The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
Seems like Texas is better off without them.gigag04 wrote:Turns out these guys are from my old city and I have dealt with and arrested them both. Both violent, crack dealing histories. Just got all the texts today from my old coworkers...
Seems like a good shoot IMHO.
esxmarkc wrote: I could care less about the money. I care about the process and tactics which they may apply to get at it. From the story I posted "Hawke-Petit had indicated the assailants were "being nice", and she believed they only wanted money" This poor lady made the gave mistake in thinking exactly as you are thinking: she tried to apply logic to their behavior.
If you have these armed animals standing in front of you making demands and you are worried about going bankrupt over some BG's mother suing you over excessive use of force then you can limit your liability in such situations bey leaving your handgun safely at home. Otherwise they are just as likely to take it off you and use it against you or someone else. In all honesty I'm really surprised that didn't happen to the shooter in this story.
drjoker wrote:Man, can't two kids go to Mickey D's and buy some Skittles without gittin' gunned down for borrowing a car and a cell phone? Have you guys no compassion? They was gonna use these things so that they could get a job and become a productive member of society. They were gonna give the stuff right back. Honest!
Keep in mind that those of us that are talking about not using deadly force to recover property are not saying we would not use deadly force in self-defense. In fact, I'm resolved to use deadly force specifically for that reason, as I am sure the others are as well.esxmarkc wrote: If you have these armed animals standing in front of you making demands and you are worried about going bankrupt over some BG's mother suing you over excessive use of force then you can limit your liability in such situations bey leaving your handgun safely at home. Otherwise they are just as likely to take it off you and use it against you or someone else. In all honesty I'm really surprised that didn't happen to the shooter in this story.
drjoker wrote:Man, can't two kids go to Mickey D's and buy some Skittles without gittin' gunned down for borrowing a car and a cell phone? Have you guys no compassion? They was gonna use these things so that they could get a job and become a productive member of society. They were gonna give the stuff right back. Honest!
Correct. I'd use it only as a last resort in defense of myself or family. I would not use it after the incident is de-esclating to protect some some amount of property.Robert*PPS wrote: Keep in mind that those of us that are talking about not using deadly force to recover property are not saying we would not use deadly force in self-defense. In fact, I'm resolved to use deadly force specifically for that reason, as I am sure the others are as well.
cb1000rider wrote:Correct. I'd use it only as a last resort in defense of myself or family. I would not use it after the incident is de-esclating to protect some some amount of property.Robert*PPS wrote: Keep in mind that those of us that are talking about not using deadly force to recover property are not saying we would not use deadly force in self-defense. In fact, I'm resolved to use deadly force specifically for that reason, as I am sure the others are as well.
It's just a personal choice due to a litigious society.
100% with you both.