"Sliders" a growing problem

[TREKFAN]

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/sl ... .html?vp=1

A growing problem apparently and happening in Texas. People are waiting at the door on the otherside of your vehicle whike you pump gas and steal your stuff and run off.
Hypothetical, would this be justifiable use of force with firing shots to either stop them or drawing to stop them?

[E.Marquez]

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/sl ... .html?vp=1

A growing problem apparently and happening in Texas. People are waiting at the door on the otherside of your vehicle whike you pump gas and steal your stuff and run off.
Hypothetical, would this be justifiable use of force with firing shots to either stop them or drawing to stop them?

If you reach into my wife’s personal space, you are a threat.. she will fear for her life, likely you will be shot until the threat has stopped

[LeonCarr]

After reading the title I was gonna ask, "How are little hamburgers and sandwiches a problem?"



Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[Keith B]

After reading the title I was gonna ask, "How are little hamburgers and sandwiches a problem?"



Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Trust me, after a night of drinking if you eat 22 sliders along with a chocolate shake, it IS a problem. I couldn't pass within 2 blocks of a White Castle for a year without getting nauseated.

[suthdj]

Authorities say the best thing the public can do is lock car doors every time the vehicle is exited."It's yours, protect it," Woods said. "And the easiest way to protect it is keep it locked up, keep it with you, and don't leave it in the vehicle unoccupied."

Duh. But ppl don't follow sound advice.

[GlockDude26]

Authorities say the best thing the public can do is lock car doors every time the vehicle is exited."It's yours, protect it," Woods said. "And the easiest way to protect it is keep it locked up, keep it with you, and don't leave it in the vehicle unoccupied."

Duh. But ppl don't follow sound advice.

and then they wonder why the world is against them???

i don't know if the gun would be smart in these cases ecspecially if the coward is unarmed. I'm sure the prosecutor will have a field day with that one.... however a locked vehicle with windows rolled up would be the easiest way to prevent it. it takes away the silent, stealth mode that they are using to avoid a confrontation. it's also sad that even if the coward had a gun, smashed the window and you put them down that you would still most likely be a racist and put on the hot seat charged with murder....

[BStacks]

I have always figured that if someone tried to attack me while I was pumping gas they would get hosed down.

[TexasCajun]

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/sl ... .html?vp=1

A growing problem apparently and happening in Texas. People are waiting at the door on the otherside of your vehicle whike you pump gas and steal your stuff and run off.
Hypothetical, would this be justifiable use of force with firing shots to either stop them or drawing to stop them?

Use of force? Yes per PC 9.41. But the use of deadly force would only be permitted if the theft were occurring at night. Much easier & simpler to lock the doors or stand where you can see all of your vehicle's doors.

[TexasCajun]

I have always figured that if someone tried to attack me while I was pumping gas they would get hosed down.

Read the article. These are not attacks. They are essentially smash & grab without the smash.

[RoyGBiv]

Use of force? Yes per PC 9.41. But the use of deadly force would only be permitted if the theft were occurring at night. Much easier & simpler to lock the doors or stand where you can see all of your vehicle's doors.

The OP describes a BURGLARY, possibly even ROBBERY. Not THEFT. Relevant portions in bold.

Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

Sec. 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

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
(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

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(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.

[MasterOfNone]

Use of force? Yes per PC 9.41. But the use of deadly force would only be permitted if the theft were occurring at night. Much easier & simpler to lock the doors or stand where you can see all of your vehicle's doors.

The OP describes a BURGLARY, possibly even ROBBERY. Not THEFT. Relevant portions in bold.

Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

Sec. 30.04. BURGLARY OF VEHICLES. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he breaks into or enters a vehicle or any part of a vehicle with intent to commit any felony or theft.
(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:
(1) any part of the body; or
(2) any physical object connected with the body.

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

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
(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

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(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.

"Burglary of a vehicle" and "Burglary" are NOT the same crime. Nor is one a subset of the other. Burglary is a crime under section 30.02, which does not include 30.04 (Burglary of a vehicle). They are commonly confused because "Burglary of a vehicle" sounds like a specific kind of "Burglary."

[Rrash]

Hypothetically, I think you would be best off not using a weapon until you feel your life or another's was in danger due to a threat.

[RoyGBiv]

"Burglary of a vehicle" and "Burglary" are NOT the same crime. Nor is one a subset of the other. Burglary is a crime under section 30.02, which does not include 30.04 (Burglary of a vehicle). They are commonly confused because "Burglary of a vehicle" sounds like a specific kind of "Burglary."

Are you suggesting that "Burglary of a Vehicle" doesn't meet the definition of "Burglary" in PC 9.42.??

I would certainly disagree.... "Burglary of a vehicle" is, IN MY OPINION, "Burglary"... But.. I am not a lawyer, just a guy that sleeps at HI Express occasionally.
Any TX legal eagles care to clarify

Is "Burglary of a vehicle" (PC 30.04) included in the definition of "Burglary" in PC 9.42?
Noting that "Burglary" as defined by PC 30.01 is that of a "habitation or building".
IMO, 9.42 refers to any kind of Burglary and Section 30 provides definitions of several kinds of Burglaries that would ALL provide sufficient justification under 9.42.

Just my opinion. IANAL.

[gigag04]

"Burglary of a vehicle" and "Burglary" are NOT the same crime. Nor is one a subset of the other. Burglary is a crime under section 30.02, which does not include 30.04 (Burglary of a vehicle). They are commonly confused because "Burglary of a vehicle" sounds like a specific kind of "Burglary."

Are you suggesting that "Burglary of a Vehicle" doesn't meet the definition of "Burglary" in PC 9.42.??

I would certainly disagree.... "Burglary of a vehicle" is, IN MY OPINION, "Burglary"... But.. I am not a lawyer, just a guy that sleeps at HI Express occasionally.
Any TX legal eagles care to clarify

Is "Burglary of a vehicle" (PC 30.04) included in the definition of "Burglary" in PC 9.42?
Noting that "Burglary" as defined by PC 30.01 is that of a "habitation or building".
IMO, 9.42 refers to any kind of Burglary and Section 30 provides definitions of several kinds of Burglaries that would ALL provide sufficient justification under 9.42.

Just my opinion. IANAL.

I'm going to go ahead and say you won't be found justified in using deadly force to shoot at someone stealing something from your car and running....during daylight hours.

At nighttime, if in the act, and not fleeing.....then MAYBE...

But those bullets would cost you more than anything most of us keep in our cars, including our cars themselves. I have always questioned the useage of CAN I shoot someone doing XYZ...

I think if we really want to be responsible in our use of DF, then the question is better framed "do I absolutely have to shoot this person doing XYZ"



(all my opinion)

[Abraham]

My passenger side door is always locked, but I have to admit when pumping gas I leave the driver's side door unlocked.

I'm changing that approach.

I WILL be locking the drivers side door while pumping gas from now on as I'd hate to have to pull a gun on some petty criminal if he/she was bold enough to attempt to open that door in my immediate presence.

While such a thieving scenario isn't likely, it also isn't impossible...