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

The fact that the shooter initiated the action which could reasonably have been foreseen as initiating an armed confrontation would make charges and almost certain conviction or plea bargain all but a given.
I would say the thief initiated the action by taking a truck that did not belong to him without permission to do so.
 
Probably gay sex all around

not that there's anything wrong with that seinfeld GIF by myLAB Box


There's a location in the Midwest where supposedly it's not illegal to kill someone. Something about jurisdictions missing this one little region.

Some websites claim it's not true but I chose to believe it is!

It's a sliver of Yellowstone, but it's tiny, it's hard to get to even on foot, and it's unlikely you'd ever see anyone else there worth shooting.

Also, the statutory status of that little sliver is not exactly set in stone, because I don't think it's been litigated; if you did the crime there, you'd be the test case. I think Idaho would claim jurisdiction, since it's in one of their counties, and I doubt the Feds would challenge that.
 
not that there's anything wrong with that seinfeld GIF by myLAB Box's anything wrong with that seinfeld GIF by myLAB Box




It's a sliver of Yellowstone, but it's tiny, it's hard to get to even on foot, and it's unlikely you'd ever see anyone else there worth shooting.

Also, the statutory status of that little sliver is not exactly set in stone, because I don't think it's been litigated; if you did the crime there, you'd be the test case. I think Idaho would claim jurisdiction, since it's in one of their counties, and I doubt the Feds would challenge that.
I duno….
E261B71E-5D41-4978-AEF3-AB5B721BDF3B.jpeg
 
That looks like a balanced, well-researched piece of research with excellent production values. I'll go to my library and see if they've got it, but it's probably checked out...
It was found blowing across a parking lot. It’s quality stuff!!
 
While I agree, to a point, if we take this stance, then when a cop kills a "perp" becomes acceptable, even when the "perp" did something minor.

It's a slippery slope, in many directions.

But yes...part of the problem is that many more crimes are being given a pass.
I wouldn't have an issue with police returning fire if shot at. Shooting the thief in the spot simply for having stolen the vehicle, now...
 
I wouldn't have an issue with police returning fire if shot at. Shooting the thief in the spot simply for having stolen the vehicle, now...
The real question in this case is does a lowly civilian have a right to confront a thief without the fact that they initiated contact being usable as a mechanism to undermine what would otherwise be a clear and legitimate claim of self defense? Currently, police obviously have such a right to confront, but it's a mixed bag when it comes to civilians.

Take away the "he initiated contact and confronted the thief" from this case and it looks far more like a legit case of self defense.
 
FAFO! I'm not condoning going in blazing, if that is what happened. I'd have called the police with the actual address. Although I've seen and heard of times the cops just say, "Well, we're busy." FAFO to them as well.

MAybe 10-15 years ago, I had this car follow me into our development during a torrential evening rain storm. It was tailgating me all over. I finally pull over and they sail by me and stop. "Dooood. Dooood. I'll follow you doooooood." "No, I'll follow you." They sailed around the cul-de-sac and took off. I zoomed into our driveway, garage and shut the door. About 3 min later, they were zooming through the cul-de-sac again. My street is a double-CDS.

I call the cops. "We've got a drunk driver stuck in our development. This guy is going to kill someone."

30 minutes. Only AFTER they took out a fire hydrant at the other CDS, then dumped the car in OUR CDS b/c they blew their radiator and then promptly got buck-naked and started F'ing in the front seat.

Oh, the two little kids in car seats they were watching were in the back seat.

Cops were like, "Yeah, you shoulda called - but we were busy." Unreal.
 
I was watching an interview with a sheriff from a rural eastern Oregon county. He described how he has responded to calls at 100 mph and it took him an hour to get there. He said that the situation will be over by the time he gets there and that hopefully the right person will have prevailed. He described how people in his county need to be able to defend themselves and that he expects them to do so.
Here is the link to the video:


View: https://youtu.be/pHVrcjlSMx8
 
Till it's your $60,000 truck.
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.
 
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.
That $600 sh*tbox might be the means to his family's livelihood, been there done that. Justice? From who?
 
Last edited:
That $600 sh*tbox might be the means to his family's livelihood, been there done that. Justicse? From who?
That was my point. Is a property crime something that should have a capital punishment? Remember that there are many here that see the A-rabs as barbaric, because they merely amputate hands.
 
"Officials are determining if the suspect will be charged in the fatal shooting."
I thought the suspect was shot dead.


I was watching an interview with a sheriff from a rural eastern Oregon county. He described how he has responded to calls at 100 mph and it took him an hour to get there. He said that the situation will be over by the time he gets there and that hopefully the right person will have prevailed. He described how people in his county need to be able to defend themselves and that he expects them to do so.
I thought Oregon was very anti gun.
 
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.
At $0.01 because it's the minimum value we assign to our money. The thief valued the other person's property more than their own life. Stop victim blaming.
 
The real question in this case is does a lowly civilian have a right to confront a thief without the fact that they initiated contact being usable as a mechanism to undermine what would otherwise be a clear and legitimate claim of self defense? Currently, police obviously have such a right to confront, but it's a mixed bag when it comes to civilians.

Take away the "he initiated contact and confronted the thief" from this case and it looks far more like a legit case of self defense.

It's a mixed bag for civilians with regard to the law (depending on the state and the circumstances), but cut and dried morally.

Simply for the fact that I prefer to live out my remaining years freely, I choose to act on the lawful path. But I have not the slightest shred of sympathy for the thief in this case.

That, and if somehow I misidentified the offender, then I'd be in the wrong morally and I simply cannot have that. The case in question sounds pretty damned clear though.
 
On the one hand, especially considering the venue, I find it appropriate....horse, vehicle, I see the correlation.

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

If I understand correctly, the thief opened fire when confronted. The victim didn't walk up to the truck and shoot the thief in cold blood. So the "capital" part is on the thief.

Notwithstanding my other comments, just gunning him down "in cold blood" might be a little much. Still no sympathy though!
 
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.
You think we have a judicial system that works?? That’s funny.

Kill house rules from here on out bro.
 
Urban Oregon (basically Portland) is very anti gun. But the rest of Oregon is very rural — timber and ranches.

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)
 
But didn't the WHOLE STATE just vote in some really bad gun laws?
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom