Should have ran faster.....
Printable View
Should have ran faster.....
Love it,love it,love it. Thanks for posting.:D:D:D
Love it , that's a good one.
Good for her! The next guy will possibly think twice before trying to steal a purse from a lady that works for her living.
You go girl!
Texas penal code 9.42 Deadly force to protect property
[COLOR=#3C3C3C]A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
[COLOR=#3C3C3C](1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
[COLOR=#3C3C3C](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
[COLOR=#3C3C3C](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.
She surely seems familiar to me for some reason, looks more like a victim of a domestic.
Anyway, simple....don't take what doesn't belong to you.
One less on the street , even my wife who read this over my shoulder said "yea good for her". :goodstuff: :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
In Canada... it would be 2 to 3 years of court trials dragged out by appeals afterward, probably a couple years sentence, ban from owning firearms and loss of job and media attacks making the criminal out to be the victim.... and probably a lawsuit by the relatives of the dead criminal.
US.... criminal is immediately accountable for his actions and victim upon being recognized as a victim free to go.
Sad state of affairs Canadian laws have gotten to!
Well, I guess he shouldn't have taken her purse!
I think it is the example of just how big of a coward a criminal is that when three or four guys will walk up to a bus shelter and make rude comments and harass a woman, but scatter like roaches when a single guy walks out of the dark and looks at them.
You "KNOW" that if that had been a guy standing there with a backpack, the coward would have just walked away.
Well, I guess I'll be the lone dissenter here. I am all for concealed carry for the purpose of self defense, and I realize what she did is legal under Texas law. But what is legal is not always what is right. Killing a fleeing thief is not self defense. If there ever was a threat to her personal safety, it was receding with every step the thief took. Life has more value than property.
Small G you are not the only one who thinks that way.
I find is scary that so many of you believe that acceptable punishment for theft is death.
You forget that whoever this person became they were still someones child, I really hope that none of your children ever steal anything, if so you better take them out back and end it as they cannot make a mistake without having their life ended.
No way in this example was the persons life in danger, a stolen purse can be replaced.
It (the law) was never intended to be a self defense issue. It was intended to kill thieves and prevent repeat offenders.Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
It also is 100% effective on those whom it is appropriately applied.
A MISTAKE is an unintentional execution of a task with NO ILL INTENT. Mugging/strong arm robbery is not a MISTAKE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
EVERY predator calculates the risk of injury associated with an attack. Sort of a Cost/Benefit analysis.
In this case he miscalculated and the laws of probability and Texas caught him dead to rights. Pun....
Two similar laws and rights for the individual. In Canada, 'you have the right to remain silent'.
In Texas, 'you have the right to remain silent...and stay that way'.
I like the Texas version better.
Interesting story, however it is untrue.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/justice/click.asp
Origins: This item circulates under a variety of titles, including "Gun Ownership in Texas," "Texas Feminine Protection," "Gun Control," "A True Woman's Gun Story," "Purse Snatcher Takes the Wrong Purse," and "You Gotta Love Texas."
It's not a real news story, even though some versions attempt to present the tale as such. Actual news stories contain checkable details, such as the when and where of the incidents being described and the names of the people involved. In a real news story, the shooter would not be identified as "A woman," nor would the jurist who heard her case be identified as "the arraignment judge."
Does anyone really think the punishment for theft should be death? People talk about the punishments in the Middle-East, at least there they only cut off one hand not kill you, now who is the barbarian?
I do to Sawbill. It gets old, real old dealing with the same repeat scum over and over until they final do something so bad it can't be ignored by the liberal judicial system.Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
I lost a good friend and colleague about this time last year to a career criminal that progressed to killing two people, finally doing something bad enough to permanently nail him for good.
Josie, a US Marshal, was serving a felony warrant on the POS at a hotel in Baton Rouge and was shot in the neck during the takedown. The suspect was killed.
Josie bled to death in an agency vehicle rushing to the hospital as there was no time for an EVAC or ambulance. He was 27.
I am required to respect their rights but I have zero sympathy for thugs and their welfare.
6 shots in his back years ago during his "semi-pro" days would have prevented March 10, 2015.
Story is a fake , let it go !!!
This story is a fake but the real life scenarios are not. People get tired of thieves and after being robbed enough times there is little sympathy for the offender.
No I don't but that doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for the thief that rips off the wrong person.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGearyFTE
Sure, it was but the point is still real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exo200
I haven't been around the world, but I've been around the block. During that walk around the block I have met people who have made bad choices in the past and yet since then have made positive contributions to their respective communities and society in general. They did not deserve to die for the choices they made back then and the world would have been poorer for their loss. Many one-time bad choices are made by people who aren't career criminals or ever will be. Death penalty for them? I think not.
So what about the victime, does she/he get a second chance of not been robbed, beat up or raped? What about the concequence for the kids of the victim? Sorry, you won't eat tonight because of some AH.....Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
If the concequence of making bad choices were harder maybe it would be easier to make good one or none. And, I don't think few more or less people on earth really matter.
I'm not talking about the threat of physical assault/rape, nor do I suggest that the people I am speaking of committed such heinous acts. That type of threat warrants an extreme response. Theft followed by flight is vastly different and does not warrant such a response, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by seabast
Now, I will concede that the act of the perpetrator in this fictional yet realistic scenario we are debating does constitute assault due to the manner the young lady was roughly liberated of her purse. And if the purse snatcher was observed approaching in an aggressive manner by her, I do agree that self defense measures would be appropriate, in that she would only know she was being assaulted, not why (which wouldn't matter in such a case). However, her decision to shoot him was made when the threat of bodily was rapidly diminishing, if not completely gone. I stand by my original observations. Anyway, I'm off to work now and will check in on this thread tomorrow a.m.. Cheers.
I know what you mean it's like car thief, do you deserve to die for that when politician steal everyday without been shot..... But the thing is, it's too easy when there is little concequences and sometime enough is enough and as you grow older enough comes quicker....Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
If we move this "theoretical" scenario to Canada,the robbery victim would have been most certainly charged with first degree murder. Once a crook is "in flight",the threat is over and deadly force is never authorized. In this country,she could be going to prison. Having said that,I love a good "revenge" story. Charles Bronson's "Death Wish" series is one of my favorites.
Texas has strong Mexican law ties and is somewhat unique in their laws wrt property and the defense of and the laws around it.
It was a felony(sort of equal to a Canadian indictable offense)to cut a fence. I guess it likely still is.
Louisiana is the same way with some French law holdover/influence.(Odd or different laws)
I suppose wrt self defense and property, it boils down to who owns your body and or property? You or the "State."
For the most part in the US the "State" doesn't own you or your property and many juries won't likely convict on self defense and not guaranteed to upon killing a thief.
Texas is the only State that comes to mind about coded justification of lethal force for defense of property.
Michigan has the same law as Texas where you can use lethal force to protect your property
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowwalker
Now only 2 out of 4 :)
I realize that I am also going to fall into the minority here, but have to support the others in saying that I find it disturbing how many people feel this person deserves to die for personal property.
I live in Canada, and will be the first to admit that our laws aren't perfect. However, I don't think lethal force should be justified to defend property. The level of deterrent could be stiffer penalties in the Justice system.
I am happy we don't have open carry in this country, and don't support it in any way. (and I do own guns for other purposes)
Anyways, just my opinion in support of the others here.
PUC
You can recognize the repeat offender, missing both hands!Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter1
Sorry, I know you made a joke there but I missed.
In fairness to both sides of the discussion, there is not enough judicial information to make a clear cut moral or legal choice wrt justification at least from a moral and legal standpoint, other than using one's own moral view. That's mainly due to lots of things but mostly personal moral understanding of life and values, culture influences and what the "government" deems justifiable.
If you have property rights(meaning the government legally allows you to have). Then considering that culturally and legally life and property are one and the same in the eyes of citizens and said "government" (meaning property is life). Lethal force would be justifiable for things like arson, robbery, felonious theft, burglary and destruction of property. Many State's laws are codified that way.
In some cases, maybe even this one, words were uttered as a serious threat to the victim or resistance would cause the victim to incur serious bodily harm. That additional evidence can also constitute and justify lethal force.
Anyway, likely not enough information to swing the forum jury on this hypothetical case. Plus the fact that there are 50 States with their own laws about this type of event, about property defense, whether it's justifiable anywhere, only in the dwelling house, or under what specific circumstances it occurs.
EDIT to add....
I knew I had seen her somewhere before.... Domestic, battered wife, lots of questions about trial evidence omission. Convicted of murdering husband at a boat ramp.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1929759
Tracey Grissom was convicted of murdering ex-husband Hunter Grissom in July, but she maintained she was acting in self-defense. During an emotional sentencing hearing in Tuscaloosa, a former juror claimed she would have delivered a different verdict if she had known about domestic abuse allegations against Hunter..............
No desire to open a can of worms.
But I always find it somewhat sad/ironic/comical. That a very big chunk of the US very strongly believes in property rights, an individuals right to freedom, to defend that which is theirs. No "judgement" here, very much a "to each their own" thing, and unlike many I am able to realize that having not grown up, my viewpoints are skewed.
Morals are not universal. And until the world understands that, there will always be problems.
However,
Shame the US doesn't value those same "rights" when it comes to people outside their borders.
[COLOR=#333333]Lethal force would be justifiable for things like arson, robbery, felonious theft, burglary and destruction of property. Many State's laws are codified that way.
One persons "[COLOR=#333333]freedom fighter" is another persons terrorist. In essence if I'm an American...I feel its ok to kill someone attempting to
Harm me, or my family
Steal my TV
Destroy my property
If Im an Iraqi, or X, or Y well, my rights don't count and its do as I say, not as I believe in. Whats good for the goose, not so much the gander.
Just thoughts, nothing else on the world today
oh but there is : Trump spoke in California tonight saying that "Clinton was an enabler" for not leaving her husband when he made his sexual mistake. (not worth a new thread :) )
I wonder if he thought that way when Ivana and Marla booted his cheatin' a** out. Pot meet kettle.LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Sharon