TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:I see a lot of folks mentioning how they "won't have it" and that they will immediately go to the press and scream bloody-murder if prosecuted for home-defense actions.

A) I don't see that as impressing prosecutors or law-enforcement.

B) Since when does the press show any kind of favorable bias to homeowners wielding guns?

If I'm being unfairly prosecuted for a legitimate home defense and citizen's arrest, then I don't give a rip about impressing a prosecutor. I'm interested in punishment through political consequences. I live in Grapevine, which is in Tarrant county. For sure, the Houston Chronicle will misrepresent the story, but they have no influence over local elections here, so they can publish whatever rot they like. The Dallas Morning News will be ambivalent, which I can accept; the Forth Worth Star Telegram will likely tell it more or less accurately; and my LOCAL papers, which matter most to local voters, will report it favorably (to me). Where I live, local law enforcement are friendly to homeowners, and they really dislike criminals. If a local prosecutor or judge were imprudent enough to make it hard on me, I would make sure that, come election time, the public would be repeatedly reminded that this DA, or this judge cannot be trusted with the public welfare - and why. I would tell my firsthand story in the local press (DFW area) - the ones read by local voters - and see to it that the individual lost and could no longer harm the interests of the people who pay their salaries. I would tell my firsthand story at political gatherings wherever possible. At the candidate's gatherings, I would quietly circulate and tell my story to anyone who would listen. I'm a member of the local chamber of commerce, and I would spread the word through that channel at every opportunity. In short, I would do everything I could possibly do, through every possible legal channel, including the press, as is my right as a citizen, to make sure that this person would be relegated to obscurity and never serve in an elected office in this area again.

You can poo-poo the idea, but the truth is that local political activity at the grassroots level is very effective. Just ask Obama and his buddies at ACORN what they think about that. And there is nothing so effective at the local level as a compelling story - especially if it is true.

I'm not denying that there are some gray areas in the law here that are open to interpretation, like whether or not you can hold an intruder against his will, but the reality is that most rational LEOs, prosecutors, and judges do have some discretion in determining the applicability of the law with regard to the relevance of background facts, and use that discretion to guide their decision making. So even if a homeowner holding a burglar at bay is a legal gray area, most LEOs, prosecutors, and judges (at least in my area) are going to focus their attention on why the perp came to be held at bay - which is that he got caught in the commission of a felony by the homeowner - not on whether or not the homeowner was skirting with the edge of legal definitions in detaining the felon. And by the way, I'm talking about an intruder inside my home. If I catch an intruder in my backyard and he tries to run, I'm going to let him go. But anyone bold enough to enter a home, particularly when the resident is home, is to be considered a dangerous person, and they need to be taken off the street. Letting him go just makes him the next guy's problem, and maybe he kills a homeowner the next time.

Like I said, I'm not having it.

LarryH wrote:

Aggie_engr wrote:<snip> If they are of the cowardly type that drops to ground like a girl screaming don't shoot me, I might try to cuff them and hold them till the cops show up. <snip>
p.s. Cuffs are relatively cheap. Picked up a nice pair of Smith&Wessons from the gun show for around $30.

It has been mentioned before on this forum that LEOs are strongly advised to be very careful while cuffing a suspect/perp/unsub/whatever. It's too easy for the perp to turn the tables on a solo LEO trying to apply cuffs while keeping him/her covered. It's even possible for him/her to monkey up the process in which one LEO does the cuffing while his/her partner covers the perp, unless they've practiced it extensively.

IMHO. YMMV.

You're right. I wouldn't even dream of trying to cuff an intruder. It's too risky. That's what cops get paid for, not me, and I don't have that kind of training anyway. I will make him lie down, and I will keep the gun pointed on them, and I will communicate as loudly and emphatically as I know how that I will shoot him (a LOT) if he even scratches his nose without my permission. Like I said before, he's in my home, uninvited and without permission, in the middle of the night, I'm the homeowner and he's the burglar, and it's his word against mine? He should be thanking Jesus he didn't get shot. I'm a reasonably smart guy, and I know how to turn a phrase. Any judge or prosecutor or perpetrator who made legal trouble for me would rapidly find himself in such deep yogurt in the press if any charges were filed against me, or if a perp trying to sue me didn't have the suit immediately dismissed before it cost me even one thin dime, as to make it far too personally costly an enterprise for him to pursue.

Like I said, I'm not having it. This is America, dammit.

Now if it's California, all bets are off.

It is inconceivable to me that a judge wouldn't throw such a suit out of court. You're in your home, minding your own business, and a burglar enters? He's darn lucky if he doesn't get shot - and if it's at night, you're well within your rights to shoot first and ask questions later. If I hold an intruder at gunpoint until the police arrive, and it is my home, I expect the police to say "job well done, we'll take it from here," and never hear about it again until I appear as a witness at the BG's trial. If not, I'll make mincemeat in the local press out of the judge, the prosecutor, and the perp.

I'm not havin' it.