I live in Texas. I have 2+ AirTags in my vintage, non-truck vehicle.
I don't know what the circumstances are of this story, whether there is alleged fault with the presumed owner, presumed thief, or both because I wasn't there.
If a presumed thief were to threaten imminent great bodily harm to prevent me from recovering my vehicle, there's not much choice.
To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. The near total monopoly on violence must be delegated to the state to prevent feuds and inappropriate uses of force between non-state actors. (It also requires that the police use force judiciously and minimally.)
> To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. The near total monopoly on violence must be delegated to the state to prevent feuds and inappropriate uses of force between non-state actors. (It also requires that the police use force judiciously and minimally.)
The police are always at the disposal of the political apparatus and often ignore the rights of unpopular groups and sometimes actively terrorize them. This is a feature of democracy, in which the majority holds power over the minority. Vigilante justice is a natural result of overly-political police, and I would argue something that would be very popular in many areas of the American Empire.
It is in movies and other forms of mass media. Unfortunately, far left jurisdictions frown on anyone using force, including defending themselves. Triumphal, might-make-right exceptionalism shouldn't be a core value. Patience, letting most things slide, and choosing not to use force where rights allow should be celebrated heroic virtues.
If someone lives out in a remote area with bad weather, stealing their vehicle definitely can kill them.
I’ve run across some folks near death from losing a vehicle, in fact, when out in remote areas. It’s why folks stop to check if they see someone on the side of the road out in the boonies. But there isn’t always someone there.
Additionally, many people who live out in the sticks will lose their jobs without a vehicle very quickly (sometimes even a day or two), and that can make them homeless pretty quick. And when you look at the stats, that kills a lot of people too.
God knows what the actual circumstances are here. It could be someone worked up and angry and unjustified, or the equivalent of stealing someone’s jacket in a blizzard. Justice system, etc.
No cause of death has been "lack of car caused a stroke".
It's also the fault/responsibility of someone living too far from major medical. Personal responsibility and backup plans. Someone steals your car, you make arrangements.
Clearly you’ve never actually lived outside a city.
I’ve lived places where the fastest response to a felony in progress was an hour, and the county sheriff’s vehicles (4wd SUV) couldn’t get into at all for 4-5 months out of the year. I imagine if the weather behaved (it often doesn’t) and they were really motivated, they could get a helicopter from another agency out there sooner. But I never saw it happen.
> in which the majority holds power over the minority
That’s absolutely not how it supposed to be, it’s a very cynical take. They are the executive pillar of democracy, and actively terrorizing anyone is not a benefit of any society. Their whole purpose (should be) is to uphold the law created by the democratically elected government.
> If a presumed thief were to threaten imminent great bodily harm to prevent me from recovering my vehicle, there's not much choice. To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante.
I recommend that you read the Texas penal code sections that pertain to this type of situation. They are very clear on the lawful use of deadly force.
From somebody who had their car stolen somewhat recently, be aware that AirTags get in a habit of beeping when left in cars and whom ever wants the car will find it and hurl it at the ground to silence it. I’d recommend adding non-AirTag find my trackers that don’t beep. Throw in a chipolo or anker one and glue it under a seat for a little extra peace of mind
>"I know that it's frustrating, but please do not take matters into your own hands," said SAPD public information officer Nick Soliz.
They don't know that it's frustrating, because if a police vehicle or police officer's private vehicle were stolen it would be top priority.
This will continue happening until the police take property crime seriously. This bloodshed is the (entirely predictable) outcome of their negligent inaction.
People make choices all the time about how much they value their life and safety versus other concerns - what you spend on medical procedures, dangerous activities, drinking, travel, etc. It's simply not for the officer to make a moral judgment about whether citizens should or should not risk their lives over their property. I would instead ask the office to comment something like "This highlights the risk of..." It should up to the involved citizens whether they want to run the risks or not.
More than that. Most state ran things (in the US at least) are started to benefit the many, and end up getting manipulated to benefit the rich (police, taxes).
When police say they don’t have resources to take property crime seriously, why are they astonished when people take getting their property back into their own hands? The police/society should put up to shut up, though I guess in this case they are concerned about the property crime victim’s safety, which is completely reasonable.
This comes up in the discussion of if its worth attaching air-tags to bikes. You can locate it, but the police (typically) won't act and is it worth risking your life confronting the thieves. Going in armed when the new "owners" might have just bought it stollen.
Piecing together bits and pieces from articles I've seen, it sounds like the owner of the vehicle called police at 1pm. At 4pm, the owner and 2 family members drove to where the truck was located and that's when the shooting happened. It would be interesting to know what, if anything, the police did during those 3 hours
* They assumed the person in the truck was the thief
* They presumably threatened the occupant
* The occupant responded by drawing a gun
* The shoot the occupant
Now, what happens if their assumption that the occupant is the thief is wrong
* Sitting in truck - maybe you just bought it, maybe it's a friend, coworker, or family members (in this scenario the first option seems implausible, but the others are fine)
* Someone you don't know approaches you
* The person starts accusing you of stealing the truck and threatening you with guns
* You pull out your gun to defend yourself
For the people who found their truck cannot distinguish these two scenarios. It is literally not possible for them to, and in the latter case the occupant of the truck is _defending_ themselves. This is the same reason you can't steal something back.
Finally, theft doesn't carry the death penalty, and the people whose truck was stolen were not in danger. If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn.
Indeed. I live in Florida which has set precedent. The game theory is clear to me. If the other guy is a threat at all, I must kill him as he could do the same to me and just claim to have been scared.
Reminds me of how and why it's illegal to booby-trap your own home and property with lethal traps, etc. Sooner or later, some drunk neighbour, or with dementia, or a kid, will try and "break in". (I've seen multiple tragic stories along those lines, over the years.)
> This is the same reason you can't steal something back.
Well, legally you can, at least in most jurisdictions. The property remains yours, and you can do whatever you like with it -- such as pick it up and walk off with it. But you will assume full liability if you injure someone in the process (including the thief) or otherwise make a mistake like taking something that wasn't actually yours.
> Finally, theft doesn't carry the death penalty, and the people whose truck was stolen were not in danger. If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn.
Texas has "defense of property" being a reason to use lethal force.
If you are not the actual owner in the eyes of the State of Texas and you are driving off with a vehicle, the registered owner can shoot you. It doesn't matter whether you were the original thief or not.
That doesn't make it a good idea, but it is legal in many circumstances.
The legality depends on when the term 'in pursuit' phrase of retrieving stolen goods ends. It is not illegal to be in active pursuit of your property. The messy part is where AirTags now change the term 'in pursuit' means, do you take it the literal "within your vision", historical way things are done?
I would argue that if you have GPS tracking on property, you are always in perpetual pursuit of your items, at minimum for two reasons - first is that you know the item has a propensity for being stolen (obvious), the second is that adding GPS tracking is with the intention you are locating your device at all times, thus you are in a perpetual state of pursuit.
when you are naive you see many open possibilities. When you are wordly-wise you just understand the few. For most things occam's razor holds true. The simplest explanation is usually the best one.
Guy tries to recover the truck from the thief. Thief realizes the gig is up and threatens the guy. Justice ensues.
You are presuming that the owner of the vehicle threatened the occupant, instead of saying something like "that is my truck, it is stolen property, I am calling the police to resolve this." That would not justify force on the part of the occupant of the vehicle.
> Finally, theft doesn't carry the death penalty, and the people whose truck was stolen were not in danger. If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn.
This is such a tired cliche. All consequences follow from the criminal's initial action. If things escalate to the point where the criminal aggressor is pulling a gun, they have just made deadly force appropriate. Because that isn't theft, that's aggravated assault and an imminent threat of death.
Not a lawyer, but I would like to think that whatever happens to an innocent third party in a stolen vehicle should add a penalty to that vehicle's thief, wether it's an injury in a car crash or death by the owner of the vehicle.
>Finally, theft doesn't carry the death penalty, and the people whose truck was stolen were not in danger. If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn.
innocence or guilt isn't determined by applying legal standards to non-judges outside of courthouses, which brings up another point : laws aren't somehow universal to a country, let alone a state. It shouldn't be presumed that a working knowledge of how thing work on average within the United States affords one a working knowledge of how things work in Texas.
There were a lot of presumptions made by the victim, agreed on that. It's fortunate that a non-related party wasn't hurt.
Personally I wouldn't have risked my life for the pursuit of a stolen vehicle, but I can understand the urge.
IANAL lawyer, but Texas codifies lethal force in defense of property.
In theory, if the thief was trying to drive away in the truck, the owner had authority to shoot them to stop them from driving away. Obviously I don't know the circumstances in this case. But the use of lethal force in defense of property, I can't say it's unique to Texas, I believe it's uncommon nationally.
In Texas, you may also be justified in using force to pursue and recover your personal property. Penal Code § 9.41 also extends the right to use force in defense of property when:
You are unlawfully dispossessed of your land or tangible property;
You reasonably believe that force is immediately necessary in fresh pursuit to reenter the land or recover your property; and
The other person had no right to the property and/or acquired such property using force, threat, or fraud.
In simpler terms, you may be justified in using immediate force to regain control of property that was unlawfully taken from you. However, this use of force must be in “fresh pursuit” of the property, meaning that no significant time has elapsed since the theft or trespass.
It's going to be problematic for almost everything except a vehicle. A vehicle is registered with the state and has multiple identifying marks.
Is it wiser to call the authorities? No question. There is no fucking way I'm going to personally go tangle with someone who is likely part of a criminal group, thank you very much.
I suspect a "Hi, I'm so and so. I reported my car stolen and the tracker has it marked at <place X>. I'm about to go reclaim it using Penal Code 9.41--I should be there in an hour. Would you folks like to escort me?" would have been more effective.
The fact that a shootout is about to occur tends to get the police to move even when stolen property won't.
IANAL, perhaps de jure, but I would disagree in principle and de facto.
Nonessential-to-life property isn't worth taking a life.
Drawing a firearm without firing a shot in defense of oneself (not property) from imminent great bodily harm by a group of subjects still results in a near automatic AWD charge and presumed costly legal fees.
Texas isn't the "wild west" and overincarceration is rampant.
A car is pretty essential to life, especially in place like Texas. New and used cars are skyrocketing in price, and if you're a lower wage employee, chances are that you still have to commute to work. For millions of Americans, losing a car means losing their livelihoods.
Stealing a car is like stealing a horse, a penalty punishable by death since the Roman days. Deprive somebody of their car by theft and you could be killing them, in the deep desert.
There is an argument that a person who steals a truck is probably working their way toward murdering for a truck so it's like a vaccine for society, as well.
This type of event may actually work to reduce car thefts. AirTags are still novel and people are getting sick of just having their stuff written off by insurance instead of some actual action. Car sales will need to change too - the seller needs to show the registration and their ID upfront before you take a deeper look at that car!
I dealt with one earlier this year, the police were actually remarkably good at getting it back for me within an hour of calling due to Toyota’s built in theft tracker GPS feature. They will only give the location to the police and only if you have a case number. I had an AirTag in the car too but the thieves managed to find it and destroy it quickly because the stupid thing beeps every time somebody walks into the car. Cars should have find my support without all the compromises that tiny AirTags have to make since they can be hidden so easily.
Carmakers haven’t really improved things as much as they should have with the keyless remotes. If yours is stolen and you don’t go spend $200 to reprogram your car to remove it, your car is good as gone when the thieves found where you parked it. Why is it legal for dealers to charge for stolen key removal? It should be done free, same day, on a mandatory basis.
I am very pro gun but wait for the police since they were on the way. Now the vehicle has blood and other fluids all inside the cabin and who knows if any of the rounds made it into the engine and destroyed the vehicle.
59 comments
[ 0.28 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] threadI don't know what the circumstances are of this story, whether there is alleged fault with the presumed owner, presumed thief, or both because I wasn't there.
If a presumed thief were to threaten imminent great bodily harm to prevent me from recovering my vehicle, there's not much choice.
To intend to actively use excessive force without an immediate threat would signal becoming a vigilante. The near total monopoly on violence must be delegated to the state to prevent feuds and inappropriate uses of force between non-state actors. (It also requires that the police use force judiciously and minimally.)
The police are always at the disposal of the political apparatus and often ignore the rights of unpopular groups and sometimes actively terrorize them. This is a feature of democracy, in which the majority holds power over the minority. Vigilante justice is a natural result of overly-political police, and I would argue something that would be very popular in many areas of the American Empire.
In most of the US, a car is as critical to survival as a horse used to be.
I’ve run across some folks near death from losing a vehicle, in fact, when out in remote areas. It’s why folks stop to check if they see someone on the side of the road out in the boonies. But there isn’t always someone there.
Additionally, many people who live out in the sticks will lose their jobs without a vehicle very quickly (sometimes even a day or two), and that can make them homeless pretty quick. And when you look at the stats, that kills a lot of people too.
God knows what the actual circumstances are here. It could be someone worked up and angry and unjustified, or the equivalent of stealing someone’s jacket in a blizzard. Justice system, etc.
No cause of death has been "lack of car caused a stroke".
It's also the fault/responsibility of someone living too far from major medical. Personal responsibility and backup plans. Someone steals your car, you make arrangements.
I’ve lived places where the fastest response to a felony in progress was an hour, and the county sheriff’s vehicles (4wd SUV) couldn’t get into at all for 4-5 months out of the year. I imagine if the weather behaved (it often doesn’t) and they were really motivated, they could get a helicopter from another agency out there sooner. But I never saw it happen.
The desert can work a lot faster.
That’s absolutely not how it supposed to be, it’s a very cynical take. They are the executive pillar of democracy, and actively terrorizing anyone is not a benefit of any society. Their whole purpose (should be) is to uphold the law created by the democratically elected government.
I recommend that you read the Texas penal code sections that pertain to this type of situation. They are very clear on the lawful use of deadly force.
I thought of doing Lojack but I think I have more coverage.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAQNedIa0o
SCOTUS have repeatedly re-clarified this point.
So, what is an average citizen going to do? Drop dead by gunfire? Or take it back by force?
They don't know that it's frustrating, because if a police vehicle or police officer's private vehicle were stolen it would be top priority.
This will continue happening until the police take property crime seriously. This bloodshed is the (entirely predictable) outcome of their negligent inaction.
If this is true, the owner didn't have much choice in the matter.
* They approached their stolen truck
* There was a person in the truck
* They assumed the person in the truck was the thief
* They presumably threatened the occupant
* The occupant responded by drawing a gun
* The shoot the occupant
Now, what happens if their assumption that the occupant is the thief is wrong
* Sitting in truck - maybe you just bought it, maybe it's a friend, coworker, or family members (in this scenario the first option seems implausible, but the others are fine)
* Someone you don't know approaches you
* The person starts accusing you of stealing the truck and threatening you with guns
* You pull out your gun to defend yourself
For the people who found their truck cannot distinguish these two scenarios. It is literally not possible for them to, and in the latter case the occupant of the truck is _defending_ themselves. This is the same reason you can't steal something back.
Finally, theft doesn't carry the death penalty, and the people whose truck was stolen were not in danger. If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn.
This presupposes there was a safe place to withdraw to.
> This is the same reason you can't steal something back.
Well, legally you can, at least in most jurisdictions. The property remains yours, and you can do whatever you like with it -- such as pick it up and walk off with it. But you will assume full liability if you injure someone in the process (including the thief) or otherwise make a mistake like taking something that wasn't actually yours.
Texas has "defense of property" being a reason to use lethal force.
If you are not the actual owner in the eyes of the State of Texas and you are driving off with a vehicle, the registered owner can shoot you. It doesn't matter whether you were the original thief or not.
That doesn't make it a good idea, but it is legal in many circumstances.
I would argue that if you have GPS tracking on property, you are always in perpetual pursuit of your items, at minimum for two reasons - first is that you know the item has a propensity for being stolen (obvious), the second is that adding GPS tracking is with the intention you are locating your device at all times, thus you are in a perpetual state of pursuit.
Guy tries to recover the truck from the thief. Thief realizes the gig is up and threatens the guy. Justice ensues.
> Finally, theft doesn't carry the death penalty, and the people whose truck was stolen were not in danger. If the thief drew a gun they should have withdrawn.
This is such a tired cliche. All consequences follow from the criminal's initial action. If things escalate to the point where the criminal aggressor is pulling a gun, they have just made deadly force appropriate. Because that isn't theft, that's aggravated assault and an imminent threat of death.
innocence or guilt isn't determined by applying legal standards to non-judges outside of courthouses, which brings up another point : laws aren't somehow universal to a country, let alone a state. It shouldn't be presumed that a working knowledge of how thing work on average within the United States affords one a working knowledge of how things work in Texas.
There were a lot of presumptions made by the victim, agreed on that. It's fortunate that a non-related party wasn't hurt.
Personally I wouldn't have risked my life for the pursuit of a stolen vehicle, but I can understand the urge.
In theory, if the thief was trying to drive away in the truck, the owner had authority to shoot them to stop them from driving away. Obviously I don't know the circumstances in this case. But the use of lethal force in defense of property, I can't say it's unique to Texas, I believe it's uncommon nationally.
Only at night.
https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/defense-of-property
> Using Force to Regain Your Property
In Texas, you may also be justified in using force to pursue and recover your personal property. Penal Code § 9.41 also extends the right to use force in defense of property when:
In simpler terms, you may be justified in using immediate force to regain control of property that was unlawfully taken from you. However, this use of force must be in “fresh pursuit” of the property, meaning that no significant time has elapsed since the theft or trespass.It's wiser to call authorities. Unless you live in Austin, where most nonviolent crimes are essentially ignored.
Is it wiser to call the authorities? No question. There is no fucking way I'm going to personally go tangle with someone who is likely part of a criminal group, thank you very much.
I suspect a "Hi, I'm so and so. I reported my car stolen and the tracker has it marked at <place X>. I'm about to go reclaim it using Penal Code 9.41--I should be there in an hour. Would you folks like to escort me?" would have been more effective.
The fact that a shootout is about to occur tends to get the police to move even when stolen property won't.
Nonessential-to-life property isn't worth taking a life.
Drawing a firearm without firing a shot in defense of oneself (not property) from imminent great bodily harm by a group of subjects still results in a near automatic AWD charge and presumed costly legal fees.
Texas isn't the "wild west" and overincarceration is rampant.
A car is pretty essential to life, especially in place like Texas. New and used cars are skyrocketing in price, and if you're a lower wage employee, chances are that you still have to commute to work. For millions of Americans, losing a car means losing their livelihoods.
There is an argument that a person who steals a truck is probably working their way toward murdering for a truck so it's like a vaccine for society, as well.
I dealt with one earlier this year, the police were actually remarkably good at getting it back for me within an hour of calling due to Toyota’s built in theft tracker GPS feature. They will only give the location to the police and only if you have a case number. I had an AirTag in the car too but the thieves managed to find it and destroy it quickly because the stupid thing beeps every time somebody walks into the car. Cars should have find my support without all the compromises that tiny AirTags have to make since they can be hidden so easily.
Carmakers haven’t really improved things as much as they should have with the keyless remotes. If yours is stolen and you don’t go spend $200 to reprogram your car to remove it, your car is good as gone when the thieves found where you parked it. Why is it legal for dealers to charge for stolen key removal? It should be done free, same day, on a mandatory basis.