TexasCHLforum.com

Defense of property = Justifiable homicide
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 21162.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The link takes me to a story about a female gang member stabbing a male gang member. Were you meaning to link to one of the other stories?

Link corrected. Thanks, ninemm.

casingpoint wrote:Defense of property = Justifiable homicide

I dunno about that. It wasn't his property. He is a security guard, not a LEO.

I feel that he acted in the wrong here (with what we know from the story, which isn't much). The suspects may have been stealing a car, but I don't think that gives him the right to shoot them for it.

I know bad guys are often ignorant and uneducated, but are they aware that citizens in TX are more and more becoming armed and that things turn out badly for them much more frequently now. Do you think they just don't realize how many good guys are armed, or that they just think they will beat the odds?

They don't care. Their only concern is to do whatever the gang tells them to do.

Personally I do not see any connection between this and the Joe Horn case other than protecting somebody else's property. Joe Horn is a fool who could not keep his mouth shut while being recorded on the 911 tape and is a very bad test case for our civil immunity law. Joe Horn was very fortunate that he was no billed by the Grand Jury, I am sure his bank account took a serious hit defending his mouth..... Thankfully the security guard in this case was not injured, hope he is smart enough not to do any interviews..........

karl wrote:

casingpoint wrote:Defense of property = Justifiable homicide

I dunno about that. It wasn't his property. He is a security guard, not a LEO.
I feel that he acted in the wrong here (with what we know from the story, which isn't much). The suspects may have been stealing a car, but I don't think that gives him the right to shoot them for it.

Harris said the suspected thieves drove toward the guard,

.

With what few details we know, the guard may have feared for his life, and in that case, the use of deadly force may have been justified[ PC 9.32(a)(2) (A) ] - P.58 of Handbook

android wrote:I know bad guys are often ignorant and uneducated, but are they aware that citizens in TX are more and more becoming armed and that things turn out badly for them much more frequently now. Do you think they just don't realize how many good guys are armed, or that they just think they will beat the odds?

My son and I were talking about this the other night. We came to the conclusion that it takes a real screwed up person to rob someone in the first place. If they are thinking they aren't going to get caught and go to jail, the threat of death probably never even enters their minds.

On topic...I don't see how this situation parallels the Joe Horn case, other than BG's getting shot while stealing stuff.

karl wrote:

casingpoint wrote:Defense of property = Justifiable homicide

I dunno about that. It wasn't his property. He is a security guard, not a LEO.

I feel that he acted in the wrong here (with what we know from the story, which isn't much). The suspects may have been stealing a car, but I don't think that gives him the right to shoot them for it.

He hired to protect the property. He was justified because he used his weapon in the commission of his job.

joe817 wrote:

karl wrote:

casingpoint wrote:Defense of property = Justifiable homicide

I dunno about that. It wasn't his property. He is a security guard, not a LEO.
I feel that he acted in the wrong here (with what we know from the story, which isn't much). The suspects may have been stealing a car, but I don't think that gives him the right to shoot them for it.

Harris said the suspected thieves drove toward the guard,

.

With what few details we know, the guard may have feared for his life, and in that case, the use of deadly force may have been justified[ PC 9.32(a)(2) (A) ] - P.58 of Handbook

If you watch the video, the police officer interviewed said that they tried to run the security guard over with the car and hit him with the car, although he was not injured. That was not on the text of the article. IMO, justifiable shooting.

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

1. Thugs steal car.
2. Security guard shoots driver of stolen car.
3. Car crashes.
4. Car with everything in sits in impound lot for the duration of the trials of the surviving thugs (~2 years).

That does the owner of the car a lot of good.

Now, what would the car insurance company do in this case? Would it pay for the damage while the car is impounded?

If the owner has a car loan, he will have to pay it off.

I don't know what would happen if the car was leased. The owner might have to pay off the lease also.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Let me see if I understand this correctly:

1. Thugs steal car.
2. Security guard shoots driver of stolen car.
3. Car crashes.
4. Car with everything in sits in impound lot for the duration of the trials of the surviving thugs (~2 years).

They left in their own car, not the one they were burglarizing.

Had they attempted to steal one rather than drive their own, I still see no reason it would need to be impounded as evidence for the duration of a trial. It'd be hard to fit in one of those plastic "Exhibit A" bags.

seamusTX wrote:Let me see if I understand this correctly:

1. Thugs steal car.
2. Security guard shoots driver of stolen car.
3. Car crashes.
4. Car with everything in sits in impound lot for the duration of the trials of the surviving thugs (~2 years).

That does the owner of the car a lot of good.

Now, what would the car insurance company do in this case? Would it pay for the damage while the car is impounded?

If the owner has a car loan, he will have to pay it off.

I don't know what would happen if the car was leased. The owner might have to pay off the lease also.

- Jim

I don't think the thieves were stealing a car. i think they were stealing stuff out of cars. The car they jumped into was their car.

Backslider wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Let me see if I understand this correctly:

1. Thugs steal car.
2. Security guard shoots driver of stolen car.
3. Car crashes.
4. Car with everything in sits in impound lot for the duration of the trials of the surviving thugs (~2 years).

They left in their own car, not the one they were burglarizing.

Had they attempted to steal one rather than drive their own, I still see no reason it would need to be impounded as evidence for the duration of a trial. It'd be hard to fit in one of those plastic "Exhibit A" bags.

LOL...are you guys reading a different story than me??? I didn't read where they were trying to steal a car either.


Edit...I see now..you were saying IF they were trying to steal a car. I am no longer confused and very happy there is one less BG amongst us. the other two will probably be free to commit more crimes before their dead buddy get's buried.