Called Police 2nd time in a week

[Curlew]

GET ONE OF THESE!!!

[SFRT - Frenchy]

For the paranoid reasons I stated earlier, I hope mister scary will leave my house when I yell "leave, leave NOW!". It's a sickening feeling for normal person to think of creeping on someone and blowing their head up in the name of "you are in my house".  

[Getback]

Update. It's dark now. The lights I installed on the garage are so bright it makes my chimney look like there's a light on it. Kinda cool. Couldn't get the front porch light to work. Must have caused a short. When I got back into the house all the lights were dead. So I reset the breaker and am going to call an Electrician tomorrow.

[trigger2]

If you've never owned/used a handgun that is probably not the preferred defense weapon for you.  While certainly not a lost investment it will not provide you the proficiency on the front end that a short (legal minimum) barreled shotgun will.  You can purchase a quality pump 12 gauge shotgun for a few hundred bucks and load it with buckshot.  You now have a forgiving weapon that will allow you to defend your castle (remember that phrase when researching your applicable gun laws) that will not require the time and effort to achieve and maintain a level of proficiency a first handgun will require.

I agree, make sure it's a pump.
I'll never forget the night I heard someone fiddling with our door... Go to the gunsafe, grab the pump, nothing sounds like it or scares 'em off faster.
Keep safe sir. 

[Tac]

Frenchy and Akhog,

May be a matter of opinion. The question I'd like to ask you two is: Why would you take any risk to your life and the lives of your family?

You know the guy broke into your house. You ID the guy as being a complete stranger.

What is the point in risking him shooting you first and doing whatever he pleases with your loved ones afterward?

Not to mention that it is highly unlikely the thief is alone in the break-in.

Its almost as if you guys are more scared of what the law will say after the fact than what these criminals may do to your family. I do not understand this view, I'm sorry.

[culero]

snip
You defend life with deadly force not property. Not even LEO's are authorized to shoot fleeing burglars, thieves, shoplifters or con men unless life is in danger so why would you think you are.

Actually, in Texas deadly force may be legally used to defend property. You may even, specifically, legally kill a fleeing burglar. See 9.42(2)(B) of the Penal Code, appended below. The test is simply that you have no other way to stop the criminal, or that if you do it involves serious risk to yourself or others.

LEO's, of course, due to training, equipment, and the assistance of other LEOs, are expected to be more capable of stopping criminals by other means. Most armed civilian individuals would be presumed to have acted reasonably if they were alone, encountered a crime in progress, and killed the criminal since they would be presumed to not have the wherewithal to act that a LEO has.


*********************
Sec. 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:

(1)  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 property:

(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3)  he reasonably believes that:

(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B)  the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


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:

(1)  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 that:

(A)  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.

[SmokinLoon]

Some of you dont read very well.  *sigh*  Must I always spell things out?  Must I always point out those who put words in my mouth or incinuated things that I did not say or even come remotely close to describing?

First off, anyone remember the Rodney King Riots (1992?)?  Anyone remember which stores were not burned down and were not looted?  Let me give you a hint: Korean grocery stores with the owners on top armed with a multitude of "assault" rifles (semi-auto rifles w/ detachable mags).  To say that those kinds of rifles are not needed is a matter of opinion.  Anyone know the first "right" the Nazis took away from the Juden?  Their "right" to own firearms.  Ask the victims of Pol Pot what they were told to first do prior to going to the instituionalizing "gatherings" (they were to turn in all firearms).  Ask white Kenyen farmers what they lost first prior to losing their land in 1999-2002.  Ask Guatemalan indians how they defended themselves in the 1982 siege of their land by a then correupt govt.  I could go on and on with regards to more then recent cases in which firepower in the hands of the lawful thwarted the lawless (or could have).  Remember, the 2nd Amend is all about protecting the people from the govt.  Make your opinions well known, I wont hold that against you.  But for j00! to make statements of "you dont need ..." simply says that you are not understanding the big picture.  People have a far greater chance of being hurt by a Porche than they do of an "assualt" rifle.  BTW... in 2006, less than 1/3 of 1% of the gun crimes in this country were commited withv an "assault" rifle.

Secondly, I didnt say I would grab my AR15 and go searching for the "bump" in the night.  I said what my bedside gun is.  I wouldnt use a rifle to clear out my home, I'd use a handgun (but it isnt idiotic to use one either).  I use a handgun so I can menouver and have a free hand to use on a light.  The only time I'd use a rifle to clear a building is if I was in an urban combat environment and it was day or the rifle has a light mounted on it.  I said I would grab my AR15 if the crap ever hit the fan... what that crap will be is anyone's guess (but I doubt it will be zombies).  Oh... and the chance of a 5.56 NATO or 7.62x39 Soviet round going though multiple walls of my house and multiple walls of my neighbors house and actually hitting someone is so minute not for me to worry about it if my life is in danger.  There is a reason I use the .380 ACP for home defense, I am far more educated on projectile penetration and performanace than the average bloke.  There is a reason LEO's leave the shotty or the rifle in the trunk when going into a building.

Let me say for the 3rd time... verbalizing prior to you shooting will only do you good.  Obviously, if the perp has a weapon, is **obvioulsy** high on PCP, or is obviously there looking for a fight and you simply do not have time to verbalize then you will simply have to be more thorough when you dictate what happened.  You will be asked 1000 times as to why you did not give them a chance to identify, surrender, etc.  It doesnt matter what your state laws are because beleive me you do not want to be in court defending your actions if you shot a guy who was a family guy, poor, mentally ill or challenged, and without a criminal history.  It is highly suggested you verbalize, it will save you tons of time and money, and it may save someone's life.  Taking the life of another is not to be taken lightly, regardless of the danger (or lack of danger) to your self.  Start thinking of all the "what if's" about the perp in your house being completely innocent and void of any maliciaous intent?  If you have the perp lit up (via flash light, etc), and you are barracaded, and you have the time... verbalize.  Dont play tough guy, you'll be so scared and jumpy that you're going to want to give him a chance.

[DMBEAR]

I read the original post only.  I will be brief.  If you decide to get a gun for protection, I recommend getting training and a concealed carry licence if it is available.  If you already have training with handguns, then train with the one you choose. You never know how it will perform, or if it will perform with the ammo you select untill you get several hundreds of rounds through it. That's all I have to say about that.
Make sure your neighbors are aware of what is going on...more eyes and lights on in the neighborhood always helps. -Good Luck.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

You are exactly right TAC, despite the guys here that brandish the law book, we all know and have seen that it doesn't mean nothing when you end up in a court of law where the opposing lawyer will skillfully demonstrate that "deadly force" wasn't necessary. I will state the "Leave, leave NOW!", hopefully those guys will "Oh digydy dam someone's here" and leave. Now if the bad guys still keep going, or even start the shooting, there will be no mistake on the three required rules of deadly force : "I was in a genine fear for my life, the human predators had the means and the ability to inflic great bodily harms to me".

I do not want to shoot at an unarmed 17 year old honor student with a momentary laps of judgement, because no matter what the local law is, I'll end up in court, and I don't have 50 grands, and I might even freacking loose.

I'll take my chances, you take yours. I might end up shot dead after my warning call, you might end up shooting dead your neighbor's kid.

[DJ111]

If you grab a firearm, don't do the BS racking a round in to scare the guy. The only thing an intruder in your house should hear is a gunshot, if it's the neighbors kid, oh well, his parents shoulda taught the idiot not to go into other peoples home/property and screw around in the dead of night.

We could play the what-if's all day long.

[CAVPFCDD]

you guys are using the absolute most extreme scenarios for getting a gun, the rodney king riots and nazi germany? come on now, we're talking about drug addicts who want a few extra bucks for more crack or meth or whatever. These aren't master criminals, and there are rarely houses getting robbed by master theives, I've said it twice, I'll say it again, take the cheaper, non lethal measures to keep them out, once they see its too much of a pain in neck to break in, they'll go find another house with an unlocked door or window....thats the reality of these crimes

yes there are special cases, but thats like getting struck by lightning, it's just not likely, you can't live in fear your whole life of these things

[DJ111]

So you are willing to KILL someone for breaking into your house. This simply sounds ridiculous to me, and I'm guessing there is nothing that can be said over a forum to change either of our opinions.

Unfortunately I find that more and more people have the same mentality.

"Its not a game anymore", I think to some people when someone breaks into their house the game is just starting.

In the words of my towns Chief of Police : 'All day long.'

You are a damn fool and a coward if you think otherwise.

Go hide in your closet and pray that the bad men go away...

[DJ111]

AKHog is right, you are living in a fantasy world.

Using a rifle to defend your home is idiotic. I don't care how proficient you are with it, there's no way to stop those rounds from penetrating and killing your neighbor.

And you have no need for the range a rifle provides. Maybe if you were living on a farm, but in that case the intruder is not an immediate threat to you.

Save it for "when the zombies come".

People can defend their families, themselves and their property with whatever reasonable force they feel like.  It's idiotic to assume every bullet will go through several brick walls, intact, and strike lil Timmy while he sleeps in his bed.

[Vulcan]

Ask the victims of Pol Pot what they were told to first do prior to going to the instituionalizing "gatherings" (they were to turn in all firearms).

Sorry but thats a lie. The average Cambodian did not own, nor could not afford to own a firearm. It was a full fledged civil war. My wife is Cambodian, her father was an officer in the Cambodian armed forces and killed during the war.

Given you f*****d this fact up so significantly I'm guessing you dug these 'facts' out of a pro-gun-to-the-point-of-being-a-nutcase email that does that rounds every so often. Either that or made things up. I'm guessing the other facts about Kenyan (I think you mean Zimbabwe) farmers and the jews in Nazi germany are total fantasy too.

So if you feel the need to keep your right to defend yourself in your home do it without lies, thanks.

[Getback]

For those who don't feel the need to protect themselves I am envious right now. I have lost that wonderful peace of mind. It's probably going to get worse before it gets better. These guys today were brazen. They came to my house in broad daylight on a sunny Sunday and intended on breaking into the house next door (I have an easement drive). Right now I'm not even sure if I should have the lights on and heaven forbid I get lost in playing Aces High. I usually play every day, not today.

Worse yet, I think I've lost my privacy. I think they were watching me the first time they broke into the garage and left when I moved from the computer. That is the most uneasy feeling. Yeah I have the blinds down and the curtains pulled but there are always cracks to peak through.

Anyway, I'm going to take the necessary steps to keep the odds of this from happening again. Hopefully deterrent works. Most criminals go for the easy target first. They seem to be a bit lazy to me.