Lethal force question

[speed007]

I'd recommend a garage and/or property and causulty insurance.

I think it would be a lot cheaper in the long run, not to mention it is good odds that you won't figure out you've been robbed till the next day.

Unfortunately for me, I am not made of money and cant afford a garage or extra insurance; especially with the price of ammo these days . I do see your point though about trying to do whatever is possible to prevent the theft in the first place. Due to my limited financial resources, the only things I have available to prevent another car theft is a car alarm and my trusty Glock.

 

[speed007]

How are they going to burn him in court? For deciding that he is going to legally defend his property with deadly force? I don't think this comment is as condemning as people make it out to be.

The same logic can be applied to anyone that carries a gun. That you are simply looking for a chance to kill someone. That's how anti's think, and that's the angle the prosecution is always going to come out with. Joe Horn even said on the phone that he was going to go stop them, he confronted them, and tried the case. There was every reason to condemn him for his comments, but he was no-billed. Why? Because it was found to be legal.

There's alot more physical evidence to someone breaking into your vehicle than there was in the Joe Horn case, and he had every chance to avoid the confrontation.

I'm not advocating people running out guns blazing and picking fights with every thief out there, because frankly, it's not worth the risk in my opinion, but I also think alot is being read off the face value.

I was thinking the same thing. Who here hasn't told someone before that if a bad guy where to break into your house you would put him down? If some low life does break into your house and you do put him down (which is legal) why would a jury punish you for it because you told someone (on the internet or in live conversation) about how you would react before it happened?

 

[Big country]

How are they going to burn him in court? For deciding that he is going to legally defend his property with deadly force? I don't think this comment is as condemning as people make it out to be.

The same logic can be applied to anyone that carries a gun. That you are simply looking for a chance to kill someone. That's how anti's think, and that's the angle the prosecution is always going to come out with. Joe Horn even said on the phone that he was going to go stop them, he confronted them, and tried the case. There was every reason to condemn him for his comments, but he was no-billed. Why? Because it was found to be legal.

There's alot more physical evidence to someone breaking into your vehicle than there was in the Joe Horn case, and he had every chance to avoid the confrontation.

I'm not advocating people running out guns blazing and picking fights with every thief out there, because frankly, it's not worth the risk in my opinion, but I also think alot is being read off the face value.

Because that is what they do. It has been proven time and again.

I was thinking the same thing. Who here hasn't told someone before that if a bad guy where to break into your house you would put him down? If some low life does break into your house and you do put him down (which is legal) why would a jury punish you for it because you told someone (on the internet or in live conversation) about how you would react before it happened?

"House" is the key word. I'm not saying that I would let someone walk off......or drive off in this case, with my car or my belongings. Because I wouldn't. I'm just saying put some extra thought into what you say, because "It can and will be used AGAINST YOU in a court of law". That is all I'm saying. I have walked out of my house at night to the sound much like that of a car door being messed with in my drive way. I Also hope to god that I never have to use my gun. But like I said "they will not drive away in a car that is not paid for" Now at this point if they want my Nissan they can have the damn thing.

 

[Texas1911]

Because that is what they do. It has been proven time and again.

Sure, but in the state of Texas, with our current laws on the books? I'd like to see a case that proves me wrong. I'd honestly like to know where the law sits on this.

As the laws are written, how can you apply premeditation to the issue of legal self-defense? The only way I can see this being applied is if you used some sort of bait technique to lure criminals so that you could kill them. Something like leaving a briefcase full of money on the hood of your car and waiting in the shadows to blow away anyone that took any of it.

I believe the Joe Horn case clearly shows the extent of the law. He could have easily prevented the shootings by remaining inside, but he instead went outside and confronted the two thieves. They supposedly cut towards him, and he then fired upon them. It fell within self-defense, but the prosecution had every reason to say he could have avoided it. The castle doctrine was upheld in that case, and could be applied to any subsequent case.

Hoji sent me a PM about a guy that was involved in a shooting downtown of a guy trying to break into the guy's car. Supposedly he confronted him at gun point and ordered him to the floor. The guy fled, and the CHL holder chased him several blocks before the perp supposedly turned on him, where the CHL holder fired and killed the guy. The CHL holder was ultimately charged with First Degree Murder. From the surface it appears to be because he chased him, but Hoji says there is more to the story than what the papers published (surprise, surprise). I'm interested to get the full picture.

 

[speed007]

Hoji sent me a PM about a guy that was involved in a shooting downtown of a guy trying to break into the guy's car. Supposedly he confronted him at gun point and ordered him to the floor. The guy fled, and the CHL holder chased him several blocks before the perp supposedly turned on him, where the CHL holder fired and killed the guy. The CHL holder was ultimately charged with First Degree Murder. From the surface it appears to be because he chased him, but Hoji says there is more to the story than what the papers published (surprise, surprise). I'm interested to get the full picture.

I can see why they might charge the CHL holder in the story with murder. If the bad guy is running away from you, key word running away, and you chase him with a gun, its hard to convince anyone you were "defending" yourself when you are doing the chasing.

 

[Texas42]

This may be an aside, but it really bothers me how they can charge someone with "1st degree murder" when there was obviously no premeditation. I've had a prosecutor tell me that premeditation can happen in a second.

I just think that is BS.

I don't think it is the best idea to go chasing a bad guy, but I don't think it should be illegal either.

 

[Acetone]

Simple solution...shoot him before he runs away.