The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 20, 2001, 09:12 PM   #26
Libertarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 1999
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 2,117
I spent many years in San Antonio

Oops! Double tap. Sorry.

[Edited by Libertarian on 04-20-2001 at 10:38 PM]
Libertarian is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 09:20 PM   #27
adept
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2001
Posts: 410
while i will always support someone's decision on how to protect their property, i have to say that the use of deadly force might be a bit over the top. if someone wants to take the chance of breaking into my house they will be facing the business end of which ever firearm i grab first <12ga or 9mm>, but unless my life or that of my family is in imminent danger they will be given the chance to flea for their life. however, i will not sit in judgement of someone else's decision.

and for the record, is there any reason to make personal "slams" against anyone that doesn't agree with you?? ie: "limp wristed" i'm sure that i'll hear about this, but are texans better than the rest of us?? we're all allowed to have opinions, ya don't have to agree with mine, nor am i required to agree with your's.


Adept


__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty
is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
adept is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 09:44 PM   #28
Brian Gibbons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2001
Posts: 388
Need Clarification ...

I was under the impression that pointing a firearm at anyone, whether you intend to shoot or not, IS considered "deadly force" ...
Brian Gibbons is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 10:00 PM   #29
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
Texas Penal Code:
Quote:
§ 9.04. Threats as Justifiable Force


The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
Italics mine.

As always, the law varies from State to State, so check your own State laws on deadly force, and/or consult with a prosecuting attorney.

LawDog

__________________
"The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer."
--The 13th Warrior

Bona na Croin

The LawDog Files
LawDog is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 10:02 PM   #30
adept
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2001
Posts: 410
Brian, point well taken. you are correct, that would be deadly force. i should have said discarged said weapon unless there was threat of imminent danger to myself or those under my care.

my apologies for the innacurate statement.

Adept


__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty
is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
adept is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 10:06 PM   #31
Dangus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2000
Location: IA
Posts: 1,907
The fact that any of you would support shooting someone in the back for stealing a chicken makes me ashamed to even associate with this webforum. That's sick and utterly contemptable. It would be LESS unbelievable if this had been an adult shot in the back, but still not ok, but a 14 year old boy and you say it's ok?????!!!!!!!!! What kind of sick, twisted world do you come from. Do you go to Church? You sure don't sound like Christians to me. Those of you that think this is ok are dysfunctional and need serious therapy.
Dangus is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 10:34 PM   #32
Brian Gibbons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2001
Posts: 388
Answer to Dangus ...

Your questions deserve an appropriate response.
No, I do not attend church nor am I a Christian.
Now, I am hoping for you to answer my question that I posed a few postings back in this thread.
I am asking, with all due respect, would you be willing to post a public notice on your premises claiming that you do not condone, nor employ, or allow to have employed the use of deadly force to protect your property?
Brian Gibbons is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 10:56 PM   #33
kjm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: College Station, Texas
Posts: 1,871
The point here isn't that folks from other state's opinions don't matter, it's that they don't matter in Texas. We do things our own way. Way-back-when, when the folks were figurin' out right from wrong, somehow they got the notion that stealing was wrong (especially in Texas). Stealing at night was even worse, so they passed a law to allow Texans to use deadly force at night to protect property. I suppose those crazies in the legislature were probably figurin' that since stealing is wrong, if you go out and steal, you could (or should) get shot. For most folks in Texas, the threat is enough. Even when I was a youngster like the deceased, I never stole things at night 'cause everybody knows that you can get shot for it. Now this little punk ne'r-do-well decided that he would test the waters anyway, and now he will never breed his type. Texas has just warned a whole generation of youth about stealing, so his death wasn't in vain. Whacha wanna bet that there won't be a whole lotta chickens stolen at night in the SA area?

Maybe he should have moved to VA or MA if he wanted to steal chickens at night, but he didn't. It is his fault, and if you don't like how we do it, then please stay out of Texas, and for God's sake, don't come here and steal at night!
kjm is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 11:06 PM   #34
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,298
Congratulations, NAD, you missed the point entirely and made yourself look really bad in the effort.

Yours is the kind of response that anti-gun people look for when claiming that gunowners are trigger happy Rambo wannabes.

So what's your solution if someone scratches your car in a parking lot? Blow him away?

What's your solution if someone cuts across a corner of your yard? Scatter his brains with a slug from your trusty hogleg?

How about if someone accidently sneezes on you? Blast him full of holes and claim self defense because his spittle damaged your string tie and Dingos?

Personally I don't care if you, or anyone else, comes across to me or the other gunowners on this board as a homophobic reactionary trigger happy redneck who's full of beer, bluster, and BS. But what I do care about is the image you portray of gunowners in general.

Your response is, in and of itself, indicative of the ugly side of firearms owners in this country.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 11:10 PM   #35
Cruzer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2001
Posts: 235
I continue to stand by my previous statement. I also continue to believe that it is right to allow those who wish to protect their property with a gun to do so. There's an awful lot of "monday morning quarterbacking" going on here though. If it is dark, I go outside, there are silouettes of people in my yard (taking my property), and I fear for my life, I start shooting till the mofos are down. Back, front, or side I'm shootin' till I'm the only one standing.

A lot of you are assuming that the guy saw the BGs and thought "gee, they're running away...maybe I'll shoot them in the back." This is the kind of second guessing that makes a schmuck like Diallo look like a freakin' victim. If it is dark and you are caught (by police or by me), freeze or face the consequences. I will shoot before I ask questions. The law here doesn't say "you can shoot someone in the back." It simply says that if a property owner has to shoot someone to defend his property, the decent property owner gets the benefit of the doubt, and the criminal gets the coffin...makes total sense. For those who feel they can be judge, jury, and criminal defender from reading a short article of a confrontation, I think it is appropriate to give the lawful gunowner the benefit of the doubt - not the criminal.

I am reminded of the Canadian citizen executed in Texas for murder. It caused tremendous outrage that we would put a foreign citizen to death. Governer G.W. Bush said it best, "if you are from Canada, and you come to our great state, I recommend you don't commit murder...or you will face the death penalty." Surely a jury of 12 Texans or a civil trial judge will determine if there is enough evidence to prove "by the preponderance of the evidence" that this guy was unjustified by shooting the thief in the back, and will determine an appropriate civil penalty. As for the criminal system, it says "if you take someone's property, we will not prosecute the owner of the property who kills you." I believe that is the way it ought to be.

[Edited by Cruzer on 04-21-2001 at 10:39 AM]
Cruzer is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 11:33 PM   #36
Keeper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 1999
Posts: 204
The question here is where do you draw the line. Do you pop a 8 year old for pilfering apples in your yard at night. How about at dusk? What if a 6 year old sneaks out his or her window at night and is in your garden. Do you lay down the law and kill them. A lot of you are going to say well now you are being silly but the above falls under your definition of justice and well within the owners rights.
__________________
It is better to have a gun and not need it rather than need a gun and not have it.
Keeper is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 11:39 PM   #37
Brian Gibbons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2001
Posts: 388
Cruzer says it best ...

Cruzer's assessment of the incident said it best and I am heeding his words. I'm from Canada and if I ever decide to visit Texas you all can be damn sure I'll be bringin' my own chickens with me ...
Brian Gibbons is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 11:46 PM   #38
Elizabeth Petersen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2001
Location: Utah
Posts: 571
<begin rant mode>

Okay.

Not going to second guess the actions of the homeowner that shot the kid...I wasn't there, so I can't judge him.

However, I am rather surprised and somewhat appalled at some of the posts on this thread. I was sitting here, reading this, thinking "My God, are they really condoning shooting someone for stealing some chickens? While running away?" even knowing (I assume the homeowner was not aware he was shooting at a kid) that the theif was only 14, people here are still supportive of the use of deadly force? WOW...

Now, this got me thinking. How many people here, HONESTLY, have NEVER BROKEN THE LAW. Come on. Let's be realistic here, people. Fourteen years old. Seriously stupid age. I know I did plenty of really dumb things at that age. Who didn't? Who didn't do stupid/illegal/dangerous things when they were a kid? Hmmmm? Anyone?

Answer me this. Do any of you ever...

...carry a concealed weapon without a license?
...exceed the speed limit?
...lie to a cop about why you were speeding?
...drive after one too many beers?
...use fake ID to get in a bar, buy alchol or cigarettes?
...lie on your income tax forms?
...keep something you found that wasn't yours?
...take office supplies from work that were not yours?
...get angry enough with a spouse or significant other to throw something/hit something/break something?
...take a pot shot at an inanimate object or structure during some unscheduled target practice?
...hunt off season?
...carve your initials into a park bench?
...take someone else's prescription medication (hey honey, my back is killing me..can I have one of your percocets?)
...anything else that was technically ILLEGAL but did not involve threatening or harming another person?

So. Anyone do any of those? Hmm? Think you deserve to be shot for them? Think your 14 year old son or daughter, while boosting some tootsie rolls from the local Stop and Rob should be gunned down by the clerk as he or she runs away?

THINK people. We are a civilized nation. At least, I thought we were.

<end rant mode>
__________________
March all you want, sister. This mom prefers to protect her children with a 12 gauge.

Vulnus pectoris sugens ne properetis mos naturae dicendi est

Ask me about my Hemingway Death Wish. I dare you.
Elizabeth Petersen is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 11:49 PM   #39
kjm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: College Station, Texas
Posts: 1,871
What the hell is the 8 year old doing in my orchard at 3AM? I don't know for sure what is going on out there, and I ain't about to ask for ID. If you steal in Texas, and it is night out, you could die. That means that parents of children prone to stealing should probably keep those rascals in at night and turn them out to steal during the day. An 8 year old stealing apples could get shot just the same as the 30 year old ex-con stealing an airconditioner from g'ma's house. In Texas, the law is clear. The monkey is on the theif's back whether he be 8 or 80. Don't steal in Texas, and you'll not have a problem.

While I'm sure that sounds awful, I thank God I live in a state where the law is clear and to the point and not so confusing as to put the homeowner on trial for protecting his property. BTW, theft of livestock in Texas is also a real no-no. So this kid and his 20 year old accomplice were really making a bad mistake. Stealing livestock at night just ain't real smart. This kid made a mistake and was killed for it just the same as a kid who runs into an interstate at rush hour. Either way, he's dead from a mistake, the only difference is that the theif could be alive today if his parents had some semblance of control over him. I suppose you'll want to shed a tear over his demise, but in 8 years, he'd have been robbing and raping just the same, and rather than spend a lot of tax-dollars to support this POS, his family now has to live with the fact that they didn't discipline him, nor teach him the slightest inkling of morality, so now he's dead.

Jeesh! I don't get how difficult that is to comprehend. Don't come to Texas and steal, kill or rape, and the worst that could happen to you is a good butt whoopin for offending us. If you commit one of the big 3, then prepare to be killed either by the state or by a citizen.
kjm is offline  
Old April 20, 2001, 11:59 PM   #40
Brian Gibbons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2001
Posts: 388
Keeper

The law would not work with an age stipulation. That's why your question of "where to draw the line" is moot. You can have 8 year olds that look 14, and 14 year olds that look 20. At night, the ability to distinguish an adult from a juvenile is even more difficult. That's where a property owner must assume the responsibility for his actions as to shoot or not. He may not get penalized under criminal law, but if he shot a youngster, the civil courts would crucify him ...
Brian Gibbons is offline  
Old April 21, 2001, 12:08 AM   #41
Libertarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 1999
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 2,117
KJM (and everyone else who is holding the same position), It sounds like you are confusing the law allowing you to kill someone with a mandate that you must kill them. I wonder how you will feel if the time ever comes (do you hope for it?) when the cops roll the perp over and it turns out to be the neighbor's teenager who was just cutting through your property, but since you've stated that you aren't taking any chances and if it is night time you'll probably come out shooting, you'll just blast away "just in case". After all, s/he was on your property at night and could have been doing something wrong.

It is nut-jobs like you (and the rest of you cheerleading the "shoot 'em dead over a penny" stand) who give the rest of us a bad name with the moderates (those neither pro nor anti-gun but on the fence).

At this point I have to apologise to the moderators and administrators for getting personal, but I see no way to answer this insanity without making it so. I've said all I will on this topic (remember the pigs and singing thing?)
Libertarian is offline  
Old April 21, 2001, 12:18 AM   #42
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,298
Cruzer,

You may want to think about what you're saying. It comes very close to advocacy for laying down a field of fire no matter what the situation.

What if it's the neighbor kid looking for his dog? If it's dark, how can you be sure what's going on? That's the best reason I can think of for HOLDING fire.

You're right, there is a lot of Monday Morning QBing going on.

But there's also a distinct smell of "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" in the air, too.

__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old April 21, 2001, 12:24 AM   #43
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,298
KJM,

"What's someone (of any age) doing in my orchard at 3 a.m.?"

Well, obviously, trespassing.

But stealing? Are you sure?

Maybe it's the neighbor kid heading for a little rondevous with the girlfriend. All he wants is a shortcut and some nookie.

I'm seeing a disturbing advocacy for "shoot first, ask questions, then shoot the survivors."
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old April 21, 2001, 12:25 AM   #44
Brian Gibbons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2001
Posts: 388
Elizabeth

Sure I've broken laws, but never a law that I thought I could get shot for breaking. Try and remember that the laws of a society are suppose to reflect the morals of the majority of the populace within that society. We may not agree with them, but we are bound to respect them. Don't go to India and kill a cow. Don't go to Texas and steal a chicken at night.

(I'm not for sure about the "cow thing" in India but you get the point ...)
Brian Gibbons is offline  
Old April 21, 2001, 12:29 AM   #45
Drundel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2000
Location: Friendswood, TX
Posts: 556
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...chl/newlaw.htm

Subchapter D.
§ 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.

§ 9.42

(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


The man is totally justified, but it does make one wonder if a life is worth $600. Are we to put a dollar amount on the amuont needed to qualify the use of deadly force? If so, how about a car, or a horse, or cow? Is $20000 worth someones life? I'm glad I didn't have to make the law but I'm thankful it does allow me to defend my property.

It was dark and he saw someone running from his place, he had no idea what they were doing or had taken. He feared damage to his property, case closed. This is an unfortanfe event but is legal in Texas.

Quote:
The man 'had a gun in his hand, and when he saw this happening and they started running away, he started firing at them,' she said.
__________________
Shotshell Information Page

Texas A&M University
Proud member of the Fighting Class of '00
Drundel is offline  
Old April 21, 2001, 12:33 AM   #46
kjm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: College Station, Texas
Posts: 1,871
Libertarian, sounds like you aren't real familiar with your ideology. My property is an extension of me. It is mine. You can't steal it from me. Remember that I have a right to life, liberty and PROPERTY so long as my exercising my rights does not interfere with someone else's rights to LLP. This criminal was depriving a person of his rightful property. Sounds pretty simple to me. I don't care that he was 12. Really, I don't. Different places have different standards. In Saudi Arabia, if caught they'd have cut his hand off. Most older societies see a 12 year old as the age of reason. He knew better. It's all pretty simple. You may think that Singapore is barbaric for lashing a young American kid for vandalizing cars, but guess what? The people in Singapore don't worry much about their cars being vandalized, and I suppose that American kids who go to Singapore should mark vandalism off their iteneries.

It is imaterial if he was stealing a penny, or stealing a billion dollars. He knew it was wrong. He took his chances and now he's paid the price. Guess he wasn't so lucky. I could give two hoots in hell over what you think about Texas law. It is there for a reason, and I don't care about those who break it and get killed doing it. The only reason we're even discussing this to the length we are is because of the age of the criminal. If he would've been 18, you'd probably be singing a different tune, but principles only count when you want them to.

A principle isn't worth a tinker's damn if you don't stick to them consistently. I suppose if anyone wants to steal from you at night, all they have to do is send over a minor to do it, and they'll know they're safe. As for me, I probably wouldn't have shot him, but I'll be damned if I'm going to second guess the PROPERTY OWNER who was having HIS property taken from him CRIMINALLY.
kjm is offline  
Old April 21, 2001, 12:36 AM   #47
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,298
Drundel,

We've already established the fact that the letter of the law is on the property owner's side.

In some states, the law is also on the side of a husband who beats the crap out of his wife because she's a scold.

Absolute reading of the law isn't the point here.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old April 21, 2001, 12:38 AM   #48
Drundel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2000
Location: Friendswood, TX
Posts: 556
http://www.hearstnp.com/san_antonio/...223248&xld=100

A link about the aforementioned shooting.

http://www.hearstnp.com/san_antonio/...221864&xld=180

A link for the car shooting, incase you were interested.
Drundel is offline  
Old April 21, 2001, 12:49 AM   #49
Drundel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2000
Location: Friendswood, TX
Posts: 556
Sure it is. Y'all are second guessing some guy who was within his legal rights. Just because you, and I for that matter, would not have shoot if you didn't feel your life is in danger doesn't give you the right to criticize someone else.

Like some said about playing arm chair quarterback, without being there I think he made a bad choice, just because he saw lights and heard a noise doesn't mean he HAS to shoot, but he CAN if he feels the need.

Case closed, next thread.
Drundel is offline  
Old April 21, 2001, 01:33 AM   #50
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,298
HOLY CRAP!

If this news report is accurate, and this guy's quote is also accurate, THE HOMEOWNER HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE WAS SHOOTING AT!

"A homeowner in the 6100 block of South New Braunfels admitted to firing shots after seeing lights and hearing a commotion near a chicken coop in the backyard.

He told police he fired at least one shot toward the area."

So, if this holds, and the guy had absolutely NO clue what was going on at the chicken coop, you're telling me he was justified in shooting essentially BLIND? At light and sound?

He "[saw] lights and [heard] a commotion near a chicken coop"?

Judging from his quote, this man didn't know if it was someone stealing chickens, police chasing and cornering a rape suspect in his back yard, or any of a wide range of other possibilities.

Jesus, this gets worse and worse.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:50 PM.


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 0.14895 seconds with 7 queries