Shooting in Baytown

Mike1951 · Post by **Mike1951** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:50 pm

Thsi happened today less than three miles from my home.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=5134548

At this point, it sounds like a no-bill.

anygunanywhere · Post by **anygunanywhere** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:11 pm

Don't be so sure. He shot at the BGs as they were leaving.

Of course, they might have tried to run over him.

One thing for certain. The dead one will not steal again.

I'll bet the one that got away will think twice before he tries again.

We need to watch this one closely to see where it goes.

Anygun

jimlongley · Post by **jimlongley** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:47 pm

2am, probably "after dark."

Venus Pax · Post by **Venus Pax** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:55 pm

Let's just hope the family doesn't file civil charges.

anygunanywhere · Post by **anygunanywhere** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:45 pm

jimlongley wrote:2am, probably "after dark."

Harris County. Rosenthal. Not a slam dunk.

I rest my case.

Anygun

longtooth · Post by **longtooth** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:03 pm

Yea, "travelling law or Castle Doctrine" either one, He will decide they dont apply to Harris County.

casselthief · Post by **casselthief** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:12 pm

if they were leaving with property, could he not say that it was the only way he could recover said property.

I know in an earlier thread about a wallet being stolen, some had said that the law said that you could not shoot if the property could be replaced.
I had the opinion that it meant that if you believed that the property would not be recovered, ie the thief dropping it as he ran, or recovered by police.
whatcha'll think about that?
in this case, to me, the business owner felt that he could not recover the property taken, or believed to have been taken, by the thieves, and therefore is in the right to have applied DeadlyForce.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, discuss:

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:23 pm

casselthief wrote:if they were leaving with property, could he not say that it was the only way he could recover said property.

I know in an earlier thread about a wallet being stolen, some had said that the law said that you could not shoot if the property could be replaced.
I had the opinion that it meant that if you believed that the property would not be recovered, ie the thief dropping it as he ran, or recovered by police.
whatcha'll think about that?
in this case, to me, the business owner felt that he could not recover the property taken, or believed to have been taken, by the thieves, and therefore is in the right to have applied DeadlyForce.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, discuss:

Agree with you generally. Chapter 9 of the Penal Code also adds that you must reasonably believe the property cannot be recovered by any other means. The belief that the property cannot be recovered must be reasonable.

I am NOT saying that is not so in this case, just a point of clarification.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:31 pm

"Txi" "Cassell"...

Another twist in this...

Would you say the increased abuse and threat of Identity Theft would be another complication to the theft of just a mear wallet???

Not that that could be reasonably deduced as justification to shoot someone to "stop" them from committing a crime like that...You would not know if that could happen...

But it could...

HankB · Post by **HankB** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:37 pm

txinvestigator wrote: . . . Chapter 9 of the Penal Code also adds that you must reasonably believe the property cannot be recovered by any other means. The belief that the property cannot be recovered must be reasonable.

It's not a case of looking out the window and seeing the kid from next door swiping your garden gnome . . . it's seeing your business inventory in the back of a rapidly fleeing vehicle operated by persons unknown, at night, no cops anywhere around . . . IMHO and under the circumstances, a belief that the property would not be recovered is perfectly reasonable.

ESPECIALLY if property previously stolen was never recovered.

Of course, if the Harris County authorities decide to make up their own laws (as they have a reputation for doing) and prosecute, I won't be on the jury . . .

casselthief · Post by **casselthief** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:47 pm

txinvestigator wrote:just a point of clarification.

thanks, I was genuinely looking for just that!

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:00 pm

HankB wrote:it's seeing your business inventory in the back of a rapidly fleeing vehicle operated by persons unknown, at night, no cops anywhere around . . . IMHO and under the circumstances, a belief that the property would not be recovered is perfectly reasonable.

Not to forget that you can't get theft insurance for construction materials. It comes straight out of the victim's wallet.

- Jim

IcheeWaWa · Post by **IcheeWaWa** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:18 pm

Mike1951 wrote:Thsi happened today less than three miles from my home.

Glad to see one of my neighbors on here. This was about 3 miles from my house as well!

Jeremae · Post by **Jeremae** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:07 pm

By my odometer it is 2.3 miles from mine.

TexasCHLforum.com

Shooting in Baytown

Shooting in Baytown

Re: Shooting in Baytown