The owner did everything right. Richard205 you need to calm down. You know your remarks are close to the line of racist
What would I have done different ? - hmmm.
Hopefully about the same, maybe a good hit or 2, since I use a gun-mounted light on my âHouse Gunâ(Spare Competition Gun).
I âhaveâ been shot-at a few times so âbeen there, done thatâ.
Then go to court for shooting âMy poor little babyâ a âGood Boyâ, who aint never done nothin wrong to no-one".
BUT if I was Not âTrainedâ & âPracticedâ :
I might have stood in the open, emptied a full mag shooting at shadows and missed with all except the one round that killed the neighbors dog. Then I might have been shot in the a*s running for cover in wet pants.
@richasrd205, as responsibly armed Americans we want to protect ourselves and our loved ones. In many states it is illegal to use lethal force to defend property.
And I would suggest you be careful what you post online as if you are ever in a self-defense incident comments like this would be used against you in court.
Then why do we own any guns of any kind why not just turn them in to the government? And when all the criminals have them and you have no way to protect yourselves and your property youâll have no one to blame but yourselves I myself would rather ask for
forgiveness then permission and itâs a fact that the police wonât be there till itâs to late so what good are they I obey the laws in most cases with in reason and I donât think anyone really wants to harm another soul but I wonât sit idle while someone is
trying to harm me my family or take my property
Get
Outlook for iOS
Personally I think the law needs to change. In a case where it is obvious that somehow has tried to enter and burglarize your property deadly force should be a legal right. When the thugs know that they can be shot legallyâŠwatch the break in numbers start to drop. Calling the police and thirty minutes later you tell them that $20,000.00 of your property has been taken and probably to never be seen again is unacceptable. Especially where firearms are the objective.
Sounds to me that he did everything in the right manner. He has the right to investigate things occurring on his property and following being shot at he definitely has the right to defend himself. Maybe or maybe not should have called LEO but, that isnât always the case or the need. He did what he needed to do, given the circumstances Thumbs up to him in his actions.
The Castle Law in Texas is darn good insurance also and you dont lose any property
Dawn,fortunately we do have the Castle Doctrine/Law in Texas,just for this reason
IMHO the property is a moot point. They shot at him. The only down side was that he only got one.
Cheers,
Crraig6
I understand the Castle Doctrine and appreciate the value of it in your legal defense. However, would you rather spend a couple of months arguing with your insurance company to replace stolen property or a couple of years in the court system because you shot and possibly killed someone over property?
Also, the possibility of killing someone over property doesnât sit well on my conscious. I have home owners insurance for a reason - to protect my property. I have firearms for a reason - to protect my life and the lives of my loved ones.
While you may be able to shoot to defend property⊠should you?
Well Dawn, if they were trying to steal my weapons,then there would not be any debate at all
Welcome to the Community @richard205
The Tenth Amendment (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What you are proposing violates the original Bill of Rights. I generally trust Frankfort, Kentucky a lot more than I trust Washington to do what is right for Kentucky my family and me.
Welcome to the Community @Thomas144
What you are describing is called the âcastle doctrineâ and some form of it in almost every state.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/terminology/self-defense-terms/castle-doctrine/
Kentucky has a strong common law history and more recently statutorily enacted Castle Doctrine. There is a statutory presumption that:
a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm ⊠if [another] person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle or if that person has removed or was attempting to remove another against that personâs will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle."
But, just because you can use deadly force, should you? Deadly force should always be considered as a last resort.
The refreshing voices of reasonâ@MikeBKY and @Dawn.
I think there seems to be a thought here that âIâll shoot someone because I can.â Thatâs not why I carry or own firearms. I carry because if Iâm left with no other choice, I will be able to defend myselfânot because I can; rather, because I have to.
I donât know that I could ever shoot anyone for stealing my stuff, but as @Craig6 pointed outâthis (to me) is not about protecting propertyâthey shot at himâheâs defending himself from deadly force, right? At this point, doesnât this turn into meeting deadly force with deadly force?
And @richard205âease up, brother-- You wonât find a lot of leftists posting hereâthis seems to be a group of constitutional conservatives, for the most part. A leftist would be most likely responsible for wanting to abolish the 10th amendment, giving the feds more power. I hope that doesnât sound good to you (Patriot act??).
No one said theyâd shoot someone just because they can. But I should have the right to protect myself my family and my property at any cost Iâm sick of the laws protecting criminals
I understand what you are saying, but there is not any property I own outside my home that would compel me to use deadly force. On the other hand, if they forcibly enter my home, I presume they are there to do harm to me or a loved one and I will respond accordingly.
I agree, with this caveat. The personal property they were stealing, were potentially deadly weapons. The fact that they are intruders in a room full of weapons, does skew the scenario a little. If was just a tv shop, or bicycles, that would be a little different. That said, again, I agree there is no material possession I have that is worth the life of another human.