Tech student shot, killed in Tech Terrace neighborhood Options

[James]

Texas Tech student Ross Baker, 23, was shot and killed Saturday morning at a Tech Terrace home at 3006 24th St.

Baker was a senior construction engineering major from Weatherford.

The shooting occurred around 3:45 a.m., according to the police report. The homeowner, Charles Mire, told police he confronted Baker, and Mire said he then fired a warning shot into the ceiling above his head. Mire shot Baker after he did not leave following the warning shot.

He was then transported to the University Medical Center, where he later died, according to the police report.

Baker had no prior criminal record.

The Baker family was unable to be reached for comment Monday.

Meg Carroll, a senior accounting major from Houston and a close friend of Baker's, said Baker was always great company and a peaceful person.

"Nobody ever had any problems with him. (He was) very non-confrontational," Carroll said. "He would never wrong anybody. All he did was go hunting on the weekends or hang out with friends."

Carroll said Baker enjoyed anything having to do with the outdoors, such as fishing and hunting.

Sergeant John Gomez said the police department is still in the process of gathering information from several witnesses. He said Baker's autopsy and toxicology information will not be available for another two or three weeks.

Baker was a member of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity.

http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/s...d-2913940.shtml

If you need to log in, use the following:

e-mail: nunya@damn.biz
pass: blah

[JRockTTU]

Yeah, I've read about this the past few days. Really bizarre. I think the toxicology report will show he was on some kind of drugs. Why else would you not leave when someone fires a warning shot into the air?!

[James]

Always a possibility that a warning shot wasn't fired, but that he fired immediately, then fired the warning shot after to cover his ass. Either case, you're right. Toxicology will probably show positive on something mind-altering.

[kschristia]

so...what about Mire?

[James]

What you mean what about Mire? He was within his rights to shoot the trespasser. Doubt he's been charged with anything yet if he ever will.

[kschristia]

What you mean what about Mire? He was within his rights to shoot the trespasser. Doubt he's been charged with anything yet if he ever will.

I just thought it was weird that he was never mentioned in the article again. I was wondering if he was going to be charged or not or if he knew Baker and they were hanging out and he asked him to leave etc.

[James]

Well, it was a Daily Toreador article. I'll go check if the AJ has an article on it and paste it if so.

[pysex]

So they write this report without telling us what happened. Why he was shot. They knew there was a warning shot and he was in someone else's home....but that still doesn't explain why a gun was out and pointed at him.

[James]

Yeah, go figure. Much better reporting.

Homeowner not likely to face charges in shooting
BY HENRI BRICKEY
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL


The man who shot and killed an intruder in his Tech Terrace home over the weekend will most likely not be charged with any crime, the district attorney said Monday.

Charles Mire shot Ross Baker inside Mire's home in the 3000 block of 24th Street about 3:35 a.m. Saturday. Mire, 43, told authorities he feared for his and his family's safety when Baker entered the home and set off an alarm, according to Lubbock police reports.

Lubbock County Criminal District Attorney Matt Powell said the law allows a person to use deadly force if they fear injury or death.



"Finding a stranger in your home at that time in the morning - that's about as scary as it gets," Powell said.
Friends of Baker say that the 23-year-old Texas Tech engineering major must have been lost or disoriented when he entered Mire's home.

Baker had recently moved into a home four blocks from the Mire residence in the Tech Terrace neighborhood.

Marcus Davis, Baker's roommate, said Monday that Baker was not the criminal type.

"He didn't have any enemies," Davis said. "Everybody he met loved him. He would never hurt anybody."

Police say Baker entered the house through an unlocked side door.

Baker, who grew up in Weatherford, doesn't have a criminal history in Lubbock, according to police records.

Toxicology tests are still pending to determine if Baker was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when Mire shot him in the stomach with a 9mm pistol, according to police.

Prior to firing the fatal shot, Mire ordered Baker to surrender several times and fired a warning shot, according to police.

The district attorney's office will make a final determination in the case after the police hand over all the details of the shooting, including the toxicology report.

The shooting comes three months after Gov. Rick Perry signed into law a bill that gives Texans a stronger legal right to defend themselves in their homes, cars and workplaces.

The bill, backed by the National Rifle Association, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force and provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses it.

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/06120...061207036.shtml

[James]

Lock your doors people!

[jwttu]

Didnt they change the law in Texas that you could fire at anybody on your property without having to warn them?

Even so i doubt the homeowner will be charged for anything

[pysex]

thanks james

the dt is an abomination to anything newsworthy




sounds like that poor kid stumbled into the wrong house drunk or on some kind of drug
if only that homeowner had shot him in the shoulder...

[kschristia]

Yeah, go figure. Much better reporting.
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/06120...061207036.shtml

better.

[JRockTTU]

Yeah, sorry, I would have cleared that up in my first post if I had read what james posted. From my understanding, the law change in texas gives you the right to shoot anyone who is threatening your safety in your house, car, or work. It also gives immunity to civil cases in these instances. Before, it was "shoot to kill or they're going to sue you." Now, if you shoot them in your home and they live, they can't sue you for shooting them.

[Junsui]

Lock your doors people!

No kidding! I can't believe some people don't.

[Testm0nkey]

i wonder if there will be any backlash on fraternaties and drinking? assuming he was blown out his ass drunk or on something else (seems likely). though pure speculation

nothing quite like leaving your bro's party just to hear the next morning your friend was shot and killed because he stumbled into the wrong house

[Divergent Realit...]

i saw his picture in the tech newspaper, that guy does not look 23

[TetraGrammaton C...]

i am not inviting all of you to come over to my unlocked apartment late at night, so that i will not shoot you.

however, one lucky shooting victim will win a free beer.

[impala454]

sucks to hear, sounds like he was a good guy. but even so, I really like seeing people defend their homes using their rights as US citizens to bear arms. you can't give an intruder any chances, and this guy even did that, multiple verbal warnings, including a warning shot.

I think cat is spot on speculating backlash on partying/drugs/etc. if they find anything in the guy's system it'll be hell to pay in lubbock.

[cupcake]

he was a good guy. my best friend is the guy who brought delta tau delta back to tech (they had been kicked off campus). I'm not a frat guy but from him I got to know those guys real well on hunting trips and home games and whatnot.

anyway he called me sunday morning telling me about this. reason why is that he was supposed to help me move this saturday, but instead is heading out of town for this deal.

anyway, I have not read those articles yet, but from what I know, he was drunk and walked into his neighbor's house thinking it was his own. dude shot him in the chest.

couple of points...one, why the fuck wasn't that guy's door locked?!? two, wtf ever happened to warning shots?

take one look at him and you can tell he's not there to rob you.

the whole thing is just fuckin lame.

edit: just read those...I didn't hear he fired a warning shot. kid must have been pretty fucked up to not leave after hearing that. sad deal.

[impala454]

anyway, I have not read those articles yet, but from what I know, he was drunk and walked into his neighbor's house thinking it was his own.

well the article says the house was like 4 blocks from his. definitely a sad thing though.

[Hartmann]

The DTD guys I knew were good guys and I doubt it this guy was any different.

I do know that in Tech Terrace I had a few close calls of almost killing people who showed up at my place. One night was a bunch of drunk guys who lived down the street who tried to open my door. I called the police but had my shotgun ready.

The other was a couple of local criminals trying to run from the police through my backyard after robbing the Lowe's on Boston. They tried to go through the house (after I had watched them run from the cops down the alley way) and I popped up with the shotgun pointed at them at the back door.

I used to live right down the street from where this happened, that address is 3 houses down.

[schwab]

If some guy ran into my apartment/house in teh middle of the night and set off the alarm, i would react the same way that guy did (dont own a gun though, doubt i would shoot)

He has a family to protect, how the hell are you supposed to know what the guys intentions are...you said they dont "look" like they are going to rob you? How do you know this guy is drunk or is on some drug? The owner could have thought they had locked the door earlier, and the guy broke in....

I understand he was probably a good guy, but he did this, I feel bad for him and all, no one deserves to die on a msitake like this, but you cannot blame the guy for acting as he did in this situation.

[cupcake]

I'm not placing blame on the home owner, let's clear that up. I just wish people weren't so quick to shoot. It's been pounded into me so long it's second nature...it's called the escalation of force. This guy jumped from auditory warning to lethal force. That would put your ass in Leavenworth in the mil.

I'll try and explain...the gun itself is reason enough not to shoot. As the gun wielder, you are in the position of authority...the offense (people say personal 'defense' but I don't believe anyone witha gun is ever in the defense). This should give you peace of mind and lower your fear just a tad so that you can analyze the situation to determine what level the threat is (whether the intruder has a weapon, what mental state the intruder is in, what intent, malicious or ambivalent, the intruder has, etc).

When I DON'T have a gun is when someone would get killed quick, because you don't have that wand of power that allows you to calm down and get a sense of what's happening...instead, without a gun motherfucker's getting a lamp upside his head and a steak knife in his throat.

This guy who didn't take the two extra seconds to get his situational awareness down is now going to live the rest of his life knowing he wasted a good kid who happened to have a dumbass moment. All he would have had to do is turn the fuckin light on and talk to him.

it's easy to armchair Qb this thing to death though...

[schwab]

I'm not placing blame on the home owner, let's clear that up. I just wish people weren't so quick to shoot. It's been pounded into me so long it's second nature...it's called the escalation of force. This guy jumped from auditory warning to lethal force. That would put your ass in Leavenworth in the mil.

I'll try and explain...the gun itself is reason enough not to shoot. As the gun wielder, you are in the position of authority...the offense (people say personal 'defense' but I don't believe anyone witha gun is ever in the defense). This should give you peace of mind and lower your fear just a tad so that you can analyze the situation to determine what level the threat is (whether the intruder has a weapon, what mental state the intruder is in, what intent, malicious or ambivalent, the intruder has, etc).

When I DON'T have a gun is when someone would get killed quick, because you don't have that wand of power that allows you to calm down and get a sense of what's happening...instead, without a gun motherfucker's getting a lamp upside his head and a steak knife in his throat.

This guy who didn't take the two extra seconds to get his situational awareness down is now going to live the rest of his life knowing he wasted a good kid who happened to have a dumbass moment. All he would have had to do is turn the fuckin light on and talk to him.

it's easy to armchair Qb this thing to death though...

neither of us have really any idea what happened in that room, so who knows what was said or what happened, maybe something will come out that something did or did not happen to give him reason to use the gun, but we will probably never know.

i agree that you should not just jump out and blindly aim and shoot at an intruder, i dont own a gun and doubt i ever will, i just dont see a need for me to have one....as far as this guy goes, he was probably scared shitless and acted on that, but what do we know

[impala454]

well yeah... hindsight is 20/20. if it's 3:45 AM, pitch black and someone comes into your house and doesn't heed your warnings, taking time to learn about the situation could get you and your family killed. if this situation happened 100 times, how many times is it a drunk kid in the wrong house vs a drugged up armed robber? two extra seconds to flip the light on? I'd have to say I'd never give the guy that much time, although like you said it's easy to armchair QB it.

[JRockTTU]

I'm not placing blame on the home owner, let's clear that up. I just wish people weren't so quick to shoot. It's been pounded into me so long it's second nature...it's called the escalation of force. This guy jumped from auditory warning to lethal force. That would put your ass in Leavenworth in the mil.

I'll try and explain...the gun itself is reason enough not to shoot. As the gun wielder, you are in the position of authority...the offense (people say personal 'defense' but I don't believe anyone witha gun is ever in the defense). This should give you peace of mind and lower your fear just a tad so that you can analyze the situation to determine what level the threat is (whether the intruder has a weapon, what mental state the intruder is in, what intent, malicious or ambivalent, the intruder has, etc).

When I DON'T have a gun is when someone would get killed quick, because you don't have that wand of power that allows you to calm down and get a sense of what's happening...instead, without a gun motherfucker's getting a lamp upside his head and a steak knife in his throat.

This guy who didn't take the two extra seconds to get his situational awareness down is now going to live the rest of his life knowing he wasted a good kid who happened to have a dumbass moment. All he would have had to do is turn the fuckin light on and talk to him.

it's easy to armchair Qb this thing to death though...

Yeah, I agree with you on all points. Simply having the weapon puts you in a position that, unless you suspect the other person also has a gun, you should not have to shoot. There are only two people who witnessed what happened, and one of them is dead. We don't know if the kid was so wasted he was talking gibberish and came at the guy, not even realizing he had a gun, or if the guy shot first and asked questions later. Very sad ordeal. I have to say, if I did own a gun, I would have to feel that my life was in immediate danger before I pulled that trigger even for a warning shot.

[Mommy]

dont get so bloody hammered...problem solved

[schwab]

dont get so bloody hammered...problem solved

ive been drunk a lot, and i have never been that drunk to walk into somebody elses house and do shit like that

[cupcake]

Yeah, I agree with you on all points. Simply having the weapon puts you in a position that, unless you suspect the other person also has a gun, you should not have to shoot. There are only two people who witnessed what happened, and one of them is dead. We don't know if the kid was so wasted he was talking gibberish and came at the guy, not even realizing he had a gun, or if the guy shot first and asked questions later. Very sad ordeal. I have to say, if I did own a gun, I would have to feel that my life was in immediate danger before I pulled that trigger even for a warning shot.

I'm finding your view is a very rare one. We are talking about this right now in my office. My "Dallas chick" coworker is all "if someone came into my house at 3am I would shoot him!" and I'm the only one who's hesitant.

I'm also the only guy here who has an arsenal of weapons and one sitting in my truck.

I grieve for some of the 'bad guys' who were kids simply born in the wrong frickin place, I cannot imagine living with killing some unarmed drunk college kid...

fuck

[cupcake]

well yeah... hindsight is 20/20. if it's 3:45 AM, pitch black and someone comes into your house and doesn't heed your warnings, taking time to learn about the situation could get you and your family killed. if this situation happened 100 times, how many times is it a drunk kid in the wrong house vs a drugged up armed robber? two extra seconds to flip the light on? I'd have to say I'd never give the guy that much time, although like you said it's easy to armchair QB it.

well, ideally any gun owner either has a light rail or at least a surefire to ID the target and threat level.

you never fire at anything you haven't ID'd, and you always should know what is directly behind the target.

this guy obviously didn't...unless he's just hip to knowingly shoot unarmed kids.

to quote my main nig, Col Cooper:

1. All guns are always loaded. NO exceptions! Never treat a firearm as if it is empty and "safe."

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.

4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

I can't believe that a rational man followed rule 4 and decided it was a good idea to go ahead with the shot. He obviously didn't ID the threat well enough.

This is all conjecture of course, for if the kid was beligerant, angry, or came at him, all bets are off. I'm just going off the articles. I think if the kid was fighting him he would have reported that.

[cmac]

a couple of different things...what is the race of the guy that shot him?
is there a way to determine if the warning shot was fired after the fatal shot?

[James]

What if the kid were bigger than you? Obviously, this guy would have to be pretty damn small after seeing the pic of the kid, but it's always a possibility. The equalizer was his gun. If you let the guy come too close to you, maybe he overpowers you, takes it, and uses it on you and your family.

Just something to consider.

I also stand by my previous comment that it's possible the warning shot wasn't fired until after the kill shot, which would explain why the kid didn't leave if he was just drunk.

[cupcake]

that shot sure does get people's attention. I've never seen anyone ignore a shot over the bow.

[James]

a couple of different things...what is the race of the guy that shot him?
is there a way to determine if the warning shot was fired after the fatal shot?

I don't see a way of telling, especially if they were fired in close at about the same time. Maybe if neighbors heard a gunshot then another 3-5 mins later, it might look suspicious. Might be able to look at the trajectory of the bullet into the ceiling vs. bullet into kid to see if they line up into an acceptable place of origin. But like has been said, it doesn't matter. The warning shot wasn't necessary, so it won't be checked into.

[cmac]

what if, just for argument's sake, this man has lived in tech terrace for a while, and like many other families in the tech terrace area, he is very angry at the amount of partying that goes on in the area and he has the "stupid college kids" attitude.
well the guy stumbles into his house by accident and the man shoots him immediately after seeing that he has the "college kid" look and seeing that he's drunk/dissoriented. then fires the warning shot for cover up.
legal within the law, but still...

[cupcake]

what if, just for argument's sake, this man has lived in tech terrace for a while, and like many other families in the tech terrace area, he is very angry at the amount of partying that goes on in the area and he has the "stupid college kids" attitude.
well the guy stumbles into his house by accident and the man shoots him immediately after seeing that he has the "college kid" look and seeing that he's drunk/dissoriented. then fires the warning shot for cover up.
legal within the law, but still...

I would never rule anything like that out.

[James]

Doesn't matter.

And you sound like Lance

[impala454]

4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

I can't believe that a rational man followed rule 4 and decided it was a good idea to go ahead with the shot. He obviously didn't ID the threat well enough.

but this isn't the military. this is a private home. you know whether or not someone is supposed to be in your own house, and if you give someone verbal warning and still don't leave, it shouldn't matter if you can identify them. a real intruder would not follow your colonel's rule #4. many people would be too scared to flip on all the lights or put a flashlight on their gun (which immediately gives away their location to the intruder). and like I said, if this situation were repeated 100 times, how many of those do you think is a lost drunk kid vs a drugged up, armed intruder?

[Testm0nkey]

man tech terrace is some ghetto ass shit. dumb college kids. i lived in south overton and never had a problem until some football players and hipster emo kids moved into the houses on my street

[Hartmann]

My thing is that at 3am with adrenaline pumping, decisions come in a hurry and usually are the wrong ones.

This is the same reason kids run from the cops after speeding at 3am...

[cupcake]

but this isn't the military. this is a private home. you know whether or not someone is supposed to be in your own house, and if you give someone verbal warning and still don't leave, it shouldn't matter if you can identify them. a real intruder would not follow your colonel's rule #4. many people would be too scared to flip on all the lights or put a flashlight on their gun (which immediately gives away their location to the intruder). and like I said, if this situation were repeated 100 times, how many of those do you think is a lost drunk kid vs a drugged up, armed intruder?

These aren't military rules of gunplay. These are simply the rules.

You don't shoot at that which you haven't positively ID'd.

[impala454]

they're not military rules... just rules that your military commander gave you? the military is different and it should be. when you're dressed out in body armor and shooting at an enemy from behind cover and have the luxury of IDing the person you're firing at, that's one thing. when it's 3 AM and you've been startled awake by someone intruding into your home, then confront them when it's pitch black, that's something completely different.

I'm sorry man I simply don't agree. Even the law doesn't agree. I'm honestly surprised that you'd take this kind of position in a case like this. You and your family will die in that situation. I'll value my family's lives over the tiny possibility that the person is inside my house by accident at 3AM with no ill intentions.

[cupcake]

first, he's not my personal commander (mine was anthony zinni). he was a retired colonel and the most respected gunslinger of the 20th century.

"the father of modern shooting" is the title he wore. you might find him interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper_(colonel)

why are you suprised that I would want to ID the threat? If some dude came into my house at 3am, he's getting blinded by a surefire with a weapon drawn on him while I eyball him and his situation, at which point if I do not see a weapon drawn, he's getting a verbal warning "halt, who goes there, I am armed and at the ready, lay face down on the ground"...if he persists or does not retreat or surrender, he's getting a shot across the bow (floor), after that he's getting a .45 hollow point in his leg.

my hands are stained enough.

[cupcake]

also I want to clarify I am not blaming the shooter. he was in his right to do what he did. I respect and defend that.

I am not arguing the man's right to defense.

I'm merely talking about why this shit didn't need to happen. but the blame lays on the intruder.

[impala454]

so while you're taking the time to shine your flashlight on the guy and stare him down, you don't think he'd shoot you before you got the chance?

and yeah I'm not saying you blamed the shooter, just discussing similiar situations which we could all end up in some day.

[cupcake]

I hear you.

ID'ing the threat doesn't take time. you either have a light rail or you use the method I use...a cross-wrist technique like this stylish heart-throb:



either way, it's up to the responsible gun owner to positively ID the threat before shooting. it doesn't take anymore time than it does to point the weapon, since it's in the same stroke.

[impala454]

I understand what you're saying. I just see the situation as someone standing in your living room, hearing you coming, you turn the corner and get blown away while your flipping the light on.

[cupcake]

yeah, well regardless I think this dude was pretty quick on the trigger out of fear. evidenced by shooting center mass (instinctive pointing)

lucky for him this is texas. I do not blame him for what he did. I just hate seeing this shit happen.

[impala454]

yeah, definitely a sad case. I love to see when actual armed criminals get their ass shot invading someone's home though.

[cupcake]

lol

in that case, a quick story this dude who works with my buddy has a brother (no really!?)...a few months back, he was sitting in his home in an old part of dallas, grizzled nam vet who lives alone and keeps a .45 near him at all times (no jokes about me, thx). broad daylight, in walks this big black dude...walks right past him like he's nothing and heads to his back bedroom like he knows where the fuck he's going...

guy follows him with his weapon and is yelling and shit and the black dude is ignoring him as he approached his closet. guy has all his guns in that closet and knows he needs to end this before cletus gets ahold of one so he pops him in the ass, which of course drops his big ass. invader goes of to jail.

can you imagine getting shot with .45 in the ass?

[pysex]

can you imagine getting shot with .45 in the ass?

ouch

nice big hole

[impala454]

heh that would suck. I always figured I could have both guns (the .22 target pistol and the .357). could swiss cheese em w/the .22, and if they didn't go down blow em away w/the .357.

[cupcake]

what .22 do you have?

cheap ammo is rad.

[impala454]

a Ruger MKIII Hunter

[Psykopath]

a Ruger MKIII Hunter

I want one just for plinking.


Then I would have a .22 pistol along with my .357...WE'D BE GUN TWINS!?!?! omg


/ends off topic post best saved for the "Guns" thread.

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Jun 13 2007, 03:08 PM

[cupcake]

those things are nail drivers.

[JRockTTU]

Cannonball (I refuse to call you cupcake) wins this thread, Impala comes off as a Texan "shoot-em first" Wild West stereotype.

The shooter supposedly had enough time to both verbal request the intruder leave, as well as firing a warning shot into the air. In the amount of time this would take he obviously should have been able to ID this intruder, as well as seeing whether or not the man is armed.

You are within your right to shoot the man if he's in your house, but it's on you when you're all over the newspapers and have to live the rest of your life knowing you killed a 23 year old kid that was unarmed. I don't need that over my head for the rest of my life.

[cupcake]

come hither...call me cupcake...

whisper it...

LOL

so is it all over the news there? I just got a call about it sunday morning, but am in dallas and this is the first press I've seen on it. how is the media "slanting" it...because I'm sure they are in way or another.

[GOB]

I can't believe that a rational man followed rule 4 and decided it was a good idea to go ahead with the shot. He obviously didn't ID the threat well enough.

this is pretty much the consensus i've seen from reading about buying a handgun and getting a concealed carry license, and i'm sure a lot of that is based on that jeff cooper guy.

and like cannonball said earlier (or later?) in this thread, several people i know with personal arsenals and tons of experience have told me they would probably be the last to pull the trigger in most situations.

[James]

Good question. Don't watch local news. Lubbockonline.com hasn't done a follow-up either.

[Billy]

I agree with Impala.

Darwin award for the intruder.

[FORSAKENR320]

well yeah... hindsight is 20/20. if it's 3:45 AM, pitch black and someone comes into your house and doesn't heed your warnings, taking time to learn about the situation could get you and your family killed. if this situation happened 100 times, how many times is it a drunk kid in the wrong house vs a drugged up armed robber? two extra seconds to flip the light on? I'd have to say I'd never give the guy that much time, although like you said it's easy to armchair QB it.

well, like you said, you've never been in that situation, so i understand why you view this. but to people like me and cupcake, who have actually had to pull steel on someone, our reaction is the exact opposite. having my piece drawn and aimed is enough for me. if the guy makes a hostile move.... it's alot easier for me to squeeze a finger than for him to dive for a weapon in his waist/pants/whatever. maintaining calm underfire is another thing. it's not something you learn about until it happens, but after you've been through it... in a situation like this, i would feel as if i had all the time in the world to get the result i wanted out of that situation. but not everyone has had cupcake and my experience, so our views are probably skewed out of the normal perspective on this.

[FORSAKENR320]

but this isn't the military. this is a private home. you know whether or not someone is supposed to be in your own house, and if you give someone verbal warning and still don't leave, it shouldn't matter if you can identify them. a real intruder would not follow your colonel's rule #4. many people would be too scared to flip on all the lights or put a flashlight on their gun (which immediately gives away their location to the intruder). and like I said, if this situation were repeated 100 times, how many of those do you think is a lost drunk kid vs a drugged up, armed intruder?

if you own a gun and don't follow rule 4, you should not be allowed to have that gun. i don't feel anyone should be allowed to have a gun unless they have taken at least some sort of course or training for it. make training easily available, but i don't want some 40 yr old with a midlife crisis thinking he's rambo with a new toy because he has the money to blow on a firearm.

cash alone should not be the only reason why you are allowed to have an instrument of death

[griseyeux]

on both of the 911 recordings you can hear Mire shouting: "This isn't your fucking house!!" but you never hear Baker yelling anything. From the way they told it on channel 11, Baker was unarmed and didn't respond vocally to Mires warnings, but that's still no reason to haul off and shoot a 150-pound unarmed person. I'm sure Mire could have taken him without needing to shoot him. I don't know, if I could clearly see that the person was intoxicated and unarmed I would try to remove him without force before firing my gun. It just didn't really seem like Mire gave the kid a chance to explain anything. Sad story.

[Psykopath]

if you own a gun and don't follow rule 4, you should not be allowed to have that gun. i don't feel anyone should be allowed to have a gun unless they have taken at least some sort of course or training for it. make training easily available, but i don't want some 40 yr old with a midlife crisis thinking he's rambo with a new toy because he has the money to blow on a firearm.

cash alone should not be the only reason why you are allowed to have an instrument of death

...



The why'd you support my gun purchase or when Glen was going to buy that M44?

[FORSAKENR320]

...



The why'd you support my gun purchase or when Glen was going to buy that M44?

if you remember, i was going to be taking you both to the range and teaching you. it hasn't happened yet because of the schedule differences. it's also perfectly legal right now. but my prefereance would be proof of competance before purchase in an ideal world.

[Psykopath]

if you remember, i was going to be taking you both to the range and teaching you. it hasn't happened yet because of the schedule differences. it's also perfectly legal right now. but my prefereance would be proof of competance before purchase in an ideal world.

Ah, cool. Yeah, I'd prefer something like that as well in an ideal world.

[Hartmann]

Having had to pull a gun now twice on people, I can say that had I been less aware of what was going on, I probably would have killed someone.

Had this guy come into my house, I would have fired a warning shot and probably tried to subdue him while someone called 911.

[Dogmeat]

jesus christ I guess the fucking moral of the story is don't wander into somone elses fucking house completley out of it fucked up .... god what is wrong with people?

[moebary]

if someone breaks into my house and I have time to get my shotgun, the first shell is birdshot for their legs, the second/third shells are 000 buckshot in case they have a weapon and want to shoot back.

though I'm counting on this never happening

This post has been edited by moebary: Jun 13 2007, 09:13 PM

[FORSAKENR320]

you people are fogetting something.... if a guy can break into someones house, hurt himself, and then sue the owners of the house and win..... there is no fucking way you're getting me to take a maiming shot. self defense covers lethal force in the event of danger. lethal force is defined by the police as force that causes the ACTUAL DEATH of someone. it does NOT cover shooting someone in the leg. my commissioned license gave me the license to kill in the event it was needed. not to cripple. i'll be fucked if i allow some fuck head to sue me saying that i intentionally maimed him and denied him the ability to earn a living for the rest of his life.

[moebary]

they changed that law, or made a new one where if you injure someone in self-defense they can't sue you

so

if a guy can break into someones house, hurt himself, and then sue the owners of the house and win

can't happen

JRockTTU mentioned something about it on the first page

This post has been edited by moebary: Jun 13 2007, 10:42 PM

[FORSAKENR320]

they changed that law, or made a new one where if you injure someone in self-defense they can't sue you

so

can't happen

JRockTTU mentioned something about it on the first page

well it did happen. in california, yes. but it still happened

[James]

Texas vs. California. That's like comparing the US against France.

[cmac]

why does everyone from texas hate california?

[James]

Reason #1 - Person that shot to maim instead of shot to kill was sued by the intruder, successfully.

Reason #2 - Paris Hilton.

Those two should be more than enough

[impala454]

but to people like me and cupcake, who have actually had to pull steel on someone, our reaction is the exact opposite.

that gave me a good laugh right there. dude you dont have a f'n clue what I'm saying. if some guy is in your house with bad intentions and has a gun, it's not in his f'n pants, it's loaded, cocked, and ready to blow you away. this isn't a police officer or military situation. if it's too dark to tell if someone has a gun, and they heed no verbal warnings and I have no other alternative, I'm shooting their ass. not fumbling around for a flashlight (which will immediately give my position away) or sneaking my way to the lightswitch. do you think they're going to show the same restraint? we're not talking about some situation on the street or in iraq, we're talking about someone being inside your home someone who is more than likely armed, and has a good chance of being on some drugs that impair their judgement. You can call me incompetent with a gun all you want, but the law agrees with me. and of course i'm not gonna just grab the gun and run around the corner ablazing. of course I'll do everything in my power to assess the situation and make the sensible decision. i'm not just out to get my jollies by killing people. when I lived in that area of town and kept my .357 loaded at night, i actually kept the first couple of rounds shotshells so I could hopefully incapacitate someone first if need be. but you can take your "ooh look at me" experience and calls that I shouldn't have a gun and shove em up your ass.

[FORSAKENR320]

that gave me a good laugh right there. dude you dont have a f'n clue what I'm saying. if some guy is in your house with bad intentions and has a gun, it's not in his f'n pants, it's loaded, cocked, and ready to blow you away. this isn't a police officer or military situation. if it's too dark to tell if someone has a gun, and they heed no verbal warnings and I have no other alternative, I'm shooting their ass. not fumbling around for a flashlight (which will immediately give my position away) or sneaking my way to the lightswitch. do you think they're going to show the same restraint? we're not talking about some situation on the street or in iraq, we're talking about someone being inside your home someone who is more than likely armed, and has a good chance of being on some drugs that impair their judgement. You can call me incompetent with a gun all you want, but the law agrees with me. and of course i'm not gonna just grab the gun and run around the corner ablazing. of course I'll do everything in my power to assess the situation and make the sensible decision. i'm not just out to get my jollies by killing people. when I lived in that area of town and kept my .357 loaded at night, i actually kept the first couple of rounds shotshells so I could hopefully incapacitate someone first if need be. but you can take your "ooh look at me" experience and calls that I shouldn't have a gun and shove em up your ass.

if some guy is in your house with bad intentions and has a gun, it's not in his f'n pants, it's loaded, cocked, and ready to blow you away.

well, thats why you fucking I.d. the situation properly, dumbass. if he's a threat he's dead. THIS GUY WAS NOT A THREAT YOU STUPID FUCKING ITALIAN BASTARD

if it's too dark to tell if someone has a gun, and they heed no verbal warnings and I have no other alternative, I'm shooting their ass.

this is fucking stupid. if it's too dark to see the guy has a gun, then it's too dark to know who the person is. but being the weekend warrior asshat that you are you're gonna pull some rambo bullshit anyway? you're the kind of person that causes all these fucking gun laws to happen in the first place. just take your guns to the pawn shop you don't deserve to have them.


and what would be the difference between a situation in the street and in your home? you keep mentioning that it isn't the military or the police., so apparently you think handling a gun differently in your home is apparently ok. what if it was a friend of yours who just had a crisis and came over paniced? according to what you are saying... you can't see the guy, can't see he's armed, but you're going to shoot anyway. congrats. you just shot your friend. if it was your sister who was just raped, had no where to go, is in shock and came running to your house because she was too paniced to think to call first? you just killed your sister. you are a total dumb fuck the more i read anything you post. the rules that apply to gun while you're in the military apply to anyone out of the military. you don't shoot at what you can't fucking see! move to california you ignorant little child

[impala454]

well, thats why you fucking I.d. the situation properly, dumbass. if he's a threat he's dead. THIS GUY WAS NOT A THREAT YOU STUPID FUCKING ITALIAN BASTARD

we stopped talking about the kid

this is fucking stupid. if it's too dark to see the guy has a gun, then it's too dark to know who the person is.

and also too dark for the guy to see who you are, which means you're dead. my God is it that difficult to understand?

and what would be the difference between a situation in the street and in your home?

uh... because in your home the person isn't fucking supposed to be there! fucking A were you a cop?!?!? this kinda shit scares me.

what if it was a friend of yours who just had a crisis and came over paniced? according to what you are saying... you can't see the guy, can't see he's armed, but you're going to shoot anyway. congrats. you just shot your friend. if it was your sister who was just raped, had no where to go, is in shock and came running to your house because she was too paniced to think to call first? you just killed your sister.

if it was my friend/family and I yelled at him "identify yourself or I'll shoot you!" he'd speak up! geezus man

you are a total dumb fuck the more i read anything you post. the rules that apply to gun while you're in the military apply to anyone out of the military. you don't shoot at what you can't fucking see! move to california you ignorant little child

well hopefully you'll come upon this situation so you'll get shot and robbed while trying shine your little flashlight the guy. i'm glad we have cops who feel situations on the street and inside a private home are the same thing. you're a fucking idiot if you think they are. no wonder cops have such a bad name nowadays.

If I hear someone in my house at 3:45 AM, I'm getting my gun, peering around the corner, and if I see nothing but a shadow of a person I'm going to yell at them, "who are you and wtf are you doing in my house". if they don't respond I'm going to yell again, "if you don't respond to me in 5 seconds I will shoot you". if they don't respond I'm shooting them. of course in most situations there will be some amount of light, and easy to see the person, but if people don't respond to those two statements, and don't run away, they're getting shot. I'm sorry you don't agree with the law.

[pysex]

i just want to clarify that impala is not italian


and if he is....i hereby change my heritage to swedish

[impala454]

i'm american

[cupcake]

well hopefully you'll come upon this situation so you'll get shot and robbed while trying shine your little flashlight the guy.

one clarification...while my surefire may be small, it will momentarily incapacitate and bewilder someone who's in "night vision" meaning their eyes have adjusted to the dark. it is a wholly unpleasant, somewhat painful experience. I suggest looking into one. and having you and your buddies try it out on each other...

SureFire, the tactical technology companyâ„¢, developed Special Operations Lights for law enforcement and military applications where intensely bright light is used to startle, disorient, and control anyone on the receiving end, and where hard use in tough environments is expected.

http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_dis...br/16/sesent/00

[impala454]

yeah i suppose the flashlight could be ok... I'd just hate to give myself away so easily if the guy was armed. it's just a hypothetical situation anyways, 99 times out of 100 you'll be able to vaguely see the person and know their intentions. it's just the hypothetical situation that they dont respond to your verbal assault and dont leave your home, and you cannot ID them.

[FORSAKENR320]

yeah i suppose the flashlight could be ok... I'd just hate to give myself away so easily if the guy was armed. it's just a hypothetical situation anyways, 99 times out of 100 you'll be able to vaguely see the person and know their intentions. it's just the hypothetical situation that they dont respond to your verbal assault and dont leave your home, and you cannot ID them.

you don't wanna use a flashlight... but you're willing to scream at someone and give away your presence that way..... it doesn't change a thing. if you can't see what you're shooting at, don't fucking shoot. you should know your own place well enough that you won't need a flash light till you're almost on the guy. if you heard a noise to wake up in the first place, then odds are the intruder will still be making enough noise for you to be able to locate him. assess the situation while hiding if you can, determine the threat without being seen if possible. you should have already called the police as soon as you woke up. if you can avoid confrontation without him knowing you are there watching. you should do that. the important thing is that you protect your family. if he never comes near them and is content to try stealing a few carriable items out, let him. losing property is better than killing someone. i understand alot of people are like "fuck that! i'm blowing that thieves ass away so he can't do it again!" but do any of you actually want to know you killed someone for the rest of your life? i sure don't. if he sees you, (and because impala is a dumb ass, i will have to remind him that he's already i.d.'d the threat, determined that the guy isn't armed, or that the gun is it a place that will take a couple seconds to get to) you should stall. hit him with the flashlight in the eyes, watch to see if he goes for that gun. yell at him to freeze and lay down. but stall so the police can show up if at all possible. if he jumps for that gun in his waist, you have no choice but to shoot him. the flashlight should have killed his night vision like cupcake said, making it less likely he could see you to shoot you, giving you a little bit of safety, but if he goes for that gun, stalling is over and you are forced to shoot.

[impala454]

you don't wanna use a flashlight... but you're willing to scream at someone and give away your presence that way..... it doesn't change a thing.

uh... so it's just as easy for you to shoot at a sound than a light??

if you can't see what you're shooting at, don't fucking shoot.

the scenario were talking about here is that you can see a person, but not identify who they are or why they're there.

of course I'll do everything I can to see who the person is and assess wtf they're doing in my house, but if someone isnt' responding to me yelling at them or is stealing my stuff, they're only leaving my house one of two ways, in cuffs or on a stretcher. that person put themselves in the situation, and imho deserves no remorse whatsover. the only remorse they get from me is that perhaps I might aim low or use the shotshells as my first couple of rounds in the wheel. i'm not risking the life of my family and i on the extreme 1 in 10,000 or whatever it is, edge case that it's some drunk kid in the wrong house.

[Testm0nkey]

i'm american

did anyone else hear blue grass music and picture something like this?

[GOB]

did anyone else hear blue grass music and picture something like this?

i thought of this:

[JRockTTU]

well it did happen. in california, yes. but it still happened

I believe that it happened. The laws in most of the country, and in Texas in the past, allowed that to happen. I just saw that Guv'nah Perry signed an amendment that would exempt Texans from any civil liability if they shot and injured someone defending their home, vehicle, or work. This is recent, within the past few months.

[FORSAKENR320]

I believe that it happened. The laws in most of the country, and in Texas in the past, allowed that to happen. I just saw that Guv'nah Perry signed an amendment that would exempt Texans from any civil liability if they shot and injured someone defending their home, vehicle, or work. This is recent, within the past few months.

that ould be most favorable.

[impala454]

i thought of this:

i do play me a mean guitar hero