Friday, June 5, 2009

Scum of the earth!!

Just watched the local morning newscast and am still steaming at one of the reports. Unable to find a link at this time, I'll post it when I can find it.

Seems some low life, no good, foul scum of the earth stole a trailer from Boy Scout Troop 330 in Fort Worth.

This is an action that torques me off to a degree that I can not adequately express.

For those not familiar with Scouting, a Troop's trailer is their primary storage of their camping and outdoor equipment. Tents, stoves, dutch ovens, dining flys, ropes, saws, axes, water containers, ice chests; all are usually stored in the trailer.

Scouts use the equipment, clean it, repair it if needed then bring it back and store it in the trailer for their trip. This makes packing and loading less of a logistical nightmare. Camping trips usually start on Friday's after the parents get off work. Keeping the equipment in the trailer allows the Scouts and Scouters (adult scout leaders) to load personal gear into the trailer and get on the road at a decent hour.

Scouts spend thousands of hours working to raise money to purchase their equipment. Very few troops have the resources to simply replace all of the gear at one time.

The dirtbags who steal the trailers aren't after the equipment inside, they are simply after the trailer. Most of the equipment is never recovered.

The troop that I worked with suffered through this twice while my boys were active in the troop. The last time was 6 weeks before a 10 day back packing expedition. I'll save that story and the incredible support from our community for another day. The trailer cost us over $4,500 to replace and that was after getting a terrific deal from a troop supporter. The cost to replace the equipment needed was over $3,000 at the initial outlay.

Today I want to send a message to all the scum who pursue this despicable act---- please never let me catch you!! Make sure you are never spotted by me because I will act with all the legally allowable force to stop you from committing this crime-- read Texas state law

§ 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.


I will scrupulously follow the law, I am not advocating anything other then people
scrupulously follow the law.....but there are actions that should have serious
consequences. The impact to a Troop from
type of crime is tremendous. Activities are
canceled, events are put off, Scouts and Scouters have to work incredibly
long hours
to earn the funds - just because some wretched villain can save a few bucks.



6 comments:

Weer'd Beard said...

"I will scrupulously follow the law, I am not advocating anything other then people
scrupulously follow the law.....but there are actions that should have serious
consequences."

I'm reminded of the opening of Dragnet (I may be wrong, and may get the quote wrong) "There are those that take the easy way..."

Crime isn't "Easy" by any stretch, there are so many factors that make a life of crime both lucrative and VERY VERY risky.

Of course many people, it would seem, want to make such a way of life MUCH easier by hamstringing those who advocate personal defense, personal responcibility, as well as stripping the abilites to uphold the law and rule on the law in favor of the criminal element (MIkeB is a PRIME example of that. Not only does he hate gun owners, and not belive that bad people are responcible for their actions, he also hates the police, and judges who have the gall to PUNISH brutal people).

Texas is a bit unique in the statute you cite, even Liberal Mass laws on personal defense are very good, but I cannot use deadly force to protect my property. I have mixed feelings on this issue.

What I don't have mixed feelings about is if somebody is shot attempting to steal a car, steal buisness inventory, or steal form groups like the boyscouts, how many more criminals would DARE to commit such crimes?

All one needs to do is look at the dynamic of crimes committed in areas with liberal gun and self defense laws, and areas where such rights are infringed.

Crime may be similar (my famous study was on Seattle vs. Boston , Seattle has a HIGHER crime rate) but the types of crime are GREATLY different.

Rape, Assault, Murder, Carjacking, Home Invasion are much more rare in places where the victim might be armed and willing to use deadly force than in places where such people are rare.

You need to be deeply out of touch with reality to no see that as an improvment in society.

Bob S. said...

Weer'd,

Great comment. I'm working on a post about defending property so this fits in and helps crystallize some of my thoughts.

As far as using lethal force to stop the theft of property, someone said that the property represents hours of our lives. Would you use lethal force to stop someone making you a slave?

I'll try to finish up that property post this weekend. I've been having trouble getting sections of it worded right. Might bounce it to you in an email, asking for a critique.

Weer'd Beard said...

Sure thing Buddy!

Yeah the whole "It's just property" is too simplistic an argument. Given that once goods are stolen you not only have to deal with the violation of having your property and sancitity violated by a selfish intruder. You'll need to file a police report and allow the police to access and tour your house (I'm not a huge fan of that either, that can be just as violating) you'll need to file claims, and potentially haggled with insurance companies (if you aren't insured, you'll likely NEVER recoup the value of lost property even if the criminal IS caught) you then need to expend time and resources replacing the lost items. One-of-a-kind or discontinued items will need to be replaced with different items. Heirlooms and items of personal value can never be replaced. Damaged property will need to be repaired.


All-in-all it reminds me of people who are wrongly convicted of crimes. They may eventually be vindicated in a court of law, but time, stress, and legal fees can NEVER be replaced.

I still don't know if I'd shoot over personal property, but that's a personal decision, and not somthing that the law should dictate.

I DO know if I ever encounter somebody attempting to steal my firearms I WILL SHOOT THEM. If I have to shoot them in the back while they run, I will. This IS Murder by most state laws, but I'd rather live with that than my guns going on the street and becomming arms in the gang wars et al.

And again, shooting a robber not only saves you some of the anguish of a theif stealing parts of your life, but it DOES also teach OTHER THEIVES that maybe such behavior is not a good idea.

Sevesteen said...

One of the things that many hardcore liberals get mixed up is the difference between risk and punishment.

It would be disproportionate to sentence someone to death for stealing a boy scout trailer. It is not disproportionate for them to risk death for the same act. The important thing here is the concept--Criminals should fear.... I was going to explain what they should fear, but then realized that the statement is complete as is.

It is disproportionate to risk death for shoplifting a candy bar. Exactly where this line should be legally is an interesting question.

Bob S. said...

Sevesteen,

Great comments and in line with my thoughts.

A question about the thief and the candy bar.

You say
It is disproportionate to risk death for shoplifting a candy bar.

But that candy bar is being sold by a sole proprietor retail shop, that candy bar is part of his/her livelihood. Shouldn't criminals risk death for an act that could take food out his and his family's mouth?
Otherwise, ever criminal could walk in and literally nickel and dime the owner to death.

the pistolero said...

As far as using lethal force to stop the theft of property, someone said that the property represents hours of our lives. Would you use lethal force to stop someone making you a slave?...

Yep, I sure would. I will freely admit that the "it's just property and not worth killing over" argument has absolutely no truck with me whatsoever. And to those who say "it's just stuff," I have to say -- would they be so cavalier if it was their stuff being stolen?