TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/30/flo ... index.html

Sorry if this is a repost but the search feature seem busted at the moment returning No Matches for anything I search for.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. If his claim about believing they had a gun was true then definitely self defense but with statements like that with no witness to back it up -- always gotta wonder if he was just covering his own behind. I'm sure many will disagree with me but I don't think I would ever use deadly force if someone was trying to steal my car, even if justified under the law, and there was no other threat present. Yes I know, according to the statements there were other threats but a story like this makes me think.

Also I can't believe the Brady Bunch statement at the end:

"The [no-retreat] law is not needed," said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. "This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing, but he cannot be prosecuted for doing something wrong if he hit an innocent bystander," he said.

Unless FL has some weird laws I don't know about this is complete misinformation and he would be held very accountable if he ended up shooting little orphan annie.

When I read things like that, I wish it was OK to take away someone's first amendment rights for a few years.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 83&t=24573" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nitrogen wrote:When I read things like that, I wish it was OK to take away someone's first amendment rights for a few years.

Am I missing something? The guy's vehicle is being stolen, it's being driven toward him, he yells stop, they don't, he shoots.
??? What is the delima?

EDIT AFTER COMPREHENSION: Oh, sorry, Nitrogen. I was dense and missed that you were referring to the Brady bunch quote. I got all confused that you were referring to the actual shooting and somehow I thought 2nd amendment when you wrote first and...well, I guess I went down the rabbit hole.

I should go to sleep, now (my brain apparently has tucked itself in already).

I don't think I would use deadly force to stop a theft of my property either but that does not mean it should not be legal. After all consider that if they have your vehicle they have info on you. How much info about yourself and your family is in your vehicle? Is their a picture of your cute daughter or son or wife that someone might want to know better? If they will steal a car what else will they do? Is your address in the car somewhere? Since you were such an easy target to get a car from maybe they will want to try the house when you aren't home but your family is. Also, is that car your livelihood and necessary for you to make a living? That is what I have a problem with if they "just want my wallet or car or whatever". I care less about property. It can be replaced. However, there are other considerations like the criminals showing up at my house because they think they can get more out of me.

I think the guy did the right thing. Why second think something when in a situation like that. If they can harm me in any way I am going to try to stop them before they can me. When the lady went along she chose to take the chance she could get shot. It is not our responsibility to be harmed because someone else chooses to steal from us. I wouldn't want to be part of a situation like this but I think it is good that criminals hear about them. It will make them think twice about sucking the life out of hard working people the next time.

I still have a house in Polk County where this happened. My buddy told me about this yesterday and I got goose bumps because the SUV owner did the right thing. I am proud of Sheriff Grady Judd that he will not charge the owner with a crime. I hope more criminals will read this story and think twice about what the might or might now do in the future.

A few thoughts. . . . If I'm standing behind my car as it is being stolen, I might not fire as I can always call the cops and, since I have Lojack, my vehicle will likely be recovered with minimal damage. . . .

But if you are stealing my car, and you are driving it straight at me as if to take my life if I can't get out of your way in time, I'm going to shoot at you. If I hit your girlfriend, well, shame on her for being complicit in a grand theft auto and attempt on my life; and shame on you for bringing her along. If the Brady comment was to imply that she was the "innocent bystander" in question, well that's just bovine manure. A person who knowingly accompanies a car thief, and then knowingly jumps in the car as it is being stolen, is NOT innocent - even if she didn't get a trial.

Crossfire taught my wife's CHL class, which she most graciously allowed me to sit in on. She gave an interesting and solid perspective on the use of lethal force to protect property. She hypothesized a situation in which you come home at night to confront a thief walking down your driveway with your brand new 50" flat screen TV in his hands. Can you shoot him if you feel threatened for your life when you try to stop him? Well, (and Crossfire, if you read this, please correct me if I got it wrong) Joe Horn's experience indicates that you likely can, and you'll be no-billed. However, you're going to incur a $25,000 (or more) legal bill in the process - all to stop a guy from stealing a $2,500 television. Now, from my own perspective, a car can be a lethal weapon, while a television is not.

IN THIS THREAD, our member TheBlake recounts exactly a scenario in which he was attacked directly by a motor vehicle driven by a criminal with murderous intent. I'd have shot the sunufagun. He unfortunately could not access his gun because it was locked in his car, and his wife had the keys. Had he had a gun in hand and used it, it would have been a righteous shooting, and he might well have been no-billed.

I have a lot of things which are my property that I probably wouldn't shoot someone for taking. Some things are kind of gray areas. For instance, we have a very expensive cutlery set from Cutco. If I found someone stealing it, I might well shoot him because those great big carving knives are quite lethal weapons, and dangerous to me in the wrong hands. Same if I caught someone stealing my guns. But my TV? Probably not. However cars are a whole different thing, because whether or not they are a lethal weapon being used against you is entirely dependent upon whether you are standing behind or in front of the vehicle as it is being stolen.

I don't know if all of that is coherent, but that's kind of my thinking in the matter.

with TAM!

Plus, there might be one or two things that I would demand a burglar steal as insurance that I wouldn't shoot him. My wife's cat, for instance...

You have to have an ID and be logged in to read this forum, right?

You don't?

Uh-oh...

tfrazier wrote: with TAM!

Plus, there might be one or two things that I would demand a burglar steal as insurance that I wouldn't shoot him. My wife's cat, for instance...

You have to have an ID and be logged in to read this forum, right?

You don't?

Uh-oh...

Cat-burglar!
(Hey three comments from G-vine in a row! )

hi-power wrote:

tfrazier wrote: with TAM!

Plus, there might be one or two things that I would demand a burglar steal as insurance that I wouldn't shoot him. My wife's cat, for instance...

You have to have an ID and be logged in to read this forum, right?

You don't?

Uh-oh...

Cat-burglar!
(Hey three comments from G-vine in a row! )

That's 'cause we're on top of things here in "G-vine."