This guy deserves a medal! Instead, he's taken into custody and may face charges. The way I see it, he made sure that at least two of them won't be doing it again.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw....cff11f3f.html
Printable View
This guy deserves a medal! Instead, he's taken into custody and may face charges. The way I see it, he made sure that at least two of them won't be doing it again.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw....cff11f3f.html
I say give him a medal too, although I don't condone what he did for obvious legal reasons. But I may have done the same thing :D
I saw this story on the news this morning. They said no charges were being filed against the homeowner (as it should be!).
Well... the Castle Doctrine should take effect the start of September and should simplify these sorts of things greatly.
I have an acquaintance who did hard time because he chased and killed two guys who tried to break into his home. As one police officer told me, "If ya kill em, drag em back into your house."
Even the Castle won't let you go down the street to defend your home.
I look at it this way, if your ballsy enough to come into my home with a gun and try to rob or kill me and I shoot you and don't know if you are injured seriously or not but you are still getting away to either sue me at a later date or come back more pissed and try to kill me again.....I'm chasing you down the street too till one is in your skull.
I agree that the guy ought to get a medal. It's just a shame he only managed to kill one of them.
+1!Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Blaze
Cliff Notes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave04
[/Opinion Mode ON]Quote:
Originally Posted by black roadster
This is just the Political Scientist in me coming out, but you should never ask for the Cliff Notes versions of proposed legislation. You never know what those bastards will try to sneak past you.
Just take a couple of minutes to try to wade your way through the legal-ese...
[/Opinion Mode OFF]
Kind of the same thing but a different State.
Two illegal aliens, Raphael Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old, Patricia Harrington, after her father had left their two story home. It seems the two crooks were not aware of two things.
First, they were in Montana. And second, Patricia had been a clay pigeon shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor, only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he taken from another home invasion robbery, where the victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest.
Sweet!!!......Dumb Bastards!!!
Both stories had good results.
Comes from the idea that a man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend it. Several states have passed legislation to that end recently, and that just shows you how screwed up we've gotten. I don't need a law to tell me that, but there are those who would argue. The castle law is supposed to clear up any questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by black roadster
3bean is right in suggesting you read the whole thing because they could write a piece that says the most recently convicted child molestor will become the king of Texas and everyone has to spend two weeks a year guarding his castle.
Unfortunately that one isn't true though ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by general default
The guy still has to get past the grand jury...
They may file charges since he was shooting as they left his house. You never know how those things go when that part is figured into the equation.
The way I see it is the constitution says we can have guns anywhere, the only reason we dont is because we have LET the government take away something that was never given by them or any man, but by God and enforced by the constitution. So really we should focus on getting our true rights back then we won't have to be scared of our government for protecting ourselves anywhere JMHO
If we were a true "Constitutional Republic", this guy would be getting an award or a job in law enforcement....lol
I love Snopes!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMonkey
:scratch:Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Blaze
When did God say "you may have guns anywhere"? I'm no biblical scholar, but I don't recall guns mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
Our rights
:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Darron65
In Genesis, it's right after the baseball reference... "In the Big Inning..." :DQuote:
Originally Posted by altiain
And the first car mentioned in the Bible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Treibenschnell
God drove them out of the garden in His Fury.
And apparently G-d's name is Art...
"Our Father, who is Art, in Heaven..."
ok, I guess I will answer this...
"One thing" sets our document (The Constitution) apart from other government documents in other countries, that is that our document is written to say that our rights are given by God therfore can not be taken away by man.
In other countries your rights are granted by man so are subject to change by man.
The constitution doesn't say that God says that we can carry guns everywhere but does say that we have the "Right" to keep and bear arms without exception to when where or who we ALL do.
The main reason behind this line of thinking is those very smart men knew that we would have to defend our rights. rights to property, etc.
also that if a government tried too much to control the people who they "serve" we would have the means to protect ourselves from them.
They didn't want another tyrant or tyranical government.
Hope this helps. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Blaze
So let me get this straight, a man says that your rights are given by God and cannot be taken away by man. :wink:
Actually, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Blaze
Contrary to what some people would have you believe, that's not exactly a blanket authorization to carry weapons wherever and whenever you choose. Besides, there are exceptions - for example, you can't carry weapons in certain places, such as schools. Nor can convicted felons legally possess weapons. There are exceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by some old document
There are also gross misinterpretations. But that's politics, so we'll leave that discussion for another board.
I wrote and editted this three times. Fear of Thor's Hammer dictates that I remember this is not the place to debate political opinions.
Yep... I'm surprised that all of the political and religious talk in this thread have not gotten it locked by now. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by onething
thanks TC for letting this conversation happen.
I will step away from the political soapbox.
Is it OK as long as you use the [opinion] blah blah [/opinion] tag like Bean did in another thread? J/KQuote:
Originally Posted by Titus
Thanks TC ;)
Speaking of this... I need to go to a gun show and expand my arsenal a bit :D
Alright, my 2 cents... (about what my opinion is worth anyway ;) )
They broke into his home and stuck a gun in his face. They got what they deserved.
BUT...
I would be surprised if he doesn't get arrested. At the very least, I suspect he will get sued. I don't agree with it, but it stands a good chance of happening. And here's why (the following is my understanding of Texas law and should not be referenced or relied upon by anyone; living, dead, imagined or otherwise :rolleyes: ). TX law lets you off the hook for using deadly force if your life, or the life of someone else is in immediate danger and, as such, a reasonable person in a similar situation would fear for their life. They had already left the house. They were, in effect, retreating (this is the exact word the "poor victim's" lawyer will use in court, proving that you are a callous, cold blooded killer who shot someone as they realized the error of their ways and were undoubtedly speeding off to church to get right with the Lord 'cause he'd alwys been a good boy who wanted to grow up to be a doctor so he could help little children blah blah blah...). Legally, this guy is ::BaHump::. Maybe the law won't prosecute him, but if the victim's families go after him in civil court, he's boned. Right or wrong (wrong, IMO), that's the way the law is set up. Pretty much no matter what they do to you, if they are 'retreating' and the 'life threatening danger' is over, you can't legally shoot. Once again the law trumps common sense :confused:
Grrrrrrrrrrrr! ::Censor::
Don't forget... the fella that came out running was also involved with the drug trade. So it wasn't necessarily a good guy shooting at a bad guy. It was more like a bad guy getting shot at by another bad guy... possibly hurting bystanders. It was a drug house that was being robbed by other druggies...
Yeah, I left off the part of reckless endangerment by shooting at a car that's driving away. But I know the average attention span of this board. In fact... Ohhhh, a puppy! What a cute puppy!! Puppy, puppy, puppy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Treibenschnell
:D
Wait, where was I?
Oh, right...
Is there more info on this story? The link says,"Small amounts" doesn't necessarily mean drug trade (although the robbers could have made off with his stash). It could mean he has a delinquent teenager or something similar. Had it been a real amount, the headline would have read "Police Make Major Drug Bust After Shootout. Promotions For All."Quote:
Police found small amounts of marijuana during their investigation, and were looking into whether the events were drug-related.
Not arguing your point (heck, I'm all for letting the bad guys shoot each other ;) ), but wondered if you had more info on the story.
Or just use the money to pay for an AX race.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMonkey
I can't buy a decent gun for $25.. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jrj512
We do... but sometimes the popo will ask us not to divulge certain info while they're working a case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey of Death
Too late!Quote:
Originally Posted by Treibenschnell
Bean spilled the beans.
All you had to do was watch the story. Not exactly west Plano - not even an upper-middle class neighborhood. Wait, is that a new Escalade and a Benz in the drive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Treibenschnell
According to the coverage I saw, "the robbers knew there was a large quantity of cash in the house." And the victim came out of the house shooting at the robbers with an "AK-47 type assault rifle."
Doesn't exactly smell like the poor innocent victim to me...
What? Doesn't every American household have an AK-47 or two laying around?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraiginTX
Exactly...