Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Off Duty Texas Security Guard Shoots Car Thief

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    The short version FDG is simple, i'm saying the guy might not come to any greif because any prosecutor worth their salt in Texas knows that Texas jury's tend to side with the "Original victim". If the dead guy didn't want to get shot, he woulnd't have stolen a car. unless you're some place very liberal like Austin, that's how people think in much of Texas, for good or bad.

    It dosen't matter what the laws says if a jury of citizens will not convict. This is why we have so many plea agreements around these parts.. Texas DAs fight the fights they can win, and hey, they are politicians, they don't want to tick off the voters by going after people who are just protecting what belongs to them.

    Texas Jurys are unlikely to chop up a guy trying to get back his stuff, period.

    Sometimes thats frustrating, my department has sent the Dallas DA some (what we thought were) very good cases, just to see them chopped up by ADAs who have to deal with the realities of our court system.

    That does not mean the guy couldn't be charged and convicted. it dosen't mean the guy is totally justified in his actions.

    It means reality is imperfect, thats all.
    Actually, the reason we have so many plea agreements is because the share volume of trials that would flood the courts, if every case went to trial, would overwhelm the justice system. Moreover, the expense that the state would incur in trying each case would be prohibitive if not impossible to meet.
    Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mh892
      I'm reasonably sure I see where you are going with the question. It was not a firearm. The implement is immaterial. The intent was obvious. To inflict severe injury that could have ended in death. It was the individual that was responsable for the action. Not the implement.
      I hope not. Otherwise, your point would have been moot and the implement wouldn't have been immaterial.
      Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by toxin440
        To each their own - we are all adults here and make our own choices. My take on the idea of guns has (im sure) already been said but it's paramout to myself. If I am at home at night sleeping (assume I have a wife and kids) and someone breaks in. Are they there to just steal my TV and leave? Are they there to rape my wife or my children? Are they an escape mental patient that just wants to chop us all up? The point is by the time I were to find out their true intentions it would be too late. I just recently bought my first handgun Sig Sauer 2022 .40 cal, mainly for target shooting but I am getting a concealed license soon. You can outlaw guns but they will ALWAYS exist in the illegal market, and why give the people that do not respect the law an unfair advantage. It's not a fun world when you think that this type of thing happens all the time - good people minding their own business having their lives ruined because of the lowest form of life in the world.

        When I bought my gun, I sincerely hope I never have to draw it on anyone and use it to defend myself or property but in this world: "it's either him or me" and I refuse to just turn over and take it because of a criminal.

        No matter how "good" our society becomes there will always be people with no respect or conscience about their actions - the only thing these people can understand is hate, pain, and death. Do you think if we chopped people's hands off for stealing we would have so much theft? I guarentee you we wouldnt. I dont see guns or the taking of the hands examples as barbaric - drastic problems call for drastic solutions.
        I agree that the choice is a personal one and each of us has the right to decide. Regarding your reason for having a gun in the house for protection, here are some questions to ponder:

        - Since the gun needs to be locked up and kept away from children, will you have time to get to it in the event of a home invasion?

        -What if you or your wife has a bout with serious depression in the future? Are you willing to get rid of it so that the gun is not readily available during a suicidal moment?

        -Are you absolutely sure that if and when the time comes to use the gun in self defense that you will not hesitate to pull the trigger, having never taken a human life before? (Assuming you haven't) The gunman on the other end will not hesitate once he sees you with a gun, so any delay on your part may prove fatal to you.

        Again, the choice and right is yours. The only question is: Is having a gun the wise choice for your particular situation?
        Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

        Comment


        • #34
          Black Caesar,
          Your correct, I too have seen how an overloaded criminal justice system works, many times not the way we would all like it. You sound as though you've seen good solid cases, like I have, fly out the district office window, for no real reason.

          I also know that in todays law suit happy society, if you down a man, right wrong, justified or indifferent, somebody is more then likely coming after you for $$ eitherway.
          Civil trails cost tens of thousands, if not into hundreds of thousands of $$ to defend against when everything is on your side. Anyone who thinks this is BS, call an criminal defense attorney & ask them about cost, time & effort. Your defense team wont work for free.
          One doesnt need to be arrested, convicted or even drawn into a criminal proceeding, to be the subject of a civil action by family members of the deceased. if you also faced charges of any sort, the civil case is almost a sure win for the other side.
          Say on the best of days, after you down a man for stealing your pic-em-up, & you are not arrested at the scene, your not later charged by the DA, you are released from all criminal liability after hours of police interviews & processing, you get to retain your CCW permit, you even receive your firearms back after 30-60 days & maybe your vehicle (since its now in evidence) in maybe 120 days & you even win the 6-18 month long civil wrongfull death suit brought on by the other mans family mouth piece & you survive the gun control biased media probe into your "gun toting extremist lifestyle"..there is an emotional toll on you, your family, the knowledge that you will always live with: your taking of a human life over a mere pocession, a financial cost to defened against all this mess, lost work, etc.

          Just being "right" has a big price...even if your 110% right.. & God help you if in that split second of decision making, you actually make a wrong one, as the above is just the 1/2 of it then...so those uneducated persons who talk the talk, but have never walked the walk & therefore cant understand what all awaits them on the judicial playing field, will be for a rude awakening.
          Yoda
          Sometimes there is "Justice", sometimes there is "Just Us"

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mr. Security
            Actually, the reason we have so many plea agreements is because the share volume of trials that would flood the courts, if every case went to trial, would overwhelm the justice system. Moreover, the expense that the state would incur in trying each case would be prohibitive if not impossible to meet.

            "Load" on the system is a good reason, as is the right to a fair and speedy trail, but they aren't the primary reasons. My understanding after 8 years of watching solid cases get get cut down to lesser charges is the fear of Justic Undone (which happens when a prosecurting authority loses a case, Double Jeapardy Trumps all). Lose and the case goes away forever.

            It's also what i've been led to believe by my (smarter and much prettier) Cousin. She's an ADA , works in the Child abuse section of the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office.
            Last edited by Black Caesar; 10-15-2006, 11:53 PM.
            ~Black Caesar~
            Corbier's Commandos

            " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by FDG06
              Black Caesar,
              Your correct, I too have seen how an overloaded criminal justice system works, many times not the way we would all like it. You sound as though you've seen good solid cases, like I have, fly out the district office window, for no real reason.

              I also know that in todays law suit happy society, if you down a man, right wrong, justified or indifferent, somebody is more then likely coming after you for $$ eitherway.
              Civil trails cost tens of thousands, if not into hundreds of thousands of $$ to defend against when everything is on your side. Anyone who thinks this is BS, call an criminal defense attorney & ask them about cost, time & effort. Your defense team wont work for free.
              One doesnt need to be arrested, convicted or even drawn into a criminal proceeding, to be the subject of a civil action by family members of the deceased. if you also faced charges of any sort, the civil case is almost a sure win for the other side.
              Say on the best of days, after you down a man for stealing your pic-em-up, & you are not arrested at the scene, your not later charged by the DA, you are released from all criminal liability after hours of police interviews & processing, you get to retain your CCW permit, you even receive your firearms back after 30-60 days & maybe your vehicle (since its now in evidence) in maybe 120 days & you even win the 6-18 month long civil wrongfull death suit brought on by the other mans family mouth piece & you survive the gun control biased media probe into your "gun toting extremist lifestyle"..there is an emotional toll on you, your family, the knowledge that you will always live with: your taking of a human life over a mere pocession, a financial cost to defened against all this mess, lost work, etc.

              Just being "right" has a big price...even if your 110% right.. & God help you if in that split second of decision making, you actually make a wrong one, as the above is just the 1/2 of it then...so those uneducated persons who talk the talk, but have never walked the walk & therefore cant understand what all awaits them on the judicial playing field, will be for a rude awakening.
              Yoda

              Thats true, no matter what happens the guy will probably be sued Civilly. nothing can help that.

              But I'm talking primarily about criminal matters. Texas is known for Jury Nullification lol.
              ~Black Caesar~
              Corbier's Commandos

              " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

              Comment


              • #37
                Right now we may all agree from the FBI Stats that crime has lowered. I even think they said lower than 30 yrs ago correct ? More lawful people now own firearms and more States have a CCW Law. In Washington DC they dont have CCW. However go acoress state lines to a city same size they have CCW and have much much lower violent crime. Also every state that has CCW has lower crime than ones with out it. Chicago doesnt have CCW and has some bad crime stats therfore i dont really care to even visit chicago because of this. Also did you know DC has some of the most restrictions on firearms for people and werent they named the murder capitol of the nation ?

                As i stated before look at how many criminals use knifes and other type weapons. I never faced a possible gun incident but i did a knife. I encountered a subject at 3am not having a gun in his pocket but (a knife). Did you know alot of times a knife can be more destructive than a gun attack ? Did you know regular vests will probably not stop a knife attack ? A Female Firefighter/Medic in cincinnati was stabbed in the back at a gas station. The subject walked right to her stabbed her straight in the back. At a local mall as Ohio has a provision a buisness can place a sign telling CCW holders not to enter the mall carrying. However i can go to the dollar store buy a 3.00 big knife and if i was a violent criminal take that knife out of the package and were off. But me as a person who has pased a FED/State background check gone through training and everything i cant carry. But they give the right of that criminal to buy a 3.00 knife and stab me. Thats okay. And i say ITS NOT OK.

                The Ohians for concealed carry designed cards for people that carry a ccw, when they see a buisness that says no ccw can enter when carrying give them this card that says im not coming to your buisness anymore, and it says i have passed a criminal/mental check, taken training, been approved by the sheriffs depts how much do you know about your other customers.

                My insturctor a retired 40 yr veteran told everyone and the media if a buisness places such a sign up the criminal will come in. Because they think hey no one can protect them self here. My great aunt a gas station right down the road got robbed a violent robbery. And I told i bet you 50 bucks that buisness has a sign. She said i will check. The next day she said youre right they have one up. As far as the 2nd admendment goes you have to read the laws it self and also read the statements over history made. They prove the point of why they made it. And most of all cops support it. I dont care about some dude in congress that has an office job im talking about the warriors on the street. And they say they support it. Not that i dont listen to the opinion of such men in government jobs. But i will listen to a man or women who has served, seen it and done it over a person who may have never done anything like that.

                A case from Indiana: A subject from across the street entered into the home of a male resident of Indiana, this man had a gun and was walking up the stairs and made some sort of threat statement to the owner and the home owner used force. It was justified. In KY a man broke into the home with a knife the homeowner called 911 and had to use force. The Deputies arrived on scene for about 2 hrs did the investigation found out the guy was a violent repeat offender, had evidence he kicked the door in. Told the homeowner you did right good job we are proud of u handed him back his firearm said have a good night sir. That was that.

                I just say dont give the upper hand to the criminals. They already have it. They can use excessive force, we cant it has to be resonable. They can carry any weapons they wanna, we cant, we can only use what is "lawful".

                Again if you look at firearm stats OVER 2MILL times a yr a firearm is used to sotp a violent attack. But i think its less than 5 % of over 2 mill times a yr the person fires the weapon. Most of the time the criminals runs off. When they find out this aint an easy target and realize my harming people days may be over the turn chickens and head for the hills. And i laugh at that. If a criminal wants to play tough go after people i laugh when the possible victims has a defense chance and uses it.

                Keep in mind if Officers dont support 2nd amendment, then why are many active and retired LEO's high ranking in NRA, NRA Members, And why does the NRA train law enforcement & military/security by record numbers every yr. The NRA has a LEO Division within the NRA. Our last President is a Ret Police Cheif. If Law Enforcement thinks something is bad they aint gonna have a thing to do with it. Me as a Security Officer, Former Exp current member of CAP USAF AUX, you dont see me going out and getting training from the Cripps Gang lol. They are bad. They harm kill people daily. But from NRA i do. I have even recieved free training. They offer free training to LEOs.

                And a good thing that came into play in hurricane katrina happend was the 2nd amendment. In an area that had no avail police or military lawful citzens formed security militas and helped protect neighbors in the area by standing guard. They had no crime in this area. But in areas were they had no one on guard crime was sky high. And when i say no availible police thats what i mean. If you called 911 no one is coming.

                As for history of Hitler in WWII he invaded countries that took away firearms rights. Because they had no chance of protection. However durring WWII requests by the president were made to NRA for people to donate firearms. NRA did and also dontaed men to serve. Hitler sent a squad to burn houses down with people in them. Yet a group of people had firearms hitler didnt know it. Hitlers troops came in and got shot at, they turned around and ran off. And that village was not set on fire. Those people had small caliber handguns. And they defeated an attack on the homeland.

                I suggest going to officer.com and watch the use of force training webcast its free. You may learn some things from it that can help on and off duty

                Stay Safe All

                Comment


                • #38
                  S/O245:
                  That was an insightful response.
                  Enjoy the day,
                  Bill

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Black Caesar
                    "Load" on the system is a good reason, as is the right to a fair and speedy trail, but they aren't the primary reasons. My understanding after 8 years of watching solid cases get get cut down to lesser charges is the fear of Justic Undone (which happens when a prosecurting authority loses a case, Double Jeapardy Trumps all). Lose and the case goes away forever.
                    It's also what i've been led to believe by my (smarter and much prettier) Cousin. She's an ADA , works in the Child abuse section of the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office.
                    One solution to that problem is to allow the jury to convict on a lesser charge than the prosecution is hoping for if the jury feels that the state has not proved its case for the more serious charge that it wants. Perhaps Texas doesn't allow that, but for some states, it's routine.
                    Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by S/O245
                      As i stated before look at how many criminals use knifes and other type weapons. I never faced a possible gun incident but i did a knife. I encountered a subject at 3am not having a gun in his pocket but (a knife). Did you know alot of times a knife can be more destructive than a gun attack ?
                      Did you know that many people have survived with multiple stab wounds? What about people with multiple gunshot wounds? We all know that bullets can shatter vital organs like tofu, making it extremely difficult for a surgeon to repair the damage. A knife wound, although fatal at times, is easier to treat in my opinion.



                      Originally posted by S/O245
                      I just say dont give the upper hand to the criminals. They already have it. They can use excessive force, we cant it has to be resonable. They can carry any weapons they wanna, we cant, we can only use what is "lawful".
                      I agree that the criminals would still be armed. It's too late; "the cat is out of the bag" when it comes to gun control. As I stated before, there are millions if not billions of guns out there. Nothing is going to reverse that.

                      Originally posted by S/O245
                      Keep in mind if Officers dont support 2nd amendment, then why are many active and retired LEO's high ranking in NRA, NRA Members
                      Stay Safe All
                      I don't know. I can't understand it. They die by the hundreds with each passing decade.
                      Last edited by Mr. Security; 10-16-2006, 07:47 PM.
                      Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        SO245. Very good points. Well put. Thank you.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mr. Security
                          One solution to that problem is to allow the jury to convict on a lesser charge than the prosecution is hoping for if the jury feels that the state has not proved its case for the more serious charge that it wants. Perhaps Texas doesn't allow that, but for some states, it's routine.
                          Texas allows "lesser included" charges, it's a proecedural matter, the Judge has to specifically allow it, but it's mostly commonplace. In fact, i don't know why a judge wouldn't allow it.
                          ~Black Caesar~
                          Corbier's Commandos

                          " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Mr. Security
                            I don't know. I can't understand it.
                            I can't speak for everyone, but yes, most "LEOs", like most military/ex-military and private security people I've worked with are pro-2nd Amendment (not pro-"Gun").

                            A gun is just a hunk of metal or plastic. It's people who do the shooting. LEOs are more concerned with the guy holding the gun than the gun itself. I'd rather ban crooks and the criminally insane than guns lol.

                            But seriously, I think most LEOs tend to be of a more conservative mind set, sometimes with Libertarian Sensibilities (for example, there are plenty of us in Law Enforcement and Security that think some drugs should be legal, we enforce drug laws because it's the law). Those conservative or libertarian ideals tell us that Even we (who would still be allowed to possess firearms) wouldn't want to live in a country where only the Police and the Military (read:governement) would have firearms.

                            They die by the hundreds with each passing decade
                            Cars kill more cops every year, every decade, than firearms do. Same with the General Population, cars make guns look like toys when it comes to killing. Yet no one wants to ban cars.

                            I'm not happy about crooks having guns, but the price of the 2nd Amendment is that some of the wrong people have guns. Any Right, heck all "freedom" comes with costs, sometimes steep costs, sometimes life and death costs.

                            You don't scrap freedom because the cost is high...
                            Last edited by Black Caesar; 10-17-2006, 12:28 AM.
                            ~Black Caesar~
                            Corbier's Commandos

                            " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Black Caesar
                              Cars kill more cops every year, every decade, than firearms do. Same with the General Population, cars make guns look like toys when it comes to killing. Yet no one wants to ban cars.
                              I believe that the ratio of gun use that ends in serious bodily harm or death is probably higher than car use and the like. Its easy to say cars cause more death because just about everyone has a car or two. The same does not hold true to guns. Firearms [especially handguns] are, for the most part, created for one reason, the harm or death of persons. Cars are created for the transportation of persons and goods. This is how your average person sees it, and why guns will sometimes look "evil."

                              I am an avid gun-carrier and enjoy all the freedoms to carry that I am granted, but I think the "why dont we ban cars" argument is silly.

                              People want to ban guns because of the intended use, which is shooting people.

                              Im sure if Ford came out with a car that was specifically designed to kill people that you hit, people would want that banned too.
                              "Alright guys listen up, ya'll have probably heard this before, Jackson vs. Securiplex corporation; I am a private security officer, I have no State or governmental authority. I stand as an ordinary citizen. I have no right to; detain, interrogate or otherwise interfere with your personal property-... basically all that means is I'm a cop."-Officer Ernie
                              "The Curve" 1998

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by BHR Lawson
                                I believe that the ratio of gun use that ends in serious bodily harm or death is probably higher than car use and the like.
                                Nope, most "gun use" (firing a weapon at a target) dosen't end in serious bodily injury to humans, because most "gun use" is target shooting (which is bad for the paper target, but no humans where hurt), followed by hunting (which is bad for the animal, but atleast no humans were hurt). if you want to compare the numbers of times a gun is "used" (fired), to the numbers of times Americans use cars (driving), yep, guns are still safer.....

                                Its easy to say cars cause more death because just about everyone has a car or two. The same does not hold true to guns. Firearms [especially handguns] are, for the most part, created for one reason, the harm or death of persons. Cars are created for the transportation of persons and goods. This is how your average person sees it, and why guns will sometimes look "evil."
                                fear of guns (an inanimate object) is just as silly as fear of cars, which is the point. Either one is deadly if used wrong. It's not the fault of lawful gun owners (the vast majority) that some people (the very small minority) use them wrong, just like it's not my fault as a driver that some numbnuts choose to drink and drive.

                                I am an avid gun-carrier and enjoy all the freedoms to carry that I am granted, but I think the "why dont we ban cars" argument is silly.

                                People want to ban guns because of the intended use, which is shooting people.
                                You're a gun owner. if the intended use of a gun is to shoot people, why haven't you?

                                It's jsut a tool. Like any tool it can be misused.

                                Im sure if Ford came out with a car that was specifically designed to kill people that you hit, people would want that banned too.
                                ???

                                Designed to kill or not, a Ford hitting someone intentially will kill them probably. that is if it dosen't break down before you can hit someone.....

                                But Seriously, the specific question at hand is police support for gun rights. Mr. Security said that he didn't understand it because guns kill hundreds of cops every decade. My point was and is that cars are more dangerous (and this is a fact) to cops.
                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                Edit, By the way, There are more guns in the United States than cars.

                                Total number of cars, trucks and SUVs , 220 million

                                total number of guns, estimated 235 million

                                It is true that Gun ownership is not as wide spread as car ownership (something like 65% of american households have atleast 1 car, where as only 40% of american households have atleast 1 gun), but still cars are more more than twice as dangerous in real terms as firearms (31 deaths per 100,000 cars per year, 14 deaths per 100,000 firearms per year).
                                Last edited by Black Caesar; 10-17-2006, 01:36 AM.
                                ~Black Caesar~
                                Corbier's Commandos

                                " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X