The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
standard procedure, no charges would be recommended.SA_Steve wrote:Do they really need a grand jury review on this one ?
The lady called in to the Michael Berry Show in Houston around 8:30 this morning. She said she used a Sig P938 (9 mm). She said the specific round that she used, but I don't remember that. You can go back to his podcast and listen to her interview.rbwhatever1 wrote: I wonder what caliber firearm she was using.
Contrast that to the UK where the police warn you not to harm your attackers: https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015052 ... rape-alarmSA_Steve wrote:Watching the news lately in San Antonio, the police/DA do not even take the clearly self defense shootings to the grand jury.
The question at issue asks, “Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?” Succinctly epitomizing the sad state of natural rights in Great Britain, the first sentence states, “The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.”
And to add even more insult to human dignity, the statement cautions subjects against the use of nearly any other type of defense product, and reads like an appeal for victims to graciously suffer criminal violence. The answer makes clear “You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.” So even in the sanctity of one’s home, the statement seems to suggest that care for violent offenders outweighs the rights of potential victims to be safe and secure against attack.
The statement then addresses the legality of inert dye sprays that merely mark one’s attacker for later identification; in contrast to self-defense sprays like mace or pepper spray that inflict pain in order to halt an attack. The site is so concerned with the well-being of violent criminals, that in the context of dye sprays, it states,“be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone's eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury.”
Not sure how wise it is to give interviews at this point in time.cj_chl wrote:The lady called in to the Michael Berry Show in Houston around 8:30 this morning. She said she used a Sig P938 (9 mm). She said the specific round that she used, but I don't remember that. You can go back to his podcast and listen to her interview.rbwhatever1 wrote: I wonder what caliber firearm she was using.
I agree with you.jmra wrote:Not sure how wise it is to give interviews at this point in time.cj_chl wrote:The lady called in to the Michael Berry Show in Houston around 8:30 this morning.
I agree totally. I think of it in terms of a corollary to the term "concealed means concealed."Jumping Frog wrote:I agree with you.jmra wrote:Not sure how wise it is to give interviews at this point in time.cj_chl wrote:The lady called in to the Michael Berry Show in Houston around 8:30 this morning.
If the unfortunate event ever happens where I am forced to defend myself, I will make no public comment to the media, nor will I post about it in these forums or any other online forums.