The Sorry State of Today's Journalism

[Citydude]

After watching the surveillance video, I have to ask myself if I were setting in the jury, was he protecting his property while running after the car or handing out justice? That's a tough one for me....

Sent from my iPad using TractorByNet

 

[smstonypoint]

Bet that bullet was well deformed and enlarged by the time it got to the head. Hard to tell, but it might be argued the shooter was afraid the car was going to run him over...dunno....

After watching the surveillance video, I have to ask myself if I were setting in the jury, was he protecting his property while running after the car or handing out justice? That's a tough one for me....

It's going to be interesting to see how the shooter's lawyer approaches the defense. I can't tell from the video when the shooting takes place. At the end of the video, the shooter appears to be within eight feet or so of the car. The thief was apparently shot in the back of the head, so the actual shooting might have occurred after the end of the video clip.

Steve

 

[texasjohn]

I don't know about the law in that state...but in Texas the action would have the APPEARANCE of legal justification. I say appearance because until a jury decides, IMHO, taking a life is always going to be questionable.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I think that 1, 2a, 3b would be the defense.

Now, I think that this thread is well and completely hijacked!!

 

[Sodo]

I don't know who would want to be an honest law enforcement officer today.

Yep someone can accost a policeman and try to take his gun - and thousands across the country will defend his rights as an "unarmed man". I say to correct folks; he was a "yet unarmed man".

But that store owner was not thinking correctly. His life was not in danger and he was a fool to fire that gun in public. If he left his gun in the safe that day, being out only a $1,000 chainsaw would have been much preferable to what he's going thru now. If something foolish MUST happen, at the very LEAST a thief got his just desserts, immediately.

Edit: actually thats a bit much, just desserts would be one in the buttocks,,,,,

 

[bumperm]

When I was a cop in Oakland, CA in the 70's, then as now crime was rampant. There was one liquor store in N. Oakland that almost never got hit, at least it didn't during the 10 years I was there. Word was out, in the department and on the street, the employees there were armed and a couple of would be robbers had died there. Arguably, and by case law in most states I'm aware of, when a robbery suspect has a deadly weapon there is a presumption he may use deadly force during the commission of the crime. Using deadly force to defend oneself is thus justified. Most states do not extend the justification for use of deadly force only to protect property.

Still, how much looting and rioting do you suppose there would be if the first one or two torching a building or carrying out loot took a round?

 

[texasjohn]

Still, how much looting and rioting do you suppose there would be if the first one or two torching a building or carrying out loot took a round?

I understand your point and it certainly makes sense. And, you clearly have much better understanding of these things than I, given your service...and thanks for that.

Yet it seems to me that SO MANY crimes simply make no sense to me that I have stopped trying to make sense of them...perhaps that is why they are called senseless crimes.

Take the shootings in Waco this week. The biker gangs clearly knew that massive police forces...over 10 uniformed officers....were immediately outside the restaurant and would intervene in less than a minute. And yet, it all went down anyway with 9 dead and 18 wounded.

And, in other news, death and mayhem abound in Iraq, although all parties know that aggression will, sooner or later, lead to no good for them personally.

Sometimes, it seems, that the desire for self preservation reaches a low ebb when other sentiments of greed, anger, whatever take over the mind and body.

I guess that thoughtlessness leads to senseless acts/crimes in any language or locale. Sadly, part of the nature of MAN.

 

[Garandman]

Here's a news story about the shooting of a chainsaw shoplifter by the business owner's son.

Police: Business owner

Please note that the story makes no mention of the make and model of the chainsaw.

Steve

He was trying to steal a Stihl.

Beasley Power Equipment is a Stihl dealer. No mention of the brand of gun: I'm guessing it was a S&W revolver.

Still, how much looting and rioting do you suppose there would be if the first one or two torching a building or carrying out loot took a round?

Back before we invaded Iraq, Army Chief of staff General Eric Shinseki testified we were deploying enough troops for a military victory, but not enough to pacify the civilian populace. But Rumsfeld knew better.

 

[Bird]

When I was a cop in Oakland, CA in the 70's, then as now crime was rampant. There was one liquor store in N. Oakland that almost never got hit, at least it didn't during the 10 years I was there. Word was out, in the department and on the street, the employees there were armed and a couple of would be robbers had died there. Arguably, and by case law in most states I'm aware of, when a robbery suspect has a deadly weapon there is a presumption he may use deadly force during the commission of the crime. Using deadly force to defend oneself is thus justified. Most states do not extend the justification for use of deadly force only to protect property.

Still, how much looting and rioting do you suppose there would be if the first one or two torching a building or carrying out loot took a round?

In the late '60s, Dallas had what I think the news media called the "shotgun squads". An officer, with a shotgun, would spend the evening in the back room of a convenience store, watching through a one way mirror, prepared to shoot anyone who tried to rob the store. And a number of hijackers were killed. I spent a number of evenings on that duty myself, including a couple of nights in a store in which 2 hijackers had been killed by officers. Fortunately, no store that I was sitting in was robbed while I was there. But the best I can remember, NO ONE in the news media, or elsewhere, objected to the killing of robbers.

 

[houstonscott]

Laws in Texas provide for deadly force to protect property and it doesn't have to be on your property. You take my chainsaw and I catch up with you at the corner I can kill you to get it back. HS

 

[Bird]

Laws in Texas provide for deadly force to protect property and it doesn't have to be on your property. You take my chainsaw and I catch up with you at the corner I can kill you to get it back. HS

I do believe you are misinterpreting or misunderstanding something. Which statute or what case law are you using to reach that conclusion?

 

[houstonscott]

I do believe you are misinterpreting or misunderstanding something. Which statute or what case law are you using to reach that conclusion?

You can defend you property in Teas with deadly force, and you don't have to be on your physical property to do it. There are numerous cases where a vehicle is stolen from a drive way and the owner has caught up and killed the driver. Happen in Pearland not long ago, no charges filled. You are running down street with my TV, I can use deadly force to stop the behavior. There was a case not long ago where a guy killed robbers coming out of his next door neighbors home and liked them with a shot gun, no charges filled. That one was on neighbors property and neighbors stuff! He was on phone with 911 and told operator he was going to stop it, and he did. You get caught stealing in Texas you might be killed doing it. HS

 

[Garandman]

Clerk turns self in after man shot in head following chainsaw theft from store

Chris Beasley turned himself Friday morning at the Sheriff's Office. He's facing charges of assault with a deadly weapon and firing into an occupied vehicle.

 

[Bird]

You can defend you property in Teas with deadly force, and you don't have to be on your physical property to do it. There are numerous cases where a vehicle is stolen from a drive way and the owner has caught up and killed the driver. Happen in Pearland not long ago, no charges filled. You are running down street with my TV, I can use deadly force to stop the behavior. There was a case not long ago where a guy killed robbers coming out of his next door neighbors home and liked them with a shot gun, no charges filled. That one was on neighbors property and neighbors stuff! He was on phone with 911 and told operator he was going to stop it, and he did. You get caught stealing in Texas you might be killed doing it. HS

It just ain't that simple.

You get caught stealing in Texas you might be killed doing it.

Yes, that's true, and the person doing the killing might or might not go to prison for a long, long time. First, the police will likely arrest you. Then it will be up to the local district attorney to consider the relevant statues, then consider precedents (set by the appeals courts), then if he/she takes it to the grand jury, they will, in most cases, indict you if that's what the DA recommends, although grand juries do, on rare occasions, go against the DA's recommendation, then it goes to court where a jury may or may not convict and, and if so, may go for a long prison term, a short term, or even probation. At the very least, the person doing the killing had better be prepared for some large attorney fees.

 

[Parkanzky]

I'm sure that a lot of you "eye for an eye," "swift justice" folks will disagree, but based on what I've seen the guy deserves some jail time.

Deadly force should be used when there is the imminent danger of great bodily harm, not when some low-life is driving off with a yard tool.

You should all be upset. That kind of short-sighted, criminally-irresponsible behavior is threatening the gun rights most of you advocate.

 

[Sodo]

You should all be upset. That kind of short-sighted, criminally-irresponsible behavior is threatening the gun rights most of you advocate.

^^This. He had plenty of opportunity to shoot the tires (and even then he would be in trouble for endangering the public). Maybe the forums he reads they talk about shooting people as if it's "OK" even desirable. The gun should have come out only if it seemed the other guy had one. It's a bad deal.

To be honest I get satisfaction seeing a thief slapped down immediately but every person shot is one more nail in the coffin of gun rights.

 

[sixdogs]

Good thread.

 

[smstonypoint]

Just curious.

There are going to be some large medical bills for the man who was shot. Who do you think is going to end up paying the bills?

Steve

 

[bumperm]

I guess that thoughtlessness leads to senseless acts/crimes in any language or locale. Sadly, part of the nature of MAN.

When you drive down a country road and you see beer bottle/cans and trash off to the side, or worse, dirty diapers, that bespeaks of the attitude of a segment of our society has no respect for their fellow man or the environment in which they live, a narcissistic self centric narrow view of the world. Taken to the extreme, they behave like animals*, having absolutely no regard for others. Much of the truly atrocious behavior perpetrated in the commission of their crimes does not make the news.

*Well, actually a lot worse than most animals. My golden retriever loves everyone.

 

[RSKY]

It has been explained to me, during CCL class, that in Kentucky, if you see someone setting fire to ANY structure on YOUR property you can shoot until they are dead. It does not matter what kind of structure it is or if it is being used. If they are setting fire to a neighbor's building you cannot use deadly force. It must be on property you own. This is like a lot of other state laws in that it dates from a specific period in history. In this case from the Tobacco Wars about a hundred years ago. A family could have an entire years work go up in flames in a few minutes. The night riders used this tactic on farmers that sold to the Duke family cartel. Hence the law.

 

[texasjohn]

In the late '60s, Dallas had what I think the news media called the "shotgun squads". An officer, with a shotgun, would spend the evening in the back room of a convenience store, watching through a one way mirror, prepared to shoot anyone who tried to rob the store. And a number of hijackers were killed. I spent a number of evenings on that duty myself, including a couple of nights in a store in which 2 hijackers had been killed by officers. Fortunately, no store that I was sitting in was robbed while I was there. But the best I can remember, NO ONE in the news media, or elsewhere, objected to the killing of robbers.

I remember that time...was living in Ft. Worth then....it was all over the news. Amazingly, all the public awareness and several of the people being killed did NOT seem to stop, or even slow down the rate of hold ups. Yes, if I recall correctly, there was kinda a public score card kept of how many observation nights there were and how many people caught/killed.

You are correct, pulling the trigger while pointing at another human is HIGHLY likely to result in life changing events from legal processes and consequent costs, regardless of where the bullet goes...more if blood flows....regardless of self or property defense.