Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 6:49 am
I'll bet that one would get suied after Sept. 1 ALSO!
TexasCHLforum.com
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Car Burgulary Last Night
Page 3 of 5
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 7:46 am
Ain't nothing I got worth killin' somebody over, not even a scumbag, 'cept my life and the lives of my family.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 10:46 am
Someone breaking into cars and stealing loose items is not an experienced criminal.
There are plenty of criminals doing exactly this. In fact, we're currently looking for one that has BMVd over 60 vehicles in the same neighborhood within the past month. I don't know whether that meets your definition of experienced or not but it does ours.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:31 am
I don't think those BG won't be coming back anytime soon in the next 3-4 months. By then, Castle Doctrine will take affect Sept. 1 like everyone else said. Shoot first, ask question later.
I hope everyone here don't take me as a crazy lunatic with a CHL looking around to shoot someone. I'm not like that. I'm a really good person if you get to know me. I come from a really deep Christian/Catholic family with a good support. I just get sick and tired of thieves and BG vandalizing my uncle and my bro car. Luckily my car has stock cd player and nothing is really flashy to worth breaking in.
I thank everyone here for the support and the best interest of me for staying out of trouble. I understand ya guys have more experience than me about the law and I am great full for it. Another CHL brother looking out for another CHL brother and I thank you for that. Sometimes when I speak nonsense, I speak out of anger. Live and learn.
I'll be back later. Gotta go install some lights for the house and talk to my neighbors.
I hope everyone here don't take me as a crazy lunatic with a CHL looking around to shoot someone. I'm not like that. I'm a really good person if you get to know me. I come from a really deep Christian/Catholic family with a good support. I just get sick and tired of thieves and BG vandalizing my uncle and my bro car. Luckily my car has stock cd player and nothing is really flashy to worth breaking in.
I thank everyone here for the support and the best interest of me for staying out of trouble. I understand ya guys have more experience than me about the law and I am great full for it. Another CHL brother looking out for another CHL brother and I thank you for that. Sometimes when I speak nonsense, I speak out of anger. Live and learn.
I'll be back later. Gotta go install some lights for the house and talk to my neighbors.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:44 am
PLEASE, PLEASE post a message explaining that the above statement was intended as a satirical reference to the way the ANTI-SELF DEFENSE people mis-characterize the Castle Doctrine law.NguyenVanDon wrote:I don't think those BG won't be coming back anytime soon in the next 3-4 months. By then, Castle Doctrine will take affect Sept. 1 like everyone else said. Shoot first, ask question later.
From one CHL brother to another, I believe that is how you meant it. But lest some people fail to "get the joke", you really should clarify your remark.
PLEASE.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 12:02 pm
I'll bet when you catch the thief, it will turn out to be one or two teenagers, or a junkie.CHL/LEO wrote:There are plenty of criminals doing exactly this. In fact, we're currently looking for one that has BMVd over 60 vehicles in the same neighborhood within the past month. I don't know whether that meets your definition of experienced or not but it does ours.
What I mean by "experienced criminal" is a gang member or member of a family of habitual criminals, who learns to open cars without breaking glass, and steals more valuable items than the front panel of a stereo (worthless) or sunglasses.
- Jim
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:11 pm
I have just skimmed through the replies here, so I hope I am not being repetitive;
I could really care less about someones family suing me. My concern is the criminal aspect.
And it seems everyone likes to read the penal code selectively when reading the justifications for deadly force to protect property.
Everyone reads "to prevent criminal mischief during the nighttime" or "to prevent theft during the nighttime", but seems to forget this part;
"when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent."
Could you have done something less than deadly force that would have stopped or prevented the crime?
What is reasonable? That IS a subjective term, and it can mean something different to you than it does me.
Consider this; most LE agencies have policies prohibiting its officers from using deadly force to protect property.
I could really care less about someones family suing me. My concern is the criminal aspect.
And it seems everyone likes to read the penal code selectively when reading the justifications for deadly force to protect property.
Everyone reads "to prevent criminal mischief during the nighttime" or "to prevent theft during the nighttime", but seems to forget this part;
"when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent."
Could you have done something less than deadly force that would have stopped or prevented the crime?
What is reasonable? That IS a subjective term, and it can mean something different to you than it does me.
Consider this; most LE agencies have policies prohibiting its officers from using deadly force to protect property.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:23 pm
Excellent points.txinvestigator wrote: And it seems everyone likes to read the penal code selectively when reading the justifications for deadly force to protect property.
Everyone reads "to prevent criminal mischief during the nighttime" or "to prevent theft during the nighttime", but seems to forget this part;
"when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent."
Could you have done something less than deadly force that would have stopped or prevented the crime?
What is reasonable? That IS a subjective term, and it can mean something different to you than it does me.
Consider this; most LE agencies have policies prohibiting its officers from using deadly force to protect property.
This is where something like issuing a verbal command to desist is part of the picture. Under any law, anywhere (even in a place like the UK where self defense is all but banned) it is perfectly reasonable to: 1) call the police, and 2) order someone to stop messing with your stuff. "Hey, stop that! Get out of there! I've already called the police!" Etc.
Reasonable.
Way down on the "force continuum".
And the next move is up to the BG. He can run away. He can keep on with his "business". Or he can come at you.
For you, what is reasonable to do kind of depends on what the BG does. What's reasonable if he runs away is a lot different than what's reasonable if he charges at you with a tire iron in his hand.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:57 pm
You might want to consider that since you are on here planning and talking about what you are going to do, that it could be taken as pre-meditated if anyone found your posts. I would seriously urge restraint in your actions unless you are in fear of your life. Just because the law says you can shoot someone doesn't mean that you should.NguyenVanDon wrote:Sorry to reply so late again. I went to get my uncle's alarm done. If they come back again and break the window, the alarm will go off. We also stopped by the nearest academy and my uncle picked up a 12 gauge Mossberg Defender Shotgun for the home defense.
Anyways, I respect everyone opinion here. No hate or whatever towards anyone, and I like to appreciated everyone honesty on justifying shooting or not. Majority of the people here consider me gung-ho, but like someone said before on the first page, only I can choose what to do in a situation like this. I can only speak for myself. Maybe because I'm young, stupid, and I don't know any better, but I have seen my friend's cousin got shot up in a drive by one night in Houston. That day changed my life around. That's why I'm here in Arlington, to get away from the crime, but it looks like Arlington is not even better then where I left off in Houston.
I will go back to the Arlington Police Department and get a written proof what the officers announce to everyone in our neighborhood today to be on the safe side tomorrow. I have also got my entire neighborhood as witnesses of what happened today, so you are looking at over 60+ people. I have gotten to know my neighbors pretty well today. Some I have never spoken to, but today have changed. I found out at least 9 of my neighbors, including us, are packing. We also talked about what happened today, and believe it or not, they are thinking the same way as I am.
Someone here said the family will sue me. I say go right ahead. I got 2 of my uncle's close friends that are lawyers. They are also CHLer's, and my uncle have already contacted both of them of what happen today already, and they have told us what we need to know if something like this happens. I'm going to recommend my uncle's lawyer friends to my neighbors tomorrow, and tell them to give them a call right away.
It's late, and I got church at 9:00am in the morning. It's going to be a long day tomorrow for me. I will keep ya updated on this asap.
Good luck with trying to use the police and what they said as part of your defense, somehow I don't think a jury will buy it. The decision you make is the one you are going to have to live with.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 4:02 pm
I think he meant it exactly as he wrote it. This type of thinking gives the anti's more ammunition in their attacks on gun owners.frankie_the_yankee wrote:PLEASE, PLEASE post a message explaining that the above statement was intended as a satirical reference to the way the ANTI-SELF DEFENSE people mis-characterize the Castle Doctrine law.NguyenVanDon wrote:I don't think those BG won't be coming back anytime soon in the next 3-4 months. By then, Castle Doctrine will take affect Sept. 1 like everyone else said. Shoot first, ask question later.
From one CHL brother to another, I believe that is how you meant it. But lest some people fail to "get the joke", you really should clarify your remark.
PLEASE.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 4:47 pm
[quote="txinvestigator"]
<SNIP>
Could you have done something less than deadly force that would have stopped or prevented the crime?
What is reasonable? That IS a subjective term, and it can mean something different to you than it does me.
quote]
Great advice!
In early May, we took a trip north and stopped in Lufkin for a late breakfast.
I saw this article ( http://www.lufkindailynews.com/search/c ... oting.html ) in the newspaper in a news stand at the restaurant. Didn't buy the paper and could not find any follow up articles since, but this thread reminded me of it.
That situation is confusing, to say the least, IMHO.
Anyone know what happened to Buster in Lufkin?
<SNIP>
Could you have done something less than deadly force that would have stopped or prevented the crime?
What is reasonable? That IS a subjective term, and it can mean something different to you than it does me.
quote]
Great advice!
In early May, we took a trip north and stopped in Lufkin for a late breakfast.
I saw this article ( http://www.lufkindailynews.com/search/c ... oting.html ) in the newspaper in a news stand at the restaurant. Didn't buy the paper and could not find any follow up articles since, but this thread reminded me of it.
That situation is confusing, to say the least, IMHO.
Anyone know what happened to Buster in Lufkin?
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 5:32 pm
After reading that article it appears that toxicology test results will be given to the grand jury on May 30th. I guess we will just have to wait and see what the grand jury decides.Drifter wrote:txinvestigator wrote:
<SNIP>
Could you have done something less than deadly force that would have stopped or prevented the crime?
What is reasonable? That IS a subjective term, and it can mean something different to you than it does me.
quote]
Great advice!
In early May, we took a trip north and stopped in Lufkin for a late breakfast.
I saw this article ( http://www.lufkindailynews.com/search/c ... oting.html ) in the newspaper in a news stand at the restaurant. Didn't buy the paper and could not find any follow up articles since, but this thread reminded me of it.
That situation is confusing, to say the least, IMHO.
Anyone know what happened to Buster in Lufkin?
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 7:31 pm
I'm not sure of the mindset of the criminal that is breaking into your vehicles, but the lighting and alarm systems you're setting up may actually do the trick for you.
This element doesn't like lighting and noise.
This element doesn't like lighting and noise.
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:59 pm
It's not just preventing a property crime where you might be justified in using deadly force. It's also justified if you believe they are escaping and there would be no other way for you to recover your property. Now by no means am I saying to use deadly force to protect or prevent the loss of property, I'm just trying to expound upon the latitude given by this section of the Penal Code.
§ 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:46 am
In your opinion, what is reasonable?txinvestigator wrote: Could you have done something less than deadly force that would have stopped or prevented the crime?
You don't have to allow them to leave, but someone like me also doesn't have any formal training to subdue someone. I'd assume that if we were to wrestle, I'd lose my gun and be killed. So then the person isn't getting closer than 20+ feet from me and I wouldn't plan on holstering anything. So then if the person, unarmed, tried to walk towards you without making any verbal threats...what would you do?
Also, which statute were you referring to a while back when you were showing justification to draw down without having justification to use deadly force (obviously for threats, but threats which are not yet to that point but appear to be headed that way).