I managed to drive a manual transmission when in high school but didn't really learn to drive a manual transmission until I purchased a Honda S800 coupe shortly after arriving on Okinawa in 1972.I learned to drive in a ‘63 Dodge Dart, Slant 6 with three-on-the-tree. Good times, those!
I think it was the part about them not being able to drive a standard transmission...?
My Mom had a 50’s something Nash. Someone tried to steal it one night. They couldn’t figure out the starter switch was located on the floor board.When I was 16 I learned to drive a stick shift before I
took my driving test.
It was my aunts 1950 Nash.LOL
I once tried to drive a standard transmission, but something was missing.
And even at that age, a lot of them cant drive a stick.I'm not making the connection I guess. Millennials are in their 30's and 40's now. Most that I know grew up with standards.
Not a grey area. There was no deadly threat and per Texas PC §9.42, you also may not use deadly force to protect theft of a vehicle (section (3)(A) ).The article says he was shot as he was running away. That sounds like a gray area to me. Could a DA argue that the threat was gone if this is the case?
Not a grey area. There was no deadly threat and per Texas PC §9.42, you also may not use deadly force to protect theft of a vehicle (section (3)(A) ).
So if the DA wants to prosecute, the victim is going away for years.
Depends on if the carjacker was armed or appeared to be armed.Not a grey area. There was no deadly threat and per Texas PC §9.42, you also may not use deadly force to protect theft of a vehicle (section (3)(A) ).
So if the DA wants to prosecute, the victim is going away for years.
Correct.Even at night?
Although, in this case, they didn't take the car.
I don't disagree. But don't just shoot people in the back assuming they might be armed. If it turns out they weren't, you're in hot water (aka jail).Depends on if the carjacker was armed or appeared to be armed.
Citizen has a right to recover his property and we do not know if the thief who previously carjacked the owner was armed or appeared to be armed.
Running away does not necessarily mean not a threat. Easy enough to point a gun behind you while running
Correct.
Night time does not automatically give you the powers to execute thieves. There is still the exclusion in section (3)(A) "he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" which is legalese for "items that are identifiable (such as a license plate or a VIN) and can be returned to you after recovery". But IANAL.
Nope. That is incorrect as well. Reasonable belief. Some shitbag that you just caught breaking into your vehicle says “ Bitch, I got sumptin’ fo yo ass” as he is walking away while reaching down the front of his pants, is a very good candidate for being shot.I don't disagree. But don't just shoot people in the back assuming they might be armed. If it turns out they weren't, you're in hot water (aka jail).
Correct.
Night time does not automatically give you the powers to execute thieves. There is still the exclusion in section (3)(A) "he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means" which is legalese for "items that are identifiable (such as a license plate or a VIN) and can be returned to you after recovery". But IANAL.