|
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 |
July 4, 2009, 09:25 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
As I noted above, there is no indication that the homeowner was shooting to protect property because he didn't know of the burglar having any property. You don't get to shoot at somebody just because you think that they might have stolen from you, not even in Texas.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
July 5, 2009, 01:37 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: OBX, NC
Posts: 1,128
|
The intruder puts an ordinary, peacable homeowner under a crushing level of stress. That homeowner makes less than perfect split-second decisions. It may be very sad, it might be tragic, but the crime is not one of the homeowner.
__________________
“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.” Ronald Reagan I'm a proud member of a North Carolina Committee of Safety |
July 5, 2009, 02:17 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Why not? What were the criteria met, from what we know, that would allow for the homeowner to lawfully use lethal force in this situation?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
July 5, 2009, 08:46 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Do we know if the door was locked?
Maybe the forensics types found no sign of forced entry. Maybe the police and DA think the drunk accidentally entered the wrong house, through an unlocked door. Maybe blood tests post-mortem indicated the decedent was too drunk to have been able to pose a credible threat to a reasonable man.
Could be any number of things that would take away the protections offered under self-defense and/or citizen's arrest. Need more facts, please. |
July 5, 2009, 09:01 AM | #30 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
|
|
July 5, 2009, 09:02 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Creature...
... I don't disagree. However, I'm just listing factors that could influence a prosecutor's decision.
|
July 5, 2009, 10:39 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
For whatever reason, there is, and continues to be, an ongoing mis-conception by some folks that ; If I buy a gun, and if I have a "castle law" or "stand you ground" law, It automatically gives me the right to circumvent all other laws, and all common sense, the instant I get a clear shot. These laws go a long way in helping us protect our homes, families, and businesses, and are a positive step, with an eye toward preventing crime, and preventing criminal and civil charges against a homeowner that uses them within the law. But this case might well be a perfect example of "two wrongs don't make a right". If you make less than perfect split second decisions, you can become a criminal. The other mis-conception that seems to be almost as universal is that; If someone commits a crime against me, they have "put me in the position" Or "forced" me to defend myself, therefore they are solely to blame for whatever happens. The fact still remains that, once you decide to use a weapon, you are responsible for that projectile. If you do not follow the law while defending yourself, you do not get to shift responsibility for your own criminal actions, to the "bad guy" It simply means there are now two bad guys. Each is responsible for his own crimes. The laws cut both ways. The same law that gives you the right to defend yourself, also holds you accountable for doing so. In this case, there are two victims, and two bad guys. *laboriously dons flame suit for the inevitable "the criminal is always wrong but the homeowner is always right because the criminal is always wrong" argument* BOHICA !
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - Last edited by OuTcAsT; July 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM. |
|
July 5, 2009, 03:07 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
What the well-dressed Outcast wears
|
July 5, 2009, 03:17 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
Here I go again, being "technical" and all. I'd like to coin a saying that the last refuge of someone on the losing end of a correct analysis is to denigrate the other party as being "technical." Or is sarcasm only allowed for the less technical? Anyway, to the main point of the thread: The homeowner made a serious mistake in tactics, law, and morals. |
|
July 5, 2009, 05:08 PM | #35 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
Technically speaking, that is exactly what the defendant stated; Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - Last edited by OuTcAsT; July 5, 2009 at 07:05 PM. |
||||
July 5, 2009, 07:10 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
|
|
July 7, 2009, 10:25 AM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
July 9, 2009, 02:17 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2008
Posts: 173
|
If you have a pistol and someone "hostile" lunges at you, you have every right to shoot him.. (maybe not FIVE TIMES....)
If you have a pistol and you let that person get within range to take your weapon.. you're in trouble. RIGHTS have nothing to do with laws.. I really think that any reasonable person would agree. |
July 9, 2009, 02:54 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2007
Posts: 707
|
Who actually beleives the teen lunged at the shooter? That's just screaming shoot me!
|
July 9, 2009, 03:06 PM | #40 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
While I very much doubt it, this just might turn out to be a case in which the distance at which the shot was fired makes some difference to the outcome. Maybe GSR will come into play. But probably not.... "Lunged at him while he was fleeing...." Outside, unarmed.... fleeing. But it usually isn't very wise to conclude anything from news reports. Quote:
|
||
July 9, 2009, 03:32 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2008
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
The shooter was placed in a shocking situation.. and of us could very easily "mess up" in a situation like that. I don't really see the good in punishing him for what he did, even if he could have handled it a little better. |
|
July 9, 2009, 04:47 PM | #42 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's not nitpicking, on OldMarksman's part, to point out that in order for the homeowner's actions to have been justified, the legal criteria he mentioned -- ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion -- all need to be met. Contrary to what some here choose to believe, someone who breaks into a house doesn't magically lose all his rights, nor does the fact of a break-in automatically mean that a homeowner can do whatever he wants and whatever happens is all somehow the fault of the intruder. This argument is a classic example of blaming the victim -- who is the NOT the homeowner in this case, but the teenager who was shot. It's an argument frequently used by people who know themselves to be on shaky moral ground: "But he MADE me do it..." And it won't wash in this case, or in any other. If you shoot someone, you are responsible for your actions, and they'd better be legally justifiable.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
||
July 9, 2009, 05:33 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2007
Posts: 707
|
Well said Marksman and Vanya. I say give em' a manslaughter charge and 2 years of prison to think about it.
|
July 9, 2009, 07:55 PM | #44 | |
Member
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 64
|
Quote:
You paint with an awful wide brush. Bagging on Texas and other people lends a *whole* lot of credence to your viewpoint I might add. :barf: |
|
July 9, 2009, 08:06 PM | #45 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 9, 2009, 08:08 PM | #46 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2009, 08:20 PM | #47 | |
Member
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 64
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2009, 08:41 PM | #48 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
The Joe Horn case has been oft mischaracterized, and the case of the Muhs really takes the cake. The indictment in the case at hand gives the lie to the apparently widespread misconception that Texas has no law, and I took Outcast's words to mean just that... ...and to point out the issues inherent with the attitudes of many posters from all over these United States that if you have a gun you are the "GG" no matter the circumstance and can fire at will, whomever Will may be, using Texas as the place that so many characterize as the place to be if you want to shoot someone and get by with it. Just my take. |
|
July 9, 2009, 08:45 PM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
What do you mean by preclusion? |
|
July 9, 2009, 09:04 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
mjoy64, it was more of a commentary on several of the "GG shoots BG" threads of late.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|