Homeowner Aids Police...

Homeowner Aids Police...

This is a discussion on Homeowner Aids Police... within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I love Texas, but this story gives me pause. It appears clear Texas law allows the protection of property; but really?...Shoot someone for a air ...

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 77
Like Tree145Likes

Thread: Homeowner Aids Police...

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array RightsEroding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,518

    Homeowner Aids Police...

    I love Texas, but this story gives me pause.

    It appears clear Texas law allows the protection of property; but really?...Shoot someone for a air conditioner? Hmmmm?
    I wonder if there is more to this story than is being reported? Given the current political climate, I doubt I would have fired.

    NRA-ILA | Homeowner aids police in capture of burglar, KHOU, Houston, Texas 07/25/13

    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
    "When those who are governed do too little, those who govern can, and will, do too much." Ronald Reagan

    Do what you can; then do what you must


  2. #2
    New Member Array Patterson911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    79
    I would absolutely shoot someone for stealing my property if the law allowed it in my state. The reason: If they have the gull to steal your property today how many times are they going to continue stealing property until they decide to take it further. What if next time they don't come for just an air conditioner as in they come for your wife or daughter while they swipe the flat-screen.

    I don't look for reasons to shoot someone, but I am a firm believer in nipping the problem in the bud before it becomes a bigger problem.

  3. #3
    Member Array wester's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    181
    This story makes me grateful that it is illegal in South Carolina to use deadly force to protect property. I suspect it would be traumatic enough to protect one self by killing an attacker. It would be a heavy burden for me to have to live with killing someone for stealing my property.

  4. #4
    Distinguished Member Array RightsEroding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,518
    This is a tough call as I can see this from (2) sides of the debate.

    I see some similarity when a area suffers from a natural disaster with residents posting signs that read "Looters Will Be Shot"
    One could argue theft, looting etc would continue unabated w/o the threat.

    Perhaps this will come down to personal choice if the LAW allows such action.

    Me? No? You may have my air conditioner if 1) You can carry it and 2) You can carry it with my dog showing you his pearly whites as you attempt to steal it.

    Personally, a life, be it a good one or a nasty criminal is worth more than a AC unit.
    357and40 and Sister like this.
    "When those who are governed do too little, those who govern can, and will, do too much." Ronald Reagan

    Do what you can; then do what you must

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,401
    Quote Originally Posted by RightsEroding View Post
    I love Texas, but this story gives me pause.

    It appears clear Texas law allows the protection of property; but really?...Shoot someone for a air conditioner?
    Quote Originally Posted by From the article
    A homeowner was at his house in Houston, Texas when he noticed a burglar on his property attempting to steal an air conditioning unit. The homeowner retrieved a gun and confronted the criminal, and fired one shot at him, but missed. After firing at the thief, the homeowner called the police and followed the criminal as he fled, eventually helping police to locate him.
    In the absence of details about what actually transpired between the moments of having retrieved the gun and confronting the intruder, it's hard to make assumptions.

    But whatever else is true, I think it's fair to say the force used against the intruder was because of that, the intrusion, not the product in question. It's what's at the core of most of the use-of-force statutes across the states: presence of intruders constitutes threat to persons, directly, by implication if nothing else. Yes, in most states there must be active, dire, violent threat being engaged against a person in order for deadly threat to be authorized. Not in TX, though. But with scant detail listed in that article, it's impossible to know whether the intruder turned assailant for the moment when confronted, or whether (as you appear to believe might be likely) the citizen simply came out blasting. No can tell, from the details.

    Myself: presuming it's safe to do so, when approaching the intruder I'd warn loudly and harshly in "command voice," demanding he/they show hands, get down and go immediately compliant, and if they failed to show immediate compliance via showing any attempt to violate me or mine in any manner then I would put that threat down. They'd have an opportunity to do the right thing, or get shot for attempting to turn the situation against me. But that's just me. And I can see a scant "news" report reporting much like what this one did, with so very little to go on from me regarding the "turn" of the situation when the perp(s) opted instead to fail to go immediately compliant and instead seek to get/harm me or mine.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    12,027
    Stealing an air conditioner in 95-100-degree weather might well be regarded as life-threatening, particularly from the residence of someone frail or elderly.
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Stealing an air conditioner in 95-100-degree weather might well be regarded as life-threatening, particularly from the residence of someone frail or elderly.
    ... in much the same way as stealing a horse in the desert might be understood.

    Texas is pretty clear-thinking in that way, harsh though it seems to some.

    And the message is pretty clear: be a criminal, if you must; just do it somewhere other than Texas. If only every state practiced this level of refusal to be victimized, I think we'd be a whole lot better off.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; July 27th, 2013 at 09:03 PM. Reason: grammar
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #8
    Ex Member Array IndianaSig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    If only every state practiced this level of refusal to be victimized, I think we'd be a whole lot better off.
    This is the best thought in this thread so far.

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,634
    Right or wrong, being shot for stealing property is effective in reducing the number of repeat offenders. I endorse anything that is effective in reducing crime.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  10. #10
    Member Array nickndfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    ... in much the same way as stealing a horse in the desert might be similarly understood.

    Texas is pretty clear-thinking in that way, harsh though it seems to some.

    And the message is pretty clear: be a criminal, if you must; just do it somewhere other than Texas. If only every state practiced this level of refusal to be victimized, I think we'd be a whole lot better off.

    That is the logic intended by the law and many like you and I agree with it. Florida does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property and I can see how situations could be taken to the extreme, but it would discourage a lot of crime.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,401
    Quote Originally Posted by nickndfl View Post
    That is the logic intended by the law and many like you and I agree with it. Florida does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property and I can see how situations could be taken to the extreme, but it would discourage a lot of crime.
    However, MOST states that disallow "protecting property" with deadly force do indeed support the notion that a citizen STILL has every right to arm himself when daring to confront an intruder and, if threat of violence or actual violence manifests itself then to use whatever force deemed necessary to put down that violence. Sadly, some states are positively prudish about such things, as are some zealot DA's who seemingly believe those left standing must be the assailants, simply because they're left standing.

    Nice to live in a state where, generally speaking, it's recognized as the only sane option to arm myself prior to confronting an intruder and potential assailant, and where if the intruder turns assailant its perfectly lawful to protect against that second crime perpetrated against me.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; July 27th, 2013 at 11:48 AM. Reason: grammar, spelling
    tcox4freedom likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array 357and40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Charles, Missouri
    Posts
    2,479
    The law is the law. As a cop buddy of mine is fond of saying, "sometimes the law may not seem right, but it is what I am expected to obey." There are laws that the general public may not like (inter)nationally, but they are on the books for a reason.

    As an example:
    The Honduran president that was attempting to set himself up as dictator-for-life by single-handedly eliminating the Honduran Constitution’s presidential term limits when the country's constitution declared it illegal to do anything to manipulate term limits including discussing changing term limits.

    "Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

    Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

    Mr. Obama was outraged that the people ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya claiming it was illegal to oust him. Guess it hit too close to home... Violate the law of the land and deal with the consequences...

    Back to the regularly scheduled program.
    ccw9mm likes this.
    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
    - Roy Batty

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,401
    Quote Originally Posted by 357and40 View Post
    As an example:
    The Honduran president that was attempting to set himself up as dictator-for-life by single-handedly eliminating the Honduran Constitution’s presidential term limits when the country's constitution declared it illegal to do anything to manipulate term limits including discussing changing term limits.

    Mr. Obama was outraged that the people ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya claiming it was illegal to oust him. Guess it hit too close to home... Violate the law of the land and deal with the consequences...
    Yup. Tyrants hate being outed. It's just so "unfair."
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #14
    Distinguished Member Array tcox4freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina USA
    Posts
    1,708
    Quote Originally Posted by wester View Post
    This story makes me grateful that it is illegal in South Carolina to use deadly force to protect property. I suspect it would be traumatic enough to protect one self by killing an attacker. It would be a heavy burden for me to have to live with killing someone for stealing my property.
    Not exactly the truth. This is one of those areas that can be a little muddy from a legal standpoint. I'm not a lawyer. But, the way I understand SC Law is--

    There is no duty to retreat from someone who is committing a felony upon you or your property. We have every right in SC to protect our property and it's isn't illegal to confront someone caught in the act of breaking into your home or stealing from you. The castle doctrine law assumes anyone that comes on your property with illegal intentions is ready to do you & your family severe bodily harm. Therefore, they are willing to commit a violent felony upon your person while committing that felony. (Thus, you are within your rights to do what is "necessary" to protect yourself and your family.)


    South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

    -
    Sister likes this.

  15. #15
    Distinguished Member Array BlackStallion29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    1,978
    Pay the price now, suffer the consequences later. I've worked to hard for what I have and regardless of what it is, you ain't taking it without some kind of resistance from me.
    "Everybody gets knocked down in life. How you choose to get back up is up to you!"
    *NRA* *BFA*
    *GOA* *SAF*
    *NAGR*

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Sponsored 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

what constitutes criminal mischief running the ac when its 40 degrees

Click on a term to search for related topics.