"It's more fun to put that bullet in thier heads anyway"?

true. I was speaking more generally, but in that situation just aim for whatever the biggest visible target would be, which would most likely be the head/neck region.
Yeah they could try to sue you, but you could argue that you are just a bad shot.

Haha I apologize, I meant um, Well i'm ex army actually that is what I meant. haha.

And how would you know that he didnt just let her borrow the SUV?

(cough cough)

I am not sure that I agree with deadly force in this case but that's another issue.

(cough cough)

and besides she is just as dead

It's not!

is that an ad lib (read the article the boyfriend awas helping steal the suv)

maybe because they did an investigation

Then you should know about the use of deadly force laws!

now that is an ad lib for sure

maybe you should check the law in question

it's not why because you say so

The car has tires quiet!

wonder if they were illegals

hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Good point - shoot the tires and don't shoot the driver in the head.

it's this attitude right here that I see as the reason our society has become the cesspool it is. nobody should tolerate crime.....EVER! but I guess were just supposed to sit back and be inconvenienced by someone stealing our property whether our lives are in danger or not. why should anyone work so some pathetic leech can come along and just take what they want and maybe go to jail where everyone who is responsible and goes to work has to pay to keep their carcass alive? I think ALL states should have the Castle Doctrine and the No-Retreat Laws, but then again I think it should be law that all Legal Americans be armed!

Texas law on the matter....just something I looked up

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);




Shoot first ask questions later =)

No No shoot the driver in the head that way he/she will not get out on parole and steal again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again....

LOL! What does that mean??

If you're going to use a gun, you should be aiming for mass, you should be trying to kill them and assuming that you will kill them. Trick shots are for the movies.

I might have played it differently, but I don't blame her in the least for it.

Sec. 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.

We don't know if they'll do it again and again.