Seems as though this man’s car was stolen, but the thieves were unaware that nowadays, you can track your car’s location. Which is what Our Hero did, and confronted said scumbags in a mall parking lot. He made them get out of the car at gunpoint and sit on the ground while everyone awaited the arrival of the San Antonio police.
Well, our Senior Scumbag wasn’t going to take this lying (sitting?) down, so he pulled his own gun and popped off at the car owner.
Whereupon Our Hero wasted the fucker AND shot Scumbag’s accomplice in the leg, I assume lest she wanted to retrieve her late partner’s gun and continue the festivities.
Quote of the day comes from the SAPD chief:
‘Certainly a case of self-defense, is what we have.’
Then, for the lawyers, he added (no doubt with a shrug):
‘We would prefer that they call the police before taking that into your own hands, but he did what he felt he needed to do.’
I think some applause for both the chief and Our Hero would be appropriate:
Texas, baby.
Of course, the family of the corpus delicti is all boohoohoo about it (sent by Longtime Friend and Reader John C.):
“Whether my brother was wrong or right, he had a gun pointed at him. I guess he took it upon himself to defend himself. The guy who shot him is a vigilante, not a hero,” Jose Garcia told KENS 5. “A vehicle is not worth taking someone’s life, I don’t care what kind of car it is. You don’t take the law into your own hands. Now my mom, my family, we all have to suffer and just deal with it.”
Errr well, I hate to break it to you, Jose, but under Texas law, self-defense during the commission of a crime is not justifiable. And the law is always in the hands of the citizen — we just deputize its enforcement to government. But when the government is late to the scene, or absent altogether, it is absolutely the right of the citizen to enforce it. Deputization is not the same as abrogation, despite what government wants you to think.
Also, if a vehicle is not worth a life, your deceased choirboy brother didn’t think the same way — or else he would not have been carrying a gun himself. Clearly, he thought that a car was worth more than a life, which is why he ended up the way he did.
In any event, fuck him, he’s dead, the dangerous criminal asshole. And while you’re right to mourn him, I’ll bet this wasn’t the first time he’d caused the family grief and heartache. Everyone (your family included) is better off without him, as it is without all dangerous criminals.
If I were “in charge”, the dead criminal’s estate would be paying the car owner for the ammunition expended as well as the mall for cleanup costs.
Good on the truck owner doing the job GOV (more and more) refuses to do.
To that ‘family member’s’ statement – he had a gun pointed at him, due to being behind the wheel of the stolen vehicle, operating it, which is a felony. He was detained, until LEO could come, and take over.
But, alas, he had to try and go GTA, and lost. Oops. Guess he should have improved his stats.
But, to decry the property owner for his attempts to recover the stolen property, and the following actions as the felon resisted, is laughable. A death is no laughing matter, but to equate the priority of the felons life over the stolen property in his possession is myopic and logically imbecilic.
Here, the car owner would have most DEFINITELY been arrested and charged with, at best, manslaughter, but, more likely, murder. Welcome to my world 🙁
The deceased criminal’s brother seems to say “vigilante “ like it’s some kind of bad thing
Very funny
The only downside is that the corpses of the carjackers or car thieves will not be placed in a gibbet on display as they rot with their crimes written on a sign around their necks.
Albert is right. The estates, meager as they may be, of the criminals should be paying the good citizen compensation for all legal costs, ammunition costs and any medical costs including lost wages.
JQ
The brother sayeth, “vigilante, not a hero”. Embrace the power of AND.
Or, conversely, “He valued my car more than his own life.”
Um, didn’t they used to hang horse thieves in the Old West. I don’t see how the change in technology from hayburner to gasburner makes any differnce.
Exactly. As technology advances so does the law. Our papers, which we are to be secure in against unreasonable search and seizure include computer- generated and computer-stored data.
The First Amendment includes radio and television transmissions, and is not limited to communication technologies available in 1787, nor is freedom of Relgion limited to religions in existence in 1787. Scientology and Mormonism are protected, too.
Stealing a car is stealing an iron horse.
But (according to most Democrats) the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks.
most opinions from Democrats are ludicrous at best, frequently devoid of facts or reason and should be ridiculed mercilessly.
I believe that we are far too soft on thieves through the plea bargain and sentencing processes. thieves should be put in the stocks in the public square each day then trotted back to prison each night where they can languish in misery for a significant amount of time. Perhaps allowing the townsfolk to toss half rotted produce at the thieves would help enhance the rehabilitation of the thieves. It’s worth trying. Maybe we could put them on treadmills or stationary bikes that generate electricity for the rest of society.
JQ