What NOT to do during and after a defensive shooting.

hankpac

Sergeant
Belligerents
Dec 4, 2006
308
544
99
Eastern Oregon
www.tigerforcerecon.com
This is an old story, with the usual "if it was me", and barracks lawyers opinions.
Not intending to argue or add to that, I do have an observations or two.
He screwed up not calling immediately.
The phrases he is reported to have said, are exactly what is taught in the "Texas Law Shield" presentation when they promote the protection package (it's not insurance), that guarantees an attorney for you within an hour, all the way to a verdict or dismissal.
They instruct an immediate call, with thoses words ("Im the victim of a crime") and to make no other statement to police except, "I will cooperate fully with your investigation after my attorney is here". Then STFU.
Say nothing else.
So he fucked up the entire course of events when he 1. Didn't call (police and attorney) immediately, and 2. Didn't shut his trap until his Attorney showed up. It is up to the Attorney to tell the story.
Assuming he had that program (that's who teaches the phrasing), he was taught at least once, and possibly every year, about this.
Another point. Once in court, the choice of weapon is not about wether you are trying to kill the assailant, but in stopping the attack. The argument almost always devolves into which weapon ("I just pull out my ..." or I reach under my pillow and grab my ...") is most effective at killing the intruder. Something that will penetrate the intruder, the wall, and kill the neighbor's kid next door, isn't going to win any points in court.
On the other hand a Rem 1100 with an 18 inch barrel shooting 3-5 birdshot (7 or 8's) loads rapidly , may not kill the guy, but the fight is probably over, and the kid in the next room is probably still ok, too.
I'm not arguing that one is better than the other, but mentioning an illustration done by a now-defunct shooting magazine two decades ago, in which they built walls to code, and shot through them with everything in the gun safe. and published the photos. that happens to be where the idea of bird shot came from: no over penetration (stopped at second drywall, from 8 feet. Several of the photos showed over-penetration of handgun rounds, and .223, through not only wall board, but wall sockets, metal conduit, window sills, studs, (the usual wall contents) ("Pistolero Magazine". Anybody remember that mag or particular issue?). The most chilling image was a test shot with a 9mm, ball, at 1200 fps, that penetrated two sheets of drywall (in a code built wall), that went on to penetrate another wall approx 15 feet away, that was waiting for testing, then lodged in the second sheet of drywall in the third wall that was about 20 feet further.
One final note from the Texas Gun Shield class. You may be right, but are you prepared to have to defend that action, that decision in court for the next few years. From inside.
Many, many people, indeed the very vast majority of people (especially those who talk big about it), have never been in a shootout, and have not been adequately educated as to the ramifications of shooting someone even in Texas. Still a lot of false information out there regarding when and how, and regarding what transpires afterwards, and how to navigate the results.
 
Last edited:

Zeroit

Online Training Member
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 27, 2018
374
265
69
Only the jury will know all the details and facts let the system work like it's supposed to. We can scenario our ass off till the cows come home probably pointless. Some of the situations I have experienced would be a different thread. There's too much we are not privy to. Let see what happens that will be the time for more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blutroop

spearknives

Captain
Banned !
Belligerents
Minuteman
Apr 19, 2019
131
155
49
Only the jury will know all the details and facts let the system work like it's supposed to. We can scenario our ass off till the cows come home probably pointless. Some of the situations I have experienced would be a different thread. There's too much we are not privy to. Let see what happens that will be the time for more.
juries sympathize with one with a more compelling story, a good lawyer can turn almost everything around, take a look at OJ Simpson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blutroop

Snuby642

Old Salt
Belligerents
Feb 11, 2017
2,532
2,531
119
I think you can shoot them for taking a shit in your yard after dark in Texas.
 

Snuby642

Old Salt
Belligerents
Feb 11, 2017
2,532
2,531
119
So attacked with a deadly seems good to go for me.

Everything else is bull.
 

308pirate

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Apr 25, 2017
8,107
8,120
119
Think about that for a minute.

Where would that end?
It would end in justice

A thief steals from you not only your property but also the time it took you to earn the money to honestly acquire said property.

Time that you can never get back.

Thieves deserve nothing but death
 
  • Like
Reactions: deersniper

deersniper

You can't handle the Truth
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Feb 22, 2007
5,336
5,185
219
Northeast
It would end in justice

A thief steals from you not only your property but also the time it took you to earn the money to honestly acquire said property.

Time that you can never get back.

Thieves deserve nothing but death
Plus time to deal with the theft /reporting/ insurance item replacement etc.

If we can't agree on death maybe we can agree that they lose a hand and no social services for them. Like the muzzies would do
 

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Oct 1, 2005
6,239
9,735
219
Dallas, TX
Guess that's why I see a huge increase in day time theft these days.
Possibly also because you know the folks with the stuff are probably all hard at work all day trying to make money to buy the stuff while also paying for the rest of those that don't work.

I would say if you knew what you were doing, stealing stuff in the day when nobody is home is probably a lot safer than at night when they are home and grumpy and too tired to do anything but shoot your ass.
 

candyx

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
Apr 6, 2014
1,009
1,525
219
Possibly also because you know the folks with the stuff are probably all hard at work all day trying to make money to buy the stuff while also paying for the rest of those that don't work.

I would say if you knew what you were doing, stealing stuff in the day when nobody is home is probably a lot safer than at night when they are home and grumpy and too tired to do anything but shoot your ass.
The daylight burglars who wait for you to leave your home before stealing don't sneak confrontation, the cowboys who break in when your home is another breed.
 

MadDuner

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Sep 6, 2019
225
458
69
Arizona law makes a distinction between inhabited and uninhabited dwellings when it comes to use of deadly force.
 

MtnCreek

Sergeant
Belligerents
Jan 6, 2012
6,452
8,779
219
Plus time to deal with the theft /reporting/ insurance item replacement etc.

If we can't agree on death maybe we can agree that they lose a hand and no social services for them. Like the muzzies would do
Where did you come from?
 

308pirate

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Apr 25, 2017
8,107
8,120
119
Lets test that theory as you are promoting it.

The thief that shoplifts a steak deserves death?

The thief that steals on their taxes deserves death?

The child who steals candy ( yeah that's general theft) deserves death?

All of those involve taking property and time to earn it and cant be recovered? ( your terms, not mine)

You made no distinction and made that quite clear so now I am asking for final clarification just to be sure.

So, if all acts cannot be covered with the same brush then comes terms and conditions.

"ALL" minus 1 becomes "almost" so unless you are proffering that any act of theft by anyone justifies death then where is the line?

So, enlighten us- in your world of "justice" where and what is the "threshold" where lethal force is and is not justified in both amount and act if not an absolute.

You brought it up in absolutes so I'm just asking for clarity

Thanks
An absolute does not require clarification. Otherwise it isn't an absolute.
 

GUN NUT in IA

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
Dec 28, 2017
272
695
99
Only the jury will know all the details and facts let the system work like it's supposed to. We can scenario our ass off till the cows come home probably pointless. Some of the situations I have experienced would be a different thread. There's too much we are not privy to. Let see what happens that will be the time for more.
You make some valid points

- but

I think they are based on a false premise.

You said - "Only the jury will know all the details and facts"

ALL the details and facts?

Frequently some of the "facts" are not admissible as evidence. For instance - "He has been a dirtbag all of his life, but that is not important to this case."
 

candyx

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
Apr 6, 2014
1,009
1,525
219
"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
 

deersniper

You can't handle the Truth
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Feb 22, 2007
5,336
5,185
219
Northeast
Lets test that theory as you are promoting it.

The thief that shoplifts a steak deserves death?

The thief that steals on their taxes deserves death?

The child who steals candy ( yeah that's general theft) deserves death?

All of those involve taking property and time to earn it and cant be recovered? ( your terms, not mine)

You made no distinction and made that quite clear so now I am asking for final clarification just to be sure.

So, if all acts cannot be covered with the same brush then comes terms and conditions.

"ALL" minus 1 becomes "almost" so unless you are proffering that any act of theft by anyone justifies death then where is the line?

So, enlighten us- in your world of "justice" where and what is the "threshold" where lethal force is and is not justified in both amount and act if not an absolute.

You brought it up in absolutes so I'm just asking for clarity

Thanks
You have that backwards. Taxes to support parasites are theft.

Really though? White knighting for thieves?
 

Snuby642

Old Salt
Belligerents
Feb 11, 2017
2,532
2,531
119
Our taxes are supposed to fund services returned to our benefit and run the country.

But since we get little input or choices as to how its used or wasted and it is not voluntary i.e. confiscated I aggree with @W54/XM-388 .
 

308pirate

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Apr 25, 2017
8,107
8,120
119
Once again, negative ghostrider

There's no human being on earth who hasn't stolen "something" in their life ( your absolute, remember?) so it was correct as stated in context with YOUR criteriaView attachment 7156660.

You have made 3 errors

You erred in believing my statement was an error

You erred in discovering your error

You erred in correcting your error

Now sterilize
LOL what a putz