(TX) Man shoots boy he said was stealing his chickens - Page 3

LawDog · April 21, 2001, 01:34 AM

I wonder what the responses to the story would have been had the shooter been a patrolling LEO who shot a fleeing fourteen-year-old boy in the back because of six stolen chickens.

LawDog

Elizabeth Petersen · April 21, 2001, 01:42 AM

Drundel...

we are not arguing the fact that the homeowner was within his legal rights to shoot...that has been established.

We are arguing the MORALITY of the shooting. We are arguing the justifiability of it, and the law that supports it.

And besides, who are you to decide if a thread is closed? I have more to say, so deal with it

Just because a law is on the books does not make it right. Let me cite a few examples from Texas:

The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

It is illegal to idle or loiter anyplace within the corporate limits of the city for the purpose of flirting or mashing. (Mashing, I believe, is another term for making out)

Wire cutters can not be carried in your pocket.

It is against the law to throw confetti, rubber balls, feather dusters, whips or quirts (riding crop), and explosive firecrackers of any kind.

It is illegal to dust any public building with a feather duster. (where the Hell did this one come from?)

It's illegal to possess realistic dildos. (That someone actually thought to write this law just amazes me)

Beer may not be purchased after midnight on a Sunday, but it may be purchased on Monday. (Wait...if it's after Midnight on a Sunday, doesn't that make it MONDAY?)

It is illegal to drive within an arm's length of alcohol - including alcohol in someone else's blood stream. (All you Designated Drivers...look out!)

It is illegal for children to have unusual haircuts.

It is now illegal to place a "for sale" sign on a car if it visible from the street.

It is illegal to do "U Turns".

It is illegal for both sexes to flirt or respond to flirtation using the eyes and/or hands.

It is illegal to urinate on the Alamo. (OK, so I understand this one)

My point is, the Texas law that allows indiscriminate quasi-executions is likely a hold-ver from the days when the nearest law might be one, five or more days ride away on horseback. That, and just because a law is on the books doesn't make it RIGHT. (Thanks Mike!)

Now, just so you Texans don't think I am picking on you, here's a few oddball laws from my own home state of Utah...

You must have identification to enter a convienence store after dark.
Women may not swear. (DAMNIT! I BROKE THE LAW! SOMEONE SHOOT ME!)
Daylight must be visible between partners on a dance floor.
Throwing snowballs will result in a $50 fine.
No one may walk down the street carrying a paper bag containing a violin. (Huh?)
It is illegal to have sex in a moving ambulance and if you are caught, the male is let go without any consequence, but the female is arrested and punished, and her name is published in the newspaper. (As a woman and an EMT, I am not even going to comment on this one)
Pharmacists may not sell gunpowder to cure headaches.

I was going to, as a final point, say "Not even a COP can shoot a fleeing suspect" but as usual, LawDog beat me to it

jadams951 · April 21, 2001, 07:02 AM

Brian Gibbons:

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Texas should repeal that law. I've lived in TX all my life and been a LEO for the past 3 years. I never said that I disapprove of this law I just state that I personally would not shoot someone over some chickens or my truck or something similiar to the situation at the start of this thread. I sure the hell would not post any sign like that at my house. Now you come inside my house to steal some **** then bang bang!!!!

Dangus · April 21, 2001, 07:08 AM

Quote:

I am asking, with all due respect, would you be willing to post a public notice on your premises claiming that you do not condone, nor employ, or allow to have employed the use of deadly force to protect your property?

Of course I wouldn't put up such a sign. Hell, I WANT them to think there is a chance I might, but that doesn't mean I ever should. Let them wonder about it, but as for me, I know where I stand on this, I am abolutely 100% against murdering people over property. Given a long enough time line all property ceases to be, and ownership lasts only as long as you do, but life is important, and it is an individual right, along with pursuit of happiness. A chicken, no matter how lovingly raised, is not grounds for murder. Chickens are easily replaced, but to the family of the victim, replacing that human being is not so easy. If that chicken were the one thing between that man's family and starvation than maybe the court should go easy on him, but in the case as it happened, there's no excuse at all.

cuerno de chivo · April 21, 2001, 07:10 AM

Lawdog,

Unless it was your property, then you would have committed an illegal act. If I'm wrong on this please correct me.

Thibault · April 21, 2001, 07:30 AM

As usual, I have to agree with Elizabeth, Lawdog and Mike. If the shooting was OK, from a legal point of view, it DOES remain morally WRONG. Period.

As far as laws go, there's a law in Quebec that would have all vehicles not pulled by a horse or an ox to follow a walking man waving a red flag...

Call me whatever you like, I shall stand by my opinion.

As far as saving society from a future full-fledged criminal, well, get real! Most 14 year-olds, with or without a masculine presence in home have, at some point, done something wrong, would it be poultry kidnapping, pot smoking, petty theft or whatever... at least 95% or them turn OK, in most cases parents don't ever know about it and they go on with their life, so don't give me that kind of BS.

Have a nice day!

Brian Gibbons · April 21, 2001, 09:00 AM

Thanks folks for your replies to my question. This was the common ground that I was looking for and I hope that it makes my point.

My Point: This is the purpose of this "You Can Shoot a Thief Law". The law "implies" to a thief that under certain circumstances, he could be shot. It is this concept that acts as the deterent. Whether to shoot or not lies within the conscience of the individual. One can choose not to exercise the right to shoot. "Keep the crook guessing" is why the law is effective in most cases.

What I am trying to say is that we cannot condemn the property owner for firing because, as you both have stated, we want the protection that the "implied" threat of deadly force offers us under this law. The dead kid is the price we pay as a society in order to retain such laws ...

Cruzer · April 21, 2001, 10:05 AM

Mike,

I agree there are a lot of "kill 'em, let God sort 'em out" viewpoints here. They are natural responses to other people second guessing the property owner. I think the rational response is a little more reasonable, if not still controversial.

If I encounter any person on my property and I find them removing my property, I am not helpless in Texas...I am not forced to let them flee because it is only "property." Property includes anything from the entire contents of my home (which would take me a lifetime to replace) to a $100 chicken. It could include a $30,000 diamond to a $30 rake. Now, I go outside in the dark and there is someone in my chicken coop stealing my property, perhaps my livelihood (same as cattle rustlers). Who knows how often they have taken other's property and if they have harmed others in the process. Are you proposing that the law let them take my property? That's communist, man. Am I supposed to stop and interview the guy?

"Hey, are you taking 1 chicken or are you intending to come back and take more. Well...seeing that you are only taking one, please go ahead and leave and I won't shoot you."

In the dark at night, I don't have the time to take "an eye for an eye." I only have two choices...make a law that makes it legal to take my property or make a law that allows deadly force to prevent the theft. If you choose the first, I am sorry for you...you probably second guess the police when they defend us from criminals and a BG dies. If you choose the second, I assume you realize that it involves judgement (by the property owner), and sometimes people will die for stealing property. That's the way it goes. I will not kill for my property (I can pretty much replace anything that stolen), but I reserve the right to...and the law will not prevent it.

Drundel · April 21, 2001, 03:01 PM

Elizabeth:

Let it never be said that I am one to stifle ones rights to free speech, even if it is a soap boxing.

At the time I thought pretty much everything had been said that was needed. But after reading what Mike said about the report, which I totally missed at 1 AM last night, I think that if the quotes are accurate, the landowner is in DEEP.

I don't think any of you read my post carefully. I would not have shot in that case but I do think the law has a place. There are exceptions of the rule and this is clearly one of them.

Dangus · April 21, 2001, 04:08 PM

Quote:

My Point: This is the purpose of this "You Can Shoot a Thief Law". The law "implies" to a thief that under certain circumstances, he could be shot. It is this concept that acts as the deterent. Whether to shoot or not lies within the conscience of the individual. One can choose not to exercise the right to shoot. "Keep the crook guessing" is why the law is effective in most cases.

What I am trying to say is that we cannot condemn the property owner for firing because, as you both have stated, we want the protection that the "implied" threat of deadly force offers us under this law. The dead kid is the price we pay as a society in order to retain such laws ...

This is the disturbing sort of conclusion I would expect from someone like McVeigh. I guess his bombing a daycare center will "keep the government guessing" about all the rest of us gun owners right? There are reasonable limits to any legal activity INCLUDING gun ownership. Shooting a 14 year old for stealing a chicken is a lot different than shooting an adult burglar in your home after your guns or your life savings. There is no comparison, period.

LawDog · April 21, 2001, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Lawdog,

Unless it was your property, then you would have committed an illegal act. If I'm wrong on this please correct me.

Same part of the Texas Penal Code, relevant part highlighted:

Quote:

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.[/i][/u]

So, I ask my question again: If a Law Enforcement Officer had shot a running 14 year-old boy in the back over six stolen chickens, would we still be cheering him on?

LawDog

Mike H · April 21, 2001, 05:35 PM

Libertarian,

Just wanted to say that I really identify with your posts.

There are without doubt some seriously maladjusted individuals making contributions here. Even the usual shark eyed hardliners are shying away from this thread, it would appear to be turning into a Litmus test for the truly disturbed.

Keep ploughing your own furrow.

Regards,

Mike H

gitarmac · April 21, 2001, 06:06 PM

A simalar thing happened when I was in high school in ala. A guy in my senior class got killed robbing a gas station at night. Instead of "oh, the poor dear, the owner used too much force", it was treated as a tragedy, that when one does stupid things sometimes there are dire consequences. Of course this was a long time ago. The guy in question wasn't really bad either, I don't know what was going through his head, but robbings where far and few between.
I'll bet that was the first and only time that 14 year old "child" broke the law. I don't know what I would do in the chicken owners place, but I know what I'd do if I were on the jury!

Libertarian · April 21, 2001, 06:09 PM

Lawdog, in answer to:

Quote:

So, I ask my question again: If a Law Enforcement Officer had shot a running 14 year-old boy in the back over six stolen chickens, would we still be cheering him on?

My answer is... NO

If the person fleeing was a known rapist or a murderer, then maybe a shot to the back is warranted. However, a kid commiting a misdemeanor (taking a couple of live chickens is not a felony in Texas is it?) does not warrant capital punishment for his crime; by a LEO or anyone else.

That said, if said kid turned and appeared that he was about to shoot at the LEO, I'd have no hesitation about supporting the shooting.

cuerno de chivo · April 21, 2001, 06:13 PM

thanks. chl class is comeing back to me. i remember now thinking that tx had some weird laws about who you could shoot and why.

i thought most posts were thinking that the shooting was not the proper way to conduct themselves? i think that shooting over property is ****** up. but i think that it was legal and would not want the law changed.

dangus,

their both thiefs. if you can't shoot for a chicken, then can't shoot for your life savings.

Brian Gibbons · April 21, 2001, 07:56 PM

My comment "keep the crooks guessing" was intended to underscore your comment "let them wonder about it". I was agreeing with you ...

Brian Gibbons · April 21, 2001, 08:49 PM

I concur with your observation that most posts reflect the notion that the shooting of the thief over some chickens was not the "ideal" solution. For clarification purposes I would like to recap my position as follows:

1) Would I have shot the kid ........................ No
2) Should the property owner have let the kid run ... Yes
3) Should we condemn the property owner ............. No
He exercised a legal right under the law.

The hard fact is that if we desire to retain a law that implies that a thief could get shot, then we must be prepared to accept the possibilty of someone exercising that right, no matter how tragic the end result may be. To claim that the law is "just" because it serves the purpose of causing the criminals to "wonder about it", and then turn around and condemn an individual for exercising his right under the law is like asking to have your cake and eating it too. We can't have it both ways ...

**Mike Irwin** · April 21, 2001, 09:58 PM

Brian, et al...

Actually, given the nature of the property owner's quotes in the article (link posted on pg. 2 of this thread) as well as the police statements, WAS the property owner actually acting with the limits of the law?

I ask that question because it would appear, based on those noted statements, that the property owner had no idea what he was shooting at.

If, in fact, he had no idea that a crime was actually being committed, and only got "lucky," what sort of message does that send about gun owners?

I don't think there is a single hunter here who would say that it's OK to shoot at sound -- i.e., taking a shot when you hear something, but you can't positively identify your target.

Yet that would seem to be exactly what this homeowner did.

Chulain · April 21, 2001, 11:12 PM

Shooting blind at light and sound… I tell you what. If I see a flashlight around the back of my shed at 3 am, and hear commotion in a language other than English, someone is going to have a really bad hair day. None of my neighbors or their kids are that damn stupid. They would come to the house first and say “We think spot is in your back yard, can we go look for him?” I would say yes, and help them find their puppy.

Would I shoot someone for stealing one of my tools? No. Would I shoot someone who just ran out of my house with one of my rifles? You damn well better believe it. They would receive exactly one warning telling them to stop and drop the gun. If they were smart and listened, all that would happen is that they would go to jail. If not…. Say they got away with a gun, they then could then use MY GUN to kill someone with, or sell it to someone who then uses it in a crime. By NOT stopping them there and then, I could be ENABLEING the death of an innocent person. As for the “neighbors kid in the backyard thing.” I know all of my neighbors in a mile radius like they were my own family. So if someone I don’t know is in my home, garage, or shed stealing my stuff, they better hope I am in a really good mood. They won’t be shot unless they threaten me directly, but they are going to have some blunt trauma to heal over and think about doing it again. I have had MANY things stolen from me that are irreplaceable, and not ONCE have I killed, hurt or maimed anyone for it. But when it comes to my guns, it’s steal here, die here.

Is property worth killing someone over? No, I don’t think so. But it’s not worth DYING to get either. If you don’t want to end up a corpse, then DON’T STEAL FROM PEOPLE! How simple is this? Raise your kids better and don’t blame the property owner for shooting your little aspiring criminal. If people were not such scumbags, this would not be an issue!

If you want something, by all means, ASK! Want some apples from my trees? ASK! Want to hunt on my land? ASK! Hungry, and don't have anything to eat? ASK! Ok, maybe the boy was getting food for his family, but that does not justify doing what he was doing with a 20 year old teaching this boy how to be a dirtball. You want something I have? Let's barter. I need my grass mowed and my leaves raked, and for that I will give you $30, 2 bags of apples, and 3 dozen eggs. People want something for nothing and don't have the common decency to even ASK before they loot.

In Liberty,

Chulain

rock_jock · April 22, 2001, 12:02 AM

A lot of emotion-laden BS is being deposited in this discussion.

First, to address all the "would you shoot a kid for crossing your lawn (tears flowing, voice near hysteria)?" crap, the answer is the law doesn't allow the use of deadly force for this offense, or many of the others used to supposedly point out what a draconian position I and others are adopting by supporting this particular Texas law, including, let's see, smoking marijuana, hunting out of season (unless you are poaching), etc., etc.

Second, I may have done some stupid things in my teen years, but I never committed robbery, or was guilty of breaking and entering into someone's home. I was raised better than that and was reminded by my mother (very much an anti-gun person) at a very early age not to ever even think about doing something like that lest I get SHOT by a homeowner. So, I always knew that getting killed could be a consequence of this type of behavior. Not that I was ever tempted to do these things, but I can't help but believe that the negligince of this kid's parents contributed heavily to his fate.

Third, I believe the general consensus among myself and others of like mind on this issue is not that we condone this guy for shooting a kid for stealing chickens, but rather that the we heartily support a law that gives a citizen a wide degree of latitude when it comes to making a decision like this. Remember folks, this kid was NOT walking across the lawn, or had become lost in the neighborhood, but rather was in fact STEALING. We also don't know if this guy had been robbed before, maybe multiple times, and had suffered a severe financial setback as a result. It is easy for us to sit back and condemn him knowing that, for most of us, if something were stolen, our insurance policies would replace it. I doubt many folk in poorer areas of San Antonio have insurance, or even very good police protection. The other extreme in this case is for us to move to a system like in the UK, where I remember just last year a farmer was convicted of killing a robber in his home and will sepnd the rest of his life (not to mention have his family financially ruined) for protecting his home. If we are going to protect anybody when it comes to stealing, let it be the law-abiding homeowner, not the criminal.

Fourth, for those of you that think that the govt should be allowed to prohibit you from protecting your property (through up to and including the use of deadly force), let me just say you have been brainwashed. We have seen the results from states that coddle criminals and I don't want to live in a state that treats the common thief like some incorrigible little boy that grabbed a cookie from the cookie jar before dinner (ah, poor thing, isn't he sooo precious).

I have a right to protect my property. The degree to which I exercise this right should be a decision left up to me and God, not some pointy-headed liberal politician that lives in a gated community and employs a bodyguard. Personally, I would never have shot this kid, and I doubt very few members of this forum would have either, but save your condemnation for this kid's parents, and the scumbag who was with him.

Dangus · April 22, 2001, 12:06 AM

When I was his age I stole all sorts of stuff, vandalized things, etc. I was a trouble kid, but now I am very active in the RKBA movement, and I do a LOT of work to protect that right, and then you people go and say murdering people like me is ok and I'm supposed to say, "Well he shouldn't have been stealing!". When you see someone doing something wrong like this, you try to stop them, but what good does killing them do? Kids like this need examples, not body bags. Sorry if you can't see that, but the solution of just shooting people to solve problems leads to nothing good at all. It's really the easy way out. It's a lot harder to help people get their life in order than it is to just shoot them. How are the Mexicans ever gonna learn to control their population, address their poverty issues, stop the crime, etc if you just shoot them? All that teaches them is that if they want something bad enough they have to kill for it.

**Mike Irwin** · April 22, 2001, 12:16 AM

Chulain,

If you see lights and hear Spanish (or Vietnamese, or Chinese, or ANY other language) being spoken around your shed in the middle of the night, how can you be certain that it's not the police corraling a suspect and speaking to him/her in a language that that person understands?

I live in Fairfax County, Virginia. There are police officers on the force who speak: French, Spanish, Russian, German, Somali, Hindu, Vietnamese, Chinese, and supposedly one who speaks Lebanese.

And, again, we're right back to the question of whether this guy actually KNEW for a fact that someone was stealing his property, or whether he fired blindly. Judging by his comments as reported to and by the police (and granted, through the newspaper), it's apparent that he didn't.

Rock-Jock,

Actually, if you read the Texas law in question, it is entirely conceivable that someone COULD shoot someone crossing his lawn and claim, as the law states, that he fired to prevent "criminal mischief."

"He looked shifty, and was staring at my car..."

It becomes a point of interpretation.

TexasVet · April 22, 2001, 12:28 AM

Nowhere in all this have I seen the reason for the law as written. Texas is the only state that (rationally, IMHO) assumes that AT NIGHT one cannot readily determine if an intruder or thief is armed, and does not require you to place your life at risk to find out as every other state does. It is not about property, it is about the safety of the property owner's life, period. If you don't think any fleeing felon has ever turned around and popped a cap at someone, you are naive. If you won't protect what is yours, why are you on boards like this? If you don't like our laws, then stay the heck out of Texas.

Chulain · April 22, 2001, 12:52 AM

Mike Irwin,

Very simple. Know what’s next to my shed? Woods. And next to that? Woods. And beyond that? MORE WOODS! There is exactly one way to get to my shed from the road, and that is through my yard. I think I would see the police car in my driveway. And no police officer around here is going to be dumb enough to be in someone’s back yard without coming to the house first. I don’t know what police are like in your town, but where I come from they have the courtesy to pull up in your driveway and knock on your door if there is a disturbance on your property. My house isn’t exactly in a metro area. If someone is in my back yard at 4 AM, they aren’t there to help rake the leaves… Most crimes that happen around here happen in the daytime. Because they KNOW that if they are sneaking around in the wee hours of the morning, they are apt to have a life changing event occur if they are caught.

And maybe I’m in the minority here when I say that the police officers in my town speak English, English, and a bit of English on the side. They may KNOW other languages, but sure as hell wouldn’t be speaking them. We don’t exactly have a non-English-speaking immigration problem in my hometown. (Thank God.)

When my great grandparents came over from Europe they weren’t English and didn’t speak English. They learned like everyone else. I get sick of this “cater to immigrants” crap. Get with the program, or get the hell out of my country.

Dangus wrote: How are the Mexicans ever gonna learn to control their population, address their poverty issues, stop the crime, etc if you just shoot them?

Umm.. isn’t that effective population control? LOL! Sorry, couldn’t resist.

And by the way, I never said I would shoot someone for stealing something other than a firearm. Life is nothing but a series of choices. Choose poorly, and someone just might call you on it.

In Liberty,

Chulain

kjm · April 22, 2001, 12:59 AM

Elizabeth Peterson:
Smoked pot as a teen? Yes.
Stayed out too late? Yes.
Drank too much and drove as a teen? Yes.
Cheated on my tax forms? No.
Carry concealed without a permit? All the time.

Just how do those actions deprive anyone of LIFE, LIBERTY, or PROPERTY? HOW? Oh you'll say the driving after drinking COULD have killed someone, but in actuallity, it didn't. If I had killed someone in Texas while drunk, I GUARANTEE YOU, I'd be looking at parole in maybe 10 more years (and the last time I did that I was a teenager.

I didn't get caught in the backyards of people stealing property. I make it a habit of breaking at least a few laws every day. NEVER DO I DEPRIVE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OF LIFE LIBERTY OR PROPERTY. If I should, then being a resident of Texas, then I suspect that I'm playing with my life. That is simply a fact. It ain't that the boy was breaking the law, 'cause I expect any teenager with half a conscience and a brain to break the law. The law can be flat wrong. Sometimes good law can be applied badly. Do we get rid of the law because of the exception to the rule? If so, I'm happy to see that you're not running for the Texas Legislature.

As for a cop shooting the criminal for stealing? While I wouldn't support it as whole-heartedly, I would use only one criteria sitting on the Grand Jury or Jury: IF the Felon (caught in the act) wasn't stealing and trespassing at night would he have been shot by the cop? Since the only answer is no, I must also No-bill the cop who shot the felon (caught in the act), as the felon took his life in his own hands when he decided to deprive another person of life, liberty or property.

Mike Irwin:
You claim that we're playing into the hands of the anti-gunners, but in reality YOU are playing into their hands. My arguement is based on principles. There aren't degrees of principles. If you don't want to offend Sara Brady or Rosie O'Donnell, that is your business. I personally don't give to hoots about their opinions. My arguement is still the same. Your right to protect your property in Texas (especially after dark) is absolute. Should he have chased down the perps and then beat them? What if the 12 year old was a short and skinny 21 year old with a knife or gun? Is it unusual to expect someone who is stealing your property and possibly your livelyhood might also be armed or is it only the good guys who have guns?

I don't criticize the Arabs for their harsh, unforgiving and even brutal consequences for theft, murder and rape. I don't criticize the Malaysians or the good folks in Singapore for their tough laws either. It works for them and keeps honest folk honest. Texas may have some tough laws, but then, we just don't care much for theives or murderers, and we don't expect homeowners to get shot trying to ID the perps, guess their age, or otherwise put themselves in jeopardy when trying to protect their lives or property. You do. That is the difference between you and I, and that just wont change.

It was dark. They were on his property stealing his livestock. No matter how deranged you think I am, I am still on the side of the homeowner, and that will NEVER change. If you folks would like to suck up to HCI and curb your behavior and refrain from exercising legal rights in order to not offend those types of folks, then more power to ya. I choose to exercise my rights as being absolute. I'm sorry you feel that is base, coarse, or otherwise wrong-headed. I live in Texas. You do not. You may KMTA too!

[Edited by kjm on 04-22-2001 at 02:30 AM]

April 21, 2001, 01:34 AM	#51
LawDog Staff Emeritus Join Date: September 15, 1999 Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket? Posts: 4,194	I wonder what the responses to the story would have been had the shooter been a patrolling LEO who shot a fleeing fourteen-year-old boy in the back because of six stolen chickens. LawDog __________________ "The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer." --The 13th Warrior Bona na Croin The LawDog Files

April 21, 2001, 01:42 AM	#52
Elizabeth Petersen Senior Member Join Date: March 6, 2001 Location: Utah Posts: 571	Drundel... we are not arguing the fact that the homeowner was within his legal rights to shoot...that has been established. We are arguing the MORALITY of the shooting. We are arguing the justifiability of it, and the law that supports it. And besides, who are you to decide if a thread is closed? I have more to say, so deal with it Just because a law is on the books does not make it right. Let me cite a few examples from Texas: The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home. It is illegal to idle or loiter anyplace within the corporate limits of the city for the purpose of flirting or mashing. (Mashing, I believe, is another term for making out) Wire cutters can not be carried in your pocket. It is against the law to throw confetti, rubber balls, feather dusters, whips or quirts (riding crop), and explosive firecrackers of any kind. It is illegal to dust any public building with a feather duster. (where the Hell did this one come from?) It's illegal to possess realistic dildos. (That someone actually thought to write this law just amazes me) Beer may not be purchased after midnight on a Sunday, but it may be purchased on Monday. (Wait...if it's after Midnight on a Sunday, doesn't that make it MONDAY?) It is illegal to drive within an arm's length of alcohol - including alcohol in someone else's blood stream. (All you Designated Drivers...look out!) It is illegal for children to have unusual haircuts. It is now illegal to place a "for sale" sign on a car if it visible from the street. It is illegal to do "U Turns". It is illegal for both sexes to flirt or respond to flirtation using the eyes and/or hands. It is illegal to urinate on the Alamo. (OK, so I understand this one) My point is, the Texas law that allows indiscriminate quasi-executions is likely a hold-ver from the days when the nearest law might be one, five or more days ride away on horseback. That, and just because a law is on the books doesn't make it RIGHT. (Thanks Mike!) Now, just so you Texans don't think I am picking on you, here's a few oddball laws from my own home state of Utah... You must have identification to enter a convienence store after dark. Women may not swear. (DAMNIT! I BROKE THE LAW! SOMEONE SHOOT ME!) Daylight must be visible between partners on a dance floor. Throwing snowballs will result in a $50 fine. No one may walk down the street carrying a paper bag containing a violin. (Huh?) It is illegal to have sex in a moving ambulance and if you are caught, the male is let go without any consequence, but the female is arrested and punished, and her name is published in the newspaper. (As a woman and an EMT, I am not even going to comment on this one) Pharmacists may not sell gunpowder to cure headaches. I was going to, as a final point, say "Not even a COP can shoot a fleeing suspect" but as usual, LawDog beat me to it __________________ March all you want, sister. This mom prefers to protect her children with a 12 gauge. Vulnus pectoris sugens ne properetis mos naturae dicendi est Ask me about my Hemingway Death Wish. I dare you.

April 21, 2001, 09:00 AM	#57
Brian Gibbons Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2001 Posts: 388	Jadams951 & Dangus Thanks folks for your replies to my question. This was the common ground that I was looking for and I hope that it makes my point. My Point: This is the purpose of this "You Can Shoot a Thief Law". The law "implies" to a thief that under certain circumstances, he could be shot. It is this concept that acts as the deterent. Whether to shoot or not lies within the conscience of the individual. One can choose not to exercise the right to shoot. "Keep the crook guessing" is why the law is effective in most cases. What I am trying to say is that we cannot condemn the property owner for firing because, as you both have stated, we want the protection that the "implied" threat of deadly force offers us under this law. The dead kid is the price we pay as a society in order to retain such laws ...

April 21, 2001, 06:13 PM	#65
cuerno de chivo Junior member Join Date: July 6, 2000 Posts: 919	lawdog thanks. chl class is comeing back to me. i remember now thinking that tx had some weird laws about who you could shoot and why. i thought most posts were thinking that the shooting was not the proper way to conduct themselves? i think that shooting over property is ****** up. but i think that it was legal and would not want the law changed. dangus, their both thiefs. if you can't shoot for a chicken, then can't shoot for your life savings.

April 21, 2001, 07:56 PM	#66
Brian Gibbons Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2001 Posts: 388	Dangus My comment "keep the crooks guessing" was intended to underscore your comment "let them wonder about it". I was agreeing with you ...

April 21, 2001, 07:02 AM	#53
jadams951 Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2000 Location: Houston, Texas USA Posts: 295	Brian Gibbons: I wouldn't go so far as to say that Texas should repeal that law. I've lived in TX all my life and been a LEO for the past 3 years. I never said that I disapprove of this law I just state that I personally would not shoot someone over some chickens or my truck or something similiar to the situation at the start of this thread. I sure the hell would not post any sign like that at my house. Now you come inside my house to steal some **** then bang bang!!!!

April 21, 2001, 07:10 AM	#55
cuerno de chivo Junior member Join Date: July 6, 2000 Posts: 919	Lawdog, Unless it was your property, then you would have committed an illegal act. If I'm wrong on this please correct me.

April 21, 2001, 07:30 AM	#56
Thibault Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2000 Location: Middle of nowhere, Northern Quebec Posts: 336	As usual, I have to agree with Elizabeth, Lawdog and Mike. If the shooting was OK, from a legal point of view, it DOES remain morally WRONG. Period. As far as laws go, there's a law in Quebec that would have all vehicles not pulled by a horse or an ox to follow a walking man waving a red flag... Call me whatever you like, I shall stand by my opinion. As far as saving society from a future full-fledged criminal, well, get real! Most 14 year-olds, with or without a masculine presence in home have, at some point, done something wrong, would it be poultry kidnapping, pot smoking, petty theft or whatever... at least 95% or them turn OK, in most cases parents don't ever know about it and they go on with their life, so don't give me that kind of BS. Have a nice day!

April 21, 2001, 10:05 AM	#58
Cruzer Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2001 Posts: 235	Mike, I agree there are a lot of "kill 'em, let God sort 'em out" viewpoints here. They are natural responses to other people second guessing the property owner. I think the rational response is a little more reasonable, if not still controversial. If I encounter any person on my property and I find them removing my property, I am not helpless in Texas...I am not forced to let them flee because it is only "property." Property includes anything from the entire contents of my home (which would take me a lifetime to replace) to a $100 chicken. It could include a $30,000 diamond to a $30 rake. Now, I go outside in the dark and there is someone in my chicken coop stealing my property, perhaps my livelihood (same as cattle rustlers). Who knows how often they have taken other's property and if they have harmed others in the process. Are you proposing that the law let them take my property? That's communist, man. Am I supposed to stop and interview the guy? "Hey, are you taking 1 chicken or are you intending to come back and take more. Well...seeing that you are only taking one, please go ahead and leave and I won't shoot you." In the dark at night, I don't have the time to take "an eye for an eye." I only have two choices...make a law that makes it legal to take my property or make a law that allows deadly force to prevent the theft. If you choose the first, I am sorry for you...you probably second guess the police when they defend us from criminals and a BG dies. If you choose the second, I assume you realize that it involves judgement (by the property owner), and sometimes people will die for stealing property. That's the way it goes. I will not kill for my property (I can pretty much replace anything that stolen), but I reserve the right to...and the law will not prevent it.

April 21, 2001, 03:01 PM	#59
Drundel Senior Member Join Date: November 9, 2000 Location: Friendswood, TX Posts: 559	Elizabeth: Let it never be said that I am one to stifle ones rights to free speech, even if it is a soap boxing. At the time I thought pretty much everything had been said that was needed. But after reading what Mike said about the report, which I totally missed at 1 AM last night, I think that if the quotes are accurate, the landowner is in DEEP. I don't think any of you read my post carefully. I would not have shot in that case but I do think the law has a place. There are exceptions of the rule and this is clearly one of them.

April 21, 2001, 05:35 PM	#62
Mike H Senior Member Join Date: August 26, 1999 Posts: 1,159	Libertarian, Just wanted to say that I really identify with your posts. There are without doubt some seriously maladjusted individuals making contributions here. Even the usual shark eyed hardliners are shying away from this thread, it would appear to be turning into a Litmus test for the truly disturbed. Keep ploughing your own furrow. Regards, Mike H

April 21, 2001, 06:06 PM	#63
gitarmac Senior Member Join Date: July 31, 2000 Posts: 358	A simalar thing happened when I was in high school in ala. A guy in my senior class got killed robbing a gas station at night. Instead of "oh, the poor dear, the owner used too much force", it was treated as a tragedy, that when one does stupid things sometimes there are dire consequences. Of course this was a long time ago. The guy in question wasn't really bad either, I don't know what was going through his head, but robbings where far and few between. I'll bet that was the first and only time that 14 year old "child" broke the law. I don't know what I would do in the chicken owners place, but I know what I'd do if I were on the jury!

April 21, 2001, 08:49 PM	#67
Brian Gibbons Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2001 Posts: 388	Cuerno De Chivo I concur with your observation that most posts reflect the notion that the shooting of the thief over some chickens was not the "ideal" solution. For clarification purposes I would like to recap my position as follows: 1) Would I have shot the kid ........................ No 2) Should the property owner have let the kid run ... Yes 3) Should we condemn the property owner ............. No He exercised a legal right under the law. The hard fact is that if we desire to retain a law that implies that a thief could get shot, then we must be prepared to accept the possibilty of someone exercising that right, no matter how tragic the end result may be. To claim that the law is "just" because it serves the purpose of causing the criminals to "wonder about it", and then turn around and condemn an individual for exercising his right under the law is like asking to have your cake and eating it too. We can't have it both ways ...

April 21, 2001, 09:58 PM	#68
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	Brian, et al... Actually, given the nature of the property owner's quotes in the article (link posted on pg. 2 of this thread) as well as the police statements, WAS the property owner actually acting with the limits of the law? I ask that question because it would appear, based on those noted statements, that the property owner had no idea what he was shooting at. If, in fact, he had no idea that a crime was actually being committed, and only got "lucky," what sort of message does that send about gun owners? I don't think there is a single hunter here who would say that it's OK to shoot at sound -- i.e., taking a shot when you hear something, but you can't positively identify your target. Yet that would seem to be exactly what this homeowner did. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

April 21, 2001, 11:12 PM	#69
Chulain Member Join Date: January 14, 2001 Posts: 61	How about asking for it instead of stealing it? Shooting blind at light and sound… I tell you what. If I see a flashlight around the back of my shed at 3 am, and hear commotion in a language other than English, someone is going to have a really bad hair day. None of my neighbors or their kids are that damn stupid. They would come to the house first and say “We think spot is in your back yard, can we go look for him?” I would say yes, and help them find their puppy. Would I shoot someone for stealing one of my tools? No. Would I shoot someone who just ran out of my house with one of my rifles? You damn well better believe it. They would receive exactly one warning telling them to stop and drop the gun. If they were smart and listened, all that would happen is that they would go to jail. If not…. Say they got away with a gun, they then could then use MY GUN to kill someone with, or sell it to someone who then uses it in a crime. By NOT stopping them there and then, I could be ENABLEING the death of an innocent person. As for the “neighbors kid in the backyard thing.” I know all of my neighbors in a mile radius like they were my own family. So if someone I don’t know is in my home, garage, or shed stealing my stuff, they better hope I am in a really good mood. They won’t be shot unless they threaten me directly, but they are going to have some blunt trauma to heal over and think about doing it again. I have had MANY things stolen from me that are irreplaceable, and not ONCE have I killed, hurt or maimed anyone for it. But when it comes to my guns, it’s steal here, die here. Is property worth killing someone over? No, I don’t think so. But it’s not worth DYING to get either. If you don’t want to end up a corpse, then DON’T STEAL FROM PEOPLE! How simple is this? Raise your kids better and don’t blame the property owner for shooting your little aspiring criminal. If people were not such scumbags, this would not be an issue! If you want something, by all means, ASK! Want some apples from my trees? ASK! Want to hunt on my land? ASK! Hungry, and don't have anything to eat? ASK! Ok, maybe the boy was getting food for his family, but that does not justify doing what he was doing with a 20 year old teaching this boy how to be a dirtball. You want something I have? Let's barter. I need my grass mowed and my leaves raked, and for that I will give you $30, 2 bags of apples, and 3 dozen eggs. People want something for nothing and don't have the common decency to even ASK before they loot. In Liberty, Chulain

April 22, 2001, 12:02 AM	#70
rock_jock Senior Member Join Date: January 19, 2000 Location: SE Texas Posts: 1,779	A lot of emotion-laden BS is being deposited in this discussion. First, to address all the "would you shoot a kid for crossing your lawn (tears flowing, voice near hysteria)?" crap, the answer is the law doesn't allow the use of deadly force for this offense, or many of the others used to supposedly point out what a draconian position I and others are adopting by supporting this particular Texas law, including, let's see, smoking marijuana, hunting out of season (unless you are poaching), etc., etc. Second, I may have done some stupid things in my teen years, but I never committed robbery, or was guilty of breaking and entering into someone's home. I was raised better than that and was reminded by my mother (very much an anti-gun person) at a very early age not to ever even think about doing something like that lest I get SHOT by a homeowner. So, I always knew that getting killed could be a consequence of this type of behavior. Not that I was ever tempted to do these things, but I can't help but believe that the negligince of this kid's parents contributed heavily to his fate. Third, I believe the general consensus among myself and others of like mind on this issue is not that we condone this guy for shooting a kid for stealing chickens, but rather that the we heartily support a law that gives a citizen a wide degree of latitude when it comes to making a decision like this. Remember folks, this kid was NOT walking across the lawn, or had become lost in the neighborhood, but rather was in fact STEALING. We also don't know if this guy had been robbed before, maybe multiple times, and had suffered a severe financial setback as a result. It is easy for us to sit back and condemn him knowing that, for most of us, if something were stolen, our insurance policies would replace it. I doubt many folk in poorer areas of San Antonio have insurance, or even very good police protection. The other extreme in this case is for us to move to a system like in the UK, where I remember just last year a farmer was convicted of killing a robber in his home and will sepnd the rest of his life (not to mention have his family financially ruined) for protecting his home. If we are going to protect anybody when it comes to stealing, let it be the law-abiding homeowner, not the criminal. Fourth, for those of you that think that the govt should be allowed to prohibit you from protecting your property (through up to and including the use of deadly force), let me just say you have been brainwashed. We have seen the results from states that coddle criminals and I don't want to live in a state that treats the common thief like some incorrigible little boy that grabbed a cookie from the cookie jar before dinner (ah, poor thing, isn't he sooo precious). I have a right to protect my property. The degree to which I exercise this right should be a decision left up to me and God, not some pointy-headed liberal politician that lives in a gated community and employs a bodyguard. Personally, I would never have shot this kid, and I doubt very few members of this forum would have either, but save your condemnation for this kid's parents, and the scumbag who was with him.

April 22, 2001, 12:06 AM	#71
Dangus Senior Member Join Date: July 4, 2000 Location: IA Posts: 1,907	When I was his age I stole all sorts of stuff, vandalized things, etc. I was a trouble kid, but now I am very active in the RKBA movement, and I do a LOT of work to protect that right, and then you people go and say murdering people like me is ok and I'm supposed to say, "Well he shouldn't have been stealing!". When you see someone doing something wrong like this, you try to stop them, but what good does killing them do? Kids like this need examples, not body bags. Sorry if you can't see that, but the solution of just shooting people to solve problems leads to nothing good at all. It's really the easy way out. It's a lot harder to help people get their life in order than it is to just shoot them. How are the Mexicans ever gonna learn to control their population, address their poverty issues, stop the crime, etc if you just shoot them? All that teaches them is that if they want something bad enough they have to kill for it.

April 22, 2001, 12:16 AM	#72
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	Chulain, If you see lights and hear Spanish (or Vietnamese, or Chinese, or ANY other language) being spoken around your shed in the middle of the night, how can you be certain that it's not the police corraling a suspect and speaking to him/her in a language that that person understands? I live in Fairfax County, Virginia. There are police officers on the force who speak: French, Spanish, Russian, German, Somali, Hindu, Vietnamese, Chinese, and supposedly one who speaks Lebanese. And, again, we're right back to the question of whether this guy actually KNEW for a fact that someone was stealing his property, or whether he fired blindly. Judging by his comments as reported to and by the police (and granted, through the newspaper), it's apparent that he didn't. Rock-Jock, Actually, if you read the Texas law in question, it is entirely conceivable that someone COULD shoot someone crossing his lawn and claim, as the law states, that he fired to prevent "criminal mischief." "He looked shifty, and was staring at my car..." It becomes a point of interpretation. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

April 22, 2001, 12:28 AM	#73
TexasVet Senior Member Join Date: July 22, 2000 Location: DeepEastTexas Posts: 1,096	Nowhere in all this have I seen the reason for the law as written. Texas is the only state that (rationally, IMHO) assumes that AT NIGHT one cannot readily determine if an intruder or thief is armed, and does not require you to place your life at risk to find out as every other state does. It is not about property, it is about the safety of the property owner's life, period. If you don't think any fleeing felon has ever turned around and popped a cap at someone, you are naive. If you won't protect what is yours, why are you on boards like this? If you don't like our laws, then stay the heck out of Texas. __________________ Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club 68-70 You are What you do When it counts.

April 22, 2001, 12:52 AM	#74
Chulain Member Join Date: January 14, 2001 Posts: 61	Mike Irwin, Very simple. Know what’s next to my shed? Woods. And next to that? Woods. And beyond that? MORE WOODS! There is exactly one way to get to my shed from the road, and that is through my yard. I think I would see the police car in my driveway. And no police officer around here is going to be dumb enough to be in someone’s back yard without coming to the house first. I don’t know what police are like in your town, but where I come from they have the courtesy to pull up in your driveway and knock on your door if there is a disturbance on your property. My house isn’t exactly in a metro area. If someone is in my back yard at 4 AM, they aren’t there to help rake the leaves… Most crimes that happen around here happen in the daytime. Because they KNOW that if they are sneaking around in the wee hours of the morning, they are apt to have a life changing event occur if they are caught. And maybe I’m in the minority here when I say that the police officers in my town speak English, English, and a bit of English on the side. They may KNOW other languages, but sure as hell wouldn’t be speaking them. We don’t exactly have a non-English-speaking immigration problem in my hometown. (Thank God.) When my great grandparents came over from Europe they weren’t English and didn’t speak English. They learned like everyone else. I get sick of this “cater to immigrants” crap. Get with the program, or get the hell out of my country. Dangus wrote: How are the Mexicans ever gonna learn to control their population, address their poverty issues, stop the crime, etc if you just shoot them? Umm.. isn’t that effective population control? LOL! Sorry, couldn’t resist. And by the way, I never said I would shoot someone for stealing something other than a firearm. Life is nothing but a series of choices. Choose poorly, and someone just might call you on it. In Liberty, Chulain

April 22, 2001, 12:59 AM	#75
kjm Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: College Station, Texas Posts: 1,871	Elizabeth Peterson: Smoked pot as a teen? Yes. Stayed out too late? Yes. Drank too much and drove as a teen? Yes. Cheated on my tax forms? No. Carry concealed without a permit? All the time. Just how do those actions deprive anyone of LIFE, LIBERTY, or PROPERTY? HOW? Oh you'll say the driving after drinking COULD have killed someone, but in actuallity, it didn't. If I had killed someone in Texas while drunk, I GUARANTEE YOU, I'd be looking at parole in maybe 10 more years (and the last time I did that I was a teenager. I didn't get caught in the backyards of people stealing property. I make it a habit of breaking at least a few laws every day. NEVER DO I DEPRIVE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OF LIFE LIBERTY OR PROPERTY. If I should, then being a resident of Texas, then I suspect that I'm playing with my life. That is simply a fact. It ain't that the boy was breaking the law, 'cause I expect any teenager with half a conscience and a brain to break the law. The law can be flat wrong. Sometimes good law can be applied badly. Do we get rid of the law because of the exception to the rule? If so, I'm happy to see that you're not running for the Texas Legislature. As for a cop shooting the criminal for stealing? While I wouldn't support it as whole-heartedly, I would use only one criteria sitting on the Grand Jury or Jury: IF the Felon (caught in the act) wasn't stealing and trespassing at night would he have been shot by the cop? Since the only answer is no, I must also No-bill the cop who shot the felon (caught in the act), as the felon took his life in his own hands when he decided to deprive another person of life, liberty or property. Mike Irwin: You claim that we're playing into the hands of the anti-gunners, but in reality YOU are playing into their hands. My arguement is based on principles. There aren't degrees of principles. If you don't want to offend Sara Brady or Rosie O'Donnell, that is your business. I personally don't give to hoots about their opinions. My arguement is still the same. Your right to protect your property in Texas (especially after dark) is absolute. Should he have chased down the perps and then beat them? What if the 12 year old was a short and skinny 21 year old with a knife or gun? Is it unusual to expect someone who is stealing your property and possibly your livelyhood might also be armed or is it only the good guys who have guns? I don't criticize the Arabs for their harsh, unforgiving and even brutal consequences for theft, murder and rape. I don't criticize the Malaysians or the good folks in Singapore for their tough laws either. It works for them and keeps honest folk honest. Texas may have some tough laws, but then, we just don't care much for theives or murderers, and we don't expect homeowners to get shot trying to ID the perps, guess their age, or otherwise put themselves in jeopardy when trying to protect their lives or property. You do. That is the difference between you and I, and that just wont change. It was dark. They were on his property stealing his livestock. No matter how deranged you think I am, I am still on the side of the homeowner, and that will NEVER change. If you folks would like to suck up to HCI and curb your behavior and refrain from exercising legal rights in order to not offend those types of folks, then more power to ya. I choose to exercise my rights as being absolute. I'm sorry you feel that is base, coarse, or otherwise wrong-headed. I live in Texas. You do not. You may KMTA too! [Edited by kjm on 04-22-2001 at 02:30 AM]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search