Welcome back to us :/ Our hosts data center was down for the entire day.
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.


Like us on Facebook! Regular shirt GIVEAWAYS and more

Advertisement

View Poll Results: If a bike owner shot a thief...?
Fvck him, he desreved it. 105 70.95%
A motorcycle is NOT worth a person's life. 8 5.41%
Only if he was on my property. 34 22.97%
Guns should be banned. 1 0.68%
Voters: 148. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Share This Thread: 
Subscribe to this Thread Thread Tools
Old 04-27-2009, 10:52 AM   #41
RACER X
what R you lookin' at?
 
RACER X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Richmond, Tx
Feedback Rating: (26)
Posts: 33,505

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 craigntx View Post
you cap a maggot for stealing a bike that has a $500 deduct. i hop you have a great lawyer on retainer.
it also has to do with major theft at night
anytime you shoot anybody your gonna need an atty, but the courts will be on the homeowners side.

many thiefs have died for less then $500 worth of stuff.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
2014 GROM
181cc's BABY!
Trump/Zimmerman 2016
Make America Great Again!
RACER X is online now   Reply With Quote
Similar Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Guy gets bike jacked on the street and thief is shot before he could leave Squidward General Discussion (Moto Related) 11 11-23-2013 12:57 PM
Another bike thief gets shot down on the street in Brazil. eltejano General Discussion (Moto Related) 15 10-20-2013 11:59 AM
Advertisement
Old 04-27-2009, 10:53 AM   #42
amber|alexis
Senior Member
 
amber|alexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 11,367

Experience: 4 years






Member Garage





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 commission 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 the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully 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 Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(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 that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

Sec. 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.

amber|alexis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 10:54 AM   #43
amber|alexis
Senior Member
 
amber|alexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 11,367

Experience: 4 years






Member Garage





I remember in CHL class that you should not shoot during the day time unless you're in fear of your life.

Nighttime...totally different story
amber|alexis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 10:55 AM   #44
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 amber|alexis View Post
I remember in CHL class that you should not shoot during the day time unless you're in fear of your life.

Nighttime...totally different story
Guess it's a good things a lot of thieves are night owls eh?
__________________
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 04-27-2009, 10:56 AM   #45
amber|alexis
Senior Member
 
amber|alexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 11,367

Experience: 4 years






Member Garage





Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrofallout View Post
Guess it's a good things a lot of thieves are night owls eh?
yeahhh not sure too many robberies happen during the daytime
amber|alexis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 10:57 AM   #46
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 amber|alexis View Post
yeahhh not sure too many robberies happen during the daytime
not many, but they do. my neighbors bike was stolen in broad daylight.
__________________
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 04-27-2009, 11:00 AM   #47
Gisi 600rr
Member
 
Gisi 600rr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 93


Bike(s):
'05 600RR Red









Here are the relevant provisions from the Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.41-9.44. Available at
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes....000009.00.htm

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY


Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


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



Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Gisi 600rr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 11:02 AM   #48
lisiecki1
survivor of 7/4/08 ride..
 
lisiecki1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Feedback Rating: (5)
Posts: 4,084

Experience: 10+ years






Member Garage





Quote:
Originally Posted by craigntx View Post
you cap a maggot for stealing a bike that has a $500 deduct. i hop you have a great lawyer on retainer.
it also has to do with major theft at night

well....my bike can't be replaced with a $500 deductible, so that's one dead thief....
__________________
"DON'T START VAST PROJECTS WITH HALF VAST IDEAS."
Remember the average response time to a 911 call is over 4 minutes.
The average response time of a 357 magnum is 1400 FPS.
lisiecki1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 11:04 AM   #49
amber|alexis
Senior Member
 
amber|alexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 11,367

Experience: 4 years






Member Garage





repost. Scroll up and read my post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gisi 600rr View Post
Here are the relevant provisions from the Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.41-9.44. Available at
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes....000009.00.htm

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY


Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


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



Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
amber|alexis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 11:11 AM   #50
Gisi 600rr
Member
 
Gisi 600rr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 93


Bike(s):
'05 600RR Red









Amber,
Missed that post-sorry. But, it's actually not a repost.
Gisi 600rr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 11:23 AM   #51
20_636_05
Member
 
20_636_05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: La Porte
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 40

Experience: 3 years

Bike(s):
2005 kawi 636









Quote:
Originally Posted by shanecrow99 View Post
Actually, the state of Texas is very clear on what constitutes the use of deadly force. If you are in the state of Texas and someone is attempting to break into your car or is in the process of attempting to steal your bike, by law you can use deadly force regardless of where your vehicle happens to be (again, as long as you are in Texas). Texas's "castle doctrine" laws cover your home as well as your vehicle.

With that said, the only way I would ever shoot someone is if I feared for my life or the safety of my loved one's. Would I cap a guy in the back as he was driving off on my bike? Nope, I couldn't live with that on my conscience. However, if I ever felt that an intruder meant harm to me or my family (like if they broken into my garage in the middle of the night) - he would be dead in a hearbeat, no hesitation whatsoever.

i agree with what he said
20_636_05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 11:59 AM   #52
JP171
Senior Member
 
JP171's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sand Land
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 2,323

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
00' GSXR 750
05 636








service the target!
__________________
EMT-P for 18 yrs, EMT for 21, Fire Fighter since 1974

For those looking to give back to Texas and serve those in times of need, Join the Texas State Guard.
Locate a Recruiter http://www.gotxsg.com/join.php
JP171 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:26 PM   #53
solomon
GET SOME !!!!!!!!
 
solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: edna tx
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 44

Experience: 7 years
Trackdays: 1

Bike(s):
06 R1 le









accuracy by volume ,call cops when clip is empty,got no sympathy for thieves....
solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:32 PM   #54
honorsdaddy
Professional Donor
 
honorsdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: My desk.
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 6,061

Experience: 9 years

Bike(s):
2012 BMW K1600GTL
2013 Triumph Trophy SE (sold)
2009 Harley-Davidson Road Glide(sold)
2007 Star V-Star 1300T (sold)
2007 Star V-Star 1100 (sold)






Send a message via Yahoo to honorsdaddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbfuller View Post
I'd shoot. i dont see a thief as having the same right to live as a responsible human being does. get rid of thieves and i don't have to spend as much on theft insurance.

steal my bike, my truck, a helmet... i don't give a . theft is theft. anyone know the dollar limit on theft of an item to be able to shoot them?
With ammo prices these days, he'd have to be stealing something that cost more than the bullet for me to shoot him.
__________________
Keeping the "fun" in "dysfunctional" since 1969.
honorsdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:38 PM   #55
honorsdaddy
Professional Donor
 
honorsdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: My desk.
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 6,061

Experience: 9 years

Bike(s):
2012 BMW K1600GTL
2013 Triumph Trophy SE (sold)
2009 Harley-Davidson Road Glide(sold)
2007 Star V-Star 1300T (sold)
2007 Star V-Star 1100 (sold)






Send a message via Yahoo to honorsdaddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigntx View Post
unfortunately in tx you can't blast someone over "easily replaceable property" which means if the bikes insured.
however, if you look at the joe horn case...

in places like alaska deadly force can be used to prevent snowmobile thefts out in the boonies. the reason being if someone is stranded (and therefore freezes to death) b/c his ride is stolen, deadly force is his only life saving measure.

but if the consequence of having your ride stolen is no transpo to your job, i'd say blast away and say the maggot was reaching for a weapon
Sorry but yes i CAN.

It has nothing to do with "easily replaceable property".

My stuff is my stuff. You dont want to get shot - dont try to take it. End of discussion.
__________________
Keeping the "fun" in "dysfunctional" since 1969.
honorsdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:39 PM   #56
sbfuller
the crotch-rocketeer!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Dickinson
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 15,920

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
2006 Hayabusa (totaled)2007 Hayabusa, 2004 CRF 50









Quote:
Originally Posted by honorsdaddy View Post
With ammo prices these days, he'd have to be stealing something that cost more than the bullet for me to shoot him.
but he sure as isn't gonna run away with my bullet still in him, that is still theft so I'll shoot him again. my bullets don't leave unitl the coroner takes them
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by less_than_coop View Post
Its the stupidity. It gets added to our forum in normal and controlled doses which actually serves to the benefit of the website.
sbfuller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:40 PM   #57
honorsdaddy
Professional Donor
 
honorsdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: My desk.
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 6,061

Experience: 9 years

Bike(s):
2012 BMW K1600GTL
2013 Triumph Trophy SE (sold)
2009 Harley-Davidson Road Glide(sold)
2007 Star V-Star 1300T (sold)
2007 Star V-Star 1100 (sold)






Send a message via Yahoo to honorsdaddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigntx View Post
you cap a maggot for stealing a bike that has a $500 deduct. i hop you have a great lawyer on retainer.
it also has to do with major theft at night
Wrong again - thanks for playing.
__________________
Keeping the "fun" in "dysfunctional" since 1969.
honorsdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:46 PM   #58
Wideout
Senior Member
 
Wideout's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Feedback Rating: (0)
Posts: 498


Bike(s):
'08 busa









I can't remember if I saw this on here or another bike site, but some member is friends with a lawyer that handles these types of cases. If you shoot someone in the right and it goes to civil, expect to pay in the neighborhood of 25 - 50k in legal fees to get things taken care of. If you shoot someone in the wrong, it starts at 50k and goes up from there.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by gixxerbill View Post
You could always tatoo the info on your forehead. <sic> ...plus noone would ever forget your name what your name is.
Wideout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:56 PM   #59
ZXALAN
UR NXT
 
ZXALAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: League City Tx
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 4,254

Experience: 10+ years

Bike(s):
2000 Turbo-Hayabusa
2013 BMW S1000RR








Quote:
Originally Posted by craigntx View Post
you cap a maggot for stealing a bike that has a $500 deduct. i hop you have a great lawyer on retainer.
it also has to do with major theft at night
F THAT..... my $500 deduct. is only going to net me $5k due to Blue Book value....I have 6-7x that much in my bike.....They come in my garage, they won't leave again.....at least not without a sheet over em...


Now I guess if I caught them trying to steal it out in public somewhere, I would be screwed since I don't have a CHL and don't carry....I would just have to find some sort of foreign object close by real quick and go beat the out of em. Sucks even thinking about this .
__________________

319hp@14lbs(pump gas), 435hp@29lbs(race gas)
Texas Mile Mar 09, 225.906mph, 8.82@168.43 w/1.63 60'-14.5lbs
ZXALAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 03:05 PM   #60
VenaSera
I pwn!
 
VenaSera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: College Station, TX
Feedback Rating: (1)
Posts: 620

Experience: 5 years
Trackdays: 6

Bike(s):
2007 Kawasaki ZX-6R
1976



Member Garage





This thread has just made my day! I've still been thinking about what I could've done to the bastards that messed with my bike. Time to go pistol shopping...
VenaSera is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Advertisement


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 PM.


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