Crime Texan wouldn't mind his own business... SHOOTS a thief DEAD

Right in the bull's-eye.
1631114572203
 
The thread title says "thief", which makes it sound like the guy snatched the wallet while the owner was away. Turns our it was a robber at gunpoint. That robber piece of shit deserves everything he's got.
 
If only he had listen to Biden speaking of police ought to shoot folks in the leg.

Jesus, that potato really did say that
 
Rob Battisti said:
Idk — shooter wasn’t in any danger by the looks of the video. If the guy had a guy, and the shooter knew that he had a gun, I could see an argument for self defense. As in, “I thought the guy that was being robbed was in danger of being shot and if the guy turned around he could have shot me”.

That being said, robber is sprinting away.

Looks like a bad shoot.

I don’t mean the accuracy because it was a DAMN good shot!
Click to expand...

From what I understand Texas considers retrieving stolen properly a justification for use of deadly force. Thus the victim would have been allowed to shoot the fleeing criminal because they held their property (wallet). The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their use for force wasn't justified. It's still not recommended to do it nilly willy because a trial is a grueling process, even if found not culpable. I'm not sure what the standard for a bystander is. I believe there's a line somewhere about being allowed to use deadly force on behalf of someone else if that someone else would have been allowed to use it, but I don't have that quote handy. I believe the bystander would be in the clear, at least of very serious charges.


Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Sec. 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.
Click to expand...
 
LangfordBarrow said:
Running away to commit this crime again almost certainly. Live by the sword...
Click to expand...
I dont feel sorry for the dude believe me. But even a cop wouldn't shoot a guy in the back running away from a robbery imo.
 
Michaelangelo said:
Not everyone is Batman and capable of apprehending these thugs without deadly force

Guess we just need more billionaires in capes
Click to expand...

"Let's face it, if you decided to fight crime, you wouldn't have Super Powers. And if you relied on martial arts and Batarangs, you'd have a very short career and end up in a body bag.

So how do you fight criminals? Use guns, son. Big ones".
- Frank Miller
 
LangfordBarrow said:
I think the law here, at least in Texas and it should be everywhere, is that if it's a violent criminal that's armed then shooting him will prevent future victims.
Click to expand...

- But a civilian doesnt has the power to decide that?
Even a cop wound get in problems no?

We dont know if he was gonna make more crimes. Its just a assumption!
 
KnightTemplar said:
"Let's face it, if you decided to fight crime, you wouldn't have Super Powers. And if you relied on martial arts and Batarangs, you'd have a very short career and end up in a body bag.

So how do you fight criminals? Use guns, son. Big ones".
- Frank Miller
Click to expand...

- Batman is in his 80's now!:)
 
LangfordBarrow said:
Don't many crimes go unsolved?
Click to expand...

Sure, but you can't shoot people based on things like "the crime might not get solved" or "the criminal may act again".

If you're shooting someone, you're presumably doing that to actively save a life or lives, which doesn't seem to be apparent here.

Anything below that threshold doesn't justify this level of force for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Zeke's Chaingun
News Dog Behavior and the Kristi Noem execution of her dog
5 6 7
Replies
135
Views
3K
Jack Reacheround
Jack Reacheround
LeonardoBjj
Economy Why a small China-made EV has global auto execs and politicians on edge
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
3K
NoSmilez
NoSmilez

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,628
Messages
55,575,625
Members
174,826
Latest member
cehuff

Share this page

Back
Top