Here's the thing, that comparison should have read: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.
Damn! I sure did overlook that fact.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.
I didn't quote you. I was making a general comment to the thread and the general discussion.That medicine thing wasn't hypothetical btw, it was 100% real, deepthroat. I never said or thought these were children, but thanks for implying that I did. I also never said I felt any sympathy, but again, thanks forimplyingthat I did.
Thanks for jumping on the bandwagon too.
Damn!
I sure did overlook that fact.
The clerk that does not own the store was protecting the property of another. So how does that play out in Texas?
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."People like John and Weak (I'll delete all mt threads) 9MM have no arguments with reason or thought, only name calling and insults.
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.Damn!
I sure did overlook that fact.
The clerk that does not own the store was protecting the property of another. So how does that play out in Texas?
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 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.
How about you lock your keys in your own car and in your rage.... you break the window to get the only key.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.
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: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.
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!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 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.nofoa wrote:Not really appropriate to shoot in this case but.... you do have to accept the happens when you steal from another.If one takes up criminal activity he/she accepts the risks involved.
So they could protect your property from you then. :lol: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.nofoa wrote:Not really appropriate to shoot in this case but.... you do have to accept the happens when you steal from another.If one takes up criminal activity he/she accepts the risks involved.
:lol:Hey, stop disassembling your chair! You're hurting it! HEY!!! HEY!!!!
BANG.
Been a Moderator for a little while now.LEO, when did you become a moderator? Where am I? Who am I?
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.Liko81 wrote:That law is just rotten!LEO 229 wrote:Maybe not appropriate to shoot over two 12-packs of beer, but certainly legal in Texas. You are justified in shooting to recover stolen property if (1) you are in immediate pursuit, and (2) you don't think there's any other way than by use of deadly force to recover same without a substantial risk of death or bodily injury.nofoa wrote:Not really appropriate to shoot in this case but.... you do have to accept the happens when you steal from another.If one takes up criminal activity he/she accepts the risks involved.
If someone takes a penny from theashtray of your carand 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.