Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by noskilz, Jun 17, 2009.
Collateral improvement. I thought this was one of the better lines in the article.
this looks like it:
Now if the MSM would cover some of this stuff to fill up
their 24/7 air time with, we may see even more of a decrease in crime.
I mean they do stories about stupid stuff ad nauseum,
so it would be a great thing to see.
Oh wait, it doesn't fit in with most the MSM's agenda does it?
Oh well, glad the lady is safe and the punks got a few holes in them.
As more and more of these stories come out hopefully the BG's will think twice before commiting this sort of crime.
A question to the gun anti crowd is: "What would have happened to this single woman had she not had the ability to defend herself?"
No problems for her there. TX law prevents civil suits against those who have justifiable shootings.
" I hope the little punks don't try and sue her and get a dumb ass liberal judge."
I believe that Texas has a provision in their Castle Doctrine that prevents civil lawsuits if the shooting has been found justifiable.
No matter how justifiable the shooting or how stupid the lowlife perps, I'm sure she would rather not have the deaths of two teenage boys on her conscience.
Way to go!
In the people's republic of California the perps would find a Hollywood lawyer and sue the hell out of the lady. Here is the defense at their trial: "My clients were high on drugs and could not think rationally, that's why they accidentally entered the home by mistake. They are victims of a racist society (the perps and their lawyer are of color, the lady is white) plus they were school drop-outs and had to survive selling drugs, thus the school system failed to properly educate them. In addition ladies and gentleman of the jury (7 people of color, 2 people from Asia, 2 Latinos, and one white) my clients had no intention in harming the lady. They simply had to use the bathroom thus breaking down the door because they couldn't find their keys."
Final verdict? Not guilty. In the civil trial, they get $5 million in punitive damages.
Not possible you say? Today is the 15th anniversary of the infamous car chase involving OJ that was eventually found not guilty of killing two people.
Only in California
Rather not . . . perhaps. She had to have considered that when she was locked in her room with her gun . . . still, she decided to defend herself with lethal force, and acted on that decision.
"A person in California would generally be justified in using force sufficient to cause death or great bodily injury only when their attacker is already using such force and the defending person "reasonably" believes that he or she is in immanent danger of being killed or severely injured. What legally constitutes such a "reasonable" belief could ultimately be determined by a trial jury and not by the person who acted in self defense."
Note the *last* sentence. Now, sitting a liberal jury in a liberal state where defendants are represented by a liberal lawyer in front of a liberal judge, what do you think? Again, I refer to the OJ trial. *Only in California*
Even if the defendant is found guilty in a *criminal* trial there is still the *civil* trial which imho is simply filed to burden the defendant with legal costs as retribution by the convicted felon.
They may not be 18 and legally considered adults, but the moment they made the decision to commit a violent crime, they chose to play the big boys game. As a result, they get to experience big boy consequences. They ain't "teenage boys" in my eyes.
Here's hoping the thugs get tried as adults, and if they are stupid enough to return to crime after jail that they get what's coming to them.
When did this happen in TX? Not trying to start a fight, but I seem to remember being told specifically that this was not true in one class I took.
Texas Civil Immunity
Texas Castle Doctrine and Civil Immunity
This became law in 2007.
The take away I got from this was the fact that the criminals tried to claim to be the "victims". This shows again why it is important to be the first to call 9-1-1 in a self defense situation.
Separate names with a comma.