Ah Texas, you never disappoint - private citizen shoots suspect

[Anonymous]

I thought Republicans were the party of due process (esp with red flag laws), innocent until proven guilty, yadda yadda. Or is it only when it suits them?

Any republican want to clarify?

[Anonymous]

I mean, if I lived in Texas, I'd make sure I didn't make anyone mad. Was the car thief new there?

[Anonymous]

I mean, if I lived in Texas, I'd make sure I didn't make anyone mad. Was the car thief new there?

Do we know if the person driving the car was the actual thief?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a deal...

Soon people will realize they can just start shooting their enemies, their business rivals, their ex'es, or whoever else, just come up with some claim that they stole something from you and gun them down.

Dumb red state prosecutors will just go along with it, because guns, yee haw.

Do you know that the suspect was unarmed?

Seems to not matter that the suspect was unarmed, if the shooter is not going to be charged with anything. It's "justice" by guns, not due process by the legal system.

It's obvious you don't know anything about due process or the law in Texas.

[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.

The Bill of Rights is about restrictions on government. Government cannot convict without giving due process.
Not particularly relevant to vigilante justice not done by government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if I lived in Texas, I'd make sure I didn't make anyone mad. Was the car thief new there?

Or possibly not steal other people's property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a deal...

Soon people will realize they can just start shooting their enemies, their business rivals, their ex'es, or whoever else, just come up with some claim that they stole something from you and gun them down.

Dumb red state prosecutors will just go along with it, because guns, yee haw.

Do you know that the suspect was unarmed?

Does it matter? If the guy is forcibly occupying the victim's vehicle in Texas, lethal force is justified

Lethal force can be used against someone in possession of stolen property? Yikes!

The lesson here is don’t steal someone’s property, especially in Texas.

[Anonymous]

Just so everyone is clear, the right winger(s) on this thread have made it apparent that they do not believe in the constitution what with its insistence on justice and instead they believe in vigilante justice.

And if it turns out that the thief wasn’t driving and someone else got shot? Oops, they’re bad, but it’ll still be okay because reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just so everyone is clear, the right winger(s) on this thread have made it apparent that they do not believe in the constitution what with its insistence on justice and instead they believe in vigilante justice.

And if it turns out that the thief wasn’t driving and someone else got shot? Oops, they’re bad, but it’ll still be okay because reasons.

Right wingers don't think the Constitution gives criminals immunity from reprisals, because it doesn't. The Constitution restrains the Federal Government, not John Q. Public. Theft and reprisal are the realm of the state/local governments. Some of those will decline to prosecute the theft, while others decline to prosecute the reprisal. That's how federalism works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just so everyone is clear, the right winger(s) on this thread have made it apparent that they do not believe in the constitution what with its insistence on justice and instead they believe in vigilante justice.

And if it turns out that the thief wasn’t driving and someone else got shot? Oops, they’re bad, but it’ll still be okay because reasons.

I know you are deep in the trenches and distracted by politics, but you might want to brush up on criminal law in Texas before posting again.

[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.

The Bill of Rights is about restrictions on government. Government cannot convict without giving due process.
Not particularly relevant to vigilante justice not done by government.

It’s totally relevant with boobs applauding this latest bit of vigilante justice while they’re probably simultaneously over on the Indictment Mega thread crying and wailing about the miscarriage of justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so everyone is clear, the right winger(s) on this thread have made it apparent that they do not believe in the constitution what with its insistence on justice and instead they believe in vigilante justice.

And if it turns out that the thief wasn’t driving and someone else got shot? Oops, they’re bad, but it’ll still be okay because reasons.

I know you are deep in the trenches and distracted by politics, but you might want to brush up on criminal law in Texas before posting again.

That’s it’s a joke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought Republicans were the party of due process (esp with red flag laws), innocent until proven guilty, yadda yadda. Or is it only when it suits them?

Any republican want to clarify?

Due Process for me, Hot Lead for thee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Bill of Rights is about restrictions on government. Government cannot convict without giving due process.
Not particularly relevant to vigilante justice not done by government.

It’s totally relevant with boobs applauding this latest bit of vigilante justice while they’re probably simultaneously over on the Indictment Mega thread crying and wailing about the miscarriage of justice.

+1. Trump is innocent even if a jury finds him guilty. The driver of the truck is presumed guilty and executed. And if he wasn’t guilty, thoughts and prayers.

[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?

Excellent point. In fact, how do we know they weren't gay lovers having a tryst?