TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/New ... geId=3.2.1

"Dallas Homeowner Shoots Intruder

Last Edited: Tuesday, 26 Dec 2006, 9:34 PM CST

DALLAS --
A South Dallas homeowner shot a man who entered his house and refused to leave Tuesday afternoon, according to police.

The shooting happened around 4:30 p.m. in the 3800 block of Tolbert Street. The homeowner says he was watching TV in his reclining chair when the stranger simply walked through the unlocked front door. The two argued and the stranger refused to leave, so the homeowner produced a gun and shot him twice.

The suspect then ran to a post office a few blocks away and collapsed at the back door. People there saw he was bleeding heavily and called for an ambulance.

The gunshot victim is expected to recover from his wounds. Tonight, police say they have no plans to file charges against the homeowner."


Poll
Do you keep a gun at home for protection?

Poll Results:
Yes 85.54%
No 14.46%
Total number of votes: 166

Should've shot him with a bigger gun.

Where was that poll taken from? Thats a pretty good percentage.

EDIT: Nevermind, I clicked the link and added my own vote.

At least 141.9 people in that poll have one...

24.1 don't...

Like General McArthur said, "I do not know how to bomb half a bridge?"...

Makes you wonder if the 24.1 people, know that its better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it...

Irony knows no boundaries...

I just think the Generals' comment was cool, whether its pertinant, oh well...

Maybe its because he just doesn't know how to do it halfway, you're either going to do it, or not...There is no halfway...

Yep...Thats it...whew...I thought I was losing it...

can't lose what's already gone
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

I'm always amazed (but I shouldn't be) when I read stories about intruders simply walking in through an unlocked door.

I mean, I can undersand your patio door not being locked if you & a bunch of your guests are going in and out continuously during a BBQ, backyard picnic, or something of the sort, but to be just sitting around with your front door unlocked is pretty dumb.

(Also a "+1" to Geister's comment.)

Sounds like they knew each other. Also there is much other info that we will never know about, typical news media.
+1 on the "should have shot him with a bigger gun" :)

Geister wrote:Should've shot him with a bigger gun.

Why ? The article didn't say the intruder had a weppon of any kind.
I think the incident turned out good. The situation was stopped with
no one getting killed.

Poll Results:
Yes 86.95%
No 13.05%
Total number of votes: 184


I've spoken to many people and some officers on matters like these and the general opinion is that when confronted with an intruder in your home, pull that trigger until the threat is eliminated or they've lost the will to fight (where have I heard that before?.....LOL). After speaking to an officer (close friend) he advised "If you're going to shoot someone, you better kill the guy". The PD isn't going to press charges in this case......could anyone else? Is the homeowner allowed to retain their firearm? Does intrusion into your home mean you have the right to use deadly force regardless of the persons intent? Obviously, if your shots counted, the intruder would be speechless............it's up to you to tell the LEO why you dumped your 20 round mag of fang-faced-bone-crushing-heart stoppers into the intruder.

The poll is now:
87.9% yea
12.1% no
186 votes

it's still open, for I just voted:

Poll
Do you keep a gun at home for protection?

Poll Results:
Yes 87.93%
No 12.07%
Total number of votes: 199

age_ranger wrote:After speaking to an officer (close friend) he advised "If you're going to shoot someone, you better kill the guy

Really bad advice. Shooting to kill is not authorized in the penal code. Using deadly force is. Deadly Force may or may not cause death, but my intent is to STOP the other.

If my goal is to kill and I shoot the guy and he drops his weapon and falls down, still alive, then I must now walk up to him and shoot him again.

See the difference?

Bubba wrote:Sounds like they knew each other. Also there is much other info that we will never know about, typical news media.
:)

I didn't get that from the little article, but I guess it is possible even though the intruder was described as a stranger.

Earlier this year there was a (reported) robbery in Dallas where a woman was robbed at gunpoint with her daughter in the car. Oh, the poor child and her helpless momma. I spoke to a detective who handled the case later, and it was actually a drug deal gone bad. Momma went to the scene to buy drugs, and it was believed she tried to rip off the seller.

Of course, the media never mentioned that.

txinvestigator wrote:

age_ranger wrote:After speaking to an officer (close friend) he advised "If you're going to shoot someone, you better kill the guy

Really bad advice. Shooting to kill is not authorized in the penal code. Using deadly force is. Deadly Force may or may not cause death, but my intent is to STOP the other.

If my goal is to kill and I shoot the guy and he drops his weapon and falls down, still alive, then I must now walk up to him and shoot him again.

See the difference?

I do see the difference. I think advice like that quoted above about killing a guy is good stuff...for the prosecutor in your case! I wonder if the same advice would be given to someone if everyone understood that the incident was being recorded for the Grand Jury to see.

IMO the shooting should stop once the threat no longer exists. It has been proven that this may take one shot or taking your gun to slide lock and reloading.

This is something that one has to live with for the rest of their life...the rules that govern us must be set in stone before the threat occurs and can't be based off of what others hastily recommend.

jbirds1210 wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

age_ranger wrote:After speaking to an officer (close friend) he advised "If you're going to shoot someone, you better kill the guy

Really bad advice. Shooting to kill is not authorized in the penal code. Using deadly force is. Deadly Force may or may not cause death, but my intent is to STOP the other.

If my goal is to kill and I shoot the guy and he drops his weapon and falls down, still alive, then I must now walk up to him and shoot him again.

See the difference?

I do see the difference. I think advice like that quoted above about killing a guy is good stuff...for the prosecutor in your case! I wonder if the same advice would be given to someone if everyone understood that the incident was being recorded for the Grand Jury to see.

IMO the shooting should stop once the threat no longer exists. It has been proven that this may take one shot or taking your gun to slide lock and reloading.

This is something that one has to live with for the rest of their life...the rules that govern us must be set in stone before the threat occurs and can't be based off of what others hastily recommend.

That is good, it is exactly what was in my mine when I asked the question
Why ? in my earlier reply.