TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:While I feel it was a mistake to shoot the vandal after the fact. I don't understand how getting shot is a defense to prosecution for committing a felony. Unless there is no evidence the guy slashed the tires, therein lies the injustice of this story. IMHO, if he slashed the tires, there should be charges brought against him.

I think anybody committing such acts of vandalism should expect to get shot. What's the problem?

bayouhazard wrote:

philip964 wrote:DA has no plans to charge vandal.

That is what bothers me the most about the story. The shooting will be sorted out by the justice system, by people with access to more information than the reporter. However, if the alleged vandal is not arrested and charged, there is no opportunity for the justice system to sort out this specific crime. Even worse, when there isn't justice for crime victims, it creates an environment that encourages vigilante behavior.

rotor wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

tomtexan wrote:

The trucker was arrested and will face aggravated assault charges.

Police said there were multiple 18-wheelers with flat tires outside of that apartment complex.

Despite the apparent vandalism, deputies said the district attorney's office has no plans to press charges against the vandal.

Wait, what???

So it's ok to slash tires now but not ok to defend against the destruction of your property?

Things that make you go hmmmm....

Inversely is it ok to kill a man for slashing your tires? I hope they're good tires...

To play devils advocate, what point is it ok to kill a man for slashing your tires. How about if it costs you thousands of dollars to repair? If it were theft of your property for thousands would that be ok? How about if you lost the ability to earn an income? If someone commits a crime and therefore you have loss of money (or income) has that not been money stolen from you? Vandals spray graffiti on your walls and you spend thousands to fix ( or the city fines you for not fixing). I know that legally the individual did not have the right to shoot for vandalism but how much financial loss does one have to put up with before one takes action? Having been the victim of vandalism at a time that I was broke and I had to spend a considerable money to get my car back in action it meant that the family did not have money for food or rent just so that I had wheels to go to work. Who knows what I would have done if I had cought the vandal.