Well before someone pulls a knife or a piece of wood you have to identify the perp’s ethnicity. If it’s Obama’s son you might as well just let him continue.
Shoot someone in NYS outside of your home for slashing tires in the city of buffalo let me know how that goes for you :tup:
Beyond that the “safe” distance to defend you self against someone with a knife when you have a gun is 21 feet or more.
Anyone with a knife and less than 25 feet from me gets my gun’s undivided attention. In DT we learned real quick how south things could get when a knife is introduced.
If you shot this guy in Texas they’d give you a key to the city.
Someone 21 feet away can stab you before you can unholster your side arm and that is what cops are taught who ya know, kinda know what they are doing. 10 feet you are done so totally agree.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
I was wondering that. I know there is reports of neighbors shooting people in their other neighbors yards for breaking in. Would this count?
Come on. You guys really think that shooting someone committing vandalism is acceptable?
Maybe on the Fury Road, not Buffalo.
yes im aware. its called the 21 foot rule. i used 10ft as an example that was over 3 times the disputed 36".
and no it would not count.
just like CTN said you guys are off your rocker if you think that using deadly force against someone who does not pose an immediate threat to your safety is acceptable.
i think the person who reported it did so 100% correctly.
I have zero moral issues with someone who slashes 100 tires for fun getting removed from the gene pool. We have enough assholes in this country that I’m not going to shed a tear when we have one less.
The person that removes them would face legal consequences in NY unless they can how an immediate and reasonable fear or their life or the life of someone else. Proving that immediate and reasonable fear would almost certainly be done in court which means mega legal fees. So no, if my personal vehicles were locked up I wouldn’t do shit if I saw the guy doing it. If I was watching him come down the street toward my vehicles I’d go out there, gun drawn but not raised, and let him know to move the along before he got to my vehicles. No attempt to subdue etc.
Could you shoot an Enron executive for causing FAR more intentional damage to Joe Public?
Me personally, no, but I’d have no moral objection to someone else doing it. Same as the tire case.
Hilarious.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
Yup.
I’ll take my chances against a pistol over a knife ANY day.
For clarification I wouldn’t sit in my house with a .308 and blow the guys skull off for sport.
Would I cry about it if someone did? Nope.
I understand it could just be a drunk kid doing something stupid, but play stupid games win stupid prizes.
If I saw someone on my property messing with my stuff would I go out to investigate with a weapon to protect myself? Absolutely. If an altercation did occur, I’d sleep like a baby afterword (or sleep forever depending on how it ended).
In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property, I would venture to say you’d be ok legally in Texas. Not that you’d beat the lawyers fees.
" 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [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 actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [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].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat."
Additionally
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Yea so when you don’t face criminal charges let me know what kind of costs you incur in the civil lawsuit :lol:
I love Texas.
Exactly: wamp wamp
x2
I remember when the person shot the kid in Amherst from the top of the stairs who entered their house, gave warnings, and then fired and killed him as he tried to come up the stairs. I wonder what their final lawyer costs were.
Not that much considering that case didn’t even make it past a grand jury.
This is internet toughness. Like I’d actually do anything in real life, please.
I’m soft as hell, man.
At least one of you owned up to it.
I’d like to think I’d get all Rambo but you never know until you are put in that situation.
It’s a shame the punk got away. Would have been cool to follow him all secret like…