ORIGINAL: eldeguello

"Don't go putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that because of the costs don't arm/protect yourself. I'm just saying that no matter what side of the law you end up on you are going to pay through the nose."

This is wise counsel. But, actually, this depends to a great degree on the specific jurisdiction in which the event takes place. If your local judicial system is filled with milk-sop liberal judges and dominated by citizens of the same political bent who elect district attorneys of like mind, it is sure true enough!!

If, however, the local gentry are of the "castle" persuasion, who most likely would not vote to convict a person who has used reasonable force for what is a lawful act in that jurisdiction, local prosecutors are less likely to contemplate prosecuting that person. No DA wants to send a case to court that he knows is a loser beforehand!In this regard, it will be interesting to see what happens in the case of the shooter in Texas.

From what little I was able to gather about what happened (from the undoubtedly biased media!!) in that case, the reporterscertainly MADE IT SOUND like the "citizen" was the aggressor, and had made up his mind to KILL the two perps even before he made what seems a half-hearted attempt to apprehend them uninjured before opening fire! In addition, he personally does not appear to have been in much jeopardy himself before he went outside with his shotgun!

MOST jurisdictions will not countenance the use of deadly force to protect property, or to apprehend escaping felons if they are in fact fleeing the scene and not posing a threat while doing so. It used to be that way in Texas as well. Am I to understand that Texas has recently legalized the use of deadly force to protect property? How about to protect some other person's property?