teen fatally shot when man fires at them

[barstoolguru]

Two of the friends got out and started to break into the SUV. They "heard a door close at the residence and jumped back into the vehicle," Johnson said. "As they were driving off they heard shots fired, and the victim slumped over in the front passenger seat."

DFW briefs: Teen fatally shot when man fires at SUV | Crime and Safety | News from Fort ...

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

So was he a victim or a burglar? Article isn't loading on my phone.

 

[barstoolguru]

he was in the suv with his friends and they broke into another suv and the owner shot at them

 

[Charlie]

He was where he shouldn't have been but did not need to die. 'Chance you take when you do that shit. Shooter will probably be charged with murder.

 

[zembonez]

Seems pretty iffy if they were driving away... the shooter may be in deep sh*t. I have no real sympathy for the dead kid. He knew what they were doing was wrong and I heartily believe that all thieves should die.

This opinion is based entirely on the way this is reported... if it's true.

 

[barstoolguru]

NO there is a law that says even if you are not doing the crime but you are with the criminal you are as guilty

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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.

 

[zembonez]

I understand that, but it the dead kid never got out of the vehicle and was shot as they pulled away, he may well still be prosecuted.

 

[Rum Runner]

Rule of three stupids prevails.

 

[zembonez]

Rule of three stupids prevails.

That's a fact.

 

[Texas1911]

NO there is a law that says even if you are not doing the crime but you are with the criminal you are as guilty

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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.

9.41 only justifies force, not deadly force.

9.42 has a stipulation that is going to be hard to prove considering motor vehicles are insured.

 

[Bithabus]

NO there is a law that says even if you are not doing the crime but you are with the criminal you are as guilty

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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.

According to your post the homeowner fired as the thieves were driving off, and they were not in possession of any stolen property.

 

[barstoolguru]

NO there is a law that says even if you are not doing the crime but you are with the criminal you are as guilty

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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.

this is very clear to me and they where breaking into his truck. he has no idea if something is taken and if like me he has a 500.00 deductable that the insurance co does not cover which is a loss

 

[Bithabus]

this is very clear to me and they where breaking into his truck. he has no idea if something is taken and if like me he has a 500.00 deductable that the insurance co does not cover which is a loss

Good luck with that.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

this is very clear to me and they where breaking into his truck. he has no idea if something is taken and if like me he has a 500.00 deductable that the insurance co does not cover which is a loss

Of course it's clear, Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy. There's nothing truely clear, except he was in the presence of two men trying to commit a crime when possible owner came out and fired shots as they drove away. Karma caught this guy. But come on Barstool, you really think a news article is the end of every case? LOL.

 

[M. Sage]

9.41 only justifies force, not deadly force.

9.42 has a stipulation that is going to be hard to prove considering motor vehicles are insured.

You lose the deductible at least.

Pretty sure my liability-only coverage (bare minimum!) would not cover my beater getting stolen.

 

[barstoolguru]

Of course it's clear, Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy. There's nothing truely clear, except he was in the presence of two men trying to commit a crime when possible owner came out and fired shots as they drove away. Karma caught this guy. But come on Barstool, you really think a news article is the end of every case? LOL.

NO,not at all to answer your question.
was this man in his rights to do so; yes.
was it morally right to take a mans life over replaceable idems;it's a choice he will have to live with but the law is there for a reason.
why have a law that every time a citizen uses it the cost to defend is higher then the idems stolen?
in order for a law to have teeth it has supported and not looked so hard that no one will use it.
my last break in on my truck cost me over 1200 dollars so I can feel this guys pain and why he did what he did.

 

[hkusp1]

Everything I own is insured they can have it. The only thing worth killing for is my wife and family.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Everything I own is insured they can have it. The only thing worth killing for is my wife and family.

yep

 

[barstoolguru]

Everything I own is insured they can have it. The only thing worth killing for is my wife and family.

you say that but the truth is you will feel violated, someone robs you they also take your sense of security. after you been robbed you never look at things the same. you start hiding things, stop buying things because someone might take them. insurance only covers some of your stuff. vehicle content is covered by homeowners ins and that is a 1% deductable ($2000,000 home= $2000) means you get nothing in most cases. damage to the vehicle $500 deductable... so much for insurance replacing anything

 

[Jason]

If I can't get them while in my car or on the driveway they will likely get away unshot... however they WILL know that they are not welcome back... it sucks that you aren't really allowed to protect your property without having to worry about stepping on someone's toes...