Texas Beer Bandits shot

[Jim675]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

snip:
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.

I agree. We can all come up with hypotheticals were he should / should not have shot. He apparently followed the law. BGs in custody. GG free. No community uprising with torches and pitchforks coming for the GG. Most of us support state's powers. The people of Texas have spoken.

edited: state's don't have rights, oops

 

[.40 Cal]

imported post

Right. This topic has run its course.:monkey

 

[Liko81]

imported post

Weak 9mm wrote:

That law is just rotten!

If someone take a penny from the ashtray of your car and runs off.... you chase after them and can kill them if they are big enough to hurt you. :uhoh:

I wonder how much of a threat these two young adults were at the time.

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.

The store owner, if not present, did not have control of the property; the night clerk did. Protection of one's own property extends not just to property you yourself own, but property you have lawful control of. Lawful control is basically the authorization to use, maintain and dispose of said property, AND the authority to make decisions regarding same. The clerk is authorized to sell merchandise, obligated to maintain it, and if a question comes up that is not answered in black and white through training, missives or directives, the clerk has the authority to make a judgement call rather than waking the property owner up. That allows the clerk to treat the property as if it were his own, and thus to use deadly force in defense of it.

In absence of either control or decision-making authority, it is a third person's property. In that case, deadly force is only justifiable in certain cases; you must be justified as if it were your own property, the harm being done must be theft or criminal mischief, and any one of the following; the third person has requested your help in protecting the property, you have a legal duty through agency, contract or employment to protect said property, or the third person is your spouse, parent, child, live-in, or ward.

The operable clause, which I though was universally assumed but apparently not, is this: you are only justified in using force (including deadly force)when and to the degree you reasonably believe the force is necessary. Killing someone over a penny is first unnecessary as defined by law; from a simple financial standpoint, you are spending 85 cents on a HydraShok to recover a penny, not to mention the price of a human life far exceeds a copper disc or lead slug.

This is why justification is a DEFENSE to a criminal act, not an exception stating that in fact the action was not a crime. If you shoot in defense of property, even your own, the DA can in fact decide to prosecute and you must tell the jury exactly why you thought it was necessary to end a man's life to protect or recover your property. No jury on this planet will see a need to kill over one penny. Where theline is drawn is decided on a case-by-case basis by the DA, grand jury and at trial.

 

[Weak 9mm]

imported post

Yeah I think he brought up the penny because it's really not that far off from a case of beer.

But if what you said about the clerk sort of being like the owner's "representative" (For lack of a better term) on the property is accurate, and if Texas law does allow for lethal force to be applied to a fleeing "non-combative" theif, then I guess his actions were legal. I'll be interested to see if there is any follow up to this incident and whether or not Texas law (Or courts) truly supports lethal force being applied in such a situation.

 

[Liko81]

imported post

John wrote:

I am your Soviet Flag flying next door neighbor and my words are backed with nuclear weapons. Douche bag.

Troll much?

Like it or not, we petitioned for statehood and were accepted. I think I'd like it if Texas became independent again. We'd join OPEC, the loss of refining capacity and oil reserves would further push up gas prices in what's left of the U.S.,and I get to live off your money for the rest of my life. Sounds like a sweet deal to me.

Texas isn't the only state with CD. It does happen to be the only state that eliminates the grey area between catching a guy committing the crime and catching a guy immediatelyon his way out afterwards.

Let's put it in other terms. You wake up to the sound of glass shattering in your home. You grab your bedside pistol and start clearing the house, and come across a burglar unhooking your $2000 custom-built computer tower (or stereo or flat-screen or whatever). He sees you, yanks out the last cables, grabs the box and runs toward the broken patio door frame through which he came in. At this point, the burglary has been committed and the criminal is escaping. You would not be shooting to prevent burglary, you would be shooting to stop the escape and recover stolen property. Only in Texas is that legal; anywhere else you'd be tried for and convicted of manslaughter, for shooting an intruder in your own home. THAT is why Texas has this law, otherwise it really waters down the power of Castle Doctrine because any evidence, even false or misleading, thatthe person was moving towards an exit negates your defense.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

hamourkiller wrote:

It is you who is illogical, you would let criminals run free to do death and mayhem at another crime scene because you are so morally bankrupt as to fear ptotecting your own property. This core issue has been argued multiple times. No shooting for property! I am togood for that! Yet the animals run free to prey on others down the street but it is not your fault in any manner oh no!

When people are brazen enough to walk in and steal as if it is a natural right, they are dangerous and deserve to be shot. Be it stealing beer or my lawn mower, they are predators who have lost their fear of us and should be put down. In your avoidance of your duty as a man to protect yourself and property you are helping to perpetuate criminal behavior.

I posted the story of the beer thieves remembering all of you moralists and brayers from ealier in the year when a beer thief got killed and the same indignation and posturing took place. Between then and now a young mother was gutted by these types of criminals! When they reveal themselves they must be stopped at every oportunity.

You and others like you, bear some responsibilty for this young womans death by perpetuating the idea that we must let the crimminal elements feed amongst us if all they are taking is PROPERTY. Only fight to save yourself or family from harm. You cant see that you are setting up the culture that allows a scum to casually walk in steal beer then walk down a street and casually kill a young mother. Then you have the gall to see yourself as superior to those of us who see these thieves as young predators not quite ready for prime time who need to be taught to leave others and their stuff alone!

I see you and your ilk as moral cowards to afraid to act when confronted by evil.

I enjoyed your post, but only to see how many informal logical fallacies I could pick out that you tried to pass off as arguments.

I think one of the main issues here is the stereotype of criminals. On one side, typically "conservative", criminals are evil people who were born evil and will forever be looking for ways to harm humanity. On the other side, typically "liberal", criminals are merely outcasts in society that must be forgiven and helped through their troubles. And there are a good deal of positions in between, though most views hold closer to one side or the other.

Thus, adhering to the former view, it makes perfect sense to shoot someone stealing beer, or stealing anything. They have accepted the "lifestyle", and therefore you are helping stop future, more severe crimes by stopping the criminal. It's a very pragmatic way to stop crime, and it doesn't require addressing difficult-to-solve social issues that impact and arguably create crime, such as poverty, discrimination, and others. Sure, we could help educate all of society to rely on honor and respect instead of materialism and statism... or we could shoot the guy stealing rusty car parts from our vacant properties and call it a great step in crime-fighting. The latter doesn't sound too bad.

The issue, I feel, is the point where a shooting turns from necessity to punishment. It is irrational and ignorant to believe that shooting a petty criminal is necessary in order to prevent that person from going on to commit future crimes. I'd like one of those crystal balls that tells you the criminal future of a person. Anyhow, if you truly feel that you are shooting out of necessity for that pregnant woman down the street who the beer thieves will surely murder in cold blood, I can't blame you for shooting, then. However, more than a few of us (or maybe just a few?) feel that many exploit such broad castle doctrine laws in order to punish criminals. Particularly in regards to theft... generally, if a thief is running away with something of value, that something of value will become of less value when it is shot and/or dropped; therefore, the shooter either has a tremendous lack of foresight, or is instead satisfying an urge for vindictiveness. Regardless of the motivation or lack of thought processes behind such punishment shootings, they punishment nonetheless; and I'd tend to believe that when punishment is being administered, some oversight is required, lest we descend into lynchings, torture, and such. And such is the purpose of the courts. However, necessity/punishment is nigh impossible to determine (unless a 911 tape of the shooter leaves a message of "they're not getting away with this... I'm gonna kill 'em"), as it has to do with mindset, which can't really be proven conclusively, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not going to resort to personal attacks. They're juvenile, prove nothing, and just speak to the inability of the writer to form proper arguments. I just hope that everyone who subscribes to a Texas-style system of shooting justification never shoots an innocent, not guilty, or not-so-guilty person and then goes on to regret doing so.

Anyhow, at risk of further digression, I'll link to this: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum60/6469.html

 

[Liko81]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

The issue, I feel, is the point where a shooting turns from necessity to punishment. It is irrational and ignorant to believe that shooting a petty criminal is necessary in order to prevent that person from going on to commit future crimes. I'd like one of those crystal balls that tells you the criminal future of a person. Anyhow, if you truly feel that you are shooting out of necessity for that pregnant woman down the street who the beer thieves will surely murder in cold blood, I can't blame you for shooting, then. However, more than a few of us (or maybe just a few?) feel that many exploit such broad castle doctrine laws in order to punish criminals. Particularly in regards to theft... generally, if a thief is running away with something of value, that something of value will become of less value when it is shot and/or dropped; therefore, the shooter either has a tremendous lack of foresight, or is instead satisfying an urge for vindictiveness. Regardless of the motivation or lack of thought processes behind such punishment shootings, they punishment nonetheless; and I'd tend to believe that when punishment is being administered, some oversight is required, lest we descend into lynchings, torture, and such. And such is the purpose of the courts. However, necessity/punishment is nigh impossible to determine (unless a 911 tape of the shooter leaves a message of "they're not getting away with this... I'm gonna kill 'em"), as it has to do with mindset, which can't really be proven conclusively, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

A very good point. See my previous posts; the letter of the Texas law is very broad because DAs used to use it as a loophole to negate justification; you were allowed to shoot to protect yourself and to protect property, but if the guy wastrying to get away (with or without something of yours) he was not a threat to you or your property and thus you were not justified in shooting. DAs thus looked for any evidence they could use to show an attempt to retreat, even in otherwise clear-cut defense cases.

Now, because it is so broad, it is actually being interpreted the other way out of necessity. You come up, pull a gun, and demand my wallet. I hand it over. You turn around, take 2 steps, and I shoot you in the back. The jury will probably never hear the case because it is presumed that I am in immediate pursuit of a robber, and because you are also armedit is presumed the only way I can recover my property without risking my own lifeis with deadly force. To be sure, this blurs the line between defense and vengeance, because other than in the defendant's own mind there is little evidence that it is one or the other. I guess the question is, would you rather have someone acquitted for vengeance, or convicted for defense?

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

The issue, I feel, is the point where a shooting turns from necessity to punishment. It is irrational and ignorant to believe that shooting a petty criminal is necessary in order to prevent that person from going on to commit future crimes. I'd like one of those crystal balls that tells you the criminal future of a person. Anyhow, if you truly feel that you are shooting out of necessity for that pregnant woman down the street who the beer thieves will surely murder in cold blood, I can't blame you for shooting, then. However, more than a few of us (or maybe just a few?) feel that many exploit such broad castle doctrine laws in order to punish criminals. Particularly in regards to theft... generally, if a thief is running away with something of value, that something of value will become of less value when it is shot and/or dropped; therefore, the shooter either has a tremendous lack of foresight, or is instead satisfying an urge for vindictiveness. Regardless of the motivation or lack of thought processes behind such punishment shootings, they punishment nonetheless; and I'd tend to believe that when punishment is being administered, some oversight is required, lest we descend into lynchings, torture, and such. And such is the purpose of the courts. However, necessity/punishment is nigh impossible to determine (unless a 911 tape of the shooter leaves a message of "they're not getting away with this... I'm gonna kill 'em"), as it has to do with mindset, which can't really be proven conclusively, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

A very good point. See my previous posts; the letter of the Texas law is very broad because DAs used to use it as a loophole to negate justification; you were allowed to shoot to protect yourself and to protect property, but if the guy wastrying to get away (with or without something of yours) he was not a threat to you or your property and thus you were not justified in shooting. DAs thus looked for any evidence they could use to show an attempt to retreat, even in otherwise clear-cut defense cases.

Now, because it is so broad, it is actually being interpreted the other way out of necessity. You come up, pull a gun, and demand my wallet. I hand it over. You turn around, take 2 steps, and I shoot you in the back. The jury will probably never hear the case because it is presumed that I am in immediate pursuit of a robber, and because you are also armedit is presumed the only way I can recover my property without risking my own lifeis with deadly force. To be sure, this blurs the line between defense and vengeance, because other than in the defendant's own mind there is little evidence that it is one or the other. I guess the question is, would you rather have someone acquitted for vengeance, or convicted for defense?

Well argued gentlemen.