Current Events > Man arrested for shooting two teens who stole his car

(+) Yeah! (+)

Houston police are investigating the shooting of two juvenile males at 8200 Gulck Lane about 5:50 p.m. on Tuesday (October 10). The suspect, Addrian Nicolas Garcia, 22, is charged with two counts of aggravated assault-serious bodily injury in the 248th State District Court. A booking photo of Garcia is attached to this news release.
The juveniles, 15, were transported to area hospitals in critical but stable conditions.
HPD Major Assaults & Family Violence Division Detective Q. Nguyen reported:
HPD patrol officers responded to a shooting at the above address and found two juveniles had been struck by gunfire. Houston Fire Department paramedics transported the juveniles to the hospital and they are expected to survive their injuries.
The male shooter, later identified as Garcia, remained at the scene. Garcia told investigators the juveniles stole his vehicle from his residence and he was able to locate them at the above address, He stated he shot them during a confrontation.
After further investigation and consulting with the Harris County District Attorneys Office, Garcia was subsequently charged for his role in the incident.

https://twitter.com/houstonpolice/status/1712174223718822061

https://cityofhouston.news/suspect-arrested-charged-in-shooting-at-8200-gulick-lane/

Iffy one. If he was in the car and defending himself then that would be fair. But going after them is risky and he could have just as easily been shot or shot a 3rd party. Did he try to contact the police first? Doesn't say one way or the other.

I think I can see a booger in that guy's right nostril

Zikten posted...

I think I can see a booger in that guy's right nostril

lmao

Zikten posted...

I think I can see a booger in that guy's right nostril

Its a piercing.

If the car is his, he should be left alone and all charges dropped. While it's stupid, this is the fault of Texas having dumb laws surrounding when you're allowed to defend things. The Castle doctrine actually extends to vehicles.

If they stole it, and it's proven the teens did, that's no longer his problem.

I've always thought that one of the reasons I have auto insurance is so that I won't have to fuck with anyone violently (one way or the other) over my car. Lock it, and leave it empty.

Sure, insurance companies are assholes in every way, but I feel like they're a lot more pleasant to deal with than the judicial system.

When guns are the first solution.

brestugo posted...

I've always thought that one of the reasons I have auto insurance is so that I won't have to fuck with anyone violently (one way or the other) over my car. Lock it, and leave it empty.

Sure, insurance companies are assholes in every way, but I feel like they're a lot more pleasant to deal with than the judicial system.

Yeah see the problem is that you still have to pay out your premium plus your rates go up, AND the overall value of your car is reduced. Often they also brand your title after a car is stolen.

ArtiRock posted...

If the car is his, he should be left alone and all charges dropped. While it's stupid, this is the fault of Texas having dumb laws surrounding when you're allowed to defend things. The Castle doctrine actually extends to vehicles.

If they stole it, and it's proven the teens did, that's no longer his problem.

I can't believe I have to tell you this but you can't kill someone over porperty. It's a persons life against an object.

Nothing iffy about it. You can't go hunt someone down and shoot them. He deserves the charges he faces.

I think people are getting past a breaking point with the Kia boys. Theres no excuse for it, these are not poor crimes to feed their families or out of desperation. These are just teens who realized they can steal cars in 30 seconds. I had a group of 4 of them last week who stole 7 in two days. They trashed everyones cars. One car they put a big rock on the gas pedal until it overheated the car died.

Almost every person was just crying saying they dont know how theyre gonna get to work anymore.

not justified in the shooting but people have had enough

Blbmbr666 posted...

Yeah see the problem is that you still have to pay out your premium plus your rates go up, AND the overall value of your car is reduced. Often they also brand your title after a car is stolen.

Still seems easier than dealing with cops, lawyers and jail. Call me funny that way.

I guess it depends on how the confrontation went down. Did they attack him when he confronted them about his stolen vehicle? If he just rolled and started blasting then the charges make sense. But if they started physically attacking him while he was taking back possession of his vehicle then it is what it is.

Lot of details lacking here.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This. If he knew about the whereabouts, he should have told the police.

havean776 posted...

I can't believe I have to tell you this but you can't kill someone over porperty. It's a persons life against an object.

ehhhh cars are more than just "objects," especially in america- you need them to get to work, to make money, which is sadly the only true foundation which your life in this country is built upon, and it's the blood that nourishes it. theft is violence upon people who toil and slave away for their things, just to have it ripped away and be told, "sorry, you're just supposed to let them do it. maybe the cops'll do something. probably not. hope you have insurance!" which is another hefty expense, which gets worse because of shit like this

Noname13 posted...

I think people are getting past a breaking point with the Kia boys.

First I heard of it
https://www.theverge.com/23742425/kia-boys-car-theft-steal-tiktok-hyundai-usb

dioxxys posted...

First I heard of it
https://www.theverge.com/23742425/kia-boys-car-theft-steal-tiktok-hyundai-usb

Really? Wow. Its an epidemic. Insurances are refusing to cover you right now if you own a Kia or Hyundai. Its wild

havean776 posted...

I can't believe I have to tell you this but you can't kill someone over porperty. It's a persons life against an object.

That's a moral stance. That's not what's actually in question here. In Texas, you are allowed to attack someone over your property. That includes, but isn't limited to vehicles. Also, he didn't kill them. The article clearly says that they aren't dead.

You can't be selective with the law. You can't suddenly decide "oh, you can't kill someone over a person's life" when you feel like it. If it's stupid, the law should be removed.
viewmaster_pi posted...

ehhhh cars are more than just "objects," especially in america- you need them to get to work, to make money, which is sadly the only true foundation which your life in this country is built upon, and it's the blood that nourishes it. theft is violence upon people who toil and slave away for their things, just to have it ripped away and be told, "sorry, you're just supposed to let them do it. maybe the cops'll do something. probably not. hope you have insurance!" which is another hefty expense, which gets worse because of shit like this

There's this, but more to the point, the laws in Texas allow for this. The shooter did not break the law by doing this. You can say that the laws are batshit insane over there (and I'd agree), but he shouldn't have the charges stick.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

I guess it depends on how the confrontation went down. Did they attack him when he confronted them about his stolen vehicle? If he just rolled and started blasting then the charges make sense. But if they started physically attacking him while he was taking back possession of his vehicle then it is what it is.

Lot of details lacking here.

I am hoping that the incident gets explained in further detail. Its a messed up situation.

Looks like an overweight Scott Stapp

VeesMcGees posted...

Its a piercing.

And it's the left nostril too

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Blame Texas for making this muddled. Because any sane place would say that it's stupid to do so. Texas specifies that your vehicles count as something to defend.

ArtiRock posted...

Blame Texas for making this muddled. Because any sane place would say that it's stupid to do so. Texas specifies that your vehicles count as something to defend.

I get where you are coming from, but it really depends on how the law is worded. Granted, this is a Google search that I did in 5 seconds instead of a deep dive into TX law, but I guess it would come down to how defend is defined.

IMO, he would have been in the right by Texas law if he had shot them at his house, defending his property. Once he leaves his house and pursues them, he is on the offensive.

But agreed, the law is fucking stupid and just empowers people to feel they can become vigilantes.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/9/3/AAEqD0AAE7sl.jpg

The_Popo posted...

he would have been in the right by Texas law if he had shot them at his house, defending his property. Once he leaves his house and pursues them, he is on the offensive.

Bingo. The law doesn't allow for you to chase someone down and shoot them.

ArtiRock posted...

That's a moral stance. That's not what's actually in question here. In Texas, you are allowed to attack someone over your property. That includes, but isn't limited to vehicles. Also, he didn't kill them. The article clearly says that they aren't dead.

You can't be selective with the law. You can't suddenly decide "oh, you can't kill someone over a person's life" when you feel like it. If it's stupid, the law should be removed.

There's this, but more to the point, the laws in Texas allow for this. The shooter did not break the law by doing this. You can say that the laws are batshit insane over there (and I'd agree), but he shouldn't have the charges stick.

Are you armchair lawyering, or is that a real legal interpretation? Forgive me if I doubt your credibility.

Also, shooting someone is deadly force whether the victim dies or not.

ArtiRock posted...

If the car is his, he should be left alone and all charges dropped. While it's stupid, this is the fault of Texas having dumb laws surrounding when you're allowed to defend things. The Castle doctrine actually extends to vehicles.

If they stole it, and it's proven the teens did, that's no longer his problem.

Property is more valuable than life... So just shoot whoever you want and claim they were trying to steal something of yours.

What could go wrong?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


So make sure you shoot the person you want to get rid of near your car. Problem solved.

What could go wrong?

If he hunted them down to do it, then yeah, he deserves it.
If he didn't, then nope.
God damn Texas laws...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Well I'm sure hunting down the people who stole it and shooting them won't fuck up his life

Crimson_Corsair posted...

I guess it depends on how the confrontation went down. Did they attack him when he confronted them about his stolen vehicle? If he just rolled and started blasting then the charges make sense. But if they started physically attacking him while he was taking back possession of his vehicle then it is what it is.

Lot of details lacking here.

Why confront them at all?

This isn't the wild wild west. They stole the car, go call the police. You don't get to play vigilante and go hunt then down to confront people with gun because your car was stolen.

We aren't missing anything. No one forced this man to go hunt down and confront the thieves with a gun.

The_Popo posted...

I get where you are coming from, but it really depends on how the law is worded. Granted, this is a Google search that I did in 5 seconds instead of a deep dive into TX law, but I guess it would come down to how defend is defined.

IMO, he would have been in the right by Texas law if he had shot them at his house, defending his property. Once he leaves his house and pursues them, he is on the offensive.

But agreed, the law is fucking stupid and just empowers people to feel they can become vigilantes.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/9/3/AAEqD0AAE7sl.jpg

He's not defending any of it as it was already stolen and he traveled to a new location to then shoot people. He's completely in the wrong here and should have just called the cops.

ClayGuida posted...

He's not defending any of it as it was already stolen and he traveled to a new location to then shoot people. He's completely in the wrong here and should have just called the cops.

I doubt Texas will agree with you when this all resolves.

you track them down you then call the cops thats it

If he had shot them during the act Id have slightly more sympathy, but you cant just hunt them down after the fact and shoot them lol

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Depends on who the law is applying to tbh. The gunman is Latino so that might be a sign he will get charged

If this were Florida, theres a decent chance they would decline to press charges.

There was a case here where two kids stole a car then went and started hitting people on bikes with it. They hit two old guys injured one and killed one, only reason they were caught was because one of the kids posted a video of themselves on social media. The cops said they weren't even going to investigate till it started drawing media attention.

It's getting a bit out of hand with kids just stealing shit whenever they want and getting the equivalence of a slap on the wrist for it. 15 years old you know right from wrong, go out and do some stupid dances or be annoying in public, but don't actively try and ruin others people's lives.

Glad they are not dead but hopefully they learned that they may end up messing with someone crazy and that it's just not worth it.

VeesMcGees posted...

Its a piercing.

It's also his left nostril

The_Popo posted...

I get where you are coming from, but it really depends on how the law is worded. Granted, this is a Google search that I did in 5 seconds instead of a deep dive into TX law, but I guess it would come down to how defend is defined.

IMO, he would have been in the right by Texas law if he had shot them at his house, defending his property. Once he leaves his house and pursues them, he is on the offensive.

But agreed, the law is f***ing stupid and just empowers people to feel they can become vigilantes.

Right. I think that the law is stupid and way too open ended.

I still think it's spotty from any sort of sane perspective, as shooting at someone that's stealing and not threatening you still seems insane to me. But maybe I'm just speaking from a perspective of not needing my car that much because I work remote, and even if I didn't, I could afford to have a taxi / rental.

It's dumb as heck and too vague for the average person-- even if it's wrong, the way it's phrased is way too open ended for people that don't know nuances.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

Are you armchair lawyering, or is that a real legal interpretation? Forgive me if I doubt your credibility.

Also, shooting someone is deadly force whether the victim dies or not.

I really wish I was.

I don't disagree with that. But things like Stand Your Ground combined with the Castle Doctrine make this offensively stupid.
Torgo posted...

Property is more valuable than life... So just shoot whoever you want and claim they were trying to steal something of yours.

What could go wrong?

Yeah, it never should be. I'm not saying that what the guy did was right from a moral stand point. I do not agree with it, I think it's insane.

But... I also think it's unfair to slap this man with the book in this case when they have idiotic laws surrounding this.

ClayGuida posted...

He's not defending any of it as it was already stolen and he traveled to a new location to then shoot people. He's completely in the wrong here and should have just called the cops.

How is he not defending it? The issue here is that the law literally specifies your vehicle as well. And furthermore, as someone pointed out, the gunman is Latin, so if it's pushed forward as attempted murder, this becomes one of those magical "it's SYG when a white man does it, but it's attempted murder when someone else does it." The law should be thrown away in general, but it's unfair that it becomes a "questionable" issue with minorities:

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/01/the-dangerous-expansion-of-stand-your-ground-laws-and-its-racial-implications/

And no, I'm not trying to make it a racial issue here, but it stands to reason that it exists because of how shitty it's used in places.

He must have only took out their legs if he wasn't charged with attempted murder.

I guess all parties involved here learned a lesson.

ArtiRock posted...

How is he not defending it? The issue here is that the law literally specifies your vehicle as well. And furthermore, as someone pointed out, the gunman is Latin, so if it's pushed forward as attempted murder, this becomes one of those magical "it's SYG when a white man does it, but it's attempted murder when someone else does it." The law should be thrown away in general, but it's unfair that it becomes a "questionable" issue with minorities:

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/01/the-dangerous-expansion-of-stand-your-ground-laws-and-its-racial-implications/

And no, I'm not trying to make it a racial issue here, but it stands to reason that it exists because of how shitty it's used in places.

So if they had stolen his PS5 he'd be in his rights to defend his castle by going to their house and shooting them?

Blbmbr666 posted...

Yeah see the problem is that you still have to pay out your premium plus your rates go up, AND the overall value of your car is reduced. Often they also brand your title after a car is stolen.

Insurance is honestly a scam when you think about it.

Insurance companies: Pay us money every month so you can be covered if something bad happens.

Customer: I dunno...

IC: Also, it's illegal to drive without car insurance.

*Something happens to the customer's car*

IC: Because we had to do something, we're now going to charge you more every month.

Like shit man.

OT: Shooting someone for trying to steal your car is psychotic behavior.

If they didn't steal his car they wouldn't get shot. Seems fair to me. Stop defending piece of shit scumbag thieves.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

If they didn't steal his car they wouldn't get shot. Seems fair to me. Stop defending piece of shit scumbag thieves.

If you think stealing property is deserving of being killed, you are part of the gun problem in America.

That's not defending theft, as that's also wrong. The punishment should be jail time, not death.