Self Defense stories

[wink]

Wink – this is not the response I was expecting. Your other posts were thoughtful and introspective. This one, on the other hand, is nothing but a bunch of weak jabs at Texans and the fact that our laws don’t agree with your idea of what is right. I would usually respond in kind but I will refrain…this time.

Was the guy right? Well, let me quote Chris Rock – “I'm not sayin’ he should have killed them…but I understand.”

I was born and raised here so while I obviously don’t speak for all Texans, I can speak about the mind set I referred to in my post above. As you know Texans are very proud. We are proud that a majority of us go the extra mile to be courteous and show respect to others. This respect extends to one’s property. If you choose to disrespect someone you had better expect some fallout from your actions. I firmly believe that the days when you would get whooped (I mean in a fight) for doing somebody wrong were far better. Today, you see all levels of disrespect toward you and your neighbor that go unchecked/unpunished because of the impending assault charge. Texas probably has the same assault charge as most states but we draw the line (literally) at our property line. Cross it and threaten me or my stuff and Texas law basically looks the other way. I was raised to respect others and I, in turn, expect the same. That is the mind set I speak of, sir.

As far as assuming what the intruder intends when he breaks into my house? Flip it around…what would you expect if you entered someone else’s house illegally, late at night, knowing they were probably home? A home cooked meal? I would expect to be confronted, most likely with violence to include a firearm. Why you ask? Because, that is what I was raised to expect. I posted the laws (in Texas) concerning this topic above. A recent case pushed the boundaries of this law and it was upheld. Like I said…I can’t speak for all Texans but it seems the Grand Jury has the same mind set you mock above. OBTW, if I saw my neighbor being robbed and the police didn’t respond quickly enough, you should expect me to do something about it. So don’t go to my neighbor’s house looking for that home cooked meal either.

I wasn't slamming Texans. I was slamming your intent to execute unarmed intruders on your property. Texans deserve the laws they have. I presume they are happy with them. I don't care. The point I am trying to make is that your shit ain't worth a life, regardless of what the law may allow. And dealing with killing someone that wasn't a threat to you is not worth the value of your stuff. The approach you and a couple others have espoused is very close to shoot first ask questions later. I don't care what the law says, that is a recipe for disaster. As to the comment by BEVO that you should not have to read the mind of the intruder, well, you don't. You react to his actions and the totality of the circumstances. You don't have to take the first shot, just perceive a threat. But for BEVO, it is too worrisome to explain how scared he was or what he saw or how the intruder was threatening. No, that is just too much to ask of BEVO. He would rather just shoot and kill the guy because he can't be bothered with an explaination. Think what you guys are saying. If you can't be bothered to observe a threat before shooting, and then articulate it to an investigator, or better still, a lawyer, then you will not make a very good combat aviator. You apparently are afraid you won't comprehend a threat under stress and I expect rules of engagement are just to burdensome for you as well. Let me be clear. Do everything in your power to defend your person and your family from harm. But if you intend to shoot some one over property, you are an arrogant dangerous fool, Texan or not.

 

[feddoc]

Understand completely. Lately I have had several co workers ask my advice on "what kind of gun to buy" for home defense. The first thing I tell them is to learn the law. The second thing I tell them is not to buy a gun if they aren't willing to train with it. Not just shoot it once and put it away but train with it. Otherwise I tell them to buy a baseball bat.

'Learn the law....'

I teach CCW in NV. I always begin each class with a word for word reading of NRS codes involving firearms in NV. The other thing I stress is that long before anyone picks up a gun in self defense they must decide what conditions will merit pulling the trigger. It is a life changing event not to be taken lightly.

 

[Bevo16]

Think what you guys are saying. If you can't be bothered to observe a threat before shooting, and then articulate it to an investigator, or better still, a lawyer, then you will not make a very good combat aviator. You apparently are afraid you won't comprehend a threat under stress and I expect rules of engagement are just to burdensome for you as well......

Careful, you are going to bust your ass on that one.

The "rules of engagement" are just a lot more clear in Texas than anywhere else, and we don't give a damn about "sea lawyers". No homeowner should have to question for one second how well prepared or evil the person robbing them is. The person who is thinking about doing a crime should be the one asking "is stealing this shit worth my life?" and not have any hope of hiding behind the courts after they do a crime. Texas makes it clear to those who intend to do crime that you do so at your own peril. That is the way it should be.

But if you intend to shoot some one over property, you are an arrogant dangerous fool, Texan or not.

I don't think that anyone here is talking about walking up and shooting an unarmed man in the face for walking off with a lawn gnome. If that is really anyone's argument, go ahead and say so, because it's not mine, or Boyd's. We are talking about shooting someone who has broken into your home or your property. Can we step off the slippery slope and back to reality? Thanks.

 

[wink]

I don't think that anyone here is talking about walking up and shooting an unarmed man in the face for walking off with a lawn gnome. If that is really anyone's argument, go ahead and say so, because it's not mine, or Boyd's. We are talking about shooting someone who has broken into your home or your property. Can we step off the slippery slope and back to reality? Thanks.

Then break it down for us. It is OK to steal your lawn gnome, the lawn mower you left out front, or the $4000 dirt bike you left in the driveway while you got the garden hose, without getting shot, but if the unarmed guy is standing in your house and hasn't stolen a thing, and he isn't threatening you, he eats lead? Would it matter to you if he had or had not broken a window to get in? What if your back door was left unlocked and he walked in? Does it matter if it is night or day? If it is night does it matter if your unarmed intruder came in while you where asleep or just at the computer responding to AW posts? When you confront this guy does it matter how far away he is from you? Will you shoot the guy 4 feet from you just like the guy 20 feet from you? Does it matter if the unarmed intruder comes into the screened in porch or the garage. Do both guys get shot? Who the hell is on the slippery slope here?Every single one of those questions IS reality. If you have not thought of them then you are not prepared to effectively deal with an intruder in your home as an armed homeowner. Here is your least slippery slope. Anyone, anywhere, home, street, night day, big, small, juvenile, or adult, they threaten you or your family with deadly force or server bodily harm you shoot their ass. I live by that. It suits me fine. Keeps me right with my maker, the police and the DA.

 

[FlyBoyd]

I wasn't slamming Texans. I was slamming your intent to execute unarmed intruders on your property. Texans deserve the laws they have. I presume they are happy with them. I don't care. The point I am trying to make is that your shit ain't worth a life, regardless of what the law may allow. And dealing with killing someone that wasn't a threat to you is not worth the value of your stuff. The approach you and a couple others have espoused is very close to shoot first ask questions later. I don't care what the law says, that is a recipe for disaster. As to the comment by BEVO that you should not have to read the mind of the intruder, well, you don't. You react to his actions and the totality of the circumstances. You don't have to take the first shot, just perceive a threat. But for BEVO, it is too worrisome to explain how scared he was or what he saw or how the intruder was threatening. No, that is just too much to ask of BEVO. He would rather just shoot and kill the guy because he can't be bothered with an explaination. Think what you guys are saying. If you can't be bothered to observe a threat before shooting, and then articulate it to an investigator, or better still, a lawyer, then you will not make a very good combat aviator. You apparently are afraid you won't comprehend a threat under stress and I expect rules of engagement are just to burdensome for you as well. Let me be clear. Do everything in your power to defend your person and your family from harm. But if you intend to shoot some one over property, you are an arrogant dangerous fool, Texan or not.

Arrogant? Yes
Dangerous? meh

Why do you insist on giving rights to the criminal? They are the ones breaking the law. You are suggesting that I/we confront the criminal and assess their intent? Their intent was established the instant they broke the law on my property (specifically B&E/burglary). I am not going to make my presence known with a vain threat only to lose what little tactical advantage I have. IMO, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 4. You are correct. It is very similar to shoot first and ask questions later, but not really. My first question would be "What are you doing here?" Answered truthfully, the answer would be "Robbing you/killing you and then raping and killing your wife/etc." So in essence, the intruder answered the first and only question when he entered my house/property without permission.

You say "execute." I say I use my weapon as intended. If you choose to brandish a weapon then you should intend to use it. In my case that would be as many center mass shots as I deem necessary to make sure the intruder no longer poses a threat (to me or my property). If you choose to just show up on the scene and make vain threats…good luck.

You speak as if my property is not worth defending. “But if you intend to shoot someone over property, you are an arrogant dangerous fool, Texan or not.” So when you see that guy carrying that TV out of your door or intending to steal the car in your garage what do you say to yourself? You know the property that you busted your ass to get and this dickhead is taking a short cut and an illegal one at that…that property. Just let him have it. You have insurance. You can get another. Why take the chance? I say because your mind set is one of the reasons the sense of entitlement has crept into the criminals rights when they are committing a crime. Everyone draws the line somewhere. You say arrogant and dangerous… I say it is my shit, not theirs. As Bevo stated earlier…break into someone’s house in Texas and you should expect a reaction from the resident. That is why we lend so much weight to the intruder has a plan for you because our laws are widely advertised and the criminals (for the most part) know our rules.

Your combat aviator analogy is laughable at best. I equate the situation we are debating to this…

You know this sign is there. You understand the words and their meaning. You choose to enter anyways. Some installations will shoot first. Those installations are in Texas and one of them is my house. Knowing that... would you choose to break in and take my shit? I think not.

 

[FlyBoyd]

Then break it down for us. It is OK to steal your lawn gnome, the lawn mower you left out front, or the $4000 dirt bike you left in the driveway while you got the garden hose, without getting shot, but if the unarmed guy is standing in your house and hasn't stolen a thing, and he isn't threatening you, he eats lead? Would it matter to you if he had or had not broken a window to get in? What if your back door was left unlocked and he walked in? Does it matter if it is night or day? If it is night does it matter if your unarmed intruder came in while you where asleep or just at the computer responding to AW posts? When you confront this guy does it matter how far away he is from you? Will you shoot the guy 4 feet from you just like the guy 20 feet from you? Does it matter if the unarmed intruder comes into the screened in porch or the garage. Do both guys get shot? Who the hell is on the slippery slope here?Every single one of those questions IS reality. If you have not thought of them then you are not prepared to effectively deal with an intruder in your home as an armed homeowner. Here is your least slippery slope. Anyone, anywhere, home, street, night day, big, small, juvenile, or adult, they threaten you or your family with deadly force or server bodily harm you shoot their ass. I live by that. It suits me fine. Keeps me right with my maker, the police and the DA.

You say break it down. We did. For the situation that started the debate...a night time break in. You are changing the situation to fit your arguement. If you would like to give another situation instead of a hodgepodge shotgun-like rant we would be happy to discuss our thoughts.

Is this your combat aviator response to a threat?

 

[wink]

Arrogant? Yes
Dangerous? meh

Why do you insist on giving rights to the criminal? They are the ones breaking the law. You are suggesting that I/we confront the criminal and assess their intent?

I am sorry I don't approve of killing criminals for simple burglary. I suppose you would support the death penalty for burglars arrested instead of shot by more benevolent homeowners then you. Run that up the flag pole. Start a petition in your community to make death the penalty for anyone convicted of burglary. See how may takers you have. Oh to hell with it. Since you think that not wanting to kill an unarmed burglar is giving criminals rights, then I suppose you would approve of shooting all criminals on the spot. Lets see. Citizens should be able to shoot a guy for writing a bad check, or leaving a gas pump without paying. You should also be able to follow someone that left the scene of a car accident and shoot them in their drive way. Have you considered that if the police responded to your 911 call and found an unarmed intruder in your home that did not pose a threat they could not shoot him? Why do you insist on a greater right to shoot then the police? In all this discussion you have forgotten that outside your home, UNDER TEXAS LAW, to protect yourself, you must be faced with a deadly threat or threat of serious bodily harm. So I guess you will not be able to lawfully defend yourself on the street because you are not capable or willing to determine the "intent" of the bad guy, is that it? Or is it only hard for you to determine if a guy is a threat if he is in your home. Many hundreds of times a day law enforcement and armed citizens have no trouble determining whether a suspect is a threat worthy of meeting with deadly force. If you can't do that then you should not have a gun. You, sir, have a blood lust that is not desirable in an armed citizen.

 

[wink]

My rule is this, if the drug crazed criminal intent on doing physical harm to me or my family is inside of my dwelling and pointed anywhere but the exit, he is getting shot.

If he is on his way out with my TV, he'll get a pass and I'll call the cops


Timing is everything.

That would be my plan. Do you have an opinion on the scenario above?

 

[BigRed389]

I am sorry I don't approve of killing criminals for simple burglary. I suppose you would support the death penalty for burglars arrested instead of shot by more benevolent homeowners then you. Run that up the flag pole. Start a petition in your community to make death the penalty for anyone convicted of burglary. See how may takers you have. Oh to hell with it. Since you think that not wanting to kill an unarmed burglar is giving criminals rights, then I suppose you would approve of shooting all criminals on the spot. Lets see. Citizens should be able to shoot a guy for writing a bad check, or leaving a gas pump without paying. You should also be able to follow someone that left the scene of a car accident and shoot them in their drive way. Have you considered that if the police responded to your 911 call and found an unarmed intruder in your home that did not pose a threat they could not shoot him? Why do you insist on a greater right to shoot then the police? In all this discussion you have forgotten that outside your home, UNDER TEXAS LAW, to protect yourself, you must be faced with a deadly threat or threat of serious bodily harm. So I guess you will not be able to lawfully defend yourself on the street because you are not capable or willing to determine the "intent" of the bad guy, is that it? Or is it only hard for you to determine if a guy is a threat if he is in your home. Many hundreds of times a day law enforcement and armed citizens have no trouble determining whether a suspect is a threat worthy of meeting with deadly force. If you can't do that then you should not have a gun. You, sir, have a blood lust that is not desirable in an armed citizen.

I think his argument is that a home invasion scenario means other than the initial element of surprise, you have the cards stacked against you:
You have poor intel on the threat, no idea if they're armed, if they're looking to simply rob or conduct serious harm to you and others, etc.

Question: Under Texas law, do you hold what you've got and dial 911 for backup, or do you attempt to clear your house singlehandedly?

 

[Bevo16]

Question: Under Texas law, do you hold what you've got and dial 911 for backup, or do you attempt to clear your house singlehandedly?

Under Texas law, you can do whatever you feel is necessary to insure the safety of your family.

 

[wink]

Someone did us the favor of moving this thread since I have perpetuated a hellish thread jack. Sorry for that. Look for it in another firearms thread near you.

 

[nittany03]

You're welcome.

Truth be told, I personally have no heartburn with burglars getting shot. The home and family is the foundation of every civilized society known to man, and I find the violation of that sanctuary to be a more heinous crime than our justice system currently allots punishment for. I don't believe that a guy running away from you with your flatscreen TV deserves to be drilled in the back. But if someone breaks into another person's house and does not have his hands in the air begging for that homeowner's help, all bets are off. I'll spare you a long diatribe on Hobbesian and Lockean social contract theory.

That said, I am but one citizen of this Republic, and my fellow voters and the authorities we elected disagree. Thus, the laws in the majority of the nation aren't like Texas. Given that, people who claim they'll bust a cap in any ass that walks through their door are in grave violation of the law 49 out of 50 times. This needs to be brought up. We are a nation of LAWS, not vigilantes.

 

[picklesuit]

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/feb/18/authorities-golden-gate-homeowner-fires-gun-attemp/

Another woman defends her life/property...This should be bigger news...

 

[SkywardET]

I think you guys are being a little harsh on Texas perhaps. Think about it like a Texan, and you will see that their laws are pretty well suited for their environment. Illegal trespassing in Texas happens quite literally every waking second of every single day--it's called illegal immigration. While trespassing on ranches isn't particularly threatening to life and limb, imagine what the effect of generations of human wave after human wave can do to a regions' law-abiding and law-making citizenry. So why is Texas a stereotype for "Castle law run amuck?" It's the situation. Now what, exactly, do illegal immigrants do when they enter the country? They A) become day workers, B) enter illegally into low-income steady employment, C) enter illicit industries such as prostitution and narcotrafficking, or D) a precious few do other activities. They become part of the impoverished population, which does have some influence on the level of violent crime.

Now take your average home-grown Texan and you probably have someone who has uncles, aunts, friends, dorm-mates and so forth who have all heard stories of illegals killing livestock as they cross through ranches or destroying farm equipment to access water and so forth, and you have a recipe that incubates a certain amount of mistrust (or to use another word, prejudice). Then, in the famous case of the guy that called 911, you have his paranoid fantasy play out right in front of his eyes. In the media I would imagine there is innumerable reiteration of the same story (the classic "shooting at a local 7-Eleven" local news story but with a Texan twist).

If and when I ever do get a home and settle down, I fully intend to learn the law and use it to my every advantage. If I were in Texas, I probably would not have the guts to go out and shoot someone in my neighbor's property if they are only stealing stuff. I would, however, when the time comes, greatly appreciate knowing that the law has my back and that I would not need to put myself in any greater danger when confronting a home invader by verifying if he is armed or not.

 

[Spekkio]

In a nighttime break in...in the dark...how are you supposed to accurately assess whether or not the criminal intends to harm you before it's too late? Even in the article linked in the OP, it sounds like the criminal fired first, which means the homeowner was just extremely lucky that he missed.

I say the law should allow homeowners to err on the side of caution, which is to assume that the burglar will cause harm until proven otherwise. Burglars will know this risk before they enter a home, so if it's a risk they want to take then let them.

The other solution is to buy pepper spray or some other non-lethal self-defense.