[RightsEroding]

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

 

[Patterson911]

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.

 

[wester]

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.

 

[RightsEroding]

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.

 

[ccw9mm]

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?

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.

 

[Mike1956]

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.

 

[ccw9mm]

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. :yup:

 

[IndianaSig]

If only every state practiced this level of refusal to be victimized, I think we'd be a whole lot better off. :yup:

This is the best thought in this thread so far.

 

[OldVet]

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.

 

[nickndfl]

... 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. :yup:

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.

 

[ccw9mm]

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. :yup:

 

[357and40]

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]

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." :tired:

 

[tcox4freedom]

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

-

 

[BlackStallion29]

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.

 

[StormRhydr]

If the AC was a window unit, it might well be the case that it was NOT about the theft of an AC unit, but rather that was the way they gained entry to rob/rape/murder.

Thats a favorite way of burglars/bad guys to gain entry.

My problem with the notion of "shooting to protect property", is that we dont know if its about property once we allow the bad guy to take control. I dont want to find out the hard way that he didnt just want my wallet & car keys, that he also then wanted to kill me.

 

[tdave]

I understand the argument you don't want to kill for property. However what separates humans from animals? One thing is property, animals do not own property by taking what is yours the thief is relegating you to animal status. Once you accept that status, what is next?

 

[1MoreGoodGuy]

Let's remember that this is a law which states that the victim is justified in using deadly force against the person committing the criminal act.

The victim did not choose to be a victim and did not choose to be in this situation.

The criminal chose to be a criminal and chose to make someone their victim.

 

[USM1976]

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

Are you saying that you would think about the "political climate" over the protection of your property and potentially your life ?? The article is very weak in its descripton of the events of this shooting which is very typical these days.

 

[Poorly]

I understand the argument you don't want to kill for property. However what separates humans from animals? One thing is property, animals do not own property by taking what is yours the thief is relegating you to animal status. Once you accept that status, what is next?

Why, you elect them to office, Silly. :danceban: