Criminals Strike Close to Home in Texas

By Woody published on in General, Safety and Training, Videos

Criminals can strike anywhere at any time. You should always be prepared, and carry your gun just like Luis, one of U.S. Law Shield’s members from Texas. He saw a pair of criminals trying to break into his neighbor’s car, and he knew exactly what he had to do to stop them.

Check out these other great articles from U.S. Law Shield and click here to become a member:

The just-released video above is from the Florida State Attorney’s Office, supporting a judge’s ruling that a citizen who opened fire on a man attacking a Lee County deputy last year was justified in using deadly force.

Taking the family to a state or national park this summer? Then you need to know the rules about firearms carry at your destinations, in-state or out of state. Click to watch Independent Program Attorney Michele Byington explain various park rules controlling where you can — and definitely cannot — take your gun. And please take the poll at the bottom to tell us if you take firearms with you on vacation. All poll responses are completely confidential.

Tags: ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (27)

  • docduracoat

    |

    G mans original comment is 100% correct.
    Yelling at the criminals (and calling the police) was sufficient to stop the crime in progress.
    Going into the street to attempt to apprehend the fleeing criminals was not justified
    Both he and the criminals fired and missed
    There was no need for that and bystanders could have been killed
    Here in Florida he could be charged with a crime by escalating the situation
    I know Texas allows shooting in defense of property, but it is not even his property!

    Reply

  • Graywolf12

    |

    If you have never been in a situation where the adrenalin is surging through your veins it is easy to say what one should do. Try a situation like that and see what you do.

    Reply

  • DK123

    |

    I see this ‘Matt’ commenting on this board pretty often, I wonder if the stopped taking comments on his husband’s blog again — they definitely don’t discuss firearms there. ‘Matt’ would wet his pants and give everything he has to a criminal — everything.

    Reply

    • Matt

      |

      So you’re trying to gay-shame a straight man now? Your parents must be so proud. Is there anything you’d like to get off your chest? Since you went right to gay, do you have some orientation issues?

      I must be gay since I think calling the cops is the preferred action when someone is trying to break into my neighbor’s car, instead of having a shoot-out in the street? That makes sense.

      Reply

  • G-Man

    |

    Not to crash a happy ending, but based on the video depiction “Lewis” should never have made himself a target in the open street. He had already accomplished his goal and thwarted the crime with a simple yell from the safety and cover of his own yard. These actions alone obviously put the thieves on the run.

    Thereafter, Lewis’ decision to go out into the street unnecessarily made him the object of these criminals, who then attempted to run him down; which then brought on the exchange of gunfire in an open neighborhood.

    Such needless actions caused the firing of stray bullets that could have killed other innocent home dwellers. So, what started as a vehicle theft may have ended in death – all because of Lewis’ extraneous actions that went beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the task.

    Reply

  • Matt

    |

    Shouldn’t he have just gone back inside and called the police?

    Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      You asked that as if there is some formal set of societal rules or an actual law which could offer governance over your question. But there is simply no such thing, and so the correct answer to your question is a resounding NO.

      In the United States “We the People” give police their authority. So because their authority flows from us to begin with, that means we each already possess such authority. Just because we authorize law enforcement to organize and operate for the solitary purpose of crime fighting does not mean we’ve given up our right to do the same should the need arise.

      The Supreme Court has upheld that every citizen has always maintained the right to stop or deter criminals which also includes the right to make our own arrests and restrain any perpetrators until such time they can be transferred into appropriate law enforcement custody or brought before the nearest court magistrate.

      I hope I have cleared up any confusion you may have had and answered your question.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      So you want armed citizens taking the law into their own hands? When they are in no danger and should have just called the cops? Said no FBI agent ever…..

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt (You should read this thoroughly as there is a helpful life-lesson in it for you),

      And so here you come again, frustrated to the point that you try to beat up the messenger just for offering you facts that you can’t dispute.

      It is your own nasty habit that sets you up for a downfall because you tend to selfishly place your personal opinion on some pedestal above everyone else’s as if it held some value greater than the validity of the actual facts which you insist on remaining in denial about.

      Simply put, when you try to argue against facts with nothing but your measly opinions, you will lose every time. But worse is when you try to be rude or sarcastic to the messenger of those facts – well, that just makes you look like a dick while still being the loser.

      You should never make statements you can’t prove, and so you shouldn’t have written, “Said no FBI agent ever…” Not only could you never back that up with facts (as usual), but generally agents rarely come in contact with people that need such simple things explained to them. But since you’ve asked me, this is one federal agent that doesn’t mind breaking it down for you:

      You asked me, “So you want armed citizens taking the law into their own hands?” My reply to you as a matter of fact and law (not opinion) – is that citizens don’t have to “take the law into their own hands” because it is already in their hands.

      Therefore it is important for you to be mindful that asking me what I “want” will never have any bearing on the actual facts and law that protects a citizen’s right to make arrests. Likewise you are not at liberty to disagree because the facts and law renders you completely irrelevant.

      The fact of the matter is that armed citizens already took the law into their own hands back in 1776 where it has remained constitutionally protected ever since. This is not hypothetical or metaphorical, this is a solid fact lawfully exercised by thousands of citizens on a daily bases.

      Thereafter any authority we choose to give to the police for enforcing our laws comes from none other than the authority vested by “We the People”. Now then, here is where things become conceptually important for you to comprehend, so pay attention:

      Whenever citizens bestow such power upon selected individuals (such as myself) to carry out law enforcement duties, it by no means would constitute a total transfer of that authority – because doing so would otherwise render every citizen powerless once again, and make 1776 pointless.

      So to prevent that, the People have merely granted a revocable extension of our authority to law enforcers. But every citizen still retains all of their originating authority at all times; and thus may continue to exercise it individually at their own discretion as necessary.

      The beauty of such a constitutionally protected right is that it allows you to cower hidden in your home if you so choose, while it equally allows others the right to act bravely to immediately prevent a crime in progress.

      So just like our last conversation about the lead ammo, you again want to offer nothing but sarcastic personal opinion to argue with me as if I had something to do with the facts that are frustrating you so much. Such frustration has led to your misdirected disdain for me, when really it all stems from your inability to force everyone to cower in their homes during a crime or hunt and fish lead-free.

      So I ask that in the future you please keep in mind that I am only the messenger of the facts, so stop being rude and acting like a troll just because you hate the facts which I have no control over.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Another insult-laden authoritarian rant, all while claiming to be the bigger person. Your act is wearing thin. No need to reply, there is nothing more to be said.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      And just as expected from last time – because you’re incapable of replying with anything of factual substance to engage in healthy dialogue, you instead stoop to diversionary tactics in which you whine and claim I’ve somehow insulted you. Just because you find the truth uncomfortable does not make for an insult.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Oh get off your high horse. You aren’t interested in healthy dialogue, you’re interested in telling people “how it is”.

      “Likewise you are not at liberty to disagree because the facts and law renders you completely irrelevant.”

      See? I’m not even at liberty to disagree with anything you say.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      Playing dumb and twisting my words will get you nowhere. With even moderate comprehension skills anyone reading that line knows I am saying that you know better than to disagree with the actual facts and law regardless of who brought it to your attention. So the lack of “liberty” you may feel was self-imposed due to your choice of being on the wrong side of the facts.

      It is quite pathetic that you would rather play dumb and let people think you’ve actually allowed my words to strip you of your “liberties”; which as you’ve now claimed – supposedly prevents you from being able to disagree.

      Truth be told, I would like nothing more than to have a healthy exchange of dialogue with you, but it’s impossible when you offer nothing but sarcasm, rhetoric, and have never presented a single fact. Opening your post by asking a sarcastically bogus question that you never really wanted answered clearly shows you weren’t seeking healthy dialogue.

      Regardless, no one could question the “health” of my dialogue as I very politely answered your sarcastic question with nothing but eloquently articulated facts. I even closed by hoping it cleared up any confusion you have.

      My “healthy dialogue” was then met by you once again with more sarcasm and nothing of fact to support or bring about a “healthy” continued dialogue. Only then did I finally respond with a fitting, yet brutal, explanation as to why you are a continual loser.

      Here’s an idea you may want to try – actually attempt mounting an argument using some facts, laws, or even a few statistics rather than whining about the people that so easily put you on the losing end of everything. Heck it might even be time for a top-down assessment of your life; in which you ask yourself why your disposition always leads you to choose being on the losing end of everything.

      You know as well as I do you’re not just a loser on the Internet. So do something about it and change your life for good. Not even you could argue this is truly a healthy dose of dialogue I’ve just passed along to you.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Wow, tell me more about your personal shortcomings. So interesting. I wonder what your actual participation in the workforce is.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      Again with the childish diversionary responses.

      In the end, any person that instigates or engages another backed with nothing but their personal opinion, but then is unwilling to even respectably defend it – has no honor.

      Sadly you have not once been able to defend a single one of your incoherent opinions all the way through to fruition. Your responses using pointless diversionary tactics only diminish what little credibility you may have had.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      “Shouldn’t he have just gone back inside and called the police?”

      You think this is an incoherent opinion.

      There is no more to discuss.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      I don’t think it is an incoherent opinion, I know it is.

      People firmly committed to their beliefs with facts to back them up don’t profess them in public forums with a question mark at the end – as you did. Doing so makes for an extremely “incoherent opinion” by any definition.

      A little tip: There was no point in closing your last post by saying, “There is no more to discuss.” – as you have made it abundantly clear you never had any intentions of intelligibly discussing anything with anyone.

      What you are doing is called “Trolling”, which is a very undesirable trait found in very miserable people.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      There is no more to discuss because you aren’t interested in discussion. Feel free to not respond to my posts in the future.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Matt,

      Wrong. I have shown plenty of interest in discussion by encouraging you repeatedly to stay on track by simply citing facts which could back your original position.

      Likewise, you have had ample opportunity whenever the floor is yours to astonish us with your boundless knowledge. But instead, you blow each chance by wasting it on sarcastic remarks and attempts at insults just to change the original topic.

      If you really truly ever had any facts or irrefutable wisdom to impart, I’m certain you’d have done so by now. Because there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that, nor has there ever been.

      So in light of the fact that you have yet to do so, myself, along with a few other posters that have chimed in as of late, have no choice but to formally declare you intentionally deceptive, pointless, impotent and quite ineffective.

      As for your sarcastic diversionary tactics, they need no declaration; anyone that has been on the Internet for even a short period of time knows these are the acts of an Internet Troll with nothing better to do with their miserable time than to be as antagonistic as possible without contributing a thing to any discussion.

      If you wish to prove otherwise, the floor is all yours. No one can stop you now – so please do go right ahead and dazzle us all with some actual facts. We’re all waiting…

      Reply

    • Sandy

      |

      You two need a room, sound like LGBT lovers in distress

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Sandy,

      I thought I’d take the time to inform you that immature comments involving inferences to homosexuality is a strong indicator you have an ongoing internal struggle with your own sexuality.

      Regardless, I certainly hope you didn’t tinkle yourself as you anticipated the humor level of your post, because it was actually quite lame in this day and age.

      Reply

    • John

      |

      @Matt

      You Do realize, Matt, that by refusing to argue any points related to the original topic, and entirely neglecting anything of factual substance, you are very clearly proving G-Man’s point. The very point, I should remind you, that you claim to be refuting.

      Embarrassing to say the least.

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      “Likewise you are not at liberty to disagree because the facts and law renders you completely irrelevant.”

      Embarrassing to say the least.

      Reply

    • Craig

      |

      WOW! Extremely well stated. Thank God for rational thinkers drowning out the emotional, ranting, liberal morons and “it’s none of my business” thinkers like Matt.

      Reply

  • Dragon

    |

    As I have often commented, I have been carrying concealed for more than 50 years, and in keeping with the advice and urging of Ignatius Piazza of the Front Sight Academy, I long ago adopted the habit of carrying my concealed handgun at all times. That means that when I am home, out in the yard, or out and about the community, I always have my principal handgun on my right hip and at least a small back-up of some sort either in my front pocket or in my boot. It is not as inconvenient as one might think, since once one is accustomed to the constancy of the carry it becomes a natural way of being. My usual mode of dress for an evening of relaxation is usually a tee-shirt with tails out over a pair of loose fitting jeans, so even when sitting up late in the evening, I continue my commitment to being armed at all times.

    Reply

  • Reelman1

    |

    Half or better of links don’t work..

    Great potential – BUT

    Reply

  • Sich

    |

    Usually what happen were you’re Gun Store business has Direct Access to a Busy Highway.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: