TexasCHLforum.com

KingofChaos wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:And you get to decide on the value? Will you also be executioner?

Looking at the looting, burning, and personal attacks committed in the London riots and by criminals here and elsewhere, you do not want to ask me those questions. The same planet that creates monsters also creates those that will defend against the monsters.

I feel the line between them and us is thin and usually made entirely of things we had no control over. People often give themselves far too much credit for their success, and think other people could have just done what they did. Everyone is responsible for their actions, but necessarily response for the circumstances or environment of those actions. So to distance yourself from other human beings and treat them like vermin just comes across as asinine to me. All it could have taken is your father getting laid off instead of some other stranger, and you'd be just like those "monsters". Instead I say hit them over the head a few time, hope they learn their lesson, then rinse and repeat. I'd rather have jails full of repeat offenders than a warehouse of execution chambers. This is America after all.

Haven't had to deal with that scum first hand very much have you?

VoiceofReason wrote:Haven't had to deal with that scum first hand very much have you?

I grew up and live in south Houston with those people you're likely to call scum. I probably have more first hand experience than you do. I see people I played with as a child and we're nothing alike at all now. I had positive influences, they didn't. I'm in college, they have felonies. But that doesn't make me better than they are. In fact, I question how much first hand experience you've had sir.
*edit*
Actually after looking on your profile I take that back. I see you use to be a Sheriff, and I thank you for putting yourself on the line for us civilians. That being said, I feel like those years in LE may have harden your heart to people.

What happens if a BG injures/assaults/kills a K9? Can the cop protect the dog as he would a human partner?

Blindref757 wrote:What happens if a BG injures/assaults/kills a K9? Can the cop protect the dog as he would a human partner?

CHAPTER 38. OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION

§ 38.151. INTERFERENCE WITH POLICE SERVICE ANIMALS.
(a) In this section:
(1) "Area of control" includes a vehicle, trailer, kennel, pen, or yard.
(2) "Handler or rider" means a peace officer, corrections officer, or jailer who is specially trained to use a police service animal for law enforcement, corrections, prison or jail security, or investigative purposes.
(3) "Police service animal" means a dog, horse, or other domesticated animal that is specially trained for use by a handler or rider.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly:
(1) taunts, torments, or strikes a police service animal;
(2) throws an object or substance at a police service animal;
(3) interferes with or obstructs a police service animal or interferes with or obstructs the handler or rider of a police service animal in a manner that:
(A) inhibits or restricts the handler's or rider's control of the animal; or
(B) deprives the handler or rider of control of the animal;
(4) releases a police service animal from its area of control;
(5) enters the area of control of a police service animal without the effective consent of the handler or rider, including placing food or any other object or substance into that area;
(6) injures or kills a police service animal; or
(7) engages in conduct likely to injure or kill a police service animal, including administering or setting a poison, trap, or any other object or substance.
(c) An offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(1);
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(2);
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(3), (4), or (5);
(4) a state jail felony if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by injuring a police service animal or by engaging in conduct likely to injure the animal; or
(5) a felony of the third degree if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by killing a police service animal or by engaging in conduct likely to kill the animal.

That's sure what it looks like. They'd be stopping them while the attacker was committing a violent felony.

KingofChaos wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Haven't had to deal with that scum first hand very much have you?

I grew up and live in south Houston with those people you're likely to call scum. I probably have more first hand experience than you do. I see people I played with as a child and we're nothing alike at all now. I had positive influences, they didn't. I'm in college, they have felonies. But that doesn't make me better than they are. In fact, I question how much first hand experience you've had sir.
*edit*
Actually after looking on your profile I take that back. I see you use to be a Sheriff, and I thank you for putting yourself on the line for us civilians. That being said, I feel like those years in LE may have harden your heart to people.

OK this is going to be long.

My father had to quit school during the depression and go to work to help feed the family. He was drafted into WWII and was a medic, was at Normandy and was discharged after he was wounded. He got work on a garbage truck and eventually became a crane operator in a steel mill. He worked hard at an honest job for many years and supported us as well as he could.

I served four years in the military I worked for a large company fifteen years and was let go after getting injured on the job. I went back to school and got a better job. I have provided for my family as well as I have been able to.

I grew up in a poor, rough neighborhood. I have seen disadvantaged children end up in prison and I have seen them do well for themselves. I have seen children with every advantage they could have, end up in prison and I have seen them do well for themselves.

The common thread I have seen in the failures is that they made excuses and blamed everyone except themselves for their failure and the crimes they committed.

The common thread I have seen in those that have done well for themselves is that they didn’t give up. They played the hand life dealt them the best they could and kept going.

I grant you that positive influences do make a difference, but it by no means is the sole determining factor as to how a person will turn out.

There are good people and they should be dealt with as good human beings. There are two legged animals and they should be dealt with like animals.

In short we are who we are either because of our environment growing up or in spite of it. The choice is ours, and ours alone.

I'd rather have jails full of repeat offenders than a warehouse of execution chambers.

not I.
Every repeat offence means there was at least 1 new victim. Assuming that we're talking about
crimes that can be punished by execution, then we really don't want repeat offenders.

KingofChaos wrote:That's sure what it looks like. They'd be stopping them while the attacker was committing a violent felony.

So a double standard exists? If I have a Blindref757 Service Animal...am I not allowed the same liberty to protect that being?

Interesting question. But legal or not, iff you attack my dog- I will put you down. He's my buddy :)

speedsix wrote:...no offense, TAM, but the law I quoted gives authority for a person to shoot the dog who's done the wrong...in that case, you'd be breaking the law to try to keep him from KEEPING the law...and he's NOT a vigilante, following that law...

If my dog got out and attacked his chickens, then he would have the right to shoot my dog........if he did so then and there. But that is not an issue in my life. None of my dogs have ever gotten loose or terrorized anybody. If I have no knowledge of a previous problem with my dog, I will defend my dog as if I think it is innocent. Period. If that gets me tossed in the hoosegow, so be it. I don't take offense. I did say that I don't care what the consequences are, and I'll bear them if need be.

Like I said, my dogs have never gotten out where any of them could ever cause a problem for somebody. I am a responsible dog owner. On top of that, my dog is not so inclined. He's a sweetheart who gets along with everybody. So if someone comes charging up with mayhem on his mind, I seriously don't care what the letter of the law says. He is most likely mistaken, and my dog simply looks like the dog he's angry with. Again, I'm talking about after the fact....say half an hour later or the day after the alleged attack by some dog. What if he's got the wrong dog? Is he allowed to shoot all the dogs that look like the dog he's looking for until he finds the one that is actually guilty? Do you see my point?

So really, I don't give a hoot what his "rights" are. He won't exercise them after the fact, at my dog's risk, without there being law enforcement present, and without my rights as a property owner being respected. My dog never leaves my property unless it is inside my vehicle. In fact, it tends to stay indoors most of the day, and when we let him out, he goes to our backyard, which is completely fenced in with a high fence and beware of dog signs. Nobody would have an opportunity to be harmed in person or property by my dog unless he were trespassing in my back yard, or had forced his way into my home. So if some some other guy comes to my house, after he alleges some problem with my dog, he's going to have to get into my house to get to him. If he comes into my house uninvited, with attitude and waving a gun, I don't care what his problem is, he'll get shot, and there isn't a cop in the state of Texas who is going to arrest me for defending me and mine from an armed intruder inside my own home.

Period. No offense meant. I simply am not going to have any of it. I'm only talking about me and mine. If I were the kind of oaf who lets his vicious pitbulls run loose down the block, then of course my neighbors have a right to use deadly force to defend themselves. But even then, they may not force their way into my house to extract revenge after the fact. That's when it becomes a law enforcement issue versus vigilanteism.

speedsix wrote:...no offense, TAM, but the law I quoted gives authority for a person to shoot the dog who's done the wrong...in that case, you'd be breaking the law to try to keep him from KEEPING the law...and he's NOT a vigilante, following that law...

I see our misunderstanding..... I'm assuming an innocent dog, because my dogs are innocent. A) I don't ever give them the opportunity to be guilty; and B) I don't adopt mean predatory dogs.

BTW, I wouldn't exactly be preventing him from "KEEPING" the law. The law doesn't place a legal burden on him requiring him to shoot my dog. It merely makes that a lawful avenue of pursuit should he choose to pursue it. In other words, he won't be in trouble with the law if he doesn't shoot my dog. That said, I would still likely insert myself between the other person and my dog. Don't really care what the law says about it, precisely because he can equally choose NOT to shoot it, and he's not required to do so. I just feel very strongly about it. If I get arrested for protecting my do, so be it.

KingofChaos wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:And you get to decide on the value? Will you also be executioner?

Looking at the looting, burning, and personal attacks committed in the London riots and by criminals here and elsewhere, you do not want to ask me those questions. The same planet that creates monsters also creates those that will defend against the monsters.

I feel the line between them and us is thin and usually made entirely of things we had no control over. People often give themselves far too much credit for their success, and think other people could have just done what they did. Everyone is responsible for their actions, but necessarily response for the circumstances or environment of those actions. So to distance yourself from other human beings and treat them like vermin just comes across as asinine to me. All it could have taken is your father getting laid off instead of some other stranger, and you'd be just like those "monsters". Instead I say hit them over the head a few time, hope they learn their lesson, then rinse and repeat. I'd rather have jails full of repeat offenders than a warehouse of execution chambers. This is America after all.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.

Old but true words spoken by someone better than me.

ghostrider wrote:

I'd rather have jails full of repeat offenders than a warehouse of execution chambers.

not I.
Every repeat offence means there was at least 1 new victim. Assuming that we're talking about
crimes that can be punished by execution, then we really don't want repeat offenders.

See, the impression I got from them is that they WEREN'T talking about crimes that are currently punishable by execution. My impression could be wrong, they never specified, and I'm going on the tone of their written word, which is always difficult to interpret . I am in no way opposed to capital punishment for crimes which currently are punishable by execution, and a few others that aren't. My impression was that they just wanted to get rid of all of the "troublemakers", and not every troublemaker deserves to die.

Blindref757 wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:That's sure what it looks like. They'd be stopping them while the attacker was committing a violent felony.

So a double standard exists? If I have a Blindref757 Service Animal...am I not allowed the same liberty to protect that being?

Police dog are often full-blown officers. Badge numbers, badges, and even get full police funerals in some places. They basically get upgraded to human since they're officially a part of the police force. My dog just clicks my face and isn't in the same league as them, so I wouldn't call it a double standard. Even dogs that are "work dogs" primary duty usually isn't to routinely participate in potentially violent situations.

Situations that happened.

Neighbor 1 had two dogs (a boxer and a mutt about half the size of the boxer) and their back yard was not fenced in. The mutt would come on our property barking at me and/or my wife. I talked to the neighbors about this problem. They apologized but did nothing.

The boxer approached my wife on our property a couple of times in a threatening manner and growled at her.

The boxer came into our built on garage one day barking and growling at me. My first thought was to shoot it. I carry a Kimber 45 and a Berretta 32. I decided not to, except as a last resort, because of the possibility of a ricochet off the concrete. I picked up a metal rod and started toward the dog. He backed out of the garage and I shut the door. I talked to the neighbors but did not make any threats. I started taking video of the dog coming on our property with the intention of filing a complaint with the Sherriff. The neighbors put up a fence. Problem solved.

Question--- I carry “Hydroshock ” in both guns. Would the 32 have gone through the boxer with enough force left to present a ricochet danger?



Neighbor 2 had a small dog. The little mutt would come up behind me as I was entering our front door and bark at me from three or four feet behind me. It scared the blazes out of me a couple of times and it would run when I turned around.

It finally grabbed my grandson’s pants leg as he was coming in the door, I talked to the woman, and she got rid of the dog.

I would have killed either dog if necessary but I would have been angry at the owner.