TexasCHLforum.com

R DAVIS wrote:

android wrote:

R DAVIS wrote: You're O.K. if you can convince the jury that you didn't know your wife had ordered the pizza. Put enough lead in the Domino's driver, and HE won't be able to testify against you. Go ahead and shoot through it. After all, it IS YOUR door.

Some of the hyperbole here is really over the top.

I have NEVER, NEVER in 20 years of being a home owner had any pizza delivery guy beating on and attempting to kick down my door. They ring the bell and wait patiently for me to open the door.

And to add, no door to door candy bar salesman, no Girl Scouts, no Jehovah's Witness, no Clean Water Petition hippies, neighbors or friends or anyone else for that matter has ever tried to kick in my door. Somebody trying to kick in my door is up to no good, really.

I'm not saying I'd take a shot through the door. I'm just saying it's NOT the pizza guy.

Golly Mr. Know It All, I guess you weren't around when my neighbor had his door almost kicked in by a Dominos driver (hence the reference), who was being attacked by a big vicious dog running loose in the neighborhood. Fortunately, my neighbor was wise enough to check out the situation. He didn't shoot through the door, but he DID dispatch the dog, which likely saved the drivers life. The driver ended up with about 50 stitches from the dog bites. I guess he is lucky it didn't happen at your house.

After all, " Somebody trying to kick in my door is up to no good, really." --- RIGHT ?

There was no way for him to know the extenuating circumstance. People can only respond to what is typed and its context.

txglock21 wrote:So after 3 pages of postings, my summary is: LEGAL= Yes/probably. GOOD IDEA= Probably not.

Wrong. Don't confuse "legal" with "defense to prosecution".

Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

The law ALSO says:

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

So, y'all go ahead and shoot through that closed door.........and pray that none of your projectiles MISS the intended target which you can't see, and hit a neighbor. Even if you kill a bad guy, the round that missed and hit your neighbor removes your defense to prosecution in the wounding/killing of your neighbor. If I am your neighbor......and I survive the bullet......I'm going to end up owning your home and your bank account, and your future earnings for a long time.

Nothing is getting solved in this thread. Those that want to shoot through the door are going to, and those that don't think it is wise, won't. Enjoy the rest of this thread.

If "Defense to Prosecution" is not equal to legal, then we should all stop carrying with CHL, since the EXCEPTION for CHL provided by 46.15 has been ruled to be a Defense.

ScottDLS wrote:If "Defense to Prosecution" is not equal to legal, then we should all stop carrying with CHL, since the EXCEPTION for CHL provided by 46.15 has been ruled to be a Defense.

If I get arrested for walking down the street while carrying concealed by an "less educated" LEO. I have a defense to prosecution with my CHL. Sure you can call my carrying legal, but it's all about the law and it's interpretation.

I wouldn't be so bold as to call something covered by "defense to prosecution" as completely legal. Legal would ensue that there is no wrong doing, and completely legal. It's like getting into "rights."

What I mean is, don't take anything for granted as being legal. Take it to the wrong cop, or wrong fed, and they won't care what is or isn't legal. TAM is right about it not technically being perfectly legal, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no LEGAL in a lawbook. It's all different shades of gray, with some areas making more sense then others. After all, it's all interpretation, isn't it?

Our legislators write many of our laws this way. I always tell my students: Defense against prosecution does not mean you cannot be arrested, charged, and tried. It just has the potential to make the foundation of your defense a little firmer.

Eric Lamberson wrote:Our legislators write many of our laws this way. I always tell my students: Defense against prosecution does not mean you cannot be arrested, charged, and tried. It just has the potential to make the foundation of your defense a little firmer.

You can be arrested, charged, and tried for anything "legal" or otherwise. A defense will always prevent you from being convicted if the plain meaning law is followed. In order to convict you the prosecution must prove to the highest legal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the DEFENSE did NOT exist.

ALL the justifications in PC CH9 are Defenses to Prosecution. So in that sense you could say that self defense is illegal, just as carrying a handgun w/ CHL, or to the range, or to a sporting activity, is illegal.

Oh...no...the RIDE!!! The RIDE!!!

I like to think of myself as law abiding, but I almost daily commit a class A misdemeanor by carrying my gun, with only the DEFENSE to PROSECUTION of a CHL.

In related news, it's also legal to shoot through your foot, unless you happen to be an endangered species. In the words of the inimitable Johnny Hart, 'Hello, there, I am an apteryx, the last of my species. Please do not harm me.'

android wrote: And to add, no door to door candy bar salesman, no Girl Scouts, no Jehovah's Witness, no Clean Water Petition hippies, neighbors or friends or anyone else for that matter has ever tried to kick in my door. Somebody trying to kick in my door is up to no good, really.

I'm not saying I'd take a shot through the door. I'm just saying it's NOT the pizza guy.

I'm not saying that I disagree with you, however I will say that "ever" and "never" are hard limits that do get broken. I HAVE had a door to door salesman kick my door violently and then before he left he removed a no soliciting sign on my door. I was not home at the time. Unfortunately for him I had a security camera installed that recorded the entire incident. In lieu of my filing a police report, I accepted his employer's action to terminate him that very day to be sufficient. Had I been home? I would not have shot through the door given that I could see what he was doing and wouldn't have viewed that as sufficient threat. But I think that points out a significant benefit of having a security camera installed at your front door.

And this topic just adds that little bit more reinforcement for me to look for a place out in the country, not located off of a highway. No pizza delivery guys, no neighbors to accidentally get hit if I did have to shoot, and no one coming to my door to sell me something, offer religious literature, or ask to have their flat tire changed at 3 A.M. Also unlikely that miscreants and troublemakers will be coming to my house at that time of morning, either. So, thanks for reinforcing my decision.

K.Mooneyham wrote:And this topic just adds that little bit more reinforcement for me to look for a place out in the country, not located off of a highway. No pizza delivery guys, no neighbors to accidentally get hit if I did have to shoot, and no one coming to my door to sell me something, offer religious literature, or ask to have their flat tire changed at 3 A.M. Also unlikely that miscreants and troublemakers will be coming to my house at that time of morning, either. So, thanks for reinforcing my decision.

Yep out in the country you'll be shooting at a stranded motorist, neighbor, or police officer and not pizza guys.

I think the OP was talking about someone kicking and beating the door down, not knocking on the door as a cop, neighbor or stranded motorist. None of these people attck a door like home invaders. Geez!

I too live in the country and have a large window in my door. Therefore, I could easily shoot through my door and be very close to as accurate as there being no door. Let's avoid the drama and hyperbole just to make a point.

Common sense makes it obvious between a knock and beating on a door. I also bet some of the tough talkers on here comment hits the broad side of a barn from 20 feet of put in a high stress high adrenalin stuation with or without a door between them.

mojo84 wrote:I think the OP was talking about someone kicking and beating the door down, not knocking on the door as a cop, neighbor or stranded motorist. None of these people attck a door like home invaders. Geez!

I too live in the country and have a large window in my door. Therefore, I could easily shoot through my door and be very close to as accurate as there being no door. Let's avoid the drama and hyperbole just to make a point.

Common sense makes it obvious between a knock and beating on a door. I also bet some of the tough talkers on here comment hits the broad side of a barn from 20 feet of put in a high stress high adrenalin stuation with or without a door between them.

All of those people have beat on a door in a manner that made someone think they were a home invader which was my point and since it has happened I don't think its a Damn bit of hyperbole. If you're right or convince a jury that your actions were reasonable then you're fine. If not you're in the pen.

Friend of mine had a breaching charge used on his door by Teleflora. Then the delivery person through a flashbang through his window before performing a singing telegram to go with the flowers, all while dressed in SWAT tactical gear.

Luckily he (my friend) didn't use his "Ma Deuce" M2 50cal beltfed that he has aiming at the door....'cuz the depleted uranium bullet with tungsten-carbide penetrater would've gone through "Fluffy" his neighbors pet poodle. That would be at least a "RIDE" for animal cruelty.