|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 28, 2008, 09:22 AM | #101 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2002
Location: Orl Fla
Posts: 3,254
|
Quote:
If he was not engaged in criminal activity at the time of the crime why should he not be allowed to defend himself just as any other law abiding person Quote:
Was he a convicted felon was he engaged in criminal activity at the time? If not what is the prohibition on alleged criminals owning guns Quote:
But what if the preacher next door defends his home by shooting indiscriminately and hits something he didn't want to That gonna make you feel any better? But regardless being a criminal does not take away your right to life and self defense, until the state says it does How I, or you, feel about it has nothing to do with nothing
__________________
Joab the Bugman Founding member- Lords of Pomposity It's a Yankee Doodle thing |
|||
January 28, 2008, 11:31 AM | #102 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Estados Unitas / United States
Posts: 986
|
I can't condone giving chase after a threat has ended unless you are empowered and duty bound to make an arrest, i.e. LEO. Even in armed security, generally once they are off the property it's time to let the taxpayer funded types deal with it.
Having said that don't think I will ever sit on a jury for a case like this. It would be very hard for me to condemn somebody who was minding their own business and was beset by armed home invaders. Personally from the information given I think the brother went too far. The prosecutor would have to have a really good day to convince me to vote guilty though. |
February 10, 2008, 09:10 PM | #103 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,783
|
Where am I missing that he chased them down the street? According to post #24, an update, it sounds like he shot maybe from his property at the vehicle. Did I miss another update? It sounds like he actually tried to shoot out the tires to stop them. That obviously didn't keep them from leaving, so he fired into the vehicle, hitting a few. You can't do that in Michigan, but it sounds like you can in Texas. Tell you something, though. If that had happened in Michigan, he WOULD go to trial. And, if I was on that jury, he would be acquitted or I'd hang the jury.
__________________
Stevie-Ray Join the NRA/ILA I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed. |
February 12, 2008, 08:33 AM | #104 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
"*I* keep a lot of cash in my gun safe. If four gang-bangers raid my house and try to force me to open my safe, does that automatically make ME a drug-dealer or criminal myself?"
+1 Same here. Sometimes I am required to travel out of the country on very short notice. Some of these places are not credit card friendly. |
February 12, 2008, 08:44 AM | #105 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2005
Location: Orange Park, Fla
Posts: 1,019
|
Pursuit = Bad shoot.
__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence in their behalf. - George Orwell |
February 12, 2008, 11:37 AM | #106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 15, 2000
Location: Sugar Land, Tx
Posts: 1,507
|
Quote:
In Texas, both are defenses.
__________________
Ronnie- Proud Veteran, Neocon, Warmongering, Baby-Pincher |
|
February 12, 2008, 01:19 PM | #107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
In Texas self-defense stuff and protection of property stuff are a lot different than most other states. There was a case where an auto re-possession guy hooked up to a car at night. The car owner shot and killed the guy. The shooter was found not guilty because of a law that applies to protection of property at night.
Think of OK of being just like Texas with one possible exception. In OK the prosecutor does not have to take the case to a grand jury. In OK the family of the deceased perp is not allowed to sure in civil court. |
February 13, 2008, 01:29 PM | #108 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Lancaster Co, PA
Posts: 2,311
|
Does the possibility of the criminal returning later constitute sufficient threat? Repeat visits do happen.
|
February 13, 2008, 01:36 PM | #109 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 15, 2000
Location: Sugar Land, Tx
Posts: 1,507
|
Doesn't matter if the criminals were escaping with property, though that's not clear in this case.
As noted a number of times before, a lot of folks in this thread are (mistakenly) applying their own state defense laws to Texas.
__________________
Ronnie- Proud Veteran, Neocon, Warmongering, Baby-Pincher |
February 14, 2008, 01:30 AM | #110 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 14, 2008
Posts: 5
|
If he had not killed them, they would have likely come back, and seek revenge, rob, kill rape, or mame someone else. He did the right thing. By pursuing and taking out atleast three of the attackers, he saved many more lives, property, and tax money by preventing future crimes the thugs would have commited. He should get a medal.
But it may have been illegal for him to pursue, then he should suffer the consequence for breaking the law. |
February 14, 2008, 01:53 AM | #111 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 317
|
one thing....
whose to say they wouldn't have come back????
__________________
I may be a Scientist but....I never said I was smart. |
February 14, 2008, 08:40 AM | #112 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
"As noted a number of times before, a lot of folks in this thread are (mistakenly) applying their own state defense laws to Texas."
Same thing happens on all the sites. Folks just do not understand that Texas (and OK) law is much different from what they are used to. |
February 14, 2008, 01:08 PM | #113 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 24, 2005
Location: Wake Forest, North Carolina
Posts: 188
|
If I was in his situation I would have defended my home and once the armed men retreated I would have stopped. In my state of Pennsylvania he would be going to prison. It would be nice to get rid of scum like that of the face of this earth but chasing down criminals and having a shoot out in the street is not safe and its not the OK corral.
__________________
"Better to fight for something than live for nothing."-General George S. Patton "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and "if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buyone.'' Luke 22:36 |
February 19, 2008, 11:57 AM | #114 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2002
Location: Orl Fla
Posts: 3,254
|
Quote:
If that's the case then the antis are right Guns should all be confiscated because Whose to say that we all wont go a a shooting spree next week?
__________________
Joab the Bugman Founding member- Lords of Pomposity It's a Yankee Doodle thing |
|
February 19, 2008, 12:31 PM | #115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: South Texas
Posts: 814
|
I commend him for protecting his property, but what would you say if he killed one of your family members with a stray bullet he fired while chasing them down the road shooting at them.?
|
February 22, 2008, 07:03 PM | #116 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2008
Posts: 10
|
do ya'll think that if 4 heavy armed men break in your home their intensions are to kill you and your family steal everythng you have. i might run them down and kill everyone to so they can't come back and get revenage
|
February 23, 2008, 10:50 AM | #117 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2002
Location: Orl Fla
Posts: 3,254
|
I might go out and hunt down the ones that get away, but that don't make it legal
__________________
Joab the Bugman Founding member- Lords of Pomposity It's a Yankee Doodle thing |
February 23, 2008, 01:11 PM | #118 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 15, 2000
Location: Sugar Land, Tx
Posts: 1,507
|
Quote:
__________________
Ronnie- Proud Veteran, Neocon, Warmongering, Baby-Pincher |
|
February 23, 2008, 03:44 PM | #119 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2002
Location: Orl Fla
Posts: 3,254
|
Quote:
Your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the comment of mine that you quoted It is easy to find the motivation for my comment because I quoted it in my post Further can you link me to the statute that allows for pursuing burglers off your property and shooting them to recover your stolen goods
__________________
Joab the Bugman Founding member- Lords of Pomposity It's a Yankee Doodle thing |
|
February 23, 2008, 04:15 PM | #120 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 15, 2000
Location: Sugar Land, Tx
Posts: 1,507
|
Please see Section 9.42.of the Texas Penal Code, specifically DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
Quote:
__________________
Ronnie- Proud Veteran, Neocon, Warmongering, Baby-Pincher |
|
February 23, 2008, 10:23 PM | #121 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2002
Location: Orl Fla
Posts: 3,254
|
Quote:
§ 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01. (2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01. From section 38.01 (2) "Escape" means unauthorized departure from custody or failure to return to custody following temporary leave for a specific purpose or limited period or leave that is part of an intermittent sentence, but does not include a violation of conditions of community supervision or parole other than conditions that impose a period of confinement in a secure correctional facility. Not that that means anything But again I ask you to provide the statute that allows a person to leave his property to pursue the thief, especially to get involved in a vehicular pursuit I would also like to know what if anything any of this has to do with the comment of mine that you chose to address
__________________
Joab the Bugman Founding member- Lords of Pomposity It's a Yankee Doodle thing |
|
February 23, 2008, 10:31 PM | #122 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 15, 2000
Location: Sugar Land, Tx
Posts: 1,507
|
It's self explanatory there, joab. I quoted a question you asked, then answered it with the word 'no.' I understand you have an argumentative nature, but you're barking up the wrong tree.
Not sure why you also made note of portions of the code you admit are irrelevent. The further question you pose: Quote:
In fact, in the case law cited in my CHL class, a Texas homeowner followed a thief several blocks with his deer rifle, then used a handy mailbox as an expedient rest to center punch the guy as he ran under a streetlight. Wish I could cite you the case, but I don't have it. Perhaps someone else can.
__________________
Ronnie- Proud Veteran, Neocon, Warmongering, Baby-Pincher |
|
February 23, 2008, 10:43 PM | #123 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: On a mountain in the Colorado Rockies
Posts: 966
|
I think the police would have done the same thing by persuing. This person, I am assuming is a tax payer, therefore the police are his civil servants. When a citizen can't do what their paid servants can do there is a serious problem.
__________________
"The unfettered free market has been the most radically destructive force in American life in the last generation." - Hillary Clinton |
February 24, 2008, 01:15 AM | #124 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2006
Posts: 138
|
As far as I'm concerned they started a war with the homeowner and he finished it .
Just that simple . Give the guy a medal and a free thousand rounds of ammo for his gun . |
February 24, 2008, 10:18 AM | #125 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2002
Location: Orl Fla
Posts: 3,254
|
Quote:
I never said that the info I gave was irrelevant, you however present a set of statutes that may or may not support shooting a thief when there is absolutely no indication that the BGs stole anything or that they even managed to actually gain entrance to the home in the first place I have asked several times why you picked me out to do that The penal code you posted clearly states that for the purpose of the section you posted the definition for word "escape" would coincide with the definition given in section 38.01 Quote:
Nowhere in that 901 does it give permission for an ordinary citizen to get into a vehicular pursuit to hunt down and kill people who may or may not have committed a burglary on their property The statute you provided is not one of disallowance it is a specific set of allowances Quote:
__________________
Joab the Bugman Founding member- Lords of Pomposity It's a Yankee Doodle thing |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|