|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 26, 2005, 09:17 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 20, 2005
Posts: 1,030
|
....to me...the ideal law would allow a citizen to use force..if necessary to prevent a serious crime..if no other means were successful....I do not think anyone here is advocating shooting a suspect on the spot (unless the suspect is armed and poses an immeadiate threat)...where the law is wrong today is that does not give a would-be victim or witness of a crime enough power to thwart that crime..remember..usually a policeman comes after a crime has already been commited and reported(not always the case of course)...when the criminal element in our society fears us more than the cops then we will see true progress made in diminishing crime....now those here who want attention don't twist this thread to say something it really doesn't......THE END
|
September 26, 2005, 10:58 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,152
|
Amen to that
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin Spc. Jeremy M. Campbell Died 9/1/2005 and the best DS ever MSG Matthew Ritz Died 11.23.2005 matthewritz.com For those who have had to fight for it, Life holds a special meaning that the protected will never know. (\__/) (='.'=) Someone set us up the bunny! (")_(") |
September 26, 2005, 11:04 PM | #78 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,993
|
aspen1964,
The TX law is just about as close to what you describe as "ideal" as I've ever heard of. It is complicated though--but so are most laws. Doug, Quote:
tsavo, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
Last edited by JohnKSa; September 27, 2005 at 09:59 PM. |
|||||
September 26, 2005, 11:23 PM | #79 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
|
Are you ****ing blind? There are numerous people in this thread claiming you can use deadly force to protect property and nothing more.
It's not very hard. It's either a yes or a no. Can you use deadly force to protect a simple piece of property. Plenty of people have said yes so maybe you're the one who should be reading posts again. |
September 26, 2005, 11:40 PM | #80 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,993
|
Quote:
Sometimes you can, most of the time you can't. The fact that you have failed to realize this is further proof that you either aren't reading or aren't comprehending the vast majority of what has been posted on this thread. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
September 26, 2005, 11:40 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 20, 2005
Posts: 1,030
|
..calm yourself TSAVO...no one is advocating shooting anyone commiting any kind of crime without jusitifiable cause...but some crimes are more serious in nature..and what unarmed criminal is going to ignore an armed citizen telling him to stop...it's the idea that we must sit and watch powerless from a distance while the criminal does whatever he wants because the law is on his side that gets me upset...try to keep things in the right perspective...
|
September 27, 2005, 12:00 AM | #82 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
|
I've been saying during the length of this entire thread that you can't use deadly force to protect property, and 90% of the people in here disgareed with me. What do you think that means? If nobody is claming that, then I wouldn't have so many people arguing about it.
|
September 27, 2005, 09:20 AM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The problem with chest beating threads is that they don't take a cold hard logical look at what is the best outcome of the encounter.
Is it to save the property? Is the cost of the property worth what may be the later costs due to the shooting aftermath. Is it to make an ideological statement whatever the risk to one's life? If one does shoot, there are significant finanacial, social and psychological consequences to self and family. If you focus on the ideological statement, then don't whine when you get caught up in the system. It's nice to be so sure as an internet commando and lawyer of unknown credentials. So many bytes, so much BS.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; September 27, 2005 at 11:16 AM. |
September 27, 2005, 10:40 AM | #84 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
|
TSAVO WROTE:
Quote:
Quote:
But to answer a SIMPLE question SIMPLY....YES you CAN use deadly force to protect property anytime you want. * IF * you don't mind facing the legal consequences and quite probably rotting in jail for the rest of your life. But with this, like in all things....its your life....and your choice....and your butt.... And lastly, this is supposed to be an intelligent, civil discussion. If you are incapable of the first, at least make an attempt to comply with the second. |
||
September 27, 2005, 01:47 PM | #85 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
|
Once again, read my posts-apparently you haven't done that yet. I've said numerous times that if you use deadly force to protect property you will be in jail.
People seem to be confusing what I'm saying. They come back with something such as "well if you're protecting property and you're threatened with force"-well I never said that. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said to protect PROPERTY, not your life. |
September 27, 2005, 02:06 PM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,152
|
Quote:
__________________
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin Spc. Jeremy M. Campbell Died 9/1/2005 and the best DS ever MSG Matthew Ritz Died 11.23.2005 matthewritz.com For those who have had to fight for it, Life holds a special meaning that the protected will never know. (\__/) (='.'=) Someone set us up the bunny! (")_(") |
|
September 27, 2005, 02:23 PM | #87 |
Member
Join Date: September 25, 2005
Location: Beautiful North Cakalackie
Posts: 20
|
Hmmmm.........
....Oh sorry...nevermind me... ......Just basking in the testosterone.... Shan
__________________
Love, Honor, and Watch Your Six! |
September 27, 2005, 09:13 PM | #88 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,993
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can you ALWAYS use deadly force to protect property in TX? NO! Read the law. Can you SOMETIMES use deadly force to protect property in TX even when your life is NOT in danger? YES! Read the law.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
Last edited by JohnKSa; September 27, 2005 at 11:52 PM. |
|||
September 28, 2005, 01:01 AM | #89 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
|
And my response to that, like it has been before in this thread, is that it's really stupid to risk going to prison based on a law that says "sometimes". That's pretty vague to me, and again-which I already said-it's not worth risking that for a piece of property.
|
September 28, 2005, 10:32 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
|
JohnKSa, we're beating a dead horse.....just forget it man.
|
September 28, 2005, 10:35 AM | #91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
|
TSAVO wrote:
Quote:
|
|
September 28, 2005, 03:21 PM | #92 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
|
You really must be mentally handicapped. I'll post the exact same thing I just did concering that law.
"And my response to that, like it has been before in this thread, is that it's really stupid to risk going to prison based on a law that says "sometimes". That's pretty vague to me, and again-which I already said-it's not worth risking that for a piece of property." |
September 28, 2005, 06:46 PM | #93 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
|
TSAVO, a little history of your comments shall we?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
September 28, 2005, 10:19 PM | #94 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,993
|
Quote:
I said "sometimes" by way of a VERY brief summary of the law. Since I have actually posted the entire applicable section of the text of the law, I didn't think it was necessary to post a complete summary. Particularly since I said twice in that post that you should read the law. Quote:
Another post proving you have either not read or have not understood what's been posted here.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
September 29, 2005, 12:16 AM | #95 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
|
Gee the law isn't vague huh, yet you can't give a yes or no answer to the use of deadly force to protect property, that makes sense
The fact is I stated that you can't use deadly force to stop a thief from stealing your neighbors car, and people started bitching and arguing with me. Then a few respected memebers came in and agreed partly with what I was saying and people started changing their stories. I'm done with this thread. |
September 29, 2005, 07:34 AM | #96 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Hemet, Ca.
Posts: 524
|
Quote:
In NY State The answer is YES YOU CAN and it is clear with no fancy wording. NY State Penal Law kenny b Last edited by kennybs plbg; September 29, 2005 at 07:51 AM. Reason: repair link |
|
September 29, 2005, 09:25 AM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
|
Tsavo wrote:
Quote:
And with your attitude tsavo, you were done before you got started.... |
|
September 29, 2005, 10:21 AM | #98 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 103
|
Maybe this will shut you up.
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=436506 Here's a few exerts from that thread from people who actually know what they are talking about. "Not to be insensitive, but the victim, initiating contact with the suspects, escelated this situation to a violent level. The suspects could even go so far as to say that the shooting was a matter of self defense. A CCW is designed to afford us a last chance effort of self defense. A CCW does not give anyone the right to play "COP" or "VIGILANTE". I do not mean to be so harsh, but situations such as this one could one day cost everyone the privilege of a CCW." "2) Like my CCW instructor {A Virginia LEO} said: "Let the cops take care of the big picture." If I see guys jacking a car I will arm myself and dial 911." "3) By confronting property thieves with his defense weapon CCW guy just escalated a non-violent theft into an armed confrontation. What if the CCW guy had shot and killed the thieves? I expect he would be looking at charges and prison time. " And those are just quotes from the first page. Owned. |
September 29, 2005, 12:03 PM | #99 |
Staff Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2001
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 2,422
|
And maybe THIS will shut everyone up…
This board is dedicated to the responsible use of firearms. This particular forum is dedicated to TACTICS AND TRAINING, not chest thumping, name calling and acting like school kids. Recess is over, kiddies. Denny
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook |
|
|