8 ms·

Truck thief gunned down by owner after AirTag gives away location

41 points by sacnoradhq 4y ago

sacnoradhq 4y ago
I live in Texas. I have 2+ AirTags in my vintage, non-truck vehicle. I don't know what the circumstances are of this story, whether there is alleged fault with the presumed owner, presumed thief, or both because I wasn't there. If a presumed thief were to threaten imminent great bodily harm to prevent me from recovering my vehicle, there's not much choice. To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. The near total monopoly on violence must be delegated to the state to prevent feuds and inappropriate uses of force between non-state actors. (It also requires that the police use force judiciously and minimally.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- clarkmoody 4y ago
  > To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. The near total monopoly on violence must be delegated to the state to prevent feuds and inappropriate uses of force between non-state actors. (It also requires that the police use force judiciously and minimally.) The police are always at the disposal of the political apparatus and often ignore the rights of unpopular groups and sometimes actively terrorize them. This is a feature of democracy, in which the majority holds power over the minority. Vigilante justice is a natural result of overly-political police, and I would argue something that would be very popular in many areas of the American Empire.
  - JackAndJack 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - sacnoradhq 4y ago
    It is in movies and other forms of mass media. Unfortunately, far left jurisdictions frown on anyone using force, including defending themselves. Triumphal, might-make-right exceptionalism shouldn't be a core value. Patience, letting most things slide, and choosing not to use force where rights allow should be celebrated heroic virtues.
    - lazide 4y ago
      That’s all well and good until someone has a tool critical for their survival stolen, and are told to ‘turn the other cheek’. In most of the US, a car is as critical to survival as a horse used to be.
      - sacnoradhq 4y ago
        "Survival" means "lacking will cause death." Stealing someone's vehicle doesn't kill them. OTOH, stealing a portable ECMO would.
        lazide 4y ago
        If someone lives out in a remote area with bad weather, stealing their vehicle definitely can kill them. I’ve run across some folks near death from losing a vehicle, in fact, when out in remote areas. It’s why folks stop to check if they see someone on the side of the road out in the boonies. But there isn’t always someone there. Additionally, many people who live out in the sticks will lose their jobs without a vehicle very quickly (sometimes even a day or two), and that can make them homeless pretty quick. And when you look at the stats, that kills a lot of people too. God knows what the actual circumstances are here. It could be someone worked up and angry and unjustified, or the equivalent of stealing someone’s jacket in a blizzard. Justice system, etc.
        sacnoradhq 4y ago
        BS. That's what emergency services are for. No cause of death has been "lack of car caused a stroke". It's also the fault/responsibility of someone living too far from major medical. Personal responsibility and backup plans. Someone steals your car, you make arrangements.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    > in which the majority holds power over the minority That’s absolutely not how it supposed to be, it’s a very cynical take. They are the executive pillar of democracy, and actively terrorizing anyone is not a benefit of any society. Their whole purpose (should be) is to uphold the law created by the democratically elected government.
- jason-phillips 4y ago
  > If a presumed thief were to threaten imminent great bodily harm to prevent me from recovering my vehicle, there's not much choice. To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. I recommend that you read the Texas penal code sections that pertain to this type of situation. They are very clear on the lawful use of deadly force.
- kylehotchkiss 4y ago
  From somebody who had their car stolen somewhat recently, be aware that AirTags get in a habit of beeping when left in cars and whom ever wants the car will find it and hurl it at the ground to silence it. I’d recommend adding non-AirTag find my trackers that don’t beep. Throw in a chipolo or anker one and glue it under a seat for a little extra peace of mind
  - sacnoradhq 4y ago
    This is true. I have a couple of Tile Pros and also a wired-in SIM-based tracker. I thought of doing Lojack but I think I have more coverage.
  - egberts1 4y ago
    It is common to solder off the beeper.
    - dzhiurgis 4y ago
      Or wrap in tape. Leave one for decoy too.
    - sacnoradhq 4y ago
      Yeap. The other matter is anyone with an Apple device will show any AirTags moving with them. They're not Tile Pro or Lojack.
      - Fatnino 4y ago
        Also anyone with android and airguard installed will find out about the airtag. Also the tile pros, BTW.
    - mmh0000 4y ago
      Don't even need solder, removing the airtag speaker is a four-minute job with a small flatblade[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAQNedIa0o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAQNedIa0o
- egberts1 4y ago
  The police are NOT required to respond to your call, much less defend you or your property. SCOTUS have repeatedly re-clarified this point. So, what is an average citizen going to do? Drop dead by gunfire? Or take it back by force?
schiffern 4y ago
>"I know that it's frustrating, but please do not take matters into your own hands," said SAPD public information officer Nick Soliz. They don't know that it's frustrating, because if a police vehicle or police officer's private vehicle were stolen it would be top priority. This will continue happening until the police take property crime seriously. This bloodshed is the (entirely predictable) outcome of their negligent inaction.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  People make choices all the time about how much they value their life and safety versus other concerns - what you spend on medical procedures, dangerous activities, drinking, travel, etc. It's simply not for the officer to make a moral judgment about whether citizens should or should not risk their lives over their property. I would instead ask the office to comment something like "This highlights the risk of..." It should up to the involved citizens whether they want to run the risks or not.
- FormerBandmate 4y ago
  This is incidentally the entire reason the police was invented thousands of years ago
  - eastbound 4y ago
    Like all interventions of state, it always works well at the beginning then goes haywire a few dozen years after it’s established.
    - winrid 4y ago
      More than that. Most state ran things (in the US at least) are started to benefit the many, and end up getting manipulated to benefit the rich (police, taxes).
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  When police say they don’t have resources to take property crime seriously, why are they astonished when people take getting their property back into their own hands? The police/society should put up to shut up, though I guess in this case they are concerned about the property crime victim’s safety, which is completely reasonable.
bmarquez 4y ago
> Police say it seems the suspected thief may have pulled out their own firearm. If this is true, the owner didn't have much choice in the matter.
- olliej 4y ago
  Ok, but lets see why this is generally illegal: * They approached their stolen truck * There was a person in the truck * They assumed the person in the truck was the thief * They presumably threatened the occupant * The occupant responded by drawing a gun * The shoot the occupant Now, what happens if their assumption that the occupant is the thief is wrong * Sitting in truck - maybe you just bought it, maybe it's a friend, coworker, or family members (in this scenario the first option seems implausible, but the others are fine) * Someone you don't know approaches you * The person starts accusing you of stealing the truck and threatening you with guns * You pull out your gun to defend yourself For the people who found their truck cannot distinguish these two scenarios. It is literally not possible for them to, and in the latter case the occupant of the truck is _defending_ themselves. This is the same reason you can't steal something back. Finally, theft doesn't carry the death penalty, and the people whose truck was stolen were not in danger. If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn.
  - mcculley 4y ago
    > If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn. This presupposes there was a safe place to withdraw to.
    - mgarfias 4y ago
      Pretty sure Texas is a stand your ground state, and there is no duty to retreat when threatened.
      - mcculley 4y ago
        Indeed. I live in Florida which has set precedent. The game theory is clear to me. If the other guy is a threat at all, I must kill him as he could do the same to me and just claim to have been scared.
whartung 4y ago
IANAL lawyer, but Texas codifies lethal force in defense of property. In theory, if the thief was trying to drive away in the truck, the owner had authority to shoot them to stop them from driving away. Obviously I don't know the circumstances in this case. But the use of lethal force in defense of property, I can't say it's unique to Texas, I believe it's uncommon nationally.
- runnerup 4y ago
  > Texas codifies lethal force in defense of property. Only at night.
  - bsder 4y ago
    No. https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/defense-of-property https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/defense-of-property > Using Force to Regain Your Property In Texas, you may also be justified in using force to pursue and recover your personal property. Penal Code § 9.41 also extends the right to use force in defense of property when: You are unlawfully dispossessed of your land or tangible property; You reasonably believe that force is immediately necessary in fresh pursuit to reenter the land or recover your property; and The other person had no right to the property and/or acquired such property using force, threat, or fraud. In simpler terms, you may be justified in using immediate force to regain control of property that was unlawfully taken from you. However, this use of force must be in “fresh pursuit” of the property, meaning that no significant time has elapsed since the theft or trespass.
    - sacnoradhq 4y ago
      IANAL, but this doctrine seems inherently problematic and fraught with legal hazards to the would-be pursuer. Civil suits at a minimum. It's wiser to call authorities. Unless you live in Austin, where most nonviolent crimes are essentially ignored.
      - bsder 4y ago
        It's going to be problematic for almost everything except a vehicle. A vehicle is registered with the state and has multiple identifying marks. Is it wiser to call the authorities? No question. There is no fucking way I'm going to personally go tangle with someone who is likely part of a criminal group, thank you very much. I suspect a "Hi, I'm so and so. I reported my car stolen and the tracker has it marked at <place X>. I'm about to go reclaim it using Penal Code 9.41--I should be there in an hour. Would you folks like to escort me?" would have been more effective. The fact that a shootout is about to occur tends to get the police to move even when stolen property won't.
kylehotchkiss 4y ago
This type of event may actually work to reduce car thefts. AirTags are still novel and people are getting sick of just having their stuff written off by insurance instead of some actual action. Car sales will need to change too - the seller needs to show the registration and their ID upfront before you take a deeper look at that car! I dealt with one earlier this year, the police were actually remarkably good at getting it back for me within an hour of calling due to Toyota’s built in theft tracker GPS feature. They will only give the location to the police and only if you have a case number. I had an AirTag in the car too but the thieves managed to find it and destroy it quickly because the stupid thing beeps every time somebody walks into the car. Cars should have find my support without all the compromises that tiny AirTags have to make since they can be hidden so easily. Carmakers haven’t really improved things as much as they should have with the keyless remotes. If yours is stolen and you don’t go spend $200 to reprogram your car to remove it, your car is good as gone when the thieves found where you parked it. Why is it legal for dealers to charge for stolen key removal? It should be done free, same day, on a mandatory basis.
bigtex 4y ago
I am very pro gun but wait for the police since they were on the way. Now the vehicle has blood and other fluids all inside the cabin and who knows if any of the rounds made it into the engine and destroyed the vehicle.

41 points by sacnoradhq 4y ago

I live in Texas. I have 2+ AirTags in my vintage, non-truck vehicle. I don't know what the circumstances are of this story, whether there is alleged fault with the presumed owner, presumed thief, or both because I wasn't there. If a presumed thief were to threaten imminent great bodily harm to prevent me from recovering my vehicle, there's not much choice. To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. The near total monopoly on violence must be delegated to the state to prevent feuds and inappropriate uses of force between non-state actors. (It also requires that the police use force judiciously and minimally.)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
clarkmoody 4y ago
> To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. The near total monopoly on violence must be delegated to the state to prevent feuds and inappropriate uses of force between non-state actors. (It also requires that the police use force judiciously and minimally.) The police are always at the disposal of the political apparatus and often ignore the rights of unpopular groups and sometimes actively terrorize them. This is a feature of democracy, in which the majority holds power over the minority. Vigilante justice is a natural result of overly-political police, and I would argue something that would be very popular in many areas of the American Empire.
- JackAndJack 4y ago
  [flagged]
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  It is in movies and other forms of mass media. Unfortunately, far left jurisdictions frown on anyone using force, including defending themselves. Triumphal, might-make-right exceptionalism shouldn't be a core value. Patience, letting most things slide, and choosing not to use force where rights allow should be celebrated heroic virtues.
  - lazide 4y ago
    That’s all well and good until someone has a tool critical for their survival stolen, and are told to ‘turn the other cheek’. In most of the US, a car is as critical to survival as a horse used to be.
    - sacnoradhq 4y ago
      "Survival" means "lacking will cause death." Stealing someone's vehicle doesn't kill them. OTOH, stealing a portable ECMO would.
      - lazide 4y ago
        If someone lives out in a remote area with bad weather, stealing their vehicle definitely can kill them. I’ve run across some folks near death from losing a vehicle, in fact, when out in remote areas. It’s why folks stop to check if they see someone on the side of the road out in the boonies. But there isn’t always someone there. Additionally, many people who live out in the sticks will lose their jobs without a vehicle very quickly (sometimes even a day or two), and that can make them homeless pretty quick. And when you look at the stats, that kills a lot of people too. God knows what the actual circumstances are here. It could be someone worked up and angry and unjustified, or the equivalent of stealing someone’s jacket in a blizzard. Justice system, etc.
        sacnoradhq 4y ago
        BS. That's what emergency services are for. No cause of death has been "lack of car caused a stroke". It's also the fault/responsibility of someone living too far from major medical. Personal responsibility and backup plans. Someone steals your car, you make arrangements.
- kaba0 4y ago
  > in which the majority holds power over the minority That’s absolutely not how it supposed to be, it’s a very cynical take. They are the executive pillar of democracy, and actively terrorizing anyone is not a benefit of any society. Their whole purpose (should be) is to uphold the law created by the democratically elected government.
jason-phillips 4y ago
> If a presumed thief were to threaten imminent great bodily harm to prevent me from recovering my vehicle, there's not much choice. To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. I recommend that you read the Texas penal code sections that pertain to this type of situation. They are very clear on the lawful use of deadly force.
kylehotchkiss 4y ago
From somebody who had their car stolen somewhat recently, be aware that AirTags get in a habit of beeping when left in cars and whom ever wants the car will find it and hurl it at the ground to silence it. I’d recommend adding non-AirTag find my trackers that don’t beep. Throw in a chipolo or anker one and glue it under a seat for a little extra peace of mind
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  This is true. I have a couple of Tile Pros and also a wired-in SIM-based tracker. I thought of doing Lojack but I think I have more coverage.
- egberts1 4y ago
  It is common to solder off the beeper.
  - dzhiurgis 4y ago
    Or wrap in tape. Leave one for decoy too.
  - sacnoradhq 4y ago
    Yeap. The other matter is anyone with an Apple device will show any AirTags moving with them. They're not Tile Pro or Lojack.
    - Fatnino 4y ago
      Also anyone with android and airguard installed will find out about the airtag. Also the tile pros, BTW.
  - mmh0000 4y ago
    Don't even need solder, removing the airtag speaker is a four-minute job with a small flatblade[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAQNedIa0o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAQNedIa0o
egberts1 4y ago
The police are NOT required to respond to your call, much less defend you or your property. SCOTUS have repeatedly re-clarified this point. So, what is an average citizen going to do? Drop dead by gunfire? Or take it back by force?

schiffern 4y ago

>"I know that it's frustrating, but please do not take matters into your own hands," said SAPD public information officer Nick Soliz. They don't know that it's frustrating, because if a police vehicle or police officer's private vehicle were stolen it would be top priority. This will continue happening until the police take property crime seriously. This bloodshed is the (entirely predictable) outcome of their negligent inaction.

ALittleLight 4y ago
People make choices all the time about how much they value their life and safety versus other concerns - what you spend on medical procedures, dangerous activities, drinking, travel, etc. It's simply not for the officer to make a moral judgment about whether citizens should or should not risk their lives over their property. I would instead ask the office to comment something like "This highlights the risk of..." It should up to the involved citizens whether they want to run the risks or not.
FormerBandmate 4y ago
This is incidentally the entire reason the police was invented thousands of years ago
- eastbound 4y ago
  Like all interventions of state, it always works well at the beginning then goes haywire a few dozen years after it’s established.
  - winrid 4y ago
    More than that. Most state ran things (in the US at least) are started to benefit the many, and end up getting manipulated to benefit the rich (police, taxes).
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
When police say they don’t have resources to take property crime seriously, why are they astonished when people take getting their property back into their own hands? The police/society should put up to shut up, though I guess in this case they are concerned about the property crime victim’s safety, which is completely reasonable.

bmarquez 4y ago

> Police say it seems the suspected thief may have pulled out their own firearm. If this is true, the owner didn't have much choice in the matter.

olliej 4y ago
Ok, but lets see why this is generally illegal: * They approached their stolen truck * There was a person in the truck * They assumed the person in the truck was the thief * They presumably threatened the occupant * The occupant responded by drawing a gun * The shoot the occupant Now, what happens if their assumption that the occupant is the thief is wrong * Sitting in truck - maybe you just bought it, maybe it's a friend, coworker, or family members (in this scenario the first option seems implausible, but the others are fine) * Someone you don't know approaches you * The person starts accusing you of stealing the truck and threatening you with guns * You pull out your gun to defend yourself For the people who found their truck cannot distinguish these two scenarios. It is literally not possible for them to, and in the latter case the occupant of the truck is _defending_ themselves. This is the same reason you can't steal something back. Finally, theft doesn't carry the death penalty, and the people whose truck was stolen were not in danger. If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn.
- mcculley 4y ago
  > If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn. This presupposes there was a safe place to withdraw to.
  - mgarfias 4y ago
    Pretty sure Texas is a stand your ground state, and there is no duty to retreat when threatened.
    - mcculley 4y ago
      Indeed. I live in Florida which has set precedent. The game theory is clear to me. If the other guy is a threat at all, I must kill him as he could do the same to me and just claim to have been scared.

whartung 4y ago

IANAL lawyer, but Texas codifies lethal force in defense of property. In theory, if the thief was trying to drive away in the truck, the owner had authority to shoot them to stop them from driving away. Obviously I don't know the circumstances in this case. But the use of lethal force in defense of property, I can't say it's unique to Texas, I believe it's uncommon nationally.

runnerup 4y ago
> Texas codifies lethal force in defense of property. Only at night.
- bsder 4y ago
  No. https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/defense-of-property https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/defense-of-property > Using Force to Regain Your Property In Texas, you may also be justified in using force to pursue and recover your personal property. Penal Code § 9.41 also extends the right to use force in defense of property when: You are unlawfully dispossessed of your land or tangible property; You reasonably believe that force is immediately necessary in fresh pursuit to reenter the land or recover your property; and The other person had no right to the property and/or acquired such property using force, threat, or fraud. In simpler terms, you may be justified in using immediate force to regain control of property that was unlawfully taken from you. However, this use of force must be in “fresh pursuit” of the property, meaning that no significant time has elapsed since the theft or trespass.
  - sacnoradhq 4y ago
    IANAL, but this doctrine seems inherently problematic and fraught with legal hazards to the would-be pursuer. Civil suits at a minimum. It's wiser to call authorities. Unless you live in Austin, where most nonviolent crimes are essentially ignored.
    - bsder 4y ago
      It's going to be problematic for almost everything except a vehicle. A vehicle is registered with the state and has multiple identifying marks. Is it wiser to call the authorities? No question. There is no fucking way I'm going to personally go tangle with someone who is likely part of a criminal group, thank you very much. I suspect a "Hi, I'm so and so. I reported my car stolen and the tracker has it marked at <place X>. I'm about to go reclaim it using Penal Code 9.41--I should be there in an hour. Would you folks like to escort me?" would have been more effective. The fact that a shootout is about to occur tends to get the police to move even when stolen property won't.

kylehotchkiss 4y ago

This type of event may actually work to reduce car thefts. AirTags are still novel and people are getting sick of just having their stuff written off by insurance instead of some actual action. Car sales will need to change too - the seller needs to show the registration and their ID upfront before you take a deeper look at that car! I dealt with one earlier this year, the police were actually remarkably good at getting it back for me within an hour of calling due to Toyota’s built in theft tracker GPS feature. They will only give the location to the police and only if you have a case number. I had an AirTag in the car too but the thieves managed to find it and destroy it quickly because the stupid thing beeps every time somebody walks into the car. Cars should have find my support without all the compromises that tiny AirTags have to make since they can be hidden so easily. Carmakers haven’t really improved things as much as they should have with the keyless remotes. If yours is stolen and you don’t go spend $200 to reprogram your car to remove it, your car is good as gone when the thieves found where you parked it. Why is it legal for dealers to charge for stolen key removal? It should be done free, same day, on a mandatory basis.

bigtex 4y ago

I am very pro gun but wait for the police since they were on the way. Now the vehicle has blood and other fluids all inside the cabin and who knows if any of the rounds made it into the engine and destroyed the vehicle.