Garland Business owner's son kills suspected copper thief
- Thread starter jaytex1969
- Start date
- Status
coyotehitman
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 558
Really, I wasn't aware that I was a bleeding heart. You are a little too quick to pass judgement on folks. That ignorant comment was a prime example. I think if you knew me, you would be eating crow on that one. What I do not understand is the propensity of a collective group on this forum to look for reasons to justify killing and chest thumping.
I think the courts will decide that one. Is it different in Sweden?
La Pistoletta
Member
As long as the homeowner is stopping a currently ongoing crime, it's not punishment. If he managed to tie the criminal down and started doing bad stuff to him, sure. That would be wrong. But the amount of force used in a defensive scenario will be greater than in a punitive one. You wouldn't execute a criminal convicted for stealing a car but you might very well shoot him in the very moment of theft, since using less force would endanger the victim.
As for Sweden, it's illegal to defend property here with anything but the mildest degree of force (think wrestling someone down and holding him). Guns? We're not allowed to protect our lives with guns, let alone property.
The law expressly states that the life of a criminal is to be regarded as being of "higher value" than stolen property, and that self-defense is not an acceptable reason for obtaining a firearm license.
As for Sweden, it's illegal to defend property here with anything but the mildest degree of force (think wrestling someone down and holding him). Guns? We're not allowed to protect our lives with guns, let alone property.
The law expressly states that the life of a criminal is to be regarded as being of "higher value" than stolen property, and that self-defense is not an acceptable reason for obtaining a firearm license.
RoadkingLarry
Member
Depends, are you, your wife and kids in the car at the time?
It is not the item it is the act.
I think you may have missed the point. The shooter's family was not in immediate danger from what I've read. I agree that it's not the item, but the act. That act is burglary, maybe grand theft. Burglary, as far as I know, does not get the death penalty.
Let's put it another way. A car is, often enough, six months to a year of the owner's labor.
Caught in the act, is it worth the criminal's life to let him take it? Not everybody has insurance against theft. Not everybody can collect*.
In any case, it raises insurance premiums, etc...
*There have been incidents where the insurance company said 'that couldn't happen' for some cars with advanced security systems and refused to pay out - until it comes out that there's a bypass, can be hacked with a laptop, etc...
Caught in the act, is it worth the criminal's life to let him take it? Not everybody has insurance against theft. Not everybody can collect*.
In any case, it raises insurance premiums, etc...
*There have been incidents where the insurance company said 'that couldn't happen' for some cars with advanced security systems and refused to pay out - until it comes out that there's a bypass, can be hacked with a laptop, etc...
TexasSkyhawk
Internet SEAL
It does on my property if you're caught in the act.
And I have the law backing me.
Jeff
arflattop
Member
KY statutes allows me to use lethal force if you are in my barn. Obviously, the connotation is that I make my living with the equipment contained therein, and I am allowed to protect it. What's the difference between that and someone protecting his business from continued repairs and potential financial ruin. The thief is clearly breaking the law, willingly and knowingly. I have no hesitation to remove one more thief from the ranks of the nonproductive segment of society. It's time we quit coddling criminals.
macadore
Member
It seems the options were let the thief drive the family into poverty or shoot him. Do those of you who feel the thief was the victim have a better solution?
I never said the thief was a victim. I just question the morality of shooting someone over property. Everyone has their own morals, and we certainly don't have the whole story here.
In a perfect world the better solution would be to hold the thief at gunpoint until the police could arrive to take him into custody, where he'd actually do jail time and come out rehabilitated (I said a perfect world
). In the real world, getting that one thief arrested won't stop the next one, and neither will shooting him. The best solution I have is a proactive approach to security. Make your belongings harder to steal than your neighbor's. Thieves will usually go for the easier score.
B yond wrote:
I really don't believe that anyone on any of the multitude of "Defense of Property" threads that we see here is talking about shooting a thief who is trying to surrender or otherwise be compliant.
I really don't beleive that anyone is talking about shooting someone without giving the option of surrender.
In the reality of a situation, it is far more likely that a person will give the chance.
I am not certain that anyone is talking about firing on a fleeing person who is fleeing empty handed.
In my own view point, I'd -- of course-- give warning. A thief would have the opportunity to surrender. They may even choose to flee.
I am not sure I'd shoot someone fleeing-- unless they decided to flee with my possessions. I frankly think it is more likely that a fleeing person is going to drop what they have. I don't know. Even if they drop any property, they have likely caused my home considerable damage-- worth probably more than they were stealing. If they came through my front door and busted it, they've just destroyed a hand-made door made by my great-great grandfather that I've put many dollars and hours into saving.
So I don't know.
But I do know this. The responsibility of ANY consequences lies on the head of the thief.
At the point that he chose to break into homes, he made a choice.
At the point that he chose to break into my home, he made a choice.
At the point he is given the opportunity to surrender, he has to make a choice.
The choice to challenge has a consequence.
The choice to attempt to retain the things he is stealing out of his greed has a consequence.
The choice to destroy property has a conseqence.
Ideally, the consequence is jail time. It is his choice whether he will see the inside of a jail. If he runs, he is trying to avoid jail. He is making a choice to avoid justice. Depending on who he meets, he well may.
I do know this. I haven't recovered a SINGLE piece of property stolen from me in December 2006. Of the property, much of it was heirlooms that can never be replaced. The thief(ves) have never been caught.
And they left me with considerable property damage that I did not claim on my insurance due to worries that I'd have premium increases-- especially after the claims that I had to make after Katrina.
People talk about insurance taking care of the loss. Sure. Live in the area affected by Hurricane Katrina and let me know how your homeowner insurance situation is working out. Of the companies that ARE still working in the area (MANY pulled out of our states), the premiums have gone up considerably, and they are anxious to drop "problem" customers.
We all know that we do not live in a perfect world. And we all know that prison is less likely to rehabilitate than it is to train a thief.
True.
-- John
I really don't believe that anyone on any of the multitude of "Defense of Property" threads that we see here is talking about shooting a thief who is trying to surrender or otherwise be compliant.
I really don't beleive that anyone is talking about shooting someone without giving the option of surrender.
In the reality of a situation, it is far more likely that a person will give the chance.
I am not certain that anyone is talking about firing on a fleeing person who is fleeing empty handed.
In my own view point, I'd -- of course-- give warning. A thief would have the opportunity to surrender. They may even choose to flee.
I am not sure I'd shoot someone fleeing-- unless they decided to flee with my possessions. I frankly think it is more likely that a fleeing person is going to drop what they have. I don't know. Even if they drop any property, they have likely caused my home considerable damage-- worth probably more than they were stealing. If they came through my front door and busted it, they've just destroyed a hand-made door made by my great-great grandfather that I've put many dollars and hours into saving.
So I don't know.
But I do know this. The responsibility of ANY consequences lies on the head of the thief.
At the point that he chose to break into homes, he made a choice.
At the point that he chose to break into my home, he made a choice.
At the point he is given the opportunity to surrender, he has to make a choice.
The choice to challenge has a consequence.
The choice to attempt to retain the things he is stealing out of his greed has a consequence.
The choice to destroy property has a conseqence.
Ideally, the consequence is jail time. It is his choice whether he will see the inside of a jail. If he runs, he is trying to avoid jail. He is making a choice to avoid justice. Depending on who he meets, he well may.
I do know this. I haven't recovered a SINGLE piece of property stolen from me in December 2006. Of the property, much of it was heirlooms that can never be replaced. The thief(ves) have never been caught.
And they left me with considerable property damage that I did not claim on my insurance due to worries that I'd have premium increases-- especially after the claims that I had to make after Katrina.
People talk about insurance taking care of the loss. Sure. Live in the area affected by Hurricane Katrina and let me know how your homeowner insurance situation is working out. Of the companies that ARE still working in the area (MANY pulled out of our states), the premiums have gone up considerably, and they are anxious to drop "problem" customers.
We all know that we do not live in a perfect world. And we all know that prison is less likely to rehabilitate than it is to train a thief.
True.
-- John
A-190
Member
Really wish every one would go back and re read all the post from the original up. How long since WWII. This would not have even made tha paper then. Home owner shot thief....period.
We all bemoan the loss of security of our homes and demand the right to pack......We all talk of the "good ole days"
This is what 40 years of liberal laws and policies have brought us to.
We let it happen and then debate endless and ad-nausum of our right to self defense of ourselves and our property.......untill some poor shumck does defen his property. tsk tsk tsk
We all bemoan the loss of security of our homes and demand the right to pack......We all talk of the "good ole days"
This is what 40 years of liberal laws and policies have brought us to.
We let it happen and then debate endless and ad-nausum of our right to self defense of ourselves and our property.......untill some poor shumck does defen his property. tsk tsk tsk
XDKingslayer
member
Wow.
I'm glad there is at least one other person who realizes "The High Road" and "Reality" are two entirely different things...
TexasSkyhawk
Internet SEAL
Ah, but here is where you're not entirely correct.
When word gets out that robbing or burglarizing Business X is a risky proposition due to burglars incurring serious injury or death, smart thieves (oxymoron?) avoid that place.
To a lesser extent, knowing that the police show up, especially with K9 teams, will also get out and smart thieves will not necessarily avoid the place, but instead plan more carefully.
I know this from actual law enforcement experience. I've talked to more than one burglar/thief who openly confessed his biggest fear was developing sudden and painful leaky holes in his body courtesy of a pissed off owner of the property he only wanted to borrow and hock.
Did arrest scare him? Nah--free food, free defense attorney and another post-graduate course on how not to get caught, and if/when you do, how to beat the system.
Jail today simply isn't a deterrent for the career criminal.
Pauper's cemetaries, however, are.
I'll never argue over having better security, but at what point to do you draw the line?
Do you put a walkway up to your roof so that your Rotterman PitPinscher Bullweilers can race up to the roof and devour the criminal (not a bad idea, actually)?
Do you hire full-time security guards to guard your air-conditioning unit--and if so, where do you come up with the money?
Burglar alarms? The fees/fines around Dallas/Fort Worth and Austin and Houston are gawdawful for hiccups or false alarms (which are simply going to happen from time to time), so that is yet even more added expense.
Security can get expensive in a hurry, and not all small business are flush with extra cash--certainly not in these times.
It's a real and valid problem.
My solution would be to take reasonable and prudent security measures, but in the case of the Garland business owner who'd already been hit twice, then *I* become the additional security measure.
Bottom line is that if our prisons still had the chain gangs instead of cable tv, and criminals served at least 90% of their sentence, there'd be a whole lot less discussions like the one we're having now.
Jeff
In a home defense scenario, I'm not there to play games of intimidation or match wits or find out who has the bigger cojones. I am there to defend lives and property. If you enter my house, I must assume that you will do whatever is necessary to avoid being caught, including taking lives. It is very possible that your purpose in my home is to take life. I do not have the means or desire to determine your mental state and no legal obligation to do so. Do not expect sympathy or understanding. I am sure you would not have any if the situation were reversed.
I will not fire a warning shot. I will not hold you at bay until the police arrive. I will not attempt to subdue you with the threat of using my weapon. I will not give you the opportunity to make a desperate attempt to flee or disarm me and possibly end up in a physical conflict where an accidental shot can wound or kill myself or my wife. I will not give you an opportunity to escape and find someone else to prey on; someone who is possibly defenseless; someone you may torture and kill simply because you wish to escalate your criminal actions and have the opportunity to do so.
It is against my moral values to possibly sacrifice the life of another because I was unwilling to pull the trigger. I can do nothing about anyone you have previously victimized, but I can and will prevent you from victimizing me or anyone in the future. Rest assured, invade my house and I will shoot you, period. No debate, no question, no hesitation. I am not a vigilante; you caused this situation, I didn't go looking for you. To believe that I do not have the will to pull the trigger because I have any respect for your life is the worst, and probably last, mistake you will ever make.
The shooter was protecting both himself and his family's property. Anyone who says he shouldn't have shot the guy is on the side of the criminal.
I will not fire a warning shot. I will not hold you at bay until the police arrive. I will not attempt to subdue you with the threat of using my weapon. I will not give you the opportunity to make a desperate attempt to flee or disarm me and possibly end up in a physical conflict where an accidental shot can wound or kill myself or my wife. I will not give you an opportunity to escape and find someone else to prey on; someone who is possibly defenseless; someone you may torture and kill simply because you wish to escalate your criminal actions and have the opportunity to do so.
It is against my moral values to possibly sacrifice the life of another because I was unwilling to pull the trigger. I can do nothing about anyone you have previously victimized, but I can and will prevent you from victimizing me or anyone in the future. Rest assured, invade my house and I will shoot you, period. No debate, no question, no hesitation. I am not a vigilante; you caused this situation, I didn't go looking for you. To believe that I do not have the will to pull the trigger because I have any respect for your life is the worst, and probably last, mistake you will ever make.
The shooter was protecting both himself and his family's property. Anyone who says he shouldn't have shot the guy is on the side of the criminal.
Copper theft has been a BIG problem for years...
Charleston, SC, circa 1990 (About a year after Hurricane Hugo). Copper theives break into the (not used after station switched transmitter sites) transmitter building to steal copper. One miscreant is cutting into the 500MCM sized power cables with a hack saw. Only problem...ther was still live 480VAC on those lines. Hacksaw blade was into the copper, saw frame touched back panel of transfer switch...most of blade and a large chunk of saw frame disappeared.
Guy showed up at some ER for treatment of temporary blindness caused by the arc/flash.
Later, other miscreants climbed the tower and cut the supports for the 6-1/8" solid wall coax...as they fell free from the tower, guys had 20' sections of copper coax. IIRC, one guy got seriously injured by a piece of falling copper.
Charleston, SC, circa 1990 (About a year after Hurricane Hugo). Copper theives break into the (not used after station switched transmitter sites) transmitter building to steal copper. One miscreant is cutting into the 500MCM sized power cables with a hack saw. Only problem...ther was still live 480VAC on those lines. Hacksaw blade was into the copper, saw frame touched back panel of transfer switch...most of blade and a large chunk of saw frame disappeared.
Guy showed up at some ER for treatment of temporary blindness caused by the arc/flash.
Later, other miscreants climbed the tower and cut the supports for the 6-1/8" solid wall coax...as they fell free from the tower, guys had 20' sections of copper coax. IIRC, one guy got seriously injured by a piece of falling copper.
Cosmoline
Member
No, the connotation is that if YOU are in the barn and a FELON is breaking into the barn with you in it, you may be presumptively entitled to assume your life is in peril. Of course if you know it's just your neighbor Earl returning tools you can't shoot him. Likewise, it's very doubtful you would be legally allowed to shoot someone coming to reclaim property even if you deemed it theft. If you knew they posed no danger to you, and were simply coming to get some disputed tool or tractor, I very much doubt you could lawfully kill them.
As to the question of stopping a pure property crime, assuming the thief is absolutely not presenting a threat to you the answer is of course to call the authorities and use NON-DEADLY force. For some reason this never dawns on people, who assume the choice is either killing or running away. If he's taking your TV and is unarmed and not hostile, you stomp on the back side of his knee and knock him to the ground. Use your rifle butt to break his foot or hand to get your goods back. Just don't hit his head or chest as that may kill him.
Cosmoline
Member
So if you see a thief running away with some item of your property in his hand, you would shoot him in the back and kill him?
As to the question of stopping a pure property crime, assuming the thief is absolutely not presenting a threat to you the answer is of course to call the authorities and use NON-DEADLY force. For some reason this never dawns on people, who assume the choice is either killing or running away. If he's taking your TV and is unarmed and not hostile, you stomp on the back side of his knee and knock him to the ground. Use your rifle butt to break his foot or hand to get your goods back. Just don't hit his head or chest as that may kill him.
-Cosmoline
In other words, get within arm's reach so the criminal can have the opportunity to either use what he has in his hands as a weapon or drop it and pull a knife or gun and use that. Possibly even grab me and remove my eyes with his fingers or kill me outright.
To assume anyone is not potentially dangerous is suicide. To get close enough for physical contact is lunacy. To place yourself in a position to be disarmed and have your weapon used on you? That's being an idiot.
-Cosmoline
In other words, get within arm's reach so the criminal can have the opportunity to either use what he has in his hands as a weapon or drop it and pull a knife or gun and use that. Possibly even grab me and remove my eyes with his fingers or kill me outright.
To assume anyone is not potentially dangerous is suicide. To get close enough for physical contact is lunacy. To place yourself in a position to be disarmed and have your weapon used on you? That's being an idiot.
Cosmoline
Member
Obviously we presume this all the time, or we'd have to shoot everyone presumptively. How you respond depends on the facts, and there are certainly circumstances in the real world where you might run across some fool taking your stuff. A drunk taking your bike for example. Do you blow his head off because he *might* pull a firearm? Of course you don't, but you might have to hurt him to get your stuff back. That's called using NON-DEADLY force and it's a very useful tool to have in the old arsenal. You ignore it at your peril. If you've never heard of it, look it up in your state's code.
When the line is crossed from justifying non-deadly to deadly force depends on the facts and circumstances. You have to use some measure of common sense, which is often lacking among the internet commando brigade.
TexasSkyhawk
Internet SEAL
No more so than self-annointed righteousness from the internet morality police.
At our place way out in the sticks and he was still on our property? Absolutely.
Either that or I'd be happy to send you a bill for the cost of replacing the horse he stole or the saddle and tack or the tractor implements, etc. Since some place such a premium on the life of a thieving scumbag versus the value of hard-earned property ("it's only property--you can replace it"), maybe if those who feel that started having to bear the cost of their "feelings," views might just change. . .
Somehow I think the sympathy and holier-than-thou morally superior attitudes might start changing.
And if it doesn't, at least you'd have to be putting your money where your morals and mouth are. Fair enough to me.
Jeff
Cosmoline
Member
Folks, if you listen to this person you're liable to end up in prison and rightly so. You have been warned.
And actually, yes I am morally superior to you. I don't shoot people in the back because I suspect them of taking my things.
And actually, yes I am morally superior to you. I don't shoot people in the back because I suspect them of taking my things.
SCKimberFan
Member
Does the name Joe Horn ring a bell?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Well from a legal standpoint you have to keep in mind this happened in Texas.
That's good and that's bad.
Good most likely for the shooter in this news case since it's generally legal here to do what he did.
Bad from the viewpoint that folks in other states think they can act the same way. Be VERY careful.
The Texas statute as it relates to deadly force in the protection of property is VERY rare in this country. Most places it will get you sent to prison without much question.
Whether you believe it moral or not the fact is the option to use deadly force to protect your "stuff" does not come up very often.
That's good and that's bad.
Good most likely for the shooter in this news case since it's generally legal here to do what he did.
Bad from the viewpoint that folks in other states think they can act the same way. Be VERY careful.
The Texas statute as it relates to deadly force in the protection of property is VERY rare in this country. Most places it will get you sent to prison without much question.
Whether you believe it moral or not the fact is the option to use deadly force to protect your "stuff" does not come up very often.
- Status
