TexasCHLforum.com

LedJedi wrote:

ScubaSigGuy wrote:I only say this because I don't want anyone reading this post and formulating their own opinion to think that they are forfeiting their dignity or self-respect by not engaging in a confrontation that could be easily avoided.

Well said and good point. I don't want folks thinking less of themselves for avoiding the conflict either if they want to do that.

At the same time though, neither should they think less of the folks that stand up for themselves either.

EXACTLY!

It's an individual decsion. Mine is based on the situation as told in the article. Different situations require different plans of action. There are no absolutes in this regard.

Not to but the value of a human life reference is in regard to your own life as well as the BG's. There are few material possessions if any that I am willing to risk my life over, or take a life over, but that doesn't mean that I want to be a "victim". If I am on the street being robbed, well then some very quick assumptions have to be made about the intent of the BG, and I will not hesitate to take action. But, if I have the opportunity to observe a crime and avoid confrontation safely from inside my own home, that is what I will choose because my priorities involve me living to tell the story. In many situations the outcome cannot be predicted based on the overwhelming number of variables. In the story that started this post I can absolutely guarantee that I will survive the encounter while I dial 911 from my safe inside my home. (Unless I trip and hit my head on the way to the phone ) That doesn't make me a coward or mean that I don't have self respect or dignity, anymore than it means someone who acts more aggressively is an idiot. It simply means our values and priorities are different. I only say this because I don't want anyone reading this post and formulating their own opinion to think that they are forfeiting their dignity or self-respect by not engaging in a confrontation that could be easily avoided.

Right2Carry wrote:

ScubaSigGuy wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:This is what I get from the tone/words in the article:
The homeowner didn't shoot the guy for stealing tools from his shed. He shot the BG when he dropped the tools and advanced toward him.
A person advancing on you when you have a gun pointed at them is up to no good.

I agree 100%.

After reading the article I had to ask myself "What would I do if..." . A few years ago I would have aggressivley gone outside as well. Several years ago I came home to find my house broken into. After calling my girlfriend a the time and having her call 911, telling them that I was there and armed, I began clearing the house. Now I knew full well that there were loaded firearms inside. Even if they didn't come with a gun I could bet that they had at least a couple now. Not one of my finer moments in retrospect.

I guess looking at the situation with the little information that we have it's easy to make assumptions. If you are holding someone at gunpoint and they continue to advance on you, then force of some sort is appropriate, I agree. The questions is do you put youself in that situation to begin with? Pride can and will get you killed if you let it cloud your judgement. For me, at this point of my life, I belive that it's better to avoid the confrontation if at all possible. What if the thief was armed? Better to let the LEO's discover that, right? For me I have to think what would I do as the assailant if approached by me. I am not a little guy, so it's possible that the BG might actually act more aggressively if I approach him. There is no absolute right answer. I like debating it though because it's help me to formulate a plan.

You better watch out with thinking that goes outside the norm here. Pretty soon someone will be calling you an ANTI and Liberal for your differing views.

I will only shoot for defense of myself or loved ones, and depending on the situation a call for help. I will not take a life for material things that can be replaced with a phone call to the insurance company. As with all rules there are exceptions and I reserve the right to change my mind at any given moment.

THE CHOICES WE MAKE ARE THE ONE WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH!

I think you were joking anyway. I am so far from being a liberal anti that I am laughing out loud right now as is my buddy that I am on the phone with. Not that there's anything wrong with being a liberal... it's just not for me.

Hey, it's a controversial issue. I carry to be prepared in the event of <<insert situation here>>, and every day I hope that I don't have to use it. If I said prayers for myself I would probably include that every day as well. I don't mind if someone doesn't agree, I just felt that I had to say what was on my mind. And like anything else there are very few absolutes, and that applies here as well. There have been a lot of great points brought up during this post, many of which I had not previuosly thought of. Some of those ideas caused me to change my plan of action slightly. I was talking to a buddy of mine and explained the situation to him. HIs first comment was in my state (OH) the homeowner would be in jail since they don't have any provisions for protecting property with deadly force no matter what time it is. HE MAY BE MOVING TO TEXAS SOON NOW.

My dilemma is this: If you used deadly force to protect your tools, lawnmower, ladder...etc, when the confrontation could have been avoided, could you look back one, two or five years from now and live with that.? I don't think that I could under most circumstances. Now if it's the tools that you use to earn a living and you don't have insurance on them and that effects your family's well being...then that's a completely different ballpark... maybe.

What if there had been more than one BG? One carrying the goods and one or more waiting for him to come outside. BG's are more clever than ever nowadays. Maybe, just maybe they were trying to lure you outside so they could get to the real valuables.

What if I was having a monumentally bad day and was already pushed to the limits... who knows?

It just seems like, and I have said this before, some people are a little too eager and willing to pull the trigger. And that's a decision they have to live with not me.

One of the forum members has a signature that reads I believe "There are no answers only options". if I could remeber whose it was I would give proper credit because I like it. There are of course also consequences but I have gone on long enough.

The funny thing about the forum format of conversation is that the tone of the post can perceived differently by each member depending on their opinion on the matter and other associated variables.

There is no intended tone in any of this... just sharing ideas and opinions with like minded individuals, so please don't take anything the wrong way.

SC1903A3 wrote:I know some people that if they had their tools stolen they wouldn't be able to earn a living. I know the area where this occurred . It's very blue collar. So the question is when he saw his tools leaving was he seeing someone taking away his livelihood.

Very good point.

stevie_d_64 wrote:I'm of the belief that if you are stupid enough to think people are not going to "protest" your thievery of their property, and they plead with you (at the point of a gun) to stop what you are doing...

And your best reponse is to drop that property and advance on that gun toating citizen you were just stealing something from...

All bets are off, you just made your last mistake...

All of these petty thieves are stealing to support other criminal and personally destructive behavior anyway...

So yes, I believe the direct challenging of these types of criminals is proper, but you do it from a position of strength...

It'll be up to them to comply at that point...Which would be a very good decision to make...

If put into the same situation, and the thief stopped, complied with my instructions, didn't make a threatening advance or attempt an assault on me, I can guarantee that person would be better off and in much better health...

Unfortunately thats a pipe dream...

I was waiting for Stevie_d to jump in. I was just thinking that I was on a Stevie_d type rant today. Except for the differing opinions of course. I guess it come down to how much value do you place on a human life... and there is NO WAY I am going to debate that... I can't type that much.

wjmphoto wrote:

ScubaSigGuy wrote:Shooting victim?

Interesting terminology. Personally I would have gotten a good description if possible and called 911. Tools for a life is not much of a trade in my book. Especially since it was a detached shed being robbed. The homeowner while legally protected, and rightfully so, could have avoided putting himself in a situation where he had to pull the trigger. Tools, cars, etc... can be replaced and I am not willing to jeapardize my freedom for the protection of material objects. Now had the thief entered or attempted to enter his home that's a whole different story. I am sure that many will not agree and that's OK.

Although this is legally a justified shooting it's hard to say it's a good shoot. It's never good to have to take a life, regardless of the situation.
I've thought a lot about this lately since this seems to be happening more often.

Anyway just my opinion for what it's worth

I have to say that I disagree with this line of thinking. We are talking about a criminal that hops your fence, breaks into your property and is stealing from you. You have the right to stop them in the act and that is what the homeowner did. The homeowner is not at fault for defending his property. The robber is at fault for being stupid enough to commit a crime in the first place and even more so for continuing to move toward the homeowner after repeated warnings to stop.

What really gets me is that we have had so many posts on this board where people tell of robberies in which the police are unable or unwilling to get back the person's property. I'm not going to bother searching for the particular post, but one that sticks out is the one in which items were stolen from a truck and the owner actually tracked the stolen goods to the thief’s back yard, called the police and they refused to act. People were livid that the police would not act even thought he stolen items were in plain sight. But I guess that the property owner should just write off their possessions since they are not justified in stopping the robber in the act and the authorities won't take action against the criminal.

We are told over and over again that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect us or our property and yet people still think that a homeowner is wrong in doing so themselves. The simple truth is that it is our responsibility alone to protect our person and property and that is exactly what this homeowner did. There is no justification in faulting him for doing exactly what is his right to do. The moment we start telling people that they don't have the right to stop a robber from stealing from them or defend their own lives, we are stripping those same people of what makes them human. We have the right to preserve our persons and our property. Everything that a criminal steals from us represents a piece of our life that we traded to an employer so that we could possess it. What could be more vile that stealing those things from any of us that we worked and traded a portion of that very small interval of time that we have on this earth. I for one, think that the homeowner was more than justified in shooting this waste of flesh.

That's a very good point. Everyone has to pick thier own battles and not by the same rules. I used to be hot headed and very protective of my belongings. I felt the same way when my home was broken into and when my truck was stolen on a seperate occasion. I was also single then and not worried about anybody else. I won't hesitate to do the right thing to protect a good person. but I just decided that I don't want my soon to be wife left alone because I went after a petty thief. Who is going to be around to protect my loved ones if something serious happens then? The beauty of it all is that we each have a choice to make up our own mind on how to act.

Venus Pax wrote:This is what I get from the tone/words in the article:
The homeowner didn't shoot the guy for stealing tools from his shed. He shot the BG when he dropped the tools and advanced toward him.
A person advancing on you when you have a gun pointed at them is up to no good.

I agree 100%.

After reading the article I had to ask myself "What would I do if..." . A few years ago I would have aggressivley gone outside as well. Several years ago I came home to find my house broken into. After calling my girlfriend a the time and having her call 911, telling them that I was there and armed, I began clearing the house. Now I knew full well that there were loaded firearms inside. Even if they didn't come with a gun I could bet that they had at least a couple now. Not one of my finer moments in retrospect.

I guess looking at the situation with the little information that we have it's easy to make assumptions. If you are holding someone at gunpoint and they continue to advance on you, then force of some sort is appropriate, I agree. The questions is do you put youself in that situation to begin with? Pride can and will get you killed if you let it cloud your judgement. For me, at this point of my life, I belive that it's better to avoid the confrontation if at all possible. What if the thief was armed? Better to let the LEO's discover that, right? For me I have to think what would I do as the assailant if approached by me. I am not a little guy, so it's possible that the BG might actually act more aggressively if I approach him. There is no absolute right answer. I like debating it though because it's help me to formulate a plan.

Shooting victim?

Interesting terminology. Personally I would have gotten a good description if possible and called 911. Tools for a life is not much of a trade in my book. Especially since it was a detached shed being robbed. The homeowner while legally protected, and rightfully so, could have avoided putting himself in a situation where he had to pull the trigger. Tools, cars, etc... can be replaced and I am not willing to jeapardize my freedom for the protection of material objects. Now had the thief entered or attempted to enter his home that's a whole different story. I am sure that many will not agree and that's OK.

Although this is legally a justified shooting it's hard to say it's a good shoot. It's never good to have to take a life, regardless of the situation.
I've thought a lot about this lately since this seems to be happening more often.

Anyway just my opinion for what it's worth