You have the RIGHT...

Yes, one needs to take that possibility into account. If the people "messing with the vehicle" are determined criminals, they may respond to the question with violence.
 
Besides the possibility of losing your life in a gunfight over property--which should be the main consideration--you also run the risk of losing your freedom if something doesn't match up with the very limited circumstances in TX law that allow the use of deadly force to protect property. Finally, if it does go to trial, it's nearly 100% guaranteed to cost you more than whatever property you were protecting.
 
If I saw someone on the cameras under my car trying to cut off the catalytic converter no way would I go out to confront them.

I would however hit the remote start button and more than likely involuntarily prompt them to vacate the contents of their urinary tract/bladder.
 
If I saw someone on the cameras under my car trying to cut off the catalytic converter no way would I go out to confront them.

I would however hit the remote start button and more than likely involuntarily prompt them to vacate the contents of their urinary tract/bladder.
Now THERE'S a creative technological solution to a behavioral problem ...
 
The only good ways of dealing with converter thieves is to lock the vehicle up where they can't get to it, or weld a cage around the converter.

We had our box truck out of commission for months because the converter thieves cut a wire and fried the computer. It would have been less of an impact on our business if they had just stolen the whole truck.
 
If I saw someone on the cameras under my car trying to cut off the catalytic converter no way would I go out to confront them.

I would however hit the remote start button and more than likely involuntarily prompt them to vacate the contents of their urinary tract/bladder.

Does the remote start also unlock the doors(?), asking for a friend.
I personally would hit the panic button on the remote to activate the alarm, just me though.
.
 
Tactics. I think that's whats missing in the OP's post.

Whether you're confronting a person stealing your catalytic converter or trying to break in your home you need to have tactics laid out to deal with the situation.

Sometimes that means calling 911 and other times it involves getting involved.

Knowing the difference is key.
 
This even applies during war. Once they surrendered or were incapacitated we had to stop violent actions towards them. Sometimes it seemed like an extra round for "justice" would have been a better idea, but we didn't.

A few days ago I saw an interview of Christian Craigshead, the retired SAS man that is famous for running towards the gunfire during the terrorist attacks in Nairobi. Bear in mind this guy is a 28 year military vet and spec-ops soldier with many tours of duty in combat zones. He said he made peace with the fact that he might have to die if the alternative was to shoot someone that didn't need shooting. He said that's the way it has to be. That strikes me as the difference between a warrior and a soldier, one is a protector and the other is just a killer doing what they're told. I'm obviously not able to condense the hour-long video into a short post but he addresses responsibility and the can-vs-should question. Well worth a listen, he was interviewed by Garand Thumb.
 
Here’s the Cliff’s Notes: Once you leave the safety of your home you take the very real risk of being legally found to be the initial aggressor in a confrontation.

Know the laws of your state, and how they're applied. Once you understand the laws, use common sense in deciding upon your actions.

If those 2 simple things were done all the time, a lot less people would likely find themselves in legal trouble when it comes to situations involving 'confrontations' (and the necessity of them to occur).
 
Back
Top