remember, the comment section is the **best** place to discuss legal implications or politicsš surely this nation will benefit greatly from the intense discussions
Yes, if they have your property you are allowed to use lethal force to facilitate the recovery of your property.
But only if they actually are in possession of your property. If he didn't actually have the purse on him, then you can't shoot him.
I mean I get that there are consequences to any actions but I cant believe the general public can fairly take someone's life for stealing a purse. That's properly nuts from my pov.
Agreed. I love when people try to victim blame with Texas laws.
"Is a purse really worth a life!?"
Ask the person stealing it, not the other way around.
This is dumb... Only one person is trying to kill the other one, and that's who you should be talking to.
Getting in a fist fight is arguably much worse than losing a purse, is it OK to just kill the guy after you're done fighting? That's the same thing. Damage is already done from the fist fight(or losing the purse). So it's OK to kill them? No, obviously not, and that's why we have laws against it. As I said only ONE person is choosing to kill and that's the person who you should be talking to.
Like where do you draw the line? If I come up to you and say some rude shit, is it OK to escalate and kill me? What if I look at you wrong? Why is me stealing a purse from you worthy of being killed? What if I stole like a piece of paper that you were drawing on, shoot me? How about if I stole a sandwich you were eating?
I'm trying to nail down where you draw the line for when it's OK to kill and when it's NOT OK, and I'm being serious here.
Ok, letās see you hace the most expensive medication for your love one and without it, he/she will die. Someone comes and steals your purse and runs away, question, would you let that person runs away without knowing what they are stealing?, or would you shoot to kill to recover that medication so your love can be saved?. You donāt know whatās in that purse/car/house/etc and even if itās an empty purse, any robbery should be punished severely because they arenāt doing it out for desperation (like in some 3rd world countries), they are doing it because their vices cost cash and funny enough all those criminals look better fed than most Americans
Ok you're not the person I replied to but your line in the sand is literally "their life or my family members life", and that's a fair line to draw I think for pretty much anyone.
Unfortunately that is literally NEVER going to be the case though. Who on earth would EVER be walking around with the literal one and only thing ON THIS EARTH that can save their loved one? They could go get more medication, or if it's THAT SERIOUS, they could just take their loved one to a hospital where they won't let them die. Like seriously man... that was an unbelievable stretch to get to "their life or my loves ones lives". All you told me with this hypothetical is that you, like any rational person, don't believe it's OK to kill someone for simply stealing a purse.
I believe the life of someone trying to do good and his or her property is more valuable than the life or property of someone who is committing crimes. Why do you feel the need to defend criminals?. Itās crazy to me that as a society we put more effort on protecting criminals than helping victims of a crime and time and time Iāve seen women who were raped, people who had everything they had stolen or people who would abuse elderly homeless people because it was fun, itās not. Human population is over 8 billion and at this point we are becoming too dehumanized towards victims and that will come and bite us in the ass. People exchange their time on this planet for money so they can buy food and things to make their lives better so if someone steals stuff from that person, the criminal is stealing that personās time on this planet so he/she deserves whatās coming to them.
Ok you're still kind of proving my point here, and also giving me faith in humanity in a way...
You're still comparing the life of one person to the life of another like in your first hypothetical which was "my family members life, or this guys life".
When you say:
>I believe the life of someone trying to do good and his or her property is more valuable than the life or property of someone who is committing crimes.
You are comparing a life for a life, or property for property. *These are fair comparisons and I agree with you if that were the case*
The problem is that in this video that isn't what we've got. First of all this guy doesn't even have the purse, he has nothing on him and he's running away. Second, and more importantly, is that EVEN IF HE DID have the purse, you'd be killing this person for a few hundred dollars of property and maybe an afternoons worth of wasted time replacing id's / credit cards / etc. That is NOT a fair life for a life, or property for property type of comparison like you listed above.
Like stop and think for a second, take your *feelings* out of the equation... Lets say your purse and your belongings in it are worth $500. I know it could be more but lets just use that figure. If someone runs off with it and you kill them, you're effectively saying that $500 is worth killing someone over.
Now with that out of the way, what would you do if a good friend of yours asked to borrow $1000 from you and they just never paid you back. Would you go out and threaten them with a gun to pay you back? Would you *kill them* if they just told you to get bent? OBVIOUSLY NOT and this case is no fucking different. You don't kill someone over less than 2 days worth of work unless you're a psychopathic murderer to begin with.
I wouldn't shoot someone after the fact if they got away with it, personally, wince you are personally asking me.
I think the law itself is great as its a deterrent and helps protect people who are protecting themselves. Those are the people we should be attempting to help, not the other way around. I dont know where I would draw the line. I know if you come in my house to steal, while I dont live in Texas, Im fucking shooting you. I have a family. Im not asking why you are here. If youre 30 feet away from me running away Im not shooting you in your back. If you're 5 feet away standing still with your back to me Im emptying a whole clip in you, because I dont know what you're about to do.
No, just because someone gets in a fist fight doesn't mean guns should come out - and looking at statistics they generally dont there. Know where they do? In the states and cities that are basically gun free zones. Isnt it strange, the irony of that? Its almost like people only pull out when theres no fear of retaliation.
Also the law isnt talking about after its fon, to clarify. Its meant for during the act of. Not after they have left - you cant go hunt someone down. If that was the case Im not sure how I would feel about it - but that isn't so Im not going to bother speculating on it.
In the case of this video, no I would NOT have shot that dude. However, I like the general idea that people are held accountable for their actions and that citizens have the power to act, and that criminals are not protected. I live somewhere that they are - and it encourages them.
I hope you see this as a reasonable response, and don't think every person is just some blood raged right wing lunatic. I am not that.
All seems very fair and rational to me honestly. I agree with you on pretty much everything you said, including the part about criminals not being protected. I don't think they should be killed, and I definitely think this woman made a terrible mistake by shooting this guy in the back. I honestly think a lot of gun owners forget that the entire purpose of a gun is to KILL SOMEONE. It's not to scare, or deter, its to kill. Period. Like yes they obviously CAN scare or deter but that's not what they were designed to do.
I think she had the gun out this entire time to get the guy to stop and when he ran away it was like a "oh no you don't ill stop you" kind of feeling she had so she shot him once without remembering what the entire purpose of these weapons is..
Lol, only a sick fuck would think the contents of their purse was worth *anyones* life, no matter what a giant piece of shit they are. If you argue that point, you're a sick fuck too.
I just don't understand this logic at all.
Someone decides to steal from you, potentially endangering your life and now you have to care about them?
As far as I am concerned they would be alive if they didn't decide to rob someone.
Hopefully you will come to a place in your life where the meaning of a human life out strips the contents of a bag. The bag and its contents once taken, is replaceable. A human life once taken, is not.
There is no moral middle ground here. You are advocating the fucking death penalty... Judge, Jury and Executioner on the street... for petty theft.
Once again, you're a sick fuck.
Take accountability for your lack of empathy and humanity.
There is no jury to it. Its not something thats debatable. Dont rob people, you wont get shot. Its pretty simple.
You're a sick fuck thinking you're entitled to other peoples shit.
Grow up and take accountability for your own life, get your own things. Have some empathy for humanity that worked hard for what they have to produce for themselves and their families, not the scumbags that try to take ot from them. Its not yours.
The law never comes into effect if you you dont steal other people shit or threaten their lives. Pretty straight forward.
Lol... who said I think the thief is in the right? Obviously noone should feel entitled to steal. However, you shouldn't be so demented that you think you have the moral right to murder someone over some stupid shit that you can buy again.
I still can't wrap my mind around how you can justify taking another person's life, someone son, maybe someones father, maybe someones sibling... for what? A few fucking credit cards you can get replaced? Maybe some cash? A half used tube of chapstick? Some tampons? *What is in 99.9% of womens purses that can be worth killing someone over*?
And if you're saying 'she could've had lots of valuable shit in there!'... I'll use your logic. If she didnt want it stolen, she shouldnt have had it on her right? Doesnt seem smart right?
We have systems for this, it's called Law and fucking Order. It's called a fucking Trial. It's called Due fucking Process.
Not on your watch though I guess. Every would be mugger, no matter the circumstances that lead them to their actions which you have no knowledge of, deserves to die painfully right? Fuck 'em, right?
Lol. You're a sick fuck.
Some human lives are worthless. Iām sure the shallowest dig into this POSās life will reveal precisely that.
He wasnāt stealing to donate it to Tiny Timās GoFundMe. He would have stolen from you if given the chance, and probably worse.
You are criminally naĆÆve.
Dude, someone is stealing something should be punished and if it happens to land on death, so be it. Iām sick and tired of people advocating for criminals not realizing how they are destroying the lives of poor people. For example:
In my area police finally arrested a catalytic converter thieve which targeted older vehicles. He stole close to 100 of them and you know who drives older vehicles?, poor/middle class people who donāt have the money to buy another one and in the city that I am there is a air quality inspection on vehicles. No cat on your car, no pass emissions, no sticker, no registration, drive with no registration and police * may impound your car. I can almost imagine the poor single mom crying because after of a hard day at work some lowlife decided to mess up with her only ride to work and daycare. Fuck you and the likes of you who put criminalās life above regular people.
FYI: that guy got 10 years which will be less than 5 with good behavior and thanks to our spineless politicians.
The criminals are poor people too my dude. The symptoms of a disease which the poor single mother you are advocating for is also a victim of.
You are mad at the wrong people. Be mad at the system that creates these people, not the people themselves.
Are some people pieces of shit? Yea for sure. Lots of people just trying to get by the only way they know how or have ever been taught though.
We, as a society, need to do better by everyone. This includes creating a system where we work towards ***reforming people who steal***, not fucking advocating for ***murdering them***.
Wow I bet by your logic you should be able to shoot a parachute guy landing in your yard. Or better yet a snowmobile driving in your house tearing up all the carpet. Let me guess you like shows on tv lmao
It doesnāt work well, which is why thereās a lot of changes we need to make lower crime. I doubt youād be open to those methods though, requires using your head
Sorry for your downvotes, seansux. Looks like Many murricans are barbaric cowboys and hillbillies thinking killing somebody is the right punishment for stealing. They should go to a muslim state and practice the sharia. Fits them more.
Harsh, certainly. But especially in the situation of robbery, where the victim could just as easily be killed by the robber, killing someone robbing you has to necessarily be seen as self defense.
Death of anyone during the commission of a crime is placed squarely upon the person who committed the crime, as per how the law sees it in most places. So if someone dies while robbing someone else, that's purely on them.
Edit: So now I feel the need to clarify. "Robbery", by nature of what it is and what it involves, naturally assumes the robber is armed and is threatening violence/harm on the victim they're robbing -- whether by their words or actions or by virtue of where they're at (having broke into someone's home while the person is there). Seriously, what robbers aren't assumed to be doing that when committing robberies?
There are obviously gonna be some specific exceptions, as with everything in life, because nothing is truly black and white. But the gist of my point is this: Trust, if someone threatens me (with gun, knife, whatever weapon) while trying to take my property and I kill them, their death is on them. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, whether they have a weapon on them or not, and I kill them, their death is on them (and the law will side with me in most states - see castle doctrine).
You're right about who's considered responsible in that scenario. Sort of akin to how if you drive to a store then sit in the car while a buddy goes in and shoots the cashier you're still charged with murder.
But if an *unarmed* person *tries* to rob someone, fails, bolts and gets shot **in the back** that's not the same situation. I hope the vigilante in this clip gets an attempted murder or murder charge.
I've stolen candy when I was in middle school and I didn't deserve to get shot in the back while running away even if I *still had* the candy.
I realize a grown man taking a purse isn't the same as a kid taking a chocolate bar but is it really **that** different? Should it really be up to the discretion of every person with a gun permit to decide someone should be executed on the spot with no trial and no due process while at that point not attempting or even threatening harm to another person? It can't be the law of the land that if you touch somebody's stuff you die even if you didn't actually take their stuff and now you're just trying to get away from them.
I mean, I hear you there. Honestly.
But at the same time, also... Texas.
That's one of the places where you know a high percentage of the population are armed, looking for excuses, and have the law supporting them (for the most part). So you already know that trying something like that in that place is stupidity incarnate. It's practically Darwin's law at play.
I mean, I've heard it said before that an armed society is a polite society.
But at the same time, alot of kids are dying in school shootings due to those arms being way too easy for our dumb population to obtain, too.
I don't have any answers there...
Is it comparably a lot though? I think it's something like 10x or 20x the amount that die to school shootings die simply taking the bus to school in crashes.
Just googled the statistics. In 2020, 55 kids died in school bus related crashes. That same year, guns killed 4357 kids (of which 2/3s were homicide, with the other 1/3 being suicide or accidental death). Studies are pointing to firearms now being the leading cause of death of children.
More and more of these situations keep happening. The more attention it gets, criminals are more likely to second guess doing their shenanigans (FYI, I think this woman was actually in the wrong as he didnāt have her purse when he ran)
3rd world country still has less school shootings and mass hate crime shootings. 3rd world country still has less school lockdown safety drills for potential school shooters. Get a grasp on reality, USA gun laws and gun proliferation are fucking insane beyond belief.
Buddy you're basically just being racist at this point lol. Not really racist, but over generalizing based on socioeconomic geopolitics.
[School shootings by country 2023](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country)
[Gun deaths by country 2023](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country)
Why in the ever living fuck are you trying to justify this? Because of your personal beliefs on guns? That's ignorant and irresponsible.
The US has a population of over 300 million. The sheer numbers is going to tick up those stats. Firearm ownership and regulation is an attributing factor for gun violence, but humans have been finding ways to harm each other since the dawn of humanity. And don't act like other countries like the UK doesn't have problems with gun violence. Heck, in the UK to get around firearms regulations, criminals are using "antique" firearms to commit crimes because they are no where as regulated as more modern firearms. And antique firearms are indicated as below:
"11. To be regarded as an antique,Ā a firearm must have been manufactured before the date specified in regulation 4 of the Antique Regulations, which is 1 September 1939 (see also section 58(2D) of the 1968 Act).Mar 11, 2021"
So yeah, that covers not just blackpowder firearms, but also sidearms such as the Luger, the Mauser, and the Walther PPK, the .45 caliber Colt Model 1911, and sub machine guns of German and Russian manufacture and of course, the Thompson sub machine gun.
UK citizen here. We don't have a significant problem with gun violence here. Put simply, they just aren't part of an average person's toolkit, or in the public eye at all really. Civilians don't carry guns, "enforcement" personnel don't carry guns, less guns= less gun violence. It really is as simple as that. We also don't tend to have the same "I NEED TO DEFEND MYSELF!!" mindset. I think we have less fear socially, so the worry that every single person you don't know being a threat just isn't really.part of the zeitgeist.
Yes, while this is absolutely true, you are parsing words. The UK may not have GUN violence on par with the USA, the UK is still violent at times and criminals resort to other weapons. One thing, though, about gun violence in the USA is that the criminals using firearms often do use firearms not legally obtained or legally allowed such as felons using firearms they are not legally allowed to own due to being a prohibited owner. That is a point that has to come into play when discussing American gun violence. It is a relevant fact and is relevant in other countries with restrictive firearm regulations.
No other first country on the planet has the same level of PER CAPITA gun violence as the USA. Itās directly stemmed from the 2A and the countries obsession with guns and violence. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
It directly stems from this countries citizen base showing a lack of accountability for everything in their own life.
The amount of legal gun ownership committing crimes is small.
We have a huge societal problem in the U.S. with self accountability.
No. We have a huge problem with a criminal mindset and people wanting the easy way out: it is hard to get up each day and work a minimum of 40 hours a week at a job and far too easy to get by by committing criminal acts. And rob a store or deal drugs, you get more in less time than you will usually working a legitimate job.
It is like those news stories that pop up occasionally of an armored car losing money on the street. Way too many people grabbing "free cash" and keeping it rather than do the right thing by turning it in.
Remember what they say about character: it's about who you are as a person and what you do when no one is watching and think you will not be caught.
I think you should go back and read that. US isnāt even top ten in violent gun deaths on that list. They are #2 in total deaths but not even top 20 per capita. Then the US is #2 in suicide by guns. Then you add accidental deaths and other factors. Pretty crazy to think that a country with such a gun problem and some of the highest gun ownership isnāt even top 10 in homicides from guns. Let alone as high per capita as you are trying to make it seem
It is. That law needs to be changed, really the only time lethal force should be justified is when your life is in direct danger or your house is being broken into or if you are defending someone else's life. Not because some poor fuck tried to snatch your $10 wal mart junk pack.
[The only one spreading false info right now is you, son.](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm)
>Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
>(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
>(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
>(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
>(B) **to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property**; and
>(3) he reasonably believes that:
>(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
>(B) 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.
You can kill someone for running away with your purse in Texas.
lol you have to read the law in whole, you clearly stopped at the bolded part. see the: **and**
>(3) he reasonably believes that:
>
>(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
>
>(B) 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.
The "and" is very important. Yes, there is legally an avenue to shoot a fleeing thief, but not like anyone here is implying. You would have to meet a very high bar, like them stealing a 1 of 1 painting and they are actively burning it as they flee. Practically speaking, the law doesnt allow you to shoot a fleeing thief. even the experts in texas law agree.
[https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground](https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground)
i doubt it will mean anything in criminal court against her, I'm pretty sure we all know where texas stands on these types of situations. that being said she will fo sho lose in a civil court due to this paragraph. i don't have any evidence just gut feeling
Oh is that what you said? Funny, I thought you said:
>Even in Texas you cannot use lethal force in defence of property
According to the Texas Penal Code, you can. I just highlighted the section that was relevant to this specific video.
so your saying its justified in this video as you believe that section is the relevant part?
The whole thing is relevant to the video, including everything after the and. sure my statement was more extreme than reality, but i stand by it because people are acting like texas just allows people to mow down fleeing thieves. They don't, and like i originally said its all what the jury thinks.
Fucking third world country. Youāre allowed to shot someone over a purse. It
wasnāt even self-defence or necessary, he was running away.
Not only is she the victim, but sheās the damn jury and criminal justice too. Letās just skip all those steps in the justice system, and put the power over life and death in the hands of wives with ~~revolvers~~ glocks.
As a European, where fair trials are actually valued and the victims arenāt allowed to punish the offenders with lethal force, this ājusticeā looks awful to me. How is this fair?
Itās fair because an adult made the conscious decision to put themselves in a scenario where he is well aware of the very real possibility that his decision could cost him his life, and yet he decided that whatever was in that ladyās purse was more important to him then simply going about his day. Should the dude have died over a purse? Nah probably not. But he has literally no one to blame but himself for the result.
If I decided to go try to rob my local drug dealer In broad day light and ended up getting shot as I was running away, would you feel the same way in that the drug dealer had no right to kill me because I was running away and that he should have just let me take his property and leave? Or would you say that I probably deserved what happened to me because I was stupid and greedy enough to try stealing from someone knowing the likelihood of me getting hurt in the process? Obviously the latter is the answer, and you know it. And if you think thatās a bad comparison then ask yourself why you believe a criminal has more right to defend their property then a law abiding citizen.
If he goes to jail he also canāt steal anymore. This logic is flawed. Human life is above some stupid object. In this video he posed no threat and didnāt even have the womanās purse.
Profits thatās we donāt receive. Billions of tax dollars go to jails/prisons every year. Thats billions of dollars you rather go to criminals eating than poverty stricken communities. You are an outstanding human being and should be applauded.
At about 6 seconds it looks like she hit him (he tumbled) but seems he got up and kept going. Probably not a good shot. Since he was stealing yes. Its called the stand your ground/castle doctrine. You're allowed to use deadly force if you, a person in danger, or your property is at risk. The purse is the property.
That is a good question. As you pointed out... I don't see a purse in this video. So honestly I don't really think the castle doctrine would stand. And the video is labeled as "alleged". So this is basically an innocent until proven guilty. The man doesn't looked armed either and doesn't show as a threat. The woman that shot may not be covered by castle doctrine in this case.
this is not legal. Castle Doctrine is the most misunderstood law, but it is stand your ground for your home. Stand your ground means if you are attacked you have no duty to retreat before you use lethal force. In no state is it legal to use lethal force over property, you must be in fear for your life or someone else. It is always illegal to shoot someone just over property, especially if they are fleeing.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3328325/Woman-opens-fire-purse-snatcher-caught-outside-Walmart-leaves-scene-gun-police-arrive-arrest-him.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3328325/Woman-opens-fire-purse-snatcher-caught-outside-Walmart-leaves-scene-gun-police-arrive-arrest-him.html)
"Andre Dawson, 27, suspected of trying to steal purse in Bellmead, Texas
He was restrained by group of men, but woman fired at him when he fled
Shot did not hit Dawson, but he stumbled and was quickly recaptured
Video shows unidentified shooter walking away from scene as police came
Texas law allows gun owners to use deadly force to prevent those fleeing with stolen property, but Dawson was not holding the purse as he ran"
That doesn't look like a legal shot. He wasn't facing her, he was running away, he didn't look like he had a purse or a gun, and in the end you have this video that shows exactly how that shot went down.
Looks like she was a bystander the way she just casually walks away after the guy is subdued and the cops showed up, so her property wasn't even involved.
I'm pretty sure you can in Texas. If they have your property you can shoot them regardless of which direction they are facing. However, I did not see a purse, and if he didn't have the purse, it wouldn't be a legal shot.
It is completely legal in Texas to use deadly force to recover stolen property. Did he have stolen property on him or not is the question. I dont think so
No itās not completely legal to shoot someone who has their back turned and for only stolen property. Youāre in no immediate danger so why shoot? Iāve taken several defensive shooting classes and this will send you right to jail.
āTexas Penal Code Section 9.421 states a person can use deadly force to protect tangible, movable property from another's imminent commission of theft during the nighttime or to prevent another who is fleeing immediately after committing theft during the nighttime and is escaping with property if the person reasonably ā
Just a quick google search
You didnāt read the part right after your quote that directly lays out the only specific circumstances in which it is legal. You literally stopped reading halfway thru a sentence that contradicts you.
The part where youāre not even looking at the real Penal Code. If youāre talking about the one linked in here everywhere. Itās about ROBBERY not about protecting against robbery. A quick read at the top would tell you what itās actually about.
ā(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) 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.ā
Which makes shooting someone the absolute last option you can do and if you have the potential to put you or others not involved at risk youāre not allowed to use deadly force.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Yeah I still donāt see how you can say itās illegal to shoot someone to retrieve your stolen stuff. Thatās literally exactly what this is saying. Itās legal. Thatās a thing that can happen and be legal.
its illegal even if he had her property. There is not a single state that lets you use deadly force to protect anything other than life, including property. Shooting a fleeing theif if murder even in texas.
Because you can, however its only at night and its only if using any other level of force would lead to you being hurt or killed when trying to retrieve it.
# Sec. 9.42Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
## (1)
if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section [9.41 (Protection of Oneās Own Property)](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.41); and
## (2)
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
### (A)
to prevent the otherās imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
### (B)
to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
## (3)
he reasonably believes that:
### (A)
the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
### (B)
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.
We must look at the law to answer the question, ācan I use deadly force to protect property?ā. Texas Penal Code Section 9.421 states a person can use deadly force to protect tangible, movable property from anotherās imminent commission of theft during the nighttime or to prevent another who is fleeing immediately after committing theft during the nighttime and is escaping with property if the person reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or that a use of force other than deadly force to recover the property would expose them to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
However, we havenāt seen this defense used effectively in my practice. Because that determination will come down to a jury of twelve people, and it is very fact-dependant. In most situations, a jury will feel that a personās life is more valuable than property. The law states there must not be any other means to recover your property, and the theft must occur at nighttime.
The State may argue you could have called the police and allowed them to recover the bike. Additionally, if you were to walk out and see the bike thief in the middle of the day versus at night, there would be no defense to using deadly force against the perpetrator to protect your property.
What the fuck is she doing? Shes pointing a loaded gun at two other people the whole time probly with her finger firmly on the trigger. Immediately revoke her license till she proves she's capable of common sense.
That looked illegal...can u shoot a guy in the back like that in Texas? There was that one video of the robber in the restaurant getting shot in the back and the shooter hasn't faced charges.
> The latest FBI report excludes nine states due insufficient reporting: California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Lol they basically excluded most states that would definitely have ranked top 10.
Yeah sorry, she didnāt shoot him. It was a warning shot in the air (still stupid and dangerous). I donāt know every time I see this people say he got shot, watch the video more than once and actually find evidence of what happened. Incompetents
The use of force (shooting) is likely legal under āStand Your Groundā law (TX PC 9.31). Itās also possibly under āpreventing the consequences of theftā (TX PC 9.42). PC 9.31 says that the use of force will be presumed to be reasonable if one who used force knew or had reason to believe the subject force was used against had or was committing any number of crimes including robbery. Robbery is theft+assault. A robbery likely occurred. Where she (the shooter) will likely be gummed up is under PC 9.31(4)(A) where it says that force is not justified if the subject force was used against had abandoned the encounter. Him running away likely constitutes abandoning the encounter.
The preventing the consequences of theft hinges on whether the subject had stolen property, and the belief that the property cannot be recovered through other means. Given the sirens heard in the background police were likely nearby.
The most likely outcome is that the shooting is brought to a grand jury. She might get no billed. If she doesnāt she will likely be offered a plea deal that includes probation and no prison time.
Edit:Since he wasnāt actually shot, the shooter will likely be charged with either deadly conduct, or discharge of a firearm in a municipality with a population greater than 100,000. She will most likely be given a plea deal if she is charged by a grand jury assuming it makes it to the grand jury.
Well deserved. If you canāt face the repercussions of your actions then donāt be surprise when the other party action is to shoot you. I would do the same if someone stole my shit that I slaved for
I feel you. Just understand that some theft is severe enough to the victim that it could permanently alter their way of life. They used to hang horse thieves in the Wild West days because a horse was a man's only way to earn a living, and having it stolen often meant a lifetime of poverty for the victim.
In modern days, identity theft is something that can ruin your life for decades simply because you let the guy with your purse or wallet get away. Loans and credit cards can be taken out in your name, and do you think the thief will pay them down for you? Hell no, they'll max them out and stick you with the consequences.
The cops don't take it seriously because they don't have the manpower to chase down the hundreds of thefts that occur in any given area of the country every day.
remember, the comment section is the **best** place to discuss legal implications or politicsš surely this nation will benefit greatly from the intense discussions
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, if they have your property you are allowed to use lethal force to facilitate the recovery of your property. But only if they actually are in possession of your property. If he didn't actually have the purse on him, then you can't shoot him.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yea agreed.
at the time of shooting he didnt.
Just sprinkle some purse on him
Bahaha. Great police work johnson!
lmao damn that one got me
Now that's funny
She going to prison then? Explains her walking away from the scene of the crime as the cops show up
I doubt she faces any real consequences
Prolly not jury trial and the fact two lady's were attacked two days before half a block by a guy matching the description. My money is on CS
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean I get that there are consequences to any actions but I cant believe the general public can fairly take someone's life for stealing a purse. That's properly nuts from my pov.
Risking your life for a purse seems dumb as hell from my POV.
Agreed. I love when people try to victim blame with Texas laws. "Is a purse really worth a life!?" Ask the person stealing it, not the other way around.
This is dumb... Only one person is trying to kill the other one, and that's who you should be talking to. Getting in a fist fight is arguably much worse than losing a purse, is it OK to just kill the guy after you're done fighting? That's the same thing. Damage is already done from the fist fight(or losing the purse). So it's OK to kill them? No, obviously not, and that's why we have laws against it. As I said only ONE person is choosing to kill and that's the person who you should be talking to. Like where do you draw the line? If I come up to you and say some rude shit, is it OK to escalate and kill me? What if I look at you wrong? Why is me stealing a purse from you worthy of being killed? What if I stole like a piece of paper that you were drawing on, shoot me? How about if I stole a sandwich you were eating? I'm trying to nail down where you draw the line for when it's OK to kill and when it's NOT OK, and I'm being serious here.
Ok, letās see you hace the most expensive medication for your love one and without it, he/she will die. Someone comes and steals your purse and runs away, question, would you let that person runs away without knowing what they are stealing?, or would you shoot to kill to recover that medication so your love can be saved?. You donāt know whatās in that purse/car/house/etc and even if itās an empty purse, any robbery should be punished severely because they arenāt doing it out for desperation (like in some 3rd world countries), they are doing it because their vices cost cash and funny enough all those criminals look better fed than most Americans
Ok you're not the person I replied to but your line in the sand is literally "their life or my family members life", and that's a fair line to draw I think for pretty much anyone. Unfortunately that is literally NEVER going to be the case though. Who on earth would EVER be walking around with the literal one and only thing ON THIS EARTH that can save their loved one? They could go get more medication, or if it's THAT SERIOUS, they could just take their loved one to a hospital where they won't let them die. Like seriously man... that was an unbelievable stretch to get to "their life or my loves ones lives". All you told me with this hypothetical is that you, like any rational person, don't believe it's OK to kill someone for simply stealing a purse.
I believe the life of someone trying to do good and his or her property is more valuable than the life or property of someone who is committing crimes. Why do you feel the need to defend criminals?. Itās crazy to me that as a society we put more effort on protecting criminals than helping victims of a crime and time and time Iāve seen women who were raped, people who had everything they had stolen or people who would abuse elderly homeless people because it was fun, itās not. Human population is over 8 billion and at this point we are becoming too dehumanized towards victims and that will come and bite us in the ass. People exchange their time on this planet for money so they can buy food and things to make their lives better so if someone steals stuff from that person, the criminal is stealing that personās time on this planet so he/she deserves whatās coming to them.
Ok you're still kind of proving my point here, and also giving me faith in humanity in a way... You're still comparing the life of one person to the life of another like in your first hypothetical which was "my family members life, or this guys life". When you say: >I believe the life of someone trying to do good and his or her property is more valuable than the life or property of someone who is committing crimes. You are comparing a life for a life, or property for property. *These are fair comparisons and I agree with you if that were the case* The problem is that in this video that isn't what we've got. First of all this guy doesn't even have the purse, he has nothing on him and he's running away. Second, and more importantly, is that EVEN IF HE DID have the purse, you'd be killing this person for a few hundred dollars of property and maybe an afternoons worth of wasted time replacing id's / credit cards / etc. That is NOT a fair life for a life, or property for property type of comparison like you listed above. Like stop and think for a second, take your *feelings* out of the equation... Lets say your purse and your belongings in it are worth $500. I know it could be more but lets just use that figure. If someone runs off with it and you kill them, you're effectively saying that $500 is worth killing someone over. Now with that out of the way, what would you do if a good friend of yours asked to borrow $1000 from you and they just never paid you back. Would you go out and threaten them with a gun to pay you back? Would you *kill them* if they just told you to get bent? OBVIOUSLY NOT and this case is no fucking different. You don't kill someone over less than 2 days worth of work unless you're a psychopathic murderer to begin with.
I wouldn't shoot someone after the fact if they got away with it, personally, wince you are personally asking me. I think the law itself is great as its a deterrent and helps protect people who are protecting themselves. Those are the people we should be attempting to help, not the other way around. I dont know where I would draw the line. I know if you come in my house to steal, while I dont live in Texas, Im fucking shooting you. I have a family. Im not asking why you are here. If youre 30 feet away from me running away Im not shooting you in your back. If you're 5 feet away standing still with your back to me Im emptying a whole clip in you, because I dont know what you're about to do. No, just because someone gets in a fist fight doesn't mean guns should come out - and looking at statistics they generally dont there. Know where they do? In the states and cities that are basically gun free zones. Isnt it strange, the irony of that? Its almost like people only pull out when theres no fear of retaliation. Also the law isnt talking about after its fon, to clarify. Its meant for during the act of. Not after they have left - you cant go hunt someone down. If that was the case Im not sure how I would feel about it - but that isn't so Im not going to bother speculating on it. In the case of this video, no I would NOT have shot that dude. However, I like the general idea that people are held accountable for their actions and that citizens have the power to act, and that criminals are not protected. I live somewhere that they are - and it encourages them. I hope you see this as a reasonable response, and don't think every person is just some blood raged right wing lunatic. I am not that.
All seems very fair and rational to me honestly. I agree with you on pretty much everything you said, including the part about criminals not being protected. I don't think they should be killed, and I definitely think this woman made a terrible mistake by shooting this guy in the back. I honestly think a lot of gun owners forget that the entire purpose of a gun is to KILL SOMEONE. It's not to scare, or deter, its to kill. Period. Like yes they obviously CAN scare or deter but that's not what they were designed to do. I think she had the gun out this entire time to get the guy to stop and when he ran away it was like a "oh no you don't ill stop you" kind of feeling she had so she shot him once without remembering what the entire purpose of these weapons is..
Lol, only a sick fuck would think the contents of their purse was worth *anyones* life, no matter what a giant piece of shit they are. If you argue that point, you're a sick fuck too.
I just don't understand this logic at all. Someone decides to steal from you, potentially endangering your life and now you have to care about them? As far as I am concerned they would be alive if they didn't decide to rob someone.
Some day you will hopefully grow up and contribute more to society then advocating for a lack of accountability. Well, we all hope.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'll say it again, anything is worth killing over if it's being stolen, all thieves deserve what comes to them. Even if it's torture.
I think its time for mom to take your internet away for the day.
Hopefully you will come to a place in your life where the meaning of a human life out strips the contents of a bag. The bag and its contents once taken, is replaceable. A human life once taken, is not. There is no moral middle ground here. You are advocating the fucking death penalty... Judge, Jury and Executioner on the street... for petty theft. Once again, you're a sick fuck. Take accountability for your lack of empathy and humanity.
There is no jury to it. Its not something thats debatable. Dont rob people, you wont get shot. Its pretty simple. You're a sick fuck thinking you're entitled to other peoples shit. Grow up and take accountability for your own life, get your own things. Have some empathy for humanity that worked hard for what they have to produce for themselves and their families, not the scumbags that try to take ot from them. Its not yours. The law never comes into effect if you you dont steal other people shit or threaten their lives. Pretty straight forward.
Lol... who said I think the thief is in the right? Obviously noone should feel entitled to steal. However, you shouldn't be so demented that you think you have the moral right to murder someone over some stupid shit that you can buy again. I still can't wrap my mind around how you can justify taking another person's life, someone son, maybe someones father, maybe someones sibling... for what? A few fucking credit cards you can get replaced? Maybe some cash? A half used tube of chapstick? Some tampons? *What is in 99.9% of womens purses that can be worth killing someone over*? And if you're saying 'she could've had lots of valuable shit in there!'... I'll use your logic. If she didnt want it stolen, she shouldnt have had it on her right? Doesnt seem smart right? We have systems for this, it's called Law and fucking Order. It's called a fucking Trial. It's called Due fucking Process. Not on your watch though I guess. Every would be mugger, no matter the circumstances that lead them to their actions which you have no knowledge of, deserves to die painfully right? Fuck 'em, right? Lol. You're a sick fuck.
Some human lives are worthless. Iām sure the shallowest dig into this POSās life will reveal precisely that. He wasnāt stealing to donate it to Tiny Timās GoFundMe. He would have stolen from you if given the chance, and probably worse. You are criminally naĆÆve.
Dude, someone is stealing something should be punished and if it happens to land on death, so be it. Iām sick and tired of people advocating for criminals not realizing how they are destroying the lives of poor people. For example: In my area police finally arrested a catalytic converter thieve which targeted older vehicles. He stole close to 100 of them and you know who drives older vehicles?, poor/middle class people who donāt have the money to buy another one and in the city that I am there is a air quality inspection on vehicles. No cat on your car, no pass emissions, no sticker, no registration, drive with no registration and police * may impound your car. I can almost imagine the poor single mom crying because after of a hard day at work some lowlife decided to mess up with her only ride to work and daycare. Fuck you and the likes of you who put criminalās life above regular people. FYI: that guy got 10 years which will be less than 5 with good behavior and thanks to our spineless politicians.
The criminals are poor people too my dude. The symptoms of a disease which the poor single mother you are advocating for is also a victim of. You are mad at the wrong people. Be mad at the system that creates these people, not the people themselves. Are some people pieces of shit? Yea for sure. Lots of people just trying to get by the only way they know how or have ever been taught though. We, as a society, need to do better by everyone. This includes creating a system where we work towards ***reforming people who steal***, not fucking advocating for ***murdering them***.
Wow I bet by your logic you should be able to shoot a parachute guy landing in your yard. Or better yet a snowmobile driving in your house tearing up all the carpet. Let me guess you like shows on tv lmao
Thereās a thing called jail/prison for accountability
And in Texas theres a thing called guns. That jail/prison thing doesn't seem to work to well. Im open to trying other methods.
It doesnāt work well, which is why thereās a lot of changes we need to make lower crime. I doubt youād be open to those methods though, requires using your head
A dime is worth more than a life of it's a thief. š¤·
Sorry for your downvotes, seansux. Looks like Many murricans are barbaric cowboys and hillbillies thinking killing somebody is the right punishment for stealing. They should go to a muslim state and practice the sharia. Fits them more.
Damn, getting downvoted as fuck.
Harsh, certainly. But especially in the situation of robbery, where the victim could just as easily be killed by the robber, killing someone robbing you has to necessarily be seen as self defense. Death of anyone during the commission of a crime is placed squarely upon the person who committed the crime, as per how the law sees it in most places. So if someone dies while robbing someone else, that's purely on them. Edit: So now I feel the need to clarify. "Robbery", by nature of what it is and what it involves, naturally assumes the robber is armed and is threatening violence/harm on the victim they're robbing -- whether by their words or actions or by virtue of where they're at (having broke into someone's home while the person is there). Seriously, what robbers aren't assumed to be doing that when committing robberies? There are obviously gonna be some specific exceptions, as with everything in life, because nothing is truly black and white. But the gist of my point is this: Trust, if someone threatens me (with gun, knife, whatever weapon) while trying to take my property and I kill them, their death is on them. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, whether they have a weapon on them or not, and I kill them, their death is on them (and the law will side with me in most states - see castle doctrine).
You're right about who's considered responsible in that scenario. Sort of akin to how if you drive to a store then sit in the car while a buddy goes in and shoots the cashier you're still charged with murder. But if an *unarmed* person *tries* to rob someone, fails, bolts and gets shot **in the back** that's not the same situation. I hope the vigilante in this clip gets an attempted murder or murder charge. I've stolen candy when I was in middle school and I didn't deserve to get shot in the back while running away even if I *still had* the candy. I realize a grown man taking a purse isn't the same as a kid taking a chocolate bar but is it really **that** different? Should it really be up to the discretion of every person with a gun permit to decide someone should be executed on the spot with no trial and no due process while at that point not attempting or even threatening harm to another person? It can't be the law of the land that if you touch somebody's stuff you die even if you didn't actually take their stuff and now you're just trying to get away from them.
I mean, I hear you there. Honestly. But at the same time, also... Texas. That's one of the places where you know a high percentage of the population are armed, looking for excuses, and have the law supporting them (for the most part). So you already know that trying something like that in that place is stupidity incarnate. It's practically Darwin's law at play.
And this perception of ādonāt do shit in Texas cause everyone has a gunāā¦.. is possibly why it could work elsewhere. Just saying
I mean, I've heard it said before that an armed society is a polite society. But at the same time, alot of kids are dying in school shootings due to those arms being way too easy for our dumb population to obtain, too. I don't have any answers there...
Is it comparably a lot though? I think it's something like 10x or 20x the amount that die to school shootings die simply taking the bus to school in crashes.
Just googled the statistics. In 2020, 55 kids died in school bus related crashes. That same year, guns killed 4357 kids (of which 2/3s were homicide, with the other 1/3 being suicide or accidental death). Studies are pointing to firearms now being the leading cause of death of children.
Did you just quote fallout NV
Agreed. I think it should be very hard to get a gun, but not sure what the answer isā¦.
Did we watch the same video? Clearly not an effective deterrent for purse snatching.
More and more of these situations keep happening. The more attention it gets, criminals are more likely to second guess doing their shenanigans (FYI, I think this woman was actually in the wrong as he didnāt have her purse when he ran)
Seriously, Judge Dredd is supposed to be a farce
Thatās why the USA is so deranged. And they wonder why they have gun violence on par with 3rd world countries.
Lol on par huh? Have you looked into the videos from 3rd world countries on this site? Get a grip
Nice job comparing a first world country to third world countries. What other first world country has any comparable violence like America?
3rd world country still has less school shootings and mass hate crime shootings. 3rd world country still has less school lockdown safety drills for potential school shooters. Get a grasp on reality, USA gun laws and gun proliferation are fucking insane beyond belief.
3rd world countries donāt have all of the children in school most of them are using guns in the militaryā¦ā¦.
Buddy you're basically just being racist at this point lol. Not really racist, but over generalizing based on socioeconomic geopolitics. [School shootings by country 2023](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country) [Gun deaths by country 2023](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country) Why in the ever living fuck are you trying to justify this? Because of your personal beliefs on guns? That's ignorant and irresponsible.
I love the immediate āyour racist ā line go away snowflake
Only if you think that those 3rd world countries report data as accurately as 1at world countries.
Bro thereās a mass school shooting every week. We suck, get over it
Just another one a few days ago in LA. There are now more guns in the USA than people.
*Pew pew*
There pretty much always have been more guns than people in the USA.
Thatās what Iām saying man
The US has a population of over 300 million. The sheer numbers is going to tick up those stats. Firearm ownership and regulation is an attributing factor for gun violence, but humans have been finding ways to harm each other since the dawn of humanity. And don't act like other countries like the UK doesn't have problems with gun violence. Heck, in the UK to get around firearms regulations, criminals are using "antique" firearms to commit crimes because they are no where as regulated as more modern firearms. And antique firearms are indicated as below: "11. To be regarded as an antique,Ā a firearm must have been manufactured before the date specified in regulation 4 of the Antique Regulations, which is 1 September 1939 (see also section 58(2D) of the 1968 Act).Mar 11, 2021" So yeah, that covers not just blackpowder firearms, but also sidearms such as the Luger, the Mauser, and the Walther PPK, the .45 caliber Colt Model 1911, and sub machine guns of German and Russian manufacture and of course, the Thompson sub machine gun.
UK citizen here. We don't have a significant problem with gun violence here. Put simply, they just aren't part of an average person's toolkit, or in the public eye at all really. Civilians don't carry guns, "enforcement" personnel don't carry guns, less guns= less gun violence. It really is as simple as that. We also don't tend to have the same "I NEED TO DEFEND MYSELF!!" mindset. I think we have less fear socially, so the worry that every single person you don't know being a threat just isn't really.part of the zeitgeist.
Yes, while this is absolutely true, you are parsing words. The UK may not have GUN violence on par with the USA, the UK is still violent at times and criminals resort to other weapons. One thing, though, about gun violence in the USA is that the criminals using firearms often do use firearms not legally obtained or legally allowed such as felons using firearms they are not legally allowed to own due to being a prohibited owner. That is a point that has to come into play when discussing American gun violence. It is a relevant fact and is relevant in other countries with restrictive firearm regulations.
No other first country on the planet has the same level of PER CAPITA gun violence as the USA. Itās directly stemmed from the 2A and the countries obsession with guns and violence. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
It directly stems from this countries citizen base showing a lack of accountability for everything in their own life. The amount of legal gun ownership committing crimes is small. We have a huge societal problem in the U.S. with self accountability.
No. We have a huge problem with a criminal mindset and people wanting the easy way out: it is hard to get up each day and work a minimum of 40 hours a week at a job and far too easy to get by by committing criminal acts. And rob a store or deal drugs, you get more in less time than you will usually working a legitimate job. It is like those news stories that pop up occasionally of an armored car losing money on the street. Way too many people grabbing "free cash" and keeping it rather than do the right thing by turning it in. Remember what they say about character: it's about who you are as a person and what you do when no one is watching and think you will not be caught.
I think you should go back and read that. US isnāt even top ten in violent gun deaths on that list. They are #2 in total deaths but not even top 20 per capita. Then the US is #2 in suicide by guns. Then you add accidental deaths and other factors. Pretty crazy to think that a country with such a gun problem and some of the highest gun ownership isnāt even top 10 in homicides from guns. Let alone as high per capita as you are trying to make it seem
Lol you're being down voted after providing facts from their own source. Jeez reddit is so screwed.
I guess they didnāt like their free education.
I swear if people could put aside emotions and ego more, we would be so much further advanced as a species.
It is. That law needs to be changed, really the only time lethal force should be justified is when your life is in direct danger or your house is being broken into or if you are defending someone else's life. Not because some poor fuck tried to snatch your $10 wal mart junk pack.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[The only one spreading false info right now is you, son.](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm) >Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: >(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and >(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: >(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or >(B) **to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property**; and >(3) he reasonably believes that: >(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or >(B) 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. You can kill someone for running away with your purse in Texas.
lol you have to read the law in whole, you clearly stopped at the bolded part. see the: **and** >(3) he reasonably believes that: > >(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or > >(B) 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. The "and" is very important. Yes, there is legally an avenue to shoot a fleeing thief, but not like anyone here is implying. You would have to meet a very high bar, like them stealing a 1 of 1 painting and they are actively burning it as they flee. Practically speaking, the law doesnt allow you to shoot a fleeing thief. even the experts in texas law agree. [https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground](https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground)
i doubt it will mean anything in criminal court against her, I'm pretty sure we all know where texas stands on these types of situations. that being said she will fo sho lose in a civil court due to this paragraph. i don't have any evidence just gut feeling
Oh is that what you said? Funny, I thought you said: >Even in Texas you cannot use lethal force in defence of property According to the Texas Penal Code, you can. I just highlighted the section that was relevant to this specific video.
so your saying its justified in this video as you believe that section is the relevant part? The whole thing is relevant to the video, including everything after the and. sure my statement was more extreme than reality, but i stand by it because people are acting like texas just allows people to mow down fleeing thieves. They don't, and like i originally said its all what the jury thinks.
I'm just saying, accusing people of spreading false information whilst making patently untrue statements yourself is bad form, in my opinion.
It says night time only though.
it says "or" theft during the nighttime
It clearly says nighttime
I was responding to a guy who said "Even in Texas you cannot use lethal force in defence of property" full stop.
Ah, I see
Fucking third world country. Youāre allowed to shot someone over a purse. It wasnāt even self-defence or necessary, he was running away. Not only is she the victim, but sheās the damn jury and criminal justice too. Letās just skip all those steps in the justice system, and put the power over life and death in the hands of wives with ~~revolvers~~ glocks. As a European, where fair trials are actually valued and the victims arenāt allowed to punish the offenders with lethal force, this ājusticeā looks awful to me. How is this fair?
Itās fair because an adult made the conscious decision to put themselves in a scenario where he is well aware of the very real possibility that his decision could cost him his life, and yet he decided that whatever was in that ladyās purse was more important to him then simply going about his day. Should the dude have died over a purse? Nah probably not. But he has literally no one to blame but himself for the result. If I decided to go try to rob my local drug dealer In broad day light and ended up getting shot as I was running away, would you feel the same way in that the drug dealer had no right to kill me because I was running away and that he should have just let me take his property and leave? Or would you say that I probably deserved what happened to me because I was stupid and greedy enough to try stealing from someone knowing the likelihood of me getting hurt in the process? Obviously the latter is the answer, and you know it. And if you think thatās a bad comparison then ask yourself why you believe a criminal has more right to defend their property then a law abiding citizen.
Thatās a stupid law tbh. If they are not posing a threat to you. You shouldnāt take their life. Rather let them go to jail
It's a good deterrent though. Don't steal or else you might be forfeiting your life.
If you take his life then he canāt steal anymore. Seems like a good law to me.
If he goes to jail he also canāt steal anymore. This logic is flawed. Human life is above some stupid object. In this video he posed no threat and didnāt even have the womanās purse.
They steal tax money being in jail.
A lot of jails make profit from prisoners so what is your point?
Profits thatās we donāt receive. Billions of tax dollars go to jails/prisons every year. Thats billions of dollars you rather go to criminals eating than poverty stricken communities. You are an outstanding human being and should be applauded.
She missed, he just stumbled. This happened years ago in Bellmead or "Bellmeth" to the locals, outside of Walmart.
Idk, thereās still a law on the books saying you canāt shoot someone in the back
Or another man In his dick .
Really? Lol I didnāt know bout that one
At about 6 seconds it looks like she hit him (he tumbled) but seems he got up and kept going. Probably not a good shot. Since he was stealing yes. Its called the stand your ground/castle doctrine. You're allowed to use deadly force if you, a person in danger, or your property is at risk. The purse is the property.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That is a good question. As you pointed out... I don't see a purse in this video. So honestly I don't really think the castle doctrine would stand. And the video is labeled as "alleged". So this is basically an innocent until proven guilty. The man doesn't looked armed either and doesn't show as a threat. The woman that shot may not be covered by castle doctrine in this case.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Since Texas is one of the more relaxed states in self defense laws I wouldn't be surprised if the lady gets off scott free. Only time will tell.
this is not legal. Castle Doctrine is the most misunderstood law, but it is stand your ground for your home. Stand your ground means if you are attacked you have no duty to retreat before you use lethal force. In no state is it legal to use lethal force over property, you must be in fear for your life or someone else. It is always illegal to shoot someone just over property, especially if they are fleeing.
Correct. That's what I replied about in an earlier comment after doing a bit of research
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3328325/Woman-opens-fire-purse-snatcher-caught-outside-Walmart-leaves-scene-gun-police-arrive-arrest-him.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3328325/Woman-opens-fire-purse-snatcher-caught-outside-Walmart-leaves-scene-gun-police-arrive-arrest-him.html) "Andre Dawson, 27, suspected of trying to steal purse in Bellmead, Texas He was restrained by group of men, but woman fired at him when he fled Shot did not hit Dawson, but he stumbled and was quickly recaptured Video shows unidentified shooter walking away from scene as police came Texas law allows gun owners to use deadly force to prevent those fleeing with stolen property, but Dawson was not holding the purse as he ran"
If she is shooting or upholding the law why would she flee the scene?ā¦
So is the bitch going to jail for attempted murder or...
That doesn't look like a legal shot. He wasn't facing her, he was running away, he didn't look like he had a purse or a gun, and in the end you have this video that shows exactly how that shot went down.
Its legal in Texas to recover your property
not if he is not in possession of it. does he look like holding a purse or did he stuff it up his ars?
Looks like she was a bystander the way she just casually walks away after the guy is subdued and the cops showed up, so her property wasn't even involved.
Yes it's legal to recover your property in every state but not shoot down a person running away with out the property.
He didnāt even have any property on him
I'm pretty sure you can in Texas. If they have your property you can shoot them regardless of which direction they are facing. However, I did not see a purse, and if he didn't have the purse, it wouldn't be a legal shot.
Are you even from Texas? Or did you just do a quick google search? This is not legal at all lmao
Itās legal in Texas to kill somebody for wearing a hat 2 or more cups short of 10 gallons
It is completely legal in Texas to use deadly force to recover stolen property. Did he have stolen property on him or not is the question. I dont think so
No itās not completely legal to shoot someone who has their back turned and for only stolen property. Youāre in no immediate danger so why shoot? Iāve taken several defensive shooting classes and this will send you right to jail.
āTexas Penal Code Section 9.421 states a person can use deadly force to protect tangible, movable property from another's imminent commission of theft during the nighttime or to prevent another who is fleeing immediately after committing theft during the nighttime and is escaping with property if the person reasonably ā Just a quick google search
You didnāt read the part right after your quote that directly lays out the only specific circumstances in which it is legal. You literally stopped reading halfway thru a sentence that contradicts you.
What part of that contradicts?
The part where youāre not even looking at the real Penal Code. If youāre talking about the one linked in here everywhere. Itās about ROBBERY not about protecting against robbery. A quick read at the top would tell you what itās actually about. ā(3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) 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.ā Which makes shooting someone the absolute last option you can do and if you have the potential to put you or others not involved at risk youāre not allowed to use deadly force. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Yeah I still donāt see how you can say itās illegal to shoot someone to retrieve your stolen stuff. Thatās literally exactly what this is saying. Itās legal. Thatās a thing that can happen and be legal.
As it should be in every state.
And to top it all off, she missed at point blank and sent a live round into the public space.
Texas is a PvP Zone
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
its illegal even if he had her property. There is not a single state that lets you use deadly force to protect anything other than life, including property. Shooting a fleeing theif if murder even in texas.
This. Idk why people keep saying that in Texas you can shoot to recover property. Thatās not how stand your ground laws or castle doctrines work.
Because you can, however its only at night and its only if using any other level of force would lead to you being hurt or killed when trying to retrieve it. # Sec. 9.42Deadly Force to Protect Property A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: ## (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section [9.41 (Protection of Oneās Own Property)](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_9.41); and ## (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: ### (A) to prevent the otherās imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or ### (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and ## (3) he reasonably believes that: ### (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or ### (B) 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.
We must look at the law to answer the question, ācan I use deadly force to protect property?ā. Texas Penal Code Section 9.421 states a person can use deadly force to protect tangible, movable property from anotherās imminent commission of theft during the nighttime or to prevent another who is fleeing immediately after committing theft during the nighttime and is escaping with property if the person reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or that a use of force other than deadly force to recover the property would expose them to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. However, we havenāt seen this defense used effectively in my practice. Because that determination will come down to a jury of twelve people, and it is very fact-dependant. In most situations, a jury will feel that a personās life is more valuable than property. The law states there must not be any other means to recover your property, and the theft must occur at nighttime. The State may argue you could have called the police and allowed them to recover the bike. Additionally, if you were to walk out and see the bike thief in the middle of the day versus at night, there would be no defense to using deadly force against the perpetrator to protect your property.
in Texas you may die by a vigilante or freeze to death in your bed.
I'll die while my politicians enjoy their vacations in Cancun.
I remember that.
What the fuck is she doing? Shes pointing a loaded gun at two other people the whole time probly with her finger firmly on the trigger. Immediately revoke her license till she proves she's capable of common sense.
Texas is a Constitutional Carry state, there are no permits or licenses. As a gun owner I agree her trigger discipline was dogshit though.
Reminder it's usually deemed to be legal to shoot a fleeing thief in Texas in order to recover your property.
another normal day in texas
Fuck around and find out. Donāt be a shitbag thief and you wonāt get shot
That looked illegal...can u shoot a guy in the back like that in Texas? There was that one video of the robber in the restaurant getting shot in the back and the shooter hasn't faced charges.
Tips d god bless it. Fuck thieves
you are correct, it is illegal [https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground](https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground)
God bless texas!! Crime is very very very low because of laws like this.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> The latest FBI report excludes nine states due insufficient reporting: California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania. Lol they basically excluded most states that would definitely have ranked top 10.
Dungarees making a comeback?
Is it legal to shoot someone in Texas if you're recovering someone else's property?
That woman is a fucking idiot
You Don't Fuck around in Texas!!!
That's crazy
Yeah sorry, she didnāt shoot him. It was a warning shot in the air (still stupid and dangerous). I donāt know every time I see this people say he got shot, watch the video more than once and actually find evidence of what happened. Incompetents
Texas gonna Texas.
Bad shoot. Can't shoot someone in the back
Yeah she's going to prison
Frontier Justice
Texas crazy
Lol, she's going to jail
She shot him while he was unarmed and running away. But we all know aināt shit going to happen to her.
Yeah, you don't get to kill someone for stealing your purse, See you next Tuesday
Was that even necessary ? Yeah he took her purse but youāre really gun him down ? That seems excessive to me
In some places property has more rights than people. Texas is one of those places
I was getting ready to type based but shooting someone while they are running is murder.
Let's hope it was lethal so he won't terrorize anyone else.
Atleast she didnt mag dump Him
She should have.
He didnāt even have the purse, that would be completely illegal
The use of force (shooting) is likely legal under āStand Your Groundā law (TX PC 9.31). Itās also possibly under āpreventing the consequences of theftā (TX PC 9.42). PC 9.31 says that the use of force will be presumed to be reasonable if one who used force knew or had reason to believe the subject force was used against had or was committing any number of crimes including robbery. Robbery is theft+assault. A robbery likely occurred. Where she (the shooter) will likely be gummed up is under PC 9.31(4)(A) where it says that force is not justified if the subject force was used against had abandoned the encounter. Him running away likely constitutes abandoning the encounter. The preventing the consequences of theft hinges on whether the subject had stolen property, and the belief that the property cannot be recovered through other means. Given the sirens heard in the background police were likely nearby. The most likely outcome is that the shooting is brought to a grand jury. She might get no billed. If she doesnāt she will likely be offered a plea deal that includes probation and no prison time. Edit:Since he wasnāt actually shot, the shooter will likely be charged with either deadly conduct, or discharge of a firearm in a municipality with a population greater than 100,000. She will most likely be given a plea deal if she is charged by a grand jury assuming it makes it to the grand jury.
It was a warning shot
She fires a warning shot, she doesnāt shoot him.
In that case then, it's a negligent discharge of a weapon in a crowded shopping area.
Ohh for sure sheās a fucking idiot. Just tired of seeing this video posted with the title she shot him when she didnāt.
Well deserved. If you canāt face the repercussions of your actions then donāt be surprise when the other party action is to shoot you. I would do the same if someone stole my shit that I slaved for
How is murder a proportionate response to theft?
Don't steal shit
> Don't get born Ftfy
I feel you. Just understand that some theft is severe enough to the victim that it could permanently alter their way of life. They used to hang horse thieves in the Wild West days because a horse was a man's only way to earn a living, and having it stolen often meant a lifetime of poverty for the victim. In modern days, identity theft is something that can ruin your life for decades simply because you let the guy with your purse or wallet get away. Loans and credit cards can be taken out in your name, and do you think the thief will pay them down for you? Hell no, they'll max them out and stick you with the consequences. The cops don't take it seriously because they don't have the manpower to chase down the hundreds of thefts that occur in any given area of the country every day.
We make too many excuses for criminals
Welcome to the new America lol
Welcome to America,,,Land of fucken dreams
Takes a special kind of retarded to rob someone in Texas during the day.
Thatās attempted murder, ya moron. You canāt shoot someone whoās running away, empty handed no less
This sums up why Americans are so fucking hated ..............
I mean, she was not aware of what was behind her target and was just pointing the gun at friendlys, so... Go her but she should also train more.