...aside from the fact that he attempts to cut his own hair Franciscan style...
I don't what you'd call this dipsh*t's hair style, but it's not Franciscan.
Posted on 08/24/2006 1:56:20 PM PDT by staytrue
You create a somewhat viable scenario, but if the shooter
was watching the car, and no one got out, he probably shouldn't
have shot. If someone got out and trespassed on the property
and was heading towards the house on other than the
walkway, or trail, I would be highly suspicious of their action.
I probably wouldn't have shot until I saw some crime being
committed, but if I was constantly being tested by teenagers
who believe a lie about the house, I might have my fingers
on the trigger, ready to go...
...and it is true, that nowadays, all types of different
people commit crimes, you never really know what peoples
(especially strangers) intent is...
No, he fired warning shots at the ground near the girls when they trespassed the first time. They then left, and that should have been the end of it.
When they *came back* is when the problems really started. By returning, they essentially declared they wanted to do something about the warning shots, so the homeowner was justified in shooting to prevent the imminent commission of a crime. (Again, as I've said, this is per the rules of engagement and the culture here in Texas - I personally think this should be the case everywhere, but it's not.)
When I was in college several of us had rented this old house that was down the street from the Frat houses. One night several frat guys were walking by and decided to throw beer bottles at our house. My roommate hung out the seond story window firing his .45 into the ground as a warning. If the frat guys had come back I am pretty sure he would have shot them.
Shooting a person for throwing rocks at a house in the middle of the night is "out of proportion" in your view too, not so?
Well, down here in Texas, the citizens got tired of this sort of stupidity, and it's LEGAL to do so. We like sleeping, we don't like teen vandals running around and damaging our property.
By the way, you do realize that "proportionate response" is what the liberals think the plan should be for dealing with terrorists is, right? This is the same dynamic, writ smaller.
See my signature - instilling fear of massive, disproportionate response is the only way some of the idiots in the world will leave others alone.
Interesting related thread... - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689488/posts
"Ahem. I believe the article said the girl was hit while in the car. Unless they were driving across his lawn they were on a street."
from the article: "Police said the girls were mischievous, but they weren’t even close to the house and hadn’t harassed Davis or his mother, Sondra, when he opened fire."
and a look at the entrance to the property clears up where the car COULD and COULD NOT have been:
http://columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/08/24/20060824-A1-02.html
Looks like in order for him to have even *seen* them, the car had to be sitting stationary in front of his house.
So, yeah, the car was sitting there and it looked like the occupants were planning on doing something. Given their prior actvities, here in Texas, he would have been perfectly justified in opening fire again.
Speaking of reading the article, try it. They didn't know he was firing warning shots. They were giggly teenagers, with horns honking, etc. They thought they were hearing firecrackers.
When they *came back* is when the problems really started. By returning, they essentially declared they wanted to do something about the warning shots, so the homeowner was justified in shooting to prevent the imminent commission of a crime.
Horse crap!
They came back because they were curious what the popping was that they heard! Read the article. They thought it was firecrackers!
They "essentially declared" diddly squat. They were typical teenage girls goofing off. The only "crime" that was imminent was ticking off the wacko with the rifle by setting foot on his property.
Two of the girls stayed in the car while the other three started up the concrete walk to the Davis home. They didn’t get far before turning around.The girls were still in the car, AFAICT. They weren't threatening anyone or anything"One of the girls honked the horn to scare them," Francis said.
After they all were back in the car, the girls heard what they thought were firecrackers, but was gunfire instead. They made the mistake of circling the block, Francis said.
Davis said he fired again as they returned.
A friend of mine, after his door chime was activated, came
out to answer the person at the door. He found a small bag
on fire on his porch. He stamped out the fire, and found out
the bag had been filled with dog excrement...<Ha! Ha!.
He called the cops, and later found out the kids who
perped this event, were hiding across the street and
videotaped the whole escapade.
So really, you don't know who is out there. The girls
were stupid enough, to act potentially threatening,
and the guy was scared.
Like the cops have told me about a home invasion, or
waking up to find a burglar in the house..."if you
have any fear for your life, even if incorrect, it is
probably OK to use deadly force. A small woman might fear
for her life, if a small man is in her house, but a large
,and ablebodied man might not. But she would be justified
in using deadly force. And it's better to have
12 try you, then 6 carry you."
Bottom line, don't act in a threatening way to anyone,
teenagers, adults notwithstanding.
shooting someone in a car not on your property is lawful in Texas?
I don't think so.
Anywho shows a phone number for a Marion A. Davis at that address.
I'm pretty sure the girls are lying about a number of things. That said, did you go read the article at the original link? Look at the pictures. The foliage in front of his house makes it impossible for him to have shot them as they were driving by. They had to have parked in front of his gate for him to have seen them.
"Did they threaten me?" he said. "No. "
"I didn’t know what their weaponry was, what their intentions were," he said. "In a situation like that, you assume the worst-case scenario if you’re going to protect your family from a possible home invasion and murder."
Police said the girls were mischievous, but they weren’t even close to the house and hadn’t harassed Davis or his mother, Sondra, when he opened fire. "
So, he didn't feel threatened, didn't see any weapons, but assumed a worst-case scenario and shot to kill when they weren't even on his property. By those standards, you'd be fine with me killing half my neighborhood.
Which doesn't seem to be any of the individuals at that address (relative that moved out?) per the story.
Alternately, one of the earlier thuggery attempts listed in the story might have cut the line.
Would not surprise me.
I have never understood the desire to torment my fellow humans just because. They have to do something to really annoy me first.
Repeated picking at someone will make them unbalanced.
In a public school? That will land the mother in hotter water than the shooter.
...aside from the fact that he attempts to cut his own hair Franciscan style...
I don't what you'd call this dipsh*t's hair style, but it's not Franciscan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.