TexasCHLforum.com

...all you have to do here to get busted is to show up...thick skin and the courage of your convictions are mandatory to survival...

Concealed means concealed. Nothing to get busted for.

You all are getting off track here... what we are talking about is a man that made a mistake because he didn't know the law. Did he fire his gun in an unsafe manner... no; he aimed and discharged it into the ground. if he told the cops "I fired at the guys trying to break in and missed" pat on the back but tell them "I discharged my weapon into the ground to scare them off because I didn't want to take a life"...jail time, a fine and a criminal record.
That bullet will do more harm at a horizontal level then it will ever do being shot into the ground

barstoolguru wrote:You all are getting off track here... what we are talking about is a man that made a mistake because he didn't know the law. Did he fire his gun in an unsafe manner... no; he aimed and discharged it into the ground. if he told the cops "I fired at the guys trying to break in and missed" pat on the back but tell them "I discharged my weapon into the ground to scare them off because I didn't want to take a life"...jail time, a fine and a criminal record.
That bullet will do more harm at a horizontal level then it will ever do being shot into the ground

Deadly force is not justified to prevent trespassing. He said "I could see men through the fence" so it sounds like they might not have been on his property when he fired his gun. Maybe not at all. Firing at them and "missing" could be attempted murder or aggravated assault at a minimum, instead of just firing a gun in city limits.

One more thing. Anybody who criticized Zimmerman getting out of his car should have a field day dog piling on this guy for leaving the safety of his house. .

Big Tuna wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:You all are getting off track here... what we are talking about is a man that made a mistake because he didn't know the law. Did he fire his gun in an unsafe manner... no; he aimed and discharged it into the ground. if he told the cops "I fired at the guys trying to break in and missed" pat on the back but tell them "I discharged my weapon into the ground to scare them off because I didn't want to take a life"...jail time, a fine and a criminal record.
That bullet will do more harm at a horizontal level then it will ever do being shot into the ground

Deadly force is not justified to prevent trespassing. He said "I could see men through the fence" so it sounds like they might not have been on his property when he fired his gun. Maybe not at all. Firing at them and "missing" could be attempted murder or aggravated assault at a minimum, instead of just firing a gun in city limits.

One more thing. Anybody who criticized Zimmerman getting out of his car should have a field day dog piling on this guy for leaving the safety of his house. .

You are correct with the trespassing and on the video we seen no signs of forced entry. If you back track a little we covered them points. The man says and so does his wife that they heard the window rattling and he went outside and he believes people or a person was trying was trying making entry into the house and then the back yard. Now trespass across a lawn is one thing but making entry into a secure area is another.

barstoolguru wrote:

Big Tuna wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:You all are getting off track here... what we are talking about is a man that made a mistake because he didn't know the law. Did he fire his gun in an unsafe manner... no; he aimed and discharged it into the ground. if he told the cops "I fired at the guys trying to break in and missed" pat on the back but tell them "I discharged my weapon into the ground to scare them off because I didn't want to take a life"...jail time, a fine and a criminal record.
That bullet will do more harm at a horizontal level then it will ever do being shot into the ground

Deadly force is not justified to prevent trespassing. He said "I could see men through the fence" so it sounds like they might not have been on his property when he fired his gun. Maybe not at all. Firing at them and "missing" could be attempted murder or aggravated assault at a minimum, instead of just firing a gun in city limits.

One more thing. Anybody who criticized Zimmerman getting out of his car should have a field day dog piling on this guy for leaving the safety of his house. .

You are correct with the trespassing and on the video we seen no signs of forced entry. If you back track a little we covered them points. The man says and so does his wife that they heard the window rattling and he went outside and he believes people or a person was trying was trying making entry into the house and then the back yard. Now trespass across a lawn is one thing but making entry into a secure area is another.

There are differences but it looks like both are trespassing. Burglary requires entry into a building not jumping a fence. There's also no proof they were in his backyard. His story says he saw them through the fence.

I also wonder if his wife was so scared, why she didn't call 911 first. Even George Zimmerman called 911 first.

A famous quote from the movie, "A Guide for the Married Man" is "Deny, deny, deny".

IMHO, it's good advice.

Of course, having sense to use a revolver would have helped.

You can't always be certain you can find the casing.

Big Tuna wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

Big Tuna wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:You all are getting off track here... what we are talking about is a man that made a mistake because he didn't know the law. Did he fire his gun in an unsafe manner... no; he aimed and discharged it into the ground. if he told the cops "I fired at the guys trying to break in and missed" pat on the back but tell them "I discharged my weapon into the ground to scare them off because I didn't want to take a life"...jail time, a fine and a criminal record.
That bullet will do more harm at a horizontal level then it will ever do being shot into the ground

Deadly force is not justified to prevent trespassing. He said "I could see men through the fence" so it sounds like they might not have been on his property when he fired his gun. Maybe not at all. Firing at them and "missing" could be attempted murder or aggravated assault at a minimum, instead of just firing a gun in city limits.

One more thing. Anybody who criticized Zimmerman getting out of his car should have a field day dog piling on this guy for leaving the safety of his house. .

You are correct with the trespassing and on the video we seen no signs of forced entry. If you back track a little we covered them points. The man says and so does his wife that they heard the window rattling and he went outside and he believes people or a person was trying was trying making entry into the house and then the back yard. Now trespass across a lawn is one thing but making entry into a secure area is another.

There are differences but it looks like both are trespassing. Burglary requires entry into a building not jumping a fence. There's also no proof they were in his backyard. His story says he saw them through the fence.

I also wonder if his wife was so scared, why she didn't call 911 first. Even George Zimmerman called 911 first.

this is not true...A B&E can accrue in any area that is secure from the public and a fenced in yard is not open to the public just like you can fence in the front yard with a little white picket fence and if someone crosses that boundary that are subject to deadly force

PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS 61
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I found it interesting that the current newstand copy (August 2012) of "Combat Handguns" has Massad Ayoob's monthly "Self Defense & The Law" column: WARNING SHOT MISCONCEPTIONS: Dangers of misapplied force—nine cases bust the myth! .

Bottom line we all already know: warning shots are a bad idea.

barstoolguru wrote:you can fence in the front yard with a little white picket fence and if someone crosses that boundary that are subject to deadly force

Do you mind me asking where you took your CHL class?

Jumping Frog wrote:I found it interesting that the current newstand copy (August 2012) of "Combat Handguns" has Massad Ayoob's monthly "Self Defense & The Law" column: WARNING SHOT MISCONCEPTIONS: Dangers of misapplied force—nine cases bust the myth! .

Bottom line we all already know: warning shots are a bad idea.

Really, warning shots are given by the navy, coast guard, army and the marines... the only place warning shots are bad are as civilians
Because like always... people are children and need to be controlled by our big brother Uncle Sam
warning shots are what they are... warnings...they are only bad when done in a bad way... shooting into the ground is far from being bad

but warning shots are good.... good for the city of Mesquite,TX because they make money on this guy

apostate wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:you can fence in the front yard with a little white picket fence and if someone crosses that boundary that are subject to deadly force

Do you mind me asking where you took your CHL class?

why would that matter...the law is the law... did your class tell you it's OK to enter a back yard ?

apostate wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:you can fence in the front yard with a little white picket fence and if someone crosses that boundary that are subject to deadly force

Do you mind me asking where you took your CHL class?

yes I have a CHL and where I took the class has no meaning here we are talking about a man do what he though was the right thing. He made a choice and he has to live with it.
Now did he have the right to use deadly force to prevent trespass (B&E)?.
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;

barstoolguru wrote:did your class tell you it's OK to enter a back yard ?

That's a red herring. It's not OK to be rude but deadly force is not justified in response to someone talking during the movie.

However, I thank you for your reply. The manner in which you chose not to answer told me everything I wanted to know.

barstoolguru wrote:

apostate wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:you can fence in the front yard with a little white picket fence and if someone crosses that boundary that are subject to deadly force

Do you mind me asking where you took your CHL class?

yes I have a CHL and where I took the class has no meaning here we are talking about a man do what he though was the right thing. He made a choice and he has to live with it.
Now did he have the right to use deadly force to prevent trespass (B&E)?.
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;

Tresspass does not equal criminal mischeif. Entering a fenced yard is tresspass, and does not constitute B&E (known as burglary in Texas).