Farmers, guns, and the "old days"

[trooper]

I have the right to protect me ,my family,and the lives of someone that's life is in danger.I'm not going to shoot someone just to shoot;I'm going to protect.I worked in a prison for 23 years and you see all kinds of good people that have violated someone else's space.I don't care what they may be at a later time,I care at what they are at the time that they are violating someone else's space.If they are doing something that they aren't suppose to,then I'm sorry.If they are in a place that they are't suppose to be.then they have violated someone else's space.I am not saying that this gives me the right to shoot them but I am saying that I do have a right to see what's going on.Someone said use a bat.Rather you have to protect yourself with a bat or a gun;if you have to kill someone they are dead.If I feel it necessary to take a weapon it will be a gun.A lot depends on the situation.

 

[wilbilt]

A big part of my problem with that....I've know some very good people that got off into stupid mistakes when younger, but that grew up and straightened out. Inlcuding somethat had done things like breaking/entering and burglaries....what if the one I shot was young and stupid and I took away the chance for that person to grow up and become a decent person? and what if that young and stupid one that just needed to grwo up were someone I or others I care about, loved?

If that person put you in a position that required you to shoot, they wrote off their own future. The blame is not on you. I would likely hesitate before pulling the trigger on a fellow human, but there are scenarios where there is no time for pleasantries.

 

[JenellYB]

Part of my original post was deleted here in these responses,and it makes a difference, I said in situations where danger of violence is NOT immediatly imminent. The post I was responding to was someone outside a window, who RAN OFF when he realized someone was there. We talk about loss of respect for life in this thread having to do with today's violence??? Well i see it that the mentality to WANT to shoot at the least provocation without consideration of a chance for that other person to cease their action is definitely showing lack of respect for life! Just as a post I did further up, about the one that shot first without warning or giving the person breaking in a chance to react, found out too late they had just kiilled their own nephew!

If that person put you in a position that required you to shoot, they wrote off their own future. The blame is not on you. I would likely hesitate before pulling the trigger on a fellow human, but there are scenarios where there is no time for pleasantries.

 

[wilbilt]

Part of my original post was deleted here in these responses,and it makes a difference, I said in situations where danger of violence is NOT immediatly imminent. The post I was responding to was someone outside a window, who RAN OFF when he realized someone was there. We talk about loss of respect for life in this thread having to do with today's violence??? Well i see it that the mentality to WANT to shoot at the least provocation without consideration of a chance for that other person to cease their action is definitely showing lack of respect for life! Just as a post I did further up, about the one that shot first without warning or giving the person breaking in a chance to react, found out too late they had just kiilled their own nephew!

I certainly don't want to shoot anyone. Doing so would likely become a life-changing event, with legal wrangles and civil actions as well as the moral issues that would result. Then again, I live in California where the laws are geared toward protecting the criminals and punishing the victims.

Certainly, if there is opportunity for the attacker to cease and retreat when faced by a homeowner prepared for defense, that would result in a happy ending for everyone involved. I know our laws require as much. Many years ago, my wife was at home with our two oldest children who were toddlers at the time. Somebody was trying to break down the front door. She shouted at him to go away, but he continued attacking the door. The sound of her racking the shotgun was enough to make him change his mind. She never even saw the guy, but I came home to find size 12 boot prints on my front door and splintered jambs that were about to let go. A Sheriff deputy showed up about fours hours later and took a report, even though she had called them immediately after the incident.

More recently, home invasions have been increasing and the person attempting to gain entry is likely armed, high on meth, or both. I would first try to convince anyone to cease and desist, but if they do not, it is going to be a very short conversation.

 

[galanie]

well if your in the middle of the boondocks and someone trys to brake in your house their probably not there to ask for help or to say hello. Your in Texas you have almost every law in your favor to kill anyone that damages or steals your property and be seen as a good deed. its not like your going to damage the human population by take out a few bad eggs.

As abrasive and horrid as this sounds, I agree. I would hate to kill someone that was not trying to do real harm, but if they were breaking into my house, or trying to, I have no way to know if they intend me bodily harm or not. In this case, the guy ran off. I doubt I'd have shot him even if a loaded gun was in my hands. I'd have let him know I was there first (The sound of a pump shotgun is pretty convincing). Which is what she did. And he ran. But even in Texas they need to be inside the house and/or you have to prove that you were in bodily danger if you shoot someone. We aren't exactly in the Wild West here. A guy outside a window isn't going to be viewed as a real threat that warranted being shot unless he were pointing a gun at you.

Sure, some people do bad things and end up good. How is the victim of a crime supposed to know which type he is? When you choose to do something, be prepared for the likely consequences. One consequence of breaking and entering could be getting killed. That's just a fact.

 

[JenellYB]

i am surprised that you live in Houston, and would think this. It was right here in Houston within the last couple years the big flap over 'castles laws' have blown up, when a Houston man was made into a popular local HERO for having shot and killed a fleeing man in the back! The would be burglar and a buddy had thought the house empty, but upon making noise prying a window open in attempt to get it, the owner made noise inside thye house, the two men stopped and started running away. The home owner got to his front door with gun in hand, and shot the man in the back as he was running away across the yard, and the owner was actually boasting he "knew he had to fire BEFORE the man got off his property, reached the street", to be 'justified' under 'castle law'. And he was NO BILLED by a grand jury, the shooting declared 'justified'!!!

In another Houston shooting, where the shooter was "no-billed", as a shooting 'justified' under 'castle law' in Texas, it was actually a neighbor of a home owner who was away, that upon noticing someone trying to pry open a window on the neighbor's house, stepped out and shot that man.

. But even in Texas they need to be inside the house and/or you have to prove that you were in bodily danger if you shoot someone. We aren't exactly in the Wild West here. A guy outside a window isn't going to be viewed as a real threat that warranted being shot unless he were pointing a gun at you.
Sure, some people do bad things and end up good. How is the victim of a crime supposed to know which type he is? When you choose to do something, be prepared for the likely consequences. One consequence of breaking and entering could be getting killed. That's just a fact.

 

[Ole rooster]

This thread has gone on longer than I would have ever thought it would. It's very interesting and has valid points. But remember, if someone is willing to go so far as to break into your home, bodily injury to you or possibly your children is a given. Different areas of our country has different degrees of crime. I've discussed this on another site all on the same lines as these post. The old gentleman that killed his nephew is tragic no doubt. But I also think the young man was culpable in his own demise. He wasn't where he was supposed to be.

Most anybody knows not to shoot some one in the back. But if by chance I happened to catch anybody doing harm to my wife or children, all bets or off. They belong to me at that point. I don't think anybody is just waiting on the moment they can shoot a predator. But I don't carry to shoot. I carry to protect, and if that involves the other, then so be it. In Georgia you have the God given right to protect yourself and your property. If you feel threatened by anyone in that they intend you bodily harm, then they have violated your space and it is on you to protect that. This is not about just looking for anything to shoot. But in today's world you can't go through life thinking everybody loves you and only wants the best for you. A lot of folks want what you have. If you give it to them that ok, but if they decide to take it by force, that's a totally different issue you have to deal with. I love life as much as the other person, but the other person had best act like he care about it also and conduct him accordingly.

 

[galanie]

i am surprised that you live in Houston, and would think this. It was right here in Houston within the last couple years the big flap over 'castles laws' have blown up, when a Houston man was made into a popular local HERO for having shot and killed a fleeing man in the back!  The would be burglar and a buddy had thought the house empty, but upon making noise prying a window open in attempt to get it, the owner made noise inside thye house, the two men stopped and started running away. The home owner got to his front door with gun in hand, and shot the man in the back as he was running away across the yard, and the owner was actually boasting he "knew he had to fire BEFORE the man got off his property, reached the street", to be 'justified' under 'castle law'. And he was NO BILLED by a grand jury, the shooting declared 'justified'!!!

In another Houston shooting, where the shooter was "no-billed", as a shooting 'justified' under 'castle law' in Texas, it was actually a neighbor of a home owner who was away, that upon noticing someone trying to pry open a window on the neighbor's house, stepped out and shot that man.

. But even in Texas they need to be inside the house and/or you have to prove that you were in bodily danger if you shoot someone. We aren't exactly in the Wild West here. A guy outside a window isn't going to be viewed as a real threat that warranted being shot unless he were pointing a gun at you.

Sure, some people do bad things and end up good. How is the victim of a crime supposed to know which type he is? When you choose to do something, be prepared for the likely consequences. One consequence of breaking and entering could be getting killed. That's just a fact.

Not everyone in any given area thinks the same way. I'd not have shot anyone in the back nor would I simply shoot someone without warning that was breaking into a neighbor's house. I don't think either of those guys were heros. The teen that shot the intruder inside her home while she was there alone was a hero. The teen that shot and killed the intruder inside his home 3 blocks away from me was a hero. Neither of those were shot in the back and neither was made a "big flap" over. I only wish such a hero, or myself, were there when two armed men invaded my mothers house and knocked her to the floor trying to get her to give them money she didn't have. Luckily they left without doing her or my sister much harm.

BUT. If you decide to live a life of crime, be prepared for the possible consequences. As much as I think it is wrong to shoot a fleeing man in the back, he still elected to do the crime and this is what is likely to happen. Perhaps I don't agree with what the men did by shooting those guys you mention, but I understand why they were no billed. We don't much care for baby-sitting criminals here.

 

[GableBabble]

Not everyone in any given area thinks the same way. I'd not have shot anyone in the back nor would I simply shoot someone without warning that was breaking into a neighbor's house. I don't think either of those guys were heros. The teen that shot the intruder inside her home while she was there alone was a hero. The teen that shot and killed the intruder inside his home 3 blocks away from me was a hero. Neither of those were shot in the back and neither was made a "big flap" over. I only wish such a hero, or myself, were there when two armed men invaded my mothers house and knocked her to the floor trying to get her to give them money she didn't have. Luckily they left without doing her or my sister much harm.
BUT. If you decide to live a life of crime, be prepared for the possible consequences. As much as I think it is wrong to shoot a fleeing man in the back, he still elected to do the crime and this is what is likely to happen. Perhaps I don't agree with what the men did by shooting those guys you mention, but I understand why they were no billed. We don't much care for baby-sitting criminals here.

There are consequences to every action you do in life. As a parent we teach our kids just that. Every action causes a reaction, good or bad, be prepared for that. People will campaign the bad guy. People will just as often campaign the good guy. Life is a series of facts, opinions, and actions.
Galanie brings up a good second topic. Baby-sitting criminals. I won't go into a long post about it, but I agree with your feeling on them Galanie.

 

[JenellYB]

The observation of a major thing that has brought out society to the mess its in, mentioned repeatedly in this thread, is that human life has been so devalued in our society. Its easy for many to kill because a human life just isn't considered worth much anymore.
How evident that is in so many of these comments! Shooting/killing out of self-defence, or defence of another person, against threat of life or serious bodily harm, is something I don't think any of us would argue...the "trade off" in 'value' is that one one human life/harm for another, and justifiable.

But the attitude that taking a human life as 'justified' by a right to defend property elevates the value of property, material goods, over that of human life.
But beyond the actual willingness to do so, all the more disturbing, and I think should be appaling and scary to all of us, is the attitude that any one "has the right to make that judgement." To do so is to take to oneself not only roles of judge, jury, and executioner, but "legislator", to declare by ones' own opinion for what offense the penalty should be death. I am not "defending criminals." I am defending the proper function of a system of "rule of law" which our constitution and system of government, legal, and social system in this country have made it possible for the American way of life. We all enjoy the benefits of a "rule of law" system that protects us from any and every tyrant coming along changing or making up laws on the spot as suits them.

There's not a state in this country that sets the death penalty for the crimes of break and entering, tresspass, or theft. let alone attempted breaking and entering, trepass or theft. And I don't think the people of this nation would stand for the passage of such a penalty for those crimes. It is not "defending criminals" not "babysitting or pampering criminals", to recognize appropriate and inappropriate punishment that fits the crime. We don't recognize the death penalty in our legal system or society a punishment fitting those crimes. Why are any so willing to grant that right to declare and pass that judgment out of their own opinion and decision?