- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Guns
Terry Nye Arrested for Firing Warning Shot During Attempted Burglary
In Mesquite, Texas, Terry Nye was arrested for firing a warning shot into the ground of his own backyard, after detecting prowlers, reports Fox News.
Nye's wife, Kay Ward, woke up on Saturday night and heard prowlers trying to break into their home.
Nye told Fox News: "I could see men through the fence and I told them they needed to leave my property and leave me alone."
Nye then shot the gun into the ground to scare the prowlers away. However, a neighbor heard the gun shot and called police.
After chasing the men away, Nye went out front to meet police, who handcuffed him and took the homeowner to jail.
Nye was charged for discharging his weapon in a metropolitan area, but claims he had the right to defend himself: "I take care of my life. I pay my taxes. I own my property and I've earned it. And now I'm facing jail time for not being the victim of a crime and for not hurting anybody."
The Mesquite Police Department, who were not present during the attempted break-in, said in a statement: "The man and his family were in no immediate danger. Firing a warning shot was unnecessary and reckless."
Nye will appear in court next month.
You May Also Want to Read
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
The “4th BRANCH of
The “4th BRANCH of Government” (the Jury) needs to see that in A SPECIFIC TRIAL when a SPECIFIC government demand is being applied EITHER inappropriately OR Unconstitutionally; the Jury has the DUTY, to make a NON-PRECEDENT setting decision to find that defendant, IN THIS CASE, NOT GUILTY. A similar case brought before a court AFTER this decision is NOT SUBJECT to this decision. The NEW CASE MUST BE TRIED ON IT’S OWN MERITS. This is why it is a NON-PRECEDENT setting decision. And, this becomes ONLY the DEFENDANTS exception to the rule. Re-trial is NOT allowed because of DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
The Jury DUTIES of the people have become so blurred it’s no wonder people feel they’re just a rubber stamp for the powers that be. BUT, when, in a blue moon, a case comes up that has special circumstances for a Jury to pay attention to, we throw up our collective hands in frustration not realizing that we HAVE A SOLUTION. AND, if you have to ASK, “gee do “i” HAVE the right to do that?” REMEMBER, you don’t need to ASK permission when you ARE SUPPOSED TO know this already. Really? Yes, the Courts have ruled Juries need to know this information BEFORE they come to serve in a courtroom. And, Prosecutors probably feel that a Jury is a dreadfully unpredictable legal inconvenience to their case; so, they don’t like this either. OK, let’s just have the courts decree summary judgments and dispense with the Jury altogether … so far it looks to me that THIS will be our LEGACY to the generations AFTER us ...
I wanted to say thank you for
I wanted to say thank you for all your prayers and support, I would like every one to pass the word, and for those who can to please donate via paypal, to date there has only been $10.00 donated,
Deadly Force to Protect
Deadly Force to Protect Property
An individual is permitted to use force to protect his land or movable property if the individual believes that another person is trespassing or unlawfully interfering with his property and that force is the only action that will successfully stop the unlawful action. Keep in mind that this force is not deadly force. Deadly force is only justified when the individual reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to stop the other individual's unlawful actions, which include aggravated robbery, arson, burglary, criminal mischief during the night or theft at night. Deadly force may also be used to prevent the person who has committed the criminal act from fleeing with the property. The individual who uses deadly force must reasonably believe, however, that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means except by the use of deadly force.
Read more: Texas Penal Code Laws on the Use of Deadly Force | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6656468_texas-laws-use-deadly-force.html#ixzz1x3Vl0U4c
People would be better off
People would be better off giving their tax money to a thief, at least he would take it and leave. The police state takes it and turns right around and enslaves the people. The only thing cops are good for is supporting the doughnut shops, abusing, and drawing their pensions. When crime is going down they are never there because the state makes a fortune from criminals. Its a industry that they protect.Criminals have way more rights than their victims.
What a bunch of paranoid
What a bunch of paranoid misleading BS! Right! Most criminals are indigent, so making money off them is well... unlikely.
Have you looked at the crime statistics? Do yourself a favor and take a break from the ignorance train and go do some homework. Crime has gone down almost universally since 1993. In fact, it is down by almost half. What is the cause? Better policing and longer prison sentences for violent offenders.
Criminals are a huge financial burden on most states. Your delusion about the state making a mint off prisoners is pure paranoia.
I work with risk assessment software. One thing states are trying to do is avoid incarcerating people who are low risk. The primary reason - to reduce costs.
Gun owners - Please donate to
Gun owners - Please donate to the Terry Nye legal defense effort.
http://www.terrynye.com/
not about OK or legal it's
not about OK or legal it's about not being a victim ,and who tells us after the fact were wrong, you shouldn't have felt threatened.
live like you want to be remembered as eccentric
Contrary to popular opinion
Contrary to popular opinion not many people can actually pull the trigger on a person. While many of you believe that you can just pull out a pistol and shoot a person, the truth is that it takes a highly trained individual with a very special mindset to take a life and not even many military people fall within that category, perhaps this is why we have seen such a high case of PTSD in the recent war
Dave Grossman highlighted this through his research of WWII and Vietnam statistics and interviews as well as research into famous battles in the Civil War. While many rounds may have been fired in some of these wars the causality rates did not measure up, while this does not diminish what those that were in war situation have done it shows that most are human beings on both sides and find killing as distasteful in war as they would in civilian life, as for the Civil War many weapons were found that had been loaded over and over.
Killing isn't in the Human Nature and not many people can pull the trigger and if given the choice between shooting a warning or a kill shot many would choose to shoot a warning shot than to kill an individual. There is a small percentage excluding sociopaths that can kill a man without having it eat away at their conscience.
People who teach self-defense
People who teach self-defense using guns advise you to first ask yourself whether you _could_ shoot a human being if the situation called for it. If you do not believe you can, they advise you to stay away from guns. For everyone else, they advise you to think out beforehand the situations in which you will or will not be willing to kill, so that you don't have to pause to make a moral judgment at a time when seconds are vital.
As for prowlers in the yard whom you aren't justified in shooting, maybe you should bring a flash camera and photograph them so they can be caught later. Don't pull out the gun until and unless it's time to shoot them.
The problem is that many
The problem is that many people believe they could shoot someone if it came to it, the truth is that they couldn't. It is proven by research that the psyche necessary for survival through flight and fight scenarios most people have difficulties in confrontations.
Hey Wordmaster...he fired a
Hey Wordmaster...he fired a warning shot into the ground...success! The criminals fled.
While you would have be debating, you would have been robbed and/or murdered.
I would have killed them!
I would have killed them!
Never fire a warning shot, at
Never fire a warning shot, at the very least it's reckless. If the prowlers would have decided to attack he would be prosecuted for escalating the violence or even causing it.
defeat even the idea of the
defeat even the idea of the concept of self defense . big brother is alive and well.
live like you want to be remembered as eccentric
If those alleged
If those alleged robbers/burglars attempted to enter this man's house, and he shot them, he would have been righteous. Walking out into his yard and firing a shot into the ground is not self-defense - it is idiocy. If he simply brandished his weapon, it is likely those people would have taken off as well.
Actually you are entirely
Actually you are entirely incorrect here. BRANDISHING weapon towards what may be an armed criminal is often seen as an invitation to escalate. Shooting a man who is brandishing a weapon is easily defendable in court as self defense even though it still brings up the charge of murder. Firing a warning shot, while potentially being an invitation itself, is far more likely to be effective because that loud shot is very disconcerting, particularly at short range. Basic psychological tactic. I fail to see how firing a warning shot into the ground is reckless. In fact it is much more likely to achieve the desired effect than your suggestion. This man responded in exactly the fashion that he should have.
Jacob Kreusch: "BRANDISHING
Jacob Kreusch: "BRANDISHING weapon towards what may be an armed criminal is often seen as an invitation to escalate."
Yes, that is why people are advised that trying to take burglars alive is risky. You may not know they have a gun, and they may pretend to comply only to draw and shoot you the moment your attention is distracted. Hence the Castle Doctrine laws allowing residents to _assume_ a home-invader is a threat to their lives unless they have reason to know otherwise.
"Shooting a man who is brandishing a weapon is easily defendable in court" -- Unless he is brandishing it at you because you are attempting a forcible felony. Then you have no right of self-defense.
There is this little problem
There is this little problem of the law.... Firing into the ground is illegal in a residential area, which was the whole point of this story. Discharging a weapon like this is illegal in most residential areas. I know it is where I live.
Having stood a post and chased off people attempting to break into an armory, simply aiming my M16 A3 sent the thieves running. When I stood guard, we were instructed never to fire warning shots. Instead we were told to aim our weapons, verbally warn the potential threat, and fire if the potential intruders did not comply. According to the procedures we were ordered to use, I actually had to aim my weapon at each person who approached the armory, asking them to put his or her ID on the ground and back away until they were properly identified. While I was at Pendleton, these tactics seemed to work well. I don't know what procedures marines follow today, but I bet the only thing that has changed is the weapon.
Here is a discussion on why warning shots are typically banned even for law enforcement:
http://www.laaw.com/sig_warnshot.htm
Here is one of the more important points of the article I cited:
"a warning shot may constitute a threat to use deadly force such that a reasonable person might be justified in returning fire."
In fact, John Lott who wrote the book "More guns less crime," cites that in most self-defense situations guns are brandished without discharge and this is highly effective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
For the first and probably
For the first and probably only time, I agree with one of your points. I am pretty sure, however, that this poor idiot would have found a way to get charged for brandishing as well.
That is why you NEVER pull a
That is why you NEVER pull a gun out. Unless you are going to use it. And, not like in a Hollywood movie. Center mass, pull the trigger. Otherwise get a bigger dog.
In some places, just
In some places, just brandishing a weapon is felony unless you are in position where you need to protect yourself with deadly force. This varies by state, county, and city.
I don't know about the rest
I don't know about the rest of you, but my gun safety course made it clear that firing warning shots in a residential area was never okay/legal.
He should be punished for
He should be punished for wasting ammunition. If he had just been patient, he could have feared for his life and shot the sob's while not faced charges.
Maybe if he has shot them, it
Maybe if he has shot them, it would be OK. That would have probably worked here in Tennessee.
Agreed. We had that other
Agreed. We had that other widely publicized case of the woman who got 20 years for firing a warning shot at her husband.
Case law makes plain that courts do not approve of warning shots. They figure that you have no right to shoot unless you're life is in imminent danger, and when that is so then a reasonable man would shoot for blood. If you didn't shoot for blood, they figure the danger was not so imminent -- in which case you shouldn't have fired.
That's why people trained to carry guns (e.g. police trainees) are told to never ever fire warning shots. The same goes for "shooting-to-wound."
If the prowlers didn't flee without the warning shot, then he should have waited to see whether they would threaten him or try to break in and then, if they did so, to shoot them down.
What he did not only alarmed the neighbors and put them at risk of a ricochet, but it allowed the prowlers to get away.
And the police know that he
And the police know that he wasn't in immediate danger how, exactly? The police shoot people and pets all the time under the ruse that they felt threatened, and rarely face criticism or penalties for it; yet when a homeowner is faced with people trying to break into his obviously occupied home, he's somehow expected to wait until they succeed in breaking in, and/or produce a knife or gun?
If he'd left a body with a steaming hole in it there in his yard, he'd have no problem, since that would prove there was an intruder.
The police know because he
The police know because he told them. Discharging a firearm is use of deadly force regardless of where it is aimed. By admitting that he fired it into the ground, Mr. Nye effectively admitted that he a.) used deadly force, and, b.) believed that something less than deadly force would suffice.
This is what happens to people who get their firearms education from watching television and movies. In real life, every firearms self defense course I've ever taken or even heard of teaches that warning shots are not to be fired and this is exactly the reason for that teaching.
You're exactly right. Police
You're exactly right. Police officers need to be held to the same laws we're held to. Instead they've turned into to greatest groups of thugs in the country.
I agree that discharging a
I agree that discharging a firearm in a residential area is a reckless act. Only if he could establish he feared for his like can it be justified.
He could have waited until they were actually in his hone, then shot them both. After all, this was Texas!
I have to disagree with you -
I have to disagree with you - firing his warning shot directly into the ground (as opposed to into the air, over their heads) seems quite responsible, not reckless. Personally, if prowlers are trying to break into my home, I'm going to assume that my wife and I are in danger.
One word for you - ricochet.
One word for you - ricochet. From my personal training and experience, one of the best home defense weapons is a .410 pump action shotgun. They are reliable, simple to use, and light enough for anyone to use.
At self defense inside a home distances, it is as lethal as you need and there's little danger of it blasting through a wall into your neighbor's house.
I agree, if an intruder is in your home, you have every reason to fell suitably endangered. All their rights are still outside where they should have stayed.
Yep. And then they wouldn't
Yep. And then they wouldn't be around to try it somewhere else either; and maybe injure someone in the process.