"Good shoot?" Suspected Texas vehicle thief dies in shootout with vehicle owner who tracked him down.

Racer88

Racer88

Big Kahuna Admin
Staff member
Exchange Privileges
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Messages
19,034
Reaction score
21,947
Points
168
Location
USA! USA!
Good guy's truck is stolen. He tracks it down to a mall parking lot and finds the thief in it. Orders him out and holds him at gun point. Bad guy produces gun and shoots good guy. Good guy shoots him back and kills him. Good guy survived.

www.foxnews.com

Suspected Texas vehicle thief dies in shootout with vehicle owner who tracked him down, police say

An alleged thief who stole a truck in Texas on Thursday has died after getting into a gunfight with the owner, who tracked him down to a mall parking lot, police say.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
Good shoot. Some may agree with the perp's family, but I'm old school. Don't commit crimes if you can't deal with the consequences. I'm happy as a clam the taxpayer didn't have to support the perp until trial, then try him. Perfect ending IMO, except for his family. The world is better off with this guy taken our of the gene pool.
 
Unwise. Should have let law enforcement handle it once he found the truck. Stupid mistake #1

Let's explore the other mistakes made here. The owner of the truck takes the two into custody at gunpoint. Stupid mistake #2. Because he doesn't know wtf he is doing, the bad guy is armed and gets the drop on him. Think about that. Did it even occur to him the guy might be armed? There's stupid mistake #3.

He's pointing a loaded gun at two people and he chokes when the perp reaches for his gun. Putting aside stupid mistakes 1, 2, and 3, he should have put two rounds into the perp the second he made his move. That was stupid mistake #4.

What if the chick were also armed? He could be dead. Over a truck. No truck is worth your life. His death would be stupid mistake #5
 
I tend agree with @JCinPA that the owner likely did the world a favor in the long run, but also align with @Bongo Lewi 's various observations. I am not up on Texas law. I imagine actions like this even in a number of gun friendly areas could result in charges against the truck owner. I'd think it would have been prudent to lay back, observe the vehicle and call 911.
 
brian said:
I am not up on Texas law.
Click to expand...
You can protect your property with deadly force in Texas. But, I do believe that is under Castle Doctrine law and it may apply to only thefts at night or if someone's life is in jeopardy and they occur on your property or property where you are allowed access (like a renter). Take what I'm saying with a grain of salt in the last sentence. It is probably close, but could have some errors.

I do know that you can shoot someone on your property in Texas at night if they are stealing something. A man in San Antonio did just that many months back and no charges were filed against him.
 
I'm with JC and Brian in that a criminal gets no sympathy from me. However, we have to resist the temptation to take the law into our own hands. It's just not smart. Imagine the dead perps family or the girlfriend admitting they were guilty of stealing the truck but were defending themselves when the guns came out. Your word against theirs and somebody is dead. You may go to prison. Or face $250+ in legal fees defending your actions. But since the perp fired first I think this will not result in charges. The deceased asshole probably had a long history of criminal behavior.

You can't shoot somebody for stealing your truck. Not even in Texas. :) The exception would be a carjacking. In that case, fire away.

The owner is lucky that the first shot didn't hit something vital and he was able to return fire. This is a good lesson in how not to handle a gunfight.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
Imagine the dead perps family or the girlfriend admitting they were guilty of stealing the truck but were defending themselves when the guns came out.
Click to expand...
I believe in MOST states, you cannot claim self-defense if you are in a "place of nuisance" or actively committing a felony.
 
I agree with all of Bongo's points.

I'm just happy the little shit has assumed room temperature. With the lawlessness we've witnessed as DAs fail to prosecute and inmate are let out of prison by the hundreds, I'd cruel and heartless. I'd like to see a lot more of them dead at the hands o law abiding citizens.

And before anyone accuse me of it, this is NOT vigilante violence. Vigilante violence only exists when the legal system works to enforce the law of the land, and punish wrongdoers, that's the social contract. We farm that out to government.

When government not only does not do its duty to enforce the law nor does it punish wrongdoers and support and defend victims, then this is the natural result--people meting out the kind of common law justice we've accepted as normal for centuries. Once the government abdicates its responsibility to enforce the law and protect citizens, then citizens have the right to do so on their own by operation of natural law.

It's kind of like the fedgov suing Gov Abbott for trying to create a border obstacle by building wall and putting the buoys in the Rio Grande. He should tell the courts to FRO and not show up at the proceedings. The feds have no more right to have him answer their objections because they have abdicated their responsibility.
 
JCinPA said:
He should tell the courts to FRO and not show up at the proceedings. The feds have no more right to have him answer their objections because they have abdicated their responsibility.
Click to expand...
FRO = ??

Fuck right off?
 
Perhaps so. The owner did not catch them in the act of stealing the truck. If he had, that would be actively committing a felony. Does that apply after the fact? Is possession of a stolen vehicle the same as the act of stealing it? The timeline may matter.

Just for fun... imagine this:

Prosecutor: So, Mr. Jones, when you drew a gun on the persons sitting in your stolen truck, how did you know they were those who stole it?
Defendant: Well... I assumed they were the thieves.
Prosecutor: Did you consider the possibility that they may have not been the thieves? Or that they might not know the truck was stolen?
Defendant: No.
Prosecutor: So you drew your gun and ordered them to get out of your truck
Defendant: Yes.
Prosecutor: Did they comply?
Defendant: Yes.
Prosecutor: If someone pointed a gun at you and demanded you step out of a vehicle, would you draw your gun to defend yourself?
Defendant: Yes.
Prosecutor: So it's possible the deceased, Mr. Smith, was defending himself. From you.
Defendant: Umm....

I would add that they could also sue the owner in civil court. Wrongful death, something like that.
 
Last edited:
Bongo, I admitted your point. Then said I DGAF. Discussion over.

Yes, FRO = Fuck Right Off

DGAF, I assume you can translate, too. lol

America is done with counting on gov at almost all levels in most of the country for law enforcement and protection. They will start doing it themselves, just as has been done throughout most of human history. It's the natural order of things. And I applaud it.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
Prosecutor: So it's possible the deceased, Mr. Smith, was defending himself. From you.
Defendant: Umm....
Click to expand...
Rather than Ummm Defendant - "I say he stole it. Prove he didn't."
 
JCinPA said:
It's kind of like the fedgov suing Gov Abbott for trying to create a border obstacle by building wall and putting the buoys in the Rio Grande. He should tell the courts to FRO and not show up at the proceedings. The feds have no more right to have him answer their objections because they have abdicated their responsibility.
Click to expand...
I saw that story and agree it is ridiculous. This is all just a big show for the Feds. Mayorkas is just a puppet. They are intentionally allowing people and contraband to cross the border. Abbott had every right to make it difficult to get across the RG.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
Is possession of a stolen vehicle the same as the act of stealing it?
Click to expand...
Easy. YES. Both felonies.
1690674945575.png


Furthermore...
1690674991087.png
 
brian said:
Unless the occupant could claim they had no clue of a stolen vehicle by virtue of being a hitchhiker, for which my other comment "I say he stole it. Prove he didn't." could come into play. The witness in the car could be problematic ...
Click to expand...
I don't see that at all. Prove he stole it?? It's MY fucking truck. The broken steering column (or other damage to hotwire it) might also be a clue, eh?

Mind you, I agree with @Bongo Lewi's assessment 100%.
 
brian said:
Rather than Ummm Defendant - "I say he stole it. Prove he didn't."
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that's not how testimony works.

The dialogue is purely hypothetical. My only point is what this guy did is how you can end up in jail. Even when you think you are doing the right thing.

In this situation, perhaps in another jurisdiction or state, an anti-gun prosecutor would have you by the balls. Even conservative courts make an example of those who engage in vigilante behavior. The alleged thief is dead, but his girlfriend says they simply found the truck with the keys in it and decided to take it. Maybe that's true, maybe she's lying. But if that happens, one possible outcome is she walks and you are facing serious charges.

A big wheel exec client once commented to me about that incident where Bill Gates got a pie in his face. He said, "You shoot the sonofabitch who tries to do that to me". Sorry, Mr. Bigballs.... that isn't an option. Our job is to make sure nobody gets that close to you.

Using a gun to stop a pie is excessive use of force.
 
Last edited:
Funny... Right now, wife and I are watching John Wick (1) for the umpteenth time, because it's the only thing on TV that is somewhat interesting. The JW series is comedy! Some funny stuff.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
I'm with JC and Brian in that a criminal gets no sympathy from me. However, we have to resist the temptation to take the law into our own hands. It's just not smart. Imagine the dead perps family or the girlfriend admitting they were guilty of stealing the truck but were defending themselves when the guns came out. Your word against theirs and somebody is dead. You may go to prison. Or face $250+ in legal fees defending your actions. But since the perp fired first I think this will not result in charges. The deceased asshole probably had a long history of criminal behavior.

You can't shoot somebody for stealing your truck. Not even in Texas. :) The exception would be a carjacking. In that case, fire away.

The owner is lucky that the first shot didn't hit something vital and he was able to return fire. This is a good lesson in how not to handle a gunfight.
Click to expand...
Point of fact here: The truck owner did not "shoot the thief because the thief stole his truck." The truck owner presumably shot the thief in self-defense because the thief produced a firearm threatening and then using deadly force on the owner of the truck!

I'll not debate the mistakes the truck owner made in getting to that point, but a private citizen carrying a firearm for self-defense and being met with a deadly force threat, shoots TO STOP THE THREAT, just as an LEO is trained to shoot to stop the threat in the course of doing that increasingly difficult job. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, neither private citizen nor an LEO "shoots to kill." That distinction is important and that mindset should be part of any reputable training in self-defense, concealed carry courses, etc. OR if the private citizen is carrying where a license/permit is not required (such as we now have here in Florida and over half of these United States), then they need either seek out quality self-defense training that includes training on "use of force statutes." Alternatively they need study those statutes very thoroughly on their own, which can be daunting. Otherwise, the legal consequences can be dire! 🤠
 

Share this page

Back
Top