| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Few Things to Take Away |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 11/16/07 8:32:08 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this story, a Pasadena man shot two burglars.
It is one of those not-so-clear-cut cases that lawyers who specialize in self-defense and gun-related cases always warn you about.
My first thought was "I hope this guy didn't shoot them in the back." It seems that he didn't. It amazes me that entry and exit wounds play such a huge role in whether or not you were right to shoot someone who is on your property... In that situation, I would have stayed inside with my 12 gauge in hand, until the police arrived. If he knew, for instance, that the neighbor's kids were home alone, that would change things. In fact, there are dozens of cases when I think it would be OK to shoot someone in similar circumstances. Texas law is better than most of the country when it comes to self/home/neighbor defense, particularly at night, but the facts still aren't clear, so this will certainly be a case to follow.
Second thought... start a timer. See how long it takes for someone to call the criminals "victims". I don't care if the man in the story acted in self defense or not, the two men who were shot are not victims, they are criminals. And that leads me to my...
Third though... it is this kind of thing that helps reduce crime. First, you have two criminals who will not commit any more crimes. Second, you have a news story that will sit in the back of the minds of potential criminals. "If I break into that house, will I get a load of buckshot in my chest?" Were I a criminal, I would move to DC, or Chicago, where I know homeowners are rendered defenseless by the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
| | < "Bastards." | | "PETA Protest in 3... 2..." > |
|
|
|
|
