The shooter didn't prevent anything, if he did then he should get a medal.

The shooter prevented the future murder of an innocent.

Give him the medal.

 

The shooter prevented the future murder of an innocent.

Give him the medal.

+1 and the key to the city.

Under Texas Penal Code 9.42, deadly force may be used to protect land or property when a person reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to: prevent someone fleeing with property after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime.

 

+1 and the key to the city.

Under Texas Penal Code 9.42, deadly force may be used to protect land or property when a person reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to: prevent someone fleeing with property after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime.

It's a bit more involved than that, but I think he is covered.

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

Current as of April 14, 2021 | Updated by FindLaw Staff
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41;  and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
.... (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or
.... (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
.... (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or
.... (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Section 9.41 makes it clear that he would have had the right to take action if the guy had been trying to rob him.
Section 9.43 makes it clear that he had the right to take action in defense of the actual victim.

So requirement (1) is satisfied.
Requirement (2(B)) is pretty self-evidently satisfied -- the guy was fleeing immediately after committing aggravated robbery.
Requirement (3(B)) is a pretty easy argument to make.

 

They should throw the book at em.

Completely unjustified taking of a life.

Vigilantism is completely legal...until you break the law.

And since it strongly appears that he didn't break the law, why should they throw the book at him, when that book says that it was completely legal for him to do what he did?

He could face problems for leaving the scene, but that's probably unlikely.

 

The shooter prevented the future murder of an innocent.

Give him the medal.

That is some faulty logic right there.

But I do admit that I made the wrong call on throwing the book at him, I should have checked Texas law instead of assuming it was the same as where I live, where it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property alone but can be used when it also involves self-defense or losing the property could also lead to personal loss of life or limb.

 

...
But I do admit that I made the wrong call on throwing the book at him, I should have checked Texas law instead of assuming it was the same as where I live, where it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property alone but can be used when it also involves self-defense or losing the property could also lead to personal loss of life or limb.

Thanks for that, Texas is very progressive with property rights.

 

...progressive...

Ha. ISWYDT.

 

That is some faulty logic right there.

Name the fallacy.

 

I second the Motion ......
Define the fallacy for us Spidey.

Also, please explain why the condition of the World is now worse, rather than better,
because of the end-result of this incident.

What if that was your Daughter getting Gas ?????????

You can do complex Math-Equations in your head, this concept isn't Rocket-Surgery.

All people are born equal, but they never end-up that way.
.
.
.

 

The fallacy is assuming future behavior based on past behavior. I don't really have a name but there probably is one.

And why should I comment on the condition of the world after this shooting...I never commented on that in the first place.

What if that was my daughter?

Well, I would hope she had the wits about her to not further endanger herself by doing something stupid.

And I would also wish some hotshot shooter would not pull out their gun and kill someone right before her eyes further traumatizing her.

What if the shooter had missed and the perp turned around and killed the hotshot then decided they better get rid of any witnesses?

 

What if the shooter had missed and the perp turned around and killed the hotshot then decided they better get rid of any witnesses?

Impossible.

His future behavior has no relation to his past behavior.

 

The fallacy is assuming future behavior based on past behavior. I don't really have a name but there probably is one.

And why should I comment on the condition of the world after this shooting...I never commented on that in the first place.

What if that was my daughter?

Well, I would hope she had the wits about her to not further endanger herself by doing something stupid.

And I would also wish some hotshot shooter would not pull out their gun and kill someone right before her eyes further traumatizing her.

What if the shooter had missed and the perp turned around and killed the hotshot then decided they better get rid of any witnesses?

Magical thinking like that shows how powerful prejudice is. It has no basis in fact, only beliefs that defy logic and are derived from some faith of being 'right' and good.

 

ElectricSpidey
So far, I've seen nothing but "Word-Salad".

No significant points brought-up for possible re-examination.

Please stand-up for your convictions,
and explain why we should agree with You,
in a concise manner.

All people are born equal, but they never end-up that way.
.
.
.

 

I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

 

Everyone on this Planet has been Brainwashed to one degree or another.
No one is excepted from this fact.

Quite often it is referred to as "Cognitive-Dissonance".

Under certain circumstances it can be very destructive of a person's self-worth,
so it is well worth any time spent attempting to rectify it,
rather than attempting to avoid it, as it will never go away if ignored.
.
.
.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/miss-japan-gives-up-title-affair-married-man-rcna137426
Ukrainian-born Miss Japan gives up her title after her affair with a married man is revealed

 

Watch out for the home solar scam.

 

The owner can't get the benefit of share price increases but the lawyers can.

 

The owner can't get the benefit of share price increases but the lawyers can.

Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard–the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims–then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

She was brilliant.