The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 28, 2012, 12:53 PM   #76
TexasJustice7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2011
Posts: 213
Quote:
DoubleNaughtSpy: Shooting an intruder breaking in and the intruder survives to give a statement? No problem. My actions will be covered by a variety of laws.
If an intruder is breaking down my deadbolt door there is no doubt in my mind that I will shoot him. And likewise, if he survives the encounter he can give his statements. I trust the laws of the State of Texas and none of this conflicts with my morals, which is to obey the Commandment "Thou Shalt Do No Murder".

If one does break in I would not know how many were behind him, as I live in an apartment complex. More may be on the way. If I have the chance I may dial 911 but my primary attention will be to stop the intruder before he gets beyond the door, and hollering to him that the police are on the way, might only serve to give away my location so that he gets to shoot first.

If I thought I woild be safer where guns were against the law, or where a homeowner can't do that, I would move there but I don't believe that for a minute. I do think there are some who think they have a corner on ethics or morals, and I maintain that when it is my abode that a criminal is breaking the door down, their morals don't trump mine and if it is their abode, my morals don't trump theirs.

Before the castle doctrine was written there were lawyers making a considerable profit off taking cases against homeowners and victims of
criminals. So I strongly support the castle doctrine of Texas and I do not believe it will be changed in the near future. Nothing against attorneys however, as I used to work for a lawfirm although I am not an attorney. Some people don't like an attorney just like they don't like the police till they need one.

Last edited by TexasJustice7; June 28, 2012 at 03:49 PM.
TexasJustice7 is offline  
Old June 28, 2012, 08:11 PM   #77
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
this is in response to post 75(two posts ago)

I agree, shading the truth is not a good idea. that isn't what I meant.

Also, you make a good point about the fact that one must understand that it is possible he/she could be charged. That being said, if an intruder breaks into my home I tend to believe in the justice system as long as I am not malicious in my intent & as long as I don't cross the line(continue shooting a wounded, non-threat individual as an example).
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old June 30, 2012, 10:12 AM   #78
danez71
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 2, 2009
Posts: 426
scrubcedar said:

Quote:
Prove that it's not reasonable that ANY intruder, even that drunk girl, might use "PHYSICAL FORCE NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT" in open court.

IMO... this is an area that I think you really miss the boat on.

In a self defense shooting, you have already admitted you shot and possibly killed someone.

Now, the burden is on you to convince/prove to a jury that your actions were reasonable and therefore you are protected under the castle doctrine laws as opposed to all of the murder laws applying to you.


What you're doing, IMO, is relying too heavily on the notion that enough of those jurors will:

1) Have the same definition of 'reasonable' as you do.

And

2) Think to themself...'yes, I would have shot the druken girl (who was unarmed) in the same situation'.

Lets not kid ourselves here. We have all seen some pretty crazy jury decisions, in our own opinions. And thats the key; "in our own opinion".

Remember, you have admitted to a crime and now have to convince/prove others, a jury of strangers, that the amnesty castle doctrine laws apply to you.
danez71 is offline  
Old June 30, 2012, 10:56 AM   #79
TexasJustice7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2011
Posts: 213
[QUOTEDanez071: ]IMO... this is an area that I think you really miss the boat on.

In a self defense shooting, you have already admitted you shot and possibly killed someone.

Now, the burden is on you to convince/prove to a jury that your actions were reasonable and therefore you are protected under the castle doctrine laws as opposed to all of the murder laws applying to you.[/QUOTE]

I think it would be very interesting if anyone has any actual statistics on Castle Doctrine Home Defense Shootings if they have been published for States with the Castle Doctrine, as to how many of these homeowners were subesequently charged, or subsequently convicted of a crime after shooting
someone breaking their door down. I tried to do a bit of checking just for Texas but have not found any statistics on them. Perhaps one of the attorneys on the forum might have information on that.

If someone has a flimsy door that can be pushed open easily I would think that case would come under more scrutiny than someone who had a heavy security door deadbolt locked torn off and broken down to gain entry.
I don't think people should have doors that have glass panes that can be
broken easily by an intruder.
TexasJustice7 is offline  
Old June 30, 2012, 04:12 PM   #80
elrotundamundo
Member
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Location: Southeast Idaho
Posts: 32
If you decide to confront an intruder and hold them for police, remember that the responding officers will only see you as a "man with a gun" when they arrive. Bad guys and good guys often look alike and they won't be able to tell the difference until they sort it all out. Remember, most of the gun calls they go to are, for lack of a politically correct term, "dirtbag on dirtbag". If you do decide to confront, make sure you tell the dispatcher you are armed, are the homeowner, and give them a physical and clothing description of yourself as well as descriptions of the bad guys. When the cops arrive, holster and comply immediately with any orders including getting on the ground.

Having worked patrol for 16 years, I can tell you that law-abiding citizens often have an idea in their mind that their status as the 'good guy" is obvious and immediately discernible. It is a sad fact that cops eventually get very distrustful of everyone and won't know you are the good guy until they verify it after the volatile situation is controlled. Off-duty plain-clothes officers are killed by friendly fire far to often and we were always told in training to assume that if involved in an off-duty encounter,we might not be recognized as police even when displaying a badge.

Also carry a can of foam-type OC spray so if an apparently unarmed suspect tries to approach you while you have them at gunpoint, you can disable them in a legally justified manner. Foam OC is less likely to blow back in your face if it is windy. (learned that the hard way).
elrotundamundo is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07633 seconds with 7 queries