So you think its a good shoot?

[LedJedi]

He is VERY lucky he didn't get charged with something.

what exactly would he have been charged with? protecting his property?

I say the HOTEL is VERY LUCKY to have him as a guest.

PC §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.

- Property can be protected by calling the police. Property can almost always be recovered in SOME WAY. Police track stuff down, insurance covers your belongings, the list goes on. The vagueness of the way "cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" opens a giant hole that a truckload of lawyers that want to make your life miserable can drive through.

- From the scenario mentioned above, he was never placed in any immediate danger. Why was it necessary to use deadly force when deadly force was not being used against him? The way it was described above cancels out (B). That only leaves him with (A) to fall under the protection of the law, and as was mentioned above it's very, very vague.

The calling of police is not a means of recovering property. It is a means of notifying the authorities. They just happen to recover property occasionally.

I'm not drawing down on 3 men and asking them to stop. I'm going to shoot them. There were two in the cab of his truck and at least one waiting in the other vehicle. To produce the weapon and simply threaten (using force) creates a window of opportunity where you can be overcome and thereby exposes you to risk of serious bodily injury or death should they all three decide to jump you. However, to use deadly force immediately negates the majority of the risk that that window of opportunity would create.

You have the right to protect your property. Requiring me to hesitate in doing that puts me at risk.

3b does not apply in my opinion.

[LedJedi]

You are missing the key phrase "any other means."

Can you honestly say that if you had a stereo stolen out of your car, that that stereo could not be protected or recovered by any other means other than shooting and killing the person that is taking your stereo? A prosecutor would clean the floor with that statement, as you honestly don't know if you called the police and that the police would not pull over/find the guy and recover your stereo for you.

And you don't know that they will recover my property. The only guaranteed way i can prevent the property loss in that scenario is through the application of some level of force. Being outnumbered 3-1 makes me think that the application of standard force probably ain't gonna cut it. I'm inclined to think a jury would agree with that.

If you can show me a means other than force or DF that i'm guaranteed to recover my property then by all means, show me.

Keep in mind that the law doesn't say i get a "chance" to recover my property. It says "recover". plain and simple. A "chance" to recover is not the same as "recover". There is a "chance" i might win the lottery tonight. Given that I dont play the lottery though, that makes it fairly unlikely.

Notice that it says protected or recovered. Not "and". The police may not get there in time to protect your stereo, but there is a chance, and a small chance it may be but the chance is still there, to have your stereo recovered. In my humble opinion, that is too great a risk personally for me to take. I do not have a problem with using force first (and do keep in mind that drawing your weapon is still considered force, NOT deadly force) to stop and possibly apprehend the suspects, but I am not going to go straight to deadly force to protect my property.

good for you, you know where your line is. As for me.. my line has me on my side of the line with my property. If that means there's also three dead thieves,... ok. I'm not seeing anything I have an issue with. In my mind and with my (presumably reasonable logic) considering the 3-1 logic above I have no problem going directly to DF and I feel it would be legally justified. If you're not comfortable with going directly to DF in that scenario then that's your choice. Don't fault me for exercising my rights within the law by protecting my property.

[tbranch]

good for you, you know where your line is. As for me.. my line has me on my side of the line with my property. If that means there's also three dead thieves,... ok. I'm not seeing anything I have an issue with. In my mind and with my (presumably reasonable logic) considering the 3-1 logic above I have no problem going directly to DF and I feel it would be legally justified. If you're not comfortable with going directly to DF in that scenario then that's your choice. Don't fault me for exercising my rights within the law by protecting my property.

Led,

You're killing me. You will not walk past a non-conforming 30.06 sign, yet you would go out and take three lives over property. You'll have the enlighten me on the morals / ethics on this stance.

Tom

[KBCraig]

With the disclaimer that I would not have taken a shot here, let me opine thusly: shooting a car (so long as you're not trying to hit the occupants) is not deadly force. Deadly force can only be directed against people. Carefully targeted gunfire not aimed at people is just "shooting", no different than if he fired three shots into the ground in his own back yard.

And speaking of, I'm sure he violated a local ordinance against discharge of a firearm within city limits, for which he could be cited and fined.

Like I said, I wouldn't have taken any shot, but as reported, he didn't use deadly force.

[srothstein]

- Property can be protected by calling the police. Property can almost always be recovered in SOME WAY. Police track stuff down, insurance covers your belongings, the list goes on. The vagueness of the way "cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" opens a giant hole that a truckload of lawyers that want to make your life miserable can drive through.

I disagree with some of your logic. Calling the police does not protect the property. It may help recover it, but that is actually a very low percentage of the property stolen. Insurance covering the cost does not protect or recover the property. It may allow for replacement, but that is not protecting or recovering. This is especially true if it is taken from a car, or if the car is taken. Property taken from a car is covered under homeowners insurance if you have it, usually with fairly large deductibles (1% of the value of the house used to be the standard). The car itself is covered for the bluebook value, supposedly. I have never yet heard of someone who agreed with what the insurance company valued the car at. And in both cases, the loss of pay while you cannot work without your tools is not covered.

I want to emphasize the law says to protect or recover the property, not to replace it. There is a big difference to the law.

- From the scenario mentioned above, he was never placed in any immediate danger. Why was it necessary to use deadly force when deadly force was not being used against him? The way it was described above cancels out (B). That only leaves him with (A) to fall under the protection of the law, and as was mentioned above it's very, very vague.

Actually, this is even more of a reason to justify the shooting he did. His only other imemdiate option was to go down to the truck and more closely confront the theives. this definitely would place him in more danger, IMHO.

I think the shooting was justified under the law, as did the local police apparently. You may have a different personal standard for when you would shoot and I support your making the choice. You have chosen a very good point for the use of deadly force and I would not argue that it is wrong. I will pont out, and debate, that this is not what the law says and you need to judge the situation from the legal standpoint and not your personal one.

[Greybeard]

nedmoore - In answer to your question, from what I saw there, my best guess is the "Driveway Patrol" in link below is probably what he used:

http://www.carolwrightgifts.com/cwg_v2/ ... Item=19398

I've got one - and that 400' distance is a real stretch, particularly if obstructions are involved. I can certainly see though how it could work with sensor left in vehicle and alarm unit sitting on window sill.

[LedJedi]

good for you, you know where your line is. As for me.. my line has me on my side of the line with my property. If that means there's also three dead thieves,... ok. I'm not seeing anything I have an issue with. In my mind and with my (presumably reasonable logic) considering the 3-1 logic above I have no problem going directly to DF and I feel it would be legally justified. If you're not comfortable with going directly to DF in that scenario then that's your choice. Don't fault me for exercising my rights within the law by protecting my property.

Led,

You're killing me. You will not walk past a non-conforming 30.06 sign, yet you would go out and take three lives over property. You'll have the enlighten me on the morals / ethics on this stance.

Tom

my ethics are consistent:

Respect another man's property. respect the law (when it is just and constitutional). respect another man's freedom/liberty.

In this scenario the thieves gave up my respect of their lives and freedoms when they neglected to respect my property.

My morals:

There are many to apply here but the one you're looking for is this.

Life has value.

However, the life of a thief/burglar means nill to me. They chose their own path. They know the potential consequences, yet they did it anyway. Their blood is on their own hands. I am simply protecting my property. If that protection requires the use of DF and it is legal maybe they should have thought their actions through a little more. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[LedJedi]

LedJedi:

I was not attacking your personal beliefs, all I was doing was debating the points of the law. I feel that the wording does not give the actor justification for going directly to deadly force during a vehicle break-in. You do, as do a few others here, and that is OK. Relax, we are all ultimately on the same side here.

Trust me man, i still got your back :)

I'm just passionate about this stuff, so it comes through a little "rougher" than i mean to sometimes. No worries. I apologize if I ruffled your feathers :)

[KD5NRH]

nedmoore - In answer to your question, from what I saw there, my best guess is the "Driveway Patrol" in link below is probably what he used:

http://www.carolwrightgifts.com/cwg_v2/ ... Item=19398

I've got one - and that 400' distance is a real stretch, particularly if obstructions are involved. I can certainly see though how it could work with sensor left in vehicle and alarm unit sitting on window sill.

Not to hijack, but how long do the sensor batteries last, and how far away from the sensor will it pick up movement? This could come in handy for a couple of things.

[tbranch]

Respect another man's property. respect the law (when it is just and constitutional). respect another man's freedom/liberty.

I'm okay with respecting another person's (I'm guessing you used "man" in a generic sense) property and liberty.

I have to again disagree with your views on laws. Since when do you get to chose which laws you obey? Unjust laws can be ignored? I would submit to you that laws are to be obeyed until changed.

I get the idea you're extremely pro-property rights. Yet there has to be a balance between completing rights.

Tom

[Greybeard]

Quote/Question: "Not to hijack, but how long do the sensor batteries last, and how far away from the sensor will it pick up movement? This could come in handy for a couple of things."

Methinks battery life dependent on activity. And, as with other relatively cheap motion sensors, (non-adjustable?) sensitivity seems to vary greatly with temperature. I've long lost the directions that came with it, but think the "normal" distance is around 30'. But .. I recall at least once while having to reposition the sensor because it was sometimes going off as a result of picking up on engine heat/movement of passing vehicles as much as 50 yards away.

I'm not sure whether a problem with one of the units or with the batteries, but mine has been "out of service". I probably paid around 30 bucks plus shipping for it years ago. But, for a shipped price of just $23, I'm tempted to start over with another one - just to have handy for certain circumstances. Again, FWIW, the biggest limitation I found with the thing was inability to function reliably with heavy objects between the transmitter and the receiver.

In circumstance similar to those described in the original post, I can picture the the motion sensor unit being left facing upward in a closed center console with the receiver in the motel window. Burglar opens the console, picks it up and thinks "What's this?" Ding, ding, ding, ding. It sounds like the "shooter" had 2 of them mounted to catch movement before the thieves even got to the console ...

But, more on topic, back to the old adage: "If you go looking for trouble, you CAN find it."

[Liberty]

So, if I understand this story correctly, the management of the Candlewood Suites is so hearltess that they would forcibly evict a legally armed citzen in the middle of the night after he has been a victim of a crime? Well, I am putting this on my list of places never to stay again.

Oh, and BTW, this chain is also part of Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Staybridge, Intercontinental, and Crowne Plaza. Just in case you wanted to know.

Yep, this is my main sentiment about the entire incident...

Its too bad, I really liked staying at the Crockett Hotel (Holiday Inn bought them out a few years ago) in San Antonio...

The hotels are owned and managed by individuals. I doubt if the policy is a universal Holiday Inn policy.
On the other hand the Crockett Hotel is a fine Hotel and the location is just about perfect. Unfortunately they belong the the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce. This particular Chamber of Commerce fought against the the parking lot bill. I used to go to San Antonio a 3 or 4 times a year and stay either there or at the Menger. I haven't been there since the sabotage, and will not give those gungrabbing scum anymore of my money. Its a sad thing that the city that is known for taking a stand has chosen against gun carry.

[stevie_d_64]

So, if I understand this story correctly, the management of the Candlewood Suites is so hearltess that they would forcibly evict a legally armed citzen in the middle of the night after he has been a victim of a crime? Well, I am putting this on my list of places never to stay again.

Oh, and BTW, this chain is also part of Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Staybridge, Intercontinental, and Crowne Plaza. Just in case you wanted to know.

Yep, this is my main sentiment about the entire incident...

Its too bad, I really liked staying at the Crockett Hotel (Holiday Inn bought them out a few years ago) in San Antonio...

The hotels are owned and managed by individuals. I doubt if the policy is a universal Holiday Inn policy.
On the other hand the Crockett Hotel is a fine Hotel and the location is just about perfect. Unfortunately they belong the the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce. This particular Chamber of Commerce fought against the the parking lot bill. I used to go to San Antonio a 3 or 4 times a year and stay either there or at the Menger. I haven't been there since the sabotage, and will not give those gungrabbing scum anymore of my money. Its a sad thing that the city that is known for taking a stand has chosen against gun carry.

To me I believe this is as big an issue as the actual discharging of his weapon to stop this crime...

I have been looking at all of the discussion so far, and I have to honestly say that no one is wrong about this...Everyone, even I, have this line in the sand that keeps us as brutally honest to ourselves (more than others to us personally), I have to say these types of discussions are the best things in this forum, it helps define us, it helps reinforce our positions, and most of all it helps others who may not have ever really given it much thought before a chance to start developing a mindset that can carry on to others around them about the issue...

So before any of us get bent out of shape about someone elses opinion, or retorts to your personal position...Lets take a step back, put yourself in the position of someone who is witnessing a crime in progress...The first thing is you observe, purposefully seek pertinent details, know that most of us are very capable of defending ourselves if said criminals notice that you are "paying attention"...The rest of this is fairly academic, and that is based upon what a criminal is going to choose to do...Not what you are doing to them...

Yet, if you say something like, "Stop! blah blah blah..." I would think the message to the public should be that the criminal community needs to be reminded over and over again, that there are fewer and fewer law-abiding citizens in this country that are willing to tolerate criminal activity anymore...

Is a piece of property worth more than a human life??? No...

But the question should be, is that piece of property worth your life?

Somehow I do not believe there are enough criminals, or people with criminal intent bothering to ask themselves the latter...