Truck thief gunned down by owner after AirTag gives away location
appleinsider.com
appleinsider.com
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.