Bitterly cling to their guns

[cwalner]

No, beerina was using sarcasm to create a straw man mocking the supposed extremism of gun control advocates. You will notice, however, that despite his biting satire no one has come out with a single criticism of the homeowners. Everyone seems to agree that they were entirely within their rights in their actions.

That's because gun control laws would have had absolutely no effect on the outcome of this incident. They would have prevented the homeowners from legally owning a gun and there is nothing in the story indicated that the homeowners owned thier own guns. they successfully disarmed the intruders and used thier own guns against them.

 

[Minadin]

Let me see if I have the sequence of events correctly laid out:

Two idiots with firearms break into an occupied home in Texas of all states.
The intruder with the shotgun tried to fire it at the homeowners, but was unsuccessful because the safety was on.
The gun was wrestled away from him.
The now unarmed intruder, knowing that the gun wouldn't fire earlier, decides to charge the now armed homeowner.
Homeowner turns off the safety and shoots the perpetrator dead.

If that's all basicly correct, I've got to agree with the Darwin award nomination. Guns didn't kill people in this instance, stupidity did.

 

[ServiceSoon]

"(1) hiding the device; or
(2) activating the device by trip wires, switches, antidisturbance, or other remote means."

Neither of those criteria apply to razorwire.

Agreed! Give me some credit

...Everyone seems to agree that they were entirely within their rights in their actions.

You have to wait for Volatile and Architect...

 

[Bikewer]

Indeed, that would be my opinion as well. However, I'm sure that Beerina is correct in assuming that someone would put a similar spin on the incident.

In several exchanges on the Dawkins forum, I was told that I should only use my Taser against deadly-force attacks, as there was some chance that the individual might die....

 

[TX50]

The now unarmed intruder, knowing that the gun wouldn't fire earlier, decides to charge the now armed homeowner.
Homeowner turns off the safety and shoots the perpetrator dead.

Not quite (at least according to this report). The criminal had
seen his associate being shot dead while trying to drive away,
was himself then fired on once and then decided to rush the
homeowner firing the shotgun. It sort of makes sense in a "rush a
gun, run from a knife" sort of way.

 

[Minadin]

Indeed, that would be my opinion as well. However, I'm sure that Beerina is correct in assuming that someone would put a similar spin on the incident.

In several exchanges on the Dawkins forum, I was told that I should only use my Taser against deadly-force attacks, as there was some chance that the individual might die....

(bolding mine)

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea - giving uncontrollable muscle spasms to a man holding a firearm? Disregarding that tasers don't completely incapacitate people 100% of the time and you're putting the officers at unusual risk, it just seems like an awful strategy. The assailant's hands would clench up and he would likely pull the trigger at least once in doing so.

Not quite (at least according to this report). The criminal had
seen his associate being shot dead while trying to drive away,
was himself then fired on once and then decided to rush the
homeowner firing the shotgun. It sort of makes sense in a "rush a
gun, run from a knife" sort of way.

According to that report, the accomplice was not shot dead, though he might have been shot first. And it also says that he started charging the homeowner again after being shot the first time, which implies, at least to me, that he had been charging at the guy prior to the first shot (at him).

 

[Beerina]

Oh, One last thing Beerina.
You do know that that family is still alive because of the actions they took. True we don't know what the intentions of the criminals were and the family could have easily been killed in the struggle.

But in my book, I'd rather take my chances fighting for my survival rather than sit and quitely take whatever it was the home invaders were planning to do.

Maybe they were just there to rob the place, But you don't know that at the time and if that was all they were there to do they could have waited untill there was nobody in the house so that there would'nt be any problems.....Like the problem they ran into that night.

You understand I was being sarcastic, don't you?

 

[BPSCG]

You understand I was being sarcastic, don't you?

And how is anyone supposed to know that when you don't use your [sarcasm] sarcasm font [/sarcasm]?

Think before posting. It's a rule we should all live by.

 

[RandFan]

Beerina, are you serious?

 

[Autolite]

My bad. I don't pick up sarcasm in print very well.

We mustn't blame those who miss the sarcasm. There are posts on this forum that represent personal views no less absurd then the reference sarcasm...

 

[uruk]

You understand I was being sarcastic, don't you?

Again I appologise. I don't pick up on hints too well. And sarcasm from print even less.

 

[This is The End]

I live in Texas and have had my house broken into twice. The officers told me that if I or my wife are in the house during a break in or home invasion to shoot, and make sure to kill the intruder lest they survive and try to sue.

Honest to god they told me that in so many words.

Was this just one officers opinion? Where there other officers around (in immediate vicinity or within earshot) when it was said? Do you remember, at all, what was said "in so many words"?

 

[uruk]

No, Since then I've heard other officers saying the same thing I've also had friends and fellow co-workers have had the same thing told to them by officers. (municipal, county, and state)

The officer who made the statement had his partner standing right next to him.

It's been a while so I can't remember exactly what he said but it went some thing like this: "If some guy is on your property up to no good and is looking to do some harm, you put him down if you have gun or weapon. Don't take any chances with you or your wife's life. You put him down and make sure he stays down for good if you know what I mean. I've seen some cases where the home owner shot a guy breaking into thier home but only wounded them. The guy took them court and won a settlement."


He also added that if I were to shoot a home invader and he makes it beyond my property, to "drag him back in" to avoid any "complications".

I live outside of city limits so the officers were county deputees.

 

[This is The End]

Well that's, um..... hrmmmm, at a loss for words here.

 

[Drudgewire]

Well that's, um..... hrmmmm, at a loss for words here.

Yeah, a lot of that is pretty but I will vouch for the fact in my CWP class they hinted very strongly at "once you've made the decision to use lethal force, make every legal effort (don't empty your clip, make the shots count though) to ensure it is indeed lethal."

 

[uruk]

Yea. It was also mentioned that "if at all possible, make sure the shots are not in the back".

Texas does not suffer criminals too lightly.............Just the politicians.

 

[uruk]

here are some links concerning the castle law if you are interested.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...s/stories/012008dnmetfightingback.6a8cbd.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm

 

[Beerina]

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea - giving uncontrollable muscle spasms to a man holding a firearm? Disregarding that tasers don't completely incapacitate people 100% of the time and you're putting the officers at unusual risk, it just seems like an awful strategy.

Exactly. If the person is using deadly force, you use deadly force in return. You don't use a taser. You don't "shoot to incapacitate" or in the leg or in the arm.

To put it in perspective, you don't even shoot for the head. Why? Not because you want to give the guy a chance of surviving after being shot, but because you might miss. Better to shoot at the chest, the biggest area, and even if they have a bullet proof vest on, as they'll be temporarily stunned with a severe bruise and broken ribs, if nothing else, and probably knocked down, if not out.

The goal is to get them disabled as soon as possible.


So let the ivory towerites continue to blather that someone else, the police, should greatly increase their risk by playing some movie super-cop who can apprehend without killing. There's a reason Batman is a movie.



I'm gonna have to visit the Dawkins fora. Apparently they're overrun with elitist subgeniuses.

 

[Drudgewire]

To put it in perspective, you don't even shoot for the head. Why? Not because you want to give the guy a chance of surviving after being shot, but because you might miss.

All about 3 to center mass. Biggest target, least mobility, and all kinds of organs to damage.

I'm gonna have to visit the Dawkins fora. Apparently they're overrun with elitist subgeniuses.

The Church of the Subgenius proudly teaches the storage of massive amounts of guns and ammo (as well as drugs, to make your army loyal and yourself fanatical enough to be a good leader) for the coming Apocolypse X.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I can't help wondering what Claus would have done...