TexasCHLforum.com

Might be awhile before we see an out come on this so what do you guys think? Makes me want to get that insurance now.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_19322547? ... ost_viewed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also like this part.

Police would not disclose whether the owner had a concealed handgun license. The names were not released.

yeah I posted that earlier and another incident in Tyler in The Crime Blotter section

El Paso Last night they said shooting ... then it was car burglar was shot ...today it was a car burglar - robber was shot by business owner

Tyler was a lady awoke to a burglar sitting on her, she fought, got a gun he ran

viewtopic.php?f=108&t=49643" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two things.

The picture caption calls the alleged burglar an alleged shooting victim. Now he may be an alleged burglar, but he is definitely a shooting victim; no allegation about that!

Secondly, this brings to mind the old saying: "Don't mess with an older man. He won't fight; he will just kill you."

sugar land dave wrote:The picture caption calls the alleged burglar an alleged shooting victim. Now he may be an alleged burglar, but he is definitely a shooting victim; no allegation about that!

If he's a burglar then he's not the victim but he was allegedly shot by the victim.

Nice mohawk. My Mom always told me to try and find a positive.

Just read the other link from kfox, it was a HISPANIC victim. I don't care if your white, black, hispanic or purple you break in your getting shot my sig doesn't discriminate against anyone. It will be a few days to see how people are going to react to it then we will find out if charges are going to be filed.

Typical news stations spreading nonsense because someone used a firearm in self defense.

I'm not seeing the slant yet...can't tell if they are going to make it an anti-situation or not. Of course, it is the MSM, so it will probably be how the innocent victim was shot by some crazed lunatic with a gun. Seems like LE is handling it pretty close to the vest, which I like.

RJ

If I read the article correctly, there is a lot more to this case to decide if it was a justified shooting or not. It is not legal to use deadly force to stop a car burglar at 2 in the afternoon in Texas.* It is legal to use some force, just not deadly force. The good side is that there was an altercation before the shooting, so the self-defense aspect may come into play. That part is not clear.

Reading between the lines, and this is just my guess, the car burglar was interrupted in the act by the car owner. The car owner pointed the gun and told the burglar to stop. The burglar did not appreciate this and advanced on the owner who did not shoot him then (which is actually good). The burglar then started to argue/fight with the owner and that is when the shooting occurred. This, if true, illustrates why pointing a gun at someone when you are not ready (or allowed) to pull the trigger is a bad idea.

I did not read all of the comments on the story but I was surprised how little support of the bad guy there was, and how few attacks on the owner or guns (none in the part I read).


* to help forestall argument, my logic on not allowing deadly force in this case is based on the wording of PC 9.42. Note that it allows deadly force to stop a burglary. This is a specific type of crime and not the chapter. I take this since it lists both Robbery and Aggravated Robbery. If it was listing types of crimes, it would not have needed both so it must be listing specific section titles. For the car burglary to be included, it would have had to list Burglary and Burglary of a vehicle.

...I agree with your thinking on this one...and this seems to be a good example of why you're not allowed to THREATEN deadly force if you're not allowed to USE deadly force...another old argument here...

speedsix wrote:...I agree with your thinking on this one...and this seems to be a good example of why you're not allowed to THREATEN deadly force if you're not allowed to USE deadly force...another old argument here...

If you mean why you shouldn't then you make a fair point. Otherwise, please see § 9.04.

Turns out the victim is a lawyer.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_19339235" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think I want this guy as my lawyer...

texas-sig wrote:Turns out the victim is a lawyer.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_19339235" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;