TexasCHLforum.com

I would not want them to have made this piece at all. But any attempt at even-handedness would have shown that many people who defend themselves are women, elderly, or disabled people who without a doubt could not have defended themselves any other way, and may not have survived a criminal attack.

I think the way they asked the home defender if he shot to kill to kill and would do it again illustrated their bias.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I would not want them to have made this piece at all. But any attempt at even-handedness would have shown that many people who defend themselves are women, elderly, or disabled people who without a doubt could not have defended themselves any other way, and may not have survived a criminal attack.

I think the way they asked the home defender if he shot to kill to kill and would do it again illustrated their bias.

- Jim

A better reply would have been, the only use of a gun that is legal is deadly force, so I used what was legally possible to secure my family and protect my life from this criminal.

seamusTX wrote:I would not want them to have made this piece at all. But any attempt at even-handedness would have shown that many people who defend themselves are women, elderly, or disabled people who without a doubt could not have defended themselves any other way, and may not have survived a criminal attack.

I think the way they asked the home defender if he shot to kill to kill and would do it again illustrated their bias.

I didn't get that sense myself. It was just a matter-of-fact statement of his view that he did what he felt he had to do at the time. If they were attempting the sort of biased view you're suggesting then I seriously doubt they would have included the footage of him sitting at his computer desk holding his infant child...a powerful image of exactly what it was that he was defending. They also likely would not have opted for such a likeable, upstanding-appearing sort of person as an example. Not exactly the sort of person you'd use to scare people with the idea that they're armed. It's also not like he was some big, burly ape who you'd think should be able to physically repel/restrain any sort of home invader.

Many people who defend themselves are exactly what this guy is, and it was quite legitimate to present him. To single out a weak old man/woman (some of whom HAVE appeared on the news lately, btw) to make a point would be no more even-handed.

israel67 wrote:... Harris DA says 'life is precious' ...

The story said the criminal had a lengthy record. Perhaps if he was in prison for his numerous priors, instead of being set free to hurt even more good people, he would still be alive.

I don't know about Warren, but I think dead criminals are preferable to dead victims.

I think its interesting that the baseline for the story was the implementation of statutes in Texas law that clarifiy and document formally an individual's right to defend life and property. The bias I saw was slanted more toward an assumption that Texas has somehow used law to make it easy for someone to exercise that right; as if it weren't their moral responsibility to do it anyway.

The presumptive position seemed to be that anywhere but Texas, a citizen would be/should be in big trouble for shooting (and then even killing) an intruder/criminal rather than attempting to flee or simply looking the other way. The two instances chosen by the journalist just happen to support the presumption pretty well. They were examples of real life instances where citizens exercised their rights without worrying about the legal consequences because Texas has provided its citizens an understandable, straight forward, well worded, legal position that protects their rights.

In the case of the neighbor being robbed, Joe Horn obviously did something different than what is typically broadcast by MSM. The case of the old man being run over by the car ( I believe it was in Mass )and, although there were many people who saw the incident no one bothered to assist, was put in our face by all the networks with the underlying message being ........SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO HELP THAT POOR MAN.

In Joe Horn's case, someone did do something. Now the media is second guessing whether that something was too much. Was it unreasonable? Does anyone see a problem here? Who determines when and to what extent someone does something? The media?

I don't believe the story was questioning whether Mr. Horn's action was legal, instead, they focused on the "reasonable" question. REASONABLE is a bad word to be enacted as part of any law (unless you are a lawyer). While Texas may still use the "R" word in some of it's laws, they have, in this case, had the backbone to take the next step and added clarification and protection from prosecution where possible and where dictated by morality and logic.

Now the media message seems to be .... It's better to leave the wording vague and let the lawyers work it out .... thus keeping the "rights" of law abiding citizens intact and undisturbed but risky and expensive to exercise.

The second example of the man who defended his family by shooting the intruder was the clearer (more cut and dry) of the two examples used. But still, in this case, the story seemed to raise the issue of whether an individual should be provided the protection of a clearly written law that allows him to take a life without spending a "reasonable" amount of time pondering the consequences and doing everything "reasonable" to avoid rather than confront. Again, the "R" word. How long could they have ridden a story of a man shooting an intruder three times before he had even gotten into the house were not Texas laws as clear as they are today? I can see the lead in now, three shots (from a big gun)... Any reasonable person would have stopped after the first shot to see if the bad guy was running yet.

Thank God the Texas legislature has seen the wisdom of making this decision so much easier thus protecting law abiding citizens and shifting the risk of reasonableness to the criminal.

I think a 3-shot burst is reasonable to use then check to see if he's still moving, of course my 3-shot burst would be followed by another 14 shots or at least until I saw the attacker drop down and unable to harm me.

My point exactly. You and I can both be very glad that our legislature has seen fit to eliminate the need for arguing what is and isn't reasonable. When stopping the threat is the objective, it becomes moot what anyone else thinks.

The real issue I have with the article is that the reporter never bothered to interview any of our representatives who write the laws and who felt the need to clarify it in this case. Instead, he took the tact of interviewing two people who unfortunately had to take action under that law and then had the nerve to question whether or not the law is reasonable. The answer is clear to me ..... Yes it is and who cares, it's the law! If he's really curious about why it was implemented, ask those who wrote it, not those it protects.

seamusTX wrote: The case of Mr. Horn has nothing to do with "castle doctrine," which is about someone breaking into your home, vehicle, or other premises.

Now, here is a hypothetical question for those who criticize Mr. Horn: If he had stayed in his house, and police arrived, what would the police have done? They would have ordered the thieves to stop. If the thieves did not give themselves up, the police would have shot them. The police would have done so using the same justification for the use of deadly force that is available to everyone.

- Jim

I think the city should be praising Joe, he saved them a bunch of money in lawyers fees and settlement suits since the cops didn't have to shoot the illegals. Mr. Joe can't be sued for it if he is no-billed or if for some reason he is indited and is later proven innocent at trial.

Never underestimate the ignorance of the press.

Even quite a few CHL holders and far more home defense advocates who have never taken a CHL or defensive firearms class will recommend "shoot to kill" -- it is a popular BUZZ PHRASE and the press is as prone to being trite as ignorant, but when they can combine the two is is practically irresistible.

Shoot to stop. Shoot until the threat goes away.

We need to correct them, and even our family and friends (or ourselves) when some get it wrong.

Center of mass? Because is it harder to miss and easier to make the criminal attack stop.

So what if the criminal survives and runs away? Less paperwork.