Current Events > Texas man tracks down alleged truck thief and holds him at gunpoint..

(+) Yeah! (+)

the guy shooting him escalated the situation to a life or death situation.

Good thing the guy was actually guilty and the killer wasn't mistaken, right?

Also: Human life for a Truck - very American, very pro-life.

It seems like he was trying to hold them until cops showed up but it's hard to say.

I wouldn't have risked my life if someone stole my car, personally.

Why are people pretending car thieves' lives have any significant value?

Exactly. Imagine if it was the same model truck, just happened to be near the same area, and the guy made assumptions and did this. The other guy thinks he's being carjacked, pulls a gun... Mr. hothead gun nut kills him, then the law probably just decides, "it was an accident, could happen to anyone" and refuses to hold him accountable or just gives a slap on the wrist.

Then suppose someone from the victim's family decides to kill the douche because the law won't touch him. I wonder who they side with then, because both are vigilantes who see themselves justified. For 98% of MAGAs, at least, it would come down to skin color, but I wonder how they decide if both are white.

In one case a car owner had a tracker in the car and then went out and found the people driving his stolen vehicle. A gun fight started between the car owner and the people in the stolen car and one of the thieves was killed. There were no charges because it was self defense.

You support the death penalty, too, don't you?

Exactly. Imagine if it was the same model truck, just happened to be near the same area, and the guy made assumptions and did this. The other guy thinks he's being carjacked, pulls a gun... Mr. hothead gun nut kills him, then the law probably just decides, "it was an accident, could happen to anyone" and refuses to hold him accountable or just gives a slap on the wrist.

Then suppose someone from the victim's family decides to kill the douche because the law won't touch him. I wonder who they side with then, because both are vigilantes who see themselves justified. For 98% of MAGAs, at least, it would come down to skin color, but I wonder how they decide if both are white.

Then about two minutes after that call but before officers arrived, the suspect pulled his own gun and shot the Ford's owner prompting him to return fire, killing the alleged car thief, McManus added.

"The specific provision that authorizes deadly force to recover property is different (in Texas), a lot of other states don't allow the use of deadly force under any circumstances to recover property."

Exactly. Imagine if it was the same model truck, just happened to be near the same area, and the guy made assumptions and did this. The other guy thinks he's being carjacked, pulls a gun... Mr. hothead gun nut kills him, then the law probably just decides, "it was an accident, could happen to anyone" and refuses to hold him accountable or just gives a slap on the wrist.

Then suppose someone from the victim's family decides to kill the douche because the law won't touch him. I wonder who they side with then, because both are vigilantes who see themselves justified. For 98% of MAGAs, at least, it would come down to skin color, but I wonder how they decide if both are white.

And it's not like the owner went in with intent to kill or even harm.

That's the important part.

Seems like the truck thief shot first.

You don't draw a firearm without the intent to fire. This is basic.

CE: But the armed car thief was a good person.

He had an intent to fire if the thief escalated things. Which is what happened. He had no intent to fire if the thief obeyed orders.

If you value your property, insure it.

You don't draw a firearm without the intent to fire. This is basic.

No, you don't put your finger on the trigger without the intent to fire. You can draw your weapon as a deterrent. If you shoot, yes, you shoot to kill.

Imagine you didn't shill for a thief over the actual victim

if the vehicle owner just showed up and assumed some random vehicle was his and tried to detain them and they shot him and he killed them he would be the one committing a felony and wouldn't be justified in claiming self defense as you can't claim self defense while in the commission of a felony. if you are going to detain a car thief you better get the actual car thief, if you are wrong and try to detain a random person you would be in the commission of a crime at that point.

No. You flash as a deterrent. Brandishing is illegal. Again. Basic gun rules.

Heres a thing he was just hold him until police came

Not a single person said the thief was a good person. Reading comprehension is bad today lol.

seems like a fair, next

Is it legal to hold someone at gun point until police come tho?

Woman with him couldve been an accomplice or completely innocent. If innocent, truck owner should face charges for it. Collateral damage isnt justified even if the recovery was.

Woman with him couldve been an accomplice or completely innocent. If innocent, truck owner should face charges for it. Collateral damage isnt justified even if the recovery was.

He should face charges even if she's guilty.

Yes. It would be illegal to shoot them if they try leaving though.

Imagine if you didn't shill for vigilantes. This could have turned out to be another Trayvon Martin situation if this guy had been mistaken, that's why this behavior shouldn't be defended and normalized.

This is ignorant. How is anyone supposed to believe the guy with the gun out is just -not- going to use it.

Seems like the kind of violent fantasy that a lot of unpleasant people are into, only made real.

Getting shot while trying to get your shit back yeah. Sounds like a great time.

I'm sure CE now thinks the police would've handled it better

Would you feel the same if someone tried to steal your pet? Thief fucked around and found out, one less moron in the world

This is the "detached from reality" part I was talking about

"Just insure it" has to be a meme at this point. Basic car insurance, which most people have (and can barely afford) doesn't even cover it being stolen. You typically need more expensive comprehensive coverage. Which again, a lot of people might not be able to afford.

And you know even if you DO get it, those companies are going to do their damndest to rate your car's value the lowest they can.

Bare minimum you're losing 5 figures of value out of this unless your car was a junker

IF the guy who died really did steal the car...
and IF he really did shoot first....

Then this is a fair, next.
Forensics definitely needs to check the car for the dead guy's DNA and analyze the guns and trajectories and such.
And get the side of the story from the alleged thief's GF.
I will never unquestioningly trust the word of the guy that killed someone else until it's proven true independently.

The punishment for theft isn't death