XtremeSpeakFreely

Pretty excessive in my book.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hot ... 20751.html

The article is from the Houston Chronicle, I read that paper until I moved at age 33. I grew up and went to elementary through HS in N Harris county. That area is over by greenspoint, which by the time I left was infested with gangs. it was sad, because greenspoint mall was where we used to go hangout as teenagers in the 70's and 80's. then it went to hell and a hand basket by the 90's and there were gang shootings, drugs, etc all over the area. I worked at an office building close to there (I45 and the beltway) from 91-95 after I moved back to Houston from college. It's about 5 miles from Bush Intercontinental Houston Airport. The office district is ok, but you get back in the subdivisions and residential areas and it's infested with gangs. That all started in the 90's. I haven't been back there since 95, I lived downtown near the med center until 2001. But I can't imagine what it must be like now, it was pretty bad back in 95. A lot of gang, drug, and theft. You didn't wander around at night if you wanted to stay healthy.

That area was suburbanite in the 70-80's, then the city encroached and it all went to hell. I had fond memories of the area as a teenager, then when I came back from college it was a total disappointment to see what the city growth and population growth had done to it.

crime don't pay in TEXAS.

after my last post ... LOL>> I decided to go see what greenspoint mall was like now by reviews on the net.. Greenspoint is close to where the article location is. I referenced in my last post. It used to be a nice mall, but now the suburban safe mall I guess is the woodlands, another 15 miles north into suburbia.

anyway, like I said we used to hang out there as teenagers, but the city encroached on it in the 90's.. so suburbanite was forced to move further north.
looks like the general ghetto situation hasn't changed..

http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=7 ... 10&start=0

F***'im.

As far as I'm concerned, people stealing my sh*t don't have rights. What's to say that when confronted, the guy doesn't turn around and try and shoot the owner? Castle Law.

I'm sorry, but if someone is in my house or breaking into my car, I'm not going to tell them to kindly leave, I'm going to yell GTFO as I pull the trigger. He's on my turf or touching my stuff without my permission.

Good thing the guy is dead - he can't attack the shooter in court and claim that the owner is racist, that he was just passing by, and that he was shot for no reason.

yeah, I kinda feel the same way Tom... shoot the crook first and ask questions later. unfortunately, the law doesn't see it that way most of the time. Unless the thug was in the guys house or they find a weapon on the thug, then they're gonna charge the shooter with man slaughter. it sucks, but it's just the way it is. The owner really needed a throw down weapon of some sort to plant on the thug before the cops got there if he was unarmed outside his home. otherwise it's gonna be a man slaughter charge and then a jury of peers is gonna have to find the owner innocent. big lawyer fees, etc...

I knew several cops as friends in Houston when I lived there... and several carried knives or razors as throw downs.. most cops think the laws are BS too when it comes to things like this, but their hands are tied by the powers that be. so they are forced to do what is defined as their job. of course some take it farther than that, but the ones I knew were pretty good guys just trying to survive in a F*** up world.

you remember that case in TX where the guy (cant remember his name) called 911 and said he was gonna go out and shoot the mexican stealing.. that was a huge ordeal and court drama, and the guy was lucky he got off. if it wouldn't have been TX, he may not have. plus after it was over it cost him mucho dinero and ruined his name.

it's easy to get angry and pull the trigger, not so easy to live with the aftermath. even if the thug deserved it.

I can understand shooting the guy, but is it really necessary to aim for a kill when a guy is trying to break into your vehicle that is parked in the driveway while you are safely inside your home and can approach him with more caution and a greater value of life instead? The man with the gun who can catch the thief off-guard has has the upper hand here. Shoot to kill wasn't his only option.

Am I supposed to assume that you all think this was a fair trade? If so, I assume you also think capital punishment for car burglary is a good idea.

Bottom line, the man who shot the thief clearly had control of the situation because it was 3:00am and the thief likely chose a home that he believed contained sleeping inhabitants. Nobody is saying that the man shouldn't have defended his property, but let's not pretend it's not an injustice when a young life is traded for an automobile when it didn't have to end that way.

gonna drop a little tactical knowledge on you here. in the dark, unless you're a sniper waiting for a shot with a starlight or IR scoped rifle, when you pull the trigger you aim center mass. and you're lucky to get a sight picture unless you have tritium sights. and close range you have no choice but to instinctive point and shoot. there is no choice in that situation but to hit the mass of the target and hope your round goes into it.
if you think you can shoot accurately and hit a leg or butt in those circumstances, you've been watching too much hollywood. that's why the shot is always a center mass shot. and even if you do shoot for the leg with a larger caliber handgun/defensive hollowpoint or expanding round, in the upper leg, you have a high probability of nicking or damaging the femoral artery; and they'll bleed out way before an ambulance arrives. a gut shot will survive longer than that. a center mass chest shot that misses the heart will kill just as fast as a femoral bleedout.

bottomline, when and if you pull the trigger, you shoot to kill. there is no other reason to be pointing that gun at someone. If you dont want to kill them, then do not shoot them.

Well, you can aim low-center. The torso a big area, and someone trying to unlock a car door probably has a relatively static torso. A little more thought and maybe a life could have been spared.

do you think you can aim that accurately with a handgun at 3am in the dark under high stress... maybe on a range with time to think, but not in a combat situation, no one is that cool.

like I said, you have 2 choices. fire or dont fire. it's up to you to decide. alot of people say they would fire, and many will in the heat of the moment. but I guarantee you afterwards if they had to relive it and knew they could have taken a different path they would have. Unless you've done it, you cannot know. and that's what pisses me off about most of the internet cowboys.

Isn't the motto to aim, then fire? Besides, the man has the surprise element on his side, he doesn't even have to reveal himself in the situation. And no, I don't think this was a combat situation because you had an armed man with his weapon pulled out vs. someone trying to jiggy a car door. Fish in a barrel.

Dead men tell no tales (lies).

I happen to agree with you, Thunder, that the shooting was not necessary. Sure it's nice to shoot a thief, everyone has that fantasy. But the reality is a much different situation. I'm pretty sure most of yall have not actually been in this scenario according to the existing comments... so I leave it alone and let the comments fly off the radar..

Are you saying you've been in this situation ?

I think thieves need to be shot and in this situation it's their parents fault for not teaching them better.

If parents taught their children that stealing will get you killed just like putting your hand in fire will burn you, there would be less thieving.

I can't disagree with you on that Deng; thieves deserve everything they get.
and yes, I have been in some scrapes with guns, I'm not proud of it. It just irritates me when people talk s*** and haven't had to make the hard decisions while s*** their pants with lead flying.. or they sit back and say they can make cool decisions while under duress of certain situations. it doesn't happen that way. it goes down the way it goes down, then you get to think about it afterwards. I think people need to realize this, and stop coming in after the fact and saying "oh! I would have done it this way. or that was not right, or kill the mf'er!".. THEY dont F*** know until they've been there. The aftermath is far worse than the moment. In reality, you react in the moment and everything afterwards is just analysis and speculation.

yet, we still get these armchair opinions on how "they" would have done it, or why they think it is wrong or right. I'm not making this comment on this article, but the comments suggested in this thread as concerning shootings as well as others who have never experienced the real situation. It's almost like listening to college kids talk about how it is in the real business world. until you walk the walk, you have no basis to talk the talk. you can speculate all you want, but that's all it is.

that being said, I do not think this guy in the article should have shot an unarmed man in his driveway according to the minimal details provided. but we dont know the whole story, for all we know he was threatened. this article discussion is another one of these internet discussions where people base their opinions on not knowing all the facts and details of the story. all we know is the article, which is very minimal. that's why I really dont have an opinion on if he should have shot or not. I just think some of the people who assume everything according to their limited knowledge of the story and experience in this type of situation are full of s***.

does that make it clearer? like I said previously, the article took place in a gang invested part of Houston.. so the shooting behavior really doesn't surprise me. I think Thunder is underestimating this in his analysis of the situation. He's treating this like it's a peaceful area and a rare shooting. that's not the case. there are shootings in this part of town several times a week. cherry picking a Houston Chronicle article and turning it into a internet crusade on "excessive force" wont change that.

If you are going to shoot, always shoot to kill. Always.

The young man who is dead, is the one who traded his life. Not the other way.

I can't believe it! AB is so absolutely correct here... my world is upside down.. LOL!

there is absolutely no reason you should be pointing a gun at someone without the intention to kill them...
You've never had any experience or training with guns other than a firing range, huh , Thunder...

It is legal in the state of Texas to protect ones property with deadly force after dark including killing the person if they are trying to get away is it not ?

if you shoot or kill a unarmed man or woman on your property outside of your house, then you're gonna spend time in court letting a jury decide your fate in TX. I already mentioned the case above.

do you really want to justify gunning down an unarmed man or woman in your front yard? is that what this is about, deng?
I understand your position, and cant say I disagree with it. But that doesn't mean you can gun unarmed people down in your yard because they steal a rake or shovel.

you need to think long and hard about the reality of what you're saying.

I live in a somewhat rough area, right next to subsidized housing... I have had my car broken into over the ~5 years I've lived here(well different parts of town as I've moved around from dorms -> apartments and now finally a house) 4 times. I wasn't sure if I would share this info here but over these past holidays I went home to visit my family and while away assholes broke into my house and stole roughly ~6k worth of my belongings... Which was a good portion of what little I owned. At least they were kind enough to leave my desktop behind.

I had never really owned a gun before nor had I ever considered harming another human being; but now I have 2 Sigs(P225 - 9mm + P220 - 45ACP) and I'm saving up for a semi-automatic shotgun(leaning towards a Benilli M4). Now you might ask yourself why so much firepower? Well not but a couple weeks later the low rent welfare sucking scumbags who robbed me were caught breaking into another home, and the victims were forced onto their own floor at sawed off shotgun point as their house was cleaned out... Which really worried me, what if I or my girlfriend had been home when they broke in? Up until recently my home protection consisted of a hunting knife and a 4 cell mag lite. Something tells me it would not have ended well(for me). Oh and to add insult to injury the police still haven't caught the guys even though they have identified at least one them - btw he's a career criminal and he keeps getting out of prison! Why?

Anyhoo long story short, I'm ready to defend myself, the people I love and what little property I have left to the death... I dunno, maybe that's the anger or anxiety talking. I'm not going to lie, having most my stuff stolen was s*** - it's tough to describe but if I had to define it with one word I'd say violated and I responded in a way that could be described as knee jerk I guess(buying the guns). However, I'm tired of this s***, college kids are specifically targeted by criminals... Well if they F*** with me when I'm home at night they're as good as dead.

You seem to be far more worked up about this than myself.... we're haveing a simple discusion here.

If they were stealing from me yes... though I have a dog that stops all that.
If a person were hungry and asked me for food, I would feed them.
Back to Texas law.

"Deadly force" is authorized to protect property by 9.42 for the following offenses:

(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.

The first two paragraphs in 9.42 says deadly force can be used under the provisions of 9.41 if the crime is commited after dark.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.

Deadly force is only justified when a person reasonably believes that it deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent another person from committing arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, and theft or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

Beefy, you are completely justified in feeling that way. I've been there and understand your pain. IMO, you are doing the right thing. But follow it up with some weapons self defense training. I bet you can find some near your area if you look. When, (and hopefully it never happens), time comes you'll be acting with training and not adrenaline and emotion. Don't put all your weapons in the same place. always keep them loaded and ready to go, unless you have kids or kids can get to them. Keep them in readily accessible places; if it takes you more than 3 seconds to access them, it's too long. Practice with each until you are familiar with each one so much you dont have to think.. IN a high stress situation, thinking is impossible, you need to be natural with each weapon.

if someone comes in your home, you shoot first and dont give them time to react. Inside your walls, you dont have to give commands. Dont threaten, just act. And that's where your training will take over. Take control of yourself, don't let your emotions and fear take control of you.

I am sorry I had to voice my opinion in this thread, I should have kept quiet and let the opiniions fly. I have no desire to make this s*** public. but some of yall need to hear it. not referring to you Beefy. but take my advice and know that owning a gun is not the same as knowing how to use one in a crisis situation. do the training and if it comes down to it, you wont have to think to do the right thing.

Deng, you're just trying to argue. I'll ignore your post. You have no clue what you're talking about concerning this. If you did, you wouldn't be pushing like a pencil necked lawyer.

I hear ya and definitely good advice... I've known how to handle guns from an early age, my dad has always owned firearms. But personally owning a gun and using it in self dense are new to me. Fortunately an old childhood friend is a police officer in the same area as me so he's been showing me the ropes on self defense as it pertains to gun use. Still have a long way to go, but I'm looking forward to working with him and a couple of the swat guys when they show me how to use a shotgun in hallways/tight quarters.

Mike you're trying to come off here like you're an expert in these matters and everyone else here is a dumb ass.

It's foolish to take that stand when you have no clue about the background or training of the people you're talking to.

I'm not putting all my business on the internet, but trust me when I say you're barking up the wrong tree.

No need to be angry, I'm not.