Yup! I have a 1942 Mosin M91/30 that shoots a 7.62x54mm round. That thing is a cannon.
A nice 9mm or even 40 cal. would work nicely. Especially with Texas' castle doctrine. 
Trailer Stolen
- Thread starter TxIceDiver
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Yup! I have a 1942 Mosin M91/30 that shoots a 7.62x54mm round. That thing is a cannon.
A nice 9mm or even 40 cal. would work nicely. Especially with Texas' castle doctrine. 
eieio_24
Contributor
ice diver : keep us updated on whether or not the trailer is recovered and if a suspect was located.
Here is more of the Texas Penal Code which was posted in part earlier.
PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Here is more of the Texas Penal Code which was posted in part earlier.
PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Diver Deuce
Registered
GrumpyOldGuy
Contributor
Keel Hauling - a description stolen from the internet:
When a sailor was keelhauled, he would be stripped and tied so that he could not swim. Usually a weight was attached to his legs to pull him away from the ship. The sailor was attached to a rope which ran underwater from one side of the ship to the other, and he was rapidly pulled through the water. Assuming the sailor did not usually drown, he would severely injured by extremely sharp barnacles on the underside of the ship, known as the keel. Keelhauling would leave severe scars on the flesh of the sailor, serving as a constant reminder of the event.
I don't really think this fits the crime of theft, anymore than the practice in some middle eastern counties of cutting of the hand of a thief.
ScubaSteve
Wow.....what a DB
I bet the person would think twice about stealing again though ....but what do I know
....but what do I know
GrumpyOldGuy
Contributor
I bet the person would think twice about stealing again though
How did you get my picture?
ScubaSteve
Wow.....what a DB
<snicker>
This is of course not to make light of the fact that the OP had something important stolen......just to clear that up.
This is of course not to make light of the fact that the OP had something important stolen......just to clear that up.
FIXXERVI6
Contributor
I'd have no problem with theifs having this done to them, I'd have no problem with them losing a hand either, we are too light on criminals that need punishment and then punish BS stuff we shouldn't, we are backwards.
If they catch the guy that stole this trailer he'll get a smack on the wrist and then go do it again.
mike_s
Contributor
I bet the person would think twice about stealing again though
you should post that pic in another recent thread.... I'm just sayin'
paulw
Contributor
I believe deciding to be a criminal is a choice and whatever happens to them is a result of that choice. If you don't want to be keelhauled or whatever just choose not be a criminal, it is that simple, I don't feel sorry for them.
Similar threads
