TexasCHLforum.com

GrillKing wrote:I would never shoot over property unless my life or that of a loved one is in danger. If they are driving off with my trailor, it's theirs.

That's why I pay my insurance company a gazillion dollers a year.....

The emotional duress, probable loss of sleep (for more than 1 night), possible legal costs, etc., just aren't worth it to me for property alone.

If you are a threat of serious harm or worse to me or my family, it's a different story.

+1 this says it all in my book

not only would I shoot, should I catch someone in the act of what you describe but I would most likely have to reload as well.

Then I'd send the family a bill for the bullets.

you know, for the cost of most premium defensive ammo....

As a teenager, I was shot with the classic rock salt in the backside while going over a fence. I happened to be lighting a bag of dog poo and not stealing, but how was the owner of the house supposed to know that? I think alot more people would shoot than not shoot. I may or may not shoot. I work with my hands, but don't have my own tools like Hoss. My grandfather, however was a welder, and had someone tried to steal his welding truck, I assure you, there would have been a chalk outline on the driveway in the shape of the criminal. I'd be alot more inclined to shoot in Hoss' position since that's his livelyhood. By the way, the lighting dog poo years have passed, I have much more creative and less mischevious outlets now.

Tactical_Texan_CHL wrote:As a teenager, I was shot with the classic rock salt in the backside while going over a fence. I happened to be lighting a bag of dog poo and not stealing, but how was the owner of the house supposed to know that? I think alot more people would shoot than not shoot. I may or may not shoot. I work with my hands, but don't have my own tools like Hoss. My grandfather, however was a welder, and had someone tried to steal his welding truck, I assure you, there would have been a chalk outline on the driveway in the shape of the criminal. I'd be alot more inclined to shoot in Hoss' position since that's his livelyhood. By the way, the lighting dog poo years have passed, I have much more creative and less mischevious outlets now.

I'm assuming you did get the joy of witnessing them stomping it out, as you were stinging a bit?

I hate to admit it, but, no. I didn't stop running for a mile! My friends however who were watching told me that the combination of me running like a "big scared girl" as they put it, and the flaming bag of poo was the absolute funniest thing they've ever seen. To this day, I still hear about it once or twice a year over 10 years later! That, and the time I burned my eyebrows off with a potato gun, but that's a story for another day........ In my weak defense, we had just watched Adam Sandler in Billy Madison do the bag of dog poo trick, and we thought it would be hilarious to do to the neighborhood cranky guy. Still not sure how I got volunteered to be the "lighter of the poo".

You’re lucky you didn’t get seriously hurt! A long time ago I was having some problems on my property and decided to try the old rock salt in the shotgun trick.

I took several shells and loaded them up with salt and decided to test them out on some paper targets.

At close range, it had almost no spread, and hit the target as a relatively solid mass…and with a lot of energy. Suffice it to say it would have done serious injury to a person.

Increasing the distance rapidly changed the impact and it didn’t take long until it barely had enough force to penetrate the paper.

I came to the conclusion rock salt in a shotgun was not a very viable option. Of course my “test� was unscientific, but it was good enough to back me off.

The problem I had was a very narrow range where the salt would have the desired effect. Inside that range and it could be just as injurious as birdshot…outside the range it would have no physical impact through average attire. It just didn’t sound like a good option…

Oh, yeah. I know I was lucky! That was actually enough to dissuade me from pranks for awhile. Of course, my "hoodlum" days were little more than lighting dog poo, a little pumpkin bashing on Halloween, the occasional stealing of rival school's football players yard signs (replaced unharmed in another part of town and not destroyed), and maybe once or twice changing the letters on a local businesses sign to spell dirty words at night. I'm amazed these days at what is considered "youthful pranking". My days weren't that long ago, and things have changed to the point where I'm afraid for my kids sometimes!

Sorry, Hoss. Your situation is clearly not a case of kids playing around. I didn't mean to detract from your original post. I looked back and thought my posts were a little too goofy and took away from your point. I hope you at least have a decent outcome, whether it's through insurance, or by some freak chance, the police find your stuff.

I enjoyed reading your posts, so no harm done.

While I would not shoot unless to save a life (my line in the sand, thanks, Mr Cotton) -

I would however, stand behind you & Mr Horn as you defended property - it's your right to STOP the dirtbags...


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Good post.

Weekly Reader wrote:Heck yes.

We have been burgularized enough times to loose our insurance. I've experienced the criminal court system several times with criminals. I will shoot without hesitation.

I agree.

My property is worth something to me. I work hard to earn enough money to buy what I have. I'm willing to spend a few bullets to keep it.

When a criminal tries to victimize me, I believe they're expressing their desire to be shot.

boomerang wrote:

Weekly Reader wrote:Heck yes.

We have been burgularized enough times to loose our insurance. I've experienced the criminal court system several times with criminals. I will shoot without hesitation.

I agree.

My property is worth something to me. I work hard to earn enough money to buy what I have. I'm willing to spend a few bullets to keep it.

When a criminal tries to victimize me, I believe they're expressing their desire to be shot.

It'll cost you a lot more than the price of a few bullets.

You guys who are so ready to shoot someone need to sit and talk to a few people who have. The financial, emotional and psychological impacts on you AND your family are not minor nor a joke. A realize that everybody wants to be a tough guy, but there seriously needs some thought put into these types of statements.

That suggests we need to enact laws to protect victims who defend themselves from criminals.