Don't mess.........

[golfhobo]

repete said:

HOBO, I wasn't personally offended, I could've chose my words a little more carefull.

Well, you said you took offense.... so, I was just letting you know it wasn't personal. You've often been one to defend the NRA against any "unjustified" attacks from me or anyone else. Got no problem with that. I don't like it when people call Obama names and attribute false motives to him. Sounded like you thought my including them was just a gratuitous attack and I appreciated the chance to explain why I thought they shared some responsibility.

The "red herring"? I just pulled that out of air, no NRA propaganda there.

Well, it's one of the diversions often used in the defense of guns. I was just showing how I didn't think it applied here.

Even being a NRA member and supporter I still believe in ACCOUNTABILTY of actions!

Always got the impression that you did. I can appreciate sincere and rational support for the NRA. I was thinking of YOU when I made my opening statement.

At the very least things like this do need to be looked by a Grand Jury and not just dismissed by a DA .

Well, it seems this case WAS. I just think they went more of their "feelings" about self-defense and guns... and possibly not a full analysis of the law. I can't believe they didn't feel the head shots were excessive.

Cases like this hit real close to home with me and I admit I have some mixed feelings about this and don't expect anyone else to understand them as I don't myself! just my .02

Anyone who doesn't have mixed feelings about THIS case, has their opinions locked away in a closet and hasn't been "in there" in awhile.

[golfhobo]

Well......according to the article..........he had their attention at a minimum. I think a shotgun would have my "full and complete" attention.


Maybe the neighbor had the shotgun loaded with rock-salt..........for the garden raiding kids??

I was always taught not to point a gun at someone unless you were "willing" to use it. I would think he had regular shot in it. But, my point was that by getting their attention, he gave "the man" a chance to settle the issue with something less than deadly force.

The pertaining law "USED" to read that he had to retreat before using deadly force. Not saying that I agree with that... but, that was the main revision to the law as passed by Gov. Perry. I can't help thinking that he KNEW about that change and felt he was justified in killing them instead of taking the chance to go into the house, lock them out, and call the police.

Just because he no longer HAS to retreat, doesn't mean it wouldn't have been the "smarter" decision. After all, the grand jury could have gone against him.

I'll bet he is well aware of the fact that he was justified in not retreating... but, never even read as much of the actual law as I did for this thread. I found multiple provisions and exclusions that should have (or might have) denied him the right to use deadly force, and I can't believe the grand jury didn't fully consider them.

The man with the shotgun never fired. Perhaps, he never saw the situation as "allowing" him to use deadly force in protection of his neighbor. I'm hoping that he thought the "threat" of deadly force was enough to send the two men away. I wonder if the grand jury ever heard HIS testimony about how HE saw the situation.

[golfhobo]

No, I don't think so. That feud has been going on for more than 3,000 years..... And, a dog had little or nothing to do with that...

The article says that the father and son assaulted the man. So, someone that was not part of the exchange thought it might be serious enough to require deadly force. Assault does have a range, but did the article leave out "battery"? Or were the father and son threatening deadly force in the future?

But, since you brought up "Muslim".... Suppose the father and son were white (except for their very red necks), and the sister married a black man, There could have been a long history of confrontations, assaults, and such.

I didn't mean to link the question of "the man's" ethnicity to the invitation for a debate. But, you bring up the same question. I was only wondering if the good citizens of Texas would have applied the law with the same "nationalistic" fervor if they had to afford the same protection to someone other than a "good ole boy" with a Republic of Texas flag on his license plate.

As for what the "article" may have left out? Who knows? But, I can tell you that when I read it, I got a distinct feeling that it was less than "unbiased" in the way it supposedly "reported" the news of the event. Perhaps, I should have included the "media" in my list of responsible parties.