posted on February 7, 2003 12:32:27 PM new
snowyegret
Yes I did read your post. I just wished to add further comments for the other posters that are so astute as to know all the laws for a state they do not live in,
One of which that claims to judge a persons validity to own a firearn.
It is funny though, Uncle Sam judges me worthy to purchase firearms as does the State of Texas which issued my concealed carry permit.
posted on February 7, 2003 12:49:32 PM new
A neighbor of ours was watching his neice and nephew for the wife's brother. Brother calls very late says he wants to pick the kids up. Husband tells them to come tomorrow it's too late. Brother comes over anyway [2:30AM], breaks in the front door...husband shot him three times. Once in the rear as he was limping away. [He lived] No arrest was made. You don't break into someone's home around here and get off scott free. And the homeowner's aren't required to ask 'who are you and why are you in my home?' from someone who has just broken in either.
posted on February 7, 2003 01:57:36 PM new
REAMOND comment suggesting “national database for guns through the computer check system” brought these arguments against.
colin
“So what your saying is your pro Fascist Government? There is no way a nation database for guns will ever be a reality. It would be the biggest step to "Big Brother" our country ever made.”
“ while you worry about that, think of those poor misunderstood Muslim radicals that are planning your demise anyway”
bear1949
“Why not just declare the U.S. a communist state & take away the rest of our rights.”
TWELVEPOLE
“EVER WATCH RED DAWN REAMOND?
HOW DID THE INVADERS FIND WHO HAD WEAPONS.... BY GOING DOWN AND LOOKING THROUGH THE REGISTRATION PAPERS... THAT IS MY MOTIVATION... THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING I OWN”
Linda_K attempeted some logic “then advance' the objective. Take away all guns.”
I think that; even those on AW, who by their own admission, have been involved in the ‘intended use’ of firearms, or those which have enjoyed monetary remuneration in the advancement of their intended design use, must agree that: NO significant number of persons are asking for a database on toilet paper, or steak knives or lawn mowers.
And so to suggest that is at best insignificant and at worst ‘lame’.
Guns’ intended design is for killing or maiming, and they are good for it.
Unlike water and toilet paper, which could both be used to kill.
Databases exist already for some chemicals, for example, not because their intended design was to kill or maim but because they can be ‘good’ for it.
This is done in an ‘attempt’ to prevent these ‘weapons’ coming into the hands of ‘loonies’.
Although putting the words, ‘communist state’ or ‘fascist government’ or ‘RED DAWN’ is a nice touch, & does help confound any logical debate, even though there is no logical basis for making this connection. For example the fact that gun controls are high in Australia, does not in itself make a state ‘communist’.
Gun controls in USA are much more like some ‘rogue’ states than Australia.
A tracking system for guns will NOT mean twelve pole will be deprived of his right to bear arms,
But I can see why some ‘loonies’ should be prevented.
So 12pole I think it’s a fair claim to say
“THAT ARTICLE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE WHY GUNS ARE IMPORTANT,”
BUT NOT
THAT ARTICLE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE WHY GUNS Shouldn’t be tracked,
But back to the topic.
I see no reason however to sue a seller of a gun in a society, even perhaps if selling to an ‘overt loony’ or a drugie or a Muslim or a Jew or a Christian where if is permitted by law.
As long as it is capable of killing or maiming ‘good’ it is fit for the purpose to which it’s design was intended, and I see no failing in the product.
I say ‘designed’ because somebodies intended use may be as a decorative item above a door, just in case someone comes back with that as an argument against control.
Imagine if a seller tried promoting the need for heavier firearms around suburbs which have schools known to have a higher level of crime. Thereby increasing the demand for heavier arms as defence concerns rose, they could employ marketing strategies like free guns for all new bank accounts at nearest bank.
If you think it wouldn’t work then you need also admit that ADVERTISEMENTS DON’T WORK.
Who would be considered responsible for increasing the ‘appetite’ for guns in that area.
posted on February 7, 2003 03:49:32 PM new
You Texicans might want to carefully read CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY of the Texas Penal Code as excerpted below, if you read it carefully, YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO USE DEADLY FORCE DIRECTED AT A SOMEONE FLEEING AN ATTEMPTED CAR BREAK-IN/THEFT. IF HE/SHE WAS FLEEING WITH THE PROPERTY YOU CAN USE FORCE, BUT PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE USE OF THE WORDS REASONABLE, IMMEDIATE, AND NECESSARY. I KNEW SOME WESTERN STATES HAD MORE LIBERAL USE OF FORCE/SELF HELP LAWS, BUT I ALSO KNEW THEY WEREN'T LOONY FREE FIRE ZONES:
§ 9.02. Justification as a Defense
It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.
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.
§ 9.06. Civil Remedies Unaffected
The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(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.
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.
posted on February 7, 2003 04:23:58 PM new
REAMOND......tell that to all the grand juries that have refused to forward charges in cases involving instances as these. Those juries reading sections 9.41 & 9.42 believed such actions were legal.
as you noted:
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) [b/the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or[/b]
(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.
See you just my point....
But then when you apply for a Texas concealed carry permit, you learn all of this. It isn't like going into the post office & buying a stamp.
posted on February 7, 2003 04:31:43 PM new Also I have discharged a weapon at an individual that was fleeing after breaking into my vehicle
Show us where in the code it is OK to shoot at a fleeing suspect that has not taken any property with them ? The situation under which you claimed to have shot at the alledged car thief is clearly against the penal code. Had you hit your target, you would have been criminally and civilly liable.
By your own admission you weren't trying to recover your property, the person was fleeing without having stole anything. Once he/she fled, the attempt was over.
You are a prime example of why CCPs and gun possession should be carefully examined by law enforcement and denied to the vast majority.
Jury nullification happens all the time, and not only in Texas- remember the O J Simpson trial ? And you're the same guy that complains about juries ruling against gun companies and other "flivorous" claims ?? So it would seem that your definition of "flivorous" is when you don't agree with the outcome. A tangent with rational thought processes.
[ edited by REAMOND on Feb 7, 2003 04:33 PM ]
[ edited by REAMOND on Feb 7, 2003 04:37 PM ]
[ edited by REAMOND on Feb 7, 2003 04:42 PM ]
posted on February 7, 2003 04:50:22 PM new
Reamond - You know the law. We know how it works in small counties....out in the country.
We're a ways out of town. There's a little ma and pa grocery store about two miles away from us where we stop to pick up milk in between major in-town shopping. The owner was robbed once when we first moved here. She had used her rifle and it left bullets in the robbers truck. [That's how they located the two robbers.]
She had called the sheriff and reported the incident. She was not arrested nor was she warned she shouldn't be shooting at them. The sheriffs here don't think it's right that someone steals from a hard working couple. A civil suit if she had hit one of them? Who knows. But we've learned that a lot of people who might be arrested aren't here because the sheriff is the one making that call.
Reminds me of Sheriff Hagge. More common that you'd think.
posted on February 7, 2003 04:52:39 PM new
Yes REAMOND it seems the intent for bear1949 was there.
But on the lighter side-
Based on the assumtion that bear's millitary history would have made him a crack shot.
Perhaps, if he has not breached any laws, he could sue the arms or amunition manufacturer because they failed to fulfill their promise.
posted on February 7, 2003 04:57:37 PM new
Linda- if you look at the Texas statute it is perfectly OK to shoot at a robber that is fleeing with your property and the situation meets the other elements of the law. BHowever, bear claims he shot at an alledged car thief that didn't take any property. That activity is clearly outside the protection of the statute.
It is also not always up to the Sheriff. The Feds can be called in and the trial/jury be facilitated elsewhere.
posted on February 7, 2003 05:04:36 PM new
REAMOND,
By your own admission you weren't trying to recover your property, the person was fleeing without having stole anything. Once he/she fled, the attempt was over.
You're making an assumption. I never said he did not take anything from my vehicle.
Show me where in my statement I said he never took anything from the vehicle.
In fact my exact statement was Also I have discharged a weapon at an individual that was fleeing after breaking into my vehicle.
In fact he had take a CB radio, which he dropped upon hearing the gun fire.
Belore you make blanket statements & show your ignorance of the facts, you need to obtain all the facts, not just what you want to believe.
You are a prime example of why CCPs and gun possession should be carefully examined by law enforcement and denied to the vast majority.
A quote from Socrates best describes you.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"
posted on February 7, 2003 05:09:13 PM new
We've come To think of criminals as people that deserve the same benefits as law abiding citizens. I disagree.
Our prisons are used as "support houses" instead of penal institutes. I disagree.
You do the crime. You do the time. It should be hard time.
If you steal from me... It's an eighth of a mile to the highway. Chances are you won't make it. That's the way I feel about stealing.
We've been too easy for too long. As far as the Death Penalty. go for it. I'll lose no sleep. I believe Texas may be a leader here!!
Don't get me wrong. I know mistakes have been made. Sometimes they aren't mistakes but bad cops and DA's. Life (and Deaths) a bit*h.
If you don't have some sort of home, car, whatever security,, Your foolish. Everyday someone carjacks, mugs or just beats the hell out of someone. It won't happen to me.
Few are that stupid. I don't look like someone anyone would like to fool with. That's good for me and them.
Crime is rapid. Small time stuff turns into big time stuff. If you want to be a Martyr, fine and dandy. Me. I just as soon blow them away.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 7, 2003 05:17:42 PM new
Rev Colin- No one is asking anyone to let criminals off the hook. But I think reasonable minds want the criminal justice system to have separate steps towards its final end. We do not want police and citizens setting themselves up as judge and jury on the streets of the US.
Force is best used an an "arresting" device, not as a judge and jury device. Using force to arrest a situation and BRING THOSE ACCUSED TO THE BAR OF JUSTICE is the primary reason for force.
No one has claimed that deadly force should not be used to actually protect life and limb.
posted on February 7, 2003 05:18:40 PM new
Bear has mentioned that he qualifies for a concealed carry permit in Texas...it should be noted that that is the ONLY way it is legal to carry a handgun in Texas, open carry is illegal, and concealed carry is only legal inside business establishments which fail to post a state authorized sign...so anyone who objects to people entering their business packing heat has only to post a sign, and the weapon carrier is an automatic criminal if he ignores it.
Here's a clip which contains some interesting stats from the Texas Department of Public Safety. I apologize for it's length.
"Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders Arrested for Crimes That Include Murder, Kidnapping, Sexual Assault, Weapon, and Drug Charges
Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders Arrested for Weapon Offenses at Rate More Than Twice That of State's General Population Aged 21 Years and Older
Washington—More than 940 Texans holding concealed handgun licenses under the state's "shall-issue" concealed handgun law have been arrested since January 1996 according to License to Kill, a new 23-page study released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC). The Texas "shall-issue" law was passed by the legislature in 1995. Licenses issued under the law became effective in January 1996.
The study cites Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) information showing that from January 1, 1996 to October 9, 1997 Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 946 crimes. Of these, 263 were felony arrests, including: six charges of murder or attempted murder involving at least four deaths; two charges of kidnapping; 18 charges of sexual assault; 66 charges of assault, including 48 cases of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; and, 42 weapon-related charges. Six-hundred eighty-three were misdemeanor arrests, including: 194 weapon-related charges and 215 instances of driving while intoxicated. "Texas concealed handgun license holders don't stop crimes, but all too many of them commit them," states VPC Health Policy Analyst and study author Susan Glick, MHS."
Personally, I think taking a potshot at somebody who was running away is dumb, especially when they had tried to take property rather than cause personal harm. There's no guarantee charges would not be filed against the shooter if the perpetrator got hit. As for concealed carry, I've never understood why anyone would want to conceal rather than show the world that he or she was armed, unless it was in a state like Texas where you can't honestly carry a weapon in the open...I've talked to some of the people around here who have CWP's, and I'd have to say that most of them really do it because it makes them feel like they've got something bigger in their pants.
edited because I couldn't get italics tags to work for some reason...
[ edited by profe51 on Feb 7, 2003 05:21 PM ]
posted on February 7, 2003 05:26:20 PM new
I think everyone can see right through your little ploy Bear. Having your CB was important enough to shoot at the alledged theif, but not important enough to mention when relating the story to us. Yeah right...
But before we go on- ARE THERE ANYMORE FACTS YOU WISH TO ADD TO YOUR STORY ?
[ edited by REAMOND on Feb 7, 2003 05:31 PM ]
posted on February 7, 2003 05:57:46 PM new
Must really be getting to you, the fact that you jumped to conclusions & made an azz of yourself with your self-righteous judgemental recriminations.
I'm glad to see you're not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance.
posted on February 7, 2003 06:03:35 PM new
Bear, nothing is "getting to me". It is just that I have dealt with people like you before and it is impossible to go forward until we have you tell the whole story. It is a waste of our time when you keep adding facts.
I was quite right to assume that when someone uses deadly force they will relay the important parts of the story.
However, you seemed to have a memory lapse until the statute was explained to you.
Why don't you just tell us the whole story now ? Don't leave any of the important things out and we can apply what you did to the staute that you had to know to get you CCP.
You're not just being another of those little guntard braggards to impress people are you ?
posted on February 7, 2003 06:59:16 PM new
The facts are there for all to read, as is. No one but you has decired the facts. The only reason you won't let it go is becaused you have been embarased by you ASSUMPTIONS. It's always those (like you) with the biggest ego's that have to prove you have the largest rocks. I don't have to prove anything to anyone, least of all you.
As a native Texas, I know the state laws & I know my rights. Would I shoot at someone again I caught stealing from my vehicle? Yes I would.
And I would be within my rights.
I've worked for what I have and will not stand for someone trying to take them just because they won't work or want the easy way out.
You can be as liberal as you want, standing by wringing your hands, waiting for the cops to show, watching as a your posession are carted away. Not me.
Bragging? No, I'm confidant enough of my manhood that I don't have to,
I used to think that you were just a gibbering idiot. Now, you have lowered my opinion of you.
posted on February 7, 2003 07:09:11 PM new
You've demostrated clearly for everyone that you don't know the law, and that you are an example of someone who shouldn't have a firearm unless under adult supervision.
posted on February 7, 2003 07:37:24 PM new
bear1949 clearly has a passion for firearms.
Perhaps many in texas do and that's why they need to conceal them.
Otherwise, 2 men walking down street at high noon with guns exposed.
"(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;"
DRAW!
Let me get this right, is it the case that,
In Texas, even if you're a Mexican, it's cool 'legal' to shoot a Highly comended US War Hero if they steal an apple from your orchard and you think you won't be able to retrieve it if they get away.
There is no logical reason why you will be deprived of this right if a gun database existed.
Unless you are found to be 'not a good citizen'.
[ edited by austbounty on Feb 7, 2003 07:46 PM ]
posted on February 7, 2003 07:43:38 PM new
And you know TEXAS law? If it wasn't for an internet search to find the Texas penal code, you wouldn't know anything about it. You copied & pasted it.
You haven't lived here all you life and don't know Texas cops. I do.
You don't know the Texas way of life, I do.
Crawl back under your egotistical, left wing, liberal rock & leave the logical intelligent thought process to those of us that know what it is to defend what is ours.
Your incompetence in understanding this situation is an inspiration to idiots everywhere
posted on February 7, 2003 08:07:15 PM new
Oh, come come now bear,
"Crawl back under your egotistical, left wing, liberal rock & leave the logical intelligent thought process to those of us that know what it is to defend what is ours."
Bear, with all due respect, at risk of offending you ego, may I say that many war vet's only went because they were drafted & trained to do as they were told, whether the ‘cause’ was FABRICATED or NOT.
IF you are honest and BRAVE then answer truthfully, show no fear of my rebuttal.
I ask again!
Can anyone answer me?
Let me get this right, is it the case that,
In Texas, even if you're a Mexican, it's cool 'legal' to shoot a Highly comended US War Hero if they steal an apple from your orchard and you think you won't be able to retrieve it if they get away.
posted on February 7, 2003 09:00:12 PM new
Well Bear..... you argued the law and you were wrong, you argued the facts and you were wrong, now you're arguing applying where you live and people you know.
Instead of Horton Hears a Who, maybe someday Bear will hear a Who..............
posted on February 8, 2003 09:10:42 AM new
Again until you have been placed in the same position, you opinion is just that an opinion. You haven't been there.
All you are doing now is attempting to make sense of a situation where you have made an azz of youself by making assumptions. (You state I did not know the law, read back to the start of this issue. Did I not say I called the cops? Yes. What did I report the cop told me? In fact I was critized by the police (whom I did call) for missing the suspect.
Haven't you ever had a original thought? Or are you mimicking a conversation you heard adults having. You are what all of 12 years old?
Your are really a delosional little person that lives in a fairy tale world.
When you start making sense, I'll start listening.
More common that you'd think.
