TX Grand Jury Refuses To Indict Homeowner Defending House From Thug POS

God bless america for shooting and killing a police officer? You're sick.

quote:

---

there is no need to enforce it by breaking down people's doors while they are sleeping, a tactic that inevitably results in tragedies like this one.

---

Truth.

And it is about time that police got some blow-back from acting in every way like a criminal except possesing a few pieces of paper and a oddly shaped piece of tin.

I edited after you posted this -- as noted, God Bless America for still allowing people to defend themselves and their homes against this BS

Yes, God bless America, where we still obviously have the right to defend our home from stupid motherfrickers busting down the door, unannounced, in the middle of the night.

quote:

---

. It's a tragedy, not a warrant to celebrate anarchy.

---

Anarchy isn't when the police break into someone's home like it is a war zone guns up and out and with no identification or warning.

The homeowner was completely within his right to shoot the robbers that were there to kidnap him. If they had knocked loudly and identified themselves I'm not sure this murder would have had to happen.

quote:

---

This week a Texas grand jury declined to indict a marijuana grower for shooting and killing a sheriff's deputy who burst into his home in the early morning to execute a search warrant.

---

Seems like this could have all been avoided if the cop would have taken a different approach.

How about knocking on the door? Maybe making a phone call? Meeting him at his work place?

I wonder if PB would feel the same if the shooter was a heroin dealer with a previous record a mile long.


Just askin...

quote:

---

felony and misdemeanor drug conviction before

---

quote:

---

his guns were legally owned

---

Didn't think that was possible.

quote:

---

Meeting him at his work place?

---

I think they were.

quote:

---

Didn't think that was possible.

---

Neither did I 'til I read the article. They don't explain how (and I wouldn't expect the reporter to know how).

To be clear, the defense attorney for the shooter said they were legally owned, but the original warrant said there were "possibly" stolen guns and I'm figuring if they were actually illegally owned that he wouldn't have gotten off the hook. The article would have definitely said they were illegally owned if they were

edit: Basically the prosecution didn't contradict the claim that they were legally owned, and I don't think they'd have been that inept in investigating the legality of the gun ownership if the original warrant suggested they might be illegally owned. So I'm assuming they were in fact legally owned