TexasCHLforum.com

... Harris DA says 'life is precious' ...

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5240973

Well, the best thing about the video was that they kept showing XDs over and over.

Pretty much an normal "impartial" piece from the media.

The assistant DA is scary. He must have studied closely under Rosenthal.

Lumberjack98 wrote:Well, the best thing about the video was that they kept showing XDs over and over.

Well the dude did shoot the burglar with an almighty Glock ...

Lumberjack98 wrote:Pretty much an normal "impartial" piece from the media.

The assistant DA is scary. He must have studied closely under Rosenthal.

What you reckon the chances of his opinions having any sway on the laws being made? Is the Castle Doctrine about to be repealed?

israel67 wrote:

Lumberjack98 wrote:Well, the best thing about the video was that they kept showing XDs over and over.

Well the dude did shoot the burglar with an almighty Glock ...

I see a lot of Glock defense shootings, but I've yet to see a Walther one....maybe they have a secret magic that repels evil

israel67 wrote:

Lumberjack98 wrote:Pretty much an normal "impartial" piece from the media.

The assistant DA is scary. He must have studied closely under Rosenthal.

What you reckon the chances of his opinions having any sway on the laws being made? Is the Castle Doctrine about to be repealed?

I'd say opinions like his are what makes legislators mad. Imagine a teenager taking your rule of "don't stay our past midnight," and then twisting it by saying "well you didn't say what time zone." I'd like to see expansion of castle doctrine in the next session to include lawyer fee reimbursement and automatic no bill for shootings during theft and home invasion, just to stop DAs who try to put on bigger pants than they were elected to wear.

The first major error the report committed was when they were interviewing the black gentleman in his home. They showed a shot of his CHL card, and proclaimed that he "had a permit for his gun." Since when do you need a permit to deploy a firearm inside the confines of your own home?? Stupid idiots. They evidently didn't read the big red letters across the top of the card.

This is the most biased piece of televised garbage that I have seen in years.

In the first place, there is little controversy. The legislature has decided that every person has the right to use deadly force to prevent attempted murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, arson, and other grave crimes. The governor signed these bills into law. The DA has no choice but to execute the law as the legislature intended.

The law also allows the use of deadly force to protect property, if that is the only way to stop the thief.

The controversy exists only in the minds of some confused people who want OSHA for criminals.

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.

As for the argument that property is not worth someone's life, that is a moral question. If the ultimate penalty for grave crimes is not death, then criminals will continue to act with impunity (as they do now), not deterred by prison sentences, offending many times until they run into an armed citizen, or are killed by another criminal.

P.S.: One of the more subtle biases is finding a black man with a CHL who defended his home. Granted, he has a nice house and a family and probably a good job; but get this, folks: The government will now give a license to carry a handgun to a black man. Be afraid. Be very afraid. We'll be back after these messages.



- Jim

seamusTX wrote:This is the most biased piece of televised garbage that I have seen in years.

It was bad...but if it was the worst you've seen "in years" then I have to conclude that you don't watch much broadcast news

P.S.: One of the more subtle biases is finding a black man with a CHL who defended his home. Granted, he has a nice house and a family and probably a good job; but get this, folks: The government will now give a license to carry a handgun to a black man. Be afraid. Be very afraid. We'll be back after these messages.

I'm no fan of the piece, but I think this last bit of conjecture is something of a stretch. In fact I think it was a net positive that they presented the case of a black man defending his home and family rather than just another one of those "evil white guys gunning down another poor, misguided minority youth".

Exactly, the Horn incident had nothing to do with castle doctrine, that incident involves laws that have been on the book for decades and decades, the one with the black man though I thought was well played on his part, he firmly stated his opinion and the way he feels, that he would do it again, and that it was to protect his family. I would have done the same, and I know of very few people that wouldn't do it the same way as that man.

Really this piece was too biased to be taken seriously, it is not a controversy here in Texas, it only becomes a controversy when you go to Austin or leave the state.

Pinkycatcher wrote:Really this piece was too biased to be taken seriously, it is not a controversy here in Texas, it only becomes a controversy when you go to Austin or leave the state.

. . . or if you are too lazy to do your own thinking and rely on TV news for your information.

seamusTX wrote: P.S.: One of the more subtle biases is finding a black man with a CHL who defended his home. Granted, he has a nice house and a family and probably a good job; but get this, folks: The government will now give a license to carry a handgun to a black man. Be afraid. Be very afraid. We'll be back after these messages.


- Jim

Thus adding to the evidence that gun control has its roots in racism.

bdickens wrote: Thus adding to the evidence that gun control has its roots in racism.

Yes, American gun control was almost entirely a matter or racism and/or bigotry against (legal) immigrants.

The police and law enforcement could always look the other way if the offender looked like and sounded like the police chief.

Today gun control remains inherently racist, sexist, ageist, and unfair to those with disabilities.

Besides gun control just does NOT work. None of it -- no matter how 'reasonable sounding' it is.

LarryH wrote:

Pinkycatcher wrote:Really this piece was too biased to be taken seriously, it is not a controversy here in Texas, it only becomes a controversy when you go to Austin or leave the state.

. . . or if you are too lazy to do your own thinking and rely on TV news for your information.

Haha, the first time I read that I didn't read the word "if" so I thought you were aiming the rest of that sentence at me. Well most people in Texas are going to oppose this story, and realize there's not really a controversy here, hopefully.

But it does raise some moral questions, and I must say I guess I take the moral low road, I believe in the right of defense of my life, my property, and my family. I feel no pain for a criminal, now if he does get taken by police and tried, I truly want him to get a fair unbiased due process, so maybe I'm a bit hypocritical, I'm very pro-defense in a court, but very anti-criminal.

Pinkycatcher wrote:Exactly, the Horn incident had nothing to do with castle doctrine, that incident involves laws that have been on the book for decades and decades, the one with the black man though I thought was well played on his part, he firmly stated his opinion and the way he feels, that he would do it again, and that it was to protect his family

Did you notice when asked if he was shooting to kill, he answered 'yes' ?

DParker wrote:It was bad...but if it was the worst you've seen "in years" then I have to conclude that you don't watch much broadcast news

That is correct. I do not watch TV much, because it is full of stuff like this, and my wife would get mad at me if I shot it up.

DParker wrote:I'm no fan of the piece, but I think this last bit of conjecture is something of a stretch.

I thought about that later, but I had to write what I wrote at the time.

There must be 20 or 30 home-defense shooting a year in the Houston area, and they easily could have found an elderly white couple.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:There must be 20 or 30 home-defense shooting a year in the Houston area, and they easily could have found an elderly white couple.

No doubt. But my point is, why should they? And why would you want them to? The guy they did present came across as a very likeable middle-class individual who is and was concerned for the safety of his family and home and who acted without hesitation in accordance with his right to defend them. I sincerely doubt that anyone but the most profoundly ignorant white supremacist (a tiny, inconsequential minority, I should hope) would view that part of the story as any sort of reason to be concerned that a black man owns and used a gun.

I don't give the MSM much credit, but I don't think even they are asinine enough to try to suggest something like that.