O.M.G. I just came home from the movies and ...

[randumb]

So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of deadly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. Dead force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I can't believe that QuitBanningMe is crapping all over this thread by siding with a criminal rather than a homeowner who acted legally.

I even had an argument with some liberal limpwrist on Slashdot that said that if a thief is driven to steal, he's probably underpriveledged and therefore morally more entitled to those belongings than you were.

This kind of thinking is just stupid.

People like that are a social disease.

No people who think this should be a "got what he deserved/ hope he is dead" circle jerk are a social disease

Ah yes, because thieves robbing decent people blind is so HEALTHY for the country, right? Have you ever heard of PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS? Has it ever occurred to you that WITHOUT such rights NO OTHER RIGHTS ARE POSSIBLE?

What an idiot. You should hang out in P&N with fvckwads like BBond and Conjur.

Jason

According to the law in order to protect the property with force you have to reasonably believe there was no other way to protect it. Given the diagram and the OP I don't think this is the case.

I think it is more of shud's type of thinking:

I've always kind of subconsciously wanted this to happen to my house so I could show up and go apesh!t with a shovel on someone's ass.

You're making grand generalizations about the Law when the FACT is that it differs from state to state and county to county.

Frankly, if I come home and you're in my house or property and my sh1t's in your truck, you've breathed your last, PERIOD. In addition to the thievery, there is NO legitimate reason for endangering your family by trying to deal reasonably with someone who has INITIATED FORCE against you and your property. Make no mistake--breaking, entering and stealing is the initiation of FORCE.

Jason

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe


They caught the guy.....why would the cops not be able to do the same?

Because most thefts go unsolved. In fact, most murders do, too (only about a third are solved)

These people had the guy, while the police would have to be dispatched and it would take a while.

When my gf got mugged in Philly, it took the police 45 minutes to get there. Any chance of catching that guy was gone. In the movies, the police always get their man and things work out fine. In reality, unless you take care of things yourself, the criminal will most likely get away with it.

So you're confronted with a choice: stop the bad guy now or risk the chance of him getting away. (personally, I would have used the 12-gauge.)

Average response time to emergency calls is around 6-8 minutes.
Probably less time than it took to organize and execute this ambush.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of deadly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. Dead force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

Uh...no. From reading law articles off lexis-nexis, everyone says the law defaults to the property owner. The property owner only needs to give a reasonable explanation, not a freaking debate. The OP can EASILY defend that he believed the criminal could inflict serious injury and probably also defend that the iron rod was the only reasonable means available to him at the time (besides the gun, which would have been worse).

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

Uh...no. From reading law articles off lexis-nexis, everyone says the law defaults to the property owner. The property owner only needs to give a reasonable explanation, not a freaking debate. The OP can EASILY defend that he believed the criminal could inflict serious injury and probably also defend that the iron rod was the only reasonable means available to him at the time (besides the gun, which would have been worse).

The thief had no idea they were there. There was no danger until they decided they would take care of things.

It is also not reasonable to think there were no other options here.

The OPs dad did what he wanted to do. Teach a criminal a lesson......

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

Uh...no. From reading law articles off lexis-nexis, everyone says the law defaults to the property owner. The property owner only needs to give a reasonable explanation, not a freaking debate. The OP can EASILY defend that he believed the criminal could inflict serious injury and probably also defend that the iron rod was the only reasonable means available to him at the time (besides the gun, which would have been worse).

The thief had no idea they were there. There was no danger until they decided they would take care of things.

You're assuming way too much. At the time, the OP would have no idea what the thief knew or was capable of. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

Uh...no. From reading law articles off lexis-nexis, everyone says the law defaults to the property owner. The property owner only needs to give a reasonable explanation, not a freaking debate. The OP can EASILY defend that he believed the criminal could inflict serious injury and probably also defend that the iron rod was the only reasonable means available to him at the time (besides the gun, which would have been worse).

The thief had no idea they were there. There was no danger until they decided they would take care of things.

You're assuming way too much. At the time, the OP would have no idea what the thief knew or was capable of. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

We slowly drive past our drive way, since my dad likes to back the car in, and we see this truck in our backyard in our driveway. Of course, we are all like WTF.

Where is the danger at this point?

 

[Jojo7]

Awesome.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe


They caught the guy.....why would the cops not be able to do the same?

Because most thefts go unsolved. In fact, most murders do, too (only about a third are solved)

These people had the guy, while the police would have to be dispatched and it would take a while.

When my gf got mugged in Philly, it took the police 45 minutes to get there. Any chance of catching that guy was gone. In the movies, the police always get their man and things work out fine. In reality, unless you take care of things yourself, the criminal will most likely get away with it.

So you're confronted with a choice: stop the bad guy now or risk the chance of him getting away. (personally, I would have used the 12-gauge.)

Average response time to emergency calls is around 6-8 minutes.
Probably less time than it took to organize and execute this ambush.

6-8 minutes? Where in the hell do YOU live? It's 15-20 here during the nighttime hours; during daylight, it depends on where Officer Speed is camping out.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

Uh...no. From reading law articles off lexis-nexis, everyone says the law defaults to the property owner. The property owner only needs to give a reasonable explanation, not a freaking debate. The OP can EASILY defend that he believed the criminal could inflict serious injury and probably also defend that the iron rod was the only reasonable means available to him at the time (besides the gun, which would have been worse).

The thief had no idea they were there. There was no danger until they decided they would take care of things.

You're assuming way too much. At the time, the OP would have no idea what the thief knew or was capable of. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

We slowly drive past our drive way, since my dad likes to back the car in, and we see this truck in our backyard in our driveway. Of course, we are all like WTF.

Where is the danger at this point?

Let's see. There's a foreign truck in their *Driveway* at their *HOME* with their stuff loaded in the back. I would think it's fairly obvious where the danger is. What a damn dunce!

Jason

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

Uh...no. From reading law articles off lexis-nexis, everyone says the law defaults to the property owner. The property owner only needs to give a reasonable explanation, not a freaking debate. The OP can EASILY defend that he believed the criminal could inflict serious injury and probably also defend that the iron rod was the only reasonable means available to him at the time (besides the gun, which would have been worse).

The thief had no idea they were there. There was no danger until they decided they would take care of things.

You're assuming way too much. At the time, the OP would have no idea what the thief knew or was capable of. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

We slowly drive past our drive way, since my dad likes to back the car in, and we see this truck in our backyard in our driveway. Of course, we are all like WTF.

Where is the danger at this point?

The "WTF." And the "if he had a gun or something."

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of deadly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. Dead force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

You're insane, #3 is the EASIEST one!

Jason

 

[Lumathix]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Lucifer

I live in Texas too. And the law is: You have every right to protect your property. .

In New Jersey, the law is: touch the thief and they'll be living in your house while you're in jail for harming an endangered species.

You're suppposed to call the cops, and when they arrive hours later to the low-priority call, you tell them what happened. They'll never find it, and your stuff is gone. Welcome to New Jersey.

New Jersey sucks.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

Uh...no. From reading law articles off lexis-nexis, everyone says the law defaults to the property owner. The property owner only needs to give a reasonable explanation, not a freaking debate. The OP can EASILY defend that he believed the criminal could inflict serious injury and probably also defend that the iron rod was the only reasonable means available to him at the time (besides the gun, which would have been worse).

The thief had no idea they were there. There was no danger until they decided they would take care of things.

You're assuming way too much. At the time, the OP would have no idea what the thief knew or was capable of. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

We slowly drive past our drive way, since my dad likes to back the car in, and we see this truck in our backyard in our driveway. Of course, we are all like WTF.

Where is the danger at this point?

Let's see. There's a foreign truck in their *Driveway* at their *HOME* with their stuff loaded in the back. I would think it's fairly obvious where the danger is. What a damn dunce!

Jason

It definately isn't obvious to me. Where is the danger to them at that point?

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

Uh...no. From reading law articles off lexis-nexis, everyone says the law defaults to the property owner. The property owner only needs to give a reasonable explanation, not a freaking debate. The OP can EASILY defend that he believed the criminal could inflict serious injury and probably also defend that the iron rod was the only reasonable means available to him at the time (besides the gun, which would have been worse).

The thief had no idea they were there. There was no danger until they decided they would take care of things.

You're assuming way too much. At the time, the OP would have no idea what the thief knew or was capable of. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

We slowly drive past our drive way, since my dad likes to back the car in, and we see this truck in our backyard in our driveway. Of course, we are all like WTF.

Where is the danger at this point?

The "WTF." And the "if he had a gun or something."

They were on the main road when they saw the truck. They know it wasn't supposed to be there. Instead of driving up a little and calling the cops (no danger) they chose to put themselves in a potentially dangerous situation...........

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of deadly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. Dead force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

You're insane, #3 is the EASIEST one!

Jason

It isn't reasonable to think the cops could have been called.
Did he believe that the criminal would chase him down as he drove off and shoot him?

 

[Cook1]

I needed a good read!

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

Uh...no. From reading law articles off lexis-nexis, everyone says the law defaults to the property owner. The property owner only needs to give a reasonable explanation, not a freaking debate. The OP can EASILY defend that he believed the criminal could inflict serious injury and probably also defend that the iron rod was the only reasonable means available to him at the time (besides the gun, which would have been worse).

The thief had no idea they were there. There was no danger until they decided they would take care of things.

You're assuming way too much. At the time, the OP would have no idea what the thief knew or was capable of. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

We slowly drive past our drive way, since my dad likes to back the car in, and we see this truck in our backyard in our driveway. Of course, we are all like WTF.

Where is the danger at this point?

Let's see. There's a foreign truck in their *Driveway* at their *HOME* with their stuff loaded in the back. I would think it's fairly obvious where the danger is. What a damn dunce!

Jason

It definately isn't obvious to me. Where is the danger to them at that point?

What you believe is dangerous is irrelevant. The OP only needs to defend that he had a rational reason to perceive danger. The OP could also choose to defend that the iron rod was the most reasonable means of force he had, since his only other choice was a gun. No, slugging the guy is not an option, because he had no idea how big/strong the thief was or whether the thief had a weapon or not.

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

You're insane, #3 is the EASIEST one!

Jason

It isn't reasonable to think the cops could have been called.
Did he believe that the criminal would chase him down as he drove off and shoot him?

The law in question here says the OP has the right to initiate -ly force to protect property, not run away and call the cops. The perceived danger is not in the theif chasing him down, it's in danger of the act of protecting property with force.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: randumb
So I finally looked up the actual Texas law. I summarized the 3 basic requirements for use of ly force.

1. The property owner knows the property in question is rightfully his and was obtained by the other person unlawfully.
2. force can only be used to prevent imminent commission of a crime or prevent a criminal from fleeing with the property. The crime in quesiton must be arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief.
3. The property owner believes there is no other reasonable means to protect his property OR believes that the criminal could inflict serious injury.

I think the OP can reasonably defend he met all these requirements.

/thread

except #3

Uh...no. From reading law articles off lexis-nexis, everyone says the law defaults to the property owner. The property owner only needs to give a reasonable explanation, not a freaking debate. The OP can EASILY defend that he believed the criminal could inflict serious injury and probably also defend that the iron rod was the only reasonable means available to him at the time (besides the gun, which would have been worse).

The thief had no idea they were there. There was no danger until they decided they would take care of things.

You're assuming way too much. At the time, the OP would have no idea what the thief knew or was capable of. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

We slowly drive past our drive way, since my dad likes to back the car in, and we see this truck in our backyard in our driveway. Of course, we are all like WTF.

Where is the danger at this point?

Let's see. There's a foreign truck in their *Driveway* at their *HOME* with their stuff loaded in the back. I would think it's fairly obvious where the danger is. What a damn dunce!

Jason

It definately isn't obvious to me. Where is the danger to them at that point?

What you believe is dangerous is irrelevant. The OP only needs to defend that he had a rational reason to perceive danger. The OP could also choose to defend that the iron rod was the most reasonable means of force he had, since his only other choice was a gun. No, slugging the guy is not an option, because he had no idea how big/strong the thief was or whether the thief had a weapon or not.

I don't think it is rational to believe "the criminal could inflict serious injury" on someone he didn't know was there and was in an automobile. If the OPs dad was worried about possible injury he would not have chosen to exit the vehicly and confront the criminal.

Any real or perceived danger comes after the choice was made to take matters into their own hands.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I was watching MSNBC and they were showing a video of a guy robbing a jewelry store. He pulled out a pistol and the store owner wrestled with him. He like dived knocking the whole counter over and started fighting for the gun. 2 shots went off and the owner's cousin came out and it was 2 on 1. Later they got the pistol and threatened the robber to surrender until the cops came.

I think something like this could've been better. But then again.. how old is the OP? I say whack him once and use the pistol to subdue him. Call the cops ASAP. Don't whack him till he's totally messed up and scarred.

 

[randumb]

QuitBanningMe, you're completely distorting what the law is.

The OP has the right to protect his property with force. This is a fact.

If the OP believes that IN THE ACT OF PROTECTING HIS PROPERTY, HE MAY COME INTO DANGER, then he has the right to use ly force. The key is that he only needs to perceive danger in protecting his property.

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
I was watching MSNBC and they were showing a video of a guy robbing a jewelry store. He pulled out a pistol and the store owner wrestled with him. He like dived knocking the whole counter over and started fighting for the gun. 2 shots went off and the owner's cousin came out and it was 2 on 1. Later they got the pistol and threatened the robber to surrender until the cops came.

I think something like this could've been better. But then again.. how old is the OP? I say whack him once and use the pistol to subdue him. Call the cops ASAP. Don't whack him till he's totally messed up and scarred.

The OP hit him twice. He never intended to kill the robber, he just hit him too hard; probably because he was worked up.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
I was watching MSNBC and they were showing a video of a guy robbing a jewelry store. He pulled out a pistol and the store owner wrestled with him. He like dived knocking the whole counter over and started fighting for the gun. 2 shots went off and the owner's cousin came out and it was 2 on 1. Later they got the pistol and threatened the robber to surrender until the cops came.

I think something like this could've been better. But then again.. how old is the OP? I say whack him once and use the pistol to subdue him. Call the cops ASAP. Don't whack him till he's totally messed up and scarred.

And if the robber had been stronger, gotten the gun away, shot the store owner, and then his curious cousin, would you still suggest that course of action? Cause I think it's a safe bet to assume it's happened before.