XtremeSpeakFreely

Just keep reading, you will find I am always absolutely correct

Wont be that hard to defend in Texas. Its dark, you dont know if they are armed, and they obviously already have the intent of committing a felony, so why not another in harming you.

Its why no charges were filed and they referred it to a grand jury to investigate.

I'm not an expert in this arena, deng. and I'm not angry with you. I have some weapons experience and training, and that's it. There are many more that are way more experienced and trained than me. Like I said before I wish I would have kept my mouth shut. I agree with you on the basic premisis of the discussion, not sure how we got opposed.. but somehow it got diverted at the TX law thing.

it's just some opinions in this thread from obviously inexperienced individuals concerning weapons got me a little cooked.. and it was before you even commented.. you just happened to be the one that responded afterwards. we should not be at odds on this.

Some persons?

Which would those be?

I lean towards thunder thinking you can aim to wound.

No worry, we're all sharing opinions here and in listening to others we may change our own.

oh my! I think I'm having a Cerebrovascular accident

Thats just part of the acceptance.

You got that backwards. Deng would be feeding them dog.

That's for sure... damn "pencil necked lawyer" type.

Thieves deserve it. If you point a gun, shoot to kill. I agree with these statements.
However... imagine that you wake up in the middle of the night to see someone fiddling around your car. You take your gun, surprize the hooded thief and shoot him. He's dead on the spot. You go closer and see that you just shot your son. He was going on a date and wanted the car to impress the girl.
Of course he was wrong to try and steal your car. But education is sometimes defeated by peer pressure and in the end the punishment greatly outweighs the crime.

Yeah and what if Santa was entering your home and you shoot him, thinking he's a burglar?
Shit happens, but that doesn't make it the norm.
If there is enough light for you to accuratly aim and shoot the guy, then there's enough light for you to recognise the guy as your son too, I'd think.

Unless Santa has a new bike in the bag, I'm shooting him too.

So nice to come across a thread here with such unanimity.

I'm always glad when mike12 posts on guns. They ain't no joke. Work on that muscle memory Beefy. Hopefully it never comes in handy.

I would define a surprise attack as one where the attacker doesn't see you, ergo you're not in front of him. So how would you recognize your son?
Of course it's not the norm, but that's the kind of situation where you just can't be cautious enough. I'd rather have 100 cars stolen from me than loose someone close.

Jon thinks it's excessive because he's tired of being shot at.

Killing is the easy part, anyone can do that sheeit. Living with yourself after with sleepless nights is the hard part.

So, the thief has his right to life when the owner's life could the threatened? Is the owner supposed to confront the thief and ask him if he has a weapon, and if he doesn't, he's not allowed to shoot? People own firearms for personal protection when they feel - with good judgment - that their life is in danger.

How would you react if someone was in your house without your permission? I bet you'd grab the baseball bat under you bed and start swinging trying to hit the person at all - not just the knee cap - trying to be humane about disarming the person. Well, what happens if the guy has a gun and you broke his kneecap? He's going to be pissed, and your face is about to have some lead jewelry. Now he is defending himself. I don't remember where I heard it, but there was a case where the burglar got off with no jail time and no charges because someone didn't kill him on the spot, they just maimed him. The homeowner got jail time. Hence, "Dead men tell no tales."


Mike, I have to agree, that the homeowner in this situation will probably spend some time in jail. That's a travesty, in my eyes.

But also, you have to see that your analogy doesn't work here. Stealing a car is very different than stealing a rake. I would hope the court could see that shooting to protect your car is more acceptable than shooting to protect your garden rake. Car - upwards of $20,000, easy. Rake - $10? $20 for one with a rubber coated, ergonomic handle?

In Texas, you can kill anyone who is trying to steal your crap. If you don't like the law, change it. If you can't, there's simply nothing you can do.

Now that the legal problem is out of the picture, I have two thoughts:
1) I really like the discouragement these stories have on would-be thieves.
2) It's too bad someone had to die.

So you would never defend your property with force?

This is a straw man argument and does not apply here unless you really think the owner's life was threatened, which given the circumstances seems very unlikely. An armed man inside his own home having the sights on someone who is attempting to break into his vehicle parked in the driveway--unaware that he is being watched--does not constitute life threatening danger to the owner. He clearly has the upper hand and control of the situation because he has the precious element of surprise. The fact that he made a kill shot should also tell you that he had the time and state of mind to accurately aim his weapon at the culprit, or he is an extremely lucky person. Which one do you think is more likely to be the case?


This is a completely different situation than the OP, but I'll answer it anyway. If someone is in my house with a gun and all I have is a baseball bat, then there is nothing I can do because I'm no Jackie Chan and I realize that my life is more important than whatever the burglar can carry out the door. Only an idiot would fight an armed man when he himself is not armed. That's what insurance is for.

The issue here is whether or not deadly force was an appropriate response. In many states (I don't know about Texas, they are pretty backwards) the law states it is unacceptable to use deadly force unless your life is in imminent danger. It is a simple idea that you respond to a threat only to the degree that you are threatened so don't go and shoot someone to death if they are trying to break into your car--a nonlethal situation. It is clear that the owner's life wasn't placed in lethal danger by the car burglar and deadly force wasn't necessary. That is the issue.

You think insurance is going to cover the loss? Hell if it will, if you bought a 20K car you will be luckily to get enough to cover what you owe on it. And if its paid off, depending on how you cared for the car, you wont get enough to get a proper replacement.

Insurance is no excuse to let someone steal from you. I am sure theft is a contributor to the cost of insurance, so people are paying for that.

And still, you dont know the situation. Its dark. Cops have many times shot someone in the dark going into their pocket for their ID, and gotten off.

So that makes it ok for anyone else to do it? Two wrongs do not make a right.



If I had the upper hand, of course. If I had a baseball bat I'd come out swinging. But I wouldn't go for a headshot. It's much easier to hit the torso. If I had a gun, I'd think twice before using it, I'd look at the thief and see if he has one. Then I'd take cover, aim the gun at him and tell him to freeze cause I have a loaded gun pointed at him. If he moves, then I shoot.

I believe that's what police officers are trained to do and I think that's probably the best way to go unless you're a ninja or James Bond.

So you say you don't have the time/opportunity to see if it's your son, yet you would first see if he has a gun on him or not.

I'll opinionate on this thread one more time and give up:

The law regarding shooting someone outside our home, yet still on your property is governed by the "Castle Doctrine".. even in TX.

sure many of you feel you can shoot someone in TX (an make no mistake, when we say say shoot, we mean shoot to kill.. there is no such thing as "shoot to wound in the real world"; no matter how much hollywood has brainwashed you)... once you point that gun at someone and pull the trigger and hit them, it's intent to kill. I dare you to try and tell the story "oh , I was shooting to wound". no one will believe you.

even in Texas, if you shoot someone on your property for theft outside your home, you may be found innocent after it's all said and done after the court hearings. BUT, it will not be without a lengthy court proceeding. You can't just shoot them and have the cops show up and say "oh yeah, that's allowed in TX". it doesn't work that way. You get booked, taken to jail, questioned, and a court date. Particle makes it sound likes it's a clear and free right of all Texans. NOT in the real world. That's fantasy land of the gun fanatics.

Once you spend the night in jail, make bail, and get to court, a jury of your peers may find you justified; but it's gonna cost you.. and they are gonna look at all the evidence. It's a long drawn out expensive ordeal.

there are some general guidelines concerning the castle doctrine, I dont care what state you're in. They will affect how a jury votes:\


now all that being said, you really need to think before you just yank that trigger and think you will get off scott free just because you think it is allowed in your state.

I know too many gun adiccts who have not seen actual combat/situations that live the fantasy of gun play in their minds. and after a while, the fantasy becomes the way they think they know how it goes down. I wish I could put them in a real world gun battle to turn the light bulb on in their head. The public is so F*** up concerning many of these things. and luckily most of them, it will only be a fantasy or a nonreal event.

ok, off my soapbox.

No, I said that I would take the time to inspect the situation instead of going in guns blazing. If I shoot first, ask questions later I might regret it. If I say "freeze, I've got a loaded gun", first thing he'll say is "Dad, it's me!!".

Seriously, one would think it's common sense to make sure that you really want to shoot before pulling the trigger. Apparently not for some.