rustlers
- Thread starter peg4x4
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
1982vett
Well-known member
peg4x4":1o9pet3d said:
:banana: :banana: :banana: :2cents:
cowboy43
Well-known member
Dumb and dumber :dunce:
dieselbeef
Well-known member
rustlers are hard werking idiots fer sure
Dave
Well-known member
A happy ending to this story. But the reality is that for a thief, cattle rustling makes a lot more sense than being a bank robber. The average bank robbery nets the robber $5,000-$10,000. For that you go into a business with lots of cameras, marked bills, and dye packs. Not to mention that bank robbery is a federal offence that is probably going to get a robber 10 years if he gets caught. So how many head of cattle does it take to make $10,000 these days? How many people have multiple cameras aimed at their cows and gates? And if they avoid the cattle with a brand it is difficult to prove ownership. Not to mention the fact that if they do get caught it will only be a slap on the wrist when compared to a federal bank robbery charge.
We are just lucky that most thieves don't realize this and/or have enough cattle knowledge to pull it off.
We are just lucky that most thieves don't realize this and/or have enough cattle knowledge to pull it off.
john250
Well-known member
Dave":i8ee92f6 said:
You just told them.
CottageFarm
Well-known member
Is cattle rustling still a capital offense in TX?
Dave
Well-known member
Trust your neighbors but brand your cattle.
It helps to live in a state with manditory brand inspection. There are certainly ways around this but it takes a smart thief to find them.
It helps to live in a state with manditory brand inspection. There are certainly ways around this but it takes a smart thief to find them.
Kingfisher
Well-known member
If you mean do we hang em ? No. But a few years ago one of the largest internet cattle sale company's was not paid for a few loads of cattle. Seems the fellow was kiting cattle and it caught up to him. I think he's in jail for like 30 years . They got most of the cow/money back is what I remember. But they still threw him in prison from Williamson County.CottageFarm":mmr1rp1z said:
Dave
Well-known member
Kingfisher":43aiyfvi said:
Depends on who catches them, the availability of rope, and a good stout tree in the area.
Cattleman200
Well-known member
The reason it keeps happening over and over is because they did stop hanging cattle rustlers.
Circle H Ranch
Circle H Ranch
Susie David
Well-known member
Some of us old fellas can't see all that well at night anymore and throw a couple of loads of buck shot at the coyotes when we hear then in the pasture...real shame if some starnge trailer is where it shouldn't be, coyotes yipe, pick-ups give off a tinny clank when hit.
I bet the neighbors will be looking out for thoes kids.
DMc
I bet the neighbors will be looking out for thoes kids.
DMc
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
CottageFarm":1eeohmth said:
Third degree felony.
Jim62
Well-known member
One thing for sure--if you're going to break ANY laws, it's a good idea to stay far, far away from Williamson county.
Them folks up there don't coddle no criminals......... :lol2: :lol2:
Them folks up there don't coddle no criminals......... :lol2: :lol2:
Nesikep
Well-known member
reminds me of a Jeff Dunham (vetriloquist) comedy skit, he's got this "superhero" puppet on his lap, he's in new york city, and he asks the puppet "so what do you do" and the puppet says "I fight cattle rustling".. Jeff says "Well I'm sure there are none in new york city",... the puppet replies "See, I'm doing a great job!"...
good to hear they were caught.. we had a 2 week old calf lifted off us about 18 years ago, we knew who did it, but it was impossible to prove he had it.. good to hear these bastards were caught
good to hear they were caught.. we had a 2 week old calf lifted off us about 18 years ago, we knew who did it, but it was impossible to prove he had it.. good to hear these bastards were caught
I would think the Castle Law applies to cattle rustlers in Texas also.
TexasBred
Well-known member
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
Brute 23":1tnz4epp said:
(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;
Sounds pretty ify to me, I bet you could get off, you better have a pretty thick checkbook.
slick4591
Well-known member
Well, I've been retired from law enforcement for 8+ years, but I dug out the answer for Texas. This is from the current 2009 Texas Penal Code. This law expires the last day of August 2011 and the new one takes effect Sept 1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
