Joe Horn

Kevin · #1 12-05-2007, 07:36 PM

If he had shot a cop or someone innocent, he would have been criminally liable. Gun owners are generally pretty careful about these sorts of things.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with the law. Perhaps if word gets out about this statute, it'll be a deterrent?

The profession of burglar is now more hazardous. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

DaemonSeid · #2 12-05-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

If he had shot a cop or someone innocent, he would have been criminally liable. Gun owners are generally pretty careful about these sorts of things.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with the law. Perhaps if word gets out about this statute, it'll be a deterrent?

The profession of burglar is now more hazardous. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

hey....now there is a question.....was his firearm registered?

Does a shotgun in Texas have to be registered?

Kevin · #3 12-05-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

hey....now there is a question.....was his firearm registered?

Does a shotgun in Texas have to be registered?

I have no idea.

macallan25 · #4 12-05-2007, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

hey....now there is a question.....was his firearm registered?

Does a shotgun in Texas have to be registered?

You have to have a permit in Texas to carry a handgun. That's about it.

Rifles and Shotguns don't have to be registered and you don't have to have a permit or license.

Personally, I don't think he broke the law either. Also, how are many of you stating that he was in no danger, didn't feel threatened, etc. Were you all there? Do you know the guy?

nittanyalum · #5 12-05-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Rifles and Shotguns don't have to be registered and you don't have to have a permit or license.

Well Texas does clearly warn everyone not to mess with it... guess that's proving to be sound advice.

DaemonSeid · #6 12-06-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Personally, I don't think he broke the law either. Also, how are many of you stating that he was in no danger, didn't feel threatened, etc. Were you all there? Do you know the guy?

Macallan, I would be one...listen to the 911 call, he clearly was in no danger as long as he stayed in the house, he never made it sound as if the robbers were coming to his house, he never made it sound as if they threatened him, from the recording, as long as he stayed put and let the cops do their job, he was safe.

Kevin · #7 12-06-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Personally, I don't think he broke the law either. Also, how are many of you stating that he was in no danger, didn't feel threatened, etc. Were you all there? Do you know the guy?

More importantly, feeling "danger" and being "threatened" are not elements which are necessary to raise the defense.

Quote:

Macallan, I would be one...listen to the 911 call, he clearly was in no danger as long as he stayed in the house, he never made it sound as if the robbers were coming to his house, he never made it sound as if they threatened him, from the recording, as long as he stayed put and let the cops do their job, he was safe.

None of that stuff is necessary either. Texas doesn't have a duty to retreat, nor does it specify that you have to feel there's a danger of death or serious bodily harm, or papercuts, or that the defense can't be raised on days starting with a T. The statute is pretty clearly set up to allow homeowners to take care of situations which may potentially become dangerous, thus allowing the homeowner to avoid having to ever be in danger at all.

Weighing the equities here, I'm going to have to say that I'll place the security and safety of homeowners above burglars' lives every single time. You don't know that by calling the cops, if there had been the duty to retreat, etc., that there would have eventually been a hostage situation, or something dangerous like that. You just don't know.

In Texas, they prefer not to find out.

DaemonSeid · #8 12-06-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

More importantly, feeling "danger" and being "threatened" are not elements which are necessary to raise the defense.

None of that stuff is necessary either. Texas doesn't have a duty to retreat, nor does it specify that you have to feel there's a danger of death or serious bodily harm, or papercuts, or that the defense can't be raised on days starting with a T. The statute is pretty clearly set up to allow homeowners to take care of situations which may potentially become dangerous, thus allowing the homeowner to avoid having to ever be in danger at all.

Weighing the equities here, I'm going to have to say that I'll place the security and safety of homeowners above burglars' lives every single time. You don't know that by calling the cops, if there had been the duty to retreat, etc., that there would have eventually been a hostage situation, or something dangerous like that. You just don't know.

In Texas, they prefer not to find out.

As I always like to say...

"Don't go to Texas and raise a ruckus...you might not come back."

Drolefille · #9 12-05-2007, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

If he had shot a cop or someone innocent, he would have been criminally liable. Gun owners are generally pretty careful about these sorts of things.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with the law. Perhaps if word gets out about this statute, it'll be a deterrent?

The profession of burglar is now more hazardous. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

In general yes, but this guy was going to go out there and shoot someone, I'm not convinced he wouldn't have slipped up. But that's hypothetical.

I think everyone knows that in Texas they can shoot you fairly easily. I doubt that it deters much of anything as these guys were targeting a house that was empty.

I have a big problem with letting any gun-holder be the distributor of justice. His life wasn't in danger until he stepped out the door (and doubtful even then). Something he did knowing exactly what was going on outside. Police were on the way, he had the advice of an expert in these matters not to go out because it could be dangerous. I don't see this as self-defense. And I think there's a big difference between vigilantism and justice. Justice wasn't served here. Yeah, getting shot is an "occupational hazard" of being a burglar, but it would have been far better for these guys to have been caught by the authorities, and tried for their crimes because that's the way it is supposed to work and even criminals should have civil rights.

PeppyGPhiB · #10 12-06-2007, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

If he had shot a cop or someone innocent, he would have been criminally liable. Gun owners are generally pretty careful about these sorts of things.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with the law. Perhaps if word gets out about this statute, it'll be a deterrent?

The profession of burglar is now more hazardous. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

OK, have any of you ever fired a SHOTGUN? I haven't either, but I've shot plenty of other guns (pistols and rifles) and learned enough about them to know that a shotgun is by no means a particularly accurate firearm. Honestly, if he cared about gun safety and being "careful" and accurate when he fired it, he wouldn't have used a shotgun. A homeowner that brings out a shotgun to confront some guys on his lawn is doing it to scare the crap out of them, not as a cautious response.

I think we all agree that it's unclear whether this guy broke the law (though the scale is weighing in his favor), but that even if he didn't break the law, that doesn't mean that what he did was right. And that the law is too generous regarding when it is OK to go after someone with deadly force.

Kevlar281 · #11 12-06-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

OK, have any of you ever fired a SHOTGUN? I haven't either, but I've shot plenty of other guns (pistols and rifles) and learned enough about them to know that a shotgun is by no means a particularly accurate firearm. Honestly, if he cared about gun safety and being "careful" and accurate when he fired it, he wouldn't have used a shotgun. A homeowner that brings out a shotgun to confront some guys on his lawn is doing it to scare the crap out of them, not as a cautious response.

A shotgun’s accuracy varies depending on the ammunition that is being used. They are the perfect firearm for home defense. It’s dam near impossible to miss when firing in close quarters and you don’t have to worry about collateral damage. It was probably the safest firearm he could have used in this situation. If he had used a handgun and missed, then this very well could have turned into a tragedy when the bullet traversed into a neighboring house with the potential to impact an innocent resident.