Home Owner Shoots Would Be Robbers

Eyewitness News Channel 11 (North Carolina) ^ | 1/16/06 | n/a

[bootscoot]

The mayor of the town where the Mexican beat that 7yr. old child to death, stated he didnt think the authorities were not talking to each other, well --duh--duh-- absolutely they were not talking to each other about the case it interfeared in their talk time to each other, or their solitaire game on the compute. They their to get a pay-check not earn it.

[gsrinok]

Boo Got Shot

That was classic. If not for the translation, I wouldn't have understood a word of the "Boo Got Shot" rant.

[xrp]

If not for the translation, I wouldn't have understood a word of the "Boo Got Shot" rant.

Ironic isn't it? She was speaking English.

[lowbridge]

bump

[Trajan88]

Takin' out the trash... love it.

[FNG]

You have created a detailed image of me in your mind by inventing and interpreting what you call facts based on some general comments I made.

Grossly prejudging and misjudging people is common in the media today, so I'm not surprised you work for a network at all.

[MindBender26]

>You have created a detailed image of me in your mind
.

Actually, didn't have to. Just looked at an old Mad Magazine picture of Alfred E. Newman.

Remember, you are the one who thinks you can shoot cops because you think they shouldn't be executing a legally authorized search warrant at your house.

[TASMANIANRED]

Please tell me how you get the link coding for Boo got shot...

[rfreedom4u]

That was great. I highly suggest everyone listen to it.

[FNG]

You do not know what I think. Texas state law allows using deadly force on cops who are using greater than necessary deadly force on people. I'm sorry you cannot understand that LEOs should not be harming civilians when executing a warrant. Forget about Waco. Should a cop be allowed to shoot at a complying suspect, or pistol whip someone who is cuffed and kneeling? I have no desire to shoot cops, but I can envision various scenarios where "greater than necessary force" could be applied and resisted. I'm sorry if I came across like a cop killer, but you are sounding like a police state facist that allows LEO's to throw deadly force around without consequence.

[MindBender26]

>You do not know what I think.

Actually, we do. Your written statement says:

>"A bunch of heavily armed JBTs storming your home without identifying themselves first could be considered greater than necessary force, even if they were not shooting."

You are so dangerously wrong on the law that you could easily endanger others.

It is no defense or excuse under the law that you did not hear the LEOs announce their entry. In addition, "no knock" entry warrants are often given by the court when the "knock and announce" procedure would give the suspects time to destroy evidence or secure weapons with which to shoot the LEOs.

To be held to be unnecessary force, the force used must be grossly inappropriate and must be directed against a PERSON, not an OBJECT.

In YOUR scenario, the LEOs have entered your property with a valid court warrant, they have weapons with which to defend themselves against the weapon you admit you want to use on them if you decide they used too much force kicking in your door.

Here's what would happen. You would shoot or shoot at the first LEO (remember, in your scenario, they are not shooting.) All the other LEOs would then, justifiably, unload their entire weapon into you and you would would die, quickly, totally and foolishly.

If anyone was in the house with you, they could easily be killed as well.

Before you start shooting at cops, pay a Texas lawyer to explain it to you.... then pay a Texas shrink to help you understand the incredibility of your thinking.

I will not discuss this with you further. I have stated the issue plainly and advised you where to get the help you need. Any further communication could create liability for me if you undertook some of the idiocy that you, in your own words, have advocated.

[Richard-SIA]

Looks like a stature written to allow "suspects" to avoid being lynched.

Considering western U.S. history, and the current tendency of L.E. to over reach at every opportunity, it is excellent legislation.

Be glad you have it.

[Godebert]

"I covered that story for network."

What the heck does that mean? Are you saying you work for CBS, CNN, NBC or ABC? If so, you are a liberal troll and have no credibility on this forum.

[MindBender26]

You might want to check out my FR "about" page before you make such accusations. You only make yourself look foolish to those from FR who know me personally when you do.

You have the 25th Inf Div patch and the crossed cannons on your about page. Anyone who was ever a "Cannon Cocker" with the "Electric Strawberry" should also be way too smart to do something like that.

Finally, if you think all journalists are limp dong liberals, suggest you read some of the books by Bernard Goldberg (CBS for 30 years+) or Bob Zelnick's (ABC) well-documented written expose of the foolishness of affirmative action, or any of Frank Mariano's work from RVN (he was an Army 0-4 rotor head who lost his flight physical, resigned from active duty but stayed in RVN to try to tell the truth)

Finally, think I'm some liberal? My radio call both tours in RVN (supported the 25th a lot second tour) was MindBender26. If you were in III Corps, you know who the MindBenders were.

ESABATM

Semper Gumby
(Always flexable!)

[Godebert]

Psy-ops in RVN or not....you still sound like an apologist for Reno's jackbooted thugs. Add the fact that you worked for a liberal network and you can understand why I'd be a bit sceptical of your analysis of Waco. Besides.....didn't Goldberg write his book after he was canned by CBS?

[MindBender26]

If you would bother to read the goof-ball's posts, you would realize that he is advocating shooting LEOs if they execute a lawful search warrant on his dwelling if he thinks they are using too much force to enter the property, even if they are not shooting or aiming at anyone.

In other words, if he doesn't like the way LEOs with a search warrant break the door of his double-wide down, he thinks Texas law gives him the right to shoot them!

Idiocy!

P.S. If you get in late, read before you type.

[FNG]

I guess killing family pets or driving a tank over your valuable restored musclecar would be ok for Mindbender26 if he were an LEO. All I did was correct him on a law that he called BS on, and now he has to heal his pride by trying to prove I want to shoot cops, attacking my credibility, and calling me names. I have tried to explain my stance on this law in various ways to find some points of agreement, but he just keeps on with this one accusation. I'm glad he's not commenting anymore on me, because I'm tired of arguing with an apparent Narcissist.

[MindBender26]

You have made a serious error and committed a serious disservice to other Texans by not posting the ENTIRE LAW

" (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THIS SUBCHAPTER EXCAPT AS PROVIDED ....in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.

THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO USE FORCE IS NOT JUSTIFICATION TO USE DEADLY FORCE UNLESS IT IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORZED BY LAW. THE BOTTOM LINE IS AS FOLLOWS. IN ORDER TO USE DEADLY I REPEAT DEADLY FORCE AGAINST AN LEO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE HE IS ABOUT TO USE DEADLY FORCE ON YOU FOR NO REASON, I REPEAT FOR NO LEGAL REASON. YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE, I REPEAT PROVE THAT YOU HAD THAT REASONABLE, I REPEAT REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE LEO WAS ABOUT TO SHOOT YOU FOR NO REASON.

CATCH 22 FOLLOWS

OF COURSE, YOU COULD NEVER DO THAT, BECAUSE THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON YOU WOULD USE TO SHOOT THE LEO, POINTED AT HIM OR MOVING IN A DIRECTION OF BEING POINTED AT HIM, WOULD BE FULL LEGAL JUSTUFUCATION OF HIM SHOOTING YOU!!

ANYONE READING THIS, PLEASE, OH PLEASE SEEK THE COUNSEL OF AN ATTORNEY LICENSED IN YOUR STATE BEFORE YOU DEPEND ON THIS THREAD FOR ADVICE OF ANY KIND.

I SPECIFICALLY DIRECT THAT NO PERSON DEPEND IN ANY WAY ON MY COMMENTS AND DISCLAIM ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY PERSON OR ENTITY THAT DOES.