And this is why we need the Castle Doctrine

SC1903A3 · Post by **SC1903A3** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:06 pm

Momma is going to sue the store owner because she thinks her son should have been shot only once, instead of three times. Do I hear a Doh!

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=s ... TOPSTORIES

lrb111 · Post by **lrb111** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:49 pm

man, you couldn't be more right...

glocklvr · Post by **glocklvr** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:16 pm

maybe the store owner should be sueing the mom for not teaching her son 3 important things in life 1) drugs are bad, 2) stealing is wrong, 3) crime with a gun can be hazardous to one's health that would make about as much sense as her law suit.

Greybeard · Post by **Greybeard** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:05 am

The following was in my "inbox" when I got in tonight. Too bad this one is apparently in New Mexico because it sounds like exactly the type of "story" that Alice Tripp is requesting just now.

TSRA and NRA Suppported Castle Doctrine Legislation
Needs Your help in the Texas Legislature

Texas Castle Doctrine, HB 284 by Rep. Joe Driver (R-Garland) increases protection for lawabiding Texans to protect themselves and others in their homes, their vehicles, and in their places of business. HB 284 also establishes in law that Texans have "no duty to retreat" from a place they have a right to be if violently attacked, if they are not the original aggressor, and are not involved in criminal activity. Finally HB 284 gives Texans, acting within the law, protection from civil action brought by their injured attacker or his family.

While there is strong support in the Texas Legislature, the gun control crowd and certain urban prosecutors question the need for this new law.

If you or someone you know has defended themselves against a criminal attack and needed to hire a lawyer for any reason, even to sort sort out the legal ramifications of this defensive action; we need to hear from you.
We need to know your stories and understand the costs; in money, time and worry.
Please email Alice Tripp, TSRA's Legislative Director at agtripp@aol.com

Act Now!

Diode · Post by **Diode** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:58 am

I just can't understand some peoples thought process. Any person involved in Illeagal Activity should have no rights, except to a speedy trial. Bad guy shot too many times? What's even more insane is there are lawyers willing to take a case like this. Maybe I need to get me a lawyer and sue her for making my blood presure go up Argh!

HankB · Post by **HankB** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:14 am

But Lorraine Sena says her son claims the second and third shots were execution style and that her son begged not to be shot.

Ummm . . . aside from automatically discounting the "claims" of an armed robber, if he was shot twice "execution style" and is still talking to his momma, that sounds like a pretty sloppy "execution."

This is just posturing for the suit - IMHO as long as he fired three shots anyway, it's a pity the intended victim had never heard of the Mozambique drill.

propellerhead · Post by **propellerhead** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:50 am

Disgusting. This is why everyone says "Dead men don't lie".

MikeJ · Post by **MikeJ** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:27 pm

glocklvr wrote:maybe the store owner should be sueing the mom for not teaching her son 3 important things in life 1) drugs are bad, 2) stealing is wrong, 3) crime with a gun can be hazardous to one's health that would make about as much sense as her law suit.

I suspect that mom, like her worthless son, is indigent trash, perhaps an able-bodied welfare recipient, and therefore judgment-proof. Such people stand to gain by suing you, but it would make little sense for you to sue them.

TX Rancher · Post by **TX Rancher** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:27 pm

Guy goes into a store to rob it with a BB gun...stupid, but I'll buy it. Lots of bad guys have done it, and often it works.

Store guy goes for his gun and gets a shot off hitting stupid in the shoulder. Then he claims stupid went for the BB gun so he shot him 2 more times...why would stupid reach for a BB gun after being shot once? Run, plead for mercy, play dead, cry for momma, but why reach for something you absolutely know won't do you any good, and will probably get you shot again?

Now I'm not sticking up for the robber. His intent was clear, so I have no problem with the first shot.

If the dummy really did reach for the BB gun after the first shot, then he deserves to be shot until he stops reaching for the gun. But if he didn't reach for the BB gun, then the GG probably stepped over the legal line.

He said he saw the BG on the camera, so maybe there's video that will tell what happend.

Like I said, not sticking up for the BG, but if momma gets a good lawyer, he/she may be able to cast enough doubt to win a civil case if there's no video.

RPBrown · Post by **RPBrown** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:42 pm

TX Rancher wrote:Guy goes into a store to rob it with a BB gun...stupid, but I'll buy it. Lots of bad guys have done it, and often it works.

Store guy goes for his gun and gets a shot off hitting stupid in the shoulder. Then he claims stupid went for the BB gun so he shot him 2 more times...why would stupid reach for a BB gun after being shot once? Run, plead for mercy, play dead, cry for momma, but why reach for something you absolutely know won't do you any good, and will probably get you shot again?

Now I'm not sticking up for the robber. His intent was clear, so I have no problem with the first shot.

If the dummy really did reach for the BB gun after the first shot, then he deserves to be shot until he stops reaching for the gun. But if he didn't reach for the BB gun, then the GG probably stepped over the legal line.

He said he saw the BG on the camera, so maybe there's video that will tell what happend.

Like I said, not sticking up for the BG, but if momma gets a good lawyer, he/she may be able to cast enough doubt to win a civil case if there's no video.

No one said the BG was brightest light on the tree

srothstein · Post by **srothstein** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:52 pm

SC1903A3 wrote:Momma is going to sue the store owner because she thinks her son should have been shot only once, instead of three times. Do I hear a Doh!

I wonder if any lawyers had been contacted yet to tell her she has no standing or legal ability to sue. Her son is well over the age of majority and might be able to sue for himself, but she sure can't.

srothstein · Post by **srothstein** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:55 pm

Greybeard wrote:Texas Castle Doctrine, HB 284 by Rep. Joe Driver (R-Garland) increases protection for lawabiding Texans to protect themselves and others in their homes, their vehicles, and in their places of business. HB 284 also establishes in law that Texans have "no duty to retreat" from a place they have a right to be if violently attacked, if they are not the original aggressor, and are not involved in criminal activity. Finally HB 284 gives Texans, acting within the law, protection from civil action brought by their injured attacker or his family.

While there is strong support in the Texas Legislature, the gun control crowd and certain urban prosecutors question the need for this new law.

If you or someone you know has defended themselves against a criminal attack and needed to hire a lawyer for any reason, even to sort sort out the legal ramifications of this defensive action; we need to hear from you.
We need to know your stories and understand the costs; in money, time and worry.

I also got that in my inbox. I promptly responded with a point everyone else seems to have forgotten. I pointed out that the liability defense was needed because even the police go to see a lawyer first thing after a shooting. And our are already paid for, so a citizen would need some help.

I also volunteered to testify in support of the bill if necessary, just to show that there are active officers who support this bill and 2nd Amendment rights. I hate when the other side quotes a police chief and then claims all of law enforcement is against this.

Venus Pax · Post by **Venus Pax** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:58 am

Unfortunately, the other side has too many people willing to spout off to the media.

I appreciate your willingness to testify with a more sound argument.

rodnocker1 · Post by **rodnocker1** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:16 pm

Also, there are more of the "other side" in the media willing to print/cover that slant on the story and their view of it. Although there are two sides to every story, most of the time, there is only one side presented. I guess that's just a part of that "freedom of the press/speech" thingy that they put so much emphasis on. I'm also guessing that since it is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, that's why most of "them" think it is more important than the others, especially the 2nd.

Oh, as far as the story, the mother even agrees that her son should have been shot. I wonder if she also would agree that the store owner should have been a better shot with the first round?

Roger Howard · Post by **Roger Howard** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:29 am

My son is such a good boy. I don't know why he had to shoot him THREE times. He would never hurt a fly.

Give me a break. This is exactly why we need castle doctrine.

TexasCHLforum.com

And this is why we need the Castle Doctrine

And this is why we need the Castle Doctrine

Re: And this is why we need the Castle Doctrine