General Gun Discussion

[Toad]

In the end though I still applaud him for what he did cause I believe when he said "move you're Dead" was him telling them what would happen if they moved. They moved.

Apparently the Grand Jury proceedings are sealed. We may find out more in the civil lawsuit though.

Yeah, they moved.... and were shot in the back.  It would seem they were moving away which is generally not a life threatening move.

I wasn't there, I admit there could have been a threat.

Still, I think if you really listen to that tape you hear a man that is obviously pissed off, said he didn't even really know the neighbor whose home was burglarized, he told the dispatcher he wasn't going to let them get away and that he was going to kill them before he ever left his own home, communicated that he was aware of the new Texas law that would allow him to kill them and then shot them in the back.

The whole thing sounds premeditated and shooting them in the back, despite the possibility of a threat that many of you raise, puts this entire episode in a very bad light.

There is no way this reflect well on gun owners with the general non-gun populace of the US. Hell, it doesn't sit well with me and I own a bunch of guns and use them, used to have an FFL, am extremely pro 2nd and have a concealed carry permit. I think it stinks and I think it was a bad shoot. What do you think the average Joe Citizen that is fairly neutral on guns would think about this?

And how about the kid in Kaufman county? You guys that defend Horn going to defend the guy that shot him? It was probably a technically legal shoot under Texas law. After all, the kid WAS trespassing. Good shoot? Let me hear you on this one.

[Carrel]

Here's a link to the Kauffman County news story.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060308dnmetfrosch.5439de4a.html

According to many here trespassing is cause for justifiable homicide.

[Angus]

all around or for some purpose you had in mind?

lazs

Hmmm.
Lets say reliability first, then ROF....

[WWhiskey]

the sign said,
 anybody caught tresspassing
 will be shot on sight
so i jumped over the fence
and said to the man
 who gave you the riboom!!

from bob and tom

[lazs2]

angus.. for reliability.. there are many good 44 mag revolvers...  Ruger would probly be king of tough and reliable but all the others including taurus and smith are close these days..  hard to find a bad one.

ROF?   for handguns it would be any of the double actions.. for carbines.. the lever guns and the ruger semi auto but the ruger has a tiny little 4 or 5 round capacity.. the lever guns hold 11 and you can work em pretty fast and they are smooth and mostly.. light and short.   My Henry 44 mag lever gun is not light for it's size but is smooth and fast and handy and probly more accurate than the other lever guns by a little.

lazs

[lazs2]

carrel..  I do not believe that simple trespass is good enough to shoot someone but it does cause the situation.  The property owner is within his rights to be armed.   It is up to the criminal in the equation on how it turns out..  he is in the wrong and he should do everything he can to defuse the situation and present no threat to the armed and legal owner.. any threat on his part is stupid and would rightfully cause his being shot.

Thats how I look at it anyway.

lazs

[Toad]

I wonder if the trespassing kid in Kauffman country presented a threat.

I wasn't there either but the possibility exists that he was just crossing the lawn unaware of the shooter and the shooter shot him.

There has to be some common sense. From a lot of what has been written here I wonder if there is enough.

[lazs2]

yes... there has to be some common sense.. that is why our court and jury system still operates on the "reasonable man" premis.

Sure.. some.. and this may be one.. examples end up slipping through the cracks but it is no reason to can the castle doctrine.

That would be like saying that three strikes should be done away with because some poor hardened criminals last strike was knocking down a kid to steal his pizza.

lazs

[Toad]

No, the Kauffman county incident is no reason to can the Castle doctrine. I totally agree.

I hope, however, that it will give some pause to the folks in here that seem to think that if a shoot is technically legal the shot should be taken as quickly as possible and tough luck for the dead guy even if he was just running off with your pot of petunias from the front porch.

I guess the problem I have with the Texas law is that it excludes the requirement for a threat to the life of the shooter or a 3rd party. In other words, the Texas law authorizes the death penalty for everything from trespassing on your property to stealing your garden hoe. I can't believe that doesn't sound overly harsh to just about everyone.

Legally kill some one over a stolen garden hoe? C'mon.

[Jackal1]

I`ll just say this on the trespassing and theft issue.
If you come on my property with the intent of theft......or anything of a negative nature you will be held at gunpoint
until your sorry, useless rear end can be hauled off by law enforcement. This is if the local county`s fine officers can tear themselves away from their hangout where they hit on teenage girls........ or conduct their second business.
If at which time you are being held within that time you make any threatening advances, you can give your sould to God because you donut belongs to me.
People work hard and long for their possessions . Sometimes a life time . If Joe Crackhead wishes to buy the ticket here, he will also get the ride.

[Angus]

How would you know about the intent?
Maybe there might be an AH'er who wants to meet you   

[lazs2]

I agree with jackal..  If they have broken into your property and come at you while you have a gun pointed at them....   Well..  I doubt even some  of the liberals on this board are that dumb or want to meet me that bad... or  see if there really is a god.

lazs

[Toad]

A threatening advance would justify the use of deadly force.

A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.

I don't think anyone has disputed that.

What's in dispute is if someone running off with some replacable mass produced property item should be shot in the back. There have been a few in this thread that seem to think so.

[WWhiskey]

A threatening advance would justify the use of deadly force.

I don't think anyone has disputed that.

What's in dispute is if someone running off with some replacable mass produced property item should be shot in the back. There have been a few in this thread that seem to think so.

Texas law also thinks so! if it is reasonable to believe you would not otherwise be able to regain said possessions!!    if you dont agree with that you have every right not too shoot!!

[Toad]

Yep. I won't. As I said I took some time to think all this through before I got my CCW. After any potential shooting, I have to be able to live with myself and be able to justify killing a human being. A pot of petunias doesn't do it for me.

Feel free to shoot someone stealing your garden hoe though. After all, it's legal in Texas and that's the only excuse you need to open fire.