-Ross-

iTrader: (2)

Yeah, man. Blacks and Hispanics never shoot people.

Trash is trash.

Tex7387

iTrader: (1)

You seriously think that if you shot back that you would face charges on this? Who in thier right mind is going to prosecute if you are riding along (with your chl and gun of course), you start getting shot at, your seven year old son is hit, and you shoot back? That is called self defense and would be easily justifiable.

Also are they sure whether it was the first or second shot that hit the kid? Because if it was the second shot, then who is to say had the victims had a gun, that just maybe those two ******* idiots don't get that second shot off, and thus saves the little kids life.

ThunderZ28

iTrader: (7)

This happened right behind a guy I am on shift with right now.
He just had his house built right there in Dayton lakes (Liberty County)..
He said there are a lot of people that go off roading back there, 4 wheelers, Jeeps Bikes, Etc.. Hell he even let his kid go with a group, a couple of times....
He doesn't know the couple that shot at the group of people... but has said he has heard gun shots, said it's not uncommon for people to shoot their guns around there...

NoClassic

iTrader: (42)

If it was on their land, with markers posted, like it sounds like it may have been. There is a strong possibility both parties would be charged if retaliation occurred.

I am not attempting to justify the "meth heads" actions. There are any number of alternatives to dealing with the situation that would have kept the kid alive.

I was only trying to illuminate the irony of the OPs response to the event.

LS1nterceptor

iTrader: (6)

Exactly what experience with firearms, self defense, or lethal force do you have that has taught you that using a firearm in self defense against someone who just murdered your unarmed child, would lead to the same charges as murdering said child?

To answer your question, YES, I do believe that a firearm would help in this situation. In more ways than one. For starters, the pieces of trash did not just fire once, one of them fire and THEN handed the gun to the other to take her turn to murder defenseless innocent people. So returning fire after the first piece of trash fired might have stopped the child from dying. Secondly, it might have thrown a little chlorine into the gene pool and saved the citizens of Texas hundreds of thousands of dollars in trial costs.

Return fire by the father would have been 100% justified. No criminal charges would have or could have been filed in that case.

What in the title of my thread gives gun owners a bad name? The fact that I take the safety of my family seriously and am prepared to defend them at all times in no way gives anyone a bad name. But please feel free to explain exactly what issue it is that you take with my statements.

If you're prepared to stand by while a member of your family is murdered, then that is your choice. Obviously you aren't comfortable with carrying a firearm, don't understand when their use is justified, or how the legal system in this state works. I however am comfortable with carrying a firearm, do know when their use is justified, and do know how the legal system works. I'll do whatever I have to do to stop this from happening to my children and I think all parents owe that much to their children..

ThunderZ28

iTrader: (7)

From what I have read, and what my buddy has told me (see above post)
The group was not on the shooters Property, and that the shooters had no justification to open fire.. they where not on private property of any kind..

"The suspects live in a small house on stilts with a rebel flag flying from the roof. A sign posted out front reads: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will."

"Liberty County Sheriff's Cpl. Hugh Bishop said the district attorney could upgrade the charges to murder on Monday."

"That is something they will look into with the DA"

They just upgraded the charges to 1st degree murder, as the 7 year old boy died yesterday morning of a shot gun shot to the head from about 40ft.

LS1nterceptor

iTrader: (6)

It was NOT on their property. That was 100% indisputably PROVEN. And they are responsible for knowing where their property line is.

Also, it is NOT justified to use lethal force to stop the offense of criminal trespass during the day time against unarmed non-threatening children.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that the father would have been charged if he had returned fire.

And those alternatives are ............ what exactly???? The father was on PUBLIC land, committing no offense, and was blind sided with gun fire from a distance by ignorant criminals. The only thing that might have saved that child was stopping the shooters before the lethal shot was fired.

Irony? Please explain what in the title of my thread meets the definition of "irony". I'd suggest looking up the word and understanding it's definition in the future.

89IROC

iTrader: (2)

It wasnt on the idiots property, they were actually on public property. I carry my GLOCK 21 everywhere and i can tell you what as soon as that first shotgun blast went off there would have been .45 rounds flying their way...it would be justifiable self defense especially since it was public property. If you can legaly own a hand gun in texas then u are now allowed to carry it concealed in your personal vehichle without a CHL...That got added in when they added the "stand your ground" part to the "Castle doctrine"...

NoClassic

iTrader: (42)

My point was totally invalid. I was wrong.

I did not read the last portion concerning them being on public land.



When speaking of alternative action I mean on the part of the people who killed the child.

mitchntx

iTrader: (14)

Regardless of whose property it was or wasn't, let me understand ...

A shotgun blast from a house injures your 7 year old child and your primary response is returning fire? That's really sad ...

Now, while hunting, I've been showered with pellets. The shooter was a couple hundred yards away. For the damage descrbed in the story, the shooters had to be pretty damn close.

slowsrt4

iTrader: (1)

We (hispanics) just shank folks haha

Ok that was uncalled for

LS1nterceptor

iTrader: (6)

What's "sad" about it? Have you ever had to defend an injured person or tend to them? How do you do that if you die? Yes, my initial response would be to get between my child and the threat, protect him or her from further injury, and STOP THE THREAT!! How can you protect him or your other children who were also there and get them help, if you stand idly by and get killed? Did you forget that there were other children there who could have just as easily been murdered? What would your first response be? Stand by while these idiots continue shooting at your children? Let them walk up and execute you at close range? What good would that do?

Your first response has to be to stop the threat. As long as you're still in danger you can't help anyone.

This wasn't a case of some bird shot falling harmlessly from the sky and annoying you, being fired from someone too far away to know you're there. This was a case of 2 people actively firing at you from lethal range and actively trying to murder you and your children!!!

NoClassic

iTrader: (42)

I just watched a couple videos from the houston news. From the damage to the truck it looked like it was buck load of some kind in the shotgun.

Interceptor you are absolutely right. After reading about the circumstances a bit more I cant imagine any other effective response other than what you are suggesting.

mitchntx

iTrader: (14)

No, I haven't. Tell me about your experience ...

Adam98Z

Self-defense 101

Sadly until your life is put on the line very few people believe this may be the only way to deal with a situation like this.

NoClassic

iTrader: (42)

From his responses so far and login I would think he is a police officer.

So he may have some.

Adam98Z

He is. HPD I think

mitchntx

iTrader: (14)

I think you are correct. I've seen him make that conferssion before.

I've left saddened and walked onto disturbed. A police officer is advocating returning fire.

With his training, that might be a reasonable response. But for the average CHL carrying citizen, detailed adversary and threat recogintion is not as part of the cirriculum.

Adam98Z

What training do you need to know when someone is shooting at you???

Silver35thZ

iTrader: (3)

This is just my opinion...I guess I'm prepared to get flamed. My initial response would be to try and get my son away from harm and get him to a hospital. I would not try and engage in a gun battle, that would only further delay the response time of medical attention. Yes, you are probably going to tell me, well you are going to get shot in the back...well you know what, if I were to engage in a gun battle I'm pretty sure I would just increase my chance of getting shot at because they would return more gun fire they would not stop in seeing as they have already fired with no provocation. At least if I try and get the victim/s out of the area and further away from lethal range then they would have more of a chance to live.

Gun battle, thats the solution.. To be honest it sounds like you are just looking for an excuse to use your weapon and thats kind of scary. We do not need everyday citizens with a class in "proper weapon technique" to start gun battles after they hear a shot or believe themselves to be in danger. Yes the CHL is for self defense but in this situation I think his primary worry should be to get his son out of the situation, not keep him there longer by returning fire and then having his son probably hit by more pellets.