Short answer: no.
In most instances if you don’t bring counter claims when you answer, you waive them forever. Many nuances as always ...
Assault with intent to...
- Thread starter Brian D
- Start date
In most instances if you don’t bring counter claims when you answer, you waive them forever. Many nuances as always ...
I'm a big proponent of having only one side to the story. It's so much easier to stay within the law that way.That's why the front door is a bad idea to Booby trap. If they open your locked bedroom door, they're the ones committing wreckless endangerment. After all, what do you think they would do if the owner came home at that point? What ever it took to escape. Their very presence under those circumstances knowingly or predictably puts an innocent party in danger.
Anyhow, I would never do something like booby trap a door. I always work within the law. ( Just want to get that on record).
-Will (Dragonfly)
Wow. I'm really not looking forward to the kind of regulations I'll experience when I'm y'all's age...
It's just ridiculous. My uncle is currently in prison because some rich guy's son broke into his house and tried to steal his property. This is Texas. Needless to say, the kid got two bullets in his chest and one in his head (my uncle being ex military, is a good shot). Lo and behold, the rich guy sued and ended up somehow winning the lawsuit. Now my uncle is in prison for murder.
The point is, people just need to realize that if you're on someone's property trying to violate said property, repercussions will ensue, whether they be legal, or tactically defensive.
The point is, people just need to realize that if you're on someone's property trying to violate said property, repercussions will ensue, whether they be legal, or tactically defensive.
Simon, deregulation is so incredibly rare. You are looking forward to more regulations than we grew up and into. I feel bad for future generations.
-Will (Dragonfly)
-Will (Dragonfly)
Not because of the law suit. Or, you'll have to explain that one to me.
-Will (Dragonfly)
There's still a shimmer of hope...especially here in our state, a lot of younger people my age are sticking to traditional morals.
I wasn't given details, but I know my uncle. He would never harm anyone for no reason, and this kid deserved to be shot. Killed? Maybe not, that's a God decision; all I know is the kid's dad sued my uncle and made it a big case and now my uncle is in prison.
Civil suit decisions don't lead to arrests for felony murder. Often, as in the famous OJ Simpson case, when a criminal charge fails to convict, the victim's family will pursue civil charges, but that means a monetary settlement, not jail.
If this rich guy were influential, he could influence a prosecutor to bring charges. If he were also underhanded, he might even be able to influence a judge, but I think it takes a jury to convict in a murder case. The judge presides and directs, but it is the jury that decides. Of course, the law has to support the charge too. This means your uncle was charged for an illegal act. Killing a home invader inside your own home is considered self-defense or justifiable. At least I thought it was, especially in Texas. Specific circumstances may change that, though.
-Will (Dragonfly)
If this rich guy were influential, he could influence a prosecutor to bring charges. If he were also underhanded, he might even be able to influence a judge, but I think it takes a jury to convict in a murder case. The judge presides and directs, but it is the jury that decides. Of course, the law has to support the charge too. This means your uncle was charged for an illegal act. Killing a home invader inside your own home is considered self-defense or justifiable. At least I thought it was, especially in Texas. Specific circumstances may change that, though.
-Will (Dragonfly)
That's why it's so confusing. He somehow lost, and I know for sure he acted solely in self defense.
I'm thinking "excessive force"? Like, any one of the three shots could have killed him, so two is excessive.
Edit to add: I should have said, one shot would be enough to stop/disable the attacker- sort of like pepper spray or Taser. Maybe the homeowner had an automatic and couldn't stop at one?
Last edited:
It's illegal to shoot a dead guy? Is that what your saying? I think the cops are taught to defend themselves with more than one shot to center mass. Of course cops are expected to use excessive force.
-Will (Dragonfly)