TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote: 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.

TxLobo wrote:Looking at the docket, Mr. Saintlouis is scheduled for another court Monday Morning.. 0900 in court 174

Bond reduced to 10,000.00 from the original 30,000.00

MechAg94 wrote:

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.

MechAg94 wrote:

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.

mojo84 wrote: Every life is worth something whether you agree or not. You are not God, judge, jury nor the executioner. When we start devaluing life and judging who should live or die on our own, we will become nothing more than a third world country no different than the once we are trying to deal with now to keep then from killing each other and us.

Some people seem to have this misguided idea that someone's life is worth something simply because they are alive... I understand the legal system does not necessarily agree with my sentiment.

TomsTXCHL wrote:

Some people seem to have this misguided idea that someone's life is worth something simply because they are alive... I understand the legal system does not necessarily agree with my sentiment.

Nor do the vast majority of civilized human beings. Or maybe I should say, nor does any civilized human being.

I'm not sure where such a profoundly misguided attitude may have come from, though I suspect that movies, TV, and shoot-em-up video games of the last 20 years may be a factor. Or at least, they can't have helped by trivializing the precious nature of life.

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.

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?

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.