Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Home invader greeted with gunfire

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:52 PM
Original message
Home invader greeted with gunfire
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Home-invader-greet...

SAN ANTONIO - A man breaking into an apartment on the Northeast Side was greeted with gunfire late Tuesday.

Police say the man kicked in the door of an apartment at the Sungate Villas on Sun Gate Street, near Perrin Beitel and Loop 410, around 11:00 p.m. Tuesday. The suspect took off after he was shot by the man living in the apartment. Police say it was less than an hour before the man was pulled over in Shavano Park near N.W. Military Highway and Loop 1604.

The suspect is in the hospital and faces burglary charges. The homeowner will not be charged.


Home invading is a dangerous sport in Texas. He is lucky to be breathing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Texas and Florida are two states where kicking down a door ...
and invading a home can be a BAD idea!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. So is California, but a lot of people aren't aware of it
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. He was emboldened by his shoes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not even a "Hey I'm Home, I'm In Here, I Have A Gun?" Just open fire?
Mkay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Works for me.
You kick in my door in the middle of the night, I'd be inclined to let you know I am home by shooting you, more than once. Explain to me why the life of someone who would violently break into my home merely to steal from or assault me is worth preserving?

What is it about civilization that requires me to make his life less stressful? Is it far-fetched to assume that an individual shattering a door frame and battering their way into your house is doing so with malice and evil intent?

Swift and terrible retribution is satisfying in visceral way. Malefactors cut down by those they were trying to victimize got what they deserved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timo Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. home invasion??
your kicking in my door? we are NOT going to chat each other up, thats some of the dumbest crap I have EVER heard, I wouldnt waste the effort, my primary concern is the safety of me and mine, once I have figured out that your NOT on my team....I am lighting your ass up!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. That's the way it's done, legally, in most states including California
Anyone who breaks in to your home forcefully and unlawfully is a target that you can't be prosecuted for shooting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
62. Whereas "warning shots" can in some cases actually be illegal.
Discharge of a firearm is considered use of deadly force, no matter what it's loaded with, and an aggressive DA could make the case that someone who employed a warning shot used potentially lethal force without feeling like their life was actually in danger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. No Warning. Why give him a chance to kill me? N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. What's being seized is the chance to protect oneself, not the chance to kill someone
Wasn't there a posting here recently about a man who drew his handgun in response to a shooter in a mall, but shouted a warning before firing and ended up dead? If some batters down the door, it's reasonable to fear that they have nefarious purposes - why give them a target to shoot at by advertising your location, or risk letting them get close enough to grapple?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Because you know they are entering for theft not murder.
Because you know they think no one is home.

Give them the chance to retreat.

Sure, it is popular legislation to give households the right to kill without putting any finer point on it.

But that does appear to be some wholesale rightwing bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. You're free to make that assumption, of course. To the contrary, my assumption is that if a
a person is intent on finding an empty home they're more likely to show up during the day, and probably knock first or do something else to check if the place is empty. The best assumption when a person un-announcedly kicks down a door at night is that they don't care if anyone is home, and are happy to deal with it either way (in other words, there is a more-likely-than-not threat of violence)...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. That just sounds like you approve of plugging holes in human flesh.
And it is an outcome to be avoided if possible IMO.

Understand totally if you have been hardened by bad life experiences.

Hell, if you ask convicts what they would do, they are pretty goddamned harsh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously say they were eager to shoot somebody, and
I've never heard anyone who had done so express joy in the event. I understand that you're trying to be offensive, and that's fine, but the bottom line is that people have a right to defend themselves as aggressively as they deem necessary in the face of implicit violence. You may choose to assume that a late-night door-smasher is not intent on violence, and you are free to try a warning shout, or surrender, or running - that's up to you, but your assessment of people who decline to make your lovey-happy assumptions is unsupported by fact or logic...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. There was a time when we evaluated the use of a gun in light of its reasonableness.
But now, the gun lobby has seized control of statutes to try to usurp that authority.

Well I don't think the gun lobby is the best representative of justice in this nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Your subject line is exactly what we're doing here - and it's reasonable and logical to conclude
that a midnight door-smasher is bent on or willing for violence. And thus, a vigorous defense (including a firearm, if one is available) to prevent likely harm is a reasonable, rational, and ethical course of action...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #39
45. That's a BIG disagree. And enabling statutes to kill that misguided individual
debase the entire society which purports to govern it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. You've got it backward - recognizing the natural right of self-preservation
is the exact opposite of a debasement, and allowing people the right to protect themselves adequately in their own homes, without fear of government retribution, is in the best interests of society.

Again, you have mixed up the core concept - it's not about "enabling to kill", it's about allowing to defend.

(And I'm sorry, but I cannot figure out what you mean in your other response.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. You need to keep hoping that capricious killing goes in your favor.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 12:23 AM by sharesunited
You decide someone is a threat for which they should die?

The jury instructions need to be very clear that I have little choice but to let you exercise that unilateral power.

Otherwise, I am going to look very carefully at what you have done.

And if you have done your deed with a gun, I am going to look very skeptically at the justice you have purported to do on your own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. This discussion has never been about "capricious killing": nobody _wants_ to kill anyone (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. When someone purports to be judge, jury and executioner, what else would you call it?
Entirely within the perception or choice of the person pulling that trigger.

All you can hope for is redneck sympatico.

Which is redstate America my friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. When a real or likely threat presents, a person has the right to a vigorous defense
An enlightened society recognizes and protects that right.

"J, J & E" is catchy phrase, and "capricious" is a snazzy word, and they're both totally irrelevant to this discussion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #53
74. Sometimes a cop, judge, jury, or executioner is not immediately available when a choice must be made
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 10:11 AM by OneTenthofOnePercent
However, my right to life and liberty does exist - as well as the means to defend my life and liberty.
The only thing capricious about the situation is the criminal's choice to violently invade my family's home.

A criminal's right to safety does not extend into the unlawful entry of my home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #51
58. Self-defense is not capricious, and killing is not a foregone conclusion.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 01:19 AM by Straw Man
And the law favors the victim, not the assailant. Is that so hard to understand?

You decide someone is a threat for which they should die?

Someone who smashes down your door in the middle of the night is very clearly a threat.

The jury instructions need to be very clear that I have little choice but to let you exercise that unilateral power.

So you would prefer to interpret the law yourself? Fortunately, any lawyer worth his/her salt would bounce you from the jury pool before you had chance to get the seat warm.

Otherwise, I am going to look very carefully at what you have done.

And if you have done your deed with a gun, I am going to look very skeptically at the justice you have purported to do on your own.

Once again, slowly: Self...defense...is...not...about...justice. It's...about...self...defense.

You have just admitted that you would be prejudiced against a defendant who had used a firearm rather than another weapon for self-defense. Different tool, same outcome, and yet you would treat these two differently. This is a textbook case of bias. You have an irrational hatred of an inanimate object.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #51
71. A jury will never sit on this shooting.
The police have already said that he will not be charged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #51
96. So we're cool if I split a home invaders' skull with the camping axe I keep by the door?
Edited on Fri Apr-08-11 09:55 PM by friendly_iconoclast
Interesting line of reasoning- It's not what you do, it's what you do it with.


Do in robber with what is essentially a high-tech melee weapon: Justifiable self-defense

Do in same robber with a handgun: Manslaughter.


Quite the worldview you've got there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #39
48. Turn that around. If bullets are entering you even though you may have transgressed.
You might say ouch, wait a minute.

Is it simply too late for your sorry ass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timo Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #48
64. shouldnt have transgressed
don't go kicking in doors at night
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #64
72. "May have transgressed"????
So to you kicking someone's door at night and entering their home is "maybe" a trangression. To me it is a deadly threat to the resident, and the law supports me, not you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timo Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #72
77. perhaps you misunderstood my position
the perp "should not have transgressed" break my door down and come in, I am not asking any questions my motto is SHOOT THEM TO THE DECK!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #77
82. I intended to respond to SharesUnited, post #48.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 11:05 AM by GreenStormCloud
Sorry I got the placement wrong. He calls kicking a door in, "may have transgressed". You and I are in agreement. Somebody kicks my door in (It will take a lot of kicks. It is strongly reinforced.)and they will be met with a hail of .45 bullets. Wife will be on the phone to 911.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timo Donating Member (890 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #82
94. i agree
that whole line of thinking of chatting up the bad guy is just begging to get killed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #34
63. Such "analysis" was at best capricious, so the people chose to stop that
Clarity in the law is a good thing. No Monday morning quarter backing...it is better that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #34
73. California's "Castle Doctrine" law has been in place since the early 1970s
It protects people who use deadly force in lawful self-defense of a home from prosecution.

If the incident described here had happened in California, it would have been covered by California's Castle Doctrine law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
67. If it's the middle of the night and they kick down the door, they know you're home.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 07:36 AM by ileus
Their main goal is to catch you off guard and kill you first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
68. Bullshit!
Because you know they are entering for theft not murder.

Your crystal ball is not that good. There's a car in the driveway, the lights are on, the TV's going are YOU going to bet your ass there's no one home and just kick the door in? You are not breaking into a storage unit, you are breaking into a home. Even the law makes a distinction between breaking into occupied dwelling and unoccupied buildings.

I have no obligation to wait until you make your purpose clear, the law gives me the right to presume you are intent on evil and to meet your attack with deadly force.

Burglars getting shot by irate homeowners is an occupational hazard. They can get a new line of work, or they can hope the next house they force their way into is yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #20
80. I know no such thing
They may be there to commit any number of violent crimes, I have no way of knowing why they are there and in the real world, if the intruder is armed giving them a "warning" may well end up helping them locate and identify their target. No thanks, I've already got the scars from one bullet wound, I don't want another, and I'm damn sure not going to risk the safety of my wife and daughter to give some thug a "chance".

Kick my door in and make a violent entry into my home, expect to be met with violence. Don't like that? Stay the hell off my property and don't kick my door in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
83. Wow. Just wow. One has no idea why another is invading ones home.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 11:20 AM by aikoaiko
Again, I'm glad you wrote your positions because its just so clear how little support you give victims of violent crime. You're so obsessed with your anti-gun agenda that you would risk the well being of innocent victims of violent crime having them have some kind of conversation with the home invader? Wow. Just wow.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
89.  Please tell us just what YOU would do if/when it happens to YOU. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #89
95.  You are going to ignore the question? We await your reply. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. You'll have to be more specific as to where it falls short. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
38. Because I want to live.
If I warn him that greatly improves his chances of killing me by giving him vital information and give in the initiative. Home invasions are NOT burglaries, where stealth by the criminal is his method. Home invasions are INVASIONS, like troops crossing a border. They expect to meet resistance and are ready to overcome that resistance. Home invaders get a thrill out of over powering and terrorizing, often killing, the residents. A home invasion is a crime that is closely akin to war itself. If someone is kicking my door in the first thing they will hear from me will be shots. I will take them some time to kick in my door. I have a bar across the door that is sitting in steel brackets with three inch screws sunk into the 2x4s of the frame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #38
46. I don't envy you the experience you seem to long for.
It may very well take you to a noose of your own fashioning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #46
70. Only if you were the DA, jury, and judge.
You seem eager to punish innocent residents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. State law....
at night the legal assumption is that your life is at risk and the homeowner/resident may act accordingly in their defense of themselves, their family, AND their property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Passed by a Democratic legislature and Democratic governor in the late 19th century....
It's been state law for over a century, shares. Texas has always been a Castle Doctrine state in practice, and in the last two legislative sessions, the only change has been to codify immunity from civil action if a shooting is determined to have been lawful.

As a lifelong Democrat, I'm at this board to discuss those issues which I feel important to discuss with my peers. I wonder why an authoritarian such as yourself finds himself on this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. You mean a reconstruction Democrat in the mold of George Wallace?
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 11:00 PM by sharesunited
Yep, I guess I need to claim (or confess) both you and the governor as a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. Yes, and found by modern, post-reconstrution Democrats to be appropriate and needful...
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 11:25 PM by S_B_Jackson
And in fact, re-adopted by Democrats who re-wrote the Penal Codes in 1973 and was signed by Democratic Gov. Dolph Brisco. At the time we Democrats enjoyed a super-majority position in both Texas House of Representatives and in the Texas Senate.

Sec. 9.31. Self-Defense
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(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);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Sec. 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




If you'll note, all were enacted BEFORE we lost control of the legislature to the Rethugs - largely in reaction to the overreaching of anti-civil rights authoritarians such as yourself. Had Ann Richards signed the Concealed Carry legislation which was passed by the Democratic state legislature, it's likely that the shrub would never have been elected to either the governorship and thus would have never risen to become the the POTUS....he's have simply remained another failed candidate, who faded back into the woodwork.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Did you just tell me that gun lunacy lost the Texas government to the Republicans?
What if the issue had been slavery?

Should we lament such a loss?

You stand up for what is right, just, peaceful.

You don't take up power on the worst of a public paranoia or delusion unless you are completely craven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Yes, I did.
Sometimes, shares, reality will find a way to intrude upon your carefully crafted illusory world. Ann Richards lost a very closely contested race to the shrub and in no small part this was due to the backlash against her backtracking on her previous support for CCW in the wake of the Luby's Massacre in Killeen, TX.

Dr. Susanna Gratia-Hupp's campaign appearances were particularly damning to Gov Richards' campaign.

The issue was not about slavery, and I'm not going to engage in a game of "whataboutery" on it. It was all about the right of Texas citizens to defend themselves in the event of criminal assault upon themselves or others. To enable those lawful citizens the means to effectively defend themselves and others should the need arise.

I'm sure you understand the extreme irony of you accusing others of paranoia, delusions, and complete cravenness, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. What you call the right of citizens to defend themselves
is the right to annihilate each other.

Entirely of their own capricious will.

If anyone thinks that is a Plus for their safety, then they need to take another look at Luby's.

Hard to believe that this is debatable after all these years.

But if done so in bad faith, maybe not so hard to believe!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Luby's was and still is an excellent reason for citizen concealed carry. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Indeed.
and as I said, Susanna Gratia-Hupp's speeches were devastating to Ann Richard's election campaign - especially in the Texas Hill Country which had previously supported Gov. Richards so strongly.

But there remain those, like shares, who simply cannot accept the fact that the right to self-defense is a vital civil right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. You refuse to admit that a man carrying a gun started the whole episode.
And that everything you hold dear is a guns as solution to guns perspective.

Get a little real please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. No, shares, a man who KICKED IN THE DOOR of someone else's home started the whole incident.
The home owner was simply minding his own business until the invader attempted to seize by force that which was not his.

The homeowner exercised reasonable force to deter the assault.

The fact that you cannot reconcile yourself to the fact that the assailant is responsible for the fact that he got, and that he should count himself as fortunate that he'll only be going to the hospital and then to prison instead of the morgue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. Well now hold on there. If I read the criminal code of Texas correctly
the death penalty is not administered for breaking and entering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #49
55. Fundamental error in perception of armed self-defense.
Well now hold on there. If I read the criminal code of Texas correctly the death penalty is not administered for breaking and entering.


One shoots to stop, not to kill. If the assailant lies down and stops attacking, one stops shooting. Assailant doesn't have to be dead for self-defense to succeed.

But you knew that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #49
59. Clearly, shares, your reading comprehension is indeed lacking...
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 01:23 AM by S_B_Jackson
as from the story in the OP:
Police say it was less than an hour before the man was pulled over in Shavano Park near N.W. Military Highway and Loop 1604.

The suspect is in the hospital and faces burglary charges.


The homeowner exercised significant restraint, and did not - as you're insinuating - take the home invader's life. So what "death penalty" is it that you're caterwauling about exactly?

As far as what Texas law does permit:
Sec. 9.31. Self-Defense
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.


The homeowner is allowed to use whatever degree of force he/she deems necessary to end the threat of immediate harm - up to and including the taking of their assailant's life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #49
97. Hey, it can read. Too bad this was a persons home and not a court of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #49
98. Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?........
apparently Shares has taken sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armueller2001 Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #44
65. The man was carrying a gun illegally.
Obviously the fact that Texas didn't issue concealed carry permits didn't stop him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. There is nothing capricious about defending oneself from a home-invasion
the criminal made their decision to attempt to take by force that which was not theirs and placed the lives of the occupants of that home at grave risk. A risk recognized by the state of Texas as so apparent that it was deemed important enough to make clear that as a matter of law that the risk was valid and actionable.

My wife has been subjected to such an attack prior to our we began to date, and it was ONLY by the intervention of her roommate who returned home, heard the assault taking place in the other bedroom and retrieved the shotgun that she kept in her own room for just such an possiblity that she was not raped, beaten further, and quite possibly killed.

Such occurances are the reality and it is hard to believe that there remain persons such as yourself who continue to believe that a person does not have the right to defend themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #40
61. Good grief shares.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 01:51 AM by beevul
"...the right to annihilate each other."

"Entirely of their own capricious will."

When someone kills someone else, completely out of "their own capricious will", we call that murder.

When a person shoots someone breaking into that persons home - kicking down the door around midnight - its justified.

Legally, and morally.



You would do better expending your energies urging people not to break into homes after dark, if you're so concerned about those that do it.

That you expend them on the law abiding, rather than the law breakers, is in itself telling, though it does fit in with the anti-gun mindset quite well.

Peas in a pod, yes indeed.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #40
84. Really? Cite to legal precedent, if you aren't making this up.... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. People don't generally kick down your door in the middle of the night
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 10:40 PM by WatsonT
for good reasons.

It would be unreasonable to assume he was delivering girlscout cookies.

Also the fact that you are home and have a gun would be immediately apparent after the first couple of shots.

So no need to announce it, the crook will figure that out on his own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. He thought no one was inside. Maybe not in his right mind, but give him the chance to be advised.
Give him a chance to be advised in the premises.

With a shout out instead of lead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. He made his choice
When criminals start announcing "I'm a criminal, I'm breaking in to your house and I'm armed" then I will agree that homeowners should do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #15
57. No
The stakes are my life and I'm not willing to play
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
60. How exactly do you arrive at that conclusion?
There is no mention in the story linked in the OP that states "He thought no one was inside".........

Seriously, shares, do you just make it up as you go along? Manufacturing whatever details are needed to flesh out the story until it fits the mental script running in your head?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armueller2001 Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #15
66. Maybe I will go with your idea, SU.
Sounds like a good plan. If my door is kicked in during the night, I will announce "Excuse me burglar, but we are home and we have a gun" in both English and Spanish (giving away my position) and wait for a reply. Hopefully the reply is not a sharp knife in my chest or bullets headed my way. But what if he is deaf? Shit, I'd better learn that phrase in sign language too and turn on all the lights so he can see me.

Nevermind, that's stupid. My family's lives are more important than someone who would threaten them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #15
76. He doesn't really "deserve" a chance. He's committing a felony.
But if it makes you feel better, I will let him hear me rack the slide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
85. Our Court of Appeals made it pretty plain.
"It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to...he is not obligated to retreat, nor to consider whether he can safely retreat, but is entitled to stand his ground, and meet any (life-threatening) attack made upon him with a deadly weapon..." Kentucky Court of Appeals. Gibson v. Commonwealth,i 34 SW 936 (Ky. 1931)

The violent forceful entry of an occupied dwelling is the presumed to be life-threatening. I am not required to abandon my home to an invader and justified in using lethal force to repel the attack.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
86. Where did you get information to indicate the invader thought no one was inside?
I'm going to take a wild guess that you have nothing to support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. You kick in my door?
I've got no problem with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. I think you may be suffering from NRA syndrome. May I recommend an intervention for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. No, I am suffering from stand up and defend myself syndrome
and need no intervention. You on the other hand should just join a commune and spend all day singing cumbya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #29
79. There is no such thing as an NRA syndrome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #29
90. The Bible has a passage on this subject ...

Exodus 22:2-3 2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 "If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.

There are two cases here. In the first case, if someone breaks into your home at night, and you kill him, you are not held guilty of murder. You are not deserving of capital punishment. You do not need to flee to a city of refuge to preserve your life. The understanding is that at night, it is dark, and if someone has invaded your house, they do not announce if they are there merely to steal jewelry and tools. In the dark, you have no way of knowing if someone is coming to kidnap, to rape, or to murder. You are thus blameless if the criminal is killed in that situation. The passage does make it clear that if a man is breaking in at night with the intent of theft or worse (rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.), the defendant can righteously defend himself with lethal force to prevent the commission of the crime).

In the second case, it says "if the sun has risen on him", and you kill the intruder, you are guilty of his bloodshed. The understanding is that in daytime, there is light, and you can discern the intentions of the home invader. The crime in question here is theft ("if the thief"). It is not legitimate to kill someone who is merely stealing your property. In creating civil laws, we see here that not all crimes are worthy of death.

In the daytime, it is assumed that the intention of the intruder can be discerned. If he is a thief, he may not be killed by the defendant. However, if the intruder is there to commit a different crimeassault, murder, kidnapping, rape, etc.different laws/rules would apply. Though the crime of theft is not worthy of death, kidnapping was worthy of death (Exodus 21:16, Deut. 24 :7) as was murder.
http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com /


The important point that I am making here has nothing to do with whether you believe in the Bible or not, but merely to point out that for many centuries a nighttime intruder has been viewed as very dangerous and the use of lethal self defense to stop him has been acceptable.

Such views predate the NRA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. sounds like marco polo
and they get to shoot first when you call out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
56. Pretty much
You kick down my door and you have proven hostile intent. Colorado would let me drop you like a bad habit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
78. He heard me chamber a round as I racked the slide.
That's his warning.

If he comes into the house, he made his choice.

We had a home invasion just down the street, on this block. I have children in my house. I don't know what the guy's intentions are, but if he just committed a felony and is entering my domain, his intentions clearly are not kind and loving.

Your comments in this thread are, at best, laughable. In other threads you have stated clearly that you don't think law-abiding citizens have a right to even have a gun for self-defense outside of their home. Now, it seems obvious you don't think law-abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves IN their homes, either.

Mkay, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
88. Nope.
If they're being that obvious about breaking in, then they probably don't give a rat's ass that you're home. All you're doing by speaking up is giving them a tactical advantage.

YOU have no idea how many of them there are, where they are, or what they are armed with. THEY have no idea how many people are in the house, where they are, or what they are armed with.

But you have the advantage of surprise (instead of the other way around), knowledge of the interior of the house (only an advantage if you're not taken by surprise), and, after everything is said and done, the law is on your side.

Speak up, and the only thing left on your side is that the state's attorney probably won't prosecute you. Or, if things go badly, will probably but not certainly find the invaders and put them in jail for at least a few years.

A single gunshot, fired from cover without warning or bravado, is probably more effective in stopping the invasion then a nervous voice yelling "hey, I've got a gun!". With the former, they have NOTHING to go on, and their imagination will fill in the voids of knowledge with mental images of ex-Marines lying in wait, skilled and deadly. A nervous or desperate voice trying to intimidate... what does that conjure up? Some gangly dude behind a wall clutching a golf club or table lamp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
13. Might want to look in to a different career
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sylvi Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
18. If only there had been
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 10:53 PM by sylvi
If only there had been a 66-year-old, cancer-ridden woman there. She could have taken him down in a fit of pique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #18
69. +1
Or the cops.

Aren't they always around right when you need them, removing the need for any sort of personal protection?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #18
81. +1,000,000 for the win
:spray:

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonhomme Richard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
75. I know of, at least, one door in CT where it would be a bad idea. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
87. ANOTHER BURGLAR KILLED.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2011/04/05/identit... /

Identity of burglar fatally shot inside East Side Tacoma home released


A 19-year-old burglar who was fatally shot Monday after breaking into an East Side Tacoma house has been identified as Jamarr Johnson.

Johnson, of Tacoma, and two associates broke the glass out of a back door at a house in the 3800 block of East J Street to get inside.

A man who was home alone about 1:30 p.m. heard the burglars and hid in an upstairs bedroom. He fired several shots through the bedroom door when he heard Johnson trying to enter the room, police said.

Johnson died at the scene. One of the other burglars was arrested after a K-9 unit tracked him through the neighborhood. A third suspect is outstanding.


From the comments section we learn that Jamarr Johnson already had an extensive criminal history.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrightKnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
91. I know someone who shot and killed his neighbor and friend like that.
Edited on Fri Apr-08-11 02:02 AM by BrightKnight
The guy was a very talented musician and a super nice guy. He was not a drunk but one night he had way, way too much to drink. He was completely disoriented and falling around his neighbors back yard. He made it to the door and was clumsily banging on it. He probably thought that it was his own door. His very frightened neighbor thought someone was breaking into his house and shot him to death. I believe that he actually shot him through the door. He was not charged with anything.

Any time you fire a weapon you better be very sure of your target. There are no exceptions to that rule that I can think of.

I have no problem with shooting an actual burglar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #91
92. The OP home invader had ALREADY KICKED THE DOOR DOWN.
When the door has been kicked in, the door isn't there anymore. The resident did NOT shoot through a closed door but instead shot directly at the guy who had kicked the door in. I completely agree that shooting through a closed door is wrong. As long as the door is closed, the person on the other side isn't a threat. But when the door has been kicked in by the home invader then the subject is a very serious threat.

Back on New Year's Eve, 1975, when I was in the Navy, on of the sailors on our ship got drunk. In his drunkenness he decided to scare some random hownowner. He beat on the door screaming that he was going to kill everyone inside. The resident called the police while holding a shotgun on the door. He told the police that he would not fire as long as the door held, but that if the door gave in then he would shoot immediaely. The door crashed in, he shot hitting the sailor in the leg, penis, and testicles. When the door gets kicked in the waiting is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. There's a little bleach tossed in the gene pool. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC