RobertJ.
Member
Sorry, I couldn't find the scripture reference for this one!
Was He defending Himself or His property?
- Thread starter MP1518
- Start date
Sorry, I couldn't find the scripture reference for this one!
MaximumLawman
Member
I've caught many burglars in the act. You wouldn't BELIEVE the trinkets that they believe are worth the risk of dying for. Why should I argue with them? So, in that vein, here are the items, the value of which has been established as the price of a human life by the humans willing to risk theirs: TV's, TV remotes, toasters, Craftsman cordless drills, curling irons, costume jewelry, puppies, a half consumed bottle of Colt .45 malt liquor, a freshly cooked Thanksgiving turkey. (Crackhead grandson took the turkey to the dopehouse, grandma shot him with a .22). Let's see, what else.....cars, nail polish, shoes, coats, eye glasses..These are all things that are worth more than a human life. This is the currency scale.
carpe pugna
Member
Some property, wheeled or otherwise, cannot be replaced with any sum of money.
It's still just property.
The bumpersticker says "There is nothing in this truck worth dying for"...I keep asking "What is in the truck worth killing for?"
Now, obviously family comes to mind, but the bumpersticker is talking about property. And it is just property.
TexasArmed
Member
Three died for property in Pasadena Texas in the case of Joe Horn. Joe went outside, even after the dispatcher told him not to but he was on his property. When they came toward him he warned them to stop.
If I recall correctly it was no billed by the grand jury. While I would not have went outside, especially since it was not my property, I agree with that verdict and if I were on the jury, and 11 said guilty regarding a man defending his property I would hang the jury. Nothing entitles a criminal to someone's property.
If I recall correctly it was no billed by the grand jury. While I would not have went outside, especially since it was not my property, I agree with that verdict and if I were on the jury, and 11 said guilty regarding a man defending his property I would hang the jury. Nothing entitles a criminal to someone's property.
David Armstrong
Member
IIRC, the legal bill for Joe was in the 5 figures area. It's all well and good to talk about this stuff, but realistically very little of your property is worth shooting someone, and the prisons in Texas (and other states) are full of lots of folks who though they were acting within the law. Shoot because you have to, not because you want to.
TexasArmed
Member
I will take my chances with a jury if he wants something inside my house and I am in it, if it comes to that. I don't do neighborhood watches, administer drug tests, or interview anyone who wants to invade my home to take something, or other things he might have in mind. If necessary I will face a trial. As I said the cost of taking care of me, and also my daughter, would cost the state at least $100,000 per year. So I would let the state decide that.
When it comes to my vehicle, smart keys make it unlikely someone is going to be able to steal it. As for carjacking it, I will take out a carjacker if I can if one tries. If I were worried about going to jail for using deadly force under those circumstances I would just option not to own a gun. You can search for cases in Texas where people have defended their home or their property and you want find many such cases where the defender is in jail. Please cite some of them if you know of any.
Any time you just roll over for one of these criminals who wants your property he may not stop with just that. Breaking into homes and vehicles is a very dangerous occupation for criminals in Texas.
I do not answer my door to someone I do not know without my gun in my hand or readily accessible whichever I think may be necessary. I am not worried about having to go to trial for it. If it happens it happens and I will cross that bridge when I come to at. At my age and state of health a life sentence would not be long anyway.
Last edited:
Poodle Soup
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 292
My rule is, if you come into the house while its occupied your obviously not there just to steal something. Im gone 9 hours a day and you will be treated as if you are there to hurt me. Anything outside? The cops and insurance company can handle that.
Puppies? Thats not property. Thats family. My dogs life is definitely worth more than some scum bag criminal no matter how innocent and sweet his momma says he is.
One of my greatest fears is that someone will attempt to hurt my dog. And that I will be going to prison for a long time afterwards.
Puppies? Thats not property. Thats family. My dogs life is definitely worth more than some scum bag criminal no matter how innocent and sweet his momma says he is.
One of my greatest fears is that someone will attempt to hurt my dog. And that I will be going to prison for a long time afterwards.
David Armstrong
Member
Again, if you want to spend more money defending yourself than it would cost to replace an item, go for it. Seems like a poor plan to me. Just doesn't seem to make sense to spend $10,000 to keep an item that can be replaced for $100. And anyone who doesn't think about the aftermath of a shooting BEFORE they get into a shooting is really missing something in their defense plans, IMO. Having been involved in a number of trials I'll do my best to avoid having one. YMMV.
TexasArmed
Member
The money I have is set up in trust for my daughter's care. However, if I have to spend my money, then the state of Texas will assume her care at $50,000 per year, no skin off my nose. I am not going to make any attempt to avoid shooting when it comes to a criminal inside my home, where he does not belong. In fact, if he is breaking down the door he will do down when the door is coming down.
I don't care what you are anyone else does. That is exactly what I will do. In both the case of my home and the vehicle the castle doctrine is what applies. There is no possibility he can make it thru my dead bolted locks and door to steal anything. He will not get to survey the merchandise in my home like he was in some store.
Now if some jury of 12 convicts me for that, then the State of Texas can spend their money to take care of my disabled daughter.
If I were worried about the possibility of legal fees I would just live without a gun, and beg for mercy if someone did a home invasion.
But I don't intend to live that way. When I drive down the street tomorrow, I could be at fault in some freak accident as well, and end up in litigation. But I will cross that bridge when I come to it.
That's the way I live my life poor plan or not. I consider people who
prefer to be safe and never get sued because of having to defend their
property or home to be sheep. I don't intend to live that way. If I wanted to live that way I would move to somewhere like California or Illinois.
I don't care what you are anyone else does. That is exactly what I will do. In both the case of my home and the vehicle the castle doctrine is what applies. There is no possibility he can make it thru my dead bolted locks and door to steal anything. He will not get to survey the merchandise in my home like he was in some store.
Now if some jury of 12 convicts me for that, then the State of Texas can spend their money to take care of my disabled daughter.
If I were worried about the possibility of legal fees I would just live without a gun, and beg for mercy if someone did a home invasion.
But I don't intend to live that way. When I drive down the street tomorrow, I could be at fault in some freak accident as well, and end up in litigation. But I will cross that bridge when I come to it.
That's the way I live my life poor plan or not. I consider people who
prefer to be safe and never get sued because of having to defend their
property or home to be sheep. I don't intend to live that way. If I wanted to live that way I would move to somewhere like California or Illinois.
Similar threads
