Sweet Justice......Texas Style

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
You defenders of the great constitution are missing MY point...every man shall have his day in court, well unless he gets grabbed by a lynch mob first...doh....you sound just like the British of 1775...as the politics of the Constitution was set up to prevent tyranny from happening, so was the criminal section...the Brits threw people in jail for no reason, laid beatings on the people, denied people basic rights....the constitution is for the accused as well...
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
In texas, if you are in your domicile and you are attacked you can use whatever force is necessary. However, the whatever force necessary ends when the attacker is first unable to retaliate. But that applies to the domicile not a truck, and coming upon them while outside of the truck ---- interesting.

thats the thing,,,the truck owner, until he confronted the accused was never in any direct danger...
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
thats the thing,,,the truck owner, until he confronted the accused was never in any direct danger...

Are you saying that people are NOT allowed to confront those who are robbing them? What do you do when you find a thief in your house, buy them a bed?

We have an absolute RIGHT to defend our lives AND property.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Of course you defend yourself silly., I'm not saying that but once the guy was down do you bash his head in until his brain matter all over the room
 

ChanceMaster

Expert Expediter
People love to see "sweet justice'" or "vengeance" or "payback" whatever you want to call it. In reality there are two victims here, the thief and the killer. No victors. The thief was definatly wrong, as was the killer.

Sent from my PC36100 using EO Forums
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
People love to see "sweet justice'" or "vengeance" or "payback" whatever you want to call it. In reality there are two victims here, the thief and the killer. No victors. The thief was definatly wrong, as was the killer.

Sent from my PC36100 using EO Forums

How is defending you property or like wrong? :confused::confused:
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
People love to see "sweet justice'" or "vengeance" or "payback" whatever you want to call it. In reality there are two victims here, the thief and the killer. No victors. The thief was definatly
sic
wrong , as was the killer.
The victim, who also was the one who, hopefully inadvertently, took a life, had the right to confront the thief. If the thief meets him with violence, he has the right to defend himself and also use enough force to detain him for the police.

One reason some react with glee is that the rights of victims are often lowest on the totem pole.

The only way the thief can be considered a victim is if it's KNOWN that the beating continued after it was known or should have been known that he was fully subdued.
 
Last edited:

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
You defenders of the great constitution are missing MY point...every man shall have his day in court, well unless he gets grabbed by a lynch mob first...
This wasn't a lynch mob. It isn't a lynch mob when the victim confronts a criminal, the criminal responds with deadly force, and the victim defends himself and detains the criminal. A lynch mob is when a bunch of people get together and say, "LET'S GET HIM!" and circumvent the judicial process. That didn't happen here.

doh....you sound just like the British of 1775...as the politics of the Constitution was set up to prevent tyranny from happening, so was the criminal section...[/QUOTE]

The Constitution was set up to prevent government abuses. The constitution has nothing to do with how individuals treat each other. The federal constitution, anyway.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The thing is, there are other facts in this case that are not in the above piece. You know, the rest of the story. Some of them bode well for the truck driver, some do not. It'll be up to a grand jury as to which facts to consider. Justice, sweet or otherwise, is the administering of a deserved punishment (or reward). Many people oftentimes confuse "justice" with "revenge", thinking that, or quite literally, justifying their revenge as being a proper administering a deserved punishment.

There have been several truck break-ins in that area recently. Five on that lot alone where that truck was parked, a motor carrier's private property. Did the driver vent his frustrations over the recent break-ins, where the perpetrators got away, onto the burglars that day? If so, does that do him more harm, or will a grand jury accept that as a mitigating factor in an understandable reaction? The dead guy was 60 years old. How old was the truck driver? If he was in his prime, 20s or 30s, that might no go over well with a grand jury. It's a fact we don't know.

I don't do wasps very well. I've been stung and I don't ever want to be again. When one is near me and I feel threatened, which is whenever one is near me, I kill it whenever I can. And I don't just kill it, I want it to be so dead that there is no question that it cannot somehow harm me. In a concentrated fit of rage for survival I'll beat, smash and crush it to a stain. I have a feeling that I'd so the same thing to someone who attacked me with a pipe or some other weapon. I'd keep beating until I was absolutely sure there was no chance that he could come back and harm me, even if it meant killing him. I don't think I'd dance with glee afterwards, though, and I certainly wouldn't expect others to be giddy over the loss of life. The driver was probably justified in what he did, but I don't think I'll put on a party hat over it.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There very well be other facts in this case, in which case, let the chips fall where they may.

In general, I will stick with the training I received in basic. A target is not neutralized as long at it can breathe. I am, however, well past the 'hand to hand' age. Add to that the arthritis and it would be difficult to 'handle' a direct confrontation. I therefore believe that the use of an 'equalizer' is in order. A pipe is good. A baseball bat, tire iron, what ever it takes. At home it is either my .357 or .380, shopping for concealed carry clothing now to make that more practical and comfortable.

Having said that, the BEST and most preferred method of self defense is avoidance. Staying out of areas or situations that can be dangerous and staying aware of your surroundings. Backing out of situations prior to them getting out of control.

Once I have done all I can to get out of a problem, I will do everything possible to eliminate the offender, before he/she/it, eliminates me. I will do everything possible to insure that he/she/it cannot harm me, family or property and that he/she/it never sees the inside of a court room or jail, just a coffin.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
You defenders of the great constitution are missing MY point...every man shall have his day in court, well unless he gets grabbed by a lynch mob first...doh....you sound just like the British of 1775...as the politics of the Constitution was set up to prevent tyranny from happening, so was the criminal section...the Brits threw people in jail for no reason, laid beatings on the people, denied people basic rights....the constitution is for the accused as well...

I am not bound by the Constitution. Government is. I don't have to give anyone ANY rights, regarding my house, or my stuff. I hang up on telemarketers because my phone doesn't have a 1st Amendment.
 
Top