Ah Texas, you never disappoint - private citizen shoots suspect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

So “taking the law into your own hands” means killing someone without giving them the benefit of due process?

Also, if the car had an air tag, it would have been easy for cops to track it without the need for the car owner to do it himself.

I'm not saying it is right.... I am telling you what to expect when citizens sense that law is not being enforced.
We really need more information. According to one article, the man thought the suspect had a gun. We will have to see if more info is forthcoming.

It doesn't really matter in Texas. Deadly force is justified to prevent robbery

Not sure this was a robbery. If the thief was in the act of stealing the car from him at that moment, most people would say the shooting was justified. I don’t think this situation is the same.

Once the owner was there, if the guy does exit the car, it's a robbery. They've already announced that no charges are expected

Good. Reality is this guy wouldn't have been convicted. I wouldn't.

I thought cons worshipped at the altar of the Constitution. Where is vigilantism in the Constitution?

At the time of the nation's founding, organized vigilantism was the norm. Citizen's arrest, Posse Comitatus, night watches, and slave patrols were all part of the founding order. Professional policing as we know it wasn't introduced to the United States until 1838, when Boston created a municipal force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

Name one progressive DA who is soft on car jackers. Go ahead I’ll wait.

Bragg

Thank you. So if you take your example and give it some thought then you would have to admit that cause and effect don’t add up. If your example of “soft on crime” DA actually lead to increased violent crime then why is NYC not even in the top 100 most violent cities? Why are Spartanburg, Daytona, and Myrtle Beach more dangerous than DC or NYC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

So “taking the law into your own hands” means killing someone without giving them the benefit of due process?

Also, if the car had an air tag, it would have been easy for cops to track it without the need for the car owner to do it himself.

I'm not saying it is right.... I am telling you what to expect when citizens sense that law is not being enforced.
We really need more information. According to one article, the man thought the suspect had a gun. We will have to see if more info is forthcoming.

It doesn't really matter in Texas. Deadly force is justified to prevent robbery

Not sure this was a robbery. If the thief was in the act of stealing the car from him at that moment, most people would say the shooting was justified. I don’t think this situation is the same.

Once the owner was there, if the guy does exit the car, it's a robbery. They've already announced that no charges are expected

Good. Reality is this guy wouldn't have been convicted. I wouldn't.

I thought cons worshipped at the altar of the Constitution. Where is vigilantism in the Constitution?

At the time of the nation's founding, organized vigilantism was the norm. Citizen's arrest, Posse Comitatus, night watches, and slave patrols were all part of the founding order. Professional policing as we know it wasn't introduced to the United States until 1838, when Boston created a municipal force.

Not what PP asked. Also I’m pretty sure there’s a few little statements about “due process” in the Constitution.

In other words, Republicans don’t care about the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

Name one progressive DA who is soft on car jackers. Go ahead I’ll wait.

Bragg

Thank you. So if you take your example and give it some thought then you would have to admit that cause and effect don’t add up. If your example of “soft on crime” DA actually lead to increased violent crime then why is NYC not even in the top 100 most violent cities? Why are Spartanburg, Daytona, and Myrtle Beach more dangerous than DC or NYC?

Major crime in NYC rose 23% last year.

"Major crimes in New York City spiked 23 percent this year - driven by a sharp increase in carjackings, robberies, and burglaries. Police say repeat offenders are fueling the surge."

https://abc7ny.com/nyc-crime-stats-nypd-murder/12628784/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

Name one progressive DA who is soft on car jackers. Go ahead I’ll wait.

Bragg

Thank you. So if you take your example and give it some thought then you would have to admit that cause and effect don’t add up. If your example of “soft on crime” DA actually lead to increased violent crime then why is NYC not even in the top 100 most violent cities? Why are Spartanburg, Daytona, and Myrtle Beach more dangerous than DC or NYC?

Major crime in NYC rose 23% last year.

"Major crimes in New York City spiked 23 percent this year - driven by a sharp increase in carjackings, robberies, and burglaries. Police say repeat offenders are fueling the surge."

https://abc7ny.com/nyc-crime-stats-nypd-murder/12628784/

And still safer than the aforementioned cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

So “taking the law into your own hands” means killing someone without giving them the benefit of due process?

Also, if the car had an air tag, it would have been easy for cops to track it without the need for the car owner to do it himself.

I'm not saying it is right.... I am telling you what to expect when citizens sense that law is not being enforced.
We really need more information. According to one article, the man thought the suspect had a gun. We will have to see if more info is forthcoming.

It doesn't really matter in Texas. Deadly force is justified to prevent robbery

Not sure this was a robbery. If the thief was in the act of stealing the car from him at that moment, most people would say the shooting was justified. I don’t think this situation is the same.

Once the owner was there, if the guy does exit the car, it's a robbery. They've already announced that no charges are expected

Good. Reality is this guy wouldn't have been convicted. I wouldn't.

I thought cons worshipped at the altar of the Constitution. Where is vigilantism in the Constitution?

At the time of the nation's founding, organized vigilantism was the norm. Citizen's arrest, Posse Comitatus, night watches, and slave patrols were all part of the founding order. Professional policing as we know it wasn't introduced to the United States until 1838, when Boston created a municipal force.

Not what PP asked. Also I’m pretty sure there’s a few little statements about “due process” in the Constitution.

In other words, Republicans don’t care about the Constitution.

Due process has nothing to do with a conflict between individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

No, we see this more and more particularly in area with DA and laws soft on murder. When citizen think they can go around and murder somebody because they are pissed for any reason and the soft DA/ laws back them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

No, we see this more and more particularly in area with DA and laws soft on murder. When citizen think they can go around and murder somebody because they are pissed for any reason and the soft DA/ laws back them.

You'll only see this in states with very generous use of force laws. In most states, the shooter would be in jail facing murder charges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

Ha ha ha "DAs soft on crime"? I thought that was only "catch and release" NY? How does that explain Texas in your messed up world view?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

So “taking the law into your own hands” means killing someone without giving them the benefit of due process?

Also, if the car had an air tag, it would have been easy for cops to track it without the need for the car owner to do it himself.

I'm not saying it is right.... I am telling you what to expect when citizens sense that law is not being enforced.
We really need more information. According to one article, the man thought the suspect had a gun. We will have to see if more info is forthcoming.

It doesn't really matter in Texas. Deadly force is justified to prevent robbery

Not sure this was a robbery. If the thief was in the act of stealing the car from him at that moment, most people would say the shooting was justified. I don’t think this situation is the same.

Once the owner was there, if the guy does exit the car, it's a robbery. They've already announced that no charges are expected

Good. Reality is this guy wouldn't have been convicted. I wouldn't.

I would convict him! It's one thing to shoot someone if they are car jacking you. It is another thing to hunt someone down over a property crime. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

So what you’re saying is that when gun owners don’t like something, they’ll get angry and shoot someone, and it’s always someone else’s fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

So “taking the law into your own hands” means killing someone without giving them the benefit of due process?

Also, if the car had an air tag, it would have been easy for cops to track it without the need for the car owner to do it himself.

I'm not saying it is right.... I am telling you what to expect when citizens sense that law is not being enforced.
We really need more information. According to one article, the man thought the suspect had a gun. We will have to see if more info is forthcoming.

It doesn't really matter in Texas. Deadly force is justified to prevent robbery

Not sure this was a robbery. If the thief was in the act of stealing the car from him at that moment, most people would say the shooting was justified. I don’t think this situation is the same.

Once the owner was there, if the guy does exit the car, it's a robbery. They've already announced that no charges are expected

Good. Reality is this guy wouldn't have been convicted. I wouldn't.

I thought cons worshipped at the altar of the Constitution. Where is vigilantism in the Constitution?

At the time of the nation's founding, organized vigilantism was the norm. Citizen's arrest, Posse Comitatus, night watches, and slave patrols were all part of the founding order. Professional policing as we know it wasn't introduced to the United States until 1838, when Boston created a municipal force.

Not what PP asked. Also I’m pretty sure there’s a few little statements about “due process” in the Constitution.

In other words, Republicans don’t care about the Constitution.

Due process has nothing to do with a conflict between individuals.

What century did you drop in from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

No, we see this more and more particularly in area with DA and laws soft on murder. When citizen think they can go around and murder somebody because they are pissed for any reason and the soft DA/ laws back them.

This is BS. No one should be allowed to use deadly force unless they are clearly defending someone's life. Imminent threat to life.

There should be no tolerance for vigilantes, or we head down a dangerous road.

We're just going to take some guy's word that they other guy stole his car? No investigation? Anyone who defends this is a psycho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vigilante justice.

And, we will be seeing more of it - particularly in areas that have progressive DAs who are soft on crime. When citizens don't trust that the law will be enforced, they take matters into their own hands.

No, we see this more and more particularly in area with DA and laws soft on murder. When citizen think they can go around and murder somebody because they are pissed for any reason and the soft DA/ laws back them.

This is BS. No one should be allowed to use deadly force unless they are clearly defending someone's life. Imminent threat to life.

There should be no tolerance for vigilantes, or we head down a dangerous road.

We're just going to take some guy's word that they other guy stole his car? No investigation? Anyone who defends this is a psycho.

Two years ago, I’d be concerned. Not anymore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TX man has apple airtag in his car. Tracks down thief. SHOOTs and KILLs person.

TX police haven't yet decided if the shooter will be charged.!!!

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-man-uses-apple-airtag-track-person-stole-truck-kills-police

Did he sneak up on the man in his car and kill him? Or was there an altercation of some kind?

Police said the man saw his truck in the parking lot, walked up to the stolen vehicle in an attempt to confront the person inside, and some sort of disagreement ensued. Soliz said he could not confirm if the man and the suspected thief argued, but said the car theft victim told police he believed the suspected thief pulled out a gun which prompted "a firefight."

Police said that, at this time, they believe the car thief victim is the only person to have fired shots and could not confirm if there was more than one weapon found at the crime scene.

The suspected thief, another man, was shot and pronounced dead, Soliz said. His identity has not been released. The car theft victim reportedly stayed at the scene of the shooting, complied with police, and was taken into custody for questioning. The shooter is not expected to face charges, Soliz said, but noted an investigation is ongoing.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/san-antonio-airtag-shooting-17871230.php

How do we know the vehicle was actually stolen and this wasn't a murder, using the story as a cover?

Oooh YEAH!

Me: Here are the keys, archenemy!
AE: Oh thanks so much. I really thought you hated me!
Me: Nope. Nopers. No way. Anyways, have a good trip.
Me: (Murders)