TexasCHLforum.com

Nighttime open season, no bag limit. Daytime, only nuisance animals endangering your life can b harvested. Good luck finding a taxidermist 2 mount the head, lol!

Texas_Blaze wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:The perp's life is more valuable than my stuff. the perp is made in the image of God. My stuff ain't.

Seems to me the value of my life is a judgement for me to make; and the value of a thief's life is a judgement for him to make. If he's stealing under circumstances where the law allows him to be shot, or just under circumstances where it is possible, then he made the decision that the stuff he's stealing is more valuable than his life. In order for him not to get shot for stealing something he simply has to refrain from stealing.

you know i agree with you. this is what is allowable by law, and like any good parent, i tell my kids, dont make stupid decisions, since consequences could be more severe than you know. we have to be wise as serpents.

however, speaking from an eternal perspective, misjudgment in value, doenst mean value is not there. because man's law allows it, doenst make it right in the sight of God.

I agree. And not only do I agree, I believe we are headed towards a time when the difference between man's law and God's law is going to force some of us to make some very hard choices. All I was speaking to is that since it is allowed, the miscreant has placed a value on his life that is less than the property he is stealing.

Texas_Blaze wrote:but think about this...if the perp is caught and brought to trial or in front of a judge, should he face the death penalty as punishment? i venture to say that most people would so no. even if the person has stolen millions of dollars like bernie (i think that is how you spell his name), so why shoot him when your life was not in danger? just because the law allows it?

This is the same in any encounter that doesn't end in a killing. If someone has a knife, you pull a gun, and he puts the knife down and runs away, you're not going to shoot him either. And if he's caught, he's not going to get the death penalty. If you take what you're saying here to its logical conclusion, it would suggest a woman not shoot someone attempting to rape her, since rape doesn't result in the death penalty. Also, consider the application of your analogy in a state that doesn't have the death penalty. Even defending your own life then would be imposing a greater penalty than what the law would impose; and I would maintain, furthermore, that a state without the death penalty has valued a murderer's life above the lives of every citizen.

I'm not talking about shooting someone running off with something he stole. What I was referring to in my previous posts is discovering someone stealing, and challenging them in some way...such as "hey, that's my car and I've called the police," with the intent of causing them to flee (I wouldn't even be displaying a weapon at that point). Shooting would only come into it if instead of fleeing they attacked me and forced me to defend myself.

And now you have made a reasonable explanation in my mind.

Good debate. I would protect my property but that's just me. It's a principle thing and I will keep my principles and my Property. Let a criminal go today he kills or rapes someone tomorrow. Criminals are after all criminals. Maybe this "radar detector" criminal just hasn't found the right vehicle with the gun he was looking for. I would hate to wake up and see this guys mug shot in the news after raping or murdering someone after I just gave him a walk waiting for the cops to show up. And that murder or rape victim could be someone very close to me. Like my daughter. That would really suck.

Cheers

Irpettit:

(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

Even though my original response was tongue in cheek humor, that was the real response I got from my attorney. Also, keep in mind the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law when taking into account your actions. The reason why it is "open season" at night for burglary is not that Texas allows shooting unarmed burglars at night over a radar detector. You are NOT shooting someone over a radar detector. You are shooting someone because you told him to give it back to you, but instead he makes some other actions. What other action? Who knows, it is dark and nighttime, remember? He might be going for his gun! This law is very important because it doesn't allow armchair quarterbacks determine that the lawful shooter is "shooting someone over replaceable property" because he IS NOT doing so. He is shooting someone at night who might be armed who is not complying with a request to return such property. The OP is possibly a red herring liberal baiter and y'all took the bait. Don't ever let liberals goad you down a path where only they will win. Some of them are master baiters. You can win these debates by not taking the bait, taking a step back, and thinking logically what the letter of the law is and the spirit of the law.

So, to answer the OP's question, you should only use lethal force when visibility is poor due to darkness, you asked that the burglar to "freeze and slowly put the radar detector on the ground," but he makes some other furtive move that you cannot ascertain due to the lack of sunlight. In that case, you can morally and legally shoot the culprit. However, do keep in mind that the cretin or his family might try to sue you in civil court. Anyone can sue anybody for anything in America. As a prudent move, you should keep legal insurance and a lawyer on a retainer if you have a CHL. You may be legally and morally justified, but it might cost you a pretty penny to prove that in court. Just look at Zimmerman. There is a witness that saw him being beaten by Trayvon, but he is having the fight of his life, not with Trayvon, but in court.

So, if you don't take the red herring bait, here is how a LEGAL shooting that is also moral and necessary might play out;
1. You hear a sound outside and you go out to investigate, not knowing what it is (it might be a cat tipping over your trash can).
2. You see the burglar taking something out of your car. You take out your gun and yell, "freeze!"
3. The burglar doesn't freeze. He makes a furtive move, possibly for his gun, but you cannot see because it is dark.
4. You shoot to defend yourself.

To avoid having the fight of your life in court afterwards, be sure that it really is dark outside because the spirit of the law is to protect you in case you HAVE to shoot due to visibility being poor and the culprit possibly having a gun. In other words, if you had 20 spotlights on your driveway, better not shoot if you can plainly see the burglar is unarmed and willing to give back your property.

Liberal red herring baits: DO NOT TAKE THE BAIT ! ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE ON THE JURY.

rbwhatever1 wrote:It's a principle thing and I will keep my principles and my Property. Let a criminal go today he kills or rapes someone tomorrow. Criminals are after all criminals.

To shoot someone because they're tomorrows criminal... I just don't know. My guess is that the majority of people - especially young people - breaking into cars probably don't go on to become murders are rapists.

To me, the $50k+ in legal bills associated with that stereo makes it not worth it.. Yea, I'll let them have the radar detector or stereo, but I know I'm in the minority here.

I wouldn't shoot anyone unless they needed shooting and it was justified self defense or to defend another's life day or night. I also wouldn't dial 911 and let him walk. I agree nighttime is very different rules but I would still make sure the shot needed to be taken. That bullet cannot be put back in the case. It would be a tragedy to shoot a family member, friend, neighbor or someone in distress by not identifying the situation correctly no matter where you are. This thug would be detained for the LEO's and I doubt he could get away if he was in my truck when I got there. We do not want to become England where a criminal can cut somebodies head off while citizens stand around and do nothing. I'm the moron that runs towards problems. I can thank 2 decades of military for that bad habit!

I believe Mae West said some men just need killing. Times were much simpler when people could be counted on to back each other up.

txgrifter wrote:Like I said, it just got me thinking of what I 'should' do in the situation since it got me thinking... I am not saying I WANT to do this.. I am just asking.. so if I walk out and see someone in my car.. just let them do their thing? yell at them to stop and if they threaten me / have a weapon then take appropriate action <--- that seems like the best thing in my opinion

I always recommend to try and be a good witness. Sometimes it is hard, but usually the best thing to do IMO. I have responded to calls and seen people stabbed to death over car stereos, been shot at by people breaking into cars, and taken many a weapon off these scum. If they will do that to a uniformed LEO, what do you think they will do to John Q. Public? They are almost always armed with at least a knife, carry a screw driver or other sharp object to break into cars. If you are in a safe place take some video of them or a good photograph. If they know you are watching they may just leave. Once you start an enforcement action the game changes and you are putting yourself at risk. Nobody knows if they can actually pull the trigger on a real person until they have actually done it.

E.Marquez wrote:

bdickens wrote:

CainA wrote:

bdickens wrote:

CainA wrote:I wouldn't shoot the perp even if justified. Material things aren't worth the legal headache.

Well now, how about if those material things are either a) your livelihood, like the tools with which you make your living and feed your family, or b) rare and extremely difficult to replace like your left-handed Gibson Flying V?

Insurance.

Insurance. Why not just chuck the guy the keys to your house, too?

Because we are not discussing a house burglary.. it was a discussion on a car being broken into, an unoccupied car.. a car with relatively cheap items that can easily be replaced.. But even if you throw in the red herring of a "left-handed Gibson Flying V".. It's still just a non essential item and coved by my insurance.. Replaceable in money at least, with no more than a phone call.

rbwhatever1 wrote:It would be a tragedy to shoot a family member, friend, neighbor or someone in distress by not identifying the situation correctly...

Always carry a flashlight. You may not be able to illuminate everything in the dark but at least you should ascertain that you're not shooting at your friends nor family.

rbwhatever1 wrote: I'm the moron that runs towards problems. I can thank 2 decades of military for that bad habit!

You, sir, are NOT a moron, but a good neighbor. I'd love to have you as my neighbor. My next door neighbor is pretty cool. He said that if he saw someone burglarizing my home, he'd "Joe Horn," him. If the world was full of "good witnesses," then we're gonna find ourselves living in Great Britian soon, but if the world were full of Zimmermans and Joe Horns, then robbers and rapists would become extinct.

I don't fancy being Joe Horn because he acquired a huge legal bill, but if Joe Horn were my neighbor, I'd pay his legal bills to show my appreciation. I actually mailed Joe Horn a check to help cover some of his legal costs. I googled his address and mailed the guy a check. Even if you choose to only be a "good witness," when the crime went down, you can still help by helping out with legal costs. Not everyone is a hero, but everyone must take responsiblity for their actions AND INACTIONS. Evil only exists if you let it.