Originally Posted by cowanpp
Woops, no it isn't. The use of deadly force to protect property is only authorized in Texas and in any state you are only allowed to use force required to prevent the robbery. Since these kids had already given up their attempt, moved somewhere else and started acting like they were waiting for the bus, the attempted theft had already been prevented. Since the theft had been prevented and was not imminent there was no privilege to use force against them.
You had a good point about the name calling, though. If someone had tried to steal my stuff I'd be calling them all sorts of stuff, too.
You are right about Texas being (one of) the only states that allow lethal force be used to protect your property, but that's only because it's so blantantly described by their law.
Even in commiefornia, if someone tried to carjack me and I fired a round into his face as he leaned into my window to tell me he was trying to rob me -- it'd be a legal shoot. The only difference is it wouldn't such a cut and dry case as it is in Texas, and you do have to have some sort of personal harm to be threatened as well -- or at least reasonably believe that it could happen.
But yeah, you are right, you can't just shoot anyone for stealing your car stereo -- except in Texas after dark.
Maybe I should read the whole article huh? Thanks for the clarification.
Nonetheless, the kid deserved an ass whooping and name calling.