What if the bad guy bolts? - Page 4

What if the bad guy bolts?

This is a discussion on What if the bad guy bolts? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Don't do Nuttin... See whut I did there Bolts...Nut-tin...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59
Like Tree51Likes

Thread: What if the bad guy bolts?

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Don't do Nuttin... See whut I did there Bolts...Nut-tin
    Hopyard likes this.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .


  2. #47
    Senior Member Array Hoplyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    657
    Well, he probably didn't want to to take the chance. He didn't know if the guy would expose his internal organs to daylight or not. On a side note, dukalmighty, if you could please pm me. I'd like to discuss an item you have listed in member sales. When I send you a pm it says box full.

  3. #48
    Senior Member Array Hoplyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    657
    Sorry ExactlyMyPoint, I misread and thought dukalmighty posted this tread. Just trying to contact him.

  4. #49
    Senior Member Array USM1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    Exactly! And regarding a grand jury- it is a one-sided, secret, pro forma process run completely by the prosecutor. If he wants to indict you, he will indict you. Then you'll mortgage your house paying lawyers, for a 50-50 shot at an acquittal. Prosecutors have tremendous power, and they are paid to put people in prison. The only thing that limits him is that he doesn't have the resources to prosecute everybody. If he has to pick between the guy who shot and the guy who didn't, he'll pick on the guy who shot. If he has to pick between the guy who shot and the target died, and the one where the target was wounded, or missed, guess which one he picks. Don't be the big fish in his pond that day!

    In this case, it wasn't even his TV. Texas law gives the guy with the shotgun no legal standing to protect it. He also can't be sure who the rightful owner of the TV is, and if it turns out the guy walking with it just bought it or otherwise had permission to move it, you'll be charged with armed robbery along with a bunch of other crimes. Never do what was shown in this video.


    Sorry, didn't mean to make the lettering that large....

    Not so about no legal standing to protect a third person's property in Texas. In Texas a person can use deadly force to protect a third person's property: Texas Penal Code Section 9.43...Protection of Third Person's Property--(you guys need to move here !!)...Please, don't misunderstand, one has no OBLIGATION but he does have legal authority.

    A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

    (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
    (2) the actor reasonably believes that:

    (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
    (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
    (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

    Now, when you read the statute, all three of the elements (A), (B), and (C) do not have to be present...The preposition OR means anyone one of the lements. Read the Joe Horn in Pasadena, Texas, where the neighbor used deadly force.

    As I said, no legal OBLIGATION to protect but certainly has legal backing. Now, what would be your assumptions after this shotgun wielding man's wife declared that the guy with the television had burglarized twice previously ?? I would assume he doesn't live around there is has found the neighborhood accomodating to his occupation as a burglar and thief.
    Snub44 likes this.

  5. #50
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...going by the caption of the video...it was the gun-toter's TV...if it was "somebody's" TV...USM1976 nailed it...

  6. #51
    Member Array BelaOkmyx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by USM1976 View Post
    [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

    Sorry, didn't mean to make the lettering that large....

    Not so about no legal standing to protect a third person's property in Texas. In Texas a person can use deadly force to protect a third person's property: Texas Penal Code Section 9.43...Protection of Third Person's Property--(you guys need to move here !!)...Please, don't misunderstand, one has no OBLIGATION but he does have legal authority.

    A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

    (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
    (2) the actor reasonably believes that:

    (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
    (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
    (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

    Now, when you read the statute, all three of the elements (A), (B), and (C) do not have to be present...The preposition OR means anyone one of the lements. Read the Joe Horn in Pasadena, Texas, where the neighbor used deadly force.

    As I said, no legal OBLIGATION to protect but certainly has legal backing. Now, what would be your assumptions after this shotgun wielding man's wife declared that the guy with the television had burglarized twice previously ?? I would assume he doesn't live around there is has found the neighborhood accomodating to his occupation as a burglar and thief.
    I understand that. Section A would only apply if there was some agreement between the guy with the shotgun and the neighbor to protect the property. Not a good thing to assume without something in writing, because if a shot was fired and the lawsuits come down, the neighbor isn't going to want to know anything about it. He's also not going to pay for your legal defense.

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...my best friend/neighbor and I each carry a letter from the other and keys to each other's property...we are at home at each other's houses...I wouldn't have such an arrangement with even my blood brothers...or any other man...we've been down a long road together...

  8. #53
    Senior Member Array Chief1297's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Posts
    792
    Looks like the burglar was trying to assault him with the TV to me...<jus sayin...>
    Snub44 likes this.
    Equality does not exist in the real world - it is a fiction to help the self esteem of those people who consistently fail to succeed.
    Retired SF(SP) CMSgt 1979-2005

  9. #54
    Senior Member Array 031131's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    nh
    Posts
    1,023
    What an interesting topic.

    What if you were to shoot him with a less lethal round (not in the head of course) like one of them bean bag ones. Can you be in legal hot waters because of that?

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...Texas Penal Code 9.31...

    ...other states will vary...

  11. #56
    Distinguished Member Array kelcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by 031131 View Post
    What an interesting topic.

    What if you were to shoot him with a less lethal round (not in the head of course) like one of them bean bag ones. Can you be in legal hot waters because of that?
    1. Non lethal does not mean no bodily injury. If there is injury and your state law is not clear on a shoot just for property, you may have a problem. Not so sure where running after him with a bat and knocking his head off fits into your question though.
    2. Not sure how those bean bag bullets fit into a semi or a revolver (only kidding) but it does mean you always have your rifle/shotgun around and handy--odds are you do have your handgun handy.

  12. #57
    Senior Member Array KyBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    522
    I believe in KY if the bad guy bolts you have to let them go. Which I would do anyway provided they had not actually harmed any member of my family. I seem to recall that a merchant is able to pursue outside of their store but don't take that as gospel, can't recall where I heard it.

    Trespassing or theft of personal property is not justification to use deadly force here, unless the perp is tring to burn your house or barn. But if the perp is inside your home you don't need further justification to shoot them if you feel threatened.

  13. #58
    New Member Array Ramsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    8
    If the bad guy runs away and leaves your stuff, you jump up and down and yell "Yahoo!" He just saved you a bunch of money in court!

    My hope is that if I ever DO have to use a firearm, I don't have to fire it, even if that means the bad guy gets away.

  14. #59
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,798
    Quote Originally Posted by ExactlyMyPoint View Post
    Nothing really special here. However, in this scenario, when the homeowner confronts the BG with a shotgun, had the BG just put down the TV and bolted, what was the homeowner going to do? Shoot him in the back? Probably not. And the BG would have gotten away.

    I am not sure why BGs just don't run away when confronted, knowing that the GG is probably NOT going to shoot him as he runs away.
    I don't know, I asked 2 guys .... how fast do you think you can run ? ...... you run, I let the dogs loose..... all 3 dogs raising hell on the other side of the fence acting like all they wanted to do was eat them. Uh, they wouldn't have made it 10 ft.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can i wear my navy uniform after discharge

,

when do you can you shoot a bad guy

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors