Rusty in michigan you would be braking the law. You have the right to call the police not to be the police. However if a family member is involved you can help the family member. But know that if you do help you better know that the family member is in the right or you could find yourself in bigger trouble than them. One reason the law is this way is because you could fully trust your neighbor and see him/her in trouble go help them and come to find out you shot the wrong person. This is a police matter unless your family member is in danger and you know he/her is in the right. Or if you are ok with giving up your freedom to save your kids life if he/she is in the wrong.
Help Support VMAX Forum:
Rusty McNeil
Well-Known Member
I was trying to draw an analogy applying to helping a fellow friendly nation who is clearly in trouble, and the moral correctness of intervening.
But, since we're talking about it....
"Breaking the law"?????
Not in Texas, our legislature had the common sense to realize that Law Enforcement is there to clean up the mess. They will never be able to prevent crime other than catching criminals and locking them up preventing future acts.
Below is current Texas Code concerning use of force to protect yourself, another, your property, or another's property.
Texas, unlike most states, allows the use of deadly force to protect property alone without having to be in fear if your life, and use of deadly force to protect another if you would be allowed to protect yourself were you in their shoes. Has no "equal force with equal force" provisions, and no duty to retreat ANYWHERE that you have "A right to be"
Hell, it even authorizes use of force to resist arrest if LEO is "jumping the shark"
It's kind long but is outstanding legislative craftsmanship.
Not shown below but also in Texas law is basic permission allowing any law abiding citizen to carry a loaded weapon in their vehicle, no CHL needed.
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.
Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Michigan was where I was born. I used to really like it. It must really Suck now. Here I could shoot the intruder as they entered my house and would. I'd be totally legal in doing that. Thank God for states like Florida, Texas and others. Prayers to and for the rest of you..
True how can you know. Thats why we cant just kill them. It could just be a 16 year old kid running from a dog that has bit him/her. Im not saying if a person enters your home and stays after you tell them to leave you cant do anything. If a person walks in your house and than turns and leaves and you cant prove intent and you kill them you will be in big trouble. You cant kill someone for braking and entering if the person walks away and dont give you intent. You guys can go ahead and pull the trigger and kill but if you kill a 16 year old kid running from a dog you will be in big trouble. I dont care where you live. And have fun living with that. Wake up people.
If you want to take that precious split second available to try to determine 'intent' that's your business but rest assured, if someone comes barging thru the front door of my house, I will react as quickly as I possibly can with no thought whatsoever as to WHY they might be there. The harsh lesson here is....you act like a home invader, you're gonna be treated like a home invader.
And I will live with that just fine!
+ 1
85 MAX-fan
Well-Known Member
Do you have even the slightest idea how stupid this hypothetical bulshit sounds??
How many 16 year olds running from dogs that bit them have commited a home invasion in your estimation?
All night I had recurring images of terrified 16 yr olds running thru the woods out here, scant inches from the jaws of vicious Baskerville type hounds............:rofl_200::rofl_200::rofl_200:
dannymax and 85 max I do have to say that some funny ass shit :rofl_200:. But what i said about a 16 year old was just a scenario so you dont need to worry anymore.
The way you guys talk about killing people first and than ask quetion later will turn you into bb's some day. All along some people on this thread have said that they would pull the trigger and kill someone even if they cant prove that life is in danger and all i have said is that you cant do that legally. I never said if someone walks through the door and says im gona kill you that you cant kill them. knowing that the two of you are willing to be immature about life and guns worry's me. infact i was up all nite worrying about if you guys might have a kid that called a friend and invited them over at 2am and said just come in dont knock so we dont wake my mom and dad up and you herd the kid come in your house and grabbed your gun and shot him. :confused2:. Or maybe your 22 year old son that hasent lived with you for over a year but still brings his laundry to your house because he dont have a wahser and dryer forgets he dident stop back by to get his work clothes and he needs to be at work at 6am and its 3am when he remembers and he thinks to hime self i will just be quiet and go get them now. this is just a senario. Mike
The way you guys talk about killing people first and than ask quetion later will turn you into bb's some day. All along some people on this thread have said that they would pull the trigger and kill someone even if they cant prove that life is in danger and all i have said is that you cant do that legally. I never said if someone walks through the door and says im gona kill you that you cant kill them. knowing that the two of you are willing to be immature about life and guns worry's me. infact i was up all nite worrying about if you guys might have a kid that called a friend and invited them over at 2am and said just come in dont knock so we dont wake my mom and dad up and you herd the kid come in your house and grabbed your gun and shot him. :confused2:. Or maybe your 22 year old son that hasent lived with you for over a year but still brings his laundry to your house because he dont have a wahser and dryer forgets he dident stop back by to get his work clothes and he needs to be at work at 6am and its 3am when he remembers and he thinks to hime self i will just be quiet and go get them now. this is just a senario. Mike
dannymax and 85 max I do have to say that some funny ass shit :rofl_200:. But what i said about a 16 year old was just a scenario so you dont need to worry anymore.
The way you guys talk about killing people first and than ask quetion later will turn you into bb's some day. All along some people on this thread have said that they would pull the trigger and kill someone even if they cant prove that life is in danger and all i have said is that you cant do that legally. I never said if someone walks through the door and says im gona kill you that you cant kill them. knowing that the two of you are willing to be immature about life and guns worry's me. infact i was up all nite worrying about if you guys might have a kid that called a friend and invited them over at 2am and said just come in dont knock so we dont wake my mom and dad up and you herd the kid come in your house and grabbed your gun and shot him. :confused2:. Or maybe your 22 year old son that hasent lived with you for over a year but still brings his laundry to your house because he dont have a wahser and dryer forgets he dident stop back by to get his work clothes and he needs to be at work at 6am and its 3am when he remembers and he thinks to hime self i will just be quiet and go get them now. this is just a senario. Mike
True how can you know. Thats why we cant just kill them. It could just be a 16 year old kid running from a dog that has bit him/her. Im not saying if a person enters your home and stays after you tell them to leave you cant do anything. If a person walks in your house and than turns and leaves and you cant prove intent and you kill them you will be in big trouble. You cant kill someone for braking and entering if the person walks away and dont give you intent. You guys can go ahead and pull the trigger and kill but if you kill a 16 year old kid running from a dog you will be in big trouble. I dont care where you live. And have fun living with that. Wake up people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike, if you re-read the posts you will find that you are the only person talking about killing someone....and with disturbing frequency too, I might add.
And....I'm not sure what kind of domestic operation yer running there but my house is locked and secured at dark, all systems are armed and there are no brain dead people walking in and out at all hours of the night looking for work clothes or bandages for dog bites or whatever else goes on in your neck of the woods.
Ever heard of the 6P principle? Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance
The way you guys talk about killing people first and than ask quetion later will turn you into bb's some day. All along some people on this thread have said that they would pull the trigger and kill someone even if they cant prove that life is in danger and all i have said is that you cant do that legally. I never said if someone walks through the door and says im gona kill you that you cant kill them. knowing that the two of you are willing to be immature about life and guns worry's me. infact i was up all nite worrying about if you guys might have a kid that called a friend and invited them over at 2am and said just come in dont knock so we dont wake my mom and dad up and you herd the kid come in your house and grabbed your gun and shot him. :confused2:. Or maybe your 22 year old son that hasent lived with you for over a year but still brings his laundry to your house because he dont have a wahser and dryer forgets he dident stop back by to get his work clothes and he needs to be at work at 6am and its 3am when he remembers and he thinks to hime self i will just be quiet and go get them now. this is just a senario. Mike
True how can you know. Thats why we cant just kill them. It could just be a 16 year old kid running from a dog that has bit him/her. Im not saying if a person enters your home and stays after you tell them to leave you cant do anything. If a person walks in your house and than turns and leaves and you cant prove intent and you kill them you will be in big trouble. You cant kill someone for braking and entering if the person walks away and dont give you intent. You guys can go ahead and pull the trigger and kill but if you kill a 16 year old kid running from a dog you will be in big trouble. I dont care where you live. And have fun living with that. Wake up people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike, if you re-read the posts you will find that you are the only person talking about killing someone....and with disturbing frequency too, I might add.
And....I'm not sure what kind of domestic operation yer running there but my house is locked and secured at dark, all systems are armed and there are no brain dead people walking in and out at all hours of the night looking for work clothes or bandages for dog bites or whatever else goes on in your neck of the woods.
Ever heard of the 6P principle? Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance
Here I could shoot the intruder as they entered my house and would. I'd be totally legal in doing that. Thank God for states like Florida
If you want to take that precious split second available to try to determine 'intent' that's your business but rest assured, if someone comes barging thru the front door of my house, I will react as quickly as I possibly can with no thought whatsoever as to WHY they might be there. The harsh lesson here is....you act like a home invader, you're gonna be treated like a home invader
We do have castle doctrine here Mike, not sure about an unlocked house but pretty sure you can use deadly force to protect yourself because how can anyone know they are just there to take the tv?
The bottom line is if any of you are going to shot first and ask questions later please unload your gun lock it up and sell it. you make the rest of us look bad. danny max i hope nothing bad happens to you in your perfect world and i wish you the best of luck......MIKE
If you want to take that precious split second available to try to determine 'intent' that's your business but rest assured, if someone comes barging thru the front door of my house, I will react as quickly as I possibly can with no thought whatsoever as to WHY they might be there. The harsh lesson here is....you act like a home invader, you're gonna be treated like a home invader
We do have castle doctrine here Mike, not sure about an unlocked house but pretty sure you can use deadly force to protect yourself because how can anyone know they are just there to take the tv?
The bottom line is if any of you are going to shot first and ask questions later please unload your gun lock it up and sell it. you make the rest of us look bad. danny max i hope nothing bad happens to you in your perfect world and i wish you the best of luck......MIKE
Rusty McNeil
Well-Known Member
Please bear in mind that legality is a state by state case.
Your statement above is most certainly not true in Texas. And there's no line drawn between your curb and your front door. Property is property.
There's no fear of life needing to be proven where certain property, vandalism, theft or robbery crimes are happening or other milder acts of criminality are happening if its after dark.
If someone breaks into your house under any circumstances "fear of life" is assumed by their criminal act.
If they're running across your yard carrying your property you're perfectly legal to use deadly force to stop them unless a cop is standing there waiting to grab them.
If you'll read my post with the Texas Penal Code you'll see that.
As far as making a split second decision that might be wrong in trying to protect someone; isn't that what the cops do?
Why should it be left to them when they are most certainly going to be less familiar with the situation, why should I stand by and allow my neighbor to be harmed or robbed out of the same fear of "being wrong" that the cops have to deal with?
The cops are not superhuman mind readers, you and I have the same powers of observation and judgment and a lot more knowledge of circumstance than any cop will ever have.
The only reason to stand by and let it happen is out of fear for the consequences to us. How much do we care??
Personally I think someone who is brazen enough to think they can just come and "take your shit" with impunity is most likely going to be someone who is going to is going to keep on doing that and worse and eventually ruin lives and hurt people. They deserve what the law allows in my opinion.
Of course judgement is required in any situation, I'm not gonna hurt some poor fucker that's stumbling drunk across my yard at night, but if he's ass deep into my car out front removing the stereo, or in my gated back yard getting in to my shed, trying the windows on the house, or dares to enter my house, after I determine its not some one that is there with "permission" (like the scenarios you mentioned) they're going to get the full force of the law that Texas has allowed.
As far as random and unexpected acts of entry into my house I'm with whoever made the comments about running a tight ship. That's shit doesn't happen at my house. Locked up and locked down at all times.
Of course being out of town all the time God Only Kniws what goes on then
"Sancho" probably rules the roost for all I know....Good Looking Naked Women Home Invaders are Welcome Here. I, in that split second can make a decision not to shoot them in select cases. :rofl_200:
Believe it or not, that did happen once long ago. It was a Girl that I knew and I did end up Hand Cuffing her for several hours awaiting the Cops.... They never came so I eventually let her off with a Spanking. Think she like that though.:confused2: She offered to do the same thing the next night...........:clapping:
Believe it or not, that did happen once long ago. It was a Girl that I knew and I did end up Hand Cuffing her for several hours awaiting the Cops.... They never came so I eventually let her off with a Spanking. Think she like that though.:confused2: She offered to do the same thing the next night...........:clapping:
Did she stop at your house too? Pretty little dark haired girl....big tits? She showed up at my place, way back in the mid 70's....didn't have any cuffs and was forced to physically restrain her by keeping her pressed to the mattress! :th_love031:
She calmed down after a couple hours and I let her go, but gotta confess I often wondered if she really was a home invader or some horny chick
out to get laid. :icon_axe: or :th_SmileyBoobs:.........:confused2:
I think the latter cause the only thing I was missing afterward was a couple pounds of unwanted fat! :smoke000: :rofl_200:
She calmed down after a couple hours and I let her go, but gotta confess I often wondered if she really was a home invader or some horny chick
out to get laid. :icon_axe: or :th_SmileyBoobs:.........:confused2:
I think the latter cause the only thing I was missing afterward was a couple pounds of unwanted fat! :smoke000: :rofl_200:
I have stuff like that happen to me sometimes but I usually throw a shot or two into them but they enjoy it :biglaugh: Mike, it's all about what a reasonable person would decide... If a 16 year old kid walks into my unlocked home while I'm here during the day he will probably see my gun as I'm asking him what the hell he's doing here... If someone kicks in my door at 3:00am and is forcing their way into my home then any reasonable person would have to assume this person is there to do me harm and deadly force is authorized.. There is no one size fits all to any situation so you have to think and make that judgement call...
Well Mike....it's obviously not a 'perfect world' or I wouldn't feel it necessary to take the precautions I do.
But lets discuss 'your world' for a minute because I have a question regarding this....
You are aware that there are bad people out there....right? So bad that they feel not the slightest bit of remorse in breaking into your home, killing you, raping your wife and/or daughter (no matter what age or physical condition) taking what valuables they can find and then perhaps setting the place on fire to cover their tracks....not giving the slightest thought to whether one of you may actually still be clinging to life.
You do realize these people are out there....in large numbers....right?
My question for you is....."How do you plan to protect yourself and your family if, god forbid, you have the bad luck of crossing paths with one of these animals?"
Rusty in michigan you would be braking the law. You have the right to call the police not to be the police. However if a family member is involved you can help the family member. But know that if you do help you better know that the family member is in the right or you could find yourself in bigger trouble than them. One reason the law is this way is because you could fully trust your neighbor and see him/her in trouble go help them and come to find out you shot the wrong person. This is a police matter unless your family member is in danger and you know he/her is in the right. Or if you are ok with giving up your freedom to save your kids life if he/she is in the wrong.
In michigan i can walk into your unlocked house and grab your tv right in front of you and as long as i just grab the tv and leave all you can do is call the police.
True how can you know. Thats why we cant just kill them. It could just be a 16 year old kid running from a dog that has bit him/her. Im not saying if a person enters your home and stays after you tell them to leave you cant do anything. If a person walks in your house and than turns and leaves and you cant prove intent and you kill them you will be in big trouble. You cant kill someone for braking and entering if the person walks away and dont give you intent. You guys can go ahead and pull the trigger and kill but if you kill a 16 year old kid running from a dog you will be in big trouble. I dont care where you live. And have fun living with that. Wake up people.
The way you guys talk about killing people first and than ask quetion later will turn you into bb's some day. All along some people on this thread have said that they would pull the trigger and kill someone even if they cant prove that life is in danger and all i have said is that you cant do that legally. I never said if someone walks through the door and says im gona kill you that you cant kill them. knowing that the two of you are willing to be immature about life and guns worry's me. infact i was up all nite worrying about if you guys might have a kid that called a friend and invited them over at 2am and said just come in dont knock so we dont wake my mom and dad up and you herd the kid come in your house and grabbed your gun and shot him.
. Or maybe your 22 year old son that hasent lived with you for over a year but still brings his laundry to your house because he dont have a wahser and dryer forgets he dident stop back by to get his work clothes and he needs to be at work at 6am and its 3am when he remembers and he thinks to hime self i will just be quiet and go get them now. this is just a senario. Mike
The bottom line is if any of you are going to shot first and ask questions later please unload your gun lock it up and sell it. you make the rest of us look bad. danny max i hope nothing bad happens to you in your perfect world and i wish you the best of luck......MIKE
I now know that you guys are to ignorant to get my point so good luck to you.:biglaugh:
In michigan i can walk into your unlocked house and grab your tv right in front of you and as long as i just grab the tv and leave all you can do is call the police.
True how can you know. Thats why we cant just kill them. It could just be a 16 year old kid running from a dog that has bit him/her. Im not saying if a person enters your home and stays after you tell them to leave you cant do anything. If a person walks in your house and than turns and leaves and you cant prove intent and you kill them you will be in big trouble. You cant kill someone for braking and entering if the person walks away and dont give you intent. You guys can go ahead and pull the trigger and kill but if you kill a 16 year old kid running from a dog you will be in big trouble. I dont care where you live. And have fun living with that. Wake up people.
The way you guys talk about killing people first and than ask quetion later will turn you into bb's some day. All along some people on this thread have said that they would pull the trigger and kill someone even if they cant prove that life is in danger and all i have said is that you cant do that legally. I never said if someone walks through the door and says im gona kill you that you cant kill them. knowing that the two of you are willing to be immature about life and guns worry's me. infact i was up all nite worrying about if you guys might have a kid that called a friend and invited them over at 2am and said just come in dont knock so we dont wake my mom and dad up and you herd the kid come in your house and grabbed your gun and shot him.
The bottom line is if any of you are going to shot first and ask questions later please unload your gun lock it up and sell it. you make the rest of us look bad. danny max i hope nothing bad happens to you in your perfect world and i wish you the best of luck......MIKE
I now know that you guys are to ignorant to get my point so good luck to you.:biglaugh:
Similar threads
