Guitarsoup said:
That was probably a contributing factor, but the main problem testified in court was that the strike plate was over torqued and bowed out, preventing the handle from catching in the closed position without additional effort.
TexasAggies06 said:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/10/05/man-fatally-shot-apartment-complex-near-dallas-medical-district-suspect-loose/
It's a lot of people who love to talk bigBunbury said:Quote:
I told him that I am not sure how they do it in Brazil but in this country/state when you are threatened in your home you never pull a gun on somebody to threaten, intimidate or freakin shoot them in the leg.
Having taken CHL and gun-safety classes, and by virtue of living in Texas, hearing lots gun-owners share off their thoughts and feelings about gun-ownership, I'm of the opinion that a large % of gun owners in the USA are not responsible gun owners, and the statement above definitely fits into that irresponsible category. Responsible gun ownership involves being vigilant and constantly assessing the situations to make the best decision. Just because guns offer an ultimatum-type consequence of killing someone, that does not permit gun owners to think in ultimatum-type thoughts, but that doesn't stop irresponsible gun owners from doing so.
Then don't break into someone's home?JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:BoDog said:
Huh? If coming home to find some dude in your house isn't an ultimatum-type situation I don't know what is? Nevermind if you have a family member/s with you. Its amazing to me how some of you get on here and spew this limp wristed rhetoric. In that situation its likely you or him. You go ahead and talk it out and I'll handle it my way.
I get it if you feel threatened, or feel your life is in danger, they're coming at you or all the other reasons people can and do protect themselves....
but it is bat *** crazy to say that somebody deserves to die just because they broke into your house and you showed up before they left.
The problem is the fact that you decided, entirely by the virtue of somebody being in your home, that it is "you or him".
That doesn't make it okay for them to be there, but it is freaking concerning that we have a large number of gun owners who honestly feel that this is the appropriate way to handle a situation like this.
Ummmmm, do you know what thread you posted this in?YouBet said:Then don't break into someone's home?JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:BoDog said:
Huh? If coming home to find some dude in your house isn't an ultimatum-type situation I don't know what is? Nevermind if you have a family member/s with you. Its amazing to me how some of you get on here and spew this limp wristed rhetoric. In that situation its likely you or him. You go ahead and talk it out and I'll handle it my way.
I get it if you feel threatened, or feel your life is in danger, they're coming at you or all the other reasons people can and do protect themselves....
but it is bat *** crazy to say that somebody deserves to die just because they broke into your house and you showed up before they left.
The problem is the fact that you decided, entirely by the virtue of somebody being in your home, that it is "you or him".
That doesn't make it okay for them to be there, but it is freaking concerning that we have a large number of gun owners who honestly feel that this is the appropriate way to handle a situation like this.
I'm not going to say I would just blaze away because I've never been in this situation, but I'm damn sure not going to begrudge anyone that does. Don't be a criminal and you won't get shot.
then you live in a fantasy worldYouBet said:
Yes.
jefe95 said:
Man if that doesn't seem sinister
mavsfan4ever said:
I'm confused. If the killing was due to his testimony, who is supposedly killing him? He testified favorably for the prosecution, correct? So who wants him dead? People who think guyger was wrongly convicted?
mavsfan4ever said:
I'm confused. If the killing was due to his testimony, who is supposedly killing him? He testified favorably for the prosecution, correct? So who wants him dead? People who think guyger was wrongly convicted?
PatAg said:then you live in a fantasy worldYouBet said:
Yes.
YouBet said:PatAg said:then you live in a fantasy worldYouBet said:
Yes.
Texas is a fantasy world now? Because that's where I live. If someone is breaking into my home and I'm there when it happens you think I'm not justified in shooting them?
Hell, I even said I have no idea how I would react in real life because it's never happened but I'm sure as hell justified and the law says I am.
Edit: I see the problem. You thought I was coming at this from POV of being the intruder?
mavsfan4ever said:
I'm confused. If the killing was due to his testimony, who is supposedly killing him? He testified favorably for the prosecution, correct? So who wants him dead? People who think guyger was wrongly convicted?
P.C. Principal said:TexasAggies06 said:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/10/05/man-fatally-shot-apartment-complex-near-dallas-medical-district-suspect-loose/
Holy ****
Dallas is a damn warzone. I live not far from there and there have been a number of murders within a 5 mile radius this year alone
I think we are having a semantics issue. My comment was in context of the scenario I posted.Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:YouBet said:PatAg said:then you live in a fantasy worldYouBet said:
Yes.
Texas is a fantasy world now? Because that's where I live. If someone is breaking into my home and I'm there when it happens you think I'm not justified in shooting them?
Hell, I even said I have no idea how I would react in real life because it's never happened but I'm sure as hell justified and the law says I am.
Edit: I see the problem. You thought I was coming at this from POV of being the intruder?
"Don't be a criminal and you won't get shot". That is what is comment was about. This whole thread exists because your statement was obviously false.
YouBet said:I think we are having a semantics issue. My comment was in context of the scenario I posted.Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:YouBet said:PatAg said:then you live in a fantasy worldYouBet said:
Yes.
Texas is a fantasy world now? Because that's where I live. If someone is breaking into my home and I'm there when it happens you think I'm not justified in shooting them?
Hell, I even said I have no idea how I would react in real life because it's never happened but I'm sure as hell justified and the law says I am.
Edit: I see the problem. You thought I was coming at this from POV of being the intruder?
"Don't be a criminal and you won't get shot". That is what is comment was about. This whole thread exists because your statement was obviously false.
It wasn't a statement saying that accidents don't happen and innocents don't get shot.
I Am Mine said:YouBet said:I think we are having a semantics issue. My comment was in context of the scenario I posted.Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:YouBet said:PatAg said:then you live in a fantasy worldYouBet said:
Yes.
Texas is a fantasy world now? Because that's where I live. If someone is breaking into my home and I'm there when it happens you think I'm not justified in shooting them?
Hell, I even said I have no idea how I would react in real life because it's never happened but I'm sure as hell justified and the law says I am.
Edit: I see the problem. You thought I was coming at this from POV of being the intruder?
"Don't be a criminal and you won't get shot". That is what is comment was about. This whole thread exists because your statement was obviously false.
It wasn't a statement saying that accidents don't happen and innocents don't get shot.
So you're saying that if you walked in on someone burglarizing your house, and the bugler put his hands up and said, don't shoot. You'd shoot because it's your right?
No, I don't think so.
What that poster was saying is that there a different circumstances that guns blazing aren't always necessary.
What Bob Loblaw said. I wasn't trying to argue about your scenario, just pointing out your quote which is the reason we even have this thread in the first place.YouBet said:I think we are having a semantics issue. My comment was in context of the scenario I posted.Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:YouBet said:PatAg said:then you live in a fantasy worldYouBet said:
Yes.
Texas is a fantasy world now? Because that's where I live. If someone is breaking into my home and I'm there when it happens you think I'm not justified in shooting them?
Hell, I even said I have no idea how I would react in real life because it's never happened but I'm sure as hell justified and the law says I am.
Edit: I see the problem. You thought I was coming at this from POV of being the intruder?
"Don't be a criminal and you won't get shot". That is what is comment was about. This whole thread exists because your statement was obviously false.
It wasn't a statement saying that accidents don't happen and innocents don't get shot.
Then this all is a misunderstanding and we can move on.JAggie2007 said:What Bob Loblaw said. I wasn't trying to argue about your scenario, just pointing out your quote which is the reason we even have this thread in the first place.YouBet said:I think we are having a semantics issue. My comment was in context of the scenario I posted.Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:YouBet said:PatAg said:then you live in a fantasy worldYouBet said:
Yes.
Texas is a fantasy world now? Because that's where I live. If someone is breaking into my home and I'm there when it happens you think I'm not justified in shooting them?
Hell, I even said I have no idea how I would react in real life because it's never happened but I'm sure as hell justified and the law says I am.
Edit: I see the problem. You thought I was coming at this from POV of being the intruder?
"Don't be a criminal and you won't get shot". That is what is comment was about. This whole thread exists because your statement was obviously false.
It wasn't a statement saying that accidents don't happen and innocents don't get shot.
Ummmmm, do you know what website you posted this in?YouBet said:Then this all is a misunderstanding and we can move on.JAggie2007 said:What Bob Loblaw said. I wasn't trying to argue about your scenario, just pointing out your quote which is the reason we even have this thread in the first place.YouBet said:I think we are having a semantics issue. My comment was in context of the scenario I posted.Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:YouBet said:PatAg said:then you live in a fantasy worldYouBet said:
Yes.
Texas is a fantasy world now? Because that's where I live. If someone is breaking into my home and I'm there when it happens you think I'm not justified in shooting them?
Hell, I even said I have no idea how I would react in real life because it's never happened but I'm sure as hell justified and the law says I am.
Edit: I see the problem. You thought I was coming at this from POV of being the intruder?
"Don't be a criminal and you won't get shot". That is what is comment was about. This whole thread exists because your statement was obviously false.
It wasn't a statement saying that accidents don't happen and innocents don't get shot.
Yes. (Legit response though)Guitarsoup said:Ummmmm, do you know what website you posted this in?YouBet said:Then this all is a misunderstanding and we can move on.JAggie2007 said:What Bob Loblaw said. I wasn't trying to argue about your scenario, just pointing out your quote which is the reason we even have this thread in the first place.YouBet said:I think we are having a semantics issue. My comment was in context of the scenario I posted.Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:YouBet said:PatAg said:then you live in a fantasy worldYouBet said:
Yes.
Texas is a fantasy world now? Because that's where I live. If someone is breaking into my home and I'm there when it happens you think I'm not justified in shooting them?
Hell, I even said I have no idea how I would react in real life because it's never happened but I'm sure as hell justified and the law says I am.
Edit: I see the problem. You thought I was coming at this from POV of being the intruder?
"Don't be a criminal and you won't get shot". That is what is comment was about. This whole thread exists because your statement was obviously false.
It wasn't a statement saying that accidents don't happen and innocents don't get shot.
Bocephus said:
For anyone who thinks Guyger got off easy with a 10-year sentence:
Just arrested a guy who was convicted of murder in Dallas County and sentenced to probation. Recently he tried to set his exes house on fire.
He wasn't shot in the mouth. Back & legCSTXAg92 said:jefe95 said:
Man if that doesn't seem sinister
Unbelievable. And apparently he was shot in the mouth. Coincidence?
wangus12 said:He wasn't shot in the mouth. Back & legCSTXAg92 said:jefe95 said:
Man if that doesn't seem sinister
Unbelievable. And apparently he was shot in the mouth. Coincidence?
hypeiv said:Bocephus said:
For anyone who thinks Guyger got off easy with a 10-year sentence:
Just arrested a guy who was convicted of murder in Dallas County and sentenced to probation. Recently he tried to set his exes house on fire.
I am pretty sure almost everyone who thought Guyger got off easy would say this guy got off easy too.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make... If one person gets away with murder we should let everyone get away with it?
"Do not bring up what you believe is an unfair sentence because it is against someone I like and also other unfair sentences exist."Bocephus said:hypeiv said:Bocephus said:
For anyone who thinks Guyger got off easy with a 10-year sentence:
Just arrested a guy who was convicted of murder in Dallas County and sentenced to probation. Recently he tried to set his exes house on fire.
I am pretty sure almost everyone who thought Guyger got off easy would say this guy got off easy too.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make... If one person gets away with murder we should let everyone get away with it?
The point is that Dallas County is notoriously bad at sentencing for murder and all things considered, Guyger got a tough sentence for what amounted to a tragic mistake. When lifelong criminals kill and get probation, don't whine when a good person gets 10 years.
