New hero

When I'm his age I hope I'm half as feisty and tough.

Story Here

Just wish he had gotten the shotgun first while they were inside.

Good for him!!! I hope they catch the bad guys. What in the world is an "11-hundred automatic"?

Remington semi automatic shotgun.

thebigsd said:

Good for him!!! I hope they catch the bad guys. What in the world is an "11-hundred automatic"?

Click to expand...

Remington 1100, semi-auto, gas operated shotgun. Precursor to the 11-87 and IMHO one of the best.

He's no hero

Sorry, but he's no hero in my book.

Frazier says when he started shooting, the men ran back to their truck and took off. He then got another gun and made sure they got the point.

"I ran out on the porch with an 11-hundred automatic and emptied it as they drove across the creek down here," he said. "I did my best to kill everyone of them."

He says he hit the truck at least once on the rear-side window.

Click to expand...

Heroes do not violate the law by firing at folks who no longer present an imminent threat. Heroes do not fire at a truck roaring down the highway when there is no safe and effective backstop for any errant projectiles.

I agree he's afiesty old coot, and probably someone that I'd enjoy meeting. But he's a danger to the community, and darned lucky that nobody seems to want to deal with his wanton recklessness.

As has been said here over and over again, it sucks to have some stranger come into your home and steal your stuff and destroy your property, but once they leave you are no longer justified or excused in using lethal force against them. (Unless they run away while firing over their shoulder at you.)

We've got to remember that we are "the good guys". As crappy a deal as it often gives us, we must respect and obey the law or else we become criminals ourselves. I always thought we were against criminals, nit lining up to join their ranks.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Sorry, but he's no hero in my book.



Heroes do not violate the law by firing at folks who no longer present an imminent threat. Heroes do not fire at a truck roaring down the highway when there is no safe and effective backstop for any errant projectiles.

I agree he's afiesty old coot, and probably someone that I'd enjoy meeting. But he's a danger to the community, and darned lucky that nobody seems to want to deal with his wanton recklessness.

As has been said here over and over again, it sucks to have some stranger come into your home and steal your stuff and destroy your property, but once they leave you are no longer justified or excused in using lethal force against them. (Unless they run away while firing over their shoulder at you.)

We've got to remember that we are "the good guys". As crappy a deal as it often gives us, we must respect and obey the law or else we become criminals ourselves. I always thought we were against criminals, nit lining up to join their ranks.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with this assessment.

Well. i know in Texas if the bad guy is carrying your property, you can chase them down and shoot 'em. But you have to know they are in possession of your property for certain. It would probably be a good idea to be yelling "stop or ill shoot!" as you run after them but this would also be at your own risk. Law describes justifiable use of deadly force to include preventing someone from making away with your stuff. Anyone feel free to correct me if im wrong on this law in Texas.

Sic Vis Pacem Para Bellum

Texas Penal Code Section 9.42

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

davist said:

--snip-- It would probably be a good idea to be yelling "stop or ill shoot!" as you run after them but this would also be at your own risk.

Click to expand...

Just me maybe and with no suggestion of legal advice, but I do NOT believe in warning shots or verbal indications of same.

"There’s a time, a season for all things..............There’s a time to sow and a time to reap."

OTOH - Doubt I would be very likely to use deadly force to protect property if I could in Va. Will have to think on that some more.

skidmark said:

Sorry, but he's no hero in my book.


stay safe.

Click to expand...

Ditto. He'd have been better off with a video cam and gotten a picture of the truck and the license plate. Can't really blame him for doing what he did in the heat of the moment and apparently the cops agree.

skidmark said:

Sorry, but he's no hero in my book.



Heroes do not violate the law by firing at folks who no longer present an imminent threat. Heroes do not fire at a truck roaring down the highway when there is no safe and effective backstop for any errant projectiles.

I agree he's afiesty old coot, and probably someone that I'd enjoy meeting. But he's a danger to the community, and darned lucky that nobody seems to want to deal with his wanton recklessness.

As has been said here over and over again, it sucks to have some stranger come into your home and steal your stuff and destroy your property, but once they leave you are no longer justified or excused in using lethal force against them. (Unless they run away while firing over their shoulder at you.)

We've got to remember that we are "the good guys". As crappy a deal as it often gives us, we must respect and obey the law or else we become criminals ourselves. I always thought we were against criminals, nit lining up to join their ranks.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Totally agree with this assessment.

Click to expand...

I, too, totally agree with this assessment. What troubles me most was the stated intent to kill rather than stop. I don't care if the BG dies, nor will I take precautions to prevent death, but my goal will always be to stop, not to kill.

I also am troubled by firing shots down the road with no surety about what they hit.

However, I have no problem with Texas' law allowing private citizens to shoot folks fleeing with their property. Such simply needs to be done more responsibly than was done here, and I wish the man's efforts had been more effective.

skidmark said:

Sorry, but he's no hero in my book.



Heroes do not violate the law by firing at folks who no longer present an imminent threat. Heroes do not fire at a truck roaring down the highway when there is no safe and effective backstop for any errant projectiles.

I agree he's afiesty old coot, and probably someone that I'd enjoy meeting. But he's a danger to the community, and darned lucky that nobody seems to want to deal with his wanton recklessness.

As has been said here over and over again, it sucks to have some stranger come into your home and steal your stuff and destroy your property, but once they leave you are no longer justified or excused in using lethal force against them. (Unless they run away while firing over their shoulder at you.)

We've got to remember that we are "the good guys". As crappy a deal as it often gives us, we must respect and obey the law or else we become criminals ourselves. I always thought we were against criminals, nit lining up to join their ranks.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I agree. He should have let them escape safely so they could get to the next house and beat, rape, steal, shoot, etc etc. They should be able to escape after attemptive murder safely. No one should dare shoot at someone who just tried to take their life. This man was clearly in the wrong.

Schlitz said:

I agree. He should have let them escape safely so they could get to the next house and beat, rape, steal, shoot, etc etc. They should be able to escape after attemptive murder safely. No one should dare shoot at someone who just tried to take their life. This man was clearly in the wrong.

Click to expand...

Oh, #&(&$*%#!

Nobody is saying that you just let the SOB go on his merry way so he can "get to the next house and beat, rape, steal, shoot, etc etc." I'm seriously wondering where you got that notion - but then I'm also seriously wondering if you are not also harboring some sort of Death Wish fantasy or Dudley Dooright desire to be a hero in the worst way.

We - the law-abiding - are the good guys mostly because even though it is tempting to go ahead and let off a few rounds of bucksot at the fleeing felon's tailfeathers, we understand that it is both unsafe (for me that's the primary concern) and illegal. I do not want to be asked to contribute to someone's legal defense fund when it is clear they willfully, negligently, and recklessly violated the law just so they could get a moment's "feel good" about trying to get even with some other criminal.

As I have already said, if you want to make that behavior legal, go to work on your legislature about getting the law(s) changed so that you can shoot at them as they flee down the road/across the creek.

stay safe.

Grapeshot- I completely agree there is a time to reap and i time to sow. No argument there. My problem with this scenario is if i was in this mans situation and three guys had come into my home, tied me up and threatened to shoot me id be LIVID! Tangle that with the fact that they had taken the easy road and lazily decided to steal the things that i have worked tirelessley, poured my energy into and spent countless hours away from my wife and son at work to obtain, Im goin on the defensive big time! I love texas law when it comes to protecting your land and property. Noone should ever be allowed to escape with your property. Its yours, you've earned it, THEY HAVE NOT! The only reason i added in my post that you might want to consider giving a verbal ultimatum to death to the BG is simply for witness support that your last resort was to shoot him. However i agree that warning shots can only end up being seen as reckless discharge of a firearm. Dont pull the trigger unless youre on target.

Eye95- Here, here. He should have never pulled the trigger with the pistol unless he had a clear shot and under different circumstances a better chance of hitting the target. Although in the heat of the moment of being shot at the best thing to do is find cover and cover yourself. Not throw a volley of bullets out the door and hope you hit the guy shooting at you. And the shotgun? I dont know what the laws are where this took place but i would assume that this guy choosing a semi-auto shotgun (probably all he had left with ammo in it) to shoot at a retreating vehicle at anything further than "powder burns on t-shirts" range, was probably a thought of "well maybe ill get lucky and atleast hurt one of 'em". I know he said he intended to kill them but come on. Any body with some gun experience maybe would have thought that a scatter gun wouldnt be all to effective. If you intend to kill anybody stealing your property. Make sure you are properly equipped to handle any situation and fully able to "STOP" anybody you shoot at. Make smart decisions and you'll have a better chance at neutralizing the threat. It could have been handled more responsibly and in turn could have been more effective.

Sorry i dont know how to do that "originally posted by" thing. Can i be informed please?

Sic Vis Pacem Para Bellum

If you shoot someone because you are livid, that is a crime. If you shoot someone as permitted by your State's self-defense statutes, that is not a crime.

Be rational when you shoot, not emotional.

davist said:

Sorry i dont know how to do that "originally posted by" thing. Can i be informed please?

Click to expand...

All you have to do is hit "Reply with Quote" at the bottom of the post you want to quote. It will bring up the entire post and you can delete the parts you don't want to quote. Hope this helps.

davist said:

Texas Penal Code Section 9.42

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

Click to expand...

wish every state had this law.

If I was the old man I would have shot at their truck too.

Three men broke into the house of a 5'5, 70+ man's home, robbed and assaulted him while threatening his life. They shot at him the second he grabbed his pistol, and he returned fire.

At this point, it was no longer a robbery, it was a gunfight. They were trying to kill him and take his stuff. He had every right to defend himself. Also, it doesn't look like this fellow lived in a residential neighborhood. His house was out in the county- out in the sticks. Very little chance of a stray bullet going into a neighbor's house. (At least from what I can see of the news report)

As far as the 'retreating vehicle' idea- it wasn't a retreating vehicle. It was a getaway car carrying three armed and dangerous perps- who had already showed a wanton and reckless regard for human life and had fired their weapons with intent to kill- and a truckload of stolen goods. The men in the car deserve to be a grease smear on the side of the road somewhere.

I wish the police the best in tracking this collective waste of human DNA down and prosecuting them to the fullest. If the old man was a better shot it would have saved them the time.

It's not like I really care if you put yourself into prison for a few years or not, but it's just not polite to suggest to other folks that they go violating the law.

When the VCAs were shooting at him, it was OK under the law to shoot back. When they ran away and took off in the truck it was no longer OK under the law to shoot at them. I'm sorry that you do not want to accept that as fact. Your choice, your consequence. But please do not waste my time telling me that you would go ahead and violate the law, and not expect to be roundly criticized for doing so.

I'm not your parent, I'm not your babysitter, and I'm not here playing cop. I'm certainly not an administrator playing clean-up for John & Mike. I'm just saying that if you want to persist in insisting that you intend to violate the law you remember that doing so is not considered acceptable behavior here.

But if you do follow your own advice, I'd appreciate it if you'd call me when you get hauled off to jail. I'd like to come down and laugh at you.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

It's not like I really care if you put yourself into prison for a few years or not, but it's just not polite to suggest to other folks that they go violating the law.

Click to expand...

I didn't suggest that anyone do anything.

I said that I would have shot at them in the same situation, that I think they deserved to be removed from the planet, and that I wished the police the best in finding them and prosecuting them.

I made no comment whatsoever about what other people should do, or what is legal to do, nor did I say anything about other people violating the law.

I wasn't giving advice. I was voicing an opinion.