pointing a gun and screaming, I try to run while simultaneously pulling my weapon. He gets off a number of shots and hits and kills me. It seems perfectly possible to me that some idiot would do this, thinking he was being a good samaritan, if in fact this law allows you to "protect" others property.
I deleted my posts because I was getting nowhere. You were quoting single sentences and taking them completely out of context, and I got tired of it. So I wrote what you wanted to hear, "kill, kill, kill."
I like how calling you an idiot one time and rather indirectly at that, somehow means that everything I said had no reason and was "all name calling and insults."
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Weak 9mm wrote:
Weak 9mm wrote:
That is an interesting question as to the nature and application of the law and does bring up a substantial potential problem. A presumed theft leading to deadly force is obviously different than an obvious, in process theft/robbery. I would like to think that people would know the difference, but unfortunately we know that is not the case.
imported post
"I know they aren't sure if you've stolen it, but still it just seems like such a loosely defined law will end up encouraging this kind of thing to happen. I certainly hope it doesn't, but I will not be visiting Texas anytime soon because of this law specifically. I don't want to have some simple confusion result in a gunfight, as I will fire back if I'm cornered and fired upon for no reason."
Yeah that's what I was saying in the post before the one you quoted, the one about the Walmart "bag checker." I think with the loosely defined nature of the law, there is a potential for such confusion to result in lethal force encounters. This is the part I was talking about:
"I know they aren't sure if you've stolen it, but still it just seems like such a loosely defined law will end up encouraging this kind of thing to happen. I certainly hope it doesn't, but I will not be visiting Texas anytime soon because of this law specifically. I don't want to have some simple confusion result in a gunfight, as I will fire back if I'm cornered and fired upon for no reason."
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
Most of you seem focused that the existing law in Texas is inappropriate and that citizens evidently should not participate in such a lawdepending on whatever the monetary value is of what they are stealing.
You all seem to focus your attentionon the shooter and not the actual criminals themselves. Quite frankly, this is the same logic used by the antis.Texas has put thieves on notice with this law and if petty thieves are willing to risk life and limb over whatever product they are stealing, than they are rolling the dice and taking their chances.
And one key piece of information about this case that apparently some of you are missing is that nobody died in this incident. The criminals were wounded and are stable.
Nobody died for beer... :quirky
And I'd be willing to bet that these thieveswill choose a different career path.
Shoot down the Texas law all you want, that's a fair argument. But when someone acts within the confines of an existinglaw, I don't see any reason to chastise the man. We weren't there, the media rarely gets all the information correct and we are Monday morning quarterbacking to the extreme.
Most of you seem focused that the existing law in Texas is inappropriate and that citizens evidently should not participate in such a lawdepending on whatever the monetary value is of what they are stealing.
You all seem to focus your attentionon the shooter and not the actual criminals themselves. Quite frankly, this is the same logic used by the antis.Texas has put thieves on notice with this law and if petty thieves are willing to risk life and limb over whatever product they are stealing, than they are rolling the dice and taking their chances.
And one key piece of information about this case that apparently some of you are missing is that nobody died in this incident. The criminals were wounded and are stable.
Nobody died for beer... :quirky
And I'd be willing to bet that these thieveswill choose a different career path.
Shoot down the Texas law all you want, that's a fair argument. But when someone acts within the confines of an existinglaw, I don't see any reason to chastise the man. We weren't there, the media rarely gets all the information correct and we are Monday morning quarterbacking to the extreme.
imported post
I think that when you try to kill someone over a few of someone else's dollars, that shows something about your character. Not that anyone is saying it's illegal, although nobody has shown me yet that it is legal to shoot over someone else's property there either. When it's something you've invested lots of your time in, and as such have actually given up part of your life to obtain, it becomes slightly more understandable, but only so much even then.
I will say that it does not appear that these were career theives. Not to say for certain that they weren't, but it just doesn't seem to be the case.
We do know, if the story is true, that there was no physical threat. I think acting within the law doesn't always mean you're doing the right thing and acting outside the law doesn't always mean you're doing the wrong thing. That's just my opinion though.
I think that when you try to kill someone over a few of someone else's dollars, that shows something about your character. Not that anyone is saying it's illegal, although nobody has shown me yet that it is legal to shoot over someone else's property there either. When it's something you've invested lots of your time in, and as such have actually given up part of your life to obtain, it becomes slightly more understandable, but only so much even then.
I will say that it does not appear that these were career theives. Not to say for certain that they weren't, but it just doesn't seem to be the case.
We do know, if the story is true, that there was no physical threat. I think acting within the law doesn't always mean you're doing the right thing and acting outside the law doesn't always mean you're doing the wrong thing. That's just my opinion though.
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
Weak 9mm wrote:
Weak 9mm wrote:
I would agree. I just don't think all of the pertinent information is available in that article for us to make such a furious debate over this!
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
I think according to Texas law you can use deadly force to protect any private property. May not be right, but according to the law the person was justified in the shooting.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
While I can see the potential for abuse for such a law, isn't the good sense of the common American what we constantly argue? Most of us believe strongly in the 2A. Most of us argue that citizens should be armed where they will as they will without gov't interference. We argue that the typical American who makes such a choice to be armed without limitation will make good decisions with their firearms, act appropriately, safely and intelligently, etc.
So if we object to such a law that is pretty open-ended, is that not arguing the anti's position that the public cannot be trusted with firearms because they will make bad decisions about when and where to shoot and that blood will be flowing in the streets? Is not saying you can be armed where and how you will but you cannot use the weapon except in certain state sanctioned situations no better than the anti's new attack strategy of saying, fine, have whatever gun you want unregistered, but access to ammo will be limited and your ammo will be registered? Where is that line? And if you can't protect property with your sidearm, doesn't that open up a whole other level of fine lines? Certainly in many situations the difference between protecting property and person is clear, but in others it is more gray. What about a car jacking without an obvious weapon? In some states you can use lethal force to prevent a car jacking under castle doctrine laws. Is that wrong too? A car is just personal property after all.
I don't have an answer at this moment. I'm just kicking out some questions that are bouncing around in my mind as I have been reading the latter part of this thread.
While I can see the potential for abuse for such a law, isn't the good sense of the common American what we constantly argue? Most of us believe strongly in the 2A. Most of us argue that citizens should be armed where they will as they will without gov't interference. We argue that the typical American who makes such a choice to be armed without limitation will make good decisions with their firearms, act appropriately, safely and intelligently, etc.
So if we object to such a law that is pretty open-ended, is that not arguing the anti's position that the public cannot be trusted with firearms because they will make bad decisions about when and where to shoot and that blood will be flowing in the streets? Is not saying you can be armed where and how you will but you cannot use the weapon except in certain state sanctioned situations no better than the anti's new attack strategy of saying, fine, have whatever gun you want unregistered, but access to ammo will be limited and your ammo will be registered? Where is that line? And if you can't protect property with your sidearm, doesn't that open up a whole other level of fine lines? Certainly in many situations the difference between protecting property and person is clear, but in others it is more gray. What about a car jacking without an obvious weapon? In some states you can use lethal force to prevent a car jacking under castle doctrine laws. Is that wrong too? A car is just personal property after all.
I don't have an answer at this moment. I'm just kicking out some questions that are bouncing around in my mind as I have been reading the latter part of this thread.
.40 Cal
State Researcher
imported post
LEO, when did you become a moderator? Where am I? Who am I?
LEO, when did you become a moderator? Where am I? Who am I?
.40 Cal
State Researcher
imported post
Thanks... I was getting worried there.
Thanks... I was getting worried there.
kurtmax_0
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Criminals in most states will steal like this. Walk in, obviously steal stuff and walk out. They know that nobody is going to stop them.
If I'm a store clerk I'm not going to stand in front of the door and get stabbed for trying to prevent them from leaving. I also can't shoot because that would be illegal, except in Texas...
LEO 229 wrote:
I sort of agree. But until someone gets shot for stealing a penny from an ashtray I'm gonna say this law is not rotten.
Criminals in most states will steal like this. Walk in, obviously steal stuff and walk out. They know that nobody is going to stop them.
If I'm a store clerk I'm not going to stand in front of the door and get stabbed for trying to prevent them from leaving. I also can't shoot because that would be illegal, except in Texas...