<< <i>Glad it all worked out for you. For those of you that say he should have shot them, you better make sure they have a weapon in hand (even if it's a butter knife) if you do shoot. >>
Depends on what state you are in. Here in Texas, if you heard something come crashing through a window and you happened up on perps already in your own home, you could kill them and you probably wouldn't even get taken to the grand jury. If you did go to grand jury, you would be no billed.
I would not feel good about killing some kid over a B&E.
If my life were in danger is a different thing. >>
The Internet is full of keyboard warriors, Mike. This board is no exception.
You put a loaded gun in a man's hand and a burglar in front of him at point-blank range, and 95% of those men will start crying for the mamas. I imagine those percentages hold for these boards as well as they do for the general population.
Who knew people felt so strongly about Jeter cards?
Seriously, though, I'm glad everything worked out. The criminal will get his punishment (hopefully), and you get to keep your collection, and most importantly--you and your family are safe.
<< <i>The Internet is full of keyboard warriors, Mike. This board is no exception.
You put a loaded gun in a man's hand and a burglar in front of him at point-blank range, and 95% of those men will start crying for the mamas. I imagine those percentages hold for these boards as well as they do for the general population. >>
I somewhat agree with your general sentiment, but don't think the percentages would be anywhere close to that. Of the 4 choices, fight, flight, negotiate, or freeze, it seems from my observation (I've worked in and around the courthouse for the last 17.5 years) that more and more people are choosing fight (many times after a small period of "freeze"). I understand that's largely due to the local area and general feelings here, but it's just my observation (which could be flawed )
I do know some individuals personally that have chosen to "take a life" and they all handle it differently. A couple are at peace with it (at least according to their talk and demeanor), and a couple more it bothers them a good deal.
Mike not sure what nerve I struck with you but i did say 'COULD FACE CHARGES' (followed by a period end of sentence regarding Texas.)
Everything that you copied and pasted will be for the lawyers once someone in your state chooses to shoot first. Or are you saying that your post is the end all?
The rest of my paragraph was an in general statement regarding no particular state.
Hope that clears this issue up.
And fwiw I couldn't care less about the NRA or it's detractors.
<< <i>Mike not sure what nerve I struck with you but i did say 'COULD FACE CHARGES' (followed by a period end of sentence regarding Texas.)
Everything that you copied and pasted will be for the lawyers once someone in your state chooses to shoot first. Or are you saying that your post is the end all?
The rest of my paragraph was an in general statement regarding no particular state.
Hope that clears this issue up.
And fwiw I couldn't care less about the NRA or it's detractors.
Steve >>
Steve,
You actually didn't strike a nerve. I was just posting what I believe the relevant codes to be in order to back my opinion up. There was no malice or response with ill intent at all.
To all of you that think you can simply shoot to kill any intruder you are both right and wrong.
First off it depends on the State (and in some cases county) you live in.
Some have what they call a 'duty to retreat law' If someone is breaking in the front, you can go out the back.
If you are in clear danger you can shoot to kill.
Even in Texas one must be in clear and present danger before they can shoot to kill. So simply
shooting someone for climbing through your window could find you facing some charges.
Bottom line, you better be under threat of life before you shoot, (or a loved one)
The authorities are going to want to know why you simply did not just hold them at gunpoint and call the police.
So NO, their mere presence is NOT justification.
Hopefully one of our Lawyer friends will chime in and put to rest this nonsense that you can kill someone
for simply breaking into your home. >>
I'm not a lawyer, but I am somewhat familiar with this topic...and the above comments are basically correct, with some stipulations.
Most good info out there will advise you that if there is any discernable doubt whatsoever about the situation, to shoot first, because you can always hire a lawyer to defend you afterwards, while your family having to hire a mortician to bury you, doesn't personally do you much good. They advise that you should presume the intruder is armed...assuming otherwise could very well be a fatal mistake, for you. Remember in this drug crazed world, and with the "three strikes and you're out" law, certainly some intruders do not want any witnesses.
Perhaps the worst type of situation for a defendant is a drunk neighbor who really accidentally tries to get into a home because they are drunk and really thinks it is their home...it's a good idea to know your neighbors and know who may possibly do something such as this so that you don't shoot your neighbor who was just making a mistake when under the influence.
To the best of my knowledge, anyone prosecuted for home defense is rare...investigated yes, but not prosecuted. However, the most important thing legally for home defense is doing it while in the home...once the intruder is out of the home, then if you shoot the intruder you would be in big legal trouble.
No problem, my point was simply, say I'm drunk and I lost my keys to my house.
I live in Texas (where the mans house is his castle law applies) I live in a development
that has 6 streets that all look alike. Inadvertently I stumble down the wrong street and
think it's my house, I know I always leave the back door open but for some reason it's locked.
I knock, no one answers (It is after all 3 Am) I begin to climb through what I think is my bedroom window
only to be met with some buckshot to the face because the home owner thinks I'm a burglar.
NO stop or I'll shoot, no hey dude wtf you doin? Nothin just a facefull of buckshot.
I should have been clearer in my post.
Take care.
Steve >>
A rather prominent musician here in Dallas died in just such a scenario. Sadly, he wandered over into his elderly neighbor's yard in the wee hours of the morning while apparently under the influence of alcohol and Chantix (look it up - eeesh) and his neighbor did not recognize him and got scared when he tried to force open the porch door.
---------------------- Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989 ----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
No problem, my point was simply, say I'm drunk and I lost my keys to my house.
I live in Texas (where the mans house is his castle law applies) I live in a development
that has 6 streets that all look alike. Inadvertently I stumble down the wrong street and
think it's my house, I know I always leave the back door open but for some reason it's locked.
I knock, no one answers (It is after all 3 Am) I begin to climb through what I think is my bedroom window
only to be met with some buckshot to the face because the home owner thinks I'm a burglar.
NO stop or I'll shoot, no hey dude wtf you doin? Nothin just a facefull of buckshot.
I should have been clearer in my post.
Take care.
Steve >>
No doubt it depends on the neighborhood in which ya live. I've lived in row homes in NE Philly and single homes as well. In the row homes, we would be much more tolerant towards a situation such as that, understanding those possibilites...whereby in a single home, there would obviously be less tolerance for somethig such as that, which of course would occur much less frequently. Again though, if ya know your neighbor is a habitual drunk, and ya hear someone rattling at your door or window late one night, there certainly should be more tolerance in realizing it's probably the drunk neighbor again.
Otherwise sorry to say yes, ya risk a face full of buckshot and such is life...ya take your eye off the road while driving, for sometimes a split second, and the next thing ya know ya could be dead...and there are many other examples of not focusing and making a mistake and winding up dead or harmed...that's just the way it is.
No problem, my point was simply, say I'm drunk and I lost my keys to my house.
I live in Texas (where the mans house is his castle law applies) I live in a development
that has 6 streets that all look alike. Inadvertently I stumble down the wrong street and
think it's my house, I know I always leave the back door open but for some reason it's locked.
I knock, no one answers (It is after all 3 Am) I begin to climb through what I think is my bedroom window
only to be met with some buckshot to the face because the home owner thinks I'm a burglar.
NO stop or I'll shoot, no hey dude wtf you doin? Nothin just a facefull of buckshot.
I should have been clearer in my post.
Take care.
Steve >>
I am not a lawyer and have limited knowledge of the subject; therefore, this is only my opinion of my interpretation of the law (heh).
If the window was unlocked and/or open, then the resident cannot kill without recourse. There has to be a forceable entry in order to shoot first and ask questions later.
Moral of the story: If you're in Texas, don't get so drunk that you can't tell if you're about to enter your house or someone else's.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Maybe I'm just a pacifist but all this talk of shooting someone to kill really makes me laugh and cringe at the same time. I don't own a gun and don't think I could shoot someone, especially to kill. I think under the circumstances the OP acted properly and would hope that even if they tried to scramble back out the window that he wouldn't have fired at them.
Sorry, have to disagree with you on this one. He didn't need that assault weapon to protect himself, don't you know Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer were about to step into that basement and with gentle hands dissuade the attackers?
Kiss me once, shame on you. Kiss me twice.....let's party.
Sorry, have to disagree with you on this one. He didn't need that assault weapon to protect himself, don't you know Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer were about to step into that basement and with gentle hands dissuade the attackers? >>
That's how they do it in...................... San Fransico
I would not feel good about killing some kid over a B&E.
If my life were in danger is a different thing. >>
The Internet is full of keyboard warriors, Mike. This board is no exception.
You put a loaded gun in a man's hand and a burglar in front of him at point-blank range, and 95% of those men will start crying for the mamas. I imagine those percentages hold for these boards as well as they do for the general population. >>
Actually, that's an interesting point. To expound...I watched this WW2 program on cable TV, and I forget the name of the program, but it stated that at Iwo Jima during WW2 when the Americans invaded the island to take it back from the Japanese...that around 15% of the troops while in combat didn't fire their gun, and the program stated it was mainly due to the troops "freezing up" in combat and not being able to pull the trigger. It didn't go into any more detail on that subject, but suffice to say I have to believe that perhaps that "survey" was done on the first day of combat, because I have to believe what Patton stated, "Now, some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you will all do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do."...that after the first day at Iwo Jima, the number of American troops not firing their guns was much less than 15% and possibly close to zero.
My point is that a number of those rookie troops at Iwo Jima probably had very litle gun training, perhaps firing off 50 rounds or so in boot camp. I implore everyone, if they own firearms and even if they don't because your kid could be at someone's house who does have them, to make sure that your family is properly trained in its use, and on a regular sort of basis, perhaps once a year or so, find time to go the a firing range and practice. Thereby if the time comes when in a particular bad situation when firepower is necessary, "you'll know what to do" for the sake of yourself and your family.
As for the anti-gun liberals...gosh forbid one night some punks break into your house, tie up you and your family, and begin doing unspeakable things to you and your family that are beyond your worst nightmare...I promise you on your dear life that you will wish that you were a gun owner and had a gun in your hand right now, and there is no doubt you would use it. Why take that risk? Buy a firearm...a "double action", .38 special revolver is recommended for an easy to use, first firearm for home protection with adequate stopping power...and teach your family how to use it...and thank your lucky stars for the Second Admendment.
Well, that's my final post in this thread...back to the cards.
A friend of mine is in the Army and, from what he's told me, it's not that uncommon for even well trained soldiers to freeze up during their first combat mission. I have no experience to draw from, but it sounds like no one knows how they'll react until they're there. The book "War" by Sebastian Junger (a X-mas present from that same friend) has a lot of interesting anecdotes about combat stress and fear.
<< <i>Perhaps the worst type of situation for a defendant is a drunk neighbor who really accidentally tries to get into a home because they are drunk and really thinks it is their home >>
Gotta disagree with you there. The worst would be if an overstaffed, overfunded, underworked local police swat team full of macho narcissists with itchy trigger fingers send a box of cocaine to the town mayor via fedex, then bust into his house when he picks up the sealed package from his front door step and brings it in the house, then kills his dog and terrorizes the man and his wife for hours before they even believe he's the mayor.
Really happened a few years ago.
Since the intruders were police, "castle law" likely wouldn't apply in most states. The police do what they want, when they want, and you can theorize about the constitution until you're blue in the face, but when it comes to the practical application of forceful authority in the real world, there's nothing you can do about it, and the police don't have to answer to anybody.
No problem, my point was simply, say I'm drunk and I lost my keys to my house.
I live in Texas (where the mans house is his castle law applies) I live in a development
that has 6 streets that all look alike. Inadvertently I stumble down the wrong street and
think it's my house, I know I always leave the back door open but for some reason it's locked.
I knock, no one answers (It is after all 3 Am) I begin to climb through what I think is my bedroom window
only to be met with some buckshot to the face because the home owner thinks I'm a burglar.
NO stop or I'll shoot, no hey dude wtf you doin? Nothin just a facefull of buckshot.
I should have been clearer in my post.
Take care.
Steve >>
Been there, done that. About 30 years ago after a few days of little food, hard work, long hours, daybreak to dark, I walked into a home next to the sales model home. A couple of large dogs came to the top of the stairs and and barked in a rather quiet woof? woof? A guy comes to the top of the steps and asks what I'm doing. Im extremely disoriented and said " You're not going to sell homes with these dogs in here. Again he ask what I want. I said I came to see the Supervisor and again said I don't think it is a good idea to have these dogs in here. In the back of my mind I thought something is different about the model home. He says you are in the wrong house. He spoke matter of factly, did not seem angry. Looking back I would guess he had a weapon handy I did not see. Finally I caught on to what I had done and appologized profusely and said I must be lucky the dogs did not come after me. He replied he did not know why they didn't as they were trained guard dogs. I think they immediately knew I had no bad intent. I was extremely disoriented, dizzy, and embarassed. I was apologizing some more as I tried to leave and opened the interior door to the garage not the front door. Now I was even more embarassed. He pointed to the front door and I opened a closet door near the front door and thought to myself this is dumb, anyone can tell the entrance door from a closet. One more try and I exited his home feeling embarassed to the hilt and fortunate it did not end a lot worse. I imagine to this day when that gentleman tells the story it is about a spaced out construction worker who was higher than a kite.
I would like to say something about the concept of taking a life - I was responsible for the death of other soldiers in Vietnam - those people had families...friends....
A day doesn't go by - and that was 40 yrs ago that I wish it never happened.
I would not feel good about killing some kid over a B&E.
If my life were in danger is a different thing. >>
The Internet is full of keyboard warriors, Mike. This board is no exception.
You put a loaded gun in a man's hand and a burglar in front of him at point-blank range, and 95% of those men will start crying for the mamas. I imagine those percentages hold for these boards as well as they do for the general population. >>
Actually, that's an interesting point. To expound...I watched this WW2 program on cable TV, and I forget the name of the program, but it stated that at Iwo Jima during WW2 when the Americans invaded the island to take it back from the Japanese...that around 15% of the troops while in combat didn't fire their gun, and the program stated it was mainly due to the troops "freezing up" in combat and not being able to pull the trigger. It didn't go into any more detail on that subject, but suffice to say I have to believe that perhaps that "survey" was done on the first day of combat, because I have to believe what Patton stated, "Now, some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you will all do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do."...that after the first day at Iwo Jima, the number of American troops not firing their guns was much less than 15% and possibly close to zero.
My point is that a number of those rookie troops at Iwo Jima probably had very litle gun training, perhaps firing off 50 rounds or so in boot camp. I implore everyone, if they own firearms and even if they don't because your kid could be at someone's house who does have them, to make sure that your family is properly trained in its use, and on a regular sort of basis, perhaps once a year or so, find time to go the a firing range and practice. Thereby if the time comes when in a particular bad situation when firepower is necessary, "you'll know what to do" for the sake of yourself and your family.
As for the anti-gun liberals...gosh forbid one night some punks break into your house, tie up you and your family, and begin doing unspeakable things to you and your family that are beyond your worst nightmare...I promise you on your dear life that you will wish that you were a gun owner and had a gun in your hand right now, and there is no doubt you would use it. Why take that risk? Buy a firearm...a "double action", .38 special revolver is recommended for an easy to use, first firearm for home protection with adequate stopping power...and teach your family how to use it...and thank your lucky stars for the Second Admendment.
Well, that's my final post in this thread...back to the cards. >>
+1 for WWII reference.
+2 for invoking the 2nd Ammendment.
-1 for not invoking the blessed name of Charlton Heston.
You, sir, are a patriot. Where's the best place I can find more information about how to properly train my family on how to use my Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum?
Given the current circumstances, I believe it's irresponsible and borderline insane to not own a firearm for one's own protection. If gun control lobbyists didn't have their heads up their asses, it would be a lot easier for individuals to defend themselves, and psychopaths on rampages could be stopped more easily.
However, I also don't believe in violence, and the only thing that can ever be accomplished with a firearm is to inflict violence.
I rue the day gun powder was invented. The human species has not evolved anywhere close to the degree that collectively, as a society, we believe it has. Human beings are cruel, callous, vile creatures, and weapons do nothing to help us evolve beyond our savagery to a more compassionate, empathetic existence.
I have several guns myself and also carry. Get the license, take classes, read books about local laws. It's worth it.
Gotta' love Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
* It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
* In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
* In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
* If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
I am so tired of people saying that they have a gun for protection or if they did, they'd use it. First, most of them probably don't know how to use them. Second, if they were in a situation where they SHOULD use it, they are most likely NOT to.
The worst part about guns in the home is that they too often end up outside the home.
We just had a local kid (a year behind my son in school), after being denied application into the Army (his father is a US Marshall, so he must've really messed up something to get denied) decide he was going to commit suicide. Well, he took a couple of his father's guns and went to a jewelry store around the corner from me, attempted to hold up the jewelry store and then things went south. He threatened to shoot the owner's daughter, then shot the owner in the face (killing him). He then shot himself in the face, took out a knife, slit his throat then put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. Just so that no one calls "BS", here's the story...
<< <i>I am so tired of people saying that they have a gun for protection or if they did, they'd use it. First, most of them probably don't know how to use them. Second, if they were in a situation where they SHOULD use it, they are most likely NOT to. >>
Too true. We all can say what we "would do" after the fact. But I don't think that most of us would do if it were us.
Once in that position, things could go bad fast and deadly force may be needed. I would probably be more inclined to "shoot first" if it were an unexpected over night break in. Rather than a daylight break in that you think is going to happen and are waiting for.
<< <i>Given the current circumstances, I believe it's irresponsible and borderline insane to not own a firearm for one's own protection. If gun control lobbyists didn't have their heads up their asses, it would be a lot easier for individuals to defend themselves, and psychopaths on rampages could be stopped more easily.
However, I also don't believe in violence, and the only thing that can ever be accomplished with a firearm is to inflict violence.
I rue the day gun powder was invented. The human species has not evolved anywhere close to the degree that collectively, as a society, we believe it has. Human beings are cruel, callous, vile creatures, and weapons do nothing to help us evolve beyond our savagery to a more compassionate, empathetic existence. >>
You almost had that 100% right IMO. I would differ with you on one thing - firearms can also prevent violence. In fact, it's the entire premise behind most concealed carry laws - that not knowing who is packing actually serves to lessen violence. Anecdotal evidence backs it up too.
---------------------- Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989 ----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>I am so tired of people saying that they have a gun for protection or if they did, they'd use it. First, most of them probably don't know how to use them. Second, if they were in a situation where they SHOULD use it, they are most likely NOT to.
The worst part about guns in the home is that they too often end up outside the home.
We just had a local kid (a year behind my son in school), after being denied application into the Army (his father is a US Marshall, so he must've really messed up something to get denied) decide he was going to commit suicide. Well, he took a couple of his father's guns and went to a jewelry store around the corner from me, attempted to hold up the jewelry store and then things went south. He threatened to shoot the owner's daughter, then shot the owner in the face (killing him). He then shot himself in the face, took out a knife, slit his throat then put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. Just so that no one calls "BS", here's the story... >>
So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter?
Hypothetically, if VT hadn't been a "gun-free" campus at the time of that rampage shooting 4 years ago, and students and/or faculty had been allowed to carry weapons for protection, do you think the death toll from that day would have been the same, or higher, or lower?
Gun control lobbyists and advocates never propose disarming law enforcement. Europeans think U.S. gun laws are completely asinine, but their police are armed only with clubs. Gun control efforts are designed as part of an agenda to take even more power away from the people and give it to those who already have too much authority and can't help themselves from abusing it.
<< <i>You almost had that 100% right IMO. I would differ with you on one thing - firearms can also prevent violence. In fact, it's the entire premise behind most concealed carry laws - that not knowing who is packing actually serves to lessen violence. Anecdotal evidence backs it up too. >>
If your point didn't come across in my earlier post, it certainly came across in the one that I posted just previous to this one. Needless to say, I agree with you.
<< <i>Even in Texas one must be in clear and present danger before they can shoot to kill. So simply
shooting someone for climbing through your window could find you facing some charges.
Bottom line, you better be under threat of life before you shoot, (or a loved one)
The authorities are going to want to know why you simply did not just hold them at gunpoint and call the police.
So NO, their mere presence is NOT justification.
Hopefully one of our Lawyer friends will chime in and put to rest this nonsense that you can kill someone
for simply breaking into your home. >>
Here are the relevant provisions of the Texas Penal Code, I don't believe that it is "nonsense" as interpreted by our court system and grand juries here in Texas. (you'll have to ignore the emotion icons that are appearing, those are appearing because of the characters contained in the Texas Statutes have been converted to the emotion icons by the CU software)
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONSSec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was usedA) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.(b) The use of force against another is not justified1) in response to verbal provocation alone;(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unlessA) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor wasA) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessaryA) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was usedA) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.
Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTYSec. 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.(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property1) 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 necessaryA) 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 thatA) 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. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or(2) the actor reasonably believes thatA) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. >>
Well I personally would follow the advice of one G. Gordon Liddy and wait for them to come into your house, shoot and kill them, place the largest butchers knife from your kitchen in their hand and call 911!!!!!!
<< <i>So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter? >>
He did and it didn't... Roy always had a Ruger beneath the register and a Makarov in the back inside the safe. Your point?
1) Get your most valuable stuff out of your house and into a safe deposit box. Mick went there the other day to hang out with some of his best friends, I encourage everyone to do the same.
2) Props to you for defending yourself.
3) Sniper training comes in handy if you need it. That's all I have to say about that. Surveillance cameras and high tech alarm systems work too when you're not home, along with large territorial canines.
4) Texas.
Ron Burgundy
Buying Vintage, all sports. Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter? >>
He did and it didn't... Roy always had a Ruger beneath the register and a Makarov in the back inside the safe. Your point? >>
Maybe if one of them had been hanging on the wall behind the counter instead of locked in the safe, it could have served as a deterrent.
I still think guns promote the worst kind of savagery, but given that cops are so bad at getting illegal guns off the streets, it only makes sense for people to arm themselves with an equal level of protection.
<< <i>He then shot himself in the face, took out a knife, slit his throat then put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. >>
lol, must have had a large face.
>>
Too bad most murder-suicide occurences don't start with the suiciide. It would be SO much better that way.
---------------------- Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989 ----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
As has already been said by many people, none of us really know how we would react until we are put into a similar situation. Reminds me of my first semester in college. We had gone to the pub on campus for Monday night football, headed back to the frat house parking lot after the game. Couple of guys were breaking in to one of our buddies cars and they took off running when I pulled in, now being from a small town prior to college I thought nothing of it and got out of the car to check the other car. As I was getting out of my car, a buddy that was is my car started yelling to get back in the car because the guys had stopped on the corner. I get back in the car and there is a gun shot, although I didn't realize that's what it was (thought the mustang had backfired), the next shot got my attention as it came through the back window and through my headrest. That was the signal to get out of there.....no injuries, but they ended up hitting the car 5 times before I got out of the parking lot. The point of my story is that there are many things I could have done....moved quicker....run over them....etc., but in a situation like that your mind does not function as it normally would.
<< <i>So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter? >>
He did and it didn't... Roy always had a Ruger beneath the register and a Makarov in the back inside the safe. Your point? >>
Maybe if one of them had been hanging on the wall behind the counter instead of locked in the safe, it could have served as a deterrent.
I still think guns promote the worst kind of savagery, but given that cops are so bad at getting illegal guns off the streets, it only makes sense for people to arm themselves with an equal level of protection. >>
A gun only works if it is in hand AND the person is willing to use it. However, in most cases, the gun ISN'T immediately available or any move to secure it (even if within arms reach) would provoke a shooting. And in home cases, it should be secured . . . again, leading to an issue with being able to immediately access it. Play it out however you want, but being a Monday morning quarterback won't bring Roy back or anyone else killed needlessly by a misused gun.
Nobody is doing any Monday morning quarterbacking. I wasn't there and I would never suggest that I know what he could have done differently to have survived. Again, it's a horrible event and nothing positive could possibly come from it.
All I'm saying is that in some cases, people who would seek to harm innocents could be dissuaded from doing so if they perceived a threat of possible retaliation in self-defense. To completely ignore this point is counterproductive.
Your suggestion that many people hesitate to use deadly force can apply to inexperienced criminals just as often as it applies to inexperienced victims. These types of criminals are the ones most likely to be deterred by the thought of a potential victim being able to defend himself. And the professional criminals - they're smart and less likely to rely on violence to accomplish their goals.
If you do it bc you know you can do it. Then its murder. But if you do it bc you honestly fear your life, Well then I chose mine. All Ill say and All I feel. So do what you want but you still have to live the rest of your life. I live an texas and I will protect my family. But I wont commit murder.
Looks like the police threw the book at them. The bail was set so high that neither could afford to pay it.
Now that my mind is a lot clearer and I am not so frazzled.
When I grabbed the Mossberg it wasn't to save my cards or stereo or my wife's jewelry. It was to save me! It was mostly reactionary. To make things clear I would have pulled the trigger without hesitation. I think they knew it too by the looks of their eyes and faces. I am thankful my wife and kids were not home when this happened.
Still what blows me is away is they came for the cards and not anything else.
To answer the questions about NJ and NC
First call I got was supposedly from a NJ UPS store sometime June/July 2010. A shipping drop off store. The store in NJ didn't deliver packages. Then I moved to NC august 2010. Here in NC I received 3 calls all from the same # a local NC UPS shipping drop off store.
All 4 calls were female. I suspect all 4 calls were from the same person. I know its easy to spoof your phone # to report as a different # on the caller ID. I know you can make it report as any # you want. I have seen it done. Tomorrow I will ask my friend how he does it and report back here how it is done. I know this can be done through google somehow. So this female person could have call from her cell phone and spoofed the caller ID to report it was a UPS store that is local to where I currently live and while I was in NJ. Then she had the NC UPS number report to caller ID after I moved to NC.
This whole thing has given a different perspective on things and on life.
I apologize to anyone in the past that I may have offended by a post or anything. Life is to short and fragile. I wish to enjoy mine from here on.
<< <i>If you do it bc you know you can do it. Then its murder. But if you do it bc you honestly fear your life, Well then I chose mine. All Ill say and All I feel. So do what you want but you still have to live the rest of your life. I live an texas and I will protect my family. But I wont commit murder. >>
<< <i>So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter? >>
He did and it didn't... Roy always had a Ruger beneath the register and a Makarov in the back inside the safe. Your point? >>
Maybe if one of them had been hanging on the wall behind the counter instead of locked in the safe, it could have served as a deterrent.
I still think guns promote the worst kind of savagery, but given that cops are so bad at getting illegal guns off the streets, it only makes sense for people to arm themselves with an equal level of protection. >>
A gun only works if it is in hand AND the person is willing to use it. However, in most cases, the gun ISN'T immediately available or any move to secure it (even if within arms reach) would provoke a shooting. And in home cases, it should be secured . . . again, leading to an issue with being able to immediately access it. Play it out however you want, but being a Monday morning quarterback won't bring Roy back or anyone else killed needlessly by a misused gun. >>
This sums it up perfectly. I am, with few exceptions, 'pro-gun'. I think Americans should have the right to buy and keep firearms. That said, I think very few Americans should exercise that right, since I have zero confidence in the average fat American's ability to pull the trigger at the right time and on the right occasions.
My God, just look at these boards. Most guys on here are just TERRIFIED to leave a negative feedback for somebody. I'd guess the mean age for the last time a CU board member felt a fist in his face is age nine or so. The average American has been completely removed from violence or escalated conflict since the second grade- anyone who thinks these people should be 'packin' is a nuckin fut.
Comments
<< <i>I would have pulled the trigger the instant they crawled in to the house. No question. >>
Amen, brother.
Glad you guys are safe.
Shane
<< <i>
<< <i>Glad it all worked out for you. For those of you that say he should have shot them, you better make sure they have a weapon in hand (even if it's a butter knife) if you do shoot. >>
Depends on what state you are in. Here in Texas, if you heard something come crashing through a window and you happened up on perps already in your own home, you could kill them and you probably wouldn't even get taken to the grand jury. If you did go to grand jury, you would be no billed.
I'm glad you are ok Twiley. >>
Same here in Kentucky.
Shane
<< <i>I have to be honest...
I would not feel good about killing some kid over a B&E.
If my life were in danger is a different thing. >>
The Internet is full of keyboard warriors, Mike. This board is no exception.
You put a loaded gun in a man's hand and a burglar in front of him at point-blank range, and 95% of those men will start crying for the mamas. I imagine those percentages hold for these boards as well as they do for the general population.
Seriously, though, I'm glad everything worked out. The criminal will get his punishment (hopefully), and you get to keep your collection, and most importantly--you and your family are safe.
<< <i>The Internet is full of keyboard warriors, Mike. This board is no exception.
You put a loaded gun in a man's hand and a burglar in front of him at point-blank range, and 95% of those men will start crying for the mamas. I imagine those percentages hold for these boards as well as they do for the general population. >>
I somewhat agree with your general sentiment, but don't think the percentages would be anywhere close to that. Of the 4 choices, fight, flight, negotiate, or freeze, it seems from my observation (I've worked in and around the courthouse for the last 17.5 years) that more and more people are choosing fight (many times after a small period of "freeze"). I understand that's largely due to the local area and general feelings here, but it's just my observation (which could be flawed
I do know some individuals personally that have chosen to "take a life" and they all handle it differently. A couple are at peace with it (at least according to their talk and demeanor), and a couple more it bothers them a good deal.
Everything that you copied and pasted will be for the lawyers once someone in your state chooses to shoot first. Or are you saying
that your post is the end all?
The rest of my paragraph was an in general statement regarding no particular state.
Hope that clears this issue up.
And fwiw I couldn't care less about the NRA or it's detractors.
Steve
<< <i>Mike not sure what nerve I struck with you but i did say 'COULD FACE CHARGES' (followed by a period end of sentence regarding Texas.)
Everything that you copied and pasted will be for the lawyers once someone in your state chooses to shoot first. Or are you saying
that your post is the end all?
The rest of my paragraph was an in general statement regarding no particular state.
Hope that clears this issue up.
And fwiw I couldn't care less about the NRA or it's detractors.
Steve >>
Steve,
You actually didn't strike a nerve. I was just posting what I believe the relevant codes to be in order to back my opinion up. There was no malice or response with ill intent at all.
We're cool!
Mike
<< <i>Twiley
Sorry this happened to you.
To all of you that think you can simply shoot to kill any intruder you are both right and wrong.
First off it depends on the State (and in some cases county) you live in.
Some have what they call a 'duty to retreat law' If someone is breaking in the front, you can go out the back.
If you are in clear danger you can shoot to kill.
Even in Texas one must be in clear and present danger before they can shoot to kill. So simply
shooting someone for climbing through your window could find you facing some charges.
Bottom line, you better be under threat of life before you shoot, (or a loved one)
The authorities are going to want to know why you simply did not just hold them at gunpoint and call the police.
So NO, their mere presence is NOT justification.
Hopefully one of our Lawyer friends will chime in and put to rest this nonsense that you can kill someone
for simply breaking into your home. >>
I'm not a lawyer, but I am somewhat familiar with this topic...and the above comments are basically correct, with some stipulations.
Most good info out there will advise you that if there is any discernable doubt whatsoever about the situation, to shoot first, because you can always hire a lawyer to defend you afterwards, while your family having to hire a mortician to bury you, doesn't personally do you much good. They advise that you should presume the intruder is armed...assuming otherwise could very well be a fatal mistake, for you. Remember in this drug crazed world, and with the "three strikes and you're out" law, certainly some intruders do not want any witnesses.
Perhaps the worst type of situation for a defendant is a drunk neighbor who really accidentally tries to get into a home because they are drunk and really thinks it is their home...it's a good idea to know your neighbors and know who may possibly do something such as this so that you don't shoot your neighbor who was just making a mistake when under the influence.
To the best of my knowledge, anyone prosecuted for home defense is rare...investigated yes, but not prosecuted. However, the most important thing legally for home defense is doing it while in the home...once the intruder is out of the home, then if you shoot the intruder you would be in big legal trouble.
No problem, my point was simply, say I'm drunk and I lost my keys to my house.
I live in Texas (where the mans house is his castle law applies) I live in a development
that has 6 streets that all look alike. Inadvertently I stumble down the wrong street and
think it's my house, I know I always leave the back door open but for some reason it's locked.
I knock, no one answers (It is after all 3 Am) I begin to climb through what I think is my bedroom window
only to be met with some buckshot to the face because the home owner thinks I'm a burglar.
NO stop or I'll shoot, no hey dude wtf you doin? Nothin just a facefull of buckshot.
I should have been clearer in my post.
Take care.
Steve
<< <i>Mike
No problem, my point was simply, say I'm drunk and I lost my keys to my house.
I live in Texas (where the mans house is his castle law applies) I live in a development
that has 6 streets that all look alike. Inadvertently I stumble down the wrong street and
think it's my house, I know I always leave the back door open but for some reason it's locked.
I knock, no one answers (It is after all 3 Am) I begin to climb through what I think is my bedroom window
only to be met with some buckshot to the face because the home owner thinks I'm a burglar.
NO stop or I'll shoot, no hey dude wtf you doin? Nothin just a facefull of buckshot.
I should have been clearer in my post.
Take care.
Steve >>
A rather prominent musician here in Dallas died in just such a scenario. Sadly, he wandered over into his elderly neighbor's yard in the wee hours of the morning while apparently under the influence of alcohol and Chantix (look it up - eeesh) and his neighbor did not recognize him and got scared when he tried to force open the porch door.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>Mike
No problem, my point was simply, say I'm drunk and I lost my keys to my house.
I live in Texas (where the mans house is his castle law applies) I live in a development
that has 6 streets that all look alike. Inadvertently I stumble down the wrong street and
think it's my house, I know I always leave the back door open but for some reason it's locked.
I knock, no one answers (It is after all 3 Am) I begin to climb through what I think is my bedroom window
only to be met with some buckshot to the face because the home owner thinks I'm a burglar.
NO stop or I'll shoot, no hey dude wtf you doin? Nothin just a facefull of buckshot.
I should have been clearer in my post.
Take care.
Steve >>
No doubt it depends on the neighborhood in which ya live. I've lived in row homes in NE Philly and single homes as well. In the row homes, we would be much more tolerant towards a situation such as that, understanding those possibilites...whereby in a single home, there would obviously be less tolerance for somethig such as that, which of course would occur much less frequently. Again though, if ya know your neighbor is a habitual drunk, and ya hear someone rattling at your door or window late one night, there certainly should be more tolerance in realizing it's probably the drunk neighbor again.
Otherwise sorry to say yes, ya risk a face full of buckshot and such is life...ya take your eye off the road while driving, for sometimes a split second, and the next thing ya know ya could be dead...and there are many other examples of not focusing and making a mistake and winding up dead or harmed...that's just the way it is.
<< <i>Mike
No problem, my point was simply, say I'm drunk and I lost my keys to my house.
I live in Texas (where the mans house is his castle law applies) I live in a development
that has 6 streets that all look alike. Inadvertently I stumble down the wrong street and
think it's my house, I know I always leave the back door open but for some reason it's locked.
I knock, no one answers (It is after all 3 Am) I begin to climb through what I think is my bedroom window
only to be met with some buckshot to the face because the home owner thinks I'm a burglar.
NO stop or I'll shoot, no hey dude wtf you doin? Nothin just a facefull of buckshot.
I should have been clearer in my post.
Take care.
Steve >>
I am not a lawyer and have limited knowledge of the subject; therefore, this is only my opinion of my interpretation of the law (heh).
If the window was unlocked and/or open, then the resident cannot kill without recourse. There has to be a forceable entry in order to shoot first and ask questions later.
Moral of the story: If you're in Texas, don't get so drunk that you can't tell if you're about to enter your house or someone else's.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>Bill of rights. >>
Sorry, have to disagree with you on this one. He didn't need that assault weapon to protect himself, don't you know Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer were about to step into that basement and with gentle hands dissuade the attackers?
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bill of rights. >>
Sorry, have to disagree with you on this one. He didn't need that assault weapon to protect himself, don't you know Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer were about to step into that basement and with gentle hands dissuade the attackers? >>
That's how they do it in...................... San Fransico
Not here in Arizona!
Or where Twiley is!
<< <i>
<< <i>I have to be honest...
I would not feel good about killing some kid over a B&E.
If my life were in danger is a different thing. >>
The Internet is full of keyboard warriors, Mike. This board is no exception.
You put a loaded gun in a man's hand and a burglar in front of him at point-blank range, and 95% of those men will start crying for the mamas. I imagine those percentages hold for these boards as well as they do for the general population. >>
Actually, that's an interesting point. To expound...I watched this WW2 program on cable TV, and I forget the name of the program, but it stated that at Iwo Jima during WW2 when the Americans invaded the island to take it back from the Japanese...that around 15% of the troops while in combat didn't fire their gun, and the program stated it was mainly due to the troops "freezing up" in combat and not being able to pull the trigger. It didn't go into any more detail on that subject, but suffice to say I have to believe that perhaps that "survey" was done on the first day of combat, because I have to believe what Patton stated, "Now, some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you will all do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do."...that after the first day at Iwo Jima, the number of American troops not firing their guns was much less than 15% and possibly close to zero.
My point is that a number of those rookie troops at Iwo Jima probably had very litle gun training, perhaps firing off 50 rounds or so in boot camp. I implore everyone, if they own firearms and even if they don't because your kid could be at someone's house who does have them, to make sure that your family is properly trained in its use, and on a regular sort of basis, perhaps once a year or so, find time to go the a firing range and practice. Thereby if the time comes when in a particular bad situation when firepower is necessary, "you'll know what to do" for the sake of yourself and your family.
As for the anti-gun liberals...gosh forbid one night some punks break into your house, tie up you and your family, and begin doing unspeakable things to you and your family that are beyond your worst nightmare...I promise you on your dear life that you will wish that you were a gun owner and had a gun in your hand right now, and there is no doubt you would use it. Why take that risk? Buy a firearm...a "double action", .38 special revolver is recommended for an easy to use, first firearm for home protection with adequate stopping power...and teach your family how to use it...and thank your lucky stars for the Second Admendment.
Well, that's my final post in this thread...back to the cards.
<< <i>Perhaps the worst type of situation for a defendant is a drunk neighbor who really accidentally tries to get into a home because they are drunk and really thinks it is their home >>
Gotta disagree with you there. The worst would be if an overstaffed, overfunded, underworked local police swat team full of macho narcissists with itchy trigger fingers send a box of cocaine to the town mayor via fedex, then bust into his house when he picks up the sealed package from his front door step and brings it in the house, then kills his dog and terrorizes the man and his wife for hours before they even believe he's the mayor.
Really happened a few years ago.
Since the intruders were police, "castle law" likely wouldn't apply in most states. The police do what they want, when they want, and you can theorize about the constitution until you're blue in the face, but when it comes to the practical application of forceful authority in the real world, there's nothing you can do about it, and the police don't have to answer to anybody.
<< <i>Mike
No problem, my point was simply, say I'm drunk and I lost my keys to my house.
I live in Texas (where the mans house is his castle law applies) I live in a development
that has 6 streets that all look alike. Inadvertently I stumble down the wrong street and
think it's my house, I know I always leave the back door open but for some reason it's locked.
I knock, no one answers (It is after all 3 Am) I begin to climb through what I think is my bedroom window
only to be met with some buckshot to the face because the home owner thinks I'm a burglar.
NO stop or I'll shoot, no hey dude wtf you doin? Nothin just a facefull of buckshot.
I should have been clearer in my post.
Take care.
Steve >>
Been there, done that. About 30 years ago after a few days of little food, hard work, long hours, daybreak to dark, I walked into a home next to the sales model home. A couple of large dogs came to the top of the stairs and and barked in a rather quiet woof? woof? A guy comes to the top of the steps and asks what I'm doing. Im extremely disoriented and said " You're not going to sell homes with these dogs in here. Again he ask what I want. I said I came to see the Supervisor and again said I don't think it is a good idea to have these dogs in here. In the back of my mind I thought something is different about the model home. He says you are in the wrong house. He spoke matter of factly, did not seem angry. Looking back I would guess he had a weapon handy I did not see. Finally I caught on to what I had done and appologized profusely and said I must be lucky the dogs did not come after me. He replied he did not know why they didn't as they were trained guard dogs. I think they immediately knew I had no bad intent. I was extremely disoriented, dizzy, and embarassed. I was apologizing some more as I tried to leave and opened the interior door to the garage not the front door. Now I was even more embarassed. He pointed to the front door and I opened a closet door near the front door and thought to myself this is dumb, anyone can tell the entrance door from a closet. One more try and I exited his home feeling embarassed to the hilt and fortunate it did not end a lot worse. I imagine to this day when that gentleman tells the story it is about a spaced out construction worker who was higher than a kite.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I would like to say something about the concept of taking a life - I was responsible for the death of other soldiers in Vietnam - those people had families...friends....
A day doesn't go by - and that was 40 yrs ago that I wish it never happened.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have to be honest...
I would not feel good about killing some kid over a B&E.
If my life were in danger is a different thing. >>
The Internet is full of keyboard warriors, Mike. This board is no exception.
You put a loaded gun in a man's hand and a burglar in front of him at point-blank range, and 95% of those men will start crying for the mamas. I imagine those percentages hold for these boards as well as they do for the general population. >>
Actually, that's an interesting point. To expound...I watched this WW2 program on cable TV, and I forget the name of the program, but it stated that at Iwo Jima during WW2 when the Americans invaded the island to take it back from the Japanese...that around 15% of the troops while in combat didn't fire their gun, and the program stated it was mainly due to the troops "freezing up" in combat and not being able to pull the trigger. It didn't go into any more detail on that subject, but suffice to say I have to believe that perhaps that "survey" was done on the first day of combat, because I have to believe what Patton stated, "Now, some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll chicken out under fire. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you will all do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do."...that after the first day at Iwo Jima, the number of American troops not firing their guns was much less than 15% and possibly close to zero.
My point is that a number of those rookie troops at Iwo Jima probably had very litle gun training, perhaps firing off 50 rounds or so in boot camp. I implore everyone, if they own firearms and even if they don't because your kid could be at someone's house who does have them, to make sure that your family is properly trained in its use, and on a regular sort of basis, perhaps once a year or so, find time to go the a firing range and practice. Thereby if the time comes when in a particular bad situation when firepower is necessary, "you'll know what to do" for the sake of yourself and your family.
As for the anti-gun liberals...gosh forbid one night some punks break into your house, tie up you and your family, and begin doing unspeakable things to you and your family that are beyond your worst nightmare...I promise you on your dear life that you will wish that you were a gun owner and had a gun in your hand right now, and there is no doubt you would use it. Why take that risk? Buy a firearm...a "double action", .38 special revolver is recommended for an easy to use, first firearm for home protection with adequate stopping power...and teach your family how to use it...and thank your lucky stars for the Second Admendment.
Well, that's my final post in this thread...back to the cards.
+1 for WWII reference.
+2 for invoking the 2nd Ammendment.
-1 for not invoking the blessed name of Charlton Heston.
You, sir, are a patriot. Where's the best place I can find more information about how to properly train my family on how to use my Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum?
However, I also don't believe in violence, and the only thing that can ever be accomplished with a firearm is to inflict violence.
I rue the day gun powder was invented. The human species has not evolved anywhere close to the degree that collectively, as a society, we believe it has. Human beings are cruel, callous, vile creatures, and weapons do nothing to help us evolve beyond our savagery to a more compassionate, empathetic existence.
Gotta' love Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
* It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
* In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
* In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
* If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
SCAregalia.com - Masonic Regalia & Supply
The worst part about guns in the home is that they too often end up outside the home.
We just had a local kid (a year behind my son in school), after being denied application into the Army (his father is a US Marshall, so he must've really messed up something to get denied) decide he was going to commit suicide. Well, he took a couple of his father's guns and went to a jewelry store around the corner from me, attempted to hold up the jewelry store and then things went south. He threatened to shoot the owner's daughter, then shot the owner in the face (killing him). He then shot himself in the face, took out a knife, slit his throat then put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. Just so that no one calls "BS", here's the story...
The thing that puzzles me: You said you lived in NJ then NC. So...someone was the 'brains' and had 'thugs' in both states?
SCAregalia.com - Masonic Regalia & Supply
<< <i>I am so tired of people saying that they have a gun for protection or if they did, they'd use it. First, most of them probably don't know how to use them. Second, if they were in a situation where they SHOULD use it, they are most likely NOT to. >>
Too true. We all can say what we "would do" after the fact. But I don't think that most of us would do if it were us.
Once in that position, things could go bad fast and deadly force may be needed. I would probably be more inclined to "shoot first" if it were an unexpected over night break in. Rather than a daylight break in that you think is going to happen and are waiting for.
SCAregalia.com - Masonic Regalia & Supply
<< <i>Given the current circumstances, I believe it's irresponsible and borderline insane to not own a firearm for one's own protection. If gun control lobbyists didn't have their heads up their asses, it would be a lot easier for individuals to defend themselves, and psychopaths on rampages could be stopped more easily.
However, I also don't believe in violence, and the only thing that can ever be accomplished with a firearm is to inflict violence.
I rue the day gun powder was invented. The human species has not evolved anywhere close to the degree that collectively, as a society, we believe it has. Human beings are cruel, callous, vile creatures, and weapons do nothing to help us evolve beyond our savagery to a more compassionate, empathetic existence. >>
You almost had that 100% right IMO. I would differ with you on one thing - firearms can also prevent violence. In fact, it's the entire premise behind most concealed carry laws - that not knowing who is packing actually serves to lessen violence. Anecdotal evidence backs it up too.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>I am so tired of people saying that they have a gun for protection or if they did, they'd use it. First, most of them probably don't know how to use them. Second, if they were in a situation where they SHOULD use it, they are most likely NOT to.
The worst part about guns in the home is that they too often end up outside the home.
We just had a local kid (a year behind my son in school), after being denied application into the Army (his father is a US Marshall, so he must've really messed up something to get denied) decide he was going to commit suicide. Well, he took a couple of his father's guns and went to a jewelry store around the corner from me, attempted to hold up the jewelry store and then things went south. He threatened to shoot the owner's daughter, then shot the owner in the face (killing him). He then shot himself in the face, took out a knife, slit his throat then put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. Just so that no one calls "BS", here's the story... >>
So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter?
Hypothetically, if VT hadn't been a "gun-free" campus at the time of that rampage shooting 4 years ago, and students and/or faculty had been allowed to carry weapons for protection, do you think the death toll from that day would have been the same, or higher, or lower?
Gun control lobbyists and advocates never propose disarming law enforcement. Europeans think U.S. gun laws are completely asinine, but their police are armed only with clubs. Gun control efforts are designed as part of an agenda to take even more power away from the people and give it to those who already have too much authority and can't help themselves from abusing it.
<< <i>You almost had that 100% right IMO. I would differ with you on one thing - firearms can also prevent violence. In fact, it's the entire premise behind most concealed carry laws - that not knowing who is packing actually serves to lessen violence. Anecdotal evidence backs it up too. >>
If your point didn't come across in my earlier post, it certainly came across in the one that I posted just previous to this one. Needless to say, I agree with you.
<< <i>
<< <i>Even in Texas one must be in clear and present danger before they can shoot to kill. So simply
shooting someone for climbing through your window could find you facing some charges.
Bottom line, you better be under threat of life before you shoot, (or a loved one)
The authorities are going to want to know why you simply did not just hold them at gunpoint and call the police.
So NO, their mere presence is NOT justification.
Hopefully one of our Lawyer friends will chime in and put to rest this nonsense that you can kill someone
for simply breaking into your home. >>
Here are the relevant provisions of the Texas Penal Code, I don't believe that it is "nonsense" as interpreted by our court system and grand juries here in Texas. (you'll have to ignore the emotion icons that are appearing, those are appearing because of the characters contained in the Texas Statutes have been converted to the emotion icons by the CU software)
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONSSec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.
Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTYSec. 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.(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. >>
Well I personally would follow the advice of one G. Gordon Liddy and wait for them to come into your house, shoot and kill them, place the largest butchers knife from your kitchen in their hand and call 911!!!!!!
<< <i>So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter? >>
He did and it didn't... Roy always had a Ruger beneath the register and a Makarov in the back inside the safe. Your point?
<< <i>He then shot himself in the face, took out a knife, slit his throat then put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. >>
lol, must have had a large face.
1) Get your most valuable stuff out of your house and into a safe deposit box. Mick went there the other day to hang out with some of his best friends, I encourage everyone to do the same.
2) Props to you for defending yourself.
3) Sniper training comes in handy if you need it. That's all I have to say about that. Surveillance cameras and high tech alarm systems work too when you're not home, along with large territorial canines.
4) Texas.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>
<< <i>So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter? >>
He did and it didn't... Roy always had a Ruger beneath the register and a Makarov in the back inside the safe. Your point? >>
Maybe if one of them had been hanging on the wall behind the counter instead of locked in the safe, it could have served as a deterrent.
I still think guns promote the worst kind of savagery, but given that cops are so bad at getting illegal guns off the streets, it only makes sense for people to arm themselves with an equal level of protection.
<< <i>
<< <i>He then shot himself in the face, took out a knife, slit his throat then put the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. >>
lol, must have had a large face.
Too bad most murder-suicide occurences don't start with the suiciide. It would be SO much better that way.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
My Registry Sets
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter? >>
He did and it didn't... Roy always had a Ruger beneath the register and a Makarov in the back inside the safe. Your point? >>
Maybe if one of them had been hanging on the wall behind the counter instead of locked in the safe, it could have served as a deterrent.
I still think guns promote the worst kind of savagery, but given that cops are so bad at getting illegal guns off the streets, it only makes sense for people to arm themselves with an equal level of protection. >>
A gun only works if it is in hand AND the person is willing to use it. However, in most cases, the gun ISN'T immediately available or any move to secure it (even if within arms reach) would provoke a shooting. And in home cases, it should be secured . . . again, leading to an issue with being able to immediately access it. Play it out however you want, but being a Monday morning quarterback won't bring Roy back or anyone else killed needlessly by a misused gun.
All I'm saying is that in some cases, people who would seek to harm innocents could be dissuaded from doing so if they perceived a threat of possible retaliation in self-defense. To completely ignore this point is counterproductive.
Your suggestion that many people hesitate to use deadly force can apply to inexperienced criminals just as often as it applies to inexperienced victims. These types of criminals are the ones most likely to be deterred by the thought of a potential victim being able to defend himself. And the professional criminals - they're smart and less likely to rely on violence to accomplish their goals.
All Ill say and All I feel. So do what you want but you still have to live the rest of your life. I live an texas and I will protect my family. But I wont commit murder.
Looks like the police threw the book at them. The bail was set so high that neither could afford to pay it.
Now that my mind is a lot clearer and I am not so frazzled.
When I grabbed the Mossberg it wasn't to save my cards or stereo or my wife's jewelry. It was to save me! It was mostly reactionary. To make things clear I would have pulled the trigger without hesitation. I think they knew it too by the looks of their eyes and faces. I am thankful my wife and kids were not home when this happened.
Still what blows me is away is they came for the cards and not anything else.
To answer the questions about NJ and NC
First call I got was supposedly from a NJ UPS store sometime June/July 2010. A shipping drop off store. The store in NJ didn't deliver packages. Then I moved to NC august 2010. Here in NC I received 3 calls all from the same # a local NC UPS shipping drop off store.
All 4 calls were female. I suspect all 4 calls were from the same person. I know its easy to spoof your phone # to report as a different # on the caller ID. I know you can make it report as any # you want. I have seen it done. Tomorrow I will ask my friend how he does it and report back here how it is done. I know this can be done through google somehow. So this female person could have call from her cell phone and spoofed the caller ID to report it was a UPS store that is local to where I currently live and while I was in NJ. Then she had the NC UPS number report to caller ID after I moved to NC.
This whole thing has given a different perspective on things and on life.
I apologize to anyone in the past that I may have offended by a post or anything. Life is to short and fragile. I wish to enjoy mine from here on.
<< <i>If you do it bc you know you can do it. Then its murder. But if you do it bc you honestly fear your life, Well then I chose mine.
All Ill say and All I feel. So do what you want but you still have to live the rest of your life. I live an texas and I will protect my family. But I wont commit murder. >>
How would they handle that in Sweden?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So you're saying the jeweler wouldn't have had a better chance of surviving this horrific incident if he's had a licensed 9mm in a drawer under the counter? >>
He did and it didn't... Roy always had a Ruger beneath the register and a Makarov in the back inside the safe. Your point? >>
Maybe if one of them had been hanging on the wall behind the counter instead of locked in the safe, it could have served as a deterrent.
I still think guns promote the worst kind of savagery, but given that cops are so bad at getting illegal guns off the streets, it only makes sense for people to arm themselves with an equal level of protection. >>
A gun only works if it is in hand AND the person is willing to use it. However, in most cases, the gun ISN'T immediately available or any move to secure it (even if within arms reach) would provoke a shooting. And in home cases, it should be secured . . . again, leading to an issue with being able to immediately access it. Play it out however you want, but being a Monday morning quarterback won't bring Roy back or anyone else killed needlessly by a misused gun. >>
This sums it up perfectly. I am, with few exceptions, 'pro-gun'. I think Americans should have the right to buy and keep firearms. That said, I think very few Americans should exercise that right, since I have zero confidence in the average fat American's ability to pull the trigger at the right time and on the right occasions.
My God, just look at these boards. Most guys on here are just TERRIFIED to leave a negative feedback for somebody. I'd guess the mean age for the last time a CU board member felt a fist in his face is age nine or so. The average American has been completely removed from violence or escalated conflict since the second grade- anyone who thinks these people should be 'packin' is a nuckin fut.