I could be wrong, but the trucker probably is facing charges and the vandal is not for one reason (even though it is legal to shoot in defense of property);
There is no evidence that the vandal (Montoya) slashed his tires. The trucker heard it but did not SEE it. He just saw a guy walking away from his truck, but he did not see the guy slashing his tires. Now, if he had video of the vandal vandalizing his truck, then the vandal would probably be charged, but that evidence did not exist. In other words, the trucker could not testify in a court of law that he saw the vandal slash his tires. He could only testify that he heard his tires slashed and then saw the guy walk away. It is almost certain that Montoya really did slash his tires, but almost doesn't cut it as you have to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Some doubt exists because the perp could've ran away before the trucker shook off his grogginess, put on his shoes, and then exited his truck. Meanwhile, Mr. Montoya, walking his dog, was in the wrong place at the worng time. Although it is not probably what happened, that is possible, so it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that Montoya vandalized.
Therefore, if there is no provable crime committed by the vandal, then the trucker is not shooting to protect property but shooting at a misidentified person.
In other words, like I've always preached on this forum, if the perp is unarmed, then it's a bad idea to shoot him, even if it is legal. Also, be 100% certain that you are in the right before shooting the perp or you'll be ruined. This doesn't mean overanalyze an emergency situation and end up doing nothing, but do have a rule of thumb that you follow. Make up that rule of thumb for yourself and live by it. For example, I always have video rolling everywhere that I go. If the perp produces or threatens to use a weapon and it's on video, then and only then will I use deadly force. Otherwise, it's harsh words, a pepper spray, or a mag lite. You may be comfortable with a different rule of thumb. That's fine, but do have one so you don't have to think in an emergency event that is unfolding quickly.
As for the guy who said that a policeman shot a spray painter. Well, unless you're a LEO or can afford a legal dream team, I can guarantee you that you'll do hard time for that. It's not right and it is definitely not the definition of liberty, but the fact is that LEOs can pretty much shoot anything and anyone they want and get away with it. Unless you go postal like that cop in California, cops get a free pass. If you're a civilian, you need a watertight case. If you're a cop, you'll only need a basket that can hold apples.
Dr Joker,
After the tires were slashed, he chased the guy down, and then shot him. Lets assume that he could identify him positively as the person that slashed the tires.
The danger to property is over. Where is the justification for shooting? Just curious.
cb1000rider wrote:Dr Joker,
After the tires were slashed, he chased the guy down, and then shot him. Lets assume that he could identify him positively as the person that slashed the tires.
The danger to property is over. Where is the justification for shooting? Just curious.
Depends on exactly what is meant by "chased", and what all happened after the chasing and before the shooting. Perhaps "chased" is an extreme exaggeration, and the slasher made a move like he was going to attack the trucker? Or maybe the slasher was coming back for round two? I mean as long as we're speculatively filling in the blanks...
But based on what I know from this thread, at least for the next several years I think the trucker's life is going to be a bit too interesting for my taste.
Yes, I'm not Dr Joker, I know.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
cb1000rider wrote:Dr Joker,
After the tires were slashed, he chased the guy down, and then shot him. Lets assume that he could identify him positively as the person that slashed the tires.
The danger to property is over. Where is the justification for shooting? Just curious.
Dude, that's my whole point. There is no justification for the shooting.
However, just to be the devil's advocate...
Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code, "A person is justified in using deadly force against another... to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime...."
The Angel's advocate would quote, however, "... from escaping with the property," and the truck tires aren't being carried off, so, nope, there is no justification for the shooting, for many reasons, but I just stated the reason why I think the trucker is charged while the vandal is NOT charged... evidence. There is no evidence that the vandal is the vandal while there is evidence that the shooter is the shooter. No mysterious hypothetical grassy knoll shooter here. I mention this because a lot of people on many forums are upset that the trucker (good guy) was charged while the criminal (vandal) was NOT charged. The reason is evidence. America is a beautiful country precisely because it is a country of laws with justice based on evidence and not a country of false justice based on the whims of the lynch mob. That's why Mr. trucker is going to jail and Zimmerman is not (another case that has been decided by evidence, but goes against the whims of public opinion).
The only way that this might've been a "good shoot" is if they found a knife in the vandal's hand. However, none of the news reports on this incident mentions that the trucker chased after a guy with a knife in his hand.
How it could've been legal (but did NOT happen this way per news reports); Mr. trucker chased after the vandal to apprehend him for LEOs. Mr. vandal suddenly produces a knife. Being in fear for his life and sure that Mr. vandal did the slashing (caught red handed with knife in hand), Mr. trucker gunned him down and took a picture of the vandal with knife in hand (so that evidence couldn't be erased nor tampered with later). Mr. Trucker posts photos on Facebook, Youtube, and TexasCHLForum then awaits authorities to arrive.
Dave2 wrote:
cb1000rider wrote:Dr Joker,
After the tires were slashed, he chased the guy down, and then shot him. Lets assume that he could identify him positively as the person that slashed the tires.
The danger to property is over. Where is the justification for shooting? Just curious.
Depends on exactly what is meant by "chased", and what all happened after the chasing and before the shooting. Perhaps "chased" is an extreme exaggeration, and the slasher made a move like he was going to attack the trucker? Or maybe the slasher was coming back for round two? I mean as long as we're speculatively filling in the blanks...
But based on what I know from this thread, at least for the next several years I think the trucker's life is going to be a bit too interesting for my taste.
I obviously don't get the gist of the law or the general feeling among many of this topics posters that shooting someone over property is okay (I am not disputing the legality of it) because it can be "dangerous" or whatever.
The only reason that I am going to shoot somebody is that they are presenting a deadly-threat to my loved-ones or myself. I doubt that I would even shoot someone for trespass unless that trespass was a component of their using force to enter my house or car, as at that point I would consider them a threat.
I am just not happy with the idea that it is "okay" to shoot someone simply because it is legal but does not present a threat to my well-being.
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
Actually, that's why the law says you can only shoot over property at night. Because it is to protect victims since it is hard to see if the perp has a gun or not at night.
Purplehood wrote:I obviously don't get the gist of the law or the general feeling among many of this topics posters that shooting someone over property is okay (I am not disputing the legality of it) because it can be "dangerous" or whatever.
The only reason that I am going to shoot somebody is that they are presenting a deadly-threat to my loved-ones or myself. I doubt that I would even shoot someone for trespass unless that trespass was a component of their using force to enter my house or car, as at that point I would consider them a threat.
I am just not happy with the idea that it is "okay" to shoot someone simply because it is legal but does not present a threat to my well-being.
Purplehood wrote:I obviously don't get the gist of the law or the general feeling among many of this topics posters that shooting someone over property is okay (I am not disputing the legality of it) because it can be "dangerous" or whatever.
The only reason that I am going to shoot somebody is that they are presenting a deadly-threat to my loved-ones or myself. I doubt that I would even shoot someone for trespass unless that trespass was a component of their using force to enter my house or car, as at that point I would consider them a threat.
I am just not happy with the idea that it is "okay" to shoot someone simply because it is legal but does not present a threat to my well-being.
Purplehood wrote:I obviously don't get the gist of the law or the general feeling among many of this topics posters that shooting someone over property is okay (I am not disputing the legality of it) because it can be "dangerous" or whatever.
The only reason that I am going to shoot somebody is that they are presenting a deadly-threat to my loved-ones or myself. I doubt that I would even shoot someone for trespass unless that trespass was a component of their using force to enter my house or car, as at that point I would consider them a threat.
I am just not happy with the idea that it is "okay" to shoot someone simply because it is legal but does not present a threat to my well-being.
and in reality when it hit the fan I would bet most people would fall in the same category.
drjoker wrote:Now, if he had video of the vandal vandalizing his truck, then the vandal would probably be charged, but that evidence did not exist. In other words, the trucker could not testify in a court of law that he saw the vandal slash his tires.
If you shoot a vandal, make sure they don't see you and you don't get caught on camera. Then you're good in Houston.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
The person who was slitting truck tires was not worth the powder.
Don't shoot at someone who is running away.
When the vandal ran he was not an imminent threat
Truck driver needs some jail time in a case like this
N.R.A. benefactor Member Please Support the N.R.A.
Quick thoughts on possible scenarios.
#1: Trucker chases vandal who turns and makes a stabbing motion at him with the knife (Suspect is armed with one since he was slicing tires). The truckers brain says to fingers "We are in danger boogerhook, make bang switch work." Considering the reaction times and the fact the vandal is acting he turns and starts to run again while the trucker is still reacting to the threatening motion, the gun goes off and the vandal gets shot in the backside. In this instance it would be a legitimate case of self defense, and is quite plausible.
#2: The Trucker is angry that his income is being destroyed by some random criminal chases the criminal down and then when he realizes the vandal may get away by out running him he takes the shot and hits the suspect. In this case it turns out the trucker committed a crime and now needs to be punished, this is also quite plausible.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019
I was like a few here who was taught or thought that at night meant a free fire zone. I have learned from this thread shooting at night just because you don't want the person to return again and do it again, or get away (vandalize, trespass or attempt to rob or break in) is not protected by the law.
The trucker's recourse here, may be to take a risk with a jury trial and hope for jury nullification, like the neighbor who killed two robbers a while back and received so much media attention.
Here the lack of prosecution by the DA on the vandal would have serious ramifications, if I was on the jury.
and in reality when it hit the fan I would bet most people would fall in the same category.
Please Support the N.R.A. 
