Earlier today I quoted a firearms instructor who said:
“You want my car? You can have it and I’ll hand over a (credit) card for gas, too,” he said. “I’m not going to defend a car with a gun, that’s what insurance is for. I’ll get a better one.”
I was generous in not calling him and idiot. Now I’m going to come out call him an idiot.
Mom shoots man who tries to steal her SUV with her two toddlers inside, authorities say. https://t.co/QBTwlHIa2C
— NBC New York (@NBCNewYork) July 5, 2018
That is how you fucking do it.
Mom Shoots Man Trying to Steal SUV With Kids Inside: Cops
The mother shot the man in the head when he refused her orders to stop the vehicle, police say
You’re God damned right she did. Makes me wonder if Rain-X works on brains too.
A mother shot a man who tried to steal her SUV while her two toddlers were still inside the vehicle in Dallas Wednesday night, police said.
It happened about 10 p.m. outside a Shell service station in the 100 block of West Camp Wisdom Road.
The mother had stepped inside the gas station when a man climbed into the driver’s seat and tried to drive away, according to police. The woman jumped back into the vehicle and ordered the man to stop the car, police said.
When he refused, she pulled a gun from the glove box and shot the man, who then drove the SUV into a utility pole, according to police.
Good!
The children, who police described as toddlers, and the mother were not hurt.
Good!
The man, identified by police as 36-year-old Ricky Wright, was transported to a hospital with injuries not considered life-threatening. He was charged with two counts of unlawful restraint and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
He’s not dead? How?
You know what, I hope he goes to prison and the rest of the inmates there take turns fucking the extra hole she put in his face.
Hell, right about now I’m wiling to buy this woman some practice ammo just so if this ever happens again, she’ll shoot a little straighter and turn that car jacker’s head into a canoe.
A holster would be another good gift, so the gun can be on her person rather than in the glove box.
Apart from that, good outcome.
“He’s not dead? How?“
My first guess would include the numbers .380.
My guess is she shot low, and he will need a lot of dental work.
The most important thing? She stopped the threat, and her children are safe.
Not sure I’d leave my children unattended in a running unlocked car either…
“The mother had stepped inside the gas station when a man climbed into the driver’s seat and tried to drive away, according to police.”
NJ, true. On the other hand, in a civilized state such paranoia would not be necessary. Events such as this one may help restore that civilized state.
Whenever I hear a quote from one of the good guys that sounds particularly stupid or seems to support a position that is not tenable I question not just the pull quote, but the method that produced that quote.
Consider the question: If you saw somebody taking your car, would you shoot them?
You preach, and rightly so, that CCW’s have a responsibility to avoid confrontations. We always evaluate if it is a legally justified use of force. Watching somebody drive off with my car would upset me but does not justify me shooting.
Somebody attacking me with my car is justification.
We already know that the reporter in question is cheating with language. Of course he created the question in such a way as to get the quote line he wanted. And if he had not gotten the answer he got, he would have left the quote on the floor and asked somebody else.
Question: Somebody is driving a car at you with an intention to kill or injure you, would you shoot them?
Question: Somebody is coming back around with a car to try and hit you after missing the first time, would you shoot them?
Question: Somebody jumped into your car and is driving off, would you shoot them?
You missed the part where her two kids were in the car that was being stolen??
This is a defense of persons case (the toddlers), not a defense of vehicle case. That said, it happened in Texas, and Texas is to my knowledge the only state that DOES allow for the use of deadly force in defense of personal property (such as an unoccupied vehicle), if you meet all the special conditions and jump through all the required hoops: Texas Penal Code 9.42
https://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/texas-sec-9-42-deadly-force-to-protect-property/
Keep in mind, however, that just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s smart, doesn’t mean you won’t screw up one of the special conditions or miss one of the hoops under stress, and doesn’t mean it’s not going to cost you a ton of money in support of your legal defense, should a prosecutor decide to test the merits.
J.Kb, you and Lombardo are both correct. Two different scenarios, two different answers, both are correct. You’re welcome.
I think where he and I differ is in the part about a car jacking.
If my car alarm goes off and I see some guy in my driveway stealing my truck, I’m not going to shoot him.
If im at a red light and the guy runs up to my window and opens my door and tells me to get out, im going to shoot him.
Ask Miguel to confirm this, but in Miami, the car jacker or mugger is likely to kill you just to stop you from picking him out of a lineup or testifying against him.
The assumption is that once you give the guy your stuff he won’t hurt you. There is no guarantee of that.
There is no guarantee that he will either. The bottom line is, unless dude thief elevates the situation into an “application of deadly force” by the presence of a weapon, you will find yourself: 1). Doing a lot of time or 2). spending a lot of jack defending yourself in court – which may or may not work and thus, you will find yourself 3). Doing a lot of time.
Of course you have the right to defend yourself against a threat.
Of course you have the right to stop a turd from stealing your car that contains your kids.
And you have the right to stop a thief from stealing your junk with force – just not deadly force unless thief stops being a thief and starts being a murderer.
I really liked, “Makes me wonder if Rain-X works on brains too.” If she splattered his brains on the leather seats, I might have offered to pay for a vehicle detailing.
Would this have ended well for the toddlers in the car if he got away? Such scary thoughts and one reason why I despise gun control freaks.
I wonder what context the ” instructor” was talking under. J- you are right, if they stealing something its not deadly force. If they trying to force you to give it up by threatening bodily harm its bang time. As an Instructor I am very careful how and what I say.
From the words, it is clear the “instructor” was talking about robbery, not theft. (“Robbery” correctly used, as opposed as a synonym for theft/breakin as is so often done on TV “news”.) He mentioned handing over his credit card “for gas”.
Robbery is threat of death or grave bodily harm; deadly force is therefore justified.
On the notion that an attack on property doesn’t justify deadly force: property is acquired by the investment of time and effort, in other words, it is the product of a portion of your life. Depending on the item, it may be quite a substantial piece of your life. For example, a car represents weeks, perhaps months, of labor. So the person who steals that property is stealing, in effect, that portion of your life. Is there a difference, morally speaking, between the threat to take your life, and the threat to take a *portion* of your life?
When someone says “give me X or I’ll kill you” the X is irrelevant, they threatened to kill me and have shown me they have no honor. I will not enter a contract with such a person.
Further there are many people in morgues who thought complying with a robber guaranteed their safety .