TexasCHLforum.com

Robert*PPS wrote: Keep in mind that those of us that are talking about not using deadly force to recover property are not saying we would not use deadly force in self-defense. In fact, I'm resolved to use deadly force specifically for that reason, as I am sure the others are as well.

Correct. I'd use it only as a last resort in defense of myself or family. I would not use it after the incident is de-esclating to protect some some amount of property.
It's just a personal choice due to a litigious society.

jmra wrote: I don't care for these legal plans and don't use them for the very same reason I won't subscribe to or use a medical insurance plan that does not allow me to select my own doctor. If I am to under go a surgical procedure I want the best doctor I can find doing that procedure. I sure don't want some doc that is still wet behind the ears.

That's a good point. My reason for not caring for [pre-paid legal]: They have never provided any references to actual court cases that they've defended. Ask them, they say the information is private, but they're defending X cases currently.
I understand privacy in many situations, however I'm sure that they could find a client who is willing to allow posting of his/her legal particulars. They won't tell you what attorneys are in their network. You wouldn't go to a pediatrician for heart surgery so why would you go to a lawyer who isn't specialized if you're in trouble?

I belong to a professional organization for pilots. There is a similar service for pilots. That service has some very public results and very public ongoing litigation. That's a service that I trust a bit more than [pre-paid legal].

jmra wrote: And then I'd have to think....
They will now have the keys to my car AND the front door to my home AND my wallet containing my home address where my wife is in the bathtub and my children are sitting in front of the TV. They could immediately drive the mile to my house in my own car outrunning me and the police there by 30 minutes busting in the door and demanding the PIN for the debit card they found in my wallet wrapped up with my last ATM receipt which contains an attractive balance on it. Their process of extorting the PIN number from my family I'll leave to your imagination. They could even hang back a day or two and follow my wife to the grocery store or they may even opt to take me for the ride to ensure the transaction gets completed and no preemptive phone call home gets made.

That's pretty extreme. I agree with you that it is possible. However, if I wanted your address, all I need is your name or your license plate number. And if I'm willing to do armed robbery is having a lock on the door (that I now have keys to) going to make all the difference between doing it and not doing it?

How much money can you extract from a debit card? Probably whatever your daily max is.

I dunno.. I just don't think it's very likely. I agree with you that it is possible and if you had those immediate lines of thinking I'd understand the "shoot" decision, but it's not for me. I'd still worry about going bankrupt over some BG's mother suing me over excessive use of force or some other claim that an attorney would take on contingency (no cost to the BGs mom). Just invoking the legal process is punitive in terms of cost, so shooting is an absolute last resort for me.

bdickens wrote: I think it is really sad that so many "good men" don't want to be inconvenienced by the ramifications of standing up for what is right.

Thank our laws and civil legal system. It's really not personal inconvenience. It's about what would happen to my family if our financial security was taken away merely by the process of a civil action. More than that, in the off chance that I was criminally charged, it impacts my ability to work and provide for my family.

It's not about inconvenience at all. It's about self protection and family preservation just as much as carrying a firearm is about self protection.

baldeagle wrote:This was an ARMED robbery. So long as the robbers were within shooting distance, the victim's life was in mortal danger. That's more than enough justification for shooting.

OK, lets say for a second that they attempted the robbery, but he didn't have his wallet or any other property. You're saying that as they are walking away, his life is still in danger and it justifies the use of deadly force.

I'm not sure that I agree... And I'm more sure that you're not going to get consistent agreement out of the LEO, prosecutor, and a jury...

In this case it was justified (legally) because the bad guys had property. If they didn't have property and were walking away - what's the legal justification?

texanjoker wrote: It is not pleasant to go through a shooting investigation and lawsuit. Much better to avoid if possible.

I didn't want to be the first person to say it.. I say enough not-in-line stuff here.
I wouldn't have shot - not because I feel bad for the bad guys but because what was taken out of my pocket isn't going to equal my *very likely* legal fees.
Glad to see that the LEOs didn't arrest him and followed the law here.