Tree thieves shot - Page 4

Tree thieves shot

This is a discussion on Tree thieves shot within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I literally know of no person who today right now is not "financially challenged", and who do not feel that everything they spend their grip ...

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

Thread: Tree thieves shot

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    I literally know of no person who today right now is not "financially challenged", and who do not feel that everything they spend their grip on is theirs and theirs only.

    I know of no one who is so well off that they could give a care if they are victimized by theft and that what they lose ehh no big deal I've got potted money trees growing in my cellar based hydroponic greenhouse with custom built full spectrum UV 'grow lights' to ensure a constant and bountiful cash crop.

    I know of no one like that, IRL.

    But I do know of a whole mess of people who if they are jailed (even if later they are no billed) or are imprisoned for wrong doing following spending every dime they don't have toward their defense and/or are sued for wrongful death or disablement in civil court who would collapse financially, emotionally, and even physically under such a burden and strain.

    For what? For why?
    What all things being relative amounts to per this specific story a trinket valued at less than the cost of two tanks of gas or a that of a new Huffy as bought from Wal-Mart or a weeks worth of groceries for a family of four.

    Would I personally trade a weeks worth of groceries as a one time loss in exchange for potential of loss toward my freedom, Constitutional rights, my families wealth and well being (dad secluded warm and fed in prison can't do anything for them still on the streets and in the cold), and/or my kids college fund monies? Heck no I would not trade my familys well being and my own, for 'stuff' that is all things being relative of little to no real and significant importance to me or mine. I won't like giving up a weeks worth of food but I like my life, lifestyle of comfort as relative to jail/prison, and my family much more. My kids every day during diner and bed time give me hugs. I wouldn't trade that for anything and especially not for some dude named Bubba or Darnell.

    Things are not black and white, all the time. You make your choices and that includes how you react to the choices that others without your asking make their own choices as becomes directly related to you. That's life and living in the big world.
    Like dad's house rules; You don't have to like it. But you will respect it and abide. Or else there is a cost to be incurred. Make your choice but before you do do think long and wisely as you can.

    - Janq
    Last edited by Janq; February 10th, 2009 at 08:11 PM.
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing


  2. #47
    Senior Member Array Frogbones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    967
    Well put sleazy and as always Janq, opinions noted...I understand.

    I would most definitely use sound judgment if I were to catch some poor fool stealin any of my possessions. Most likely not to use deadly force...but I'm not ruling it out of the equation.

    And yes, it is ALL 'bout choices. That is the absolute freedom....choice.

    I understand material items are....well, just material items. Still, I cannot rule out the possibility that I could kill to prevent a theft or series of thefts that would/could destroy all that I hold dear.

  3. #48
    Member Array Sig master's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    61
    Think of it this way frogbones you dont shoot the BG and he gets away, breaks into or tries to steal from someone else and is confronted but this time has a weapon and uses it you could have stoped all of this by just pulling the trigger. I am a firm believer of protect what you work for and earned so come to my house or car if I am driving and I dont know you and you are trying to take from me whoever it is wont be walking away
    Sig P220R .45ACP
    Taurus PT92 9mm
    Rem 870 12ga.
    Bushmaster M-4 .223/5.56
    HK P2000 9mm
    Glock 31 .357

  4. #49
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig master View Post
    Think of it this way frogbones you dont shoot the BG and he gets away, breaks into or tries to steal from someone else and is confronted but this time has a weapon and uses it you could have stoped all of this by just pulling the trigger. I am a firm believer of protect what you work for and earned so come to my house or car if I am driving and I dont know you and you are trying to take from me whoever it is wont be walking away
    Even In Tx whether I shoot or not will be a decision that is made at that time if it ever occurrs,If somebody runs away cause I chose not to shoot ,runs down the road and robs somebody else that is their fault for not having a gun and protecting themselves,The CHL and castle doctrine doesn't make us cops or vigilantes
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  5. #50
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,060
    Who is the guy's lawyer?
    I would bet that Rusty Hardin could get him a walk.

    If you look at the original article the police said the guys were stealing trees! Also, they said that several trees had been stolen. Those things are $100 each. So we are not talking about shooting someone over $100, but several hundred dollars. Of course that is assuming it was the same guys are stealing all of them and you shoot the right guys.

    So, for the sake of argument. Those that say they wouldn't shoot someone over $100, what's your price? If you woke up tomorrow with $800 gone and tomorrow night three guys show up in a truck and stop and get out at the scene of the crime might you reasonably believe that these were the guys and they had come back for more?

    Uh-oh! Now we are flirting with justification under PC 9.42!
    If this guy had either waited until the pulled another tree, or shot them while they were on his property with shovels, he probably would not have even seen handcuffs. I am curious as to what the surviving parties told the police in their interviews. I also would be interested in seeing what would happen if they show up at the deceased's house and found a dozen palm trees sitting in the driveway.

    I am not saying what the guy did was right. I am just saying this case might not be as open and shut as it looks! It could easily come down to jury instructions.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #51
    Member Array flaboatbum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by SleazyRider View Post
    Though I agree with you in principle, you stand a good chance of losing all that you hold dear when you are sued by the "victim" or the victim's estate. This has happened time and time again in the courts. It's not about justice, it's about who's going to pay. I urge you to reconsider your position on the use of deadly force to protect property; it just ain't worth it.
    Bravo SleazyRider! Allow me to re-interate my worry about SOME Texan's apparent attitudes IE...steal MY stuff and you could freakin DIE. Hey gang, there are other options legally....report a theft, be a good witness, make your stuff thief proof, help neighbors, be on the look out...the list goes on. All of us, of course, understand the emotion of working hard and earning your "things" and there will always be low lifes who want to take it away. It does not compute in my book to counter petty theft or grand theft with DEATH. Be very, very careful ya'll.

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by flaboatbum View Post
    Bravo SleazyRider! Allow me to re-interate my worry about SOME Texan's apparent attitudes IE...steal MY stuff and you could freakin DIE. Hey gang, there are other options legally....report a theft, be a good witness, make your stuff thief proof, help neighbors, be on the look out...the list goes on. All of us, of course, understand the emotion of working hard and earning your "things" and there will always be low lifes who want to take it away. It does not compute in my book to counter petty theft or grand theft with DEATH. Be very, very careful ya'll.
    You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. Thankfully, our legislature disagrees with you.

    It's pretty simple, really. If you don't steal our stuff, we promise not to shoot you. If that's not good enough, stay out of Texas.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  8. #53
    Ex Member Array JOHNSMITH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    1,726
    If I were a homeowner in Texas after 6 PM, I probably would make a call for petty theft. For grand theft, I would very seriously consider deadly force. You can't just steal a significant portion of a man's life like that.

  9. #54
    Senior Member Array Frogbones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    It's pretty simple, really. If you don't steal our stuff, we promise not to shoot you. If that's not good enough, stay out of Texas.
    Heck we're liable just to invite you in for a nice cup of Joe...but don't think about theft unless you value your life.


    There is a reason Texas is "The Lone Star State"

    There is no other state I'd rather live in.

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,060
    Suing the defendant might not be as easy as it looks. If the survivors are charged with and convicted of a felony related to their activities that night..
    § 93.001. ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.
    (a) It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for
    personal injury or death that the plaintiff, at the time the cause
    of action arose, was:
    (1) committing a felony, for which the plaintiff has
    been finally convicted, that was the sole cause of the damages
    sustained by the plaintiff; or

    (2) committing or attempting to commit suicide, and
    the plaintiff's conduct in committing or attempting to commit
    suicide was the sole cause of the damages sustained; provided,
    however, if the suicide or attempted suicide was caused in whole or
    in part by a failure on the part of any defendant to comply with an
    applicable legal standard, then such suicide or attempted suicide
    shall not be a defense.
    (b) This section does not apply in any action brought by an
    employee, or the surviving beneficiaries of an employee, under the
    Workers' Compensation Law of Texas, or in an action against an
    insurer based on a contract of insurance, a statute, or common law.
    (c) In an action to which this section applies, this section
    shall prevail over any other law.
    Also.....
    CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE

    CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON


    § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
    deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is
    immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that
    results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as
    applicable.
    Now, the title of this section says in defense of person, but the text only requires justification under chapter nine of the penal code. So that brings us to...
    § 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.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
    1994.


    § 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.
    IANAL, but it looks to me like this guy could end up generating more headlines than Joe Horn.

    As far as the arguments that their are other options we Texans can take, yes there are. But that is what they are options! Those same options are available to you when someone breaks into your house, or mugs you on the street. Just ask the Brady bunch, they will tell you! Just because your state may limit you to those options does not make it wrong for someone to choose and option that is available to them that is not available to you.

    The people of Texas have decided and legislated that there are specified offenses that you are putting your life at risk by committing. Unless you, a family member or a friend plan on coming here and committing one of those offenses and putting yourselves at risk, why do you care?
    If you do plan on coming here and committing one of those offenses, you can't say we didn't warn you!

    I am not saying that I will shoot someone to defend my property, but I also am certainly not ruling it out.

    Being a criminal in Texas is dangerous, as it should be.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #56
    Member Array flaboatbum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    105
    After a quick read (Thanks mcp 1810) I'd say the Legistature has built in some potential land mines for those who interpret the "OK to shoot a thief" provision a little too loosely. Is your life in danger from a bag of oranges or plam tree thief? You cannot recover the property any other way? If you can, best NOT to shot. IF you are not in substantial risk from the thief, best NOT to shoot. If you do, better withdraw wads of money for your attorney.

    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.

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,060
    So this has us back to disparity of force and reasonable belief.
    Assuming the shooter was legally in posession of the property and the trees on it we now have a few questions.

    Did the incident occur between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise?

    Was it reasonable to believe that force was necessary to prevent the three subjects from trespassing on his land or illegally interfering with his property?

    Was it reasonable for him to believe that these guys had no legal claim on the property in question.

    Was it reasonable for him to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent their committing a theft, or if they had committed a theft to prevent their escape?

    Was it reasonable for him to believe that using other than deadly force while out numbered three to one would expose him to substantial risk of serious bodily injury?

    And, lookie what I found!
    Deputy: Shooting victims intended to steal palm trees
    Comments 36 | Recommend 2
    February 2, 2009 - 10:08 PM
    By Jeremy Roebuck/The Monitor
    EDINBURG - A Donna arborist may have had good reason to suspect three men he shot last week of stealing from him, an Hidalgo County sheriff's investigator said.

    One of the shooting victims confessed hours after the attack that he had been scoping out Graham Garfield's family palm tree farm in anticipation of a planned theft, Deputy Samuel Peña Jr. told a judge Monday.

    His testimony contradicts earlier statements released by the sheriff's office and claims from two of the three men, who told The Monitor last week they had only stopped at Garfield's property southeast of Edinburg to relieve themselves.

    "They were going there to case the area and to steal palm trees," Peña said.

    Since his arrest last week, the case has spurred debate among those who argue that Garfield was within his right to defend his property and those who say he went too far. Sheriff Lupe Treviño has staked out a firm position in the latter camp.

    The arborist confronted the men as they exited the family business southeast of Edinburg Tuesday night, according to a probable cause affidavit filed in his case.

    As they fled, Garfield fired one shotgun blast at their oncoming vehicle and another as they passed, the document states. One of the men - Alejandro Estrada, 21 - later died from his injuries. Carlos Zamarron, 20, and Agustin Casanova, 18, survived the attack.

    Although Garfield refused to provide a written statement, he told investigators shortly afterwards that he suspected the men were stealing from the business, the affidavit says.

    But in an interview Friday, the sheriff said deputies found no evidence that the men had taken any trees or even had the tools to do so.

    "We found absolutely no evidence to justify this crime," Treviño said after Garfield had been arraigned on murder charges

    Peña's testimony Monday cast a different light on the events of that night.

    Casanova told deputies from the start that he, Zamarron and Estrada had planned to steal from Garfield's family business, the deputy said. Investigators also found a cut fence on the Southern Nurseries property.

    Garfield's probable cause affidavit does not mention either development. Casanova could not be reached Monday to independently confirm his alleged statements.

    When asked about the conflicting stories Monday, the sheriff maintained that the victims' intentions had no bearing on the case.

    "Quite frankly, I don't see what difference it makes," Treviño said. "It doesn't change the fundamental issue."

    State law allows individuals to use deadly force to defend their property against unlawful intruders.

    But Garfield took the law into his own hands and broke it when he shot at the fleeing men from a public roadway, the sheriff said. Since the intruders hadn't taken anything, Garfield had no way of knowing their plans.

    District Attorney Rene Guerra, however, argued that the discrepancy does matter. His office agreed Monday not to object to Garfield's request for a lower bond.

    "I had been led to believe that (the intruders) were innocent bystanders," he said. "Obviously, this changes things."

    State District Judge Letty Lopez granted Garfield's bond request, lowering it from $2 million to $100,000. By Monday afternoon, he had been released from the Hidalgo County jail.

    Now, the district attorney's office will present his case before a grand jury to determine whether Garfield should be prosecuted.

    If convicted, he could face up to life in prison and $10,000 in fines.

    Garfield's attorney - Ric Salinas - did not return calls for comment Monday.

    He might not even need to call Rusty!
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #58
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. Thankfully, our legislature disagrees with you.

    It's pretty simple, really. If you don't steal our stuff, we promise not to shoot you. If that's not good enough, stay out of Texas.
    If the housing market wasn't tanked I'd be halfway tempted to move to texas, but as it is, I don't think I could sell my house and actually break even.

    Some day...
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  14. #59
    Member Array socal2310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    467
    I really get a kick out of the prosecutor slapping down the police chief for the good guy. How often does that happen?

    Ryan
    Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Thieves could go free while victim faces jail time (He shot one of them)
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 9th, 2010, 02:58 AM
  2. Mossy under the tree!
    By Flippinstk in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 26th, 2008, 06:22 PM
  3. Bad: Father Shot While Confronting Thieves
    By rhyfl in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2008, 04:41 AM
  4. Family Tree
    By WarHorse1961 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: January 25th, 2008, 05:37 AM
  5. Tree Hugger
    By MJZZZ in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 26th, 2007, 12:37 AM

Search tags for this page

thieves shot by victims

Click on a term to search for related topics.