|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 1, 2009, 10:42 AM | #101 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
But the short answer is that civilized societies have found that a "justice system" (police and courts) is a preferable alternative to a free-for-all, in which "justice" tends to be confounded with revenge and the like, and in which weaker citizens have very little chance of getting any. Quote:
Query: if this situation had involved three "gangbangers" (all with clean records, hitherto) and a stolen bicycle, would so many people here be defending the shooters? I think one problem with these discussions, in general, is that a lot of us assume we always know who's a "law-abiding citizen" and who's a BG. The difference is a matter of who has or hasn't committed a crime, not of whom we identify with.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
||
July 1, 2009, 10:44 AM | #102 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
PT111
Interesting. Do you have a link to that? Don't recall that being in the story linked in the OP.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
July 1, 2009, 11:19 AM | #103 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
|
Vanya - It was in the reader comments portion of the story in the OP. Click on the comments link and it about the 7th comment down from Spurs Fan 1985. As I said pure rumor and gossip but makes you wonder.
|
July 1, 2009, 11:25 AM | #104 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
|
$1.99 911 use fee???????? Never heard of that, can you explain. Originally all calls to 911 or police were not timed at all. I know that there is a 911 fee on phones whether or not you call 911 or can even call 911. I used to have to pay it on my data lines that I couldn't even call out on.
|
July 1, 2009, 11:44 AM | #105 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
It may be no longer... But there once was a time, at least with my cingular service in florida, if you dialed 911 in that month once or multiple times there was a fee on the bill... IIRC, it was there to cover the other folks who were able to use 911 even if service was off due to no payment. this was back in about 2002. But I do not have a cell now... just the wifey-poo.
Brent |
July 1, 2009, 12:00 PM | #106 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
|
I remember now, new federal laws on cell phones and 911. All cell phones must be capable of dialing 911 for free. This includes deactivated phones. If your wife gets a new cell phone and deactivates her old one you can carry it with you to dial 911. Someone can give you an old phone to use in fact there are some groups that collect old cell phones to give to abused women for emergency use.
Like my CWP instruction said, "If you carry a gun then carry a cell phone. If you don't carry a cell phone then don't carry a gun. If you are involved in a shooting the first one to tell their side of the story will be believed the most". I know this contradicts the ones that say don't talk to the police but getting in the first word usually helps. |
July 1, 2009, 12:51 PM | #107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Thanks, PT111, for the source of that rumor... sounds like these were fine, upstanding citizens all around... Possibly a bit closer to my hypothetical gangbangers than terms like "homeowner" lead us to imagine... and that wouldn't surprise me, given the part about shooting the guy and leaving him by the side of the road, not calling police, etc. (I'm not up enough on Texas Culture to know the subtle distinctions between gangbangers, Bubbas, white trash, etc. -- although I do, of course, know that there are no TFL members to whom any of those terms would apply... )
And good info about being able to use deactivated cell phones to call 911... I hadn't known that. If I can just keep the old one in the bedroom for emergencies, that would be a heck of a lot more convenient than what I'm doing now.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
July 1, 2009, 02:03 PM | #108 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Just in case anyone wants to see the relevant Texas code on the issue, here it is.
Quote:
Either way, we are missing a lot of information that we need to answer whether it complies with the statutes above. |
|
July 1, 2009, 03:54 PM | #109 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
It sounds to me like the entire issue may rest on the definition of "immediately" in Section 9.42 Para 2B.
If the law determines that the thief was in "immediate flight therefrom", and there was actually a gun stolen, then it would be reasonable to believe that "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." from the same section, para 3B. Chasing the guy would still have been a stupid thing to do, not calling the police first (or EVER!) was even "stupider" but they may very well get away with it.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 1, 2009, 03:58 PM | #110 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08 |
|
July 1, 2009, 04:03 PM | #111 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Response to PeetzaKilla
PK, you are so focused on SD and defense of property that you are completely disregarding the arguments about citizen's arrest in Texas. There is no "immediate" requirement that I can find.
The question is whether the shooters were attempting to effect a citizen's arrest. If, as some posters have alleged, the guys never called the police, before or after the shooting, then I think they will have a hard time arguing that they were attempting a citizen's arrest. However, I haven't seen any official accounts so far that make that claim. |
July 1, 2009, 04:15 PM | #112 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 1, 2009, 04:24 PM | #113 |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 9
|
I don't see how anyone can jump to conclusions and know the answer to the case given the information provided. There is way too much left out of the news report to really make a decision.
On one hand the man entered with intent to burglarize the home where the two men where. On the other hand you must look at the fact that the police were notified only when the body was found. Another thing to look at is that the knew the man and "tracked him down a few blocks away" granted the news usually uses words that don't exactly describe the situation but the way that is worded is no good IMO. I can see how people can come to a conclusion either way, but the only thing you can judge on is what you read from that little news report and the rest is assumption. We are all entitled to our own opinions but the truth is no one can even begin to rule on this until they release more details. |
July 1, 2009, 05:33 PM | #114 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
If they weren't in violation of the law with re: to apprehending the criminal who committed armed home invasion, then why would said Bros have committed "straight up murder" when the bad man drew a gun and attempted to murder the two bro's who were , at that point, acting within the law? It's not like Bubba was shot down after he surrendered. Once again, the aggressive act of the violent criminal seems to be of little concern to those who condemn the bros and refer to them as vigilantes, murderers, etc. |
|
July 1, 2009, 06:00 PM | #115 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
So many mentions of this "apprehending" and "citizens arrest" and so few posts, like zero, with the actual statute.... hard to make a claim or judgement without the law...
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 1, 2009, 06:05 PM | #116 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
For PeetzaKilla: Texas law with regard to citizen's arrest
Emphasis by me; from the caselaw website. (Note: Forcible entry of a habitation by any part of the offender is a felony in Texas; this applies to even a toe of the foot that kicked in the door; see previous post with Texas law regarding burglary.)
Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace. (b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view. |
July 1, 2009, 06:08 PM | #117 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Caveat:
Still awaiting official claim that brothers were attempting to use citizen's arrest powers. It may not apply.
However, it is a possibility that many seem to refuse to acknowledge. |
July 1, 2009, 06:40 PM | #118 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
It is somewhat impressive that there are no other qualifications or restrictions to that statute. Is there no other mention of such a thing in TX law?
How is a person supposed to go about this arrest for example? Is there any approved method? Required verbalization(s)? What is the penalty for resisting a citizens arrest? Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 1, 2009, 06:57 PM | #119 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
PT111 and TailGator
both referred to the failure to notify police.
However, when pressed, PT111 said that info came from reader comments under the article, not from the article, the police, or the DA. The article actually said the police were looking at it as a possible case of self defense. It would be interesting to have some actual facts. It would be nice to avoid accusing the shooter of something based on reader's comment number 7 under an article online. |
July 1, 2009, 07:14 PM | #120 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
so would you also agree that someone running from the police could legally turn and shoot a cop since the police were chasing him/her, forcing that person to defend theirself? we as citizens have the the right to chase and detain a suspect until law enforcement arrives. ( i just heard this on a old episode of cops)
__________________
The Castle Doctrine Because When SECONDS Count And The Police Are Only MINUTES Away, Your Pistol Better Not Be Your Only Defense.... __________________________________________________________ GLOCK 19 SPRINGFIELD XD 3" 9MM GSG 5P WALTHER P22 HI-POINT 9MM HI-POINT 45 |
|
July 1, 2009, 07:48 PM | #121 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Let's be realistic. The police are in their legal rights to chase you.
But citizens and police can't chase and use deadly force to terminate the pursuit except in very specific circumstances. You even legally can use deadly force against the law under certain specific circumstances if they violate their mandate and are threatening you with grievous bodily harm. But you'd better check out the statutes for that and it would hard to prove. Straw man arguments here don't add much.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 1, 2009, 07:51 PM | #122 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,190
|
FWIW I'd chase him down too.
|
July 1, 2009, 07:58 PM | #123 | |
Member
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 64
|
Quote:
Which strawman do you speak of? |
|
July 1, 2009, 08:07 PM | #124 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
In at least some states, NY included, you'd up crap creek with a sponge paddle, except under EXTREMELY specific circumstances and, even then, it would almost certainly depend on the DA.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 1, 2009, 08:09 PM | #125 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
No, geez - I was referring to the post that you could turn and shoot the cops for chasing you.
Quote:
Nowhere did I say you didn't have a right to pursue. That's your misinterpretation.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
|
|