TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:Here the lack of prosecution by the DA on the vandal would have serious ramifications, if I was on the jury.

If he needs immunity to testify who shot him, it would take a lot to consider him a credible witness.

Truck driver chased down this vandal and shot him in the back. LOL. Truck driver should be charged with attempted murder. What if the guy died? Truck driver would have been sued back to the stone age and lost everything. He think slashed tires are expensive. Well he just found out that attorneys are REALLY expensive. Not worth it.

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.

VERY WELL SAID!!!

03Lightningrocks wrote:

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.

VERY WELL SAID!!!

How do you know what their "intentions" are, until they express them too clearly and you're caught behind the power curve?

RoyGBiv wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

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.

VERY WELL SAID!!!

How do you know what their "intentions" are, until they express them too clearly and you're caught behind the power curve?

Situational awareness.

I can see the news people omitting it because good reporting is hard to find these days, but I am curious if the vandal was still armed with the knife when shot.

I bet 18 wheeler tires are a good bit more expensive than the tires on my truck. My last set cost me about $1000. I hate to think what an independent trucker would have to shell out. I would bet the damage would reach felony levels. I think it is unfortunate the DA seems to think prosecuting the driver is more important than prosecuting the vandal.

Tractor tires are expensive. $800-$900 for steer tires, less for the 8 drive tires. Can easily have $5,000 in tires on a tractor.

What difference does the value of the tires make? Although I recognize your point that tires are expensive and commercial tires (or RV tires) are REALLY expensive, is there a monetary level where shooting is/isn't justified?

Does insurance pay for those tires? Just curious.

cb1000rider wrote:What difference does the value of the tires make? Although I recognize your point that tires are expensive and commercial tires (or RV tires) are REALLY expensive, is there a monetary level where shooting is/isn't justified?

K.Mooneyham wrote:Does insurance pay for those tires? Just curious.

The cost to the victim goes far beyond the value of the tires. What about the money lost because he can't work while he's having them replaced. Can you imagine the towing bill for a big rig?

When you start messing with a man's ability to feed & support his family, you deserve whatever you get. Then there's the feeling of having been violated. What toll would that take on the victim. You might think you know, but you don't really. It's different for everyone and can be devastating.

Not taking a hard line on these crimes is why they continue. Besides, I believe the law is on the shooter's side:

PC §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:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 61
(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.

The perp had a knife and had already demonstrated his willingness to use it to commit a crime.

Pawpaw wrote:
SNIP


The cost to the victim goes far beyond the value of the tires. What about the money lost because he can't work while he's having them replaced. Can you imagine the towing bill for a big rig?

When you start messing with a man's ability to feed & support his family, you deserve whatever you get. Then there's the feeling of having been violated. What toll would that take on the victim. You might think you know, but you don't really. It's different for everyone and can be devastating.

Not taking a hard line on these crimes is why they continue.

Papaw, I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I understand that the slashing of those tires made life tough for that trucker. Seems like far too often, our society wants to act as if things like tires being slashed is no big deal, and get all bent out when the victim of vandalism gets upset about it. I was taught to leave other folks' stuff alone, but I know very few folks care about that kind of thing anymore. My question about the tire insurance however is BECAUSE I know that our society leans toward the side of the vandal (in that putting a LEO on traffic duty is likely a higher priority than setting them to catch that vandal)...and I hate to see that trucker have the rest of his life ruined because of it. I don't have the tiniest bit of sympathy for the vandal.

There seems to be a focus on the monetary issue..... so putting aside the other issues, how much is the legal defense going to cost vs the cost of replacing the tires? He still has to replace the tires, and he has a criminal defense for which to pay.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

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.

VERY WELL SAID!!!

Agreed. I never understood why my chl instructor preached non stop that you can shoot people for petty crimes. He should have taught people to use some common sense after informing them of the law. Many had no clue about the world and their version is you can pull a wyatt earp at night on pretty much anybody.

texanjoker wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

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.

VERY WELL SAID!!!

Agreed. I never understood why my chl instructor preached non stop that you can shoot people for petty crimes. He should have taught people to use some common sense after informing them of the law. Many had no clue about the world and their version is you can pull a wyatt earp at night on pretty much anybody.

There is a difference between revenge and prevention.

cb1000rider wrote:What difference does the value of the tires make? Although I recognize your point that tires are expensive and commercial tires (or RV tires) are REALLY expensive, is there a monetary level where shooting is/isn't justified?

Some people seem to have this misguided idea that someone's life is worth something simply because they are alive. IMO, it isn't. It is worth as much as that person makes it. IMO, the vandal, by slashing tires, decided his life is worth nothing. If the guy had stepped out and shot him dead, I would say Good for the driver. We are lucky that we still live in a prosperous nation where set backs like this don't usually destroy our livelihoods or lives. We can survive it and continue to prosper. What I don't like is people saying "well it was no big deal" and not wanting to prosecute the vandal to the fullest. IMO, a victim should be allowed a fairly wide lattitude in dealing with crimes against himself or his property (at the time of the crime).

I understand the legal system does not necessarily agree with my sentiment. Certainly, the idiot politicians in big city DA offices don't. I try to make sure my behavior accounts for that.