TexasCHLforum.com

Divided Attention wrote:I may be wrong but if the thief pulled a knife (deadly weapon) doesn't that bump theft up to felony regardless of amount?

He didn't pull the knife during the theft. He pulled the knife outside the store after the CHL holder confronted him and ordered him to stop. I think he could be charged with a crime for threatening the CHL holder with the knife, but the knife wasn't part of the theft, I think. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know, but that seems logical to me.

gigag04 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

texanron wrote:You're right baldeagle, the article doesn't say what he was stealing. I was speaking in general terms. A poor attempt at humor I guess.
Dang! At least $1500 dollars worth of stuff from a convience store! He must of grabbed a bunch of those fine cigars they sell!

Not neccesarily $1500. If the person has a previous conviction for theft, the charges can be enhanced to a felony.

This. Not sure about OC, but in TX any crime after 2 convictions should become a felony.

There. Fixed that for ya.

WildBill wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:

texanron wrote:You're right baldeagle, the article doesn't say what he was stealing. I was speaking in general terms. A poor attempt at humor I guess.
Dang! At least $1500 dollars worth of stuff from a convience store! He must of grabbed a bunch of those fine cigars they sell!

Not neccesarily $1500. If the person has a previous conviction for theft, the charges can be enhanced to a felony.

baldeagle wrote:I wasn't aware of that, so I looked it up. It's actually two previous convictions.

So it only takes three bags of Doritos to become a felon, if you steal them on three separate occasions.

And get caught. And get convicted.

WildBill wrote:

texanron wrote:You're right baldeagle, the article doesn't say what he was stealing. I was speaking in general terms. A poor attempt at humor I guess.
Dang! At least $1500 dollars worth of stuff from a convience store! He must of grabbed a bunch of those fine cigars they sell!

Not neccesarily $1500. If the person has a previous conviction for theft, the charges can be enhanced to a felony.

I wasn't aware of that, so I looked it up. It's actually two previous convictions.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /Pe.31.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(4) a state jail felony if:

(A) the value of the property stolen is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, or the property is less than 10 head of sheep, swine, or goats or any part thereof under the value of $20,000;

(B) regardless of value, the property is stolen from the person of another or from a human corpse or grave, including property that is a military grave marker;

(C) the property stolen is a firearm, as defined by Section 46.01;

(D) the value of the property stolen is less than $1,500 and the defendant has been previously convicted two or more times of any grade of theft;

(E) the property stolen is an official ballot or official carrier envelope for an election; or

(F) the value of the property stolen is less than $20,000 and the property stolen is insulated or noninsulated tubing, rods, water gate stems, wire, or cable that consists of at least 50 percent:

(i) aluminum;

(ii) bronze; or

(iii) copper;

BobCat wrote:No condemnation from me, at all. And I agree with you that we should be pleased with his restraint; legally he probably could have fired when confronted with a knife, since his life was in immediate danger.

However, I would not have intervened because doing so could have escalated the situation from theft to bloodshed.

I wasn't there, don't know the lay of the land or the circumstances or big picture. My mindset is to avoid confrontation, avoid trouble, ignore insults, walk away - but if attacked, to shoot back until I've ended the attack.

This is not "on the side of the gun control proponents". It may be cowardly, it may be despicable compared to someone who would intervene to recover someone's stolen property, or run into a burning building to save an innocent person, but it is a far cry from supporting gun control.

If that's what you got from what I wrote, then please accept my apology. That certainly wasn't my intent.

texanron wrote:You're right baldeagle, the article doesn't say what he was stealing. I was speaking in general terms. A poor attempt at humor I guess.
Dang! At least $1500 dollars worth of stuff from a convience store! He must of grabbed a bunch of those fine cigars they sell!

Well, nowadays it could be two or three thanks of gas.

texanron wrote:Personally, I'm not going to try and be a LEO because some knucklehead decided to steal a bag of Doritos and a 6 pack of beer.

The article doesn't say what he stole. He was charged with felony theft, so whatever he stole had to be worth at least $1500.

But my point is not what would you do in this situation but why do we, as CHL holders, when arguing with gun control proponents, bring up the fact that most gun incidents don't involve shootings, and then turn around and criticize this guy for his actions when he provides a perfect example of how being a CHL holder does not mean we will necessarily shoot someone? We read stories all the time about citizens who got involved and helped police catch crooks, bank robbers, etc. Here's a guy who did just that and only drew his weapon when threatened, and all I'm reading is that he never should have done that. Why not, hey, that's not what I would do, but kudos to him for doing it without having to fire? Is this guy not worthy of any praise at all? Only condemnation?

Wow, a CHL holder does exactly what we argue they can do when the antis get their backs up, and all you guys can do is criticize his actions? I'm not impressed. We point out all the time that 90+% of CHL incidents never involve shootings when discussing these issues with people who favor gun control. Why do we do that if we really think it's a bad idea to do exactly that?

I suspect this BG realized that the guy who confronted him was deadly serious, which is why he chose to remain docile until the police arrived. He knew if he tried anything he'd be perforated.

How is this a bad thing again?