"Sliders" a growing problem

[jmra]

Yea, the world is that screwed up.

Its Bush's fault, of course.

[GlockDude26]

To show how twisted my thinking has become, what about bringing back the stocks. Catch someone doing something wrong (hitting a woman, abusing a child, stealing something, etc.) slap them into stocks on the courthouse lawn. Keep them locked up from 24 to 120 hours, based on a sliding scale. When I say locked up, I mean locked up. Rain, shine, cold, heat. No bathroom breaks, only unlocked three times a day for 15 minutes for meals. If you make a mess in your pants, you just live with it until your sentence expires. Other people are free to stop by and make fun of you, but now be allowed less than ten feet. Can't have anyone slip someone some extra water.

You go through this, you might change your mind about how you act, and not want to go through it again. If you screw up again, double the number of hours you spent there the first time. Every screw up equals a doubling of the time.

it's gotten to the point where criminals just don't care b/c they know the punishment is worth the "rewards" and add for more serious crimes you get one chance to make it right with who/whatever you believe in before it's string up time.... alot cheaper than chemicals and even electricity not to mention it's reuseable!

[TexasCajun]

There seems to be a bit of fantasy of catching these guys in the act and 10 ringing them. The reality hit when you sit down with a good criminal defense attorney who tells you, "After talking to the DA, I can get you a plead for five years in prison." It has been 1.5 years since that you shot little Johnny, whose friends claim he did it on a dare and the was going to give it back to you. You have spent several weeks in jail before making your $100K bond. You have sold every thing that you can, and your attorney is telling you that five years is the best he can get, and by the way he needs another $10,000.00. Oh, you want to take it to trial? He says that he will need another $100K. He will need to hire an jury expert for Voir Dire and a use of force expert to explain that you acted appropriately. But you have become a political hot potato, because little Johnny was not just another thug, but his family has political influence and his dad is out for your neck. AND he has the money and time to make it happen. When you ask your attorney how much more money is it going to cost, he shrugs and asks "How badly do you want to stay out of prison?"

You realize that you should have just locked the door and put the packages into the trunk, shooting little Johnnie was A BAD IDEA. HE WAS NOT A THREAT, thief yes, but not a threat.

Yea, the world is that screwed up.

And if the occupant would've had a son, he'd look like Johnny.....

[Oldgringo]

FWIW, I totally agree with Stew's earlier post; however, If one can not use the Hispanic word "caca" in another thread, how can one use the American word "crap" in this one?

I'm definitely not offended nor on some kind of spiritual or ethnic witch hunt. I'm just askin'.....

[JP171]

A couple of random thoughts.
1. If they grab my backpack with my Macbook and iPad, we are talking about a significant chunk of change...and with a $1000 deductible on my homeowners insurance, and all of my personal info and passwords that are stored in there...we are talking about a significant amount of money and hassle...but probably a lot cheaper than thousands of billable hours at Mark O'Mara's going rate. Probably not worth it, but there would most likely be a full video of the entire account...so maybe a no-bill by the grand jury. Still, neither option is as easy as locking the door.

2. How dangerous is it to fire a gun in the proximity of gas pumps? If a cell phone is enough to spark vapors, what are the dangers of a 9mm muzzle blast? If it's life or death, it is probably worth the risk. If it is a few thousand dollars of property...I think I'll take my chances with the detectives solving the crime and paying the deductible.

Great thing about this forum...you think about this stuff pretty deeply!

yea this is off topic a bit but I gotta do it, this has been disproven so many times its not funny. Please understand this NO cell phone has even been found to have by any method ignited a fire at a fuel station, hazardous atmosphere or other place PERIOD!!! cell phones are in fact intrinsically safe but the manufacturers will not go thru the certification process. Cell phones use millivolt circuits and have no potential to ignite a flammable vapor not even benzene and look it up please benzene is flammable from about 20 PPM to 100% atmospheric content. Before you ask the reason they tell you not to use a cell phone while pumping fuel is because most people sit down in the vehicle then touch the fuel delivery handle, static from the butt sliding on the seat without discharging the charge on the vehicle then grab the handle with a several hundred volt charge and the charge is grounded to the fuel delivery device causing ignition of the flammable vapor. so please stop furthering Obamaism by making baseless statements

[Excaliber]

"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)

Or, with the same though phrased another way:

Is there no other way to protect an innocent person from immediate serious injury or death?

Starting the thought process with "Can I shoot him?" will get you in trouble more times than not.

The reason is that, in the second instance, the thinking starts with trying to rationalize shooting as a solution without looking for other ways out of the situation, while in the first instance the thought process is to look for all other solutions first and leave shooting in the position of absolute last resort.

If you're not looking for other solutions, you're highly unlikely to recognize them.

You can bet that those who examine your actions after the fact will be much more creative.

[mamabearCali]

This is my reply to the sitaution. If the thug grabs my purse and runs with it....well the joke is on him. WIth the exception of my wallet (which is likely in my hands as I am pumping gas) he is going to get some diapers, a couple bags of gummy bears, some crayons, and a KJV bible.

Now if he gets in the car, I will consider that he was attempting to kidnap my children (which are with me 99% of the time) and will act accordingly.

I think a stockade for petty theft would be an excellent deterrent.

[StewNTexas]

To mamabearcali,

Not a stockade, it is called stocks. A pole/post in the ground with a crossbar at the top. A persons hands are placed through a hole on each end of the crossbar, and held in place. The person is kept in a standing position, or if they get really tired, hanging by their wrists.

[mamabearCali]

I that stockade....was interchangeable with stocks......does not matter. I think a few hours in the sun under public scrutiny would do these petty thugs good.

[nightmare]

A pole/post in the ground with a crossbar at the top. A persons hands are placed through a hole on each end of the crossbar, and held in place. The person is kept in a standing position, or if they get really tired, hanging by their wrists.

Like this?

[Dave2]

A pole/post in the ground with a crossbar at the top. A persons hands are placed through a hole on each end of the crossbar, and held in place. The person is kept in a standing position, or if they get really tired, hanging by their wrists.

Like this?

[ Image ]

No, that's crucifixion. Stocks are like this:

[rbwhatever1]

Criminal Thugs preying on women. These "sliders" need to feel some immediate consequences for their actions or it will become much worse as they graduate to armed confrontation and who knows if they're armed or not until one is stopped. Thugs make a living by stealing from others. This is not a part time job for these miscreants, this is what they do. They sit around devising new ways to live off the backs of others like a career Politician.

So we are to sit back and let Chaos Rein. Let Thugs be Thugs unless it's dark outside. This is Ludicrous Legislation obviously based on the outdated criminal behavior of committing ones crime under cover of darkness. Now that these brazen thugs have graduated to committing their crimes anytime they see a target 24 hours a day anywhere they choose, we, as a Society of Law Abiding Americans, need to adapt and give them exactly what they deserve 24 hours a day.

Sliders on the mess deck...

[b322da]

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)

I have been only lurking for quite some time, for reasons obvious to those who know me, mainly to keep up with the legislature's latest doings, not an easy task. I cannot resist stepping in briefly here, however.

In my opinion gigag04's post above is probably the wisest I have ever seen on this forum.

I am convinced that a question about what you may lawfully do with your deadly weapon is quite different from a question about what you should do with it. The second question is, for those bearing such a weapon, the important one. Count yourself blessed if your answer of "No" to the second question is all you need, and you need not answer the first one.

This point is even more important when we have here, right smack dab in front of us, differences of opinion as to the answer to the first question expressed by "old-timers" more experienced with such questions than many of us are. If they have differences of opinion, then one is advised to carry a lawyer with him, one whom you are confident will have the right answer, immediately, at all times when one is exercising the [privilege] [right] bestowed by [a CHL] [the Second Amendment]. (Please feel at liberty to pick one of the options in the just prior sentence if that might avoid this becoming a political squabble -- which is not intended.) After all, the first question is a legal question. The second question is not -- it is one you must answer all by yourself.

A perhaps more practical comment: Someone has suggested that one's homeowner's insurance might lessen the financial cost to the shooter when his pulling the trigger is questioned by an LEO, a DA, a grand jury, a judge, a jury, or perhaps just the public's incensed reaction, for whatever reason. I must take the liberty of cautioning one of the danger of assuming that the consequences of an intentional act, when those consequences are those intended by that intentional act, will be covered by one's homeowner's insurance. That subject has been kicked around on this forum for years, but there are still those who have not gotten the word.

In brief, and not pleading a cause one way or another, why in the world does the NRA and, arguably, others, offer insurance to cover such situations?

As again put by gigag04, it is most doubtful that one has tangible personal property (let us keep in mind what the question was -- it was not about an attempt to kidnap your child) in his automobile, including the automobile itself, even approximating what might be the likely cost of firing that bullet -- whether legal or not. One must be ignorant of recent news to even have a glimmering thought go thru his mind that it is OK to shoot when not necessary, because, "I obviously would be acquitted if charged -- it was," (to use an expression I wish had never been invented), "a good shoot."

This is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer, nor or you my client. Consult your own attorney for legal advice. Take care to not govern your actions by my personal opinions or anything else I might say.

[pancho]

If they don't want to get shot, why are they stealing in Texas? CA, NY, IL, MD, and DC are safer places to be crooks.

[TexasCajun]

Criminal Thugs preying on women. These "sliders" need to feel some immediate consequences for their actions or it will become much worse as they graduate to armed confrontation and who knows if they're armed or not until one is stopped. Thugs make a living by stealing from others. This is not a part time job for these miscreants, this is what they do. They sit around devising new ways to live off the backs of others like a career Politician.

So we are to sit back and let Chaos Rein. Let Thugs be Thugs unless it's dark outside. This is Ludicrous Legislation obviously based on the outdated criminal behavior of committing ones crime under cover of darkness. Now that these brazen thugs have graduated to committing their crimes anytime they see a target 24 hours a day anywhere they choose, we, as a Society of Law Abiding Americans, need to adapt and give them exactly what they deserve 24 hours a day.

Sliders on the mess deck...

The idea behind the deadly force justification for burglary at night comes from the idea that during the daytime, it's easier to observe the thief & determine by observation whether they intend something other than simple burglary. At night, such observation would be limited. But rather than put the onus on the victim, our legislature (rightly) removed a possible loophole from the defense.

As far as the rest of the hyperbole that this thread has generated, I would think that taking a simple extra measure of locking your car doors & being aware of your surroundings would be well worth the expense, time, & tremendous personal disruption that dispensing sidewalk justice would result in.