TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote:

EEllis wrote:As an aside what is up with all the "Can't I please shoot them" threads?

Exactly.

The valid question (after meeting the legal requirements for deadly force) is: "Is there no other reasonable way to prevent death or serious injury to an innocent person?"

Folks who approach deadly force issues from the "Can I shoot 'im" school of thought should sit down, take a deep breath, and really think that through.

I understand this approach and full agree. I am just curious from legal point of view, could the homeowner use deadly force to protect his property legally?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Excaliber wrote:Folks who approach deadly force issues from the "Can I shoot 'im" school of thought should sit down, take a deep breath, and really think that through.

This.

Exactly!

Shooting someone, even if they need to be shot, is gonna' bring on a whole lot of time consuming conversation and expense.

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Excaliber wrote:Folks who approach deadly force issues from the "Can I shoot 'im" school of thought should sit down, take a deep breath, and really think that through.

This.

Exactly!

Shooting someone, even if they need to be shot, is gonna' bring on a whole lot of time consuming conversation and expense.

I am glad that Excaliber posted his short statement as I had the same thought.

Just because this is a CHL forum doesn't mean that using a firearm is a solution to every problem.

Seems like some of the folks posting on the forum could benefit from a class on the laws regarding the use of force and deadly force. As Oldgringo said:

Shooting someone, even if they need to be shot, is gonna' bring on a whole lot of time consuming conversation and expense.

Personally speaking, I'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

But, but I'm licensed...

Step 1 is shoot, I don't need to think about step 2.

SA_Steve wrote:But, but I'm licensed...
Step 1 is shoot, I don't need to think about step 2.

As Sheldon would say, "Sarcasm?"

WildBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Excaliber wrote:Folks who approach deadly force issues from the "Can I shoot 'im" school of thought should sit down, take a deep breath, and really think that through.

This.

Exactly!

Shooting someone, even if they need to be shot, is gonna' bring on a whole lot of time consuming conversation and expense.

I am glad that Excaliber posted his short statement as I had the same thought.

Just because this is a CHL forum doesn't mean that using a firearm is a solution to every problem.

"When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"

Come on people! It's a hypothetical, a thought experiment. Of course the OP gets to give his hypothetical parameters... and then we get to debate them or point out inconsistencies in the hypothetical. To me it is interesting and helps me think about the law and how it may apply to more realistic situations. Not so I can push the limits, but so I can understand them and the gray areas.

Isn't it still in Texas law that you can use deadly force at night against criminal mischief? That doesn't mean we're all itching to do it, it means we're discussing the parameters under which the law operates.

If somebody is hypothetically knocking my house down around me, I'm hypothetically going to drill them with my NFA registered machinegun. So what?

ScottDLS wrote:Come on people! It's a hypothetical, a thought experiment. Of course the OP gets to give his hypothetical parameters... and then we get to debate them or point out inconsistencies in the hypothetical. To me it is interesting and helps me think about the law and how it may apply to more realistic situations. Not so I can push the limits, but so I can understand them and the gray areas.

Isn't it still in Texas law that you can use deadly force at night against criminal mischief? That doesn't mean we're all itching to do it, it means we're discussing the parameters under which the law operates.

If somebody is hypothetically knocking my house down around me, I'm hypothetically going to drill them with my NFA registered machinegun. So what?

Fifty four posts - I would think that this would qualify as a successful thought experiment.

Both sides got to state their opinions and reservations about "pushing the limits" of legality and common sense.

In this particular hypothetical situation, I don't think there are many gray areas.

A construction company with a legal contract to knock down a house is not the same as some guy trying to vandalize your house at night.

A little different from a demolition situation but:
I worked many years for a pipeline company which had rights of ingress/egress to 5,000 miles of right-of-way. Amazing what we did to accommodate landowners, some who liked to meet us with a shotgun. They got extra 'good will' checks, free driveway paving, tree trimming, mowing, gravel, fence, gates, whatever it took. You don't want to have a pipe or microwave tower or any kind of equipment that a full time neighbor is mad about. We were especially generous to Louisiana sugar cane farmers, seems they always prevailed heavily with their damage claims in local courts. Typical award was 5 years of lost production.

I don't think the demo crew could be considered engaged in a criminal act. They would be hired to do a job and have nothing to do with all the activity leading up to the event.

I think some people watch too many movies where the evil bank or evil businessman tries to take over property and orders his evil construction workers to destroy the property at all costs.

Even if the demolition was premature, I think if you shoot a bulldozer operator, then you would have plenty of time to rethink your actions while you spend the rest of your life in prison.

Your thought process changes when you line up the sights on a living person knowing their existence is determined by your trigger finger.

I've been in that situation a few times but thank the good Lord I've never had to pull the trigger, I pray I never have too.

The demo crew doesn't just show up on a bulldozer and start demolishing a house. There is a lot of work that goes on prior to the demo work starting. Electric and gas disconnected, appliances removed, verification no chemicals are inside, verification no asbestos is present, etc. Therefore, the hypothetical situation of a demo crew rolling up off the street and starting demolition is absurd and unrealistic.

Therefore, the hypothetical idea of shooting someone in such a situation is ludicrous and continuing to argue over it is also.