|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: Homeowner Gets In Shootout With Suspected Car Burglar
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A San Antonio, Texas man discovered someone that appeared to be trying to break into his car about 3:00 AM earlier this month. He went out to investigate and confronted the suspect who then pulled a gun on the homeowner. The homeowner then drew his own gun and shots were exchanged.
The suspect ran off but was later found dead by a police K-9 unit. The homeowner was uninjured. No word on any charges against the homeowner.
Nobody wants to allow someone to break into their car and the law does permit the use of reasonable non-deadly force to prevent someone from doing so. But what happens if the burglar breaking into your car is armed as was the case with this homeowner? |
| Comment by:
jac
(5/23/2020)
|
This is Texas. The homeowner will not be charged.
Actually, in Texas, it is legal to shoot an intruder on your property at night if you suspect he is stealing or vandalizing property. It is probably the only state with such a law. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
