Car Thief Killed; Woman Released Without Charges - Castle Law Discussion

[Red coupe]

I dislike the way modern society views theft as a petty crime. It is not petty. You screw with my s***, you affect my life. There's nothing petty about stealing a car. We're WAY too soft as a society. Punishments used to have a purpose: deterrent. Now they're just "corrective." Screw corrective. After the fact is too late. Punishment must be severe enough to deter. Death is a great deterrent.

Pity is misplaced in this situation. The kid CHOSE to put his greed above the personal interests of another person. At that moment he chose to sacrifice his rights as a human. He does not get pity. "Petty" criminals are often the worst kind. They have no respect for their fellow humans and society's soft laws allow their behavior to be profitable. It was not profitable for this one. Hopefully he serves as a lesson to others.

Stop taking pity on criminals. It's disgusting.

So the penalty for car theft should be death?

What is the minimum value of theft for the death penalty to still be an appropriate punishment?

[MinisterofDOOM]

No, I don't think the penalty for car theft should be death. But I also don't think the woman deserves to be criticized for shooting at and killing the kid who tried to steal her car. What I'm saying is if you choose to steal someone's s***, you must accept the consequences. The THIEF is responsible for those consequences, not the victim. The woman did not choose to have her car broken into. The thief chose. She should not in any way be held accountable for the results of his bad judgement.

[Red coupe]

No, I don't think the penalty for car theft should be death.

But you think that any person who catches a criminal in the act should be able to circumvent the law and decide punishment on their own if they are effected by the criminals actions?

[MinisterofDOOM]

But you think that any person who catches a criminal in the act should be able to circumvent the law and decide punishment on their own if they are effected by the criminals actions?

No, I don't.

The world is not perfect. Flowers don't crap money when you wink at them. Break down the situation and its implications. SOMEONE IS GOING TO COME OUT BADLY. Why in the HELL should it be ANYONE but the thief? What do you want to happen? For magic cotton ropes to fly down and convince him to kindly stop stealing the car and surrender himself? Whatever happens, it is on his head. HE is the one who chose to break the law. HE is the one who chose to invade another person's property. HE IS IN THE WRONG. Everything else is irrelevant. We cannot have a world where everything is so legislated that you can't even defend yourself without having to worry about future negative repercussions. The thief chose to steal. He has assumed the burden of responsibility in doing so. The victim MUST BE FREE TO REACT. Otherwise the ENTIRE PURPOSE OF ALL PUBLIC DEFENSE LAW IS UNDERMINED. There can be no peace when criminals are protected at the expense of their victims. Which is exactly what we are talking about here.

Again, I say: don't pit the thief. He deserves no pity. Certainly, it's not an ideal situation for him to be killed. But when the alternatives are a law-biding citizen coming out worse or a law-breaking citizen coming out worse, there is only one option. How much "worse" is irrelevant at that point. And it certainly is not guilt on the victim's head. The victim can only react. The thief is the one who created the situation that lead to his death. How on earth can anyone want to punish the victim?

I am not saying the thief DESERVED to die at all (though I do think that letting the shooter off is a great way to send a message to future would-be thieves). But his death, deserved or not, is NOT on the shooter's head. It is on his head. His were the only choices that caused that to happen. Yes, the shooter chose to shoot. But she wouldn't have had to make that choice if the thief hadn't put her in that spot. Everything comes back to him.

Modern society has a terrible habit of passing responsibility for mistakes along. That should not happen anywhere, but especially cannot be allowed to happen in situations like this. The blame and guilt lay with the dead thief. He is lucky enough to be dead and not have to face them anymore. The woman who shot him will probably feel terrible for the rest of her life. All because some dumb s*** kid had to try and steal a car.

[PoorManQ45]

She sniped some kid from a window across open air, and it wasn't her property she was parked on. Still think she has the right?

You are not reading the Castle Doctrine correctly.

Your vehicle is considered your property. If you are in your vehicle, it is considered your "home". You have every right to protect it as if someone is breaking in to your house.

[numbnuts240]

Your vehicle is considered your property. If you are in your vehicle, it is considered your "home". You have every right to protect it as if someone is breaking in to your house.

she wasn't in the vehicle. she was on the second floor of a building, out of harm's way. so after re-reading this

Castle Doctrine defined via wakopedia:"Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car. * The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary * The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force * The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business."

it doesn't sound like any of this is applicable since she was not occupying the vehicle.

I wish more states had non-permit Open Carry. It would be nice to walk around with the 6 shooter. Obviously all laws would still apply, but I bet crime would go down drastically if you gave citizens the right to react with deadly force to certain crimes. Like if you catch someone in the act of dragging away a child, once you identify the person is not the guardian... Yeah, they'd be dead in an instant.

on the contrary, i'd wager that there would be more unjustified injuries and deaths than there are now. so many people would get guns "just in case" and the majority of them will turn out to be trigger-happy morons shooting everything that moves.

[audtatious]

The Castle Doctrine is for "staying your ground". If she is in the car and someone tries to jack it then she shoots his azz instead of letting him have it and running away. Same as someone who breaks into your home. Instead of not being able to defend yourself until after you have gone to the farthest room away from the criminal AND the criminal follows or comes after you. That was/is the most STUPID requirement by law that I have ever seen. Castle Doctrine says you can shoot the mofo when he breaks in. In the majority of references with cars the owner is with the car, not elsewhere. Only time will tell if the way she "protected" her property will hold up if she uses this law.

From the criminals perspective, there are a few outcomes he was aware of before trying to steal the car: gets away with it, gets scared off, gets caught by the cops, gets the crap beat out of him or gets killed for his actions. He made a choice and was killed.

Again, I'm on the fence about her actions as I feel she could have played things out differently. BUT, I don't feel sorry for the criminal as his choices lead to his death.

[numbnuts240]

From the criminals perspective, there are a few outcomes he was aware of before trying to steal the car: gets away with it, gets scared off, gets caught by the cops, gets the crap beat out of him or gets killed for his actions. He made a choice and was killed.

Again, I'm on the fence about her actions as I feel she could have played things out differently. BUT, I don't feel sorry for the criminal as his choices lead to his death.

[PoorManQ45]

No, the parking lot is not public. It's owned by the complex. Hell, even Gov-owned parking lots are not public anymore if you look at the latest lawsuit via the Post Office and an employee they fired for having a gun in his trunk.

In Florida a law has been passed that requires employers to allow their employees to leave weapons in their vehicle. I believe it still has to be out of sight.

A vehicle is considered your private property, no matter where it parked.

[numbnuts240]

In Florida a law has been passed that requires employers to allow their employees to leave weapons in their vehicle. I believe it still has to be out of sight.

A vehicle is considered your private property, no matter where it parked.

no one contested that, way to make an irrelevant post.

[audtatious]

no one contested that, way to make an irrelevant post.

It's in regards to the Post Office comment I made in which any public lot that is used for PO employees or to store PO trucks is considered private property and those using the lot cannot have a gun in their vehicle. So, if you are a lawful gun owner and have a gun in your car you can't go to the post office unless you park elsewhere and walk in......or something like that.

[mrodrig2]

Last time I checked stealing cars is a Class A Felony which is pretty effing serious in book. Also I'm fairly certain that the Castle Law in TX says that if a theft or robbery (which are pretty much the same thing) occurs ON your property, you the home owner have the right to stop said act by any means of acceptable force.

The law says you can only use deadly force when the crime being committed also involves force, intimidation or violence. Theft and robbery are NOT pretty much the same thing. Theft is non-violent Robbery involves force or intimidation. You can use non-deadly force to protect your property in the event of a theft. Here, she was not justified in using deadly force because:1) the theft was not occurring in her habitation or in an inhabited vehicle; 2) the crime being committed was non-violent; 3) the property being taken was not immediately necessary for her survival.

[mrodrig2]

If you are in fear for your life, you should have the right to defend yourself with deadly force.

If someone busts through your front door, you're in your bedroom, what should you be able to do?

none of these things you mention occurred in this situation .... stop discussing things that didn't happen and so we can have rational discussion about what DID happen

Quote »* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary

These two let this woman 100% off the hook. [/quote]you are saying, she is in Texas so she is protected under Castle law. the argument is that Castle law DOES NOT APPLY. the text of the law says occupied vehicle. She was not in the vehicle nor was she using it as her habitation. nor was she in immediate danger.

She does have the right to defend her car on her own property as per Texas law but: 1) is the parking lot considered her property? 2) you can't use deadly force to protect unless it is a robbery or violent crime- this was a theft, only non-deadly force is protected by law
Modified by mrodrig2 at 7:18 AM 11/5/2009

[PoorManQ45]

on the contrary, i'd wager that there would be more unjustified injuries and deaths than there are now. so many people would get guns "just in case" and the majority of them will turn out to be trigger-happy morons shooting everything that moves.

You might want to go look up the violent crime statistics...

IIRC, California, which has the tightest restrictions on guns, has something like the 3rd highest crime rate involving guns.

Compare this to states that have legal open carry, which rank among the lowest gun related crimes.

[numbnuts240]

You might want to go look up the violent crime statistics...

IIRC, California, which has the tightest restrictions on guns, has something like the 3rd highest crime rate involving guns.

Compare this to states that have legal open carry, which rank among the lowest gun related crimes.

i'm not quite sure what you're getting at. legal open carry will reduce the number of gunshot wounds and deaths? how do you figure?

[mrodrig2]

My stance:Should she have protected her property? Absolutely.

Was force, deadly or no, necessary to protect her property in this case? No.

Should she be punished for this instance? Maybe, that decision is not clear without more details.

[audtatious]

i'm not quite sure what you're getting at. legal open carry will reduce the number of gunshot wounds and deaths? how do you figure?

Statistics show that states with open carry have less violent crime. The stats are the stats, argue those. Either the citizens in those states are less violent/more moral than those in the states with higher stats OR open carry alone lowers violent crime as there is a greater chance of the criminal running into the wrong person thus they choose not to perpetrate crimes that can get them shot.

[mrodrig2]

I am not an opponent of open carry but let's not forget that correlation does not imply causation. There are many many social, cultural and economic factors to consider. Even weather.

[93coupe]

The woman was in no physical danger. She was sitting fat in her apartment safe and sound and decided to go sniper on a kid breaking into a car. How about walking to your phone to call the police instead of walking your prego a** to get a shotgun to blast a kid?

Breaking into a car is a death penalty according to her? I'd hate to see how she punishes her child when it brings a poor grade home from school.

Shooting into an apartment parking lot is just plain stupid anyway.

[audtatious]

I am not an opponent of open carry but let's not forget that correlation does not imply causation. There are many many social, cultural and economic factors to consider. Even weather.

And let's not punish the whole population due to some areas with social, cultural and economic factors which increase the amount of violence. Of course, simply deeming those areas as incorrigible without trying open-carry is retarded as well. Restrictions were supposed to lower violence and it has not.

But, that's neither here nor there in regards to this case.

[PoorManQ45]

i'm not quite sure what you're getting at. legal open carry will reduce the number of gunshot wounds and deaths? how do you figure?

Criminals are less likely to commit a crime when they know law abiding citizens around them are carrying guns

[numbnuts240]

Criminals are less likely to commit a crime when they know law abiding citizens around them are carrying guns

or kill more. i can only imagine how much more interesting bar fights will become with a bunch of drunken fool who openly carry guns are involved. but that' not the point of this thread so let's let it go.

[PoorManQ45]

or kill more. i can only imagine how much more interesting bar fights will become with a bunch of drunken fool who openly carry guns are involved. but that' not the point of this thread so let's let it go.

There are certain places guns are not permitted. Bars and liquor selling institutions are among the places where open carry AND concealed carry are both forbidden!

[Dattebayo]

He is right, you can't even check them at the door... unless they have a separate check station, saloon style.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I'M SCARED OF THINGS I DON'T UNDERSTAND!

I IMPOSE MY IRRATIONAL FEARS ON OTHERS!

MY 'YES WE CAN" BUMPERSTICKER KEEPS MY CAR FROM GETTING BROKEN INTO!

[Jyon9689]

Well this thread sure turned out exactly how I figured it would. Plenty of you guys had some fun fantasizing about killing car thieves while you were reading this, don't deny it.

It's too bad that all of this speculation is going on with so few actual details. However, given the provided information I can positively say that she deserves some form of criminal charges. End of story, that's how it is guys.

Will she ever face charges? Probably not, it's Texas. Some seriously f***ed up people live there.

Just for fun, consider karma for a second. Her future teenager has a late night, and makes a bad decision to try and pop some old junker for frills in an empty parking lot and...BOOM! If her own child got cut down from an upstairs balcony, I'm sure she would see things in a different light, contemplating a lot of "what if's."

It may be a tall order, but please don't be offended by that hypothetical situation. I made it pretty clear that was purely for entertainment.

But borrowing from that situation, let me make a general point. Teenagers make stupid decisions. A lot of kids will try breaking into a parked car, stealing a road sign or lawn ornament, bashing a mailbox, or playing some ding-dong-ditch. Sure some will make it a lifestyle. However, a huge majority will get away with doing it once in a moment of stupidity, and go on to mature and lead productive, healthy lives. A smaller number will get caught, face embarrassment, do some community service, and learn a valuable lesson. The smallest segment of all will suffer the same fate as the 19-year-old in this news story. They won't have the chance to grow past that stage of their lives. The thought of a kid getting away with my car is faaaar less repulsive than the thought of taking the life of someone who hasn't even had adequate time here on Earth to figure out who they are.

That, my friends, is the reasoning that allows me to confidently come to the conclusion, that given the information in the article, this woman is clearly in the wrong, as is anyone who defends her. Forgive those who trespass...

[audtatious]

Just for fun, consider karma for a second. Her future teenager has a late night, and makes a bad decision to try and pop some old junker for frills in an empty parking lot and...BOOM! If her own child got cut down from an upstairs balcony, I'm sure she would see things in a different light, contemplating a lot of "what if's."

What if we continue the story? Teenager takes the car while the owner calls the cops. Cops start chasing the teenager who hops a curb and kills two innocent bystanders.

[Chaotic_Warlord]

No offense, but we don't know all the details of what transpired, we don't know what the kid was trying to steal (it doesn't say if he was trying to steal the car or items in the car), We don't know if there was something in the car that she was attempting to protect. We don't know what she was thinking, or what the kid was thinking at the time. We don't know if the kid has a rap sheet, or if the woman involved was mentally unstable. We also don't know what transpired before she pulled the trigger, had the kid been harassing her? Stalking her? Maybe he had attacked her in the past. None of this is covered in the news story.

Apparently something is going on if the police have relocated her and her family for their safety. I've had 2 cars stolen, both were locked and parked in front of my house, had I caught them in the act you better believe that I would have nailed a slug center mass. Oh and as far as why she opted to shoot instead of call the cops, what's to say she didn't call them first but opted to shoot the kid before he got away b/c the cops were taking to long to respond. I don't know if any of you have ever been to the Houston area, but once you get out of the tourist friendly areas it's not a very friendly city and the Police there are overworked and understaffed.

[MinisterofDOOM]

What if we continue the story? Teenager takes the car while the owner calls the cops. Cops start chasing the teenager who hops a curb and kills two innocent bystanders.

Exactly. This is what I mean by "don't pity the criminal." We can invent all sorts of "what if" hypothetical situations to explain why we should be lenient in favor of the thief. But we can invent just as many to explain why we shouldn't. In the end, the fact remains that lots of horrible things CAN happen. But only one of those people is the person who made all those horrible things possible.

I can appreciate the concern for human life that goes into the comments like that. But the problem with that kind of thinking is it just isn't realistic. It's not pleasant, but it's true. When you stop acting and start "what if-ing" you risk harm to INNOCENT people. That is not in any way a fair trade compared to risking harm to criminals.

You can't "what if" everything. You'll cause more harm than you prevent. Certainly good judgement is paramount, but when it comes down to something as simple as thief vs theft victim good judgement is pretty straightforward: the theft victim must be defended.

[mrodrig2]

Apparently something is going on if the police have relocated her and her family for their safety.

There are indeed a lot of details missing.

Someone from that area pointed out that it's a shady neighborhood and they fear gang retaliation, thus the relocation.

Since everyone likes the what if's, given that information about the potential retaliation, is her decision more or less justified?