TexasCHLforum.com

with Baldeagle, too. I was thinking of how to say those things myself: the "pointed at a loved one" example.

This has been a great thread, in my view. Hopefully, it makes all of us think things through so that we will be prepared if the time ever comes to make a decision based on the scenarios described.

A family member has the following signature line, which seems apropos.

"If a man deserves to be shot, it matters not which way he faces, only where he stands."

Westfield wrote:Shooting car thieves in the back from your second story location and this last one just shooting people in the back...I think this board has some serious issues.

Because I take men at their word and don't ascribe false motives to them, I've been thinking a lot about what you wrote. Here's what I think is wrong with what you've written. We're civilized people. The idea of shooting someone in the back doesn't sit well with you precisely because it seems so un-civilized. The problem with this thinking is that your opponent will not be civilized. If he/they were, he would not be committing a crime in front of your eyes. In order for a civilized person to produce a weapon and shoot another person, they have to perform one of the most uncivilized acts a person can commit. In order for a civilized person to do that, they must train themselves to react to situations in what for them is a most abnormal way. The only way that can happen is if that civilized person has conditioned themselves through consistent and repetitive mental exercise. That's why the military train constantly.

That's what this forum does. So rather than assuming that the members of this forum are most uncivilized, realize that they are working outside their comfort zone, trying to prepare for what could be the most awful and terrifying moment of their lives. Some have been doing this for a quite a while. Their answers might seem flippant or even uncivilized, but they didn't get there overnight. More importantly, they are the very people you would want with you in a fight. For they will no longer hesitate when the moment comes, and that lack of hesitation could save your life or others whom you love.

That, my friend, is why we talk about shooting people in the back.

baldeagle wrote:

Westfield wrote:Shooting car thieves in the back from your second story location and this last one just shooting people in the back...I think this board has some serious issues.

No, the board doesn't have serious issues. You misunderstand the nature of the board and the purpose of these types of discussions.

You're being far too simplistic. <SNIP> A wonderfully worded and lucid post.

+1, here here! and any other applicable smilies.

Cobra Medic wrote:

Westfield wrote:Shooting car thieves in the back from your second story location and this last one just shooting people in the back...I think this board has some serious issues.

The people who think criminals deserve to get away with it should invite criminals to rob and rape them. That way the criminals get what they want, the bleeding hearts get what they want, and the good guys get to keep their lives and property and safety. Pareto optimum solution FTW!

I think we kind of have that now. The Libs pass laws in their towns making it clear to criminals that they are volunteering to be the victims. The only problem is that some criminals seem to be too ignorant to actually understand what the Libs are offering, so they make the mistake of trying to victimize people who fight back, and everything gets all screwed up.

IMHO, we need a criminal education initiative so that we can help them understand where the voluntary victims are located. We could put up flyers in jails and prisons, maybe enlist some grafitti artists, etc. One good start would be to bus all violent offenders to their choice of victim cities upon release (San Francisco, Chicago, DC, etc). We wouldn't even need to provide housing since the victims in their chosen location would gladly welcome their deprived brethren in for a meal and a warm bed.

That should solve all the issues. I would worry about running out of victims, but our colleges and universities are doing a fine job of producing a never ending supply, so I think we're all good on that front.

I could not live with myself if I took a life over a car ... bicycle maybe.

hangfour wrote:I could not live with myself if I took a life over a car ... bicycle maybe.

Heck no, never over a car! You know how hard that would be to get the blood out of all the nooks and crannies.......

Katygunnut wrote:IMHO, we need a criminal education initiative so that we can help them understand where the voluntary victims are located. We could put up flyers in jails and prisons, maybe enlist some grafitti artists, etc. One good start would be to bus all violent offenders to their choice of victim cities upon release (San Francisco, Chicago, DC, etc). We wouldn't even need to provide housing since the victims in their chosen location would gladly welcome their deprived brethren in for a meal and a warm bed.

That should solve all the issues. I would worry about running out of victims, but our colleges and universities are doing a fine job of producing a never ending supply, so I think we're all good on that front.

Westfield wrote:Shooting car thieves in the back from your second story location and this last one just shooting people in the back...I think this board has some serious issues.

Westfield and I both are "armchair quarterbacks". I asked a friend of mine from South Africa where it is ILLEGAL to shoot someone in the back. Guess what? The thugs will enter your home BACKWARDS and fire over their shoulders at you. If you hit the thugs/rapists, you WILL go to jail. If you don't, they WILL kill you. Great, huh? My South African friend was actually held at gunpoint and robbed. His sister hid and they beat him to try to get him to reveal where his sister was hiding so that they could rape her. He denied she was there and told them that she was out of town so they beat him mercilessly. The doctor later said that he bled so much that he almost died.

Instead of being armchair quarterbacks, I invite y'all to at least follow the law and allow the law-abiding defenders to return to their families without criminal charges if they've shot thieves in the back. The reason why the law allows it in Texas is to avoid Texas from becoming South Africa, Washington DC, or other liberal beacons of darkness. I invite y'all to acquit the law-abiding defender if you're on the jury. Interpreting the event with liberal Hollywood values will only serve to free felons and kill innocents.

Liberal liars will have you believe that the law-abiding defender has killed someone by shooting a thief in the back over a $50 CD player. This is patently untrue and a liberal lie. At what point do you decide that a thief is unarmed? How do you tell if that thug who is robbing you has a gun in his pocket? How can you be sure if he sees you or not as you observe him from your 2nd story window? You have a right to protect your property from theft, but if you yell, "Stop," will the armed thug then shoot and kill you? As you can see, this is a gray area. It is not clear cut. It is not black or white. If juries are allowed to armchair quarterback, it only serves to kill innocent lives and turn our great state into South Africa. Did you know that 37 percent of South African men have raped before? (1) The reason why a much lower percent of Texans are rapists is because we have laws in our great state that protect victims, but not thugs. It doesn't pay to be a thug in Texas, especially at night. God bless Texas!

(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/ ... 2661.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good arguments and opinions here.

Protecting a neighbor's property is does not justify deadly force, in my opinion. Stealing that gun takes it to a higher level, in which case I might open the window and yell at them, gun at the ready, out of sight. When they turn toward me I'll have a better argument. Then if any of them raises a gun toward me it becomes self-protection and I'll start shooting.

I agree that stealing a gun is worth more effort. But someone will ask how do you know there is a gun in that car and how do you know that they will try to steal it. Lawyer talk scares me. They charge ten dollars a minute for it.

Safer and cheaper would be to take pictures or notes and call the cops. Sell your neighbor that extra gun you have.

Going back to the OP, the solution to the situation was to hang out with the pistol loaded and holstered while using your laser pointer to put a red dot on one of their chests. I imagine they would have gotten the idea without blood loss.

gdanaher wrote:Going back to the OP, the solution to the situation was to hang out with the pistol loaded and holstered while using your laser pointer to put a red dot on one of their chests. I imagine they would have gotten the idea without blood loss.

honestly i didnt even want them to know i was watching incase they decided to come break into my place just because i saw them.

gdanaher wrote:Going back to the OP, the solution to the situation was to hang out with the pistol loaded and holstered while using your laser pointer to put a red dot on one of their chests. I imagine they would have gotten the idea without blood loss.

Thanks, I needed a good giggle for the day!

USA1 wrote:First of all, I'd never shoot anyone in the back.
Second, my gun is for protecting my loved ones and myself from harm.

Property can be replaced.

Never? Really? You've got two armed assailants in your home, facing away from you, you're seriously going to allow them the opportunity to shoot you or someone else? I don't understand the logic or morality of that position.

That said, I wouldn't shoot anyone in the circumstances described by the OP, front or back.