# Would You Shoot Someone For Breaking Into Your Vehicle?



## Won Mo Kasst (Mar 27, 2008)

You get up for a drink of water late at night, walk by a window and see someone trying to enter your vehicle. I have seen some people on here make the statement about hoping to catch someone in the act of breaking into their car and how they would end that person's life. Personally, I could not or would not kill someone over a piece of property such as my car, or the contents held within. You are in no danger, call the cops. If the cops are running behind and it looks like they might enter the vehicle before they arrive, turn on a light... cops show up later to find them if they are on foot or take note of the get-a-way car and give the info to the police. 

Now if I was in the vehicle, or they were attempting to enter my house, I would be forced to shoot to kill. It is not my place to decide if someone lives or dies, but in that situation I have no choice. What's your take?


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

You'll feel that way until your vehicle gets broken into, then like many others - you'll probably change your mind.


----------



## 9121SS (Jun 28, 2009)

Entering my home or a threat to my family = shoot to kill!
As far as breaking in my truck, not sure. I may not shoot them but there would be shots fired.
I try not to keep much in my truck for that reason.


----------



## fwoodwader (Jul 18, 2008)

Every situation is different.

If they run they run and no one gets any medals for shooting someone in the back. But if they make a move towards me that will be the last thing they ever do.

I'd try my best to keep them their until the police arrive, but I would call the police first.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst (Mar 27, 2008)

speckle-catcher said:


> You'll feel that way until your vehicle gets broken into, then like many others - you'll probably change your mind.


That's funny, its been broken into 4 times... I grew up in the ghetto.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

you must be very forgiving. 

I sure would not be.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

I'd like to say no. But in the heat of the moment, who knows. I would certainly confront a thief and attempt to hold him until the police arrived. His actions in the mean time might dictate whether he's shot or not.


----------



## blueproline (Sep 25, 2007)

i wouldnt have any problem holding them at gunpoint until police arrive....then it would be up to them (the crooks) if they got lead poisioning or not, we can sit here with my .38 pointed at you peacefully until police arrive or you can try to rush me and get away with slugs in your guts....completely their choice.


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

Maybe in the leg, or get a bat and break some bones. Not sure I would want to end a life over a car or stereo. You never know the circumstances that they may be doing it for. *Everyone* has that person in their family that goes through tough times and makes mistakes, some make it through it some dont. Unless they threatened my families safety I dont think it would be worth it.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

saltwatersensations said:


> Maybe in the leg, or get a bat and break some bones. Not sure I would want to end a life over a car or stereo. You never know the circumstances that they may be doing it for. *Everyone* has that person in their family that goes through tough times and makes mistakes, some make it through it some dont. Unless they threatened my families safety I dont think it would be worth it.


Not to start a ******* match here, but if you intentionally shoot someone in the leg, you're asking for more trouble than you can comprehend. Lethal force is just that, and not intended for the intentional wounding of a threat. Its also not moral or ethicial to intentionally wound someone. Lethal force is intended to stop a threat.


----------



## Reef Dawg (Dec 20, 2004)

If they get scared off or get away they will escalate to other crimes sooner or later and maybe harm someone. I can't answer for anyone else, but I live out in the country and if I catch them then they will be shot and survivors will be prosecuted!


----------



## trodery (Sep 13, 2006)

Hell yes I would shoot them! First off if I see them getting into my vehicle at night they would be in my garage, unlike many people I park all three of my vehicles in the garage. 

Please post up your address and I'll put a sign in my yard saying "Won mo kasst won't shoot you for breaking into his vehicles but I will, go visit him at this address ___________ "


----------



## oldtrackster (Jul 20, 2007)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> You get up for a drink of water late at night, walk by a window and see someone trying to enter your vehicle. I have seen some people on here make the statement about hoping to catch someone in the act of breaking into their car and how they would end that person's life. Personally, I could not or would not kill someone over a piece of property such as my car, or the contents held within. You are in no danger, call the cops. If the cops are running behind and it looks like they might enter the vehicle before they arrive, turn on a light... cops show up later to find them if they are on foot or take note of the get-a-way car and give the info to the police.
> 
> Now if I was in the vehicle, or they were attempting to enter my house, I would be forced to shoot to kill. It is not my place to decide if someone lives or dies, but in that situation I have no choice. What's your take?


Pretty much inline with you. I have had my vehicle broken into and lost hundreds of dollars in rods and reels along with other items dvd player for kids and so on. It took me about three years to accumulate my rods back to that level. I still will not shoot them, not because I think it is wrong. I strongly feel anyperson should have the right to shoot to kill to protect their property. I am not sure I would sleep well, even for killing the Scourge of society for a justifiable reason. Now _any_ potential threat to me or my family, I hope to shoot to kill without hesitation and deal with the aftermath later.


----------



## Bull Red (Mar 17, 2010)

I'd sneak up on 'em and holler "FREEZE"! I'd only shoot them in the leg if they tried to run away before the police showed up. Now if they turn and come at me, then it's time to use deadly force.


----------



## oldtrackster (Jul 20, 2007)

saltwatersensations said:


> Maybe in the leg, or get a bat and break some bones. Not sure I would want to end a life over a car or stereo. You never know the circumstances that they may be doing it for. *Everyone* has that person in their family that goes through tough times and makes mistakes, some make it through it some dont. Unless they threatened my families safety I dont think it would be worth it.


I remember a conversation my father had with an attorney years ago when we were having problems with cattle rustlers (yes they still exist, unfortunately we can no longer hang them on site). The attorney said "Just make sure you are the only one testifying."

This makes me rethink just a bit. I would shoot to kill in this situation because this kind of theft destroys my ability to provide for my family. Allthough we are no longer ranchers, just saying.


----------



## POC Troutman (Jul 13, 2009)

speckle-catcher said:


> You'll feel that way until your vehicle gets broken into, then like many others - you'll probably change your mind.


broken into or outright STOLEN from right in front of where you live....two in the chest, one in the head....if you break the law in a way that is intrusive and threatening to my life, you have at that point, as the theif, put your own life at great risk.


----------



## copano_son (Dec 17, 2007)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> You get up for a drink of water late at night, walk by a window and see someone trying to enter your vehicle. I have seen some people on here make the statement about hoping to catch someone in the act of breaking into their car and how they would end that person's life. Personally, I could not or would not kill someone over a piece of property such as my car, or the contents held within. You are in no danger, call the cops. If the cops are running behind and it looks like they might enter the vehicle before they arrive, turn on a light... cops show up later to find them if they are on foot or take note of the get-a-way car and give the info to the police.
> 
> Now if I was in the vehicle, or they were attempting to enter my house, I would be forced to shoot to kill. It is not my place to decide if someone lives or dies, but in that situation I have no choice. What's your take?


I agee with you.

Also, anything can happen once you step outside to confront someone! What if they're armed? What if you miss, if you choose to shoot, and they return fire? Now you're in a gun battle in your front yard. What if you trip and fall? Anything can happen!!

Yes, it sucks to have items stolen and feel violated, but to me, not worth the risk of something VERY bad happening to me, or anyone else.


----------



## espanolabass (Jul 20, 2006)

Only if I or a family member was endanger. I would call 911 from the house and try to hold them until the PO's arrived.


----------



## flashlight (Jul 9, 2007)

I would be very careful about making any statements like this in writing. If you ever get put in a situation where you might have to take action, your statements might come back to haunt you!


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

oldtrackster said:


> Pretty much inline with you. I have had my vehicle broken into and lost hundreds of dollars in rods and reels along with other items dvd player for kids and so on. It took me about three years to accumulate my rods back to that level. I still will not shoot them, not because I think it is wrong. I strongly feel anyperson should have the right to shoot to kill to protect their property. I am not sure I would sleep well, even for killing the Scourge of society for a justifiable reason. Now _any_ potential threat to me or my family, I hope to shoot to kill without hesitation and deal with the aftermath later.


x2. I now never leave anything valuable inside my truck, keep it locked in my toolbox. If they steal the truck, I can get another one. I hate a thief as bad as anybody, but I don't think I want to live with a killing on my hands over a vehicle or what's inside of it. But 100% would shoot if my life or my family was threatened.


----------



## POC Troutman (Jul 13, 2009)

flashlight said:


> I would be very careful about making any statements like this in writing. If you ever get put in a situation where you might have to take action, your statements might come back to haunt you!


agreed, that is why my post was deliberately worded to address a threat. also agree that if you draw your weapon, be ready to shoot, and be ready to kill. you do not draw leathal force to wound someone, you're up chit creek if you do that...


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

Reef Dawg said:


> if I catch them then they will be shot and survivors will be prosecuted!


here....... lemme fix that fer ya



Reef Dawg said:


> if I catch them then they will be shot and survivors will be *shot again!*


 :work:


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

I've caught my share of car burglars. Never had to shoot one though


----------



## 2slick (Dec 5, 2008)

Don't know, I'll make the decision if and when it happens. Had someone still gas from my truck once. Personally, I'm glad I didn't catch them; probably a kid, and I might have shot them had I caught them.


----------



## Bobby (May 21, 2004)

No just make them wish they were shot.


----------



## flashlight (Jul 9, 2007)

POC Troutman said:


> agreed, that is why my post was deliberately worded to address a threat. also agree that if you draw your weapon, be ready to shoot, and be ready to kill. you do not draw leathal force to wound someone, you're up chit creek if you do that...


Yessir..one thing about wording tho..You never want to shoot to kill. You want to shoot to "stop" the threat. Its crazy how words can be "played" on, but it happens in the court system every day.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst (Mar 27, 2008)

trodery said:


> Hell yes I would shoot them! First off if I see them getting into my vehicle at night they would be in my garage, unlike many people I park all three of my vehicles in the garage.
> 
> Please post up your address and I'll put a sign in my yard saying "Won mo kasst won't shoot you for breaking into his vehicles but I will, go visit him at this address ___________ "


That is 2cool of you! Dont you have some bi-planes to ****** about somewhere? Now, back on topic...

I think it is an unnecessary risk that you put yourself in. Entering your home or vehicle with you and family inside, you have no choice but to make a move. But how could you sleep at night knowing you actively pursued a deadly situation, took someone's life, just for the sake of your property??? When you break it down, that is what it is... dress it up however you want. You are putting yourself in a deadly risk, which is the most harm you could possibly do to your family, regardless of the amount of goods stolen, and making the decision that leads to the taking of a person's life. It takes all kinds to make the world go round, and to each their own though...


----------



## jwomack (Jun 16, 2009)

copano_son said:


> I agee with you.
> 
> Also, anything can happen once you step outside to confront someone! What if they're armed? *What if you miss*, if you choose to shoot, and they return fire? Now you're in a gun battle in your front yard. What if you trip and fall? Anything can happen!!
> 
> Yes, it sucks to have items stolen and feel violated, but to me, not worth the risk of something VERY bad happening to me, or anyone else.


.....and hit your truck?


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

jamisjockey said:


> Not to start a ******* match here, but if you intentionally shoot someone in the leg, you're asking for more trouble than you can comprehend. Lethal force is just that, and not intended for the intentional wounding of a threat. Its also not moral or ethicial to intentionally wound someone. Lethal force is intended to stop a threat.


Its not lethal force if I shoot them in the leg and there is no threat if you simply stay in the house and rely on the police to get there and handle business. I think if I was stealing a truck or contents I would think twice about it if I was shot. It would make me put the situation into perspective and not do it again. It is also unethical to steal from another, so we can stretch ethics slightly in this situation.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Bull Red said:


> I'd sneak up on 'em and holler "FREEZE"! I'd only shoot them in the leg if they tried to run away before the police showed up. Now if they turn and come at me, then it's time to use deadly force.


Shooting someone is deadly force, period. Intentionally attempting to wound someone is a great way to end up in the pokey.



> 22.01. ASSAULT.
> (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
> (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;


If you have the justification to apply deadly force, apply it to the fullest extent possible until the threat is nullified.

Then, there is the practical side of it. Who here thinks they can, under stress, hit a moving leg or arm to "wound" the suspect? In the dark, in your underwear?

Deadly force is deadly force is deadly force. Either you have justification or you don't. You never have justification to maim someone.


----------



## TomCat (Jan 6, 2006)

I know a guy that confronted a thief in his car. The kid came at him with a large screwdriver. He shot the thief in the heart with a 357 revolver. He said it was the worst mistake he ever maid. By the time he paid off the lawyers from the wrongful death lawsuits he could have bought a new car. His advice is to call the cops and stay inside.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

saltwatersensations said:


> Its not lethal force if I shoot them in the leg and there is no threat if you simply stay in the house and rely on the police to get there and handle business. I think if I was stealing a truck or contents I would think twice about it if I was shot. It would make me put the situation into perspective and not do it again. It is also unethical to steal from another, so we can stretch ethics slightly in this situation.


Femoral Artery. One of the fastest ways to die.
*Shooting someone is always lethal force.* Misapplying lethal force intentionally is Aggrivated Assault. 
Even if you don't get prosecuted, do you think for a second that the Perp won't sue?

PS: If it's such a good idea, then why don't the Police "shoot to wound"?


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Here is my take. First of all, isn't dealy force authorized under Texas law if you witness any theft/vadlaism etc in the cover of darkness?

I don't want to go to jail over taking a worthless thief's life. But, doing nothing and letting him escape will only result in him causing more heartache for someone else down the line.

So, you take a chance a try to take him and let the cops deal with it? What does that get us? Many dollars in tax-payer money to defend his worthless ***. Then they either set him free and he goes right back to doing what he did, or, send him off to jail, in which case he gets out in a few years worse than when he went in.

It would seem to me to make the most sense to simply shoot him and put him out of everyone's misery, much like you do a rabid dog


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

I can always say I missed. Maim, I am not sure a bullet hole would apply. Now whacking an arm off with a machete may qualify. Now there is a thought. LOL! I am just sayng I wouldnt kill someone for some things. All you hardcore assassins say you could do it, but the mind is a tricky thing, and most of you are probably level headed folks and cant even tell me that it wiouldnt effect you if you killed someone for a $200 dollar stereo. Just saying. Now if a guy was coming in my window of the house you could bet your a$s I would shoot to kill but I see your side as well


----------



## oldtrackster (Jul 20, 2007)

saltwatersensations said:


> Its not lethal force if I shoot them in the leg and there is no threat if you simply stay in the house and rely on the police to get there and handle business. I think if I was stealing a truck or contents I would think twice about it if I was shot. It would make me put the situation into perspective and not do it again. It is also unethical to steal from another, so we can stretch ethics slightly in this situation.


I am not sure anybody is questioning the ethics for shooting a thief in the leg. He assumed that risk when he decided to be a low life thief. The question is "what is the easiest way for you to defend yourself in court?". I totally agree if it suddenly became much more dangerous to be a thief, we would live in a much safer and respectable society. On a jury I would not convict anyone for shooting a thief, I just dont believe that I would choose to shoot a thief.


----------



## bud1971 (Aug 10, 2009)

I've thought about this at length...and I agree that a car stereo is not worth a human life, and I don't know that I would use deadly force in that situation, however; another side of me thinks that the type of people who steal, generally to feed a drug habit, only get worse not better.

Soon this graduates to burglary of homes, carjacking, etc....so if you are justified in using deadly force and take out this scum now, you could potentially save someone's wife, daughter or mother in the future.


----------



## wwind3 (Sep 30, 2009)

Castle Doctrine--lethal force can be used to protect life OR property--even the property of others(Joe Horn).

Even easier to use lethal force if crime is committed upon you after dark>


----------



## Won Mo Kasst (Mar 27, 2008)

TomCat said:


> I know a guy that confronted a thief in his car. The kid came at him with a large screwdriver. He shot the thief in the heart with a 357 revolver. He said it was the worst mistake he ever maid. By the time he paid off the lawyers from the wrongful death lawsuits he could have bought a new car. His advice is to call the cops and stay inside.


DING, DING, DING! We have a winner!


----------



## Won Mo Kasst (Mar 27, 2008)

wwind3 said:


> Castle Doctrine--lethal force can be used to protect life OR property--even the property of others(Joe Horn).
> 
> Even easier to use lethal force if crime is committed upon you after dark>


We know its legal, but I was asking if you lack the spine to do it???


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> DING, DING, DING! We have a winner!


Castle Doctrine changed the theif's ability to sue.


----------



## flashlight (Jul 9, 2007)

bigfishtx said:


> Here is my take. First of all, isn't dealy force authorized under Texas law if you witness any theft/vadlaism etc in the cover of darkness?
> 
> I don't want to go to jail over taking a worthless thief's life. But, doing nothing and letting him escape will only result in him causing more heartache for someone else down the line.
> 
> ...


Its just like Tomcat said. Sure you will probably be in your legal right to shoot if you catch the person in your car, but is it worth the numerous bills you are going to have for lawyer fees because the person sued you over it. 
The bottom line is, it is easy to say what you will do. But until that day comes where you have to make a split second decision to shoot or not to shoot, you are only guessing at what you will do.


----------



## GOTTAILCORNBREAD (Jul 10, 2006)

To shoot or not to shoot? That is the question. I will say that the first shot is in the chest and the second is in the head. As for breaking into a car seems a little petty for me, but it would depend on the circumstances. A window on the F150 is cheaper then a window on the Lamborghini.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Some say they don't know what they would do until the time comes. I feel it is better to decide now, while I can think clearly. I would not shoot just to defend property. If in fear of my life, I absolutely will. If someone comes into my home, I will be in fear of my life.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst (Mar 27, 2008)

So let me get this straight, for those of you who would kill for their property... you believe that you have the right to decide if someone lives or dies? Cut it up and trim it down to protecting the future property of other people, saving tax dollars, all of which are material things that you are holding higher than a human life... you are saying that you are the decider of someone living or dying? Yes or no... that is what it is.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

I'll put it in big letters for you Won Mo Kasst:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.


----------



## flashlight (Jul 9, 2007)

speckle-catcher said:


> Castle Doctrine changed the theif's ability to sue.


Thats true in one aspect but many factors come into play when you pull that trigger.

What if you miss and the bullet goes through your neighbor's house and hit them? What if you shoot the person in the leg while he is running away and he can prove "excessive" force, which will drop the civil immunity clause? Some many things to have to worry about after the shooting.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

saltwatersensations said:


> I can always say I missed. *Maim, I am not sure a bullet hole would apply*. Now whacking an arm off with a machete may qualify. Now there is a thought. LOL! I am just sayng I wouldnt kill someone for some things. All you hardcore assassins say you could do it, but the mind is a tricky thing, and most of you are probably level headed folks and cant even tell me that it wiouldnt effect you if you killed someone for a $200 dollar stereo. Just saying. Now if a guy was coming in my window of the house you could bet your a$s I would shoot to kill but I see your side as well


If only it were that simple. A bullet, however, doesn't just whistle through the body and leave a little hole on each side. It destroys tissue, ligaments, arteries and bone on it's way through, and even a wound to an extremity can cause permanant disfigurement. How is that not intentionally maiming someone? 
If you have the legal and moral right to use lethal force, then use lethal force!



> I am not sure anybody is questioning the ethics for shooting a thief in the leg.


I am. And I'll state it right here, right now: It is not ethical to attempt to wound someone with a _deadly weapon_. It is not ethical, moral, or legally justifiable.

You either have the right to apply deadly force or not.



> We know its legal, but I was asking if you lack the spine to do it???


Troll. Yeah, you. You're a troll.


----------



## trodery (Sep 13, 2006)

My answer is YES! If they are violating me and/or my property!

What is YOUR answer? You indicated that you would shoot if they were in your home.

Which side of this fence are you riding?


----------



## FOUL HOOKED (Jan 3, 2006)

jamisjockey said:


> Not to start a ******* match here, but if you intentionally shoot someone in the leg, you're asking for more trouble than you can comprehend. Lethal force is just that, and not intended for the intentional wounding of a threat. Its also not moral or ethicial to intentionally wound someone. Lethal force is intended to stop a threat.


true that, I have a couple friends on the force that have killed in the line of their duties and almost all have wound up in civil court. It's crazy but they'll still try and sue even though it will prob end up with nothing out of it. If you shoot, dont shoot to hurt, shoot to kill as you were threatend with your life right?

As an officer I wouldn't start blasting just because, but I would approach with weapon in hand, for sure. My new truck was broke into a year ago, and it makes me very angry but I'd arrest or chase unless provoked to kill!


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

My understanding, and it may be wrong, is that you can use lethal force to defend personal property after dark if you believe the property would not be able to be recovered. I don't remember the exact wording, but it's something like that. This was the law before castle doctrine passed, and I'm not sure if Castle Doctrine changes it or not. If the original wording about property at night still is intact after Castle Doctrine, a good lawyer could argue that if you have auto insurance or homeowners insurance, that you already have an expectation of recovery for the theft in progress. I don't know if has ever come up in the courts, but that is what my CHL instructor told us (before castle doctrine). The guy was retired DPS investigator.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> So let me get this straight, for those of you who would kill for their property... you believe that you have the right to decide if someone lives or dies? Cut it up and trim it down to protecting the future property of other people, saving tax dollars, all of which are material things that you are holding higher than a human life... you are saying that you are the decider of someone living or dying? Yes or no... that is what it is.


If they don't want to die, then, they shouldn't be breaking into someones car.

Simple rule.

Aslo, please note, the castle dcotine is only for civil doctrine, it has nothing to do with criminal law.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst (Mar 27, 2008)

trodery said:


> My answer is YES! If they are violating me and/or my property!
> 
> What is YOUR answer? You indicated that you would shoot if they were in your home.
> 
> Which side of this fence are you riding?


If they are in your home, you have no choice is what I am saying. You cant think, only react... your life or there's which is not not a conscious choice but a primal reaction. When you you view them from inside your house, and you make an conscious decision to go outside and actively pursue a deadly situation that will most likely end in the loss of a life, you have decided that your life and their life is less important than a material item. Thus, making you the decider of the value of someone's life. Stick that in your juice box, and suck it!


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

trodery said:


> My answer is YES! If they are violating me and/or my property!
> 
> What is YOUR answer? You indicated that you would shoot if they were in your home.
> 
> Which side of this fence are you riding?


I am standing on top of the fence, my family would be in my house, then you wouldnt know what actions they would take or what exactly their intentions truly were. Either way it would be tough to live with taking a life however you justified it in your mind. You do what you have to do and hopefully I never have to play God.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> If they are in your home, you have no choice is what I am saying. You cant think, only react... your life or there's which is not not a conscious choice but a primal reaction. When you you view them from inside your house, and you make an conscious decision to go outside and actively pursue a deadly situation that will most likely end in the loss of a life, you have decided that your life and their life is less important than a material item. Thus, making you the decider of the value of someone's life. Stick that in your juice box, and suck it!


!troll!


----------



## Reef Dawg (Dec 20, 2004)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> If they are in your home, you have no choice is what I am saying. You cant think, only react... your life or there's which is not not a conscious choice but a primal reaction. When you you view them from inside your house, and you make an conscious decision to go outside and actively pursue a deadly situation that will most likely end in the loss of a life, you have decided that your life and their life is less important than a material item. Thus, making you the decider of the value of someone's life. Stick that in your juice box, and suck it!


So, you let 'em go and they go down the street and rape and kill someone's little girl. How do you feel now? I say shoot 'em, shoot 'em all and let GOD sort 'em out! It's GOD's job to judge them, it's our job to arrange the meeting!


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Pocketfisherman said:


> My understanding, and it may be wrong, is that you can use lethal force to defend personal property after dark if you believe the property would not be able to be recovered. I don't remember the exact wording, but it's something like that. This was the law before castle doctrine passed, and I'm not sure if Castle Doctrine changes it or not. If the original wording about property at night still is intact after Castle Doctrine, a good lawyer could argue that if you have auto insurance or homeowners insurance, that you already have an expectation of recovery for the theft in progress. I don't know if has ever come up in the courts, but that is what my CHL instructor told us (before castle doctrine). The guy was retired DPS investigator.





> 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
> ...


http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9

I suggest reading all of it.


----------



## Bilge Bait (Apr 13, 2010)

Doesn't the Castle Doctrine give the right to protect life and property with deadly force? Hell, Joe Horn defended his neighbors property, in broad daylight, and a GJ failed to indict him.

Almost any stupid thief is going to break and run or act violent when confronted... I would rather know those I care about are safe first, and then worry about the condition of scumbag1 and scumbag2 laying bleeding on my lawn.


----------



## John Galt (Aug 6, 2006)

You never know when you're going to wind up on the wrong side of a crusading prosecutor. Do the names "Nifong," "Spitzer," or "Reno" mean anything to you? You shoot someone who's in the wrong ethnic group, Quannell 10 starts making a bunch of noise....go ahead and roll the bones if you want, but I'll pass.

Not to mention many of the prosecutions after Enron, not just Enron but other companies in the same business (Jamie Solis). A lot of prosecutorial abuse never sees the light of day...and a lot of guys become prosecutors because they want to be a politician some day.

It's pretty obvious if someone is in your house what the answer is, but read the responses...half the 2coolers wouldn't shoot to protect a motor vehicle. It's probably safe to say that the average 2cooler is more comfortable with the 2nd Amendment and is more conservative than the average citizen. Take your chances if you want, but I'll take my $200 deductible and rant on TTMB with a bunch of these: :hairout::hairout::hairout::hairout::hairout::hairout:

This is ignoring how your conscience will treat you. Police departments and the US Military spend a LOT of time and money counseling people who may or have taken a life - and these are people who everyone agrees did the right thing. It'll be a lot worse when you have to sit there and all those expensive psychological resources are devoted to manipulating you into feeling like a criminal. Yes, I'm sure you're tough...but not shrewder than dozens of psychologists whose only job is to eff with your mind.

Before you post that I'm a wuss, guilty as charged. I'm a wuss who recognizes that a $200 deductible and a personal affront is worth less than jeopardizing my family...I'm the sole breadwinner.


speckle-catcher said:


> I'll put it in big letters for you Won Mo Kasst:
> 
> Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst (Mar 27, 2008)

Reef Dawg said:


> So, you let 'em go and they go down the street and rape and kill someone's little girl. How do you feel now? I say shoot 'em, shoot 'em all and let GOD sort 'em out! It's GOD's job to judge them, it's our job to arrange the meeting!


Regardless of what choices they make, its not place to take their life. Plus, its not like I would go back to bed, Im going to call the cops, get a description of them... if they are on foot, basically game over. If there is another vehicle waiting, description, license numbers, would not be hard for the police to capture them.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> Regardless of what choices they make, its not place to take their life. Plus, its not like I would go back to bed, Im going to call the cops, get a description of them... if they are on foot, basically game over. If there is another vehicle waiting, description, license numbers, would not be hard for the police to capture them.


Troll.
You started this thread just to troll.
Troll.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst (Mar 27, 2008)

I know the legalities of the issue... I am asking if you could morally do it, and morally back it up! Mr. Galt is right as well, you say that you could do it, but I bet my left nut that a lot of you would have a mental breakdown. I know I would even if I was fending for my families life or my own.


----------



## Primer (Jan 12, 2008)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> Regardless of what choices they make, its not place to take their life. Plus, its not like I would go back to bed, Im going to call the cops, get a description of them... if they are on foot, basically game over. If there is another vehicle waiting, description, license numbers, would not be hard for the police to capture them.


You would only hope.. Stolen plates? Stolen car? Then what? If they're on foot doesn't automatically game over..


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

There's only one kind of good thief. A dead thief. I work too hard for some scum idiot to come mess it up.

Penal code Chapter 9 says I can use deadly force to prevent the loss of my property. 

If faced with the situation where I had a clean shot on someone caught red handed breaking into my truck I don't know if I would shoot them just depending on the circumstances. But I would like to think I would let them have it.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst (Mar 27, 2008)

jamisjockey said:


> Troll.
> You started this thread just to troll.
> Troll.


I wanted to have a discussion!!! Dont act like you have more important things to be doin! haha


----------



## Tailshot (Jan 23, 2010)

"Hold them at gunpoint", "shoot them in the leg", ""shoot to wound"...that's how people get killed. Stay in your house, watch, call 9-1-1. Get as much of a description of the person(s) and vehicle as you can.

Don't be shootin' folks over stuff you can replace. But when you shoot, to protect your life or that of someone else, *always shoot to kill.* The life you save will be yours.


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

TomCat said:


> I know a guy that confronted a thief in his car. The kid came at him with a large screwdriver. He shot the thief in the heart with a 357 revolver. He said it was the worst mistake he ever maid. By the time he paid off the lawyers from the wrongful death lawsuits he could have bought a new car. His advice is to call the cops and stay inside.


Did this happen in Texas? If it did why did he need a lawyer? He would be protected under the Texas Castle Doctrine.. Straight to the Grand Jury if anything....


----------



## strosfann (Jul 19, 2007)

A couple of years ago I heard some activity outside my home that I was fairly certain was someone trying to enter my garage at around 2 AM. I live in a nice suburban neighborhood and my garage is seperate from the house but joined by a covered breezeway as is common in the 'burbs. I immediatyely grabbed my .40 and a maglight and slipped out the front door without really thinking about it. Long story short is that by the time I got back to the garage whoever or whatever had been making the noise was gone and I was glad for it. 

In hindsight I should have just called 911 and flipped on some lights but I think it was the fact that my garage door was only 10 ft. from the door to the house that was the only thing seperating someone with bad intentions from my family domain. I'm not sure what would have happened if there had been some thug in the beam of my maglight when I popped around the corner of the garage.

After going back inside it was hard to get to sleep with all of the adrenalin flowing so I kept thinking about all the ways a situation like that could play out. What if they were armed too? What if there were more than one of them? Is whatever is in my garage worth putting my life in danger over? If I killed someone trying to steal my lawnmower or some fishing tackle would the mental anguish and the innevitable legal action be worth it?

In the end I decided to draw a line. If there is ever a future threat that involves an attempt to enter my home I will keep firing until all 12 rounds are spent and I'll reload if needed. Anything outside the home will result in a 911 call.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

John Galt said:


> You never know when you're going to wind up on the wrong side of a crusading prosecutor. Do the names "Nifong," "Spitzer," or "Reno" mean anything to you? You shoot someone who's in the wrong ethnic group, Quannell 10 starts making a bunch of noise....go ahead and roll the bones if you want, but I'll pass.
> 
> Not to mention many of the prosecutions after Enron, not just Enron but other companies in the same business (Jamie Solis). A lot of prosecutorial abuse never sees the light of day...and a lot of guys become prosecutors because they want to be a politician some day.
> 
> ...


my post was to correct erroneous information previously posted in this thread.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> a lot of you would have a mental breakdown. I know I would even if I was fending for my families life


That's too bad. Sometimes I wonder how we got to this stage, but now I think I know.

I would not shoot an unarmed burglar who posed no, or even a minimal threat to me, in the house or in the car. I would not stand and watch him haul off my possessions, either. Sure he could grab some light things and outrun me - I guess in that case he'd win. I doubt I'd gun him in the back.


----------



## Pier Pressure (Aug 30, 2009)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> You get up for a drink of water late at night, walk by a window and see someone trying to enter your vehicle. I have seen some people on here make the statement about hoping to catch someone in the act of breaking into their car and how they would end that person's life. Personally, I could not or would not kill someone over a piece of property such as my car, or the contents held within. You are in no danger, call the cops. If the cops are running behind and it looks like they might enter the vehicle before they arrive, turn on a light... cops show up later to find them if they are on foot or take note of the get-a-way car and give the info to the police.
> 
> Now if I was in the vehicle, or they were attempting to enter my house, I would be forced to shoot to kill. It is not my place to decide if someone lives or dies, but in that situation I have no choice. What's your take?





9121SS said:


> Entering my home or a threat to my family = shoot to kill!
> As far as breaking in my truck, not sure. I may not shoot them but there would be shots fired.
> I try not to keep much in my truck for that reason.


You end up going infront of a jury and keep saying you "shot to kill" and some simpathetic jurror for the victom is going to try and send you to prison. 
When I took my CHL my instructor told us you dont say shoot to kill you say shoot to stop. Joe Horn got lucky. 
However you do have a right to shoot someone breaking in your car/truck at night. 
But yea Ide hate to have em blead out in my truck.

sorry if this was covered allready because I did not sift through 10 pages of posts.


----------



## Caveman (Jul 21, 2004)

*My take...*

I have always assumed that a criminal that is willing to enter my property with intent to steal something likely wouldn't hesitate to kill me to avoid being caught. I'd call 911, but I am not going to watch from inside the house while my property is stolen. I'd hate to be put in the situaution where I had to take someone's life, but THE CRIMINAL makes that decision....NOT the property owner!


----------



## KEN KERLEY (Nov 13, 2006)

The answer to the original question is no - for me anyways.


----------



## copano_son (Dec 17, 2007)

Reef Dawg said:


> So, you let 'em go and they go down the street and rape and kill someone's little girl. How do you feel now? I say shoot 'em, shoot 'em all and let GOD sort 'em out! It's GOD's job to judge them, it's our job to arrange the meeting!


What if it's your neighbor's kid? You sending him to meet God? Or does he get a free pass? Even worse, what if it's your best friend's kid, who likes what you got, or does he get a free pass too?


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

To all of you that think its better to let them walk, read the law. You are justified in shotting the sorry SOB. Let em walk, them just end up doing more harm down the line. 
Our country would be a lot better off with these criminals off the streets.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY



Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




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.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

flashlight said:


> Its just like Tomcat said. Sure you will probably be in your legal right to shoot if you catch the person in your car, but is it worth the numerous bills you are going to have for lawyer fees because the person sued you over it.
> The bottom line is, it is easy to say what you will do. But until that day comes where you have to make a split second decision to shoot or not to shoot, you are only guessing at what you will do.


Tomcat dosen't know what he is talking about if said you can be sued, because you cannot be sued under the Castle Doctrine

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant


----------



## Harbormaster (May 26, 2000)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> You get up for a drink of water late at night, walk by a window and see someone trying to enter your vehicle. I have seen some people on here make the statement about hoping to catch someone in the act of breaking into their car and how they would end that person's life. Personally, I could not or would not kill someone over a piece of property such as my car, or the contents held within. You are in no danger, call the cops. If the cops are running behind and it looks like they might enter the vehicle before they arrive, turn on a light... cops show up later to find them if they are on foot or take note of the get-a-way car and give the info to the police.
> 
> Now if I was in the vehicle, or they were attempting to enter my house, I would be forced to shoot to kill. It is not my place to decide if someone lives or dies, but in that situation I have no choice. What's your take?


It would depend on the moon phase and whether or knot "a delightfully tight configuration of planets graces the evening sky!"

I truly dislike thieves...won't tolerate 'em!


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

For some reason the whole thing is not posting so here is a link to it.

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html


----------



## trodery (Sep 13, 2006)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> If they are in your home, you have no choice is what I am saying. You cant think, only react... your life or there's which is not not a conscious choice but a primal reaction. When you you view them from inside your house, and you make an conscious decision to go outside and actively pursue a deadly situation that will most likely end in the loss of a life, you have decided that your life and their life is less important than a material item. Thus, making you the decider of the value of someone's life. Stick that in your juice box, and suck it!


I don't think you answered your own question yet.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

TomCat said:


> I know a guy that confronted a thief in his car. The kid came at him with a large screwdriver. He shot the thief in the heart with a 357 revolver. He said it was the worst mistake he ever maid. By the time he paid off the lawyers from the wrongful death lawsuits he could have bought a new car. His advice is to call the cops and stay inside.


awesome.. that is a helluva lot cheaper than taking care of that thief in prison for the rest of his life... your friend sacrified for our country in his own unique way


----------



## The1ThatGotAway (Jun 24, 2009)

*When I was Younger*

When I was a lot younger I was training for the MS150 and a guy ran me off the road while on my bike. I got up and he attacked me, found out later he was on drugs. He threw me over the bed of his truck and was punching me. Lucky for me he was a carpenter or something because he had a lot of tools in his truck. I grabbed a hammer and took it to his head. So for my troubles of NO DOUBT defending myself it still cost a relative of mine 10 grand to keep me out of jail.

I'm not sure if I want to go threw that again over a car stereo, I never leave anything of value in the truck. But this world is getting more ruthless by the day and I am secure in my mind that if I ever have to kill again it will be easier next time, it just won't be over something that I can replace with money.


----------



## trodery (Sep 13, 2006)

No free passes at my house!

I really would like the address of each of you that said you won't shoot someone stealing your property, I'll be sure to pass that information along to the next crackheads I see and let them know they would be safe stealing YOUR property!


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

flashlight said:


> Yessir..one thing about wording tho..You never want to shoot to kill. You want to shoot to "stop" the threat. Its crazy how words can be "played" on, but it happens in the court system every day.


It's amazing some of the answers people are giving. I hope to God they haven't taken the CHL class! It's funny some of the responses like shooting them in the head, shooting them in the leg, shoot to kill, let God sort them out, etc.

Those who give those reponses need to read up on the Castle Doctrine and clean/bad shoots. Also need to read up on how much a retainer/fees are for a top defense lawyer.

I'm not justifying thieves, because I hate them as much as the next guy. Just be logical...


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> So let me get this straight, for those of you who would kill for their property... you believe that you have the right to decide if someone lives or dies? Cut it up and trim it down to protecting the future property of other people, saving tax dollars, all of which are material things that you are holding higher than a human life... you are saying that you are the decider of someone living or dying? Yes or no... that is what it is.


Yes I HAVE the right to be the decider under Texas law...Would I, I don't know.. But don't try me, because I'm not sure what I'd do if you woke me up in the middle of the night stealing MY STUFF..


----------



## flashlight (Jul 9, 2007)

Pasadena1944 said:


> Tomcat dosen't know what he is talking about if said you can be sued, because you cannot be sued under the Castle Doctrine
> 
> Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant


You can be sued under certain situations under the Castle Doctrine.

The real answer to the question is, there is no simple yes I would shoot or no I would not shoot. Until you are awakened in the night by the person in your car, and you make that decision to engage or not engage in what he is doing, you can't really say what you would do.

You can sit here and qoute the laws all day long. For that matter you can print it out and have it in your back pocket when you confront the guy. It still does not change the fact if you have never been in that situation you cant say what you will or wont do.

Am I saying dont shoot. No way! I am just saying you have to evaluate ever situation because every one of them will be different in some sort of way. Sure Joe Horn was finally cleared of everything. Do you not think he had some sleepless nights after the shooting? I bet that man got an ulcer over this incident. Him and his family went through he77 over what happened that day. Do you think he would shoot someone again? Who knows but I bet you he has asked that question of himself a few times.

If you go out there to face that encounter with the intention of automatically shooting someone, you are definately going to set yourself up for a lot of heart ache down the road.


----------



## Don Smith (Nov 24, 2007)

There are several answers to your question. First off, it is not I that decides the value of the criminals life. It is he. If the property that he is stealing is worth $50, then that is the value that he has put on his life. If I have worked for a piece of property, then it is mine and yes I will kill again to keep it. As soon as thieves realize the cost of their actions, they will change careers. I am more than willing to assist them in making that decision. But above all, it is a personal decision with no correct answer for everyone. There are those that will cover their head and hope the thief takes their belongings and goes away and there are others that will vigorously defend their property. I am the latter.


----------



## WestEndAngler (Jan 30, 2007)

I couldn't pull the trigger on a kid who was going through my boat gun box. He will not be coming back I can tell you that. I said freeze & he was looking down the barrel of a .40 cal. He ran I couldn't and was not about to shoot someone in the back (he wasn't holding or carrying anything) found out later he had already taken my socket set... $20 is better than a mess of legal BS and knowing I shot & killed someone even if I was within my legal rights.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

i watched my brand new bronco drive away one day, after dealing with my auto ins. co. yes, deff. what a cluster. 


I had an employee shot a guy that was stealing his suburban in his driveway with a load of OO buck...... 3 rounds, it really screws a vehicle up, how do you get blood out of a headliner ?


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

flashlight said:


> You can be sued under certain situations under the Castle Doctrine.
> 
> The real answer to the question is, there is no simple yes I would shoot or no I would not shoot. Until you are awakened in the night by the person in your car, and you make that decision to engage or not engage in what he is doing, you can't really say what you would do.
> 
> ...


"You can be sued under certain situations under the Castle Doctrine."

I posted the link to it, now you show us where it says you can be sued...

The families of the two Joe Horn shot were not able to sue him..


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

jamisjockey said:


> Not to start a ******* match here, but if you intentionally shoot someone in the leg, you're asking for more trouble than you can comprehend. Lethal force is just that, and not intended for the intentional wounding of a threat. Its also not moral or ethicial to intentionally wound someone. Lethal force is intended to stop a threat.


Hmmmm I'd rather be shot in the leg than the forehead, not sure I can follow your line of thinking about ethics or morals.


----------



## Texas B (Jan 9, 2010)

Stand up for your personal property! Lord knows the government isn't going to do it. Stop worrying about what Quanell, Reno, Nifong, and Spitzer feel. Worrying about what they feel is one of the reasons that this Nation is in a whirlwind. You are well within your american right to protect what is yours. And I say to exercise that right. 

Thieves are used to receiving a slap on the wrist for theft. The more people killed in the act of stealing, the less people would try and steal. 

Here is a couple scenarios...

Scenario 1:
There is a car that is worth 20 grand to me on the black market if I steal it. If I get caught, I spend 1-3 months in jail, some probation, then I am back on the streets to try again. Do I attempt to steal this car?

Scenario 2:
There is a car that is worth 20 grand to me on the black market if I steal it. If I get caught, I am legally shot and killed. Do I attempt to steal this car?


----------



## flashlight (Jul 9, 2007)

Pasadena1944 said:


> "You can be sued under certain situations under the Castle Doctrine."
> 
> I posted the link to it, now you show us where it says you can be sued...
> 
> The families of the two Joe Horn shot were not able to sue him..


Bud there are stipulations to everything. How bout excessive force? Which could happen by you a number of ways. One example would be :You initially shoot the guy, he falls and says "I give up" and you shoot him again because your adrenaline is pumping so fast and you have tunnel vision, you dont even remember shooting him the first time. The castle doctrine would not apply! Or like I said a few posts back, You end up missing and the bullet goes through your neighbors house and hits one of them. The Castle Doctrine does not apply to 3rd parties who are not involved in the encounter.

Their are so many silly little things you can get caught up in on something like this. I am just trying to tell you that every situation is different and the slightest little thing might make the difference between you getting No Billed at a Grand Jury to a True Bill.


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

flashlight said:


> You can be sued under certain situations under the Castle Doctrine.
> 
> The real answer to the question is, there is no simple yes I would shoot or no I would not shoot. Until you are awakened in the night by the person in your car, and you make that decision to engage or not engage in what he is doing, you can't really say what you would do.
> 
> ...


"You can sit here and qoute the laws all day long. For that matter you can print it out and have it in your back pocket when you confront the guy. It still does not change the fact if you have never been in that situation you cant say what you will or wont do."

See there you talking about something you know nothing about again..

I've pulled a gun on two different people and fired at one of them but did not hit him...but he stopped beating the hell out of the woman he was hitting with his fist.

And If confronted with the same situations again I'd do it again.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Kenner21 said:


> Hmmmm I'd rather be shot in the leg than the forehead, not sure I can follow your line of thinking about ethics or morals.


Not sure how you'd "prefer" to be shot relates to the ethics of the application of deadly force. 
Its pretty simple:
A firearm is only intended for the use of deadly force. There is no _lesser _degree of deadly force. Intentionally wounding someone when you're in the right to use deadly force would fall under Aggrivated Assault. 
Next, lets get practical. You're going to shoot someone, possibly moving, in the leg, in the dark? Good luck with that.


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

flashlight said:


> Bud there are stipulations to everything. How bout excessive force? Which could happen by you a number of ways. One example would be :You initially shoot the guy, he falls and says "I give up" and you shoot him again because your adrenaline is pumping so fast and you have tunnel vision, you dont even remember shooting him the first time. The castle doctrine would not apply! Or like I said a few posts back, You end up missing and the bullet goes through your neighbors house and hits one of them. The Castle Doctrine does not apply to 3rd parties who are not involved in the encounter.
> 
> Their are so many silly little things you can get caught up in on something like this. I am just trying to tell you that every situation is different and the slightest little thing might make the difference between you getting No Billed at a Grand Jury to a True Bill.


You're the same person that believes that someone does not have a right to defend their 1st Amendment rights, so I see why you feel the way you do about the Texas Castle Doctrine.

Now Like I asked you post where it says in the Castle Doctrine that I can be sued for using it.. And stop making chit up to justify your way of thinking...

What if's is something I'd expect from a child.


----------



## Bozo (Jun 16, 2004)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> You get up for a drink of water late at night, walk by a window and see someone trying to enter your vehicle. I have seen some people on here make the statement about hoping to catch someone in the act of breaking into their car and how they would end that person's life. Personally, I could not or would not kill someone over a piece of property such as my car, or the contents held within. You are in no danger, call the cops. If the cops are running behind and it looks like they might enter the vehicle before they arrive, turn on a light... cops show up later to find them if they are on foot or take note of the get-a-way car and give the info to the police.
> 
> Now if I was in the vehicle, or they were attempting to enter my house, I would be forced to shoot to kill. It is not my place to decide if someone lives or dies, but in that situation I have no choice. What's your take?


I've had 2 cars stolen and had them broken into 6 other times on top of that. I keep nothing in my cars or value any of them worth being a persons life. Not even a worthless piece of sh.. car thief's life.

Now, carjacking it with me in it? Yup, that's a him or me or the family thing and he's going to get a hot lead injection.


----------



## Rainy (Jul 30, 2005)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> So let me get this straight, for those of you who would kill for their property... you believe that you have the right to decide if someone lives or dies? Cut it up and trim it down to protecting the future property of other people, saving tax dollars, all of which are material things that you are holding higher than a human life... you are saying that you are the decider of someone living or dying? Yes or no... that is what it is.


I believe the crook makes the decision to chance living or dying..

All about material things? Yeah, like a vehicle that you need to be able to make a living?


----------



## flashlight (Jul 9, 2007)

Pasadena1944 said:


> You're the same person that believes that someone does not have a right to defend their 1st Amendment rights, so I see why you feel the way you do about the Texas Castle Doctrine.
> 
> Now Like I asked you post where it says in the Castle Doctrine that I can be sued for using it.. And stop making chit up to justify your way of thinking...
> 
> What if's is something I'd expect from a child.


You can name call all day long fella but the bottom line is I have been in 2 shootings during my career and I assure you none of them were pleasant. Have you ever killed anyone? I dont believe in sit in judgement so I am not judging you. It seems you are.

As far as the 1st Amendment right thing, I guess you are referring to the guy refusing to leave on campus property after being asked to do so (which he was tresspassing). You forgot or seem avoid that part.

You seem to have tunnel judgement and do not look at the facts as they are presented to you. Its a good thing you are not faced with life making decisions on a daily basis as I think you would have some serious problems with the outcome.


----------



## piratelight (May 2, 2008)

[QUOTE Who here thinks they can, under stress, hit a moving leg or arm to "wound" the suspect? In the dark, in your underwear? 
.[/QUOTE]
i can aim at his feet with 12g #4 :biggrin:


----------



## monster (Apr 11, 2008)

As far as breaking into my vehicle. I would hope to be able to contain the situation, but I would shoot if at any time I felt endangered. If it was neighborhood kids, I pray they would go face down on the ground on command and let the police handle it. 

Breaking into my home is a potential death sentence. If I felt I could control the situation without killing them, then I might try. That goes for anything that endangers my family, whether it's at home, on the street, anytime and any place. Too many crazies out there who are completely unpredictable. We see it in the news almost every day. I would rather face a jury than attend my families funeral.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

I don't think some are understanding how the civil courts work. 

An affirmative defense does not mean you can't be sued. It means, after you are sued, if you prove the affirmative defense to a Judge/jury, then you don't have to pay the damages. 

The question is not - show me where it says I can be sued. The question would be - show me where it says I can't be sued. If the answer is an affirmative defense, that sure don't mean you can't be sued. 

The upfront money in Houston for a first class crimiinal defense attorney starts at around $20K and goes up from there. I sent a client to a big name criminal defense attorney not too long ago, and the deal was 50K up front in cash - paid in full up front - and if he did not take the case, you get the money back. If you don't have the cash up front, he don't even talk to you or consider your case. And thats not flat fee or a one time payment. More like, a good faith deposit to secure his services. 

On the civil side, if you don't have insurance, your up front to top notch civil litigation firm would be not altogether different, unless you are wealthy and have real good credit.


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

I would do them like that guy does on American History X. Put his mouth on the curb and stomp on his head...... Yeah thats it.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

Man there are a lot of backroom lawyers and tough guys here...

TH


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

jamisjockey said:


> Not sure how you'd "prefer" to be shot relates to the ethics of the application of deadly force.
> Its pretty simple:
> A firearm is only intended for the use of deadly force. There is no _lesser _degree of deadly force. Intentionally wounding someone when you're in the right to use deadly force would fall under Aggrivated Assault.
> Next, lets get practical. You're going to shoot someone, possibly moving, in the leg, in the dark? Good luck with that.


So what your saying is that it's morally right to shoot to kill but if you shoot to wound you're being un-ethical? Might want to ask the person getting shot about that. It's something I'll never have to worry about but no I wouldn't kill another human being for trying to steal my laptop etc


----------



## Naterator (Dec 2, 2004)

Given the degree of macho redneckism on this forum, I am not surpised to see quite a few people say they'd have no problem shooting a car thief. I would probably have said that at 18, or 22, maybe even 25...but nowadays, having experienced deaths in my family and the loss of other loved ones...no way. A car, or its contents, isn't worth having to live with that the rest of my life, or deal with the potential financial liabilities. Thats what insurance is for.

Now, if you are in my house, you are going to get floored by buckshot and you better hope the ambulance makes it in time. Having said that, if I caught an unarmed burglar in my house in the daylight, I'd try to hold him for the cops before I'd shoot him...but, one inkling of a wrong move and its time for a "floorie"!


----------



## GOTTAILCORNBREAD (Jul 10, 2006)

Ladies & Gentlemen: The question was would you, or wouldn't you? Not ohh i don't like what you said and your wrong. Let me show you by copying something off the internet. For thoose that choose to copy and paste. Good for you, but make it another topic. This is Shoot or Hide!!!


----------



## MikeV (Jun 5, 2006)

I would ask if they were a Democrat first.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

personally, even though I'm legal in Texas to do so. I won't shoot over property loss, mine or my neighbors. too much paperwork. My insurance company needs the payout exercise anyway. Now walk toward me with my neighbors stereo and a switchblade in your hand , dead.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Ernest said:


> I don't think some are understanding how the civil courts work.
> 
> An affirmative defense does not mean you can't be sued. It means, after you are sued, if you prove the affirmative defense to a Judge/jury, then you don't have to pay the damages.
> 
> ...


Yea yea yea. So they may still sue you, but wth the castle doctrine in place, show me a lawyer that will take the case without a big cash retainer, which, these thugs are unwilling to pay.
I don't care how many ads you see from those big city injury lawyers talking about 'truth and justice". That all gos away when thier client has no money and their prospects of squeezing some easy money out of the defendent are low.


----------



## PalmsUp (Aug 1, 2005)

Yes, I would shoot him. Then I would get the wife to take a picture and I would grab his ears and shove him toward the camera so he would look bigger and post it on 2COOL!!!


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

Texas Law:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable


----------



## sweenyite (Feb 22, 2009)

I don't think I could end a life unless my own safety ot the safety of my family was in jeopardy. I don't think I'd shoot anyone over a car burglary. However, if it ever does come down to kill or be killed...I stay loaded up with Glasser Safety Slugs....in .45


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> You get up for a drink of water late at night, walk by a window and see someone trying to enter your vehicle. I have seen some people on here make the statement about hoping to catch someone in the act of breaking into their car and how they would end that person's life. Personally, I could not or would not kill someone over a piece of property such as my car, or the contents held within. You are in no danger, call the cops. If the cops are running behind and it looks like they might enter the vehicle before they arrive, turn on a light... cops show up later to find them if they are on foot or take note of the get-a-way car and give the info to the police.
> 
> Now if I was in the vehicle, or they were attempting to enter my house, I would be forced to shoot to kill. It is not my place to decide if someone lives or dies, but in that situation I have no choice. What's your take?


At my house that would mean:

1. They crossed a closed and locked 5 foot tall gate, into a fenced yard.
2. They ignored a very conspicuous "No Trespassing" sign at the property lines. 
3. It's at night, aka, after dark.
4. My driveway is well lighted, so there is no mistaking what they are doing near/in/to my vehicle(s).

I guess it would all depend if they can make 3100 feet per second on foot


----------



## JohnHumbert (May 21, 2004)

*Laughable!*

These debates can be entertaining to say the least. OK, let me throw my $0.02 opinion in the ring.

First, I have to start by saying if there is anyone out there that is still under the impression that police are there to protect theft - you are in la-la land. Police long ago realized that they could not prevent theft of property no matter what resources they throw at it - so they don't even try now. Look at all the programs in place, "TAKE, LOCK, HIDE", etc. - these are telling the public plain and simple - YOU are responsible for preventing and minimizing theft. That's why is is so STUPID to leave valuables in your car and not expect them to be stolen, or whine about it when it happens. Yes, they should be stealing - we get it - but LOOK at what everyone is tell you - protect your stuff yourself, and the BEST way to do that is NOT make it available.

Many PD's - include HPD - do not even investigate simple thefts anymore - and they darn sure don't press charges unless it falls into the lap or part of a larger operation. The thieves know this - and know that there are NO realistic reprocussions for many types of theft - including breaking into cars. The "official" HPD and DPD policy is - let 'em steal it, and claim it on your insurance - it's not worth our time or your life to oppose this.

That might be practical, but it is certainly not moral or ethical. All this does is promote a big round-robin industry - with theives supporting insurance companies - and everybody else picking up the tab. There is NO deterrent to theft except what YOU put in place yourself. In fact, the cops and insurance companies are ENCOURAGING it (or at least supporting it indirectly).

So, you want to create deterrent - lock it up, hide it, remove it from your vehicle, etc. Shooting a thief may be questionable action "morally" - but there is a greater moral imperative - one that goes beyond just yourself. Simply put, GUNS are a deterrent to theft. The moral balance that law enforcement and legal system MUST take is supporting individuals who choose to do what they cannot - DETER THEFT. And that is EXACTLY what they do with "castle doctrine' and all the laws.

There is NO DOUBT that more shootings of thieves will create a deterrent - and we ALL benefit from that. That makes it is socially "moral" - but may goes against many people's personal moral behaviour.

Will it STOP theft - NO WAY. But it might stop it for you. The best defense is a good offense - and the best offense is ONE YOU NEVER HAVE TO USE - the simple THREAT becomes the deterrent.

So far as the right to take a life.... Well, my grandma has a staying "Your rights END where MY nose begins". If someone engages in criminal behaviour, they try to take their stuff - they just made their life worth less than a cost of one of my bullets. THEIR CHOICE, not mine. Would I choose to take that course of action - I dunno - maybe, maybe not.

Insurance doesn't cover a lot - and not at all for some items. If I caught somewhere stealing my boat - well, they'll never find the body. If my truck, well - maybe. I know insurance would not begin to cover my tackle if it was in the truck. That's why I NEVER leave stuff in my truck - because I don't want to lose it. Would find it hard to pull the trigger on someone where I could have prevented it by taking it inside.

Anyway, that's my thoughts...


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

PalmsUp said:


> Yes, I would shoot him. Then I would get the wife to take a picture and I would grab his ears and shove him toward the camera so he would look bigger and post it on 2COOL!!!


For gods sake, don't forget to make sure he is in above the minimum size limit. :biggrin:


----------



## CORNHUSKER (Jul 12, 2004)

Mont said:


> I guess it would all depend if they can make 3100 feet per second on foot


Now that is simple logic that I can comprehend.


----------



## JOHNNY QUEST (Mar 6, 2006)

I'd pop a cap off in that lowlife in a heartbeat with my pimped out .45 auto.
It really don't matter where I hit him.. he's gunna bleed out before the cops get there anyway.. It makes huge holes..:texasflag


----------



## JohnHumbert (May 21, 2004)

*Have your tried...*



sweenyite said:


> I don't think I could end a life unless my own safety ot the safety of my family was in jeopardy. I don't think I'd shoot anyone over a car burglary. However, if it ever does come down to kill or be killed...I stay loaded up with Glasser Safety Slugs....in .45


some DRT loads. They have lead powder core and literally explode on impact, being the entire force is immediately transfer on impact.

Security forces around the world use them to protect high-value targets. There are no wounding shots, as even a shoulder shot will remove head and much of the torso.

Hit 'em anywhere and they are DRT - Dead Right There. And no one to sue you or testify (even if they can identify 'em).

Expensive, but cheap when I think of how accurate I would actually be if late and night and 2 tons of adrenaline pumping through my system. Plus any missed won't go through walls and hit somebody down the street.


----------



## slopoke (Jul 10, 2005)

Mont said:


> At my house that would mean:
> 
> 1. They crossed a closed and locked 5 foot tall gate, into a fenced yard.
> 2. They ignored a very conspicuous "No Trespassing" sign at the property lines.
> ...





CORNHUSKER said:


> Now that is simple logic that I can comprehend.


It's also simple logic that even turds that break into folk's cars should be able to comprehend. When they violate someone's property, including their automobile, they should know the risks and assume them. If and when they run into a property owner that's determined and able to defend it they've created their own circumstance and shame on 'em. :wink::bounce:


----------



## 2slick (Dec 5, 2008)

donf said:


> Texas Law:
> Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable


So, is that the final version of the law? I had read the "affirmative defense" was removed from this, but never found the version without it. Of course, it would not be a factor in my decision on whether to shoot or not. If I decide to shoot, I'll deal with the consequences.


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Yes I would.


----------



## bobbyoshay (Nov 29, 2008)

and this is what i get for not being on 2cool all day...ive been missing all the fun! 

i would most likely have to pull the trigger....


----------



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

Our societies laws are so inconsequential that it tells the criminals to do whatever they want nowadays. If they are sentenced to 25 years for murder in the state penn they are out in 2 years for parole. If the guy that was robbing your car was sentenced to 5 years he would be out in 6 months and robbing or doing worse when he gets out. Would you steal someones car stereo if the threat of being shot came with that? Would you think twice about molesting a child if the penalty was the electric chair? Criminals dont deserve a second chance. They deserve the harshest punishment applicable and maybe they wont be criminals anymore. Just my .02.


----------



## John Galt (Aug 6, 2006)

Pasadena1944 said:


> Tomcat dosen't know what he is talking about if said you can be sued, because you cannot be sued under the Castle Doctrine
> 
> Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY *[AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]*. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant


Actually, neither you nor bigfishtx know what you're talking about.

An "Affirmative Defense" comes into play after you're at trial. You're already paying a lawyer big money to defend you.



Texas Penal Code said:


> "...when and to the degree the actor *reasonably believes* the force* is immediately necessary *to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property."


The bolded part is the crux and what could cost you your freedom and your life savings in legal fees. Numerous posters have pointed out that you could just as easily call 911 and flip on a porch light, at no risk to you. Many home burglar alarms have a panic button. My car has a panic button on it which flashes the light and blows the horn if you hold down the red button on the keyless entry. A reasonable person would not necessarily conclude that deadly force was required to prevent the theft. As this is an affirmative defense, you're going to be sitting there on the stand while the prosecutor asks why you didn't do ANY of the things that were suggested above..what are you going to say?

If you happen to get a crusading prosecutor, you will spend a LOT of money against the full power of the State (and the State can afford more lawyers that YOU can).

Further, even if you get no-billed, there has been no finding of fact that you're not guilty of any crime...the grand jury simply found that there was not adequate evidence that a crime was committed. You're not covered by the Section 9 that was cited and you will pay legal fees to protect yourself from the scumbag or the scumbag's next of kin, who will hire a scumbag lawyer on a contingency fee - no out-of-pocket cost to them.

Finally, a civil case requires a lower burden of proof than a criminal case. You may be found not guilty (paying huge legal fees) and then be sued and beaten in civil court. For example: OJ Simpson was famously found not guilty but lost a wrongful death lawsuit against Ron Goldman's family.

YMMV. Any LEO will tell you "There's what you know, and there's what you can prove." This is the flip side of that.


----------



## coup de grace (Aug 7, 2010)

*BETTER NOT,TRUST ME ,UNLESS YOUR IN FEAR OF YOUR LIFE OR PROTECTING SOME ONE ELSE DON SHOOT THEM. YOU WILL LIVE TO REGRET IT I PROMISE....*


----------



## Capt Scott Reeh (Jan 21, 2006)

I only read through half the posts but here's my .02 cent. Read,understand and know the Chapter 9 Penal Code ! Your mind is your primary weapon.....use it wisely.Making the wrong decision at the wrong time can lead to YOU being the criminal.....in the laws eyes.Just saying ! And......being a keyboard cowboy can be used against you in a court of law.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> You get up for a drink of water late at night, walk by a window and see someone trying to enter your vehicle. I have seen some people on here make the statement about hoping to catch someone in the act of breaking into their car and how they would end that person's life. Personally, I could not or would not kill someone over a piece of property such as my car, or the contents held within. You are in no danger, call the cops. If the cops are running behind and it looks like they might enter the vehicle before they arrive, turn on a light... cops show up later to find them if they are on foot or take note of the get-a-way car and give the info to the police.
> 
> Now if I was in the vehicle, or they were attempting to enter my house, I would be forced to shoot to kill. It is not my place to decide if someone lives or dies, but in that situation I have no choice. What's your take?


Yes, I would shot the worthless piece of ****....without hesitation.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2010)

PalmsUp said:


> Yes, I would shoot him. Then I would get the wife to take a picture and I would grab his ears and shove him toward the camera so he would look bigger and post it on 2COOL!!!


Now that's funny!!


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Kenner21 said:


> So what your saying is that it's morally right to shoot to kill but if you shoot to wound you're being un-ethical? Might want to ask the person getting shot about that. It's something I'll never have to worry about but no I wouldn't kill another human being for trying to steal my laptop etc


What I'm saying is that a gun provides a method of applying DEADLY force. Shooting to "wound" someone is indeed un-ethical, as it is the *misapplication* of DEADLY force. *If* you are in the right to apply DEADLY force, then apply DEADLY force. 
*If you are not in the right to apply DEADLY force, then you shouldn't be shooting them at all. *


----------



## Bobby (May 21, 2004)

I would just sick my wife on them. Then the stray dogs and cats would have food for a long time.:biggrin:


----------



## State_Vet (Oct 10, 2006)

I would sneak out and make sure I'm between them and their get away car then shout hey you, when they run at me (still on my property) I feel threatened....unload on them:work:


----------



## AggieCowboy98 (Feb 25, 2007)

flashlight said:


> I would be very careful about making any statements like this in writing. If you ever get put in a situation where you might have to take action, your statements might come back to haunt you!


This is very sound advice! A few years ago I testified as a witness in a murder trial. The defense attorny asked a lot of "What would you do if..." questions. After I answered them he produced e-mails, bulletin board posts, and all kinds of stuff to question my answers.

You just never know what they will dig up and use against you.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

BigFishTx - contingency fee lawyers do it for no cash up front, but 40 to 50% on the backend. 

Defense lawyer charge by the hour. 

Open the phone book, and you will find no less than 1000's of contingency fees lawyers in Houston ready to take on a 17 year old kid shot in the head for stealing a car radio. 1000's.


----------



## Naterator (Dec 2, 2004)

*just curious*

Just curious...for all of you that wouldn't hesitate to take a life over property - would it matter if it was a 14-18 year old kid..or a 19 year old, or whatever? A less than mature adult, anotherwords. I just ask because we all know that kids do really, really stupid things. Before you get on your high horse about "Well a 17 year old ought to know right from wrong, blah blah, blah" - I know some really good people, friends even, that have grown up to be as solid of citizens as you would ever know, military vets even, that could have very likely been caught inside someone else's car while in high school. I am sure you know these people as well. So, does this cross your mind before you spout off about shooting someone who is stealing your stereo at 2 am?

Its reasons like this that would keep me from pulling the trigger on someone stealing my property. Again, if they present a threat to me or anyone else, they are getting the buckshot, but I am not killing someone over my belongings. I do respect your right to do just that however, but please make sure you aren't shooting your neighbor's 8th grader!


----------



## slopoke (Jul 10, 2005)

Ernest said:


> BigFishTx - contingency fee lawyers do it for no cash up front, but 40 to 50% on the backend.
> 
> Defense lawyer charge by the hour.
> *
> Open the phone book, and you will find no less than 1000's of contingency fees lawyers in Houston ready to take on a 17 year old kid shot in the head for stealing a car radio.* *1000's*.


Maybe we're having a discussion 'bout shootin' the wrong folks.?.? :biggrin:


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

Yes, next question.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Heck, I'd shoot them for fishing in my lights on Tiki...........


----------



## Bobby (May 21, 2004)

Shoot'em, bury'em, and forget'em. Very simple.


----------



## boat (Mar 7, 2005)

Breaking into my truck probably not. But stealing electronics out of my boat .... Your Dead.


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

boomgoon said:


> Heck, I'd shoot them for fishing in my lights on Tiki...........


 get out my water


----------



## huntnetime (Jul 23, 2004)

No way...and I mean that. Would I be ****** as all get out? Yep. Mad enough to take their life? Maybe. Would I? No freaking way. NO NO NO NO. There is no material possession of mine that is worth the life of even the lowliest of scum thiefs. Would I do everything in my power short of even the threat of lethal force to try to make sure they land in jail? Yes. Threaten my property, hopefully you go to jail. Threaten my life or my family's life...you probably won't make it that far.


----------



## donkeyman (Jan 8, 2007)

I would arrest them myself I would not kill someone for breaking in my vehicle unless they esculated the situation and put me in fear of my life. Now if they are stealing my truck hope he likes .45acp 230 fmj


----------



## Bukkskin (Oct 21, 2009)

*Shoot and KEEP shooting*

We Don't need them genetics being passed down.:headknock


----------



## deke (Oct 5, 2004)

flashlight said:


> Yessir..one thing about wording tho..You never want to shoot to kill. You want to shoot to "stop" the threat. Its crazy how words can be "played" on, but it happens in the court system every day.


Exactly. Whether it is one shot , hits him in the toe and he gives up, you miss and he throws up his arms or runs off, or 8 rounds to center mass. You engage until the threat is no longer a threat.

I hear alot of you comtinuing to bring up the castle doctrine and the legality of using deadly force to protect property. No one is questioning that, the question is, just because it is legal does it make it right to take a life over some stuff in your car? IMO no, I have lost more than most probably from my four car break ins, but I still am not going to shoot someone over it. Not worth all the headaches, legally, and the issues I will have to deal with after taking a life. I have enough to worry about day to day to add that kind of guilt and stress ti my life.

And protecting yourself and family is of course a different story.


----------



## Gator gar (Sep 21, 2007)

Wouldn't happen to me. I can't see my truck from the window. It's always unlocked and I only get up to take a leak, never to get anything to drink. The only window in the bathroom is frosted over, so you can't see inside or outside.

Oh, one more thing. I keep a couple of hounds outside to deter anyone from entering my vehicle.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

deke said:


> Exactly. Whether it is one shot , hits him in the toe and he gives up, you miss and he throws up his arms or runs off, or 8 rounds to center mass. You engage until the threat is no longer a threat.
> 
> I.


Aw, you're ruining all the fun! Everyone wants to brag about killing, two-to-the-chest-one-to-the-head, etc etc! Around here, we check common sense at the door for self defense threads! Everyone's a stone-cold bad *** on the internet!
_you must spread reputation around before giving it to deke again...._


----------



## Texhntr1022 (Jul 27, 2009)

I dont think the issue is what is in the vehicle (value of items). I think it is a question of when someone crosses the line... what is that line? I'm not sure of what I would do. I used to think that I would shoot someone for that, not so sure anymore. ANY TIME you shoot someone you will be investigated criminally and almost definitely sued by the family of the person you shot. Even if you are in the right, it will cost time, money and heartache.


----------



## elpistolero45 (May 9, 2010)

Saddest thing I ever saw:

Kid was shot for trying to unlock the wrong truck in a parking lot for his girlfriend.
Her truck was on a different row and she was not present to tell him exactly where she'd left it. The Guy who shot the kid... shot himself 6 months later.

Personally, It's just STUFF in my ride.. with **** little value.
If I pulled a weapon and ordered him to the ground and he ran..... I'm the state's best witness if he's caught. Remember kids, Real men don't backshoot cause that ain't a threat.


----------



## sweenyite (Feb 22, 2009)

I shoot people for looking at my ride the wrong way... :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## DMC (Apr 2, 2006)

Would I shoot someone for breaking into my truck?


----------



## 100% Texan (Jan 30, 2005)

I think your a very god Christian for not shooting a thief but breaking into my truck and me catching the theif I probably would try to put some serious hurt on you which would most likely make you mad which in turn would lead to me killing you.I would not recommend getting caught breaking into my property.


----------



## cva34 (Dec 22, 2008)

*THIEF*

PUT HIM ON ICE HE'LL KEEP TELL THEY GET THERE.........CVA34


----------



## Bevo&Pevo (Jul 22, 2008)

I'd shoot 'em with a .22 right in the ***. Not enough to kill but hard to explain to anyone. Hopefully, it would make 'em think of finding another vehicle next time. Comin' in the haus in the middle of night and I got .357 and a .40 to light 'em up with. B&P


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Bevo&Pevo said:


> I'd shoot 'em with a .22 right in the ***. Not enough to kill but hard to explain to anyone. Hopefully, it would make 'em think of finding another vehicle next time. Comin' in the haus in the middle of night and I got .357 and a .40 to light 'em up with. B&P


A 22 in the arse is a fatal shot. 22 is one of the most deadly rounds available as they tend to "bounce around" once inside you.


----------



## Mountaineer Mark (Jul 15, 2009)

H and K Tactical .40 S&W one in the chamber and 16 in the mag. Plus two backup mags.

Yep, that just about does it..........:work:


----------



## screamin eagle (Nov 30, 2005)

For the people that wouldn't shoot someone that was breaking in to your truck.

If you woke up in the middle of the night and looked out of the window and saw a truck hooking up to your boat what would you do?




Melvin


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

it's insured, let them take it. you'll only be out the deductible.


----------



## Wade Fisher (May 22, 2006)

I wouldn't think twice about it. I know it's only "stuff", but it's MY stuff and I'm getting **** tired of replacing it.


----------



## Texas Jeweler (Nov 6, 2007)

We call it "double tapping".


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

TomCat said:


> I know a guy that confronted a thief in his car. The kid came at him with a large screwdriver. He shot the thief in the heart with a 357 revolver. He said it was the worst mistake he ever maid. By the time he paid off the lawyers from the wrongful death lawsuits he could have bought a new car. His advice is to call the cops and stay inside.


Luckily we now have the Castle Doctrine to thwart criminals' familys' pathetic attempts at getting rich off their offsprings'/spouses' crimes.


----------



## murphy66 (Apr 15, 2006)

It's funny to read what everyone would do. You have no Idea what you will do. I walked out of my house at 3:45 A.M. to head to work one morning. Heard a noise as I stepped over my flower beds to head to the driver side door. i thought it was a cat on my tool box. When I got to the end of my truck a little hispanic guy darted out from between my wife's vehicle and my truck. He jumpen in the back of a lincoln and they sped off. I was still half a sleep and it all happened so fast I didn't have time to catch my breath. Without thinking I ran out into the street and got the liscense plate number. Once I got out of the speeding away car I caught my composer and relized I just put myself in dager for a bunch of replacable stuff they got out of my wifes vehicle. There were also 3 other guys in the car so I was out numbered if they decided to stay and put up a fight. Only way I would shoot is if I'm attacked. If they run off I'm thankful that the only thing I have to deal with is a police report.


----------



## corykj (Oct 30, 2008)

ok, so basically everything on here is a hypothetical situation (with a few true stories about friends, family, etc.). hypothetical situations are just that... some people ask "what if someone broke into your truck in the middle of the night?" questions like this are flat out retarded as far as i'm concerned. "what if my aunt had a dick? well, she'd be my uncle then, right?" 

it's all complete b.s. until it happens, until then, NO ONE can be sure what they'd do. i could write all day long about how i'd 'bust a cap' (or whatever the stupid saying is nowadays), but the fact of the matter is that i really don't know how i'd react 'til it happens. i'd like to think that i'd keep my composure and not do anything stupid that could potentially end me up in jail, but i don't know that. i'd like to think that i'm such a hardass that i'd run out there and roundhouse that little phucker to the ground (a la the amazing chuck norris), but i don't know that because the situation hasn't occured yet. 

for those of you who have encountered such a tragic event, i feel for you and from what i've read and heard, most have been rather calm and collected. for the few who know people who've shot and killed people, that's just plain sad and i feel for you. but for everyone else, you can act as badass as you want, but you don't know 'til it happens brah.


----------



## screamin eagle (Nov 30, 2005)

if i saw somone stealing my truck i would give them a 12 gauge treatment


----------



## hockeyref999 (Aug 12, 2005)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> You get up for a drink of water late at night, walk by a window and see someone trying to enter your vehicle. I have seen some people on here make the statement about hoping to catch someone in the act of breaking into their car and how they would end that person's life. Personally, I could not or would not kill someone over a piece of property such as my car, or the contents held within. You are in no danger, call the cops. If the cops are running behind and it looks like they might enter the vehicle before they arrive, turn on a light... cops show up later to find them if they are on foot or take note of the get-a-way car and give the info to the police.
> 
> Now if I was in the vehicle, or they were attempting to enter my house, I would be forced to shoot to kill. It is not my place to decide if someone lives or dies, but in that situation I have no choice. What's your take?


I agree.


----------



## ox190 (May 6, 2010)

After experiencing the anxiety and stress of having a vehicle stolen I can say I would be very very tempted to shoot them. Ideally I could catch them knelt down fiddling with the ignition so I could walk up and repeatedly slam the door shut on their body. No use for a thief.


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

corykj said:


> ok, so basically everything on here is a hypothetical situation (with a few true stories about friends, family, etc.). hypothetical situations are just that... some people ask "what if someone broke into your truck in the middle of the night?" questions like this are flat out retarded as far as i'm concerned. "what if my aunt had a dick? well, she'd be my uncle then, right?"
> 
> it's all complete b.s. until it happens, until then, NO ONE can be sure what they'd do. i could write all day long about how i'd 'bust a cap' (or whatever the stupid saying is nowadays), but the fact of the matter is that i really don't know how i'd react 'til it happens. i'd like to think that i'd keep my composure and not do anything stupid that could potentially end me up in jail, but i don't know that. i'd like to think that i'm such a hardass that i'd run out there and roundhouse that little phucker to the ground (a la the amazing chuck norris), but i don't know that because the situation hasn't occured yet.
> 
> for those of you who have encountered such a tragic event, i feel for you and from what i've read and heard, most have been rather calm and collected. for the few who know people who've shot and killed people, that's just plain sad and i feel for you. but for everyone else, you can act as badass as you want, but you don't know 'til it happens brah.


dude, your aunts a freak?:an6::an6::an6::an6::an6:


----------



## saltwater_therapy (Oct 14, 2005)

*yes*

yes


----------



## REELING 65 (Aug 18, 2009)

Won Mo Kasst said:


> You get up for a drink of water late at night, walk by a window and see someone trying to enter your vehicle. I have seen some people on here make the statement about hoping to catch someone in the act of breaking into their car and how they would end that person's life. Personally, I could not or would not kill someone over a piece of property such as my car, or the contents held within. You are in no danger, call the cops. If the cops are running behind and it looks like they might enter the vehicle before they arrive, turn on a light... cops show up later to find them if they are on foot or take note of the get-a-way car and give the info to the police.
> 
> Now if I was in the vehicle, or they were attempting to enter my house, I would be forced to shoot to kill. It is not my place to decide if someone lives or dies, but in that situation I have no choice. What's your take?


I agree also..though if someone is on my property which is posted. They are trying to steal my truck boat whatever,I might just have to detain them at gun point. Till Law Enforcement arrives. I would not let them get away! Criminals need to be stopped in the act. The police sometimes needs the public's assistance in stopping criminals. Posted No Trespassing-Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


----------



## seabo (Jun 29, 2006)

*don't know , but more than likely, no.*



Gilbert said:


> I've shot people for less.


 ok, ok , i'll cut the line hwell:


----------



## nhampton (Aug 8, 2007)

Situation 2am car being broken into at my residence.

Response:
Arm myself
wife call 911
get cell, turn off (don't want my wife calling me while I'm trying to sneak up on someone....and she would)
attempt to get position to stop burglary
demand surrender of suspect
acquiescence: hold till police arrive
aggressive response: use force necessary to stop aggressive response
suspect takes flight: attempt to pursue safely until identification of suspect and/or vehicle can be made or police catch up to pursuit (communication via cell and 911 operator)


----------



## corykj (Oct 30, 2008)

iridered2003 said:


> dude, your aunts a freak?:an6::an6::an6::an6::an6:


technically, SHE used to be a freak. now, HE is a freak. *******' wierdos.


----------



## Galveston Yankee (May 24, 2004)

I have woken up in the middle of the night and saw a guy sitting in my wife's mini-van. Got some clothes on, grabbed a high powered rifle and went back to the window. This time the guy was in my truck going through stuff in the center console. At that time I decided to go down and meet the nitwit. By the time I got to the bottom of the stairs loudly asking ***?, he was saying "Oh, bovine excrement!" and ran to his truck - which was parked the wrong way on a dead end street. 

He took off down the road and I ran to get my keys. By the time he realized he couldn't cross the bay in his truck and turned around, I was getting into my truck and starting it up. I chased him about two miles up the road before I decided that discretion was the better part of valor and headed home.

Took two more hours for LEO to show up, but he did. I could have killed the guy without ever leaving the house, but what he was doing did not rise the level of a deadly force response.

Just because you have the right to do something does not necessarily make it right to do it. Taking a life is a serious thing. Think long and hard on how you would react, particularly when you are at the range.

Better yet, find someone who had access to a shoot-don't-shoot training video. It is well worth the time and expense.

Just my $.02.

GY


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Hmmmm...I could play internet cowboy here and say that I would definitely shoot to kill, but honestly it would depend on the situation. Realistically, I don't believe petty theft or even grand theft auto warrants the death penalty. People do stupid things sometimes. Hell, I've done my share of idiotic things over the years. I'd certainly try to hold them at gunpoint until the LEOs arrive, though. How things would end would depend on the perp's response to me pointing a gun at his head and telling him how unlucky he was for picking my car. 

If someone is stupid enough to enter my house or threaten bodily harm to anyone around me, I would not hesitate to prove that Darwinism is the way of the world and dispatch them with extreme prejudice.


----------



## Fishin' Soldier (Dec 25, 2007)

A thief enters my house and I won't think twice. I catch him in my truck and I will confront him armed. It then is up to him if he meets the lord that day. Him running doesnt not make me shoot. He comes after me or does something that threatens my safety and I will put one round center mass and hope he makes it.


----------



## KEN KERLEY (Nov 13, 2006)

Fishin' Soldier said it right except for "hope he makes it". If it's necessary to fire, I don't want any court junk later from the poor mistreated, misunderstood victim.


----------



## goldie (Nov 17, 2008)

if circumstances allow Hold them at gun point and pistol whip the $h!t out of them until they would wish they were dead! until the LEOs arrived


----------



## tec (Jul 20, 2007)

Like a lot of you I would not shoot someone for stealing stuff out of my car but that is part of the reason crime is increasing. It just isn't worth the legal fees trying to save a few hundred bucks worth of stuff. If I feel threatened then all bets are off.


----------



## goinpostal3 (Jul 2, 2004)

Can't believe I read all 18 pages. My conclusion now is that you won't know till it happens.

I've lost alot of sleep this past week because i had to make the decision last week whether or not to take a life. I'm a civil process server and CHL holder. My job is to serve lawsuits, restraining orders, etc. Needless to say I **** alot of people off each week.

I've been threatened multiple time with violence, several times that if I come back I'd have to deal with so-and-so and their gun, yada yada. While I'm constantly on my toes, it usually ends there and I get the judge to allow me to go back and just tape it to their door later.

Well, last week was different. I pulled up to a house where a man was talking on a cell phone in the driveway. I got out and approached. I asked for the man I was looking for and the guy went nuts. Started yelling and saying to leave. I told him no problem, but that without any information, I would have to return to re-attempt to contact the individual I was looking for. He told me that if I did, I would have to deal with him and his gun. I proceeded to the street, knowing that now I would ask the judge for permission to post. Well, a car pulled up right then and I started to write down the plate from the public street, standing next to my car. Well, apparently he didn't like that so he charged out into the street and started shoving me around. I immediately took a step back, turned to my side and took a defensive draw position. Right then, I knew he had previously threatened me if I returned. Now he was in the street laying hands on me? I had a split second choice to make. I had the grip of my weapon in my hand (through my untucked shirt). I said "Don't" and left it at that...With the now 5 ft of distance between me and him, it was up to him whether or not it escalated. Could I legally use deadly force? Letter of the law says yes in that split second with his hands on me, given the total situation. Evidence or lack there of could leave it up for debate, or the grand jury. 

Fortunately his instincts were to step back and I knew right then that I had stopped the situation without having to use deadly force (or even brandish the weapon). He got mad and threatened to call the police and he went back inside. I told him it was a good idea and I would wait for them because he would go to jail with the assault charge. He didn't so I did. Police showed up and left it to me whether or not he went to jail. He tried to tell them about the situation and they basically told him that if he went into the street and started it, I had a right to defend myself. Bottom line, I ended up serving him after the police identified him and letting him go with a lesson learned. 

I've thought ALOT about how close he came to having more serious problems and myself as well. Lots of what-if's came to mind...

I've always said I'd shoot if I had to. Well, that situation taught me that it was more complicated than you think. I know I did the right thing now for that particular situation, but I also know that if he'd moved forward instead of backward... then we would be telling a different tale.

I know this story isn't about property but I hope it illustrates the immense decision whether or not to use deadly force during a split second situation and the impact even just being in the situation can have on you.


----------



## Rusty S (Apr 6, 2006)

I would let Sandy out, it's her truck anyway.  rs


----------

