TexasCHLforum.com

Teens when I was growing up were more worried about getting shot with rock salt than we were buckshot. Of course back then that was an acceptable form of "property owner inflicted judgement" for being somewhere you shouldn't doing something you shouldn't. The worst part was having to explain it to your own parents which meant double punishment.

Of course I was a good boy and never had to worry about that sort of thing...

Jaguar wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Two shoots, at least one teen is hit and recovering. There is no mention of this being rock salt.

I was curious what the load was myself. While I wouldn't want to be shot with any load, I'd rather it be #8 birdshot than 00 buck if I were.

It may be somewhere else but that article didn't say.

Interesting situation where farmer Bob scomes out with his shotgun full or rocksalt and then gets blasted by TPing teenager with a pistol using a SD argument.

thats another spot where a paintball gun may be in order..... fight paper with paint

Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 wrote:thats another spot where a paintball gun may be in order..... fight paper with paint

Having been hit by paintballs on many an occasion, I have to say that might be painfully effective.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Interesting situation where farmer Bob scomes out with his shotgun full or rocksalt and then gets blasted by TPing teenager with a pistol using a SD argument.

Self defense would be a tough sell to a Texas jury if the teen was illegally carrying a handgun while committing a crime.

If the trespasser/vandal was armed, it would be tough to convince me as a juror that he didn't go there with the intent to harm the property owner and their family. Some people might call me prejudced but the presumption is based on real life experience.

bayouhazard wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Interesting situation where farmer Bob scomes out with his shotgun full or rocksalt and then gets blasted by TPing teenager with a pistol using a SD argument.

Self defense would be a tough sell to a Texas jury if the teen was illegally carrying a handgun while committing a crime.

If the trespasser/vandal was armed, it would be tough to convince me as a juror that he didn't go there with the intent to harm the property owner and their family. Some people might call me prejudced but the presumption is based on real life experience.

By TPing the house? Meantime you've threatened/tried to shoot them with a shotgun which definitely qualifies for SD.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Interesting situation where farmer Bob scomes out with his shotgun full or rocksalt and then gets blasted by TPing teenager with a pistol using a SD argument.

Self defense would be a tough sell to a Texas jury if the teen was illegally carrying a handgun while committing a crime.

If the trespasser/vandal was armed, it would be tough to convince me as a juror that he didn't go there with the intent to harm the property owner and their family. Some people might call me prejudced but the presumption is based on real life experience.

By TPing the house? Meantime you've threatened/tried to shoot them with a shotgun which definitely qualifies for SD.

Claiming self defense when you are trespassing and committing criminal mischief during the night time would be difficult. Plus these are teenagers, they are not typically allowed to carry weapons.

I don't believe you can shoot someone when you break into their house and they threaten to shoot you, same situation would apply here, ianal, imo, iiwotj (if I were on the jury).

Jaguar wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Interesting situation where farmer Bob scomes out with his shotgun full or rocksalt and then gets blasted by TPing teenager with a pistol using a SD argument.

Self defense would be a tough sell to a Texas jury if the teen was illegally carrying a handgun while committing a crime.

If the trespasser/vandal was armed, it would be tough to convince me as a juror that he didn't go there with the intent to harm the property owner and their family. Some people might call me prejudced but the presumption is based on real life experience.

By TPing the house? Meantime you've threatened/tried to shoot them with a shotgun which definitely qualifies for SD.

Claiming self defense when you are trespassing and committing criminal mischief during the night time would be difficult. Plus these are teenagers, they are not typically allowed to carry weapons.

I don't believe you can shoot someone when you break into their house and they threaten to shoot you, same situation would apply here, ianal, imo, iiwotj (if I were on the jury).

One is at best a misdemeanor. Breaking into someone's house is a felony. Its most definitely NOT the same situation.
I imagine this guy will be sued out of existence shortly, in addition to criminal charges, and rightly so.

Note I am not advocating anything - ok I am advocating not taking a shotgun out after people TPing the neighbor's house. I merely proferred the scenario as a what if because I like to proffer differing scenarios.

Another scenario, and more likely. CP Dad is walking Team Wiener Dog, when spots tweens TPing a house. CP Dad, while attempting to corral the young wiener dog from freaking out because he's a little girly dog, sees Shotgun Bob come out of his house with a shotgun and pop two rounds at the tweens. CP Dad - fully believing Shotgun Bob is attempting to kill or grievously harm the tweens based on the fact he is attempting to shoot them - draws his own weapon and orders Shotgun Bob to put the shotgun down precedent to police getting there. Is CP Dad legally ok or does he need to sic the wiener dogs on the situation to landmine the area until he can make good his escape?*

*CP Dad is also not advocating the use of wiener dog biowarfare in this post, except in the case of badger infestation.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:One is at best a misdemeanor. Breaking into someone's house is a felony. Its most definitely NOT the same situation.
I imagine this guy will be sued out of existence shortly, in addition to criminal charges, and rightly so.

Note I am not advocating anything - ok I am advocating not taking a shotgun out after people TPing the neighbor's house. I merely proferred the scenario as a what if because I like to proffer differing scenarios.

Another scenario, and more likely. CP Dad is walking Team Wiener Dog, when spots tweens TPing a house. CP Dad, while attempting to corral the young wiener dog from freaking out because he's a little girly dog, sees Shotgun Bob come out of his house with a shotgun and pop two rounds at the tweens. CP Dad - fully believing Shotgun Bob is attempting to kill or grievously harm the tweens based on the fact he is attempting to shoot them - draws his own weapon and orders Shotgun Bob to put the shotgun down precedent to police getting there. Is CP Dad legally ok or does he need to sic the wiener dogs on the situation to landmine the area until he can make good his escape?*

*CP Dad is also not advocating the use of wiener dog biowarfare in this post, except in the case of badger infestation.

Maybe it's just Shotgun Joe Biden, shooting off a couple blasts to scare away the bad guys.

We can "what if" this to death. While the two examples I gave are not the same, I still have little sympathy for folks caught in the act of criminality, be it misdemeanoring or felonious. In this case Shotgun Joe is in the wrong, the kids were in the wrong but less so, and no one will “win”.

However, I would suggest CP Dad do everything within his power to NOT engage someone with a shotgun using a pistol. Have you seen what 00 Buck can do? Send in the hounds instead.

Also, you owe me a keyboard after the wiener dog biowarfare comment.

Maybe it's just Shotgun Joe Biden, shooting off a couple blasts to scare away the bad guys.

yep...

We can "what if" this to death.

Mine were more that I like to think about different scenarios that pop into my head. Sometimes they are good to think about.

Also, you owe me a keyboard after the wiener dog biowarfare comment.

Wiener dogs, proving that God moonlights as a gag writer since the Middle Ages.

There is no justification for the man shooting at the teens. Had he stepped out and fired into the ground just a couple of feet from himself, the teens would have scattered like roaches. Probably half of them would be trying to explain the wet pants to their parents.

When we lived in Houston a neighbors party turned into a fight in our front yard after we had gone to bed. You should have seen them scatter when I stepped out the front door with the 12 Ga. I was in just my underwear.

You don't shoot people for (relatively) harmless pranks. If you feel you must chase them off do so in a non lethal manner......water hose ruins a TP party fast, paintballs even faster with a bit of a sting to boot.

VoiceofReason wrote:When we lived in Houston a neighbors party turned into a fight in our front yard after we had gone to bed. You should have seen them scatter when I stepped out the front door with the 12 Ga. I was in just my underwear.

I'd put that right up there in the "DON'T MESS WITH THAT" category with seeing a rattler wound up and rattling...

OKay, a few comments after seeing the article and some of the posts.

1. It was obviously some type of bird shot. He isn't being charged with attempted murder the the article referred to it as "peppered". Doesn't strike me as any sort of serious injury. It also didn't say how far away it was or how dark it was or what if any confrontation occured.
2. There is no statement at all from the shooter. We have absolutely no idea what he saw or thought he saw. You don't know if he knew it was a toilet paper prank or something else or if they were carrying something that looked more suspicious. IMO, those who claim there is "no moral or legal justification" for this shoot should amend that to say no "apparent" justification. We only know a few basic facts.
3. Lastly, in my experience as a past teenager and otherwise, teenagers are often habitual liars and will say or hide anything to get out of what ever wrong doing they might be in trouble for even to the point of convincing themselves they are right and justified. I am not trying to defend the guys, I just want to hear the whole story before condemning him. Of course, the charges are short of attempt murder so I don't know how serious they are.

On that other hand, I am having a hard time figuring out how he would be justified in shooting if this was just your typical TP prank with nothing else going on.

VoiceofReason wrote:There is no justification for the man shooting at the teens. Had he stepped out and fired into the ground just a couple of feet from himself, the teens would have scattered like roaches. Probably half of them would be trying to explain the wet pants to their parents.

When we lived in Houston a neighbors party turned into a fight in our front yard after we had gone to bed. You should have seen them scatter when I stepped out the front door with the 12 Ga. I was in just my underwear.

Imagine the news headlines if one of those punks came at you with or without a weapon and you ended up shooting. I really doubt you would be portrayed in a good light.