13-year-old shot for attempting to steal a car.

[Flopsweat]

Ive heard of that, and it seems very subjective... typically your life has to be in danger to justify deadly force, but... not at night in Texas. Daylight no, nighttime, yes. Seems odd. Oregon has a similar law if a burgler is also committing a felony, but its not clear to me the difference when burglery becomes a felony.

It's when you injure someone, bring a weapon or threaten someone with a weapon.

The Burglary in Oregon Guide: Laws and Sentencing — Powell Law P.C.

What are the burglary in Oregon laws? What are the sentences for Burglary in Oregon? Learn everything you need to know in this guide.

www.shannonpowelllaw.com

As for Texas, it makes sense to me: Anybody messing with your stuff or entering your property at night is clearly up to something and probably dangerous.

 

[FireArm]

To me a car / truck or possession isn't worth a life or shooting someone. That's what insurance is for.

View: https://youtu.be/BSuNTLix2DA?si=ExDQM8qc_tZznjND

if its not worth your life, don't steal

 

[Koda]

It's when you injure someone, bring a weapon or threaten someone with a weapon.

So basically if someone breaks into your home your not justified using deadly force if they arent threatening you, but you are if they have a weapon or otherwise demonstrate using force against you?

As for Texas, it makes sense to me: Anybody messing with your stuff or entering your property at night is clearly up to something and probably dangerous.

The logic makes sense in that regard. Generally I support tougher laws against criminals and more options for victims to respond.

 

[bradsteen]

So basically if someone breaks into your home your not justified using deadly force if they arent threatening you, but you are if they have a weapon or otherwise demonstrate using force against you?

The logic makes sense in that regard. Generally I support tougher laws against criminals and more options for victims to respond.

Home break-ins are different than vehicle break-ins. Someone breaking into a dwelling is (a) committing a felony, and (b) assumed to be intending to commit violence against the occupants of that dwelling (paraphrasing but you get the idea).

 

[hawmanai]

Criminals do not have the same values as Law abiding Citizen. So using our own ideals is just going to get us robbed, raped and/or murdered.

Gone are the days of a high trust society.

I blame the people that vote for soft on crime liberal attitudes, note the worst areas have been under Democrat rule for decades. Also the open border has let other countries dump their criminals here.

Yes, Portland's homicide count exceeds Seattle and San Francisco combined for the first three months of 2024

District Attorney candidate Nathan Vasquez made the claim during a debate with incumbent Mike Schmidt. Data from the first three months of the year shows he's right.

www.kgw.com

]Yes, Portland's homicide count exceeds Seattle and San Francisco combined for the first three months of 2024

 

[Joe13]

Take a gun or take your chances….


I got on the freeway yesterday in DT Vancouver behind a ford ranger that had more bullet holes then paint on his tailgate and one tail light shot out.

There has been so much crime that it has spilled into the neighborhood that I've lived in for 25 years with no issues prior to this year.

 

[ilostmypswrd]

Used to be people killed horse and cattle thieves. Not saying its worth it but people used to think so

because without your horse, you could not work or get around to take care of your family, not saying a car or truck is like that but,,hey don't steal S%it, that is not yours, very poor upbringing.

 

[DunRanull]

Good, one less waste of tax dollars for the next 30 yrs until they get shanked or shot on the streets anyway.

Harsh assessment but probably right on...

 

[DunRanull]

Speaking bluntly....
I have killed people while in combat...and I have no desire to do so ever again.
For me...while I love my truck...and it holds many precious memories....If you ain't a threat to me or my life*...
I probably ain't going to shoot you over it.

That said...
I also won't second guess someone who does shoot a thief out to steal their car or items.
I wasn't there...I ain't them.

I do know that a excellent way to avoid getting shot or shot at...
Is not to steal from people or harm them in any way.
They made the choice to steal. or harm others...and every choice has a consequence.

*And with all that said....
What is viewed as threatening can vary between people and circumstances.
I do know that I will do whatever is needed to survive in a threatening situation...with no regrets.
Andy

Ya hey I don't want to be involved in any more shoots either... still I'm gonna defend myself and Dawn and our little turf... She depends on me to defend her and I count on me to defend us...

 

[lucusloc]

Weighing in on this, there are really two separate sets of standards here; there are personal standards and there are legal standards (or a third, if you think social standards are different than the legal ones).

Personal standards are just that, personal. Some people cannot fathom taking a life even if they themselves are being killed, while others would kill over a mere insult. You can fit into that wherever way you wish, but what matters is the legal standard. And that legal standard by and large dictates what kind of crime we will have a lot of, as anything lower than the legal threshold for "self defense" (as defined in law) will be considered "fair game" by most member of the criminal element within society. If we define "insults" as acceptable for "self defense" we will see a lot less people rising to that level of antagonism. On the other hand if we define only clearly life threatening actions as acceptable for self defense the criminal class will flourish in the not clearly life threatening space, as they will know that the only real action that can be taken against them is the slow, grinding gears of the judicial system. . . Which many of them think (correctly or incorrectly) they can outrun.

Our country, and to a larger extent out entire western civilization, does not seem to have any clear consensus on what constitutes an acceptable threshold for self defense. Some clearly think no one has the right to personal self defense, even under threat of death, and that such matters are clearly a collective (state) concern. Others argue that "you cannot own what you do not have the right to defend" and offer "don't take what your life isn't worth" as their baseline threshold. And we can see this reflected within our judicial system even within a single state, let alone across the whole culture. Indeed we can see this legal threshold neatly engraved in the very crime statistics of these localities, with more restrictive jurisdictions (towards self defense) typically suffering far higher rates of lesser crimes.

I personally fall much closer to the "you cannot own what you have no right to defend" side of things, but I would have to draw the line at situations where there is a plausible case for misunderstanding, or perhaps where the loss is not life altering. I am not really sure if I could pin a bright line on it, but I do think that line should be as bright and sharp as possible, simply for legal reasons. I think therein lies the real problem as the lower you allow that threshold to go the fuzzier the line gets legally, as the situations get more complex (conceptually, at least). "He tried to bash my head in with a pipe so I shot him!" is pretty clear cut in surveillance video, "He was walking off with my tools (which he claimed were his) so we argued and then I shot him as he was walking away again with the tools" is a lot more complicated as situation, even if you can definitively prove who owned the tools after the fact. How do you build such nuance into bright lines unless those bright lines are very high up the threshold?

 

[Remington96]

Let's just let the insurance cover everything, then complain when our rates are so high. Don't want to get shot, don't steal! Kids make stupid mistakes but this is just cultural bad parenting. It's just another side affect of not holding anyone accountable and letting everyone be a victim. I would feel bad, but where does the fault really lie? People shouldn't be allowed to just take things from others because money equals time and you only get so much of that! Maybe I sound like a heartless bubblegum but I've got a fourteen year old daughter and if she was out trying to steal cars I'd only have myself to blame when she was killed.

Tend to agree with most of this

 

[Koda]

Weighing in on this, there are really two separate sets of standards here; there are personal standards and there are legal standards (or a third, if you think social standards are different than the legal ones).

This is the problem society struggles with for self defense (and other politics). If you allow a liberal use of deadly force, crime goes down but the likelihood of people abusing that liberal self defense privilege goes up. My personal take is wherever the balance is it should always be tipped at least in the favor of the law abiding defenders, the problem today is its opposite.

 

[Flopsweat]

because without your horse, you could not work or get around to take care of your family, not saying a car or truck is like that but,,hey don't steal S%it, that is not yours, very poor upbringing.

In this case, the lady used her car for work.

 

[Koda]

IIRC there used to be a law or legal doctrine justifying deadly force in defense of your livelihood. I cant recall the law.
My guess its now mostly obscure but I can see how back in the frontier era stealing someones horse or other homesteading equipment way out on the frontier might easily be a death trap.
It would be pretty hard to argue today not having a horse or car puts your livelihood in jeopardy.

(Well, although just last week I read PPD had to personally transport someone to the hospital in a police car because there were no ambulances available. )

 

[Jay Walk]

I hate it when all I am doing is stealing a car and someone shoots me.

 

[solv3nt]

Just read the news article. I don't think this will go well for the shooter.

 

[monks]

I definitely don't believe in vigilante justice because it's easy to become a victim in that sort of judicial system by a greedy bully, but…….it seems like vigilante justice is the only justice you get in a society like ours with all of these watered down laws and da's that choose to not prosecute criminals, in turn amplifying the problem. I have been the victim in a few instances and I'll tell you right now I can't stand a thief, or a drunk driver for that matter!

 

[Flopsweat]

I definitely don't believe in vigilante justice because it's easy to become a victim in that sort of judicial system by a greedy bully, but…….it seems like vigilante justice is the only justice you get in a society like ours with all of these watered down laws and da's that choose to not prosecute criminals, in turn amplifying the problem. I have been the victim in a few instances and I'll tell you right now I can't stand a thief, or a drunk driver for that matter!

Vigilante justice is not the same thing as defending your property. The word gets misused a lot.

Definition of VIGILANTE

a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[ma96782]

To me a car / truck or possession isn't worth a life or shooting someone. That's what insurance is for.

Mind you, that I'm NOT saying anything here. I'm just thinking out loud.

BUT, But, but.....without a car......
I can't make it to work.
I'll get fired (for not showing up at work).
I don't get paid anymore.
Without my CAR and MONEY.
I can't get to the doctor's office or pharmacy for meds. Or, get to the grocery store to get food. And without money how will I pay for my bills?
Should I also turn to crime in order to fund my life?
Maybe I'll get sick or maybe I'll starve and die.

So....what makes the thief's life so valuable? Or, more valuable then my own life? Why steal my property and say or claim.....that it's all my fault. Cough, cough.....it's my fault, for not buying insurance, in case my car was stolen?

Shouldn't the car thief have gone to work in the first place and bought their own car? Is it justifiable to steal because someone is too lazy to work and get their own stuff?

Rrrrrright........
CALL IT ALL......JUSTICE!?!?!?

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!

Aloha, Mark

PS.....WAIT A SECOND. The thief was 13 years old. I doubt that the culprit even had a driver's license. Oh [email protected] "LIFE OF CRIME" awaits.

 

[Jay Walk]

Officer, the thief told me "I am going to rob your house next" My family was home, and I feared for their safety.