Once Again, Killing Thieves has Consequences

[S-W4EVER]

It is not Tennessee v. Connor, it is Tennessee v. Garner, and that is a 4th amendment seizure/civil rights case, not a criminal law case. Some states changed their criminal laws to reflect that as a general rule, some did not. Some only applied it to LE....

You’re right, another senior moment (which seem to be coming more often these days).

My point was it’s not a good idea for anyone to drop the hammer on someone who’s not committing a case they could conceivably receive the death penalty for.

I hate thieves, they’re destroying this Country. Most of them are career criminals who won’t stop victimizing others until they’re dead. The only thing I hate more is otherwise law abiding citizens getting screwed by the system. Justice truly is blind.

 

[TexasArmed]

I’m surprised no one has mentioned Tennessee v. Conner, the SCOTUS decision that prohibits LE from shooting fleeing felons without extenuating circumstances. The reasoning behind their decision was in English Common Law, virtually all felonies were punishable by death while in the latter part of the Twentieth Century almost no felonies are punishable by death.

As irritating as these thefts are, they’re not worth losing your freedom and/or everything you ever worked for.

Tennessee has changed a lot since I lived there. When I lived there you just about had to help a burglar load up your stuff and run off with it. I was glad when I left there and moved to
Texas. Now Memphis is really bad I hear from friends who still live there. Some have mentioned shooting a thug running off
with your stuff might ruin your life. If I worried about that I
would just sell off my guns. If you can't protect yourself and
your property, better to live in a place like Chicago where the
police protect you. In Texas response time by the police is
about 30 minutes in some areas. I asked myself how many times can someone thief stab you with an ice pick in 30 minutes before the police arrive, and I made the decision to
draw the line at entry into my home. So I added security
cameras and its protected by my firearms.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Precisely. No DA will continue a murder case that clearly contravenes valid statutes.

LOL.... politically motivated State Attorneys exist. Look at the Zimmerman case.

 

[Miami_JBT]

FIFY........

No, they're literally stealing it because that was time that I'll never get back, invested in the items they steal.

Thievery like Rape and Murder are all crimes that are malum in se. It is Latin and means wrong or evil in itself.

Every culture and society across our globe throughout all of time has understood that thievery is bad and had has a very dim view of thieves.

 

[SF VET]

I try to feel compassion and sympathy for all people, excepting terrorists. I really do, as my faith tells me I should do. But when I read about some evil or dangerous person being killed, deep down, I have to admit to myself I just don't care, and am relieved such people are dead.

Perhaps my two war experience has hardened me to death.

SF VET

 

[Greyman50]

Wow, no one has Mentioned the 10 Commandments, nuf sed.

 

[SchemaEnigma]

No, they're literally stealing it because that was time that I'll never get back, invested in the items they steal.

Thievery like Rape and Murder are all crimes that are malum in se. It is Latin and means wrong or evil in itself.

Every culture and society across our globe throughout all of time has understood that thievery is bad and had has a very dim view of thieves.

I realize you are using time as a metaphor for life. But that does not make it literally life.

 

[Jon651]

So if I make $15.00 an hour a thief is allowed to steel 50 hours of my life before the DA will do anything. One 40 hour work week plus 10 hours, assuming that I don't have to pay rent, taxes, but food, etc. So in reality the thief gets to steel 2-3 weeks or more of my life before the system will do anything

Just my two cents only use a gun in self defense of self or loved ones from physical harm. However , another thief dead won't effect my sleep any.

While I may agree with your sentiment about thieves, I have issues with what you say about the "system". Yes, it is broken - but it's our fault.

It used to be we locked up a lot more thieves and petty crooks, but then the system got saturated because nothing we were doing was enough of a deterrent. We as voters and taxpayers didn't want to fund a criminal justice system that was robust enough - or LARGE enough - to mete out the punishments we all thought were so well-deserved so something had to give. Hence the reason why some places won't even press charges below a certain dollar amount, or the punishment the thieves do get is so nominal as to be easily ignored by the perpetrator.

If we want to be tough on crime then we are going to have to PAY to be tough on crime. Or as they say in latin "Quid enim vos adepto redde" - you get what you pay for.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY



Morality questions aside about deadly force to protect property...

The event was a theft and did take place at night.

So baring any other information I believe the use of force was technically justified.

No way is the shooting justified under any reading of that statute given the facts posted in the story.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

It's not that the police don't care, it's the DAs. I read that flagrant shoplifting is rampant in many American cities because stealing items valued less than $950 is simply not prosecuted. Stores are closing right and left as the shelves are literally picked bare.

Welcome to Woke America.

Devil's advocate here. So the DA institutes a prosecute all policy for shoplifting. It is a misdemeanor punishable by at most 6 months in jail and a fine of less than $1000. Try them all. Do not plea bargain anything. Convict them all. Judge sentences them all to 6 months in jail and fines each $1,0000.00. Now what?? Other than collectively bring the criminal justice system and the department of corrections to their respective knees over the staggering cost of time resources and manpower what have you done???
Would have been easier had the shoplifter been taught not to steal by his/her parents but that ship has long since sailed.

 

[crazyphil]

Maybe we should take a page out of Islam's laws and lop off a few fingers,
or the whole hand for stealing.

 

[biku324]

Devil's advocate here. So the DA institutes a prosecute all policy for shoplifting. It is a misdemeanor punishable by at most 6 months in jail and a fine of less than $1000. Try them all. Do not plea bargain anything. Convict them all. Judge sentences them all to 6 months in jail and fines each $1,0000.00. Now what?? Other than collectively bring the criminal justice system and the department of corrections to their respective knees over the staggering cost of time resources and manpower what have you done???
Would have been easier had the shoplifter been taught not to steal by his/her parents but that ship has long since sailed.

Thank you.

 

[RCL-09]

No way is the shooting justified under any reading of that statute given the facts posted in the story.

Well, since we have virtually nothing in the way of facts...

 

[Muss Muggins]

Well, since we have virtually nothing in the way of facts...

Hasn’t stopped you from being convinced it’s justified . . .

 

[biku324]

And then folks wonder why I'm not enthusiastically in favor of everyone carrying a loaded firearm everywhere and all the time...

 

[Mannlicher]

The possibility of getting shot should be looked at as a known occupational hazard for criminals.

 

[RCL-09]

Hasn’t stopped you from being convinced it’s justified . . .

What I actually said is "Technically, based on the law, yes, that would be legal."

In this case the clerk used lethal force to prevent theft property. So, again, technically it is legal.

An arrest does not make it unjustified or in violation of the statute.

The point is, can lethal force be used in Texas to protect property, including against theft?

And the answer is absolutely YES.

Feel free to demonstrate/list how it was not justified.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Duly noted. Here endeth the lesson . . .

What I actually said is "Technically, based on the law, yes, that would be legal."

In this case the clerk used lethal force to prevent theft property. So, again, technically it is legal.

An arrest does not make it unjustified or in violation of the statute.

The point is, can lethal force be used in Texas to protect property, including against theft?

And the answer is absolutely YES.

 

[gtbrown50]

I live in Washington State; two years ago I shot a meth head that broke down my back door and rushed me with two 12" kitchen knives. I have a Ring camera and several security cameras on my property. Until the police were able to view the videos showing all of the incident I was in the back of a patrol car.

My advice: only deadly force when your life is threatened and PLEASE get video surveillance cameras to prove what you're saying actually happened. Cameras are inexpensive yet can be priceless given the right circumstances.

Greg

 

[RCL-09]

It is firmly established that in Texas deadly force can be used to protect property.

As it relates to the case in the op:

Sec. 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:

(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

So it was definitely a theft.

It appears that the incident happened at night.

(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

The suspects were indeed fleeing after committing theft during the nighttime.

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

Had the suspects driven off one can reasonably conclude that the property would not be recoverable.

(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.

Would the clerk have suffered death or serious bodily injury had he tried to physically stop the suspects? Depending on the people involved and two on one this too could be a reasonable belief.

Now if anyone has information that shows any of those elements were not present I would love to see it.