You are correct.
But had he not fired his gun, and had they been in California, things might have been different.
Might I suggest watching the movie "Felon". While it is a movie, I think it accurately portrays all that is wrong about CA.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Self Defense stories
- Thread starter feddoc
- Start date
You are correct.
But had he not fired his gun, and had they been in California, things might have been different.
Might I suggest watching the movie "Felon". While it is a movie, I think it accurately portrays all that is wrong about CA.
What's that? That everyone wants a hand-out and expects someone else to take care of them if they can't hack it themselves.......? Which in turn has bankrupted the state....?
Uh-oh
Anyone else notice the names... Heath Miller shot Tomlin
The criminal even looks like Mike Tomlin
And all of them are Stealers
Add to that, Mike Tomlin looks like Omar Epps
Who in the movie In Too Deep failed to shoot someone, just like Tomlin did, and in House is often asked to steal stuff
The criminal even looks like Mike Tomlin
And all of them are Stealers
Add to that, Mike Tomlin looks like Omar Epps
Who in the movie In Too Deep failed to shoot someone, just like Tomlin did, and in House is often asked to steal stuff
Exactly. The first time I ever stood guard duty my Sgt of the Guard gave me some great advice I've never forgotten. He said "If your fire your weapon tonight there had BETTER be a dead body on the ground when I get here. I don't want but one person answering questions when it's over".
Florida has a "stand your ground law" that relates to self-defense. Please note, it is not a "gun specific" law.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/florida-self-defense-law.htm
Even if the perpetrator did not have a gun, the homeowner's actions would have still been justified.
We discussed this subject in another thread. Regardless of the law in your state, or more importantly your understanding of the law, because you may be very wrong, (Remember we have to hire lawyers for a reason, I don't think any of you are.) you need to think through your response to an unarmed individual very very carefully. If breaking into your home without a weapon to steal your TV was meant to be a capitol crime the law would allow the prosecutor to ask for the death penalty with the arrest of every juvenile and junkie that broke a window or pried open a back door. Breaking into a house without any threat to the occupants should not be a death sentence at the hands of the state or a home owner. If you are thinking you will just blow away the first guy that you find in you home then be prepared for the possibility it will be your neighbor, who came to check on you, your other drunk neighbor coming home to the wrong house, or your son sneaking in because he was out too late. So you say, "I wouldn't just shoot blindly. I would calmly and deliberately respond with clear mind and vision. I'd I.D. my target and would never shoot the neighbor." O.K. So you have responded like a seasoned cop with months of training and years of clearing buildings and responding to burglary calls. Sure enough, after being very deliberate and careful you find you have a gun on a person unknown to you. There he stands, 16 feet from you, just staring at you, no weapon. So execute him, becasue that is what it will be. You guys say you can shoot him. Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know other states' law so well. But are you going to execute the guy right there in your kitchen? It really should not matter what the law is. If the guy is not a threat but simply in your house, tell him not to move and call the police. If he runs and you feel like a work out you can chase him. But as you tear out of the back door in your flip flops better recall what laws apply to your situation now. If he comes at you, you can presume he wants your weapon and will hurt you. There is your chance, blast away. Now you are a hero. I would encourage you guys to think through your options more carefully. Talk to a cop, better still a lawyer. For a real hoot, talk to someone that has had to kill someone in a situation like that. Then, if you still think the preferred response to an unarmed compliant trespasser in your home is the death penalty, talk to your priest or pastor. End of lecture, go back to your Soldier of Fortune.
Rodger that, wink.
I think in this case it was pretty cut-and-dried. That is, it was the middle of the night, the perp broke into the house, and was dressed in all black and was wearing a mask.
The event is enough to scare the crap out of anyone, even seasoned LEO's.
I think in this case it was pretty cut-and-dried. That is, it was the middle of the night, the perp broke into the house, and was dressed in all black and was wearing a mask.
The event is enough to scare the crap out of anyone, even seasoned LEO's.
AND HE HAD A GUN AND SHOT AT THE HOMEOWNER! You are correct, this case seems pretty straight forward. But again you highlighted all the wrong things. That it was night and the guy broke in dressed in black with a mask is nowhere near as scary as seeing he was a gun pointed at you and
SH!T, he is shooting at you!!! It is the threat. It is the threat. In most law enforcement training now even targets on a range are referred to as "the threat". They are not suspects, persons, targets or silhouetes. This guy was clearly a threat. Not every suspect is a threat. Not every person you catch in your home is a threat.
Far too many people bluster and think that they can look tough by saying "yeah, I'd blow his ass away." And you wonder why liberals are scared of the Castle Doctrine?
If you want to keep the rights we have, or expand them, act and speak like a rational adult, and not the stupid backwoods hick the other side caricatures gun owners as. Make people realize by your humility and restraint, in speech and action, that the common man can be trusted with deadly weapons. Those who have seen the beast rarely talk about it. Those who bluster and boast about "what they'd do" and OD on "tacti-cool" crap usually don't have a leg to stand on.
If you want to keep the rights we have, or expand them, act and speak like a rational adult, and not the stupid backwoods hick the other side caricatures gun owners as. Make people realize by your humility and restraint, in speech and action, that the common man can be trusted with deadly weapons. Those who have seen the beast rarely talk about it. Those who bluster and boast about "what they'd do" and OD on "tacti-cool" crap usually don't have a leg to stand on.
+ 100 ponies (Hey, Obama has been handing them out all over the country, why can't I?)
Can I at least punch the guy in the nose before he drops my TV or do I need to give him a chance to free up his hands so it will be a fair fight?
Guys I agree that a man shouldn't die if I drive up and find him leaving my property with my TV in his hands. But there is a huge difference in stealing my TV while I'm at work and breaking into my house in the middle of the night when my family and I are asleep inside. There is at the very least an implied threat to your life in a home invasion.
You never know what you will do until the shit really hits the fan but my intent is to assume the guy who just broke into my house at 0300 is a threat until he proves otherwise. That doesn't mean blazing away at shadows or even chasing him down the road if he runs. It means understanding the law and acting within the law.
That said, if I make an error or if a jury disagrees with my actions so be it. I will not bury a loved one because I was afraid to be wrong.
I agree 100%. But the problem comes when you hear stories like the guy in Texas who saw robbers enter his neighbor's house, called 911, put the phone down, walked over and capped them both. His neighbor was away, his life was not in danger, and he was damn lucky to get acquitted of murder. Some already think that people who keep a loaded weapon for home defense are paranoid or mentally unstable. Do you think that guy helped those of us who want to keep our right to bear arms? "Buddy" is indeed half a word.
My point was just that, like you said, real life doesn't have any do-overs. I'm not as much referring to the people who are willing to protect their families as I am those who seem to think that the Castle Doctrine means you can shoot first and ask questions later. Yes, you have the right to keep and bear arms, if you choose to do so. But with great power comes great responsibility. In the end, it's your life and your soul at stake when you pull the trigger. The dead guy doesn't have to deal with the consequences.
That is no problem, as long as you don't assume you have a shoot scenario until you find out otherwise. As to the law, my whole point was, be damned with the law. It may be legal to shoot an unarmed guy in your home in some states, but unless he is a deadly threat it is just wrong.
You should be afraid to be wrong! We are talking deadly force here. If you aren't afraid of being wrong then you will not strive to be right. How about just being right. As in your family isn't hurt and only the truly threatening burglar gets shot.
He might have been damn lucky in your eyes but he was within the (Texas') law...so he walked. The bold faced paragraph below covers what your reference above. IMO (and the Grand Jury's), par 9.43 2A covers his actions as a neighbor. I included the rest so you can see the difference in Texas' law and Texas residents mindset. People from other states generally don't have all the info when "they hear stories."
Just for the record, from the Texas Penal Code:
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 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; 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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.