MotoHouston.com MotoHouston.com
Register Members List Member Map Media Calendar Garage Forum Home Mark Forums Read

Go Back   MotoHouston.com > General Discussion > General Discussion (Moto Related)
Forgot info?

Welcome to MotoHouston.com! You are currently viewing our forums as a guest which gives you limited access to the community. By joining our free community you will have access to great discounts from our sponsors, the ability to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content, free email, classifieds, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, join our community!

Register Today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.


FREE MH Decals by MAIL!

Advertisement

Reply
Share This Thread: 
Subscribe to this Thread Thread Tools
Old 05-13-2008, 08:26 AM   #101
PB125
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston,TX
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 450

Experience: 6 years
Trackdays: 2

Bike(s):
2008 Suzuki GSXR 750
2002 Suzuki SV650








Quote:
Only to and from your vehicle on YOUR property, ie your house/apt. not to and from your car/bike at Wal-Mart or Billy Bob's Liquor Store.
If you walk away from the car/bike with a gun on your person in public and you do not have a CHL you are breaking the law.
UNLESS like already stated...you are either going DIRECTLY to your car from your house or going DIRECTLY to your house from your car.
I completely agree with you as the law states:

* A second new "negative element" of the offense that also must be disproved by the state (prosecution)in every case is that a person is not "inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control."
* A person's premesis or premesis under that person's control
__________________
2008 GSXR 750
02 SV650S

Quote:
Originally Posted by bueller View Post
they say you drive like a mad man
PB125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sweet end to a stolen bike story-stolen in 1967 grsa General Discussion (Moto Related) 1 11-05-2013 11:09 PM
BIKE STOLEN - please keep an eye out. Eddy.T Off Topic 10 05-12-2008 10:40 AM
BIKE STOLEN!! PLZ KEEP AN EYE OUT!! DuBwEaR General Discussion (Moto Related) 92 04-14-2008 03:04 PM
Don't normally agree with Cheney but we see eye to eye on these 2 issues... CaJuNsOuLjA Off Topic 5 02-24-2007 08:07 AM
Keep an eye out for this bike Greenway Smokey General Discussion (Moto Related) 18 10-20-2006 11:31 AM
Advertisement
Old 05-13-2008, 08:30 AM   #102
Pyrofallout
<<<< S.B.N. >>>>
 
Pyrofallout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Feedback Rating: (31)
Posts: 25,364

Experience: 5 years
Trackdays: 10+






Member Garage





Quote:
Originally Posted by PB125 View Post
I completely agree with you as the law states:

* A second new "negative element" of the offense that also must be disproved by the state (prosecution)in every case is that a person is not "inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control."
* A person's premesis or premesis under that person's control
Furthermore, what is the legality of using that weapon if the need arises in route to said vehicle?
__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
-Thomas Jefferson
Pyrofallout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 08:56 AM   #103
PB125
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston,TX
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 450

Experience: 6 years
Trackdays: 2

Bike(s):
2008 Suzuki GSXR 750
2002 Suzuki SV650








Quote:
You can't use deadly force to recover property. E.g., you're in your house and you hear someone breaking into your car. You run outside and see someone driving off in your car. Know that you are NOT justified in shooting the person so as to retain your property.

Same would go in the situation described above w/ respect to the m/c jacking. Once the guy starts driving away, it'd be VERY difficult (not impossible) to show that the use of deadly force would be justified in that situation. How are you in fear of your life when the assailant is driving away on your motorcycle (presumably w/ both hands on the controls) and when his accomplice is driving away as well?

Further, once the guy is driving off on the motorcycle, the robbery has already been commited. You can't prevent something that has already happened, so it'd be difficult to use the last sentence of the penal code in that situation (i.e. once the guy is already leaving).
(Sigh):/:

Quote:
9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and (3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
Also.......in this case of Aggravated Robbery

Sec 9.32 Deadly Force in Defense of Person
a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under section 9.31; and
2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
B) to prevent the other's imminent comission of Aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, ROBBERY, or AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.b) The actor's belief under subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be REASONABLE if the actor "
1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom deadly force was used:
A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actors occupied habitaion, vehicle, or place of employment;
B) unlawwfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by (a)(2)(B); (Agg Robbery, etc. )
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity other than a Class C misdemeanor (traffic) at the time the force was used.
(c) a perrson who has the right to be there (shortened to make this easy) hasn't provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, not doing anything illegal and the actor is not required to retreat before using the deadly force. Blah, blah ,blah. (Effective Sept 1, 2007)

As far as using force, I hope this puts to rest any questions....So, YES. Cap'em.
__________________
2008 GSXR 750
02 SV650S

Quote:
Originally Posted by bueller View Post
they say you drive like a mad man

Last edited by PB125; 05-13-2008 at 08:57 AM. Reason: added text
PB125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 02:10 PM   #104
PB125
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston,TX
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 450

Experience: 6 years
Trackdays: 2

Bike(s):
2008 Suzuki GSXR 750
2002 Suzuki SV650








I contacted an ADA regarding this issue and she stated that "once the threat is no longer there, it would be unjustified to shoot the bad guy getting away with the cycle".
She also said that deadly force used to prevent such a crime is justifyable if the threat is imminent.
__________________
2008 GSXR 750
02 SV650S

Quote:
Originally Posted by bueller View Post
they say you drive like a mad man
PB125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 02:17 PM   #105
mathews
Senior Member
 
mathews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: La Grange Texas
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 2,054


Bike(s):
2007 GSXR1000
2005 Hayabusa








But,the dead guy doesnt get to give his side of the story to the jury
mathews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 02:19 PM   #106
mathews
Senior Member
 
mathews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: La Grange Texas
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 2,054


Bike(s):
2007 GSXR1000
2005 Hayabusa








Why do I get the feeling that there are some people on here that would sympathize with that thief if you shot him?
mathews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 02:19 PM   #107
Pyrofallout
<<<< S.B.N. >>>>
 
Pyrofallout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Feedback Rating: (31)
Posts: 25,364

Experience: 5 years
Trackdays: 10+






Member Garage





So how can the law say one thing but she say something different. The law is what stands and I guess what it really boils down to is how it is interpreted by a jury of your peers. For me, and I would assume most knowledgable citizens those articles say it is justifiable. Maybe we need a lawyer to decipher this stuff. We got 4600+ members...I know we got a lawyer somewhere.
__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
-Thomas Jefferson
Pyrofallout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 02:20 PM   #108
Pyrofallout
<<<< S.B.N. >>>>
 
Pyrofallout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Feedback Rating: (31)
Posts: 25,364

Experience: 5 years
Trackdays: 10+






Member Garage





Quote:
Originally Posted by mathews View Post
Why do I get the feeling that there are some people on here that would sympathize with that thief if you shot him?
sadly there are many people in this country that would. and we wonder why people end up in prison for defending their person, family, or property when they are minding their own business and someone comes up waving a gun in their face trying to take their .
__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
-Thomas Jefferson
Pyrofallout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 02:21 PM   #109
txgsxrbob
THE SH*T STARTER IS BACK
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 290 @ mason --cypress
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 5,859


Bike(s):
06 GSXR 1K SOLD !
2012 R1 Moto GP replica # 1287








So has anyone heard anything on the bike ?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by abelrob View Post
I would join in but my KAWI is BROKE THE FU*K down again SO I BOUGHT A BUSA !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pester View Post
NOW WHERE IS TXGSXRBOB WHEN WE NEED HIM????
txgsxrbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 02:21 PM   #110
Daytona_Rider
3rd Ward PoPo
 
Daytona_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: H-Town
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 114

Experience: 3 years

Bike(s):
2007 Daytona 675 - Jet Black









Quote:
Originally Posted by PB125 View Post
I contacted an ADA regarding this issue and she stated that "once the threat is no longer there, it would be unjustified to shoot the bad guy getting away with the cycle".
She also said that deadly force used to prevent such a crime is justifyable if the threat is imminent.

Ya, and I can call a different ADA and be told that shooting the is perfectly fine. I'm sure all PoPo's on here can testify as to the differences between some DA's. They all interprete the law in different ways.

Some will take charges on almost anything as long as you can articulate what law he/she broke and how he/she broke it. Other DA's will hardly take any charges at all unless they feel like the case is a "slam dunk" winner.

This can be very frustrating to a police officer who's trying to do his job and the DA won't take charges because he thinks it'll be to much work to prosecute the case. I could share tons of stories about this but I don't feel like typing any more. lol.
__________________
Daytona_Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 03:07 PM   #111
PB125
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Houston,TX
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 450

Experience: 6 years
Trackdays: 2

Bike(s):
2008 Suzuki GSXR 750
2002 Suzuki SV650








Quote:
Why do I get the feeling that there are some people on here that would sympathize with that thief if you shot him?
One thing is for sure. F*&K that son-of-a-biscuit-eater. I say he (suspect) needs to die a fiery cancerous death after suffering the Ebola Virus.

Quote:
So how can the law say one thing but she say something different. The law is what stands and I guess what it really boils down to is how it is interpreted by a jury of your peers. For me, and I would assume most knowledgable citizens those articles say it is justifiable. Maybe we need a lawyer to decipher this stuff. We got 4600+ members...I know we got a lawyer somewhere.
The ADA is a lawer whom I know and consider to be a smart cookie. It very well may be the way she interpreted what I told her. But, I did ask "after the victim was told to walk away and the suspect was attempting to ride off, would the victim be justified in shooting the suspect?"
Her response did in fact make sense; If there is no longer a threat, the victim is not justified. One is not allowed to use deadly force to protect tangible property when not on one's ...uh...property.
However, during the course of the robbery, the victim shoots the suspect would be OK.
I don't agree with this simply because, the rat needs to be removed from society. Period. And she is one attorney out of many that may have a differing opinion. I say find a jury that'll convict you on that.

Quote:
Ya, and I can call a different ADA and be told that shooting the is perfectly fine. I'm sure all PoPo's on here can testify as to the differences between some DA's. They all interprete the law in different ways.

Some will take charges on almost anything as long as you can articulate what law he/she broke and how he/she broke it. Other DA's will hardly take any charges at all unless they feel like the case is a "slam dunk" winner.

This can be very frustrating to a police officer who's trying to do his job and the DA won't take charges because he thinks it'll be to much work to prosecute the case. I could share tons of stories about this but I don't feel like typing any more. lol.
Totally agree X2. DA's are human and like everyone, they have their opinions. I've worked up cases in Fort Bend County and they'll throw me a "Insufficient to Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" BS when I've gotten a confession. I don't get it. Arguing doesn't work, either. But there you have it.
I say go by the book (PC) and you should; barring civil court, not have a problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
2008 GSXR 750
02 SV650S

Quote:
Originally Posted by bueller View Post
they say you drive like a mad man
PB125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 03:11 PM   #112
ScooterTrash
ConroePowderCoating.com
 
ScooterTrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cut n Shoot
Feedback Rating: (3)
Posts: 17,239


Bike(s):
lots of em






Quote:
Originally Posted by mathews View Post
Why do I get the feeling that there are some people on here that would sympathize with that thief if you shot him?
welcome to the f ucked up society we created
__________________
[COLOR="Lime"][B]Highway HorrorS c.c.[/B][/COLOR]



[QUOTE=Mr.D;2764337]
I respect scootertrash because well... He's like the Jesus of building and fixing .
[/QUOTE]
ScooterTrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 03:12 PM   #113
ScooterTrash
ConroePowderCoating.com
 
ScooterTrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cut n Shoot
Feedback Rating: (3)
Posts: 17,239


Bike(s):
lots of em






Quote:
Originally Posted by RACER X View Post
^ yup, better to just carry what the cops carry.
good point and taken
__________________
[COLOR="Lime"][B]Highway HorrorS c.c.[/B][/COLOR]



[QUOTE=Mr.D;2764337]
I respect scootertrash because well... He's like the Jesus of building and fixing .
[/QUOTE]
ScooterTrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 03:14 PM   #114
RACER X
what R you lookin' at?
 
RACER X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Richmond, Tx
Feedback Rating: (26)
Posts: 33,497

Experience: 10+ years
Trackdays: 8

Bike(s):
'14 Honda GROM! 181cc of fury!!
'10 Aprilia Tuono Factory-SOLD
'08 Busa - sold
A few more bought
A few more sold






Quote:
Originally Posted by PB125 View Post
to ride off, would the victim be justified in shooting the suspect?"
Her response did in fact make sense; If there is no longer a threat, the victim is not justified. One is not allowed to use deadly force to protect tangible property when not on one's ...uh...property.
remember the case where the dude shot and killed a repo man who was bookin down the street in his repo'd truck, he was no billed?
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
2014 GROM
181cc's BABY!
Trump/Zimmerman 2016
Make America Great Again!
RACER X is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 03:20 PM   #115
Gisi 600rr
Member
 
Gisi 600rr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 93


Bike(s):
'05 600RR Red









Quote:
Originally Posted by Gisi 600rr View Post
You can't use deadly force to recover property. E.g., you're in your house and you hear someone breaking into your car. You run outside and see someone driving off in your car. Know that you are NOT justified in shooting the person so as to retain your property.

Same would go in the situation described above w/ respect to the m/c jacking. Once the guy starts driving away, it'd be VERY difficult (not impossible) to show that the use of deadly force would be justified in that situation. How are you in fear of your life when the assailant is driving away on your motorcycle (presumably w/ both hands on the controls) and when his accomplice is driving away as well?

Further, once the guy is driving off on the motorcycle, the robbery has already been commited. You can't prevent something that has already happened, so it'd be difficult to use the last sentence of the penal code in that situation (i.e. once the guy is already leaving).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB125 View Post
(Sigh):/:

Thanks for your sigh of...exasperation? I admitted I was wrong re: using deadly force to recover property. I swear I was told differently, albeit by a torts professor, and didn't recall this provision. Either way, given the ADA's view re: need for the imminent threat, I stand by the last two paras of what I earlier said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB125 View Post
I contacted an ADA regarding this issue and she stated that "once the threat is no longer there, it would be unjustified to shoot the bad guy getting away with the cycle".
She also said that deadly force used to prevent such a crime is justifyable if the threat is imminent.
Gisi 600rr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 03:39 PM   #116
NorthHoustonGSXR
Yes I do.
 
NorthHoustonGSXR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Kingwood Texas
Feedback Rating: (5)
Posts: 3,993


Bike(s):
2006 GSX 600R
mystery bike
2000 CBR600F4 track only (SOLD)







when some one has a weapon (be it a gun or a brick) the threat is emminent. There doesn't have to be a weapon present for emminent danger to be present. Just ask Chuck Norris...he can kill you with his finger
__________________

xdng33m4iv
GOVERNMENT IS THE REAL MIDDLE MAN. COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE IS TO ELIMINATE THE MIDDLE MAN.
NorthHoustonGSXR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 03:52 PM   #117
Pyrofallout
<<<< S.B.N. >>>>
 
Pyrofallout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Feedback Rating: (31)
Posts: 25,364

Experience: 5 years
Trackdays: 10+






Member Garage





Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthHoustonCBR View Post
when some one has a weapon (be it a gun or a brick) the threat is emminent. There doesn't have to be a weapon present for emminent danger to be present. Just ask Chuck Norris...he can kill you with his finger
While Chuck Norris is sooooo 2007. Your first point is valid. If someone has a gun, not too mention they already pointed in my face, I think simply being near them there is an imminent threat.

I am sorry there just has to be someway to justify this. Can't honestly believe that I could have a gun pointed at my face, knocked off my bike, and have someone steal it from me, and then me get in trouble for pulling my piece out (if I have CHL) and shooting the mother fugger who just pointed a gun in my face and stole my bike. Honestly. Fugged up.
__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
-Thomas Jefferson
Pyrofallout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 03:59 PM   #118
albertinhouston
Senior Member
 
albertinhouston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Feedback Rating: (2)
Posts: 1,288












I didn't read all the pages. I have a thought you you guys. I had I friend that has a remote that he kept in his pocket. This was in a car BTW. anyway, he could shut it down with the remote. he had a range of 100 feet or what ever. This way the robber would speed off and he would be in the clear. The idea was to get himself out of danger then kill the car. the guys MOST LIKELY will not hang around for too long. They will probably drop the bike in its spot and run off. You'll have some damage but you Might have your bike still.
I do not know what it was or how it was hooked up but it seems like it would be a decent and cheap way to lessen you losses and protect yourself also.
anyway just thought I'd throw it out there.
albertinhouston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 04:01 PM   #119
lococnc
Senior Member
 
lococnc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Feedback Rating: (2)
Posts: 523

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
2015 Tuono
2004 919
2004 FJR1300
2011 CBR250R
2006 SV650N, 2007 SV650N, 2009 TTR-110, 2002 KTM 520 EXC, Sold






Quote:
Originally Posted by albertinhouston View Post
I didn't read all the pages. I have a thought you you guys. I had I friend that has a remote that he kept in his pocket. This was in a car BTW. anyway, he could shut it down with the remote. he had a range of 100 feet or what ever. This way the robber would speed off and he would be in the clear. The idea was to get himself out of danger then kill the car. the guys MOST LIKELY will not hang around for too long. They will probably drop the bike in its spot and run off. You'll have some damage but you Might have your bike still.
I do not know what it was or how it was hooked up but it seems like it would be a decent and cheap way to lessen you losses and protect yourself also.
anyway just thought I'd throw it out there.
I would like one of those that would not only kill the bike, but apply FULL LOCK to the front brake. But put it on a delay so it does this exactly when the bike reaches 30 mph...
lococnc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2008, 04:04 PM   #120
Ulric
Dirty Old
 
Ulric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spring
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 9,633

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
05 FZ1









Quote:
So how can the law say one thing but she say something different. The law is what stands and I guess what it really boils down to is how it is interpreted by a jury of your peers.
BINGO!

Quote:
Her response did in fact make sense; If there is no longer a threat, the victim is not justified. One is not allowed to use deadly force to protect tangible property when not on one's ...uh...property.
Consider variables that MIGHT come into play...
The bike is an extra vehicle...vs the bike is the persons only vehicle that they have to use in order to get to and from work.
__________________
"new joke tomorrow..."
Ulric is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Advertisement


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:11 AM.


MotoHouston.com is not responsible for the content posted by users.
Privacy Policy