The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 22, 2001, 01:27 AM   #76
Drundel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2000
Location: Friendswood, TX
Posts: 556
You really shouldn't call them "Mexicans" unless they were born in Mexico. I have friends in Monterey and Guadalajara and they don't like it when we call hispanics Mexicans. They feel it is an insult to their cutlure and hispanics don't like being called Mexicans.

¿Fun isn't?
Drundel is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 01:43 AM   #77
therealkaos
Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2000
Posts: 39
I think it is sad that a family lost a child. When I was growing up, my father always told me to obey the law, and stay away from those who broke it. When I was 14 we lived in a housing project. He always told me that the kids hanging out all night were looking for trouble.

Several of these kids that used to hang out and get in trouble are dead now. One rode his bicycle out in front of a car on the other side of town. He was in his early teens and just came and went as he wanted with no parental supervision at all. Another one got hit by a train while messing around on the tracks with some other kids. Another one died in a drunk driving accident when he was about 19 yrs old. Another one died riding in a car late one night with a guy who was driving to fast, he was about 17 yrs old.

None of these kids had any rules in their homes, and in my opinion, they thought they were tough enough to get away with things. They were all first rate juvenile thugs. They thought rules were for someone else. we all went to the same school and lived in the same nieghborhood. The only difference is that my father was strict and their families just turned them loose to be a problem for someone else.

Maybe, other kids will see that stealing, tresspassing, and what ever else this boy was doing, can lead to tragedy.
Maybe other parents will read about it and try a little harder to know where their kids are in the middle of the night. At any rate I think it will show others that if they want a chicken, a car stereo, or whatever, they need to get a job becuase crime doesn't pay.
therealkaos
therealkaos is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 02:11 AM   #78
Elizabeth Petersen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2001
Location: Utah
Posts: 571
Ok, I must say that I am somewhat ashamed at a few of the things that have been posted on this board. I will respond to a few things individually. And I promise to keep this civil.

First of all, let me address a few things that Chulain had to say:

"Shooting blind at light and sound… I tell you what. If I see a flashlight around the back of my shed at 3 am, and hear commotion in a language other than English, someone is going to have a really bad hair day."

And what if they were speaking English? Would that change your response?

"Get with the program, or get the hell out of my country."

Uh, just because they might speak a different language doesn't mean it's not THEIR country too (ie, naturalized citizen). Last I heard, this country didn't have a mandatory official language.

"We don’t exactly have a non-English-speaking immigration problem in my hometown. (Thank God.)"

So, and if you did develop a problem with non-English-speaking immigrants in your hometown, what would you do? Load them onto cattlecars? Put them in internment camps? Load em on a slow boat to God-knows-where? Jesus...Wow. I am amazed sometimes at the xenophobia and at times outright racism displayed on this board by a few of the members.

Ok, next.

Texas Vet: "If you won't protect what is yours, why are you on boards like this? If you won't protect what is yours, why are you on boards like this? If you don't like our laws, then stay the heck out of Texas"

Who said I won't protect what is mine? What? I can't decide on what method I choose to utilize in order to do that? Hey, I'll let you in a little secret: I HAVE used the threat of deadly force - was ready and prepared to gun down a very bad man - to protect myself. You want to ask me that again?

Okay, now for the big one. KJM, you asked me some specific questions (as well as making a few unfounded accusations) so I will respond.

(Oh, and just a little note before I begin: Much of my previous post regarding strange laws was tongue-in-cheek, and was my attempt to bring some humor into a thread that was on the verge of getting ugly. Silly me.)

Now, KJM. My responses:

"Do we get rid of the law because of the exception to the rule? If so, I'm happy to see that you're not running for the Texas Legislature."

I didn't call for the repeal of this law. I simply stated MY OPINION that in this particular case, the shooter was beyond the parameters of that law. Personally, I like, agree with and SUPPORT that law.

"Oh you'll say the driving after drinking COULD have killed someone, but in actuallity, it didn't."

No, but it could have, and does happen all the time. So are you saying it is OK to drink and drive until the time when you finally kill someone? Yeah, I'm sure that's what the drunk (expletive deleted by me) woman thought before she plowed her car into me just days before my 18th birthday. I still have the scars.

"NEVER DO I DEPRIVE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OF LIFE LIBERTY OR PROPERTY"

Again, the drinking-while -driving thing...well, perhaps you haven't, but the potential was there the moment you got behind the wheel of car while under the influence of alcohol or marijuana. So, in essense, you engaged in behavior that COULD have deprived someone of their life, liberty and/or property. Just because you don't get caught, doesn't mean it's right. I learned that at a very young age from my IMMIGRANT MOTHER.

"If you think that life, liberty and property aren't worth protecting by deadly force, maybe you missed out on that portion of schooling called natural laws."

I think the basic difference here is that I am a little more flexible than someone who only sees in black and white. I understand perfectly that there are always exceptions to the rules. And I have always been sure that when my life, or anyone else's life is on the line, that I don't behave recklessly. Because the farmer took a wild shot in the general direction of "noise and light" I believe his actions to be reckless and without regard for the safety of others. Just my opinion. Don't worry, I'm not the jack-booted rip the gun out of your hands commie pinko you think I am. I would have supported his actions (tho not necessarily agreed with him) if the circumstances had been different.

"KMTA?"

Um...what does that mean? Having a dense moment, here. Care to share?

Finally, this little gem from another of my fellow TFLers:

"but now more than ever, I thank God that you're not in Texas!"

Why? Just because I disagree with another person's actions? Because I DARED to question his judgement? I never once called for the repeal of this law. I never ONCE called for the indictment of the shooter. I simply stated that I found his actions to be reckless and outside the law as it is defined. I also stated in a roundabout way that I thought the law was too broad and vague, and open to abuse.

Whew...guess it's only ok to have an opinion or a free thought so long as it agrees with your's.

Ok, fire away. I've got my Nomex undies on.

(Large chunks wisely edited by me on the grounds that I am just too PO'd to think very clearly)


__________________
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 22, 2001, 02:42 AM   #79
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,891
Congratulations, Chulain, you've just missed the point!

Ok. You've got woods around your house. What kind of woods are they? The totally impenetrable barrier type?

If I can ever drag his festering carcass onto this forum, perhaps my friend David will tell you about the time when he and 3 of his officers chased a suspect, on foot, for nearly 2 miles through the woods in and around Rock Creek Park in DC, and ended up finally catching the guy in someone's backyard in the middle of the night.

"And no police officer around here is going to be dumb enough to be in someone’s back yard without coming to the house first."

"Hello? Mr. Homeowner? Have you seen the rape/murder suspect go through here? We were in hot pursuit, and we decided to break it off just so we could knock on your door and let you know that we're going to be poking around your property..."

Yeah, right. When it comes to to apprehending a suspect and tapping on your door to let you know that there's a possible fugitive on the run, which do you think the police are going to do?

And, since you yourself have established that you're willing to shoot blindly when you don't know what's going on, if the police DID tap on your door, why wouldn't you shoot through the door just in case, since the vast majority of home invasion robberies actually start with the invaders knocking on the door to the home?

I'm not even going to get into what's wrong with the concept of shooting at the sound of a foreigner's voice, but giving a pass to the English speaker.

__________________
"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 22, 2001, 02:57 AM   #80
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,891
KJM,

Obviously you've missed not only my point, but also the ground swell change in how things work in this country in hotly charged debates.

At one time, facts mattered for something.

Unfortunatly, now it's all appearance. New, more restrictive, laws are passed, not on facts, but on emotions fueled by appearance.

Think I'm wrong about that?

LOOK AT THE GUN! IT HAS A FLASH HIDER AND BAYONET LUG, SO IT MUST BE EVIL! BAN IT! BAN IT! BAN THE EVIL GUN!

Saw off the bayonet lug and drop the flash hider, and voila, a gun that's now legal based on its appearance, not its functionality.

You can claim some factually based high road, but the fact remains that if your opposition gains the EMOTIONAL high road, they're going to hand you YTA on a platter.

And that's exactly what has been happening to gunowners in this country for the past 3 decades. Few laws have been passed based on facts.

You claim that I'm falling into some Rosie O'D trap? Guess what? You've just been squashed by their emotional boulder. And that emotional boulder is more powerful, larger, and more influential than any fact you'll ever be able to quote.

Now, on to your erroneous assumption that I don't agree with the Texas law.

WRONG!

Had you bothered to read, and comprehend, my posts on this subject, you'll see that I don't have a problem with the law per se.

I do have a problem with how this gentleman applied it.

I guess blindly shooting into the night at sound & light is something you support?

Once again we're back to the hunting analogy. What hunter in his right mind shoots at sound without being able to identify the target?

But somehow it's OK for a homeowner to let fly when he THINKS, but apparently doesn't know for a fact, that something hinky might be going on?

__________________
"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 22, 2001, 03:31 AM   #81
Chulain
Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2001
Posts: 61
I find it quite amazing that people find one sentence to attack and ignore the remainder of the post.

Did I ever say that I would shoot at an unidentified light and sound? No. I would simply go back there with Mr. Baseball bat and if I found a bad guy doing bad things, they would have something to think about in the morning.

EP Wrote: So, and if you did develop a problem with non-English-speaking immigrants in your hometown, what would you do? Load them onto cattlecars? Put them in internment camps? Load em on a slow boat to God-knows-where? Jesus...Wow. I am amazed sometimes at the xenophobia and at times outright racism displayed on this board by a few of the members.

(rant mode on)

People tend to not take very kindly to their whole way of life being invaded by mass quantities of people who do not share their values. Just a fact of life.

Racism? Are you one of those “jump on the racism bandwagon” kind of people? I have friends of all classes, creeds and colors. 3 of my best friends are black and my brother in law is Hispanic, so don’t EVEN go there.

I am simply tired of the bleeding hearts in this country catering to everyone BUT Americans. And yes, it DOES **** me off to pick up a box of cereal and have everything there listed in Spanish. Why? Because other “special interest” groups don’t get that kind of treatment. I don’t see signs or pamphlets in French, German, Italian, Hebrew, or even Chinese! Do you think my Hungarian grandfather had a freaking sign on the bus written in Hungarian so HE could understand it? NO! What did he do? He learned English! I know many hard working honorable people of Hispanic descent, and many are good friends of mine. But there are just as many that are looking for a free ride and don’t even BOTHER to EVER learn English, because we pander to them like special children.

Racism? The only thing you know about that word is what you see on TV. A “Racist” person doesn’t have close friends of any “ethnic” group other than their own. And my sister’s husband would be quite surprised to find out that I am “racist” towards him considering he is one of my best friends in the whole world.

And whilst we are on the subject, what the hell is with all of the “hyphenated –American” crap? Like people get all pissy if you don’t address them as their “special” handle. Like African-American, Hispanic-American, Chinese-American, etc. Hell, I guess that makes me either a European-American or a Hungarian-American. Well now, ain’t I just freakin’ special. I will take my Americans non-hyphenated please. We are all either simply AMERICANS or we are not. Take yer “racism” and stuff it maam, ‘cuz it don’t apply to me.

We don’t need “open” or revolving borders. We have quite enough people here in this country. Are we supposed to open our doors to the entire world and bring our standard DOWN to the level of a third world country? And yes, I would take issue with our national language being changed to Spanish, thank you very much. Just because I can speak a language, doesn’t mean someone coming to America shouldn’t learn ours. I would not visit, much less MOVE to another country that I did not speak the language of, and not endeavor to learn the local language.

(rant mode off)

As for “KMTA” that KJM posted, the closest I can think of is “Kiss My Texas Ass” :P

In Liberty,

Chulain
Chulain is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 03:47 AM   #82
Chulain
Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2001
Posts: 61
Mike Irwin said:
“And, since you yourself have established that you're willing to shoot blindly when you don't know what's going on, if the police DID tap on your door, why wouldn't you shoot through the door just in case, since the vast majority of home invasion robberies actually start with the invaders knocking on the door to the home?”

Don’t be an idiot. I never said I would shoot blindly. I said I would go investigate the noise. That’s what I love about some of the people here. You assume. Don’t ever bother to ask for clarification, just go totally off the handle and ignore the other 99% of the post in which I stated that I would never shoot at someone for stealing something unless it was a firearm.

You also said: "Hello? Mr. Homeowner? Have you seen the rape/murder suspect go through here? We were in hot pursuit, and we decided to break it off just so we could knock on your door and let you know that we're going to be poking around your property..."
Yeah, right. When it comes to to apprehending a suspect and tapping on your door to let you know that there's a possible fugitive on the run, which do you think the police are going to do? “

Well if they are chasing a criminal through my property, they are going to be making quite a bit of noise, and won’t actually be ON my property very long. Ever try to run through a thickly forested area at night? I would love to see someone try that without impaling themselves on something. And chasing a suspect for 2 miles? Hell you would make it about a block before the local police got tired of chasing your dumb ass and shot you in the leg.

Gee, lets see what kind of convoluted reasoning we can squeeze out of a single sentence…

Bloody Tourists…
Chulain is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 04:32 AM   #83
LawDog
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: September 15, 1999
Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 4,194
All right.

Everyone stand back from the keyboard and take some deep breaths, before someone says something that they'll regret.

We are debating the law on this. Law can and will be debated in a civilized manner.

Now, one thing that jumps out at me as I read the law justifying this shooting is the last part of the statute.

Quote:
§ 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.
Highlighting is mine.

The homeowner shot to:
Quote:
prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;
Okay, that part is cut-and-dried. It's the next part that is interesting in this case -- the owner had to:
Quote:
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.
Highlighting is mine.

Could the chickens have been recovered by another means? Would chasing after the boy have posed a 'substantial' risk of 'death or serious bodily injury' to the homeowner, or someone else?

These are things he should have been thinking about before he squeezed the trigger.

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 22, 2001, 06:36 AM   #84
Dennis
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: November 23, 1998
Location: a small forest in Texas
Posts: 7,075
Folks,

I am rather disappointed in many of your efforts on this thread.

A homeowner shot a thief at night. It appears to be legal. It took
y’all some agony to agree on that but it got done. Well and good.

Then the question became four-fold:
- Is it moral to do so?
- Would *I* do it? (and under what circumstances)
- Should *you* do it?
- What kind of person are you if you disagree with me?

In the course of discussing the so-called morality of the incident (or
similar incidents), we’ve dragged the discussion down to:
- homosexuality,
- Church attendance and beliefs,
- the question, “... are texans(sic) better than the rest of us??”
- listing laws (without noting the source), implying they are state
laws, when I believe most of them are local ordinances, and without
knowing the legislative or societal intent of the laws (yes, if the laws
are as stated some of them appear silly to me as well).
- exaggerating one person’s point of view to the ridiculous to defame
the person rather than the opinion, and
- other direct and personal attacks (that stops here and now).
-------

Now everybody stop for a moment, take a deep breath, and mentally
concentrate on few issues.
The incident:
1) The Texas laws which seem to apply to such cases have been
stated. No argument there.
2) A jury will decide whether or not this shooting was lawful in this
instance. No argument there.
3) What factors could apply in the determination of whether the
shooting was lawful in this instance?

The law:
1) Do you agree with the states laws or not and why.
2) What you believe the law should be.

The “morality”:
1) At one extreme, some people do not believe in force (let alone
deadly force) to protect or defend anything or anyone!
2) At the other extreme, other people advocate deadly force above
and beyond what the current laws allow.

There’s more, but y’all know the Forum Policies. “I can’t agree
because...” is fine. Stating that a person is immoral or mentally
deficient because of his beliefs is not done here.

High Road, people. Think twice post once (for each post, obviously).
Dennis is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 07:24 AM   #85
ojibweindian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2000
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 1,179
If I may, I'd like to visit the morality/religious aspects of this argument once again.

For those of you familiar with the Old Testament of the Bible, of which the first five books are referred to as Judaism's Pentatuch and is also revered by Islam, it states in Duteronomy that a thief in the night can be killed if he is discovered in a man's house.

Of course, the next verse says pretty much that you can't kill the guy if it's in broad daylight. Regardless, for those of you who believe in God, you can take solace in the fact that he does not mess around when it comes to self-defense/home-protection at night.
ojibweindian is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 09:18 AM   #86
Cruzer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2001
Posts: 235
I went back and reread the articles, including the one about the rash of property thefts and property theft shootings in San Antonio. I struggle to clearly understand what happened...the articles provide conflicting reports. Did he know what was going on? Did he shoot in the dark? Yadda, yadda, yadda...

The result IS clear. 14 year old criminal, mourned by his mother because he was out of control, out in the middle of the night, stealing someone's property, apparently not the first time (since his mother says he was out of control). The chickens were "fighting chickens" which I guess means they were fighting cocks.

What troubles me is not people's opinions...what troubles me is that people are reaching some outrageous conclusions full of tears and misplaced compassion based on conflicting reports. As law abiding RKBA supporters, we should at a minimum say "looks legal on the surface, not sure if it was moral...but we don't have all the info so we will wait for a district attorney or eventually a jury to determine that." Instead, we have self-flagelating, emotional tirading, "poor little boy", "just for some chickens", mumbo-jumbo reminiscent of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I think we could agree that if we saw an unarmed 14 year old boy in plain daylight with a bag of our chickens, we wouldn't shoot because it would be morally questionable. Add all the "iffy" circumstances and the property owner DESERVES, and it is his RIGHT to get the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty).

I joined the NRA and started buying guns only 9 months ago because I was tired of the emotional, uninformed, hysterical rantings of Rosie and the Hundred Mom March. I didn't expect hysterical anti-gun owner rantings here, but such is life.
Cruzer is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 09:22 AM   #87
Brian Gibbons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2001
Posts: 388
I now understand Dangus' point ...

The more this topic is dicussed the more I am able to understand the viewpoint of others that are contrary to mine. I am still of the opinion that the kid should not have been shot but I also still maintain that we should not place blame on the property owner.

Dangus has admitted that earlier in life he was a thief and a vandal. I now have far more respect for his "anti-deadly force for the protection of property" stance.

I can now see the argument through his eyes, for if I had ever been a thief, burglar, vandal, or robber I am certain that I would hold the opinion that such activities do not warrant catching a bullet. Although this thread has been somewhat heated and polarized, I now understand better how individual opinions can vary such a degree. I feel so much more enlightened ...
Brian Gibbons is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 10:37 AM   #88
Elizabeth Petersen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2001
Location: Utah
Posts: 571
Woops!

Sorry Dennis. My bad.

The post where I cited some strange laws was my failed attempt at interjecting some tongue in cheek humor. Whoa, did that bomb miserably.

My mistake (OH and it was a serious boo-boo) was twofold:

One, I failed to mention that the laws cited were local town/city laws and not statewide laws (except for the one about the Brittanica, and that one is very very old and according to two of my source sites, in the process of being cleaned off the books)

Two, I should have cited my sources. The best one, which is not only informative and reasonably well-researched (I always double check the more dubious entries) but funny as all get out, is the Dumb Law website.

I have long had a fascination with old/arcane/silly/confusing/downright weird laws. Started when I was a clerk at the Riverside County Public Defenders Office in California, and stumbled on an old law from Long Beach that staetd that a woman in a bikini walking down a public street had to be escorted by at least two men, one of whom had to be armed with a large stick --- I am NOT kidding.

Anyway, here are a couple of the websites I use, and two books that are excellent sources for this kind of information:

http://www.thedumb.com (go to the secion on Dumb Laws. Gotta love their tagline "Big Government. Little Brains. Dumb Laws.")

http://www.adminlaw.org (state of Texas law resource website. Use the links provided, too. All states have a website of this variety.)

http://www.internetlawyer.com

For books, I like these two:

"A Guide To American Sex Laws" by Richard A. Posner and Katherine B. Silbaugh. Includes a lot of arcane and just downright weird laws in regards to sex, marraige, consent, etc.

"Ludicrous Laws and Mindless Misdemeanors" by Lance Davidson. This one is a side-splitter.



__________________
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 22, 2001, 11:01 AM   #89
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,919
I've stayed off this thread so far, but it's too intriguing to pass up any longer. Here's my 2 cents, which I suspect will please no one at all.

The law: It's a good law. Not because mere property thieves deserve to die (they don't), but for other reasons. One, it acts as a genuine deterrent to the sort of behaviour that got this kid killed. Two, it lowers the risk of good people getting killed at night in their own homes because the homeowner doesn't have to wait until one of his family members is injured or dead before he can stop an intruder. Laws like this make society safer.

Dangus' point, that "kids like him" don't deserve to die, is a good point. Dangus, you're right: kids like you don't deserve to die. However, this law actually lowers the chance that kids like you will die of their own stupidity. How's that? Kids like you usually straighten out like you did. But not all of them do. Some of them go on to worse and worse things, and ultimately throw their lives away. Laws like this help prevent kids from taking any real steps on the road which ends in jail or the electric chair. Kids like you should know, in your guts, that thievery isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. Not every one of you will have to pee on the electric fence for himself.

Brian Gibbons' point was also a good one.
Quote:
What I am trying to say is that we cannot condemn the property owner for firing because, as you both have stated, we want the protection that the "implied" threat of deadly force offers us under this law. The dead kid is the price we pay as a society in order to retain such laws ...
But even if we think the law is necessary, it's perfectly possible to mourn the dead child (for child he was) and regret the necessity for the law which helped put him under the ground. Saying his death is the "price we pay as a society" is fine as long as you remember that some of us will find that a depressingly high price to pay.

Would I have shot? Nope.

Was the homeowner right to shoot? I wasn't there, so I don't know.

Someone mentioned that 14 year old kids look like 20 year old adults in the dark. This is true. If I ever do have to use my weapon in self defense (I hope that day never comes!), I certainly hope I don't first have to card my attacker.

Am I a Texan? Nope. Never even visited and don't intend to.

Does that cover everything I meant to say? Nope. But this is long enough.

pax

__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 11:03 AM   #90
rock_jock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2000
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 1,779
Cruzer, fine job. Possibly the best post on this thread yet.
rock_jock is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 05:03 PM   #91
TexasVet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2000
Location: DeepEastTexas
Posts: 1,096
1: Did ANYone read WHY this law exists?

2: Liz, what in the world made you think I was even talking to you? I have seldom seen you say anything I had a big disagreement with.

3: I suspect no one on this board gives a rat's A** about anyone elses ideas of morality, so how come so many have to put their morals out as tablets from the mountain?
TexasVet is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 05:10 PM   #92
Elizabeth Petersen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2001
Location: Utah
Posts: 571
Tex...

My most sincere and humble apologies. I thought that was directed at me. Just another example of a knee-jerk emotional response on my part.

__________________
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 22, 2001, 05:58 PM   #93
Gopher a 45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2000
Posts: 329
TexasVet,

Nice post. I gather some might think the law is just a holdover from Wild West days.

As far as the property owner firing blindly into the dark: Did he really tell the police that, or is that what the paper said he told them? I didn't see any quotation marks around that statement. Given the clear objectivity and remarkable accuracy displayed by the press on these issues...
Gopher a 45 is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 05:59 PM   #94
Cruzer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2001
Posts: 235
TexasVet, I'm on your side on this, but I totally disagree with your rationale.

"Texas is the only state that (rationally, IMHO) assumes that AT NIGHT one cannot readily determine if an intruder or thief is armed, and does not require you to place your life at risk to find out as every other state does. It is not about property, it is about the safety of the property owner's life, period."

1) The above just isn't true. You don't need a property law to protect you if you "fear for your life." If I confront someone, ANYONE, and I fear for my life (because of imminent use of deadly force against me), I can use deadly force (regardless of them carrying or not carrying my property away or KNOWING if they are armed).

The law we are debating clearly is ABOUT PROPERTY. You can shoot someone to stop them from carrying your property away at night EVEN IF YOU KNOW THEY ARE UNARMED. They will no bill this guy even if he says he shot the guy in the back, unarmed, 45 yards away, running away from him, to save the chickens from being stolen. That is what we are debating.

2) No comment.

3) Most of us understand this law. You can't debate what the law says because it is pretty clear. Any other discussion MUST BE ABOUT MORALITY, because there is nothing else to debate. I actually wan't to know if anyone thinks it is RIGHT or WRONG and what moral precept they refer to so I can decide if I think it is true or not. Clearly the debate is about whether or not it is RIGHT or WRONG to shoot someone carrying away your property. The law allows it...but do we on the board think it SHOULD allow it.

If you got a dozen Texans in the room, we'd all agree on this and have a beer and say KMTA to everyone else. If we are a little bit thoughtful, we may be able to convince others on the board that the law is good, necessary, and right...


Back to the topic...here is why this law is good, necessary, and right:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a376689c122e6.htm


Oh, BTW Elizabeth: As far as I can tell, the offense, before the property owner exited, was a Class A misdemeanor (the worst kind of misdemeanor) BY A WHISKER. It would have been a Felony if there were 10 or more chickens involved (no kidding). It is in fact a second degree Felony if the perps intentionally threatened the property owner at any point. Also, most of the laws you quoted are urban legends...don't believe everything you read on the internet

[Edited by Cruzer on 04-22-2001 at 07:45 PM]
Cruzer is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 06:36 PM   #95
Dangus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2000
Location: IA
Posts: 1,907
Quote:
Dangus' point, that "kids like him" don't deserve to die, is a good point. Dangus, you're right: kids like you don't deserve to die. However, this law actually lowers the chance that kids like you will die of their own stupidity. How's that? Kids like you usually straighten out like you did. But not all of them do. Some of them go on to worse and worse things, and ultimately throw their lives away. Laws like this help prevent kids from taking any real steps on the road which ends in jail or the electric chair. Kids like you should know, in your guts, that thievery isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. Not every one of you will have to pee on the electric fence for himself.
Kill a few to scare the rest into submission? I highly disagree with that attitude. At that point in my life anything that was done to me because of the things I was doing was taken as an extreme personal insult, and had such violence been directed at me, it would have taught me to do the same thing, shoot first, ask questions later. If homeowners had been shooting me for simply walking around breaking things, you bet I woulda got my own gun and I certainly had the ability to. I don't mean the legal ways either, I knew drug dealers(no I never did drugs, I just knew them) who could have even gotten me a LAW or a M-60(and yes, I saw them in their possession). If the danger had been there I know myself well enough to say that I would have escalated the violence, not cowered in the face of it. I was not one to back down when confronted. What pulled me out of it then? Church, a few good teachers, even the Discovery Channel to some extent. Learning and enlightenmnet were my way out, not threats. If intimidation were the way out than the police would have gotten me out of it much faster than they did, I was certainly arrested enough times.

Honestly I don't know what to say for those people who had their property destroyed by me. I certainly shouldn't have done it, but they'll never get repayment from me, and mostly because I have no way to ever repay them or even to find them and know what I broke or stole. I should not have done it, and I certainly should have been caught more than I was, but shot for it? No, that wouldn't have improved anything. Hit with a taser? Well yah, I deserved that. Getting maced, I deserved that too. A good charge from an electric fence probably would have been a good wakeup call as well, but nobody did any of that, and fortunately I'm ok now. I work hard for the right to bear arms, but I don't do so because I support the careless destruction of life, I do so because I support the preservation of valuable lives, lives that are only endangered because someone else endangers them. A JBT bashes down your door, he better have a good vest, a thug tries to steal your wallet or your car by threatening your life, he better be fast, but if some kid steals a stupid bird, hopefully he'll get a good beating for it, maybe a fun time tangled up on an electric fence, and then later on he'll get his act together. You want hispanic culture to improve you must preserve the lives of those you teach the lessons to. If this homeowner had gone out there and beaten this kid till hospitalization it would be a whole different issue than shooting him, cause then that kid could go back to where he is from and those around him could see the scars and hear the stories and actually learn something.

All I know is that if it were my 14 year old, I would get my rifle and I would go to that house and kill that homeowner. Sorry if you don't agree with that, but anyone shoots my kid over a chicken and he better be on alert for snipers wherever he goes cause I won't stop until one of us is dead.
__________________
Help Fight Cancer

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

"Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them."
Dangus is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 07:03 PM   #96
Cruzer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2001
Posts: 235
Dangus,

Come on down to Texas. First, someone will shoot your 14 year old for stealing chickens. You'll shoot the SoB for revenge. Then the state will give you a lethal injection for shooting the lawful (if materially inclined) property owner. I call that a Texas hat trick.

[Edited by Cruzer on 04-22-2001 at 08:32 PM]
Cruzer is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 07:44 PM   #97
rock_jock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2000
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 1,779
Dangus,

Anybody that lets their kids run around at 3:00 a.m. stealing from other people deserves some jail time themselves.

You state that the threat of deadly force against a thief would only make them angry and liable to direct such threat back at me. Well, heck, I wouldn't want to make any criminal angry. Maybe we all should just willingly submit the next time we are victimized by crime? Isn't that what the liberal media tells us - just cooperate and don't resist? I guess they have had it right all along. Maybe its time to sell my guns and hang the word "Sucker" over my front door.

In your mind, the opinion you offer is simply that of a person who had been on the other side. Well, from the description you provide of yourself, you were pretty much a young thug in your youth (your description, not mine). I'm glad you are not any longer and welcome and respect you as a fellow law-abiding citizen. However, I have absolutely no desire to consider the criminal's perspective when evaluating my options for defense of life and property.
rock_jock is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 08:16 PM   #98
Oatka
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 1999
Location: Nevada
Posts: 3,076
Wow, a good scrap going on here. The same thing, to a lesser degree, is going on at FreeRepublic

One observation and one "On-the-road-to-Damascus" revelation.

If the "chickens" were actually fighting game cocks, as the article implied, then those burglars weren't stealing because they were hungry, but because the birds were worth money in the gambling circuit. I would think that that would put the theft in a league similar to stealing pure-bred racing hound puppies, etc.

One of the FR posters made a comment that completely altered my views on how I look at my property - especially since I'm in my late 60s.

(quoting a previous poster) " The problem is that a human life should be worth more than six chickens. The thief did not represent a threat to the man.

Of course he represents a threat to the man, but you are pretty short-sighted if you cannot see it, so I'll spell it out for you.

Your time on Earth is limited to about 80 years of you're lucky, during that time you trade a portion of your life (time) for wages.

You use the money you make (value of your time/life) to purchase goods, food and possible capital (chickens, production equipment).

Along comes a burgler that wants to steal your property .. that you paid for with money (time/life equivalence)
So he's essentially stealing part of your life and that makes him a THREAT.

Add the fact that he was completely within his rights in Texas to kill a burgler on his land and there's no problem here."

Oatka is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 09:07 PM   #99
kjm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 1999
Location: College Station, Texas
Posts: 1,871
Elizebeth, KMTA means Kiss My Texas A--. Most the Texans here understood it, but I took for granted that not all of us are Texans.

I concur with the fact that your property is your life. When someone steals it, they've taken away something that was obviously important enough for you to leave your wife and kids for a time, to earn the wages and purchase the property. I'm happy that we have this law. I'm happy that it is fairly successful in discouraging these sorts of crimes, and I'm happy that I don't have to worry about being shot by a theif in the night.

I apologize for getting so worked up over this. I feel for the shooter more than the shot. He is the one to live with this incident. He was the one being victimized, and he did NOT commit murder, but used deadly force against someone who meant him ill. It is unfortunate that the mother of this felon didn't keep him inside at night. It is understandable for older kids to sneak out, but for a 12 year old to be running around all hours of the night with much older folks to me seems to smack of deriliction.
kjm is offline  
Old April 22, 2001, 10:44 PM   #100
Keeper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 1999
Posts: 204
I snuck out of my house sometimes when I was 12 and older. My bedroom window looked out onto our porch. I used to meet with friends and we would play ball tag and other things. My parents were great parents and they would have killed me if they had known but it was something that I did anyways. We did steal one thing which I will mention later and we occasionally made a ton of racket around others houses and I now see how easily that could have turned out bad for us in the wrong situation. It is hard to judge this situation without being there. I find it hard to believe that the home owner just started shooting blindly in the dark. If he did then he needs to go to jail for endangering his neighbors. I can see the benefits of this law but there are a lot of ways this one could be abused. On to the stealing. There was an old man Mr. Bjorn that had a pear tree in his yard. He never picked them and they just fell to the ground and rotted. During the day there were to many bee's and wasps feeding on the fruit to get near the tree. At night we would sometimes go and get a pear. It was wrong and for some reason we never thought of asking. Nothing ever came of it but situations like that make me cringe when it comes to this law. I doubt Mr Bjorn would have shot one of us. He was grouchy but not that grouchy. We need to stop fighting about this law and fight about other things. As far as Texas as a whole I have been to Houston and Dallas and a few other places there and you Texans can have the whole dried up oven of a wasteland all to yourselves. There, that should change the nature of this thread. By the way I am kidding...well actually not about Houston.
Keeper 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 01:57 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 0.19239 seconds with 7 queries