Posted on 12/03/2007 1:52:49 PM PST by YCTHouston
You may have one at home right now: a gun.
Would you use it to stop someone who’s stealing from you or from your neighbor?
It’s what happened earlier this month in Pasadena, but using deadly force can have repercussions that could cost you far more than whatever it was the thieves were after.
(Excerpt) Read more at khou.com ...
Interesting quote: “There’s an attorney attached to every bullet you fire,” lawyer Tom Nixon said.
Website with free advice for CCL holders: Concealed Carry Legal Services
I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
The only problems occur when someone thinks they can shoot someone fleeing away in the back. Just remember imminent danger and all is fine.
I don't have ESP, so I don't know if the "thieves" are there to rob me or kill me.
So, I'll err on the side of BLOWING THEIR FREAKING A$$ES AWAY!
(btw, I *can* predict sports scores. I have ESPN)
What if the thieves want to rape your daughter?
Lets say the neighbor did not ask that, once the two criminals started to approach the old guy on his property, he was within his right to shoot him by Texas law.
Bottom line, two thieves are dead (I believe they were illegals).
The race baiters tried to make this a race issue because the two criminals happened to be black and the shooter was an older white guy.
The issue isn’t race, it is “that crime doesn’t pay”, especially under Texas law.
If you want to blame someone, blame the criminals themselves or the parents who failed to raise them with respect for others and their property.
I like that ratio.
Exactly, I’ll take my chances.
LOL!
Ditto. I'd let 'em steal my Beemer before I shot 'em. My legal defense fees would likely cost me ten Beemers.
The moral to the story is don’t talk about it. Just do what you’ve gotta do.
The new law, which takes affect on September 1, extends an exception to a statute that required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception was in the case of an intruder unlawfully entering a person's home.The law extends a person's right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force, the governor's office said.
The reasonable use of lethal force will be allowed if an intruder is:
Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes
Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place
Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.
The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker in such situations.
One thought : Do I need to shoot?
Second thought: Aim I aiming correctly?
BLAM!!
Ok the title is fair enough.
The race pimps went down to Pasadena for their regular dog & pony, and basically got chased out of the neighborhood by about 500 supporters of the right to self-defense.
funny
There are laws that govern when and if a police officer can shoot a fleeing criminal in the back. If all of the following four conditions are met -
the criminal is a violent felon
the criminal is likely to be a danger to the general community
the criminal is definitely trying to escape (running, as opposed to walking away slowly)
the officer has exhausted other reasonable means of apprehending the criminal (chasing and tackling him, for example)
- then it is considered acceptable for the officer to shoot the fleeing criminal in the back. However, ordinary citizens are usually not given the same allowance.
But, with the thing about a lawyer for every bullet fired - there’s a lawyer for every bullet the cops fire as well, not to mention lots of paperwork.
I prefer that quote rather than the "lawyer" quote.
My CHL instructor reminded me of that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.