Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 20 of 102 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,533 Posts
WOW!!! I have attempted to reply a few times to this thread. Each attempt has sounded so cold and callus that I will simply forgo any further comments.
In Texas, defending property is legal "if it's not easily replaceable." THAT can get debatable if you have insurance on your car as you would if it's financed. It's not a road I want to travel in court. Besides, I don't need any .38 holes in my vehicle. :rofl: AND, I really don't wanna shoot someone if I can avoid it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
35,533 Posts
Oh, I cannot remember where it was, think Houston, but a guy shot a repo man driving off with his truck and he got exonerated in court, which I though a bit weird, but they said he was defending property as the law allows. The laws are quite different in Texas, though, and some liberal enclaves.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,713 Posts
To me, it's just not worth the bullet leaving my gun if somebody is stealing my car. Unless my grandchild is in the back seat, and even then caution has to be used. My car can be replaced. Now, to me, a carjacking is a different story, mainly because they've involved me in the equation now and they may get exactly what they deserve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,376 Posts
Text Font


Of course this guy is absolutely certain the armed carjacker is not going to shoot him even though he cooperated?! Remind to not take any training from this guy.

Side note: I could not simply copy and past directly from the article. I had to use the MS "snipping" tool and save as.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,333 Posts
I keep a club on my steering wheel, they will go on to another. If I'm in it that's a different story. Nevada has castle doctrine while your in your vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,779 Posts
Not everybody lives in the big city with plenty of public transportation. Cars aren't necessarily a luxury item anymore and for some in rural areas, they're as much an absolute necessity as horses were when they hung people for stealing them, which I'm guessing is exactly why they hung 'em for it. Stealing someone's only means of transport for getting to work, getting food, medical attention and other necessities, could very well be considered a threat to their and/or their family's subsistence, i.e. lives. Most people wouldn't think stealing a chainsaw would be worth killing someone to prevent either but if that chainsaw belongs to a logger who makes his living and feeds his family with it...:unsure:...I'd say there's a better'n average chance somebody's gonna' get blown away and most deservedly so. As far as I'm concerned...:dry:...if someone were to maliciously mess with your livelihood, you've got every right to take 'em out. Essentially, that's exactly what they're tryin' to do to you. Don't mean to offend anybody but regardless of the situation, I have absolutely no compassion for thieves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,170 Posts
I was taught that in defending your property by use deadly force you just stated your personal value of a human life. And that this will come back to haunt you at some point.

I was also taught that you can defend your property from being taken, however once the thief has possession of your property you are not allowed to use deadly force to retrieve it. An example would be you arrive to your residence and a truck is pulling out of your driveway with all of your personal belongings in the bed. You can not stop and detain nor pull your weapon to stop the bad guy from leaving with your property as he already has possession and is not in the act of stealing any longer. And unless he attempts to run you over, threatens you with bodily harm by any expressed means you do not have the legal right to stop them.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,996 Posts
The vehicle is a deadly weapon and if the shooter felt that his life was threatened with that or a possible firearm (big history of armed car theft in Chiraq) then he was perfectly justified IMO. Just protecting property from theft is not a cause for capital punishment however.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,333 Posts
I'm not shooting anyone over stuff. Now you mess with the wife and kid, you're gonna get shot.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
When they break your window while your in it, your stuff. Food for thought.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,333 Posts
I was taught that in defending your property by use deadly force you just stated your personal value of a human life. And that this will come back to haunt you at some point.

I was also taught that you can defend your property from being taken, however once the thief has possession of your property you are not allowed to use deadly force to retrieve it. An example would be you arrive to your residence and a truck is pulling out of your driveway with all of your personal belongings in the bed. You can not stop and detain nor pull your weapon to stop the bad guy from leaving with your property as he already has possession and is not in the act of stealing any longer. And unless he attempts to run you over, threatens you with bodily harm by any expressed means you do not have the legal right to stop them.
6 or 12....I'll take 12 anyday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,735 Posts
It is illegal to shoot someone stealing your car, and it should be. I propose the punishment be $50 dollar fine and you have to clean up the mess yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,561 Posts
In Arizona, you have the right to use deadly force to prevent someone from committing a felony. The last time I checked, car theft was a felony.
Also, in Arizona, if you perceive a threat of bodily harm to you or a third party, you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent that bodily harm.
Therefore, in Arizona, this would be a "no bill" situation of the use of deadly force to stop a felony act and prevent possible bodily harm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
For me, shooting someone is only an option when it is required to defend myself or an innocent from death or serious bodily harm.
I'm not going to shoot some unarmed punk kid because he jumped in my car and tried to drive off in it.
If the guy shot the kid through the driver's side window he obviously was not in front of the car and not in danger of being run down when he pulled the trigger.
So the defense of life and limb condition doesn't apply in this situation IMO. He may have been in front of the car when it started moving but to shoot the kid through the car window he had to have moved far enough to the side to not be in danger.
Stealing a car isn't and shouldn't be a capital offense IMO. A car thief is still a human being, and car isn't worth more than a human life, IMO. Even the life of a thief.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
In PA if you shot someone who was stealing your car and who did not present a deadly threat you will go to jail. The only place you can defend your property in PA I. In your home or business (Castle Doctrine). We also do not habpbe a stand your ground law. The rule is retreat unless you are unable to or can retreat not farther without being harmed. I do not think I would shoot a person stealing my car unless he was driving at me because then the car is a lethal weapon. For me retreat means back up real slow if no weapon is presented. Whe one is shoot to kill. In PA once you ares confronted with a visible lethal weapon you can defend immediately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Czechbikr

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
In Texas, defending property is legal "if it's not easily replaceable." THAT can get debatable if you have insurance on your car as you would if it's financed. It's not a road I want to travel in court. Besides, I don't need any .38 holes in my vehicle. :rofl: AND, I really don't wanna shoot someone if I can avoid it.
Actually, the statute (Texas Penal Code Section 9.42) says that the property owner is justified in using deadly force if "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means," and a whole lot of other stuff. I doubt that the owner is required to let anyone take his property at will and then file an insurance claim, which won't restore full value anyway.

Texas also seems to have a concept of "citizen's arrest." Article 1401(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure says, "A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace."

Of course, Harris County's district attorney is a leftist lesbian named Kim Ogg who would undoubtedly try to ruin the life of any decent citizen who had used deadly force to defend his property. A grand jury made up of the wrong kind of people would return an indictment for murder regardless of the law and the facts. A trial jury made up of the wrong kind of people would convict regardless of the law and the facts. If Harris County didn't have plenty of the wrong kind of people, then Kim Ogg would not be district attorney. So I wouldn't really want to try it in court either.:)

The amazing thing about the news story is that the People's Republic of Illinois even recognizes property rights.:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZM66

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,952 Posts
The news article is based on a shooting that took place almost a year ago. This smells like nothing more than the Chicago Tribune publishing a series of articles while trying to drum up outrage over people being allowed to carry concealed weapons. That being said:

Obviously, the justification for use of deadly force is going to vary state-by-state. In defense of life is an obvious justification; defense of property is where it gets fuzzy.

I started shaking my head over the article when I read the part that the fire chief left the Jeep with the engine running. In Chicago. Dude, here's your sign.

Sure, someone trying to hit you with a vehicle is basically assault with a deadly weapon, but how did the fire chief get in front of the Jeep? He placed himself there. And based on the article at the time at which he shot Macklin, he wasn't in danger -- he shot the kid through the open driver's window. I don't think Jeeps have the lateral driving feature yet (now THAT would make parallel parking easier).

Something tells me that his position as a fire chief in Chicago bought him a little more consideration from the state's attorney's office than would be afforded to the rest of us under similar circumstances.

Of course the requisite, "He didn't have to die, he was only a felon doing what felons do," mentality has started. It's coming into the season to 'take justice to the streets' -- winters in northern cities are just too darned cold to get worked up enough for a good street protest. I think it's because of baseball.

But all of that is based only on what's in one article. Wasn't there, didn't see it, haven't slept at a Holiday Inn in years.

I guess if I was pressed to describe what I would take a life for, the short answer would be that beyond defending someone's life (including my own), I would take a life for something that I was willing to give my life for. Things ain't it. Stuff don't matter.

Carjackings and holdups? Case-by-case basis, of course. For any situation you can describe that would justify using or not using deadly force in a carjacking, someone can always come up with a, "Yeah, but. . . ." to challenge it.

Just based on the way the article was written, I might not have even had my gun out. Cellphone for video, probably.
 
1 - 20 of 102 Posts
Top