Truck Thief Gunned Down by Owner After AirTag Gives Away Location (appleinsider.com) 497
"A Texas truck theft ended in gun fire after the suspected thief was tracked down by thevehicle's owner's AirTag," reports AppleInsider:
San Antonio police received a stolen vehicle report at around 1 pm from a Braesview home. However, before police could recover the stolen truck, the owners of the vehicle decided to perform their own investigation, using an AirTag left in the truck to do so. The unnamed owners tracked the truck to a shopping center in Southeast Military Drive, reports KSAT. However, rather than wait for police to arrive, the truck owners decided to approach the vehicle and confront the suspect.
While it is unknown exactly what happened, Police say it seems the suspected thief may have pulled out their own firearm. The vehicle owner responded by shooting and killing the suspect while they were inside the truck. It is unclear whether the vehicle owner will face charges over the matter, and an investigation is ongoing into whether the suspect actually had a weapon in the first place.
The San Antonio police department's public information officer offered these remarks (in a video from KSAT):
"Most importantly is, to the public, SAPD is urging you if you are to get your vehicle stolen: I know that it's frustrating, but please do not take matters into your own hands like this. Our police department has plenty of resources that could go into finding your vehicle, i.e. our drone system, trackers ourselves, very good patrolmen that look for these kind of things. It's never safe to take matters into your own hands, as you can see today by this incident.... That's why I urge the public, wait for police in this matter. Let us go with you. We have the training. We know exactly how to determine what's going to happen, these kind of factors and situations, and we know how to handle them."
While it is unknown exactly what happened, Police say it seems the suspected thief may have pulled out their own firearm. The vehicle owner responded by shooting and killing the suspect while they were inside the truck. It is unclear whether the vehicle owner will face charges over the matter, and an investigation is ongoing into whether the suspect actually had a weapon in the first place.
The San Antonio police department's public information officer offered these remarks (in a video from KSAT):
"Most importantly is, to the public, SAPD is urging you if you are to get your vehicle stolen: I know that it's frustrating, but please do not take matters into your own hands like this. Our police department has plenty of resources that could go into finding your vehicle, i.e. our drone system, trackers ourselves, very good patrolmen that look for these kind of things. It's never safe to take matters into your own hands, as you can see today by this incident.... That's why I urge the public, wait for police in this matter. Let us go with you. We have the training. We know exactly how to determine what's going to happen, these kind of factors and situations, and we know how to handle them."
Vigilante man (Score:3)
Well, why does a vigilante man?
Tell me why does a vigilante man?
Carry that sawed-off shot-gun in his hand?
Would he shoot his brother and sister down?
natural selection (Score:3, Insightful)
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Vincent Vega says.... (Score:2)
don't fuck with another man's vehicle.
If only (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the PR dept talking, not the actual cops (Score:5, Interesting)
Had a company owned item stolen in Houston, Tx. It had GPS on it. The cops in Houston basically said: We don't have time. You can go look for your stolen property yourself. With several heavily armed people, we did. Item had moved, and the GPS was disabled. Didn't get it back. Ugh.
Re: (Score:3)
Had a company owned item stolen in Houston, Tx. It had GPS on it. The cops in Houston basically said: We don't have time. You can go look for your stolen property yourself. With several heavily armed people, we did. Item had moved, and the GPS was disabled. Didn't get it back. Ugh.
I've heard similar stories everywhere. I wonder if part of the solution might be more funding for police. Among other things I suspect more funding for police might negate some of the factors that lead to police abuse and allow for less violent tactics [youtube.com].
Re:That is the PR dept talking, not the actual cop (Score:5, Interesting)
More than funding, I would think that higher standards would help.
Stop hiring people who are in it for the thrill, or who lack empathy, or who are demonstrably prone to domestic violence.
Require real justification for every weapons discharge outside a practice range.
End qualified immunity. Require officers to carry personal liability insurance. Can't be insured? Can't be a cop.
End the practice of police investigating themselves and clearing themselves of wrongdoing.
Make it a crime for police to lie in any situation other than undercover operations.
Require police to know the laws they claim to enforce.
Absolutely require evidence greater than a cop's word.
Re: (Score:3)
One game changer has already been body cameras. And having watched so much of that type of footage, I now see that what the police have to put up with is absolutely insane. And I have also seen some bad policing, which was easy to correct because of the documentation. And there have also been murky things where there was no perfect solution to approach, stuff just happens.
If I were a police officer, I really would WANT to have video of everything, just to protect myself.
Re:That is the PR dept talking, not the actual cop (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of this may be due to widespread anti-police sentiment, but of course the effect is to increase that sentiment.
Re:That is the PR dept talking, not the actual cop (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, I'm not at all supporting vigilantism, just saying that when police don't enforce the law, its not surprising that it happens.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't, it's called Grand Theft Auto for a reason. Generally speaking, minor crimes would be theft under $5000, which is usually a misdemeanour and above that a felony. Misdemeanours are usually not done because the punishments are generally small so it's not worth the time to investigate and prosecute.
The general thing
Air Tag Curiosity Satisfied (Score:3)
On the money side, Lo-Jack might want to reconsider their business model. Additionally, several expensive "support" services that rely on recovering stolen cars, detention lot owners for example, might find their numbers reduced. Overall a positive outcome.
Article didn't mention how long it took for police to arrive once the stolen truck location was relayed to them.
Re:Air Tag Curiosity Satisfied (Score:4, Interesting)
If someone steals my car then I don't want it back. I'll just take a check instead, this is the entire point of insurance. Fuck the insurance company, I'm taking my premiums back when something they cover happens.
Re:Air Tag Curiosity Satisfied (Score:5, Interesting)
So everyone pays more for insurance since thieves are essentially able to operate with impunity. When they DO get caught, more often than not, they are back on the street in a few days and go back to their old habits.
While I don't condone shooting thieves (unless they are threatening you with harm), there needs to be credible deterrence. They need to know that when they are caught they are going to spend quite a bit of time in jail and that the odds of getting caught are high.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Although it’s worth noting that not everyone is covered by insurance. You and I are probably NOT in the lowest socioeconomic quintile, where most cars are uninsured beyond the most basic legal requirements. It’s different down there. Still not worth getting into a firefight, but it does complicate these decisions for people who might not be all that smart to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure? If your car is more than a few years old, the money you get means you're likely not going to replace it with something equivalent. This happened to me when I was in a minor accident and the insurance company wanted to total the car since it was old and not worth much in their book. I had to argue that paying to repair would save them a grand and make me happy. I kept the car for several more years and wound up donating it.
Who's the victim here? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>Personally I don't care if he was dragged out into the street unarmed and execute at point blank range.
You should, because the kind of people who can do that aren't the kind of people you should be comfortable having in your community.
There's not much difference between a vigilante and a murderer, and you'd never know if it was actually justified or if they just found an excuse and are now looking for the next one.
Vigilantism is what you get when the cops aren't doing the job they should be doing (and m
Re: Who's the victim here? (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know that the person driving the vehicle was the thief?
Re: (Score:3)
>"How do you know that the person driving the vehicle was the thief?"
Bingo. This is where vigilantism goes off the tracks.
Again, we don't know what happened, and the fact the owner was armed is not really the issue at all. For all we know, he went up the vehicle to get photos and then call the police from there, but was threatened with deadly force and responded in-kind to protect himself. Criminals, by nature, typically don't care about laws or other people.
The *smart* thing to do is to let the polic
Innocent until proven guilty (Score:4, Insightful)
The police were doing a lot of labeling, but in point of fact the truck's owner had every right to seek out his truck. He had every right to talk to the person sitting in it.
If the police were already there, and it was "a crime scene" then I could see that being a different matter. Just because the person in the truck was suspected of having stolen it doesn't mean that person has a special legal status that prevents the owner of the vehicle the suspect is sitting in from approaching him.
The suspected thief was innocent until proven guilty, and so it's hard to see what law prohibits anyone from approaching them.
Finding your stolen vehicle makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the second report that I've read in recent weeks where an owner of a stolen vehicle tracked it down and shot the thief. I expect we'll be seeing more of this style of vigilante action for several reasons:
(1) Finding your vehicle doesn't imply that you intend to get in a firefight. If the thief has one key, and you have the other, you can steal your property back again. Regardless, carrying a gun (just in case) is a sensible precaution.
(2) Finding stolen property is low on the priority list of most municipal police forces, who must devote their efforts to dealing with violent crimes and assaults. It may be weeks before the police locate it (if ever), so why not go find it yourself? People are taking action because (in their minds) the authorities are not.
(3) The sooner you locate your own vehicle, the less chance it will be damaged / destroyed / used to commit another serious crime.
AirTags are only the tip of what is coming. I'm surprised that Apple hasn't built "Find My" functionality into CarPlay yet, but eventually it will happen. Potential stalking won't be an issue; if you're driving in a car that isn't yours, then the owner certainly has the right to track it without you being warned. And if Apple doesn't do it, then you can expect to see embedded automotive Amazon Sidewalk trackers on the market in the near future.
In the very near future it will be practically impossible for a typical car thief to hold on to a stolen vehicle for any length of time. That's not a bad thing, as stolen vehicles are the enablers of much of the serious crime that occurs in larger cities.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd never use an Apple or Amazon or any other such product for tracking... I have my own system currently tracking my family's cell phones that's only accessible to us (and, in theory, any skilled hacker who knows I exist and penetrates my systems, but that's fairly unlikely).
What's stopping me from tracking the family vehicles is the cost of having them phone home - the least expensive option I've found is a mobile 4G/1GB data-only plan for $10/month, and the combo of my vehicles' values and the odds of th
To all those shouting "Yay ! Vigilante justice!" (Score:5, Insightful)
The police are trained and follow the law and make enough mistakes.
Vigilantes will make society much, much worse.
But they DON'T (Score:5, Interesting)
The police are SUPPOSED TO investigate crimes and arrest criminals, but too many times in the last 20 years, they have failed - or refused - to do so. The cops are NOT doing the jobs that they are paid to do.
The police don't have any responsibility to protect the citizens; that's been established in dozens of court cases. Often they DO do that, but they cannot be sued for failure to do so. The police, too often, protect the criminals against the citizens. But with "Defund the police" movements as advanced as they are, the criminals need to remember that then the cops stop protecting the criminals, there'll be nobody to protect the criminals from the citizens.
Because citizens don't have jails or prisons, most crimes will become capital crimes. As this one did.
because cops won't (Score:3)
"...Our police department has plenty of resources that could go into finding your vehicle, ..."
Who do they think believes this? This is a flat-out lie. A decent journalist would have asked about the police closure rate on car thefts.
If you or anyone you know has had a vehicle stolen, you know the response from police is "we'll look for it but it's unlikely we'll get it back".
The reason people take the law into their own hands is because the state - which presumably has a monopoly on violence - is failing to provide basic security functions that are the bedrock justification for the Social Contract.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The SAPD should just have said "Thank you."
Armed car thieves should feel like their lives are in danger when they commit their crimes.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't support vigilantism. The fact is if people are encouraged to take the law in to their own hands...it would reduce the need for a police force and likely result in all sorts of innocent people getting killed for no good reason than an untrained idiot simply suspected them. You probably wouldn't like it if someone said "you look like the guy that stole my lawn mower" and wound up dead because that other person "thought" you had a gun and decided to shoot first and ask questions later.
People like you support this type of stuff until someone *you* support winds up at the other end; then you're all "THIS WAS THE POLICE'S JOB".
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The person driving might also not be the thief if the car was stolen and then sold. Or it might be someone who is just related to the thief -- not necessarily involved in the crime at all or knowing that the car was stolen. Heck, in the long-shot case, it's a good Samaritan returning the car to its owner. Probable? No. But weird cases happen. This is why we have trials before executing someone.
Re: Good (Score:3)
Lots of prevarication going on there. Odds are thst the police will have to face many of the same questions. Not having been present at the scene of a crime and therefore less aware of the circumstances.
Many of the protections against false arrest, accusations and supporting criminals civil rights are there to protect suspects apprehended at a later time. Not when they are caught red-handed committing the crime. Which the property owner is more likely to do on the spot.
There are no exceptions in the law f
Re: Good (Score:3)
I disagree about rights. They are there to protect us against the state. It would be a severe miscarriage of justice to allow the police (or anyone else) to declare that you were "caught red handed" and bypass those protections.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The person driving might also not be the thief if the car was stolen and then sold. Or it might be someone who is just related to the thief -- not necessarily involved in the crime at all or knowing that the car was stolen.
So according to "stand your ground" the occupant of the stolen vehicle might have been fully justified in shooting the rightful owner.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
What a screwed up system. By cave-men for cave-men.
Re: (Score:3)
We had some Americans visiting a few weeks ago. They were rather amazed it was safe to go outside after dark.
The US is a very notable outlier among developed countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they were visiting a large city
Re: (Score:3)
The country tends to be more dangerous than large cities, and pretty much anywhere in the US is several times (up to 20x or so) more dangerous than an equivalent place in most of the rest of the developed world.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Not in TX law where SYG refers to lawfully being in a place when confronted. An individual that is in the process of committing a crime cannot then claim self defense when confronted of it.
Just to note, under Texas Penal Code Ch21 [texas.gov] using a vehicle without consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner is a crime of deprivation. So even if the current-occupant of the vehicle had nothing to do with the theft, they are in possession of stolen property.
None of that means they should be shot, of course. If the legitimate owner of a truck comes up to you while you are in a truck of unknown provenance though, the best course of action is not to draw a weapon and escalate the fight. It's unlikely the rightful owner is gonna execute you unarmed.
Re: (Score:3)
Not in TX law where SYG refers to lawfully being in a place when confronted. An individual that is in the process of committing a crime cannot then claim self defense when confronted of it.
Just to note, under Texas Penal Code Ch21 [texas.gov] using a vehicle without consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner is a crime of deprivation. So even if the current-occupant of the vehicle had nothing to do with the theft, they are in possession of stolen property.
None of that means they should be shot, of course. If the legitimate owner of a truck comes up to you while you are in a truck of unknown provenance though, the best course of action is not to draw a weapon and escalate the fight. It's unlikely the rightful owner is gonna execute you unarmed.
Though if the person had a good faith belief they were authorized by the rightful owner I suspect things could get more dicey.
Either way it's overwhelmingly likely in this case that the occupant was either the thief, or someone closely associated with the thief who was well aware it was stolen.
It's also possible that the owner simply meant to find the truck and call police and the escalation was overwhelmingly due to the actions of the driver.
Still there seems to be a ton of evidence that SYG laws lead to m
Re: (Score:3)
When both parties claim the same ground, there's the rub.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Usually in rental scams, the Owner calls the Police who pull the Pontius Pilate routine when the scammed pulls out a bogus rental agreement and tells the owner to take it to court. Far easier to break into your own place while the scammers are out and have them be told to take it to court by the police.
Stand your ground laws are only controversial when the society operates from the premise that predators have a right to prey.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a story a few years back about someone who lived near the geographic centre of the United States. When people's tracking tech couldn't determine the location of their stolen stuff with any more certainty than "somewhere in the US", they were being given a pin in the centre... Right near this person's house. They had a lot of angry people, and cops, turning up.
Re: Good (Score:5, Funny)
Did anybody drown as a result? With the observable intelligence levels of some people ...
Re: Good (Score:5, Funny)
Somewhere off the cost of West Africa is going to become the drone graveyard for robot ships and aircraft that get their target coordinates reset to 0,0.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Hrm...I suppose I could understand the idea of not being a vigilante if your information is not accurate (like the no-knock raids that hit the wrong houses, or innocent folk tagged by lying snitches), but self-defense isn't vigilantism, and it seems that recovering your own stolen property isn't vigilantism either.
If you've literally followed your airtag to your stolen car, and the thieves pull a gun on you, that sounds like perfectly reasonable self-defense.
Re: (Score:3)
In his day and age, with police being hampered by "woke" governments and tightening austerity measures, what we need is MORE vigilantism not less.
If you want a police state instead, fund them. But if you won't fund the police, then the answer is evolution and survival of the smartest.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is part of the problem-- unless the stolen vehicle is used in committing another crime, the owner is unlikely to ever see their vehicle again. The idea that the San Antonio PD would devote resources to tracking down Yet Another Stolen Vehicle are pretty low.
Even if a patrol officer pulled the truck over, if they didn't run the plates (or if the plates were swapped), they'd never notice that the driver was driving a stolen vehicle. And the criminal, not wanting to cause a commotion, will hand over their ID with a smile.
action speak louder than words (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a hollow thing to say immediately after you've been ineffective at your job and someone has been forced to go do it for you.
A very small part of me is also wondering if the cops are secretly cheering for this guy while the police's public relations department is telling them "We CAN'T publicly encourage this behavior. Here, issue this statement."
I think the crime rare comes mainly down to the fact that criminals like this have DONE the math and decided it's worth the risk. So when victims start jumping into the ring, it changes the numbers. This guy just lowered the auto crime rate in his area by increasing the risk of car theft. Normally, IF you get caught. the police will arrest you and you'll probably go to jail. Pissed off armed citizens might shoot you and you might die. Most criminals notice this, and a few will find something else to do rather than try to steal their next ride.
Re:action speak louder than words (Score:4, Interesting)
Cops are not, and should not, be in the business of preventing crime. They are there to capture those who are suspected of breaking the law so that courts can apply punishment. Pre-emptive arrests are the basis of fascism: the cop on the street who thinks someone looks suspicious and intervenes walks a fine edge of racial profiling and stereotyping non-conformist behaviors. Their presence can serve as a deterrent to law breakers because they're physically proximal and can respond quickly if someone reports a crime, but directly intervening creates abuses like NYC Stop And Frisk policy.
A car being stolen is not a failure of the police. Stopping theft is not their job unless you really want a totalitarian state.
Re:action speak louder than words (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops are not, and should not, be in the business of preventing crime.
I don't know, I think a crime prevented is a hell of a lot better than just capturing who did it. It tends to be a hell of a lot cheaper, for one.
For that matter, capturing criminals is indeed intended as a crime-prevention measure, by incarcerating or otherwise punishing them, the theory is that they're less likely to commit crime in the future.
A competent police force should reduce crime by that alone, along with the perception that, no, you're not going to get away with it.
That said, they should absolutely stop crimes like spree shootings before the fact if at all possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would you rather hear?
"We prevented your loved one from being murdered"
or
"We caught the guy who murdered your loved one"?
Re:action speak louder than words (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, the former, no question. But I do not generally vote for laws that enabled that because "we prevented your loved one from being murdered" turns out to be the same as "we locked up a lot of people for being Black/Brown because we thought they looked suspicious."
From "A Man for All Seasons":
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay let's assume that's valid legal theory (it isn't).
In what country is theft punishable by summary execution?
=Smidge=
Re: Good (Score:2)
In what country
Texas.
It's theoretically legal throuout the USA. The Constitution treats "life, liberty and property" equally. We just need a clear test case to take it to the Supreme Court.
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go find another source besides New York Post (Score:3)
There's a very good reason why you don't let people just start shooting. They tend to miss. A lot. And where do you think those bullets end up?
Re: (Score:3)
None.
And that's not nothing to do with it here because "execution" generally means killing an unarmed person. Shooting something that's drawn a gun on you with ill intent is very much not "execution".
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
No. My vehicle was stolen a few years back. The person arrested driving my car later turned out not to be the thief. It was someone who had innocently purchased my car from the thief when the thief put up a Craig's List ad for a used vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that it doesn't make the person driving the stolen car the thief, the criminal.
It makes them as much or more of a victim than the person who had the car stolen.
After all, the thief now has their money, and getting that back is a lot less likely via insurance than getting some portion of value from the insurance company for the stolen car.
No crime was committed (Score:3)
Where you there? Do you know what happened?
Nice place to live, where any citizen takes a gun and kills anyone with out legal prosecution.
If it's completely obvious to the officers involved that the killer had that right, why bother arresting him?
If the local prosecutor, on reviewing the evidence (including reports from the officers and witnesses), decides not to prosecute, why bother prosecuting?
You're framing this as if it was an extra-judicial execution, but in fact the legal system allows for people to kill other people in certain circumstances. And more importantly, the law allows that if everything seems to be within the law, that we ca
Re: (Score:2)
ramifications.
common texan saying.
come and take it.
it is the reason why laws were shoved down the throats of texans.
it is.
a process
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what make me concerned. For some human life is worthless. One work colleague work carry a loaded gun in his truck waiting for someone to do something so he kill them. Another would always carry in the store hoping that a thief would give him and excuse to kill.
Who are these people? Wanting to kill. And you know if their kid took a pack of gum and a shop owner legally killed them running away, they would cry how unfa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The person that valued the truck over their life seems to have died. Not sure what your point is.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
It is however the reason why vigilantism of this type needs to be treated as murder. Vigilantes kill or harm the wrong people far, far too often and that is precisely the reason why a modern society makes it a rather serious crime.
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
Texas law is unusual in that it authorizes the use of lethal force to protect or recover property (Texas Penal Code Title 2, Section 9.41). That law doesn't, at least on its face, cover this kind of situation -- I would guess the truck's owner will argue self-defense instead, but Texas law certainly doesn't require "equal force".
There's also not really a federal law angle here, so the feds will almost certainly not be stepping in.
Ouch that's terrible (Score:2)
And I'd like to know given the nearly unlimited amounts of cash we give the cops plus all the money they steal
Re: (Score:3)
Consider yourself fortunate if you've never had to deal with the police over stolen property. They don't give a shit and will just fill out a report so you can file an insurance claim. If your car gets stolen it's probably not coming b
Even Texas used to have more laws (Score:3)
Fun fact Stormtroopers are incredibly accurate compared to real life soldiers and cops. Now ask yourself how good some rando in a panic who goes to the range periodically and fires it something that doesn't fire back is going t
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Informative)
Most felonies are defined by state laws, not federal laws. You have some very wrong ideas about how United States laws work.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's spun like a civil rights case with Texas not implementing federal law, how would the feds have jurisdiction?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the current system cherishes bad citizens and disadvantages the good.
Due process and the rule of law can certainly be a hindrance sometimes, but I don't think that means that "the current system cherishes bad citizens." You undermine your own argument by making an idiotic assertion like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Very few jurisdictions if any try to make the victim whole again. The victim is often left to fend for themselves. If ever you are a victim of a violent crime hope you have the proper insurance to cover medical and monetary damages.
The assertion is not idiotic if you were a victim you understand where it is coming from.
Re:Good and this is why: (Score:4, Insightful)
Visit your county's public defenders office, see what kinds of cases they are working on. Not a single one will be about a 'woke' topic or political enemy. You will also find public defenders overwhelmed with work, no spare time at all, because they are busy handling 'real crimes'. Our system allows for equal representation because assholes like you would kill or jail everyone if we didn't. Not everyone accused is guilty and most prosecutions are not fair in that you don't need to throw the book at every single small infraction.
When you treat people like animals they act like animals, a little understanding, communication, and compassion goes a long way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good thing nobody, nowhere EVER mistook a person for someone else, huh.
Optimize the values (Score:4, Insightful)
You make a good hypothetical point that fails in the face of statistical likelihood. Like everything else in the universe, a value is multiplied by occurrences.
Good thing nobody, nowhere EVER mistook a person for someone else, huh.
That would be a bad thing, let's assign a value of "badness" to that event. We can also look at the other side and assign a value of "badness" to stealing a truck. Your job is to optimize the situational value.
There's also a situational value to being shot by the person stealing the truck. In that case, we would sum the badness of stealing a truck with the badness of shooting another person, with the badness of the owner shooting the thief. There's no positive outcome, but we can optimize for the least badness.
And people think that the value of stealing someone's truck is the simple value of the truck. It's not, by a wide margin. Trucks are usually someone's livelihood, the owner could have his electrician tools or welder in the back. Or it could simply be his method to get to work. He might not be insured for theft, and might not be able to afford another truck easily.
Taking his truck away could be the equivalent of putting him back 6 months in his life, and I think that's an underestimate. In Texas, it's probably much more, which is why in past times stealing someone's horse was a hanging offense.
Regardless, if we count 6 months of one person's life as an average for losing a truck, a truck thief doesn't need to steal that many trucks to account for the badness of killing one person. This is not to say that we should shoot repeat offenders, but we might consider other ways to optimize the situational value. Such as progressively longer jail sentences for repeat offenses,
And it appears that the theory that repeat offending leads to worse crimes is valid: theft leads to simple assault leads to maiming and murder, while a quick corrective action sometimes allows for repentance.
This assumes that no one mistakes someone for someone else, but in virtually every situation the police (and prosecutor) are there to make that determination, so those situations are handled as well. By "handled" I mean that the situational value is optimized for least badness.
All of this is completely obvious to everyone, but we need to be always vigilant and calmly explain the fundamentals to trolls.
Re:Good and this is why: (Score:5, Insightful)
Not psychos... just people who have never been on the wrong side of identity theft, racial profiling, or just the problem of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Innocent people do get caught up in the wake of criminals, and vigilante justice does a poor job of thinking, analyzing, and evaluating before acting. Cops are trained to do that. Not all of them do, but a lot more of them do than extra-judicial citizens without training would.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Arm the citizens. Remove all questions of fault in self-claimed self-defense. Then we can defund and eliminate the police because everyone is out there enforcing the law.
Except people tend to be "shoot first ask later", automatic assumption of guilt, and rejection of fair trials.
That's been done before of necessity (Score:3, Insightful)
The owner had every right to seek out his property. The thief resisted.
There is ample precedent for citizen intervention in the US where law has failed including throughout the 1800s. Horse thiefs hung steal no more horses.
Every justice system has casualties but today the losses are nearly all among the victims not the perps. Enough.
Re:Good and this is why: (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless some bozo with a gun decided you stole his truck and rather than ask you nicely to return it decides he'd feel better if you had a bullet in your head regardless of how innocent or guilty you are. Then again, maybe he was attempting to shoot the real perp and you just happened to walk into his line of fire. Or maybe his shot goes in through one open window and out the other killing some tot riding her tricycle or giving her a brain injury to enjoy for the rest of her life.
Remember, an armed man is just a normal temper-tantrum or an alcohol induced rage away from shooting you. We all know citizens with guns are out there for our safety. And by the way, the Red states in the South and the West have the highest per capita gun murders.
This should give you an idea of just how out-of-control the U.S. is with respect to the rest of the world:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
And the Red States must be tired of winning, notice the bar and scatter graphs about half-way down (you don't have to worry your pretty little head with reading the op-ed):
https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't read the rest of the thread hey?
Re: (Score:3)
But don't worry. New York has finally decided to enforce their laws.
Re: Good and this is why: (Score:2)
Can we get a "Godwin's Law" flag implemented for articles? So I'll know which ones to skip.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily true, though it's a big vague. Fascists did want to disarm opponents. But they also had their own unofficial militias who were very certainly armed. Also, Germany had strict gun laws *before* the Nazis took over, and Hitler's quotes about guns were about the "lesser people", those who he didn't even considered true citizens. The black shirts and brown shirts before Mussolini and Hitler came to power were civilians who were armed, and they remain armed afterwards. Mussolini had roving ba
Re: (Score:3)
No one "defunded" the San Antonio police. This happened because its Texas, I would expect to be shot at if I stole a truck in Texas - everyone is armed. If you are going to steal you steal anything but an armed Texan's truck.
Re:Except... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Except... (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, the penalty for theft is not death - but the owner didn't sound like he walked up and shot him for stealing his truck. It sounds like the thief when confronted drew a gun - and then was killed in self defense.
Re: (Score:3)
To get out of this he would need to convince a judge or a jury that the victim was armed and posed a credible threat.
No, all he has to do is prove that it was reasonable to believe that he was at risk of death or serious injury. That doesn't necessarily require that the victim has to be armed. Though if the victim was armed, that certainly makes it a lot easier to prove.
A reasonable person might believe that somebody who stole their car is armed. And if the thief makes a sudden move, a reasonable person might assume that he's pulling out a weapon. If he says that, there's no way they'll get a conviction, even if that real
Re:Except... (Score:5, Informative)
"Right now, it's believed that only the victim of the stolen vehicle fired shots," Soliz said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news... [msn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
These "developing stories" shouldn't be on Slashdot.
Slashdot is a discussion site, not a news site, despite the "News for Nerds" motto. It is hard to have a discussion if we don't even know the basic facts.
Re:Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, Soliz said, police do not know if the suspected truck thief had any weapons on him.
You can translate that as "we did not find another gun".
Re: (Score:3)
it is not clear that the owner deliberately intended to act as a substitute for law enforcement
There is no constitutional requirement, no law, not even a legal principle that I know of that suggests that a person is required to allow law enforcement to retrieve what is clearly your property. Law enforcement, whether he contacted them, waited for them, didn't wait for them, is irrelevant. The pertinent questions are:
1) Did the suspect take the vehicle
2) Did the victim use lawful means to find out where the stolen vehicle was
3) At the time of the altercation was the vehicle somewhere the victim had l
Re:Except... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they are upset that someone values property more than life. AND that there was no due process.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This is fantastic. A criminal is in the dirt. I only hope his wound was painful before he died.
Here's another case where someone mistook two Metis hunters for thieves, chased them down and murdered them [www.cbc.ca].
The trouble with vigilantism is that an innocent person and guilty person both react similarly to a non-law enforcement officer with a gun.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be a psychopath. At least that would explain why you do not understand what is going on.