4 ms·

> 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 If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn.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 If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn.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.
- retrac 4y ago
  Reminds me of how and why it's illegal to booby-trap your own home and property with lethal traps, etc. Sooner or later, some drunk neighbour, or with dementia, or a kid, will try and "break in". (I've seen multiple tragic stories along those lines, over the years.) > This is the same reason you can't steal something back. Well, legally you can, at least in most jurisdictions. The property remains yours, and you can do whatever you like with it -- such as pick it up and walk off with it. But you will assume full liability if you injure someone in the process (including the thief) or otherwise make a mistake like taking something that wasn't actually yours.
- bsder 4y ago
  > 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. Texas has "defense of property" being a reason to use lethal force. If you are not the actual owner in the eyes of the State of Texas and you are driving off with a vehicle, the registered owner can shoot you. It doesn't matter whether you were the original thief or not. That doesn't make it a good idea, but it is legal in many circumstances.
- latency-guy2 4y ago
  The legality depends on when the term 'in pursuit' phrase of retrieving stolen goods ends. It is not illegal to be in active pursuit of your property. The messy part is where AirTags now change the term 'in pursuit' means, do you take it the literal "within your vision", historical way things are done? I would argue that if you have GPS tracking on property, you are always in perpetual pursuit of your items, at minimum for two reasons - first is that you know the item has a propensity for being stolen (obvious), the second is that adding GPS tracking is with the intention you are locating your device at all times, thus you are in a perpetual state of pursuit.
- romeros 4y ago
  when you are naive you see many open possibilities. When you are wordly-wise you just understand the few. For most things occam's razor holds true. The simplest explanation is usually the best one. Guy tries to recover the truck from the thief. Thief realizes the gig is up and threatens the guy. Justice ensues.
- pseudo0 4y ago
  You are presuming that the owner of the vehicle threatened the occupant, instead of saying something like "that is my truck, it is stolen property, I am calling the police to resolve this." That would not justify force on the part of the occupant of the vehicle. > 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. This is such a tired cliche. All consequences follow from the criminal's initial action. If things escalate to the point where the criminal aggressor is pulling a gun, they have just made deadly force appropriate. Because that isn't theft, that's aggravated assault and an imminent threat of death.
- ajot 4y ago
  Not a lawyer, but I would like to think that whatever happens to an innocent third party in a stolen vehicle should add a penalty to that vehicle's thief, wether it's an injury in a car crash or death by the owner of the vehicle.
- serf 4y ago
  >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. innocence or guilt isn't determined by applying legal standards to non-judges outside of courthouses, which brings up another point : laws aren't somehow universal to a country, let alone a state. It shouldn't be presumed that a working knowledge of how thing work on average within the United States affords one a working knowledge of how things work in Texas. There were a lot of presumptions made by the victim, agreed on that. It's fortunate that a non-related party wasn't hurt. Personally I wouldn't have risked my life for the pursuit of a stolen vehicle, but I can understand the urge.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

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.
retrac 4y ago
Reminds me of how and why it's illegal to booby-trap your own home and property with lethal traps, etc. Sooner or later, some drunk neighbour, or with dementia, or a kid, will try and "break in". (I've seen multiple tragic stories along those lines, over the years.) > This is the same reason you can't steal something back. Well, legally you can, at least in most jurisdictions. The property remains yours, and you can do whatever you like with it -- such as pick it up and walk off with it. But you will assume full liability if you injure someone in the process (including the thief) or otherwise make a mistake like taking something that wasn't actually yours.
bsder 4y ago
> 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. Texas has "defense of property" being a reason to use lethal force. If you are not the actual owner in the eyes of the State of Texas and you are driving off with a vehicle, the registered owner can shoot you. It doesn't matter whether you were the original thief or not. That doesn't make it a good idea, but it is legal in many circumstances.
latency-guy2 4y ago
The legality depends on when the term 'in pursuit' phrase of retrieving stolen goods ends. It is not illegal to be in active pursuit of your property. The messy part is where AirTags now change the term 'in pursuit' means, do you take it the literal "within your vision", historical way things are done? I would argue that if you have GPS tracking on property, you are always in perpetual pursuit of your items, at minimum for two reasons - first is that you know the item has a propensity for being stolen (obvious), the second is that adding GPS tracking is with the intention you are locating your device at all times, thus you are in a perpetual state of pursuit.
romeros 4y ago
when you are naive you see many open possibilities. When you are wordly-wise you just understand the few. For most things occam's razor holds true. The simplest explanation is usually the best one. Guy tries to recover the truck from the thief. Thief realizes the gig is up and threatens the guy. Justice ensues.
pseudo0 4y ago
You are presuming that the owner of the vehicle threatened the occupant, instead of saying something like "that is my truck, it is stolen property, I am calling the police to resolve this." That would not justify force on the part of the occupant of the vehicle. > 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. This is such a tired cliche. All consequences follow from the criminal's initial action. If things escalate to the point where the criminal aggressor is pulling a gun, they have just made deadly force appropriate. Because that isn't theft, that's aggravated assault and an imminent threat of death.
ajot 4y ago
Not a lawyer, but I would like to think that whatever happens to an innocent third party in a stolen vehicle should add a penalty to that vehicle's thief, wether it's an injury in a car crash or death by the owner of the vehicle.
serf 4y ago
>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. innocence or guilt isn't determined by applying legal standards to non-judges outside of courthouses, which brings up another point : laws aren't somehow universal to a country, let alone a state. It shouldn't be presumed that a working knowledge of how thing work on average within the United States affords one a working knowledge of how things work in Texas. There were a lot of presumptions made by the victim, agreed on that. It's fortunate that a non-related party wasn't hurt. Personally I wouldn't have risked my life for the pursuit of a stolen vehicle, but I can understand the urge.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]