Gold Lifetime
- Messages
- 27,682
- Reactions
- 74,057
Seems to me he said end the threat, not execute a guy.So if the cost is going to jail after you execute a guy after taking his gun away, that's OK?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Seems to me he said end the threat, not execute a guy.So if the cost is going to jail after you execute a guy after taking his gun away, that's OK?
Word's are like ***holes; there's lots of them.Seems to me he said end the threat, not execute a guy.
We are talking about the guy in the diner that executed the robber right? If I was on that jury that jury would be hungSeems to me he said end the threat, not execute a guy.
We are talking about the guy in the diner that executed the robber right?
You said:End the threat at all cost.
So if the cost is going to jail after you execute a guy after taking his gun away, that's OK?
Just like me.that jury that jury would be hung
Sucks that people are being put into a position to defend themselves when the perp being there is a product of the faulty revolving door legal system which has no consequences for criminals, and therefore no reason for the crim to not go out and immediately commit more crimes.
Grand jury will decide fate of 'hero' customer who shot and killed robber at taqueria, HPD says
Police are withholding the customer's name since he hasn't been arrested. Meanwhile, ABC13 uncovered the dead would-be El Ranchito robber's extensive criminal history.abc13.com
Agree. That was one of my first thoughts as well as to why he fled the scene but only a guess.Here is a thought. What if the shooter was not a lawful gun owner, but was a prohibited possessor?
...
Wouldnt make any difference on his right to self defense, he would just get charged on illegal possession.Here is a thought. What if the shooter was not a lawful gun owner, but was a prohibited possessor?
Technically it was defense of others and the Texas law that allows you to use force to recover your property if robbed after dark.Wouldnt make any difference on his right to self defense, he would just get charged on illegal possession.
as long as the use of force was justified it wouldn't matter if the person was a felon they wouldn't get charged with murder just possession. IIRC, same for someone not prohibited but carrying illegally....Technically it was defense of others and the Texas law that allows you to use force to recover your property if robbed after dark.
His self defense argument stopped when he took the gun away from the assailant. Any shots after that he owns.As much as I despise the whole "affirmative defense" BS, sell-defense should be an affirmative defense to any possession charges as well. Anyone put in a position of having to defend themselves should be allowed to do so with whatever is to hand without fear of repercussions.
I realize I'm skating a fine line here as I don't think violent felons should automatically get their firearms rights back, but at the same time if they happen to have a gun and need it then the possession should be a non-issue. "The greater good" if you will.
Felons absolutely do have self defense rights. Just not "firearms" rightsHis self defense argument stopped when you had taken the gun away from the assailant. Any shots after that he owns.
Felons shouldn't have the right to self defense?
Ive heard of felons carrying black powder guns. Nah, what am I talking about? They just carry normal guns and we pretend they dont.Felons absolutely do have self defense rights. Just not "firearms" rights
Knives, clubs, their own body parts, antique firearms/muzzleloaders, and anything else that can be used for defense or offense; but just not a fixed metallic cartridge firearm.