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

(+) Yeah! (+)

DnDer posted...

This is not in the heat of the commission of a crime.

Bro he was IN THE TRUCK.

Are you serious?

DnDer posted...

Did anyone say forgiven?

I sure as fuck did not.

I said you don't get to kill someone after the crime has been committed. This is not in the heat of the commission of a crime.

He hunted down his vehicle, drew on the thief, and threatened the thief's life beyond the scope of what's acceptable.

The crime was still being committed. No article references a time line between the truck being stolen and owner finding his truck. It only says the truck was found a little bit away from where it was stolen from. The crime was still in the middle of being committed when the owner confronted the thief.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


No. It just means that you don't have the right to shoot someone because it's not in the heat of the moment defending yourself or your property.

It's the difference between shooting someone in the act of robbing your store and waiting til he's out the door and emptying a magazine in his back.

DnDer posted...

Did anyone say forgiven?

I sure as fuck did not.

I said you don't get to kill someone after the crime has been committed. This is not in the heat of the commission of a crime.

He hunted down his vehicle, drew on the thief, and threatened the thief's life beyond the scope of what's acceptable.

He didnt shoot until the guy shot at him!

My God you criminal apologists just twist everything. Its right there in the damn statement.

DnDer posted...

No. It just means that you don't have the right to shoot someone because it's not in the heat of the moment defending yourself or your property.

It's the difference between shooting someone in the act of robbing your store and waiting til he's out the door and emptying a magazine in his back.

But that's not what happened though. If anything this is the same as the store owner confronting a bunch of thieves that are in the middle of trying to rob his store, holding them at gun point while waiting for police arrive, and then acting in self defense once the thieves try to get brave and shoot at the owner so they can escape before the cops show up.

ghettoraider81 posted...

He didnt shoot until the guy shot at him!

My God you criminal apologists just twist everything. Its right there in the damn statement.

he had a gun pointed at him the moment the vigilante aimed a gun at the guy it became self defense to draw his gun

no one is apologizing for the thief

we are just poiniting out the vigilante is a criminal to for pointing a loaded gun at a man

DnDer posted...

It's the difference between shooting someone in the act of robbing your store and waiting til he's out the door and emptying a magazine in his back.

But in this scenario he's not "out the door." In some states, a vehicle is given the same sort of protections as a home when it comes to defending property from thieves and intruders.

So, if he was still in the truck, that's basically the same thing as being in the owner's living room. Pulling a gun and saying "Get the fuck out of my house and wait until the police show up" is a perfectly acceptable course of action in that scenario.

It was the thief who fired his gun first. If the thief had been in the owner's house when this happened, would you still think the owner was in the wrong?

DnDer posted...

You don't have a right to hunt down a purse snatcher and threaten to shoot them after they already got away with the purse.

He didn't carjack the owner. He'd already left with it.

The article in the OP says the owner spotted his truck a short distance away, thats not hunting someone down after the fact. Youre acting like driving the truck to the other side of the parking lot means the crime has concluded, its ridiculous.

AceMos posted...

he had a gun pointed at him the moment the vigilante aimed a gun at the guy it became self defense to draw his gun

no one is apologizing for the thief

we are just poiniting out the vigilante is a criminal to for pointing a loaded gun at a man

Self-defense isn't something you can assert while in the middle of committing a crime. You can't be a thief and then legally resort to deadly force because you're trying to protect yourself from your victims. Some of you people play way too many video games.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


He clearly didn't think/know the thief had a gun, otherwise he would have disarmed him.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

...Bro who are you people coming in here with these bad takes? lmao

Wanting less people shot and killed = "bad take"

jumi posted...

Wanting less people shot and killed = "bad take"

Tell me who shot first.

DnDer posted...

The blood lust radiating off you people.

The one with bloodlust was the thief, he shot first.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Careful asking reasonable questions like this around CE.

The answer may surprise you lol

jumi posted...

Wanting less people shot and killed = "bad take"

If the thief's didn't create the situation then they wouldn't have been shot. They're the ones that escalated the situation at every step of the way; first by stealing the truck and then again once they opened fire on the truck's owner. Maybe if they weren't fucking around so hard then they wouldn't have found out.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The truck was gone when he came to get it. Gone.

He had to find it. Like following the thief around the block after your store has been robbed.

Instead of calling the police and going, "He's over there!" he decided to arm up and go hunting with the intent to kill to get his property back.

He went from victim to criminal vigilante in that moment.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

yes considering how trigger happy police are

DnDer posted...

Like following the thief around the block after your store has been robbed.

...No. See, this would be like the thief literally taking the store with him.

AceMos posted...

yes considering how trigger happy police are

See? Lmao I told you.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Careful asking reasonable questions like this around CE.

The answer may surprise you lol

St0rmFury posted...

The one with bloodlust was the thief, he shot first.

Oh, no. Sorry. The answer we were looking for was, "Good guy with a gun who's always been itching to live his hero fantasy and hold a Bad Guy at bay with his own, if not outright kill him."

DnDer posted...

Oh, no. Sorry.

Apology accepted, now stop posting in this topic with your bad opinions lol

Gobstoppers12 posted...

...No. See, this would be like the thief literally taking the store with him.

Your "this is my domicile, bitch" defense doesn't work here, as fun as it was to watch in Breaking Bad.

Try again.

DnDer posted...

Oh, no. Sorry. The answer we were looking for was, "Good guy with a gun who's always been itching to live his hero fantasy and hold a Bad Guy at bay with his own, if not outright kill him."

So the thief has absolutely no culpability in creating the situation?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Apology accepted, now stop posting in this topic with your bad opinions lol

This, coming from one of the lords of 261 Bad opinions. That's rich.

DnDer posted...

Your "this is my domicile, bitch" defense doesn't work here, as fun as it was to watch in Breaking Bad.

Try again.

Ok so why isn't the owner being charged with a crime then?

A_Good_Boy posted...

So the thief has absolutely no culpability in creating the situation?

Not in a way that negates the actions of criminal and murderous vigilantism.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Stopping a crime currently being committed against you is not vigilantism.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Ok so why isn't the owner being charged with a crime then?

Because Texas rewards the violent mythology of the good guy with a gun.

This is the state of forcing migrants to have miscarriages in razor wire, executing innocent people they know are innocent, and dragging gay people behind their trucks (that are worth killing for, I guess).

"But Texas said its cool," is not the defense you think it is.

DnDer posted...

criminal and murderous vigilantism

Dude was just getting his truck back. If the thief never fired, dude wouldn't have fired either. When the thief chose to shoot first, he literally gave the owner legal permission to shoot him back.

The thief literally consented to being shot.

Wow lots of Zimmerman fans in this topic.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This guy gets it.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Dude was just getting his truck back. If the thief never fired, dude wouldn't have fired either. When the thief chose to shoot first, he literally gave the owner legal permission to shoot him back.

The thief literally consented to being shot.

The owner threatened the thief's life first. The thief was defending his life after the owner escalated a non-violent situation into a deadly threat.

DnDer posted...

Try again.

Don't gotta. I had it right the first time.

Imagine being so dense that you defend a person who stole someone's vehicle and then pulled a gun on the vehicles rightful owner.

DnDer posted...

The owner threatened the thief life first

No, the owner said "Get out of my truck, I'm calling the police."

That's not a threat to anyone's life. The gun was there as a deterrent. He wasn't going to shoot, but he was forced to shoot. If the thief had any sense of self-preservation he would have sat like the criminal he was, waiting for the police to come take him (rightfully) to jail for committing a serious crime.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

Imagine being so dense that you defend a person who stole someone's vehicle and then pulled a gun on the vehicles rightful owner.

You know he wasn't the only one shot right? There is a good reason we don't celebrate the Punisher.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

The gun was there as a deterrent.

wrong the moment you point a gun at a person its a threat on their life

never pointed a gun unless you are prepared to kill what its pointed at

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

Imagine being so dense that you defend a person who stole someone's vehicle and then pulled a gun on the vehicles rightful owner.

The owner pulled his gun.

havean776 posted...

You know he wasn't the only one shot right? There is a good reason we don't celebrate the Punisher.

He might think the Punisher is a good guy.

havean776 posted...

You know he wasn't the only one shot right? There is a good reason we don't celebrate the Punisher.

I don't give a fuck. He stole someone's vehicle and then pulled a gun on the vehicles owner. Fuck that piece of shit scumbag.

I have zero sympathy for people who commit serious crimes and then face the consequences. Too many criminals face zero consequences which is why crime is fucking out of control.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

No, the owner said "Get out of my truck, I'm calling the police."

That's not a threat to anyone's life. The gun was there as a deterrent. He wasn't going to shoot, but he was forced to shoot. If the thief had any sense of self-preservation he would have sat like the criminal he was, waiting for the police to come take him (rightfully) to jail for committing a serious crime.

And he was also forced to shoot the other passanger in the truck. But hey I guess they deserve death as well GO Vigilantes!