14 yr. old shoots armed intruder

[Txgi1son]

I found this interesting...this kid shot well under duress. Hope it was good training and not just luck.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/14-year ... n-phoenix/

[WildBill]

I found this interesting...this kid shot well under duress. Hope it was good training and not just luck.

Either way he did a good job defending his siblings.

[Jumping Frog]

I'd like to note that the parents could be charged for a crime in Texas for not locking up the firearms. That is a "feel good" law that has not saved lived in the real world and has to go.

[E.Marquez]

I'd like to note that the parents could be charged for a crime in Texas for not locking up the firearms. That is a "feel good" law that has not saved lived in the real world and has to go.

Well MAYBE..

Looks to me like they can be charged, but have a reasonable defense to prosecution.

Section 46.13 of the Texas Penal Code addresses this issue. The law went into effect on September 1, 1995.

A person commits an offense under the statute if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person, with criminal negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.

Under this statute a "child" is someone under the age of seventeen (§46.13(a)(1)).

Remember that under §46.01 of the Penal Code a "firearm" includes shotguns, rifles and handguns. A "readily accessible firearm" is one that is loaded with ammunition-even if the ammo is in a magazine and there is no round in the chamber (§46.13(a)(2)).

One "secures" a readily accessible firearm by taking the steps a reasonable person would take to prevent access by a child including, but not limited to, placing the firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable through a trigger lock or other means.

There are four affirmative defenses to this section. An affirmative defense is one on which the Defendant has the burden of proof at trial. The affirmative defenses are that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;
(3) was gained by entering property in violation of this code; or
(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged in an agricultural enterprise.

[jeffrw]

I'd like to note that the parents could be charged for a crime in Texas for not locking up the firearms. That is a "feel good" law that has not saved lived in the real world and has to go.

I thought about this, too. But ironically, if the parents had complied with the oft-quoted "safety" rule (lock up all the guns - unloaded - and also lock up the ammo in a separate location, preferably in the next area code), these kids would likely be dead.

[scud runner]

The parents followed the law if the gun was unloaded. The only need the affirmative defense if it was left loaded.

[E.Marquez]

The parents followed the law if the gun was unloaded. The only need the affirmative defense if it was left loaded.

That is YOUR interpretation of the cited law, I have read LEO opinions to the contrary..
It has been discussed and opinionated that a " readily dischargeable firearm" includes one that is unloaded and accessible as well as ammunition for that gun.

Most on this list might see it as a loaded gun, but it does not require that standard specifically in the law.