Can you believe this?

[Mas Judt]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,417122,00.html




Investigators say the couple were just defending their family and probably won't be charged.


Probably won't be charged??!!?? I'm waiting for the lefties to explain to me how defending themselves against the home invader was the wrong thing to do and this poor family needs to be prosecuted...

[The Willow Sword]

where are you getting that logic from Mas? Certainly not from FOX news which is right wing propaganda at its best. Texas Law regarding home invasion is pretty clear,although you CAN be charged with Manslaughter given certain circumstances. This attack spilled out onto the front lawn and it creates a gray area where they could be charged with something. But as the article stated, "they probably WONT be charged".

I am a bit to the left when it comes to the world but i certainly recognize when you have to defend your life against an intruder in your home. I dont think ANYONE, be they Left or Right in their political thinking are going to fault this family for protecting their lives. You forget Mas judt this is TEXAS and wether you are a staunch conservative or Yella dog democrat or green party, most of us have home protection in this state and we all recognize and acknowledge our 2nd amendment right to have home protection and utilize it. Had these intruders been killed in side the home there would not be any issue.

Peace,TWS

[Vash]

Good on them.

I've heard rumors there is a legal defense fund for homeowners charged with murder, assault, etc, who incurred the charges in self defense against burglars, rapists, and the like. Is that true, or was there smoke being blown up my ass?

[Mas Judt]

Willow,
I don't know what world you live in, (oh, yeah Texas) - it IS different in Texas. For the rest of the world, disarming the public and removing the right to prootect yourself has been a clarion call of the left. Always the left. Look at Briton, where it got so extreme they made it illegal to protect yourself in your own home...

I'd suggest getting a copy of 1984 and Brave New World and Animal Farm - all good books about socialist victory - written by socialists. Really scary stuff.

[Water Dragon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,417122,00.html


Probably won't be charged??!!?? I'm waiting for the lefties to explain to me how defending themselves against the home invader was the wrong thing to do and this poor family needs to be prosecuted...

I think this "Lefty" can answer that. I've been in Texas for 3 1/2 years now, and this happens all the time down here. In every case, the article says the homeowner, 'probably wont be charged.'

"Probably wont be charged" is about the equivilant of "Happily Ever After" down here.

Sorry to kill your argument, but that's what happens when you try to make a political slam where nothing warrants it.

Oh yeah, most of the "Lefties" in Texas support Castle Doctrine.

[Water Dragon]

Willow,
I don't know what world you live in, (oh, yeah Texas) - it IS different in Texas. For the rest of the world, disarming the public and removing the right to prootect yourself has been a clarion call of the left. Always the left. Look at Briton, where it got so

I don't think this argument holds much water either. Not anymore at least. I've noticed a definate political shift to the right in recent years. Liberals may still be liberals, but if you compare them to the liberals of the 1970's, they appear moderate.

The gun control argument is shifting to precisely that, control. I think the days of banning firearms are gone. Look at Obama's speech last week. Now, I've never agreed with Mr. Obama on the gun control issue. I've always leaned strongly to the right on that issue. But when he said, "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. ", I was pleased. The way he phrased that means he's accepted the recent support ruling on the 2nd. Remember this guy taught constitutional law for 9 years.

I know this is not going to put conservatives at ease over gun control. It doesn't put me at ease either. But I can recognize that it's a step toward compromise. This is more indicitive of where the political culture is today, and more importantly, where I see it heading tomorrow.

[Mr Punch]

Probably won't be charged??!!?? I'm waiting for the lefties to explain to me how defending themselves against the home invader was the wrong thing to do and this poor family needs to be prosecuted...What a stupid thing to say.


I think this "Lefty" can answer that...Good answer.


I don't think this argument holds much water either...Good follow up.

[Oso]

fwiw, in NC the law extends to your property line, not just the confines of your physical abode.

however, you still have to believe you are in danger of losing your life or serious bodily harm.

[Ben Gash]

Willow,
I Look at Briton, where it got so extreme they made it illegal to protect yourself in your own home...



It is not, and has never been, illegal to defend yourself in your own home in Britain. It's illegal to gun down an unarmed 16 year old without warning. You are absolutely fine defending yourself in Britain, as long as you stay within the realms of self defence. There's no castle rule here, that's the only difference.

[GLW]

Not sure where people get the leftie thing here.

There a plenty of us liberals and progressives who don't have a problem with guns for home protection.

I have a problem with people who own guns who don't know how to use them and who can't control their emotions and tempers.

Having worked in psych hospitals and with juvenile probation in the past, I also have a problem with crazies and felons having guns....

Fully automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds... never met a deer that wore kevlar...and it is true sportsmanship to open up on animals from helicopters or with automatic weapons... shows those creatures who is boss...

But I digress...

In Texas, whenever there is a shooting like this, there is always an investigation. In most cases of home invasion (such as this one), the result is that they "refer the case to a grand jury with no charges" which means the person who did the shooting is officially off the hook.

The law is pretty clear that if you are in fear for your life or for the lives of loved ones, you can shoot - now, it would be a 100% different story if the following happened :

The attacker is shot once with his own gun...and is down and no longer a threat....and the homeowner then walks up and shoots again...

In this case, it would be excessive force....since the threat was gone...

But, at the same time, many law enforcement people would tell you "just don't say he was down and couldnt move...say you thought he was going for another gun..."

I have even had law officers tell me that if we shot a burglar going out of the house, pull him back in and make it look like he was either coming in or was only turning because he was starteled...

They tend to be VERY much on the side of the homeowner here.

[Water Dragon]

I have even had law officers tell me that if we shot a burglar going out of the house, pull him back in and make it look like he was either coming in or was only turning because he was starteled...




No need to do that here in Texas. You're allowed to use deadly force to protect your property. Heck, we had a guy in Houston that shot two people in the back[i/] because they were trying to rob his [i]neighbors house and he got off the hook. Now, that bothers me not because of the circumstances in this case, but because of the precedent it sets. I think it's only a matter of time before we see people start shooting people and saying, "He was trying to rob my neighbor" to try and get off the hook. You gotta take the idiot factor into account if you're going to give that much leeway in castle doctrine.

[Mas Judt]

It is not, and has never been, illegal to defend yourself in your own home in Britain. It's illegal to gun down an unarmed 16 year old without warning. You are absolutely fine defending yourself in Britain, as long as you stay within the realms of self defence. There's no castle rule here, that's the only difference.

*ahem* Please your own newspaper from 2004:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html

Your foolish laws made big news over here due to the rise in home invasions as a result of home owners being prosecuted for defending their own homes.

[B-Rad]

I think gun ownership should require automatic safety and usage courses similar to getting a driver's licenses. I like the idea of background checks, but like some things I'm slightly worried about people ending up on "don't sell" lists due to political reasons, or even racial profiling. The Republicans have already damaged our rights enough with the Patriot Act and other measures put in place in the name of "safety". Also a little funny how far right Republicans are so concerned about our safety until it comes to giving violent criminals weapons :p

[Mas Judt]

It's funny how this conversation is playing out. Doesn't it bother anyone that we HAVE to have code words for 'have a nice day' rather than just use plain English? This is the double-plus good impact of a hundred years of dedicated 'progressive' politics.

[B-Rad]

What are you talking about? :confused:

[Ben Gash]

*ahem* Please your own newspaper from 2004:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html

Your foolish laws made big news over here due to the rise in home invasions as a result of home owners being prosecuted for defending their own homes.

That is an editorial opinion piece written by an american, with very few substantiated facts, not a native news article. What rise in home invasions and what cases? I can think of very few, and even the writer could only come up with one. The others deal with people being arrested, which is different entirely. As it says, we have the same laws in place regarding self defence as we had in 1967. That stupid "reasonable force" clause is what defines self defence. Does the author think it's OK to shoot someone who shoves you????

[Ben Gash]

In fact I just checked, burglary fell 59% between 1995 and 2007.

[GLW]

Actually, the law about the use of force changed to what you describe about a year or two ago.

It WAS the way I described it before...and that was when I had the officer's statement...

Houston...yep...that case finally got out of court. It was strange. The homeowner chose to confront the bad guys...and he was on the phone with 911 and said some rather incriminating things.

I am on the fence on that one.. . I have neighbors who would check out a prowler at my home ARMED were no one home...and with my thanks I might add. However, they would probably NOT kill the bad guy... They are good enough shots and have seen combat so they would most likely shoot to disable and let the cops deal with the rest...of course their disable means DISABLED

[Ben Gash]

On the firearms issue, gun crime in the UK last year was the lowest since 2000. Of all offences half were criminal damage with air rifles :rolleyes: Of the rest a quarter were threats with a replica. 59 people were killed by firearms in 2006-2007, that's one person in a million. I really don't think there's anything to sneer at there, and incidentally that figure has remained relatively static since the mid 70's, there has been no increase in gun related murders since either of the revisions of the gun laws as Mas Judt and the author imply.

[Water Dragon]

Actually, the law about the use of force changed to what you describe about a year or two ago.

It WAS the way I described it before...and that was when I had the officer's statement...

Houston...yep...that case finally got out of court. It was strange. The homeowner chose to confront the bad guys...and he was on the phone with 911 and said some rather incriminating things.

I am on the fence on that one.. . I have neighbors who would check out a prowler at my home ARMED were no one home...and with my thanks I might add. However, they would probably NOT kill the bad guy... They are good enough shots and have seen combat so they would most likely shoot to disable and let the cops deal with the rest...of course their disable means DISABLED

I'm more worried about when Jose gets ****ed off at Chuck cause he was messing around with Tameka. "Naw Officer, we didn't have no beef. I caught him trying to break in next door and shot him when he came at me." SOMEWHERE, there has to be a line. The question is, where is that line drawn?

[Xiao3 Meng4]

SOMEWHERE, there has to be a line. The question is, where is that line drawn?

In Florida, isn't it when someone looks at you funny?

Who needs "Castle Doctrine" when you can "Stand your ground!" :rolleyes:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1116246912951

Looks like the NRA approves, too. They see it as a "National Model."

[mkriii]

If somebody breaks into my home and I make it to my .9 mm i'm taking them out then asking questions later. If they arrest me then so be it but I'll make sure I have the best attorney around.

[Shaolinlueb]

in texas its legal to defend your hiome. plus in any court of law i think it would stand up. they pointed a gun at her threatening to kill her. they just got unlucky. good for her. homeowners need more power like this.

[Ben Gash]

Yeah, this is a clear cut case of self defence. There was an obvious and real threat to them and they reacted appropriately. No real grey here. They only said probably in the statement because it's tricky talking in absolutes about an evolving situation.

[NJM]

Another thread of


INTERNET OUTRAGE! SOMEBODY CALL THE CARE POLICE!

[GLW]

I am also worried about all the duma$$e$ out there who buy a gun for home protection and don't know jack about ammo and what happens.

Ok..so a guy has a handgun... he uses it at home and shoots at the guy in his house. The bullet hits the bad guy's heart...but goes through him, the wall, the neighbors wall, and hits their cat sleeping on the other side of the house on a bookshelf...or worse, a sleeping child.... all because the guy who owns the gun doesn't know about how far and through how much his bullet with the load he has chosen will go. muzzle velocity can be a muther

[Mr Punch]

That is an editorial opinion piece... with very few substantiated facts... What rise in home invasions and what cases? I can think of very few, and even the writer could only come up with one. The others deal with people being arrested, which is different entirely. As it says, we have the same laws in place regarding self defence as we had in 1967. That stupid "reasonable force" clause is what defines self defence. Does the author think it's OK to shoot someone who shoves you????


In fact I just checked, burglary fell 59% between 1995 and 2007.


On the firearms issue, gun crime in the UK last year was the lowest since 2000. Of all offences half were criminal damage with air rifles :rolleyes: Of the rest a quarter were threats with a replica. 59 people were killed by firearms in 2006-2007, that's one person in a million. I really don't think there's anything to sneer at there, and incidentally that figure has remained relatively static since the mid 70's, there has been no increase in gun related murders since either of the revisions of the gun laws as Mas Judt and the author imply.Mas Judt is now wearing women's panties.

BTW, the fact that the Telegraph is little more than a tabloid rag and reactionary to boot, and the elderly women who shot at the gang of youths surrounding her was using an .22 air gun and not a cap gun toy is beside the point (meaning one of the two 'real stories' this 'writer' mentioned was factually inaccurate). She had the right to defend herself too but without adequate knowledge of your weapon or even common sense she was lucky not to have been killed.