Texas man uses Apple AirTag to track down person who stole his truck, then kills him

[MAGA99]

I was on a river cruise maybe ten years ago and the driver pointed out a bullet riddled stop sign at an intersection, commenting that "out in the sticks" that was pretty common.

(excursion bus trip to the volcano)

You don’t shoot signs?

 

[pdm]

But didn't the WHOLE STATE just vote in some really bad gun laws?

If by "whole state" you mean the "big dump cities in the western half", yeah, the whole state voted for it.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

don't steal

 

[gerrycaruso]

If you steal stuff and get caught, bad things might happen to you. Imagine that.

 

[Picton]

The population of Oregon is concentrated in Portland and it overwhelms the rest of the state which is fairly conservative. Only like three counties in Oregon voted in favor of that gun control law, but those three counties have so much larger a population that the law passed. To put it in perspective, if you watch the video I linked above, they are talking about a county with a population of 4,000 people. In contrast, Portland OR has a population of 600,000 people.

So, no, the whole state didn’t vote for gun control; greater Portland voted for gun control.

This.

Just like every other state, and the nation in general. Democracy doesn't give us what The People want. It gives us what The Cities want. Just ask a rural Californian what it's like having your laws be written by state assemblymen representing suburban Los Angeles, six hundred miles away.

 

[tuna]

From the article

"If you are to get your vehicle stolen, please do not take matters into your own hands like this," Soliz said. "It's never safe as you can see by this incident."

How is this not safe, Officer Dipshit? The guy wasn't hurt, and the dead guy is now serving a purpose as compost instead of stealing oxygen.

A spokesperson for Apple has previously pointed Fox News Digital to a recent update and stated that it works with law enforcement to track down AirTags used for criminal purposes.

Nice way to throw this in, to equate getting your property back as being a crime.

On the other hand, capital punishment for a property crime is a troubling thought.

No, it isn't. Not all lives matter.

I understand, but your $60,000 truck argument applies equally to some low-income person's $600 sh!tbox, that they need to get to work. Or does it? And if it does not, what's the property value that equal a human life?

This is the conundrum, as to when deadly force is a legitimate option, be it street justice, or judicial capital punishment.

The property value of human life is one of my pennies that I worked for. Just one of them. The thieves aren't worth the effort I expended to make that penny, why should I forfeit it?
The real conundrum is are we looking at the justice system, or justice? If we suspend the justice system for a time, except for their investigation arms, and allow a vigilance committee to dispense true justice, I'm sure you'll see a dramatic decrease in criminal activity, that correlates with a rise in bodies hanging from telephone poles.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I understand, but your $60,000 truck argument applies equally to some low-income person's $600 sh!tbox, that they need to get to work. Or does it? And if it does not, what's the property value that equal a human life?

This is the conundrum, as to when deadly force is a legitimate option, be it street justice, or judicial capital punishment.

My logic circuits are busy - it's billing day and I'm killing a few moments. By this logic, should I buy a truck well beyond my means to justify popping a cap in someone's beeee-hind or a complete shitbox no matter what my station in life is? Just in case my truck gets jacked, I happen to own an AirTag and I decide to chase them down myself.

 

[M1911]

From the article

How is this not safe, Officer Dipshit? The guy wasn't hurt, and the dead guy is now serving a purpose as compost instead of stealing oxygen.

While it worked out this time, I think it is a mistake to assume that you will prevail just because you are in the right. Going to retrieve your stolen property is risky.

 

[tuna]

While it worked out this time, I think it is a mistake to assume that you will prevail just because you are in the right. Going to retrieve your stolen property is risky.

If the article said that, I'd agree with you. It said "it's never safe as you can see by this incident". In this incident, it was perfectly safe for the rightful owner of the truck.

What wasn't safe, was stealing it in the first place. Which is as it should be.

 

[bigbravehog]

Get insurance for your stuff. Hope it is either never found or totaled. So if or when it is stolen just get a brand new item.

this. I never understood why anyone would put their lives in danger for objects. You can steal anything I have, just don't touch my family, then hell will break loose.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The police are always busy and not always to take "person not in danger" calls, but how about parking a few blocks away, calling 911 and saying "I have located my stolen car via airtag; I am parked several blocks away right now. Could you please send an officer so I do not have to confront the thief myself, or do you prefer I handle this myself?".

 

[M1911]

If the article said that, I'd agree with you. It said "it's never safe as you can see by this incident". In this incident, it was perfectly safe for the rightful owner of the truck.

What wasn't safe, was stealing it in the first place. Which is as it should be.

I disagree. In this case it worked out but that doesn’t mean it was safe. There was risk involved in this incident.

I’ve done plenty of things that ended well but could have ended very badly

 

[Rob Boudrie]

this. I never understood why anyone would put their lives in danger for objects. You can steal anything I have, just don't touch my family, then hell will break loose.

A soviet era immigrant from the USSR I used to work with had an interesting theory, that goes like this

• I spend my time to earn money
• Therefore, everything I buy has been paid for with a portion of my limited life span
• Therefore, anyone who steals something from me is stealing the amount of lifespan I will have to sacrifice to work to replace it
• Someone who steals from me steals part of my lifetime

Sounds well reasoned to me.

 

[bigbravehog]

A soviet era immigrant from the USSR I used to work with had an interesting theory, that goes like this

• I spend my time to earn money
• Therefore, everything I buy has been paid for with a portion of my limited life span
• Therefore, anyone who steals something from me is stealing the amount of lifespan I will have to sacrifice to work to replace it
• Someone who steals from me steals part of my lifetime

Sounds well reasoned to me.

Everything I have worth stealing is insured. That immigrant doesn't understand MA gun laws. I'm not going to jail for objects I can replace that have no meaning to me.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Everything I have worth stealing is insured. That immigrant doesn't understand MA gun laws. I'm not going to jail for objects I can replace that have no meaning to me.

He was not advocating any use of force, just explaining his philosophy.

He also wanted an AK (back when an FID was sufficient). He got his FID and we drove out to AARMCO (way before owner Steve Holmquist got indicted). Steve pulled the arrogant "you don't know what you are talking about, you never used a gun like that in the army" line on him. Steve became quiet and walked away when my friend replied in his Russian accent "It was another army".

 

[bigbravehog]

He was not advocating any use of force, just explaining his philosophy.

He also wanted an AK (back when an FID was sufficient). He got his FID and we drove out to AARMCO (way before owner Steve Holmquist got indicted). Steve pulled the arrogant "you don't know what you are talking about, you never used a gun like that in the army" line on him. Steve became quiet and walked away when my friend replied in his Russian accent "It was another army".

I understand now. Unfortunately my commie state makes us hostage in self defense situations.

 

[heck ya beaches]

A soviet era immigrant from the USSR I used to work with had an interesting theory, that goes like this

• I spend my time to earn money
• Therefore, everything I buy has been paid for with a portion of my limited life span
• Therefore, anyone who steals something from me is stealing the amount of lifespan I will have to sacrifice to work to replace it
• Someone who steals from me steals part of my lifetime

Sounds well reasoned to me.

That's the way I see it, with added in that you're taking away from my kids as well. 0 tolerance and I'd buy the truck owner a beer.

 

[The5thDentist]

Judge: "Whyd ya kill him?"
Truck Owner: "Well, he needed killin'!"
Judge: "Y'all acquitted. Go home."

 

[Reptile]

How did the shooter know that man who he shot was the actual thief who stole the truck?

Maybe the thief loaned the truck to a person he hated just to get him in trouble and in this case shot.

In LFI-1, Mas Ayoob's class, there is a shot no shoot scenario.

I don't want to give it away, but even if you are sure the guy you are chasing is the perp and he shot somebody, unless you yourself saw him do it - YOU CANT USE LETHAL FORCE at that point.

Kind of like you can't shoot a man far away from you who is holding a knife. IF the man throws the knife AT YOU and the knife is in the air at that moment as a missile - you CAN shoot him. I, for one, would sooner try to avoid the flying knife.

These rules are based on case law.

Weather or not a jury will convict is another story.

 

[heck ya beaches]

How did the shooter know that man who he shot was the actual thief who stole the truck?

Maybe the thief loaned the truck to a person he hated just to get him in trouble and in this case shot.

In LFI-1, Mas Ayoob's class, there is a shot no shoot scenario.

I don't want to give it away, but even if you are sure the guy you are chasing is the perp and he shot somebody, unless you yourself saw him do it - YOU CANT USE LETHAL FORCE at that point.

Kind of like you can't shoot a man far away from you who is holding a knife. IF the man throws the knife AT YOU and the knife is in the air at that moment as a missile - you CAN shoot him. I, for one, would sooner try to avoid the flying knife.

These rules are based on case law.

Weather or not a jury will convict is another story.

won't someone think of the car thieves and their hood rat friends

 

[556USER]

View attachment 738550

I know the context is wrong but is that a picture of Judge Juan Merchan?

 

[Dennis in MA]

The property value of human life is one of my pennies that I worked for. Just one of them. The thieves aren't worth the effort I expended to make that penny, why should I forfeit it?
The real conundrum is are we looking at the justice system, or justice? If we suspend the justice system for a time, except for their investigation arms, and allow a vigilance committee to dispense true justice, I'm sure you'll see a dramatic decrease in criminal activity, that correlates with a rise in bodies hanging from telephone poles.

Yeah, that's not how the law works. I mean, let's go back to Mosaic and Hammurabi codes. Eye for an Eye wasn't to ensure justice. It was to ensure that the aggrieved didn't extract MORE for the offense. Watch two young siblings interact. One will accidentally whack the other. The whack-ee then wallops the whack-er. Now wallop-ee gets a bat against wallop-er. It just escalates.

The penalty must be just. You want to shoot someone over a penny? A PENNY??? Now you're just being dramatic or selfish. LOL

Or, to put it in the 2000 language (and I always found this funny. . . )

LOL

 

[BJones]

This.

Just like every other state, and the nation in general. Democracy doesn't give us what The People want. It gives us what The Cities want. Just ask a rural Californian what it's like having your laws be written by state assemblymen representing suburban Los Angeles, six hundred miles away.

NY state is another good example. Upstate NY is nothing like Albany or NYC.


So after reading the article ... there is absolutely nothing about what transpired between the thief and the owner ... nothing besides the shooting which may as well be self defense.

In terms of "insurance", "property with no emotional attachment" ... you guys ever tried to file a police report over stolen shit and being told ... "you can file it but the reality is we have no bandwidth to investigate it ..."

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I'm a fan of this Texas law. I wish it was the law of the land.

The police are under no obligation to protect you or your property. The Supreme Court settled that. So if not them, then ot falls to us as individuals. Plain and simple.

The law should reflect that reality.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Yeah, that's not how the law works. I mean, let's go back to Mosaic and Hammurabi codes. Eye for an Eye wasn't to ensure justice. It was to ensure that the aggrieved didn't extract MORE for the offense. Watch two young siblings interact. One will accidentally whack the other. The whack-ee then wallops the whack-er. Now wallop-ee gets a bat against wallop-er. It just escalates.

The penalty must be just. You want to shoot someone over a penny? A PENNY??? Now you're just being dramatic or selfish. LOL

Or, to put it in the 2000 language (and I always found this funny. . . )

LOL

I'm with Tuna on this one. The threat of penalties far more severe than the crime is an excellent deterrent.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Death for a penny? C'mon.

 

[namedpipes]

Death for a penny? C'mon.

I agree.

But if the thief uses deadly force to KEEP the penny, it's time to reevaluate the situation.

 

[heck ya beaches]

The penalty must be just. You want to shoot someone over a penny? A PENNY??? Now you're just being dramatic or selfish. LOL

Let's go the other direction. What amount of theft of your time or wealth legitimizes a violent response?

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Death for a penny? C'mon.

Who are you to say what something, or anything, is worth to someone else?

 

[Picton]

The threat of penalties far more severe than the crime is an excellent deterrent.

...except that it never has been.

Britain had the death penalty for theft for many, many decades. The crime rate never went anywhere but up. Same thing happened in ancient Rome.

Everyone who claims exorbitant punishments are an effective deterrent to even petty criminals (nevermind hard core felons) is disregarding history. We've tried all this before, many many times in many many places. Even here: many states had pretty draconian criminal codes in the past. It's never worked. Why try it again?