TexasCHLforum.com

Anonymous123 wrote:But due to the law his life is pratically over if he gets sentenced accordingly.

Wrong. If his life is practically over it is because he CHOSE to commit an illegal act. The law is not at fault, HE is at fault. The law is not to blame for the consequences he brought upon himself, HE is.

Anonymous123 wrote: I have clarified the information from a LEO that there was no sign of forced entry to the home. So the Castle Doctrine can justify the shooting/killing of anybody just if they're on your property?

You should read the actual law, and perhaps the case law, on this subject. But first, they were not "on" the property according to the article, they were INSIDE the home. The Castle Doctrine does not apply "on" the property, it applies to forced entry inside the home. There does not have to be any sign of forced entry, such as a damaged door. The door could just be shut but unlocked --the law considers the force of turning the door knob to be forced entry if the person entering is not invited and has no legal right to be there.

MasterOfNone wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Anonymous123 wrote:Theres more to it.
Homeowner possesed assault rifle of 7.62x39 or 7.62x54 caliber with criminal priors for drug possesions.
AK-47 or Mosin Nagant, possibly any other high calibered rifle.
The projectile entered through suspects chest through collar bone traveling in a sideways path and exited through right arm, blatantly showing that the suspect was standing sideways and did not turn to face the homeowner.
Son is well known drug dealer, extremely violent and dangerous.
IMO Castle law should be reamended to better suit special cases such as these, Criminal on Criminal crimes, no-one is innocent in this case.

Why? I don't see the logic in that. Are you saying if someone is a criminal and another criminal breaks into his home, he should have to let the criminal breaking in kill him, his family members, or visitors? Why should the criminal breaking in have more rights than the criminal living in the home? Furthermore, why should anyone else who happens to be in the home lose their right to self-defense because the resident is a "criminal?" He shouldn't be able to shoot someone who breaks in and may kill his child, or a neighbor? How are neighbors supposed to know the guy is a criminal? Are you saying that if I happen to be visiting a neighbor and I don't know he's a criminal I can be shot with impunity?

If the son is a known drug dealer who is extremely violent, why isn't he in prison? Also, if this guy is a criminal --convicted felon-- he can't legally possess a firearm --is he being charged for this? And if he's not a convicted felon, on what basis are you going to amend Castle Doctrine to exclude "criminals" from the right of self-defense? You going to include misdemeanors, arrests, charges, or suspicion, to define who is a criminal?

California-style "may issue" self-defense permits.

Except he was referring to the Castle Doctrine, not concealed carry. To say you can't carry a weapon in public is one thing, to say you can't defend yourself, family members, or guests, in your own home is another. And in the case referred to, the poster referred to those living in the home as "criminals." He said the son is a known drug dealer and extremely violent. Well, if someone is a convicted felon, the distinction is easily made, but since neither is in jail, and since there are apparently no charges for illegal possession of a firearm, the shooter is apparently not a convicted felon. It's not clear from his post whether or not the son is a convicted felon. Therefore, to seek an amendment to the Castle Doctrine for a case like the one at issue would require some other definition of "criminal" than convicted felon --or it sounds that way based on the information provided.

Also, if one criminal kills another criminal, that doesn't really seem like a social problem that needs fixing to me....especially when the killing is in a private residence, not in public, and the fix may impair the ability of people who aren't criminals to defend themselves.

Anonymous123 wrote:Theres more to it.
Homeowner possesed assault rifle of 7.62x39 or 7.62x54 caliber with criminal priors for drug possesions.
AK-47 or Mosin Nagant, possibly any other high calibered rifle.
The projectile entered through suspects chest through collar bone traveling in a sideways path and exited through right arm, blatantly showing that the suspect was standing sideways and did not turn to face the homeowner.
Son is well known drug dealer, extremely violent and dangerous.
IMO Castle law should be reamended to better suit special cases such as these, Criminal on Criminal crimes, no-one is innocent in this case.

Why? I don't see the logic in that. Are you saying if someone is a criminal and another criminal breaks into his home, he should have to let the criminal breaking in kill him, his family members, or visitors? Why should the criminal breaking in have more rights than the criminal living in the home? Furthermore, why should anyone else who happens to be in the home lose their right to self-defense because the resident is a "criminal?" He shouldn't be able to shoot someone who breaks in and may kill his child, or a neighbor? How are neighbors supposed to know the guy is a criminal? Are you saying that if I happen to be visiting a neighbor and I don't know he's a criminal I can be shot with impunity?

If the son is a known drug dealer who is extremely violent, why isn't he in prison? Also, if this guy is a criminal --convicted felon-- he can't legally possess a firearm --is he being charged for this? And if he's not a convicted felon, on what basis are you going to amend Castle Doctrine to exclude "criminals" from the right of self-defense? You going to include misdemeanors, arrests, charges, or suspicion, to define who is a criminal?