The story:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/e/5303222.html

Shooting of theft suspects may test self-defense law

By RUTH RENDON and PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

In a case legal experts say may "stretch the limits" of the state's self-defense laws, a Pasadena man shot and killed two suspected burglars during a confrontation as they attempted to flee his neighbor's property Wednesday afternoon. [emphisis added by me ~ manntis]

In the minutes before the fatal shootings, Pasadena police said the man called 911 and reported that he had heard glass breaking next door and saw two men entering the home through a window. Still on the phone with police, the man, believed to be in his 70s, saw the suspects leaving from the back of the home.

"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way.'

"Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."

After the shotgun blasts, the telephone line went dead. But the neighbor called police again and told a dispatcher what he had done.

When police arrived moments later, they found two dead men in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive. One was across the street, and the other had collapsed two houses down behind a bank of mailboxes in the Village Grove East subdivision.

Up to the grand jury
Police said the neighbor, whose name was withheld Wednesday, appeared calm as he retraced his steps for police.

"He was well composed and knew what he was doing," Mitchell said. "He was protecting the neighbor's property."

It will be up to a Harris County grand jury to decide if the man committed a crime by opening fire, police said.

Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor.

If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in his favor, LaFon said.

"If the homeowner comes out and says, 'My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,' that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role," LaFon said.

The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection.

The neighbor, however, would have been on much safer legal ground if he had been trying to protect his own property, LaFon said.

Failed to stop
Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said the neighbor told investigators that he knew the next-door residents were not home. The man told investigators that he encountered the pair when they exited his neighbor's through a gate leading to the front yard.

Corbett said the neighbor asked the men, one of which was carrying a white bag, to stop, but they did not.

When police arrived the shooter was sitting on the ground and appeared to be very upset, Corbett said. "There was some discussion about calling an ambulance for him," Corbett said.

As of noon Thursday, no charges had been filed, Corbett said.

The shooter was very cooperative with police and lead officers though a run-through of what happened at the scene and later made a statement at the police station.

The white bag one the dead men had been carrying contained a large amount of cash that had apparently been taken from the house, Corbett said.

Two windows in the back of the house had been broken, one possibly as an entrance and the other as an exit, Corbett said. One was a regular window, but the other was translucent glass blocks. It was the sound of breaking glass that alerted the shooter, Corbett said.

Police have not found the families of the dead men, who both are in their 30's. One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had paper indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, he said.

Both men were shot once at a range of less than 15 feet with blasts from a 12-guage shotgun.

The neighbor fired twice. One shot struck one of the suspected burglars in the chest, and the other was struck on the side.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.

But the person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings and must suspect that taking less drastic measures could expose themselves or others to serious danger.

A state senator who authored a law passed this year giving Texans stronger rights to defend themselves with deadly force said he did not believe the legislation he spearheaded would apply to the Pasadena case, based on the sketchy facts that have emerged so far.

Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, said the so-called castle doctrine law he wrote doesn't apply to people protecting their neighbors' property.

The measure "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Wentworth said. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

A quiet neighborhood
On Wednesday afternoon, other residents were stunned to exit their homes to find police cars and yellow crime scene tape

Lacey Hernandez, who lives one block from the shooting, was home when she heard two loud pops, but couldn't identify the noise. A short time later, she was leaving to pick up her children from school when she noticed the police cars.

"I was in shock because I never heard a gunshot before," Hernandez said.

She described her neighborhood as very quiet. The subdivision is lined with two-story brick homes with trees in the front yards.

"We leave our garage door open," she said. "We let the kids run the streets just like nothing. Now they will not be playing in the streets."


The video:


http://www.khou.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=193240

Damn, only in texas.....

Does make a good point for anyone moving to texas though, "Dont worry about getting robbed, we've got you covered.....with shotguns"

So this guy guns down two people as they are running away from the property and it's not considered murder? That is completely insane.

guns down two people running away from someone else's property, yes. Unless his neighbour explicitly asked him to look after the property, he should be charged even under Texas law.

it doesnt even matter whose property it was--self defense laws generally allow the use of deadly force when there is a reasonable assumption of immediate harm or death. Shooting ANYONE who is running away from you is not protecting ANYTHING and thats the bottom line.

I dont care if TX has a provision that allows such an act(dont know the laws there that well), but even if there is, this was a bad call. The very minute the suspect turns to flee the threat has just ended. At that point, deadly force is not allowed. This guy needs to be prosecuted for acting stupidly.

it doesnt even matter whose property it was--self defense laws generally allow the use of deadly force when there is a reasonable assumption of immediate harm or death. Shooting ANYONE who is running away from you is not protecting ANYTHING and thats the bottom line.

I dont care if TX has a provision that allows such an act(dont know the laws there that well), but even if there is, this was a bad call. The very minute the suspect turns to flee the threat has just ended. At that point, deadly force is not allowed. This guy needs to be prosecuted for acting stupidly.

Nailed it perfectly.

fuck em

It was probably a couple of crack heads trying to score some shit to sell to buy some more crack. The world is better off. You all are just a bunch of pussies.

agreed

anyone who breaks into my house, when I'm there, is dead...if they try to run away they still should be shot dead, to be sure they don't come back

the penalty for breaking into a man's home and invading his privacy is death, period, that's the law (in my book)

I need to be prosecuted for acting stupidly all my life.

nailed it perfectly.

agreed

anyone who breaks into my house, when I'm there, is dead...if they try to run away they still should be shot dead, to be sure they don't come back


Then you sir, would be a murderer in my book.

Well, I respectfully disagree. My dad was a cop for 30 years. When someone breaks into your home, you don't have time to assess what deadly force they might be carrying on their person, and it's obvious they have intent to steal or cause bodily harm. Therefore, you have every reason to kill them without asking questions, and I believe me, I would not hesistate if one of these loons running around these days broke in to my house. If they ran away, it's a good chance they'll be back to try again.

You may feel differently if it ever happens to you. One case my dad covered the guy was bound hand and foot with duct tape, his wife was raped right on front on him, and the house ransacked.

Then you sir, would be a murderer in my book.

Couldn't agree more.....
Turning the other cheek? How about holding the scum at gunpoint until the police arrive, and giving them a witnessing until they do. That would REALLY bring them to Jesus. No atheists in foxholes, remember?

Turning the other cheek?

typical moronic out-of-context comment from you, this is a question of self defense

How about holding the scum at gunpoint until the police arrive, and giving them a witnessing until they do.

lol

you probably don't even own a gun, much less know how to use it

keep practicing the karate kicks in the hope it saves you :bigthumb:

I'll add this: B&E's are on the rise in many cities. Granted most occur when no one is home, but if the criminals knew home owners weren't going to put up with it, that they owned handguns/shotguns, shot first and asked questions later, you would see the crime rates drop off.

I'm pretty sick and tired of this bleeding heart liberal nonsense. Put me in charge and our overcrowded jails would be thinned out and fast. We'd be back to OT style justice.

DO YOU FEEL LUCKY? WELL, DO YA PUNK?

I guess good anti theft would be a motion activated flood light, a big angry dog, and some sort of NRA placard in front of your house.

Fuck a gat, I'm beating them to death.

typical moronic out-of-context comment from you, this is a question of self defense

lol
you probably don't even own a gun, much less know how to use it

keep practicing the karate kicks in the hope it saves you :bigthumb:

Bang. Stop or I'll shoot.

Oh crap! its Mark Strong with a shotgun again!


http://www.birteff.de/BigJim/History/MarkStrong/Comic1.jpg



Your hypocritical value system really has me laughing. And who doesn't hunt in CO?


As for my black belt, never had to throw a kick in my life....you're such an idiot skidMark.

And if anyone is coming in my house, they will leave alive, although in a stretcher screaming with pain.

Two scum bags off the street. Big deal.

agreed

anyone who breaks into my house, when I'm there, is dead...if they try to run away they still should be shot dead, to be sure they don't come back

the penalty for breaking into a man's home and invading his privacy is death, period, that's the law (in my book)

yeah, but youre the lunatic that cant even belong to a simple internet forum without threatening to kill people, so this comes as no surprise.

Of course, you are free to react as you wish....just be sure to have a relative post in here when this happens to you, since you'll be locked up in jail afterwards. Maybe the club can all pitch in and get you a stainless steel butt guard or something...you see, the law completely disagrees with you. The law is specific in most places about the use of such force. And your response, in most states if not all, would have just landed you in handcuffs. All because a couple of small time thugs broke into someone else's house and were leaving--posing no immediate threat to you or anyone else.

And for the record, those of you with the "pussies" comments need to go get a clue. This isnt about being a pussy, its about being smart. Sure, probably a couple of punks, right? Are they worth missing your family over when you get sent to prison for 25 years? Are YOU personally willing to rot in prison for the next however-many years because of those two--are they worth that much to you? What a retarded comment, amish, seriously. Up to the point where this specific story takes us, the two guys appeared unarmed. So, you think it makes someone a pussy for not shooting two unarmed thugs that were leaving? wow....just wow...

Well, I respectfully disagree. My dad was a cop for 30 years. When someone breaks into your home, you don't have time to assess what deadly force they might be carrying on their person, and it's obvious they have intent to steal or cause bodily harm. Therefore, you have every reason to kill them without asking questions, and I believe me, I would not hesistate if one of these loons running around these days broke in to my house. If they ran away, it's a good chance they'll be back to try again.

You may feel differently if it ever happens to you. One case my dad covered the guy was bound hand and foot with duct tape, his wife was raped right on front on him, and the house ransacked.

whoa--slow down there, caped crusader....no one broke into this shooter's home here. he was perfectly safe in his house, in the middle of the afternoon, watching this whole thing happen. They didnt even have any weapons as far as the article states! He was safe, his home was safe, his possessions were safe, without the need for immediate deadly force. the suspects were FLEEING, retard. That means there was no threat.

Also, your daddy, being a cop for 30 years, can also tell you that he was not permitted to shoot someone as they fled and then claim "self defense". If cops could do that, then a whole lot more people in this world would be shot by police.....you need to get a clue, seriously.

this is a question of self defense

um, no, genius, it isnt. the shooter was safe in his house. he then chose to arm himself, LEAVE HIS PROPERTY, and potentially put himself in harm's way. THAT IS NOT SELF DEFENSE--it was looking for a confrontation. He was on the phone with the cops--what he should have done was give the police as much info as he could about them so they could be caught. Common sense is not replaced by the ability to do something, chief--just because you CAN pull the trigger, doesnt mean you SHOULD, and in this case he never should have.

you probably don't even own a gun, much less know how to use it

The scary part of this statement is the fact that you make it clear that you think it somehow makes you "win" something because you own a gun and you think he doesnt. Owning a gun is a privledge that comes with RESPONSIBILITY above all else, not bragging rights, moron. If I had to face an armed opponent, you are exactly the kind of idiot I would choose if I could, because you have always been nothing but so much talk about how tough you think you are. The ones that talk the most shit are the ones that are capable of doing the least...

I'm pretty sick and tired of this bleeding heart liberal nonsense.

spoken like a true christian....:owned:

so, someone speaks out against shooting an UNARMED PERSON, and to you that's bleeding heart liberal nonsense? You are EXACTLY the kind of person that never should own a gun with an attitude like that.


Put me in charge and our overcrowded jails would be thinned out and fast. We'd be back to OT style justice.

shit, man--you cant even moderate yourself like a man! You have been kicked out of each and every forum on the internet you belonged to--including one that doesnt kick anyone out....well, there is apparently one exception so far--you havent been kicked off the "I'm losing all my hair" web community yet, have you? :eek:

Try learning to be a man for yourself, tough guy, and let the rest of the world handle its own issues. When you cant even handle yourself like a man you have no hope of getting others to do the same.

DO YOU FEEL LUCKY? WELL, DO YA PUNK?

Youre a complete moron for even posting that....:gay2:

the penalty for breaking into a man's home and invading his privacy is death, period, that's the law

wrong and wrong. That is not the law. And by the way, I dont seem to recall seeing such a sentiment in the scriptures...but hey, we already knew how much of a hypocrite you are, so no big shocker here.

keep practicing the karate kicks in the hope it saves you

More ignorance--a trained martial artist has a better chance in a CQB situation than you do with your plastic pistol and false bravado, tough guy. All you've got is the gun, and when it gets taken out of your hand or redirected away from your adversary, your one weapon just became useless. There is a very fast and easy way to take a gun out of the picture when you're that close to someone, and it leaves them defenseless and with a broken index finger. Your comments clearly show that you dont have the slightest clue what youre talking about, so stop talking about it.

I don't really see a problem here.

I'm not sure the old guy was in the right - but I don't think he's a murderer.

I don't really see a problem here.

I'm not sure the old guy was in the right - but I don't think he's a murderer.

can you think of a serious, good reason why it would be acceptable to shoot an unarmed person that is walking away from you? What legitimate reason would excuse that?

The thugs broke into a house. The shooter saw the whole thing happen. This is a property crime, not a violent one. And while many criminals will have violent tendencies, these two, according to this article, did not show one single violent tendency towards the shooter or anyone else that justified the shooting. Not one. The use of deadly force is not permitted, even within Texas law, to stop someone from fleeing the scene of this crime. There has to be some other circumstance present, and this case doesnt have it.

The latest law in TX allows use of force without retreat if the suspect is:

Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

But this is to protect YOUR property, not anyone else's. Not to mention, the law does not allow for the same use of force if the person broke in and you see them leaving. It allows you to defend yourself from someone attempting to break in, because that intruder could easily have violent intentions....but if the person is leaving, there is no reasonable assumption of that violent intention.

I don't really see a problem here.

I'm not sure the old guy was in the right - but I don't think he's a murderer.

If I saw some kids stealing a bike, would it be okay for me to walk up to them and blow their heads off? If it isn't self defense (which clearly this was not) how is it not murder?

Two scum bags off the street. Big deal.

Finally

Ok now we're three for fuck em.

I just this B&E crosses the line. If someone will do that at a residence they're just an extra hit of crack away from killing people in their sleep and raping. The world is much better off with those two gone.

I know that "fuck em" is cool to say, and it's possible that the world would be better off without them, but in the story presented I don't think there's a state in the nation that would consider this a self-defense issue. Up to this point, I don't see it.
Yeah, maybe it would be a choice we would have to make, but if he was on the phone to the cops already, he obviously had time to think about his decision before shooting. There goes the old heat of the moment thing.

I wonder how many here that say they would have taken the same shot have ever actually shot someone dead? While the feeling of justification may last for a little while, it always comes down to you having to face up to that decision honestly with yourself. You will be the only one who can answer the question in complete trust with yourself. I'll tell you what, if you can't truthfully justify the shot you took, it will stick with you for quite some time. Never mind the possible jail time- if you cant live the decision that you made, that feeling will be worse than any sentence you will receive.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the shot, but you better be damn sure you'll be able to honestly justify it to yourself later. If not, you're fucked.

Well I may have missed it but it never says what the circumstances were when he confronted them. They may have run after they saw a gun but what were they doing before. Plus when you piss off thugs like this the pussies that run usually sneak back when you're not looking.

They won't fight when you're ready and see them. They wait till you're asleep and come back.

True enough.

I'm not saying that the shooting won't turn out to be justified, just that what was reported in that story so far doesn't do much to justify it. There's always more to a story one way or the other.

If I saw some kids stealing a bike, would it be okay for me to walk up to them and blow their heads off?

breaking and entering is a long way from stealing a bike, it's a very serious felony

They won't fight when you're ready and see them. They wait till you're asleep and come back.

exactly

breaking and entering is a long way from stealing a bike, it's a very serious felony

Especially when it's at someone's home.

breaking and entering is a long way from stealing a bike, it's a very serious felony

Overseeing someone steal another person's bike likely poses no threat of harm to you. Likewise, when you are in the safety of your own home and see someone break into your neighbour's property, no threat of harm is posed to you. That's why the comparison was made. We can play the "they were probably crackheads" or the "next they will be breaking into your house" cards but neither are justification for taking the law into your own hands.

Seriously, you guys are starting to scare me. What if the two guys weren't actually breaking into the neighbour's home? What if there was some other explanation for their being there? Unlikely? Sure but when no danger is being posed to you what-so-ever, you can afford to ask these kinds of questions.

The mistake here is that some of you are equating this scenerio with someone breaking into your home while you are in it. In that instance you can't be sure of the intruder's intentions, so deadly force may be necessary. This isn't the same thing.

Now, you may be thinking, "next time they break into my house and try that shit with me..." Maybe, but now you are talking about killing someone for a crime that they haven't and may never commit. Should all drug addicts be killed because they may become murderers? Should all speeders be arrested because they may become street racers? No. Plain and simple.

This guy was just itching to be a hero, that's really all there is to it. Some people go through life everyday wishing that someone crosses the line with them so that they can fufill their bloody fantasies.

If you want to kill someone, go rent Call of Duty, don't justify this bullshit.

breaking and entering is a long way from stealing a bike, it's a very serious felony


white-collar fraud is a very serious felony too...defrauding a bank, for example, of a million dollars is guaranteed to be a bigger crime in the courts than breaking into your neighbor's house and running off with a television set. But that never was the issue, now was it? The seriousness of the crime itself is not the determining factor, and you keep missing that. The law is clear on this matter--you are allowed to defend YOURSELF and YOUR PROPERTY. The laws in TX even allow that the use of force is justified if someone is trying to break into your house at night, whether they have shown specific violent intentions or not....but this was not at night and it was not his house. At that point, this becomes the exact same as being in any public place where something happens. If you're in a bar and you witness a fist fight between two guys, does the law entitle you to shoot one of them because you saw them fighting each other?

Or, maybe you're in Best Buy and you see a guy running out the door with a DVD player under his arm, obviously stolen. If you draw and fire, are you within the law? OF COURSE NOT. This is no different. The incident took place on property the shooter had no claim to. The incident did not in any way involve the safety of the shooter, any other potential victim, or securing any of the shooter's property. That means it is simply outside the scope of the law, period. Now, it is clear that you have this rambo complex when it comes to guns, but like I said, just because you CAN do something, doesnt mean it is the smart choice. The laws down there do not allow one to open fire to secure the property of someone else, just because. This guy was told by the authorities to stay in his house, and not to involve a gun, and he made the decision to ignore that advice. When you try to John Wayne it, things usually go badly and this is a perfect example of that. Then again, youre supposed to be this badass superior christian, and here you are putting a value on a human life that you simply arent in any way qualified to determine.

wait just a minute.

How did one guy take a shot "in the chest"??? I'd like that one answered if they were truly fleeing.

The same common sense is used when on is shot in the back....how could it be self defense if you shot them in the back? Again, how are they considered to be fleeing when the shot gun blast was to the chest and the other to the side???

Answer that one.


And Yes, People in Texas are tired of losing their things to dishonest thugs. They've opened the gates to CCW and Shooting to protect property. When I grew up You could not shoot to protect property and theft rates were very high as opposed to now

If you guys are so worried about people getting shot just for stealing things, why don't you spend more time rounding up all these low lives and edumacating each one about theft and getting shot during the act......Seriously.......isn't education the liberal banner?

wait just a minute.

How did one guy take a shot "in the chest"??? I'd like that one answered if they were truly fleeing.

Dude yells out to them, one turns, gets shot in the chest.

Or he's fleeing, circles around his car to his door facing the gunman, gets shot in the chest.

Or he's fleeing, his buddy gets shot, he whirls around to see what's going on, gets shot in the chest.

Or...

You see? Tons of possibilities. People aren't static when in motion.

If you guys are so worried about people getting shot just for stealing things, why don't you spend more time rounding up all these low lives and edumacating each one about theft and getting shot during the act......Seriously.......isn't education the liberal banner?

When you got nothing else to say, just scream "liberalism."

When you got nothing else to say, just scream "liberalism."
Dude, how else do you explain people that care more about criminals than the victims they are stealing from.

ooohhhh boo effin hoo some poor ass illegals got shot stealing shit from Decent Tax paying citizens.......when are you gonna have enough?? When are you gonna see the light??

A very small percentage of the population refuse to adhere to the laws of society....they CHOOSE not to adhere to the laws....as all of us are capable of committing crimes, they willingly commit the crimes whereas you and I go without until payday........Round up this small population, Lock them away and I can go to bed with my Doors unlocked at night

Can I live in this Utopian society that I picture?? HELL NO, and I'll tell you why.....some asshole liberal feels sorry for that small percentage of Scum. They Feel better by showing compassion to those that do not deserve freedom and the scream to let them free.......we can rehabilitate them they cry......rehab what I ask?? A conscious decision??? How do you REHAB Conscious thought from a human?? YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!

So please, wake up and put the criminals away so we can all live in peace and harmony and keep our shit in our house. And as long as your social programs are stealing Tax monies from law enforcement efforts...then I guess Us citizens are burdened with the fact that we have to arm ourselves to protect what is ours.

So yea, I can blame a lot of shit on Liberalism.

government is for filling potholes, staffing a fire station, Arming a Military and local police......the rest is your responsibility

Dude yells out to them, one turns, gets shot in the chest.

Or he's fleeing, circles around his car to his door facing the gunman, gets shot in the chest.

Or he's fleeing, his buddy gets shot, he whirls around to see what's going on, gets shot in the chest.

Or...

You see? Tons of possibilities. People aren't static when in motion.
yea, those are pretty good.

But The story states that there was one shot.....then moments later another. There is too much time in between for a reaction where the guy just get one in the chest.......and I seriously doubt He was there with his hands raised and got shot.

They charged the old guy and He shot one in the chest....the other one turned to run and the old DEER HUNTER drew a bead on him and dropped him.

The moral here is not to take away guns and incarcerate citizens....rather...don't break into another persons domicile

/Story

When you got nothing else to say, just scream "liberalism."
Not only that.........I had plenty to say on the subject, you just focused in on the Liberalism.

You didn't see where I mentioned
*Texas and CCW
*Citizens weary of crime
*The fact that one criminal was shot in the Chest rather than behind....miss that crucial one?
*The law changing to include a person property
*The drastic drop in Crime in Texas

Yea, I got nuttin' else to say but Liberalism.......

Dude, how else do you explain people that care more about criminals than the victims they are stealing from.

first off, you clearly have forgotten who you are talking to. For example, I am one of the loudest voices in this thread that disagrees with you, and if you think I am a liberal, you better yank your head outta your ass. Seriously. Some issues are more important in this world than "liberal" or "conservative", and you had better learn that. Stop muddying the water with partisan bullshit already.

Second, who ever said they cared more about the criminals? The fact is, no one did--this was you ASSuming. And its a BS assumption--we have laws in this country, and if someone breaks one of those laws it doesnt simply give the rest of us the right to react however we feel like it. THAT is common sense, try using some. The shooter made a bad decision, and because of it two people are dead. now, they were criminals who deserved punishment, but last time I checked, the death penalty was not that punishment for that crime. Wake the hell up already.

ooohhhh boo effin hoo some poor ass illegals got shot stealing shit from Decent Tax paying citizens.......when are you gonna have enough?? When are you gonna see the light??

no, dumbass, they got shot while LEAVING THE SCENE, while being UNARMED, while posing NO IMMEDIATE DANGER TO THE SHOOTER OR ANYTHING HE OWNED. At least get that much right. And the law does not allow deadly force to be used to "prevent a suspect from leaving the scene". Make no mistake, thats exactly what happened here. Want proof? Go back to the article:

In the minutes before the fatal shootings, Pasadena police said the man called 911 and reported that he had heard glass breaking next door and saw two men entering the home through a window. Still on the phone with police, the man, believed to be in his 70s, saw the suspects leaving from the back of the home.
"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way.'

He saw them leaving, and THEN he says he's gonna go stop them. This was NOT done to protect anyone or anything--it was done because he didnt want them to leave before cops showed up! THAT IS NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS.

But The story states that there was one shot.....then moments later another. There is too much time in between for a reaction where the guy just get one in the chest.......and I seriously doubt He was there with his hands raised and got shot.

They charged the old guy and He shot one in the chest....the other one turned to run and the old DEER HUNTER drew a bead on him and dropped him

again, youre ASSuming. Why not simply read the article?? Look--

Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said the neighbor told investigators that he knew the next-door residents were not home. The man told investigators that he encountered the pair when they exited his neighbor's through a gate leading to the front yard.
Corbett said the neighbor asked the men, one of which was carrying a white bag, to stop, but they did not.

When police arrived moments later, they found two dead men in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive. One was across the street, and the other had collapsed two houses down behind a bank of mailboxes in the Village Grove East subdivision.

Both men were shot once at a range of less than 15 feet with blasts from a 12-guage shotgun.

OK...let's try using a little common sense, please. He approached them at the front gate. Told them to stop, they refused, AND KEPT WALKING AWAY. How do we know this? The first suspect was found dead across the street, that's how....have you ever seen someone get shot at close range, full-on in the chest, with a 12 guage?? That guy fell where he was shot, believe that. It just isnt a wound that most people will ever get up from. So, how did he get from the front gate to that spot? HE WAS LEAVING, that's how. Make sense so far? Good--what about the second suspect? he was there to see his buddy get killed, do you think he turned sideways and stayed still, waiting for his turn? OF COURSE NOT--he RAN. Wouldnt you?

so what does that mean? Simple--even if you think the first shooting was justified, THE SECOND ONE WAS NOT. The guy was very obviously high-tailing it outta there. THAT REMOVES ANY POSSIBLE IMMEDIATE THREAT TO LIFE OR PROPERTY, which is what the law requires to justify deadly force!

Also, your assumption about them charging at the shooter was bullshit too. The shooter walked up to the front gate, saw them leaving, told them to stop but they refused, and then opened fire. The first suspect was dropped across the street, which was FURTHER AWAY FROM HIM than the suspects were when he first approached them. They were further away from him--if I charge at you I would be closer to you, dont you think??

There, you see how easy some things can be to understand if only you stop trumpeting party lines and simply think for yourself for once?:bigthumb:

A very small percentage of the population refuse to adhere to the laws of society....they CHOOSE not to adhere to the laws....as all of us are capable of committing crimes, they willingly commit the crimes whereas you and I go without until payday........Round up this small population, Lock them away and I can go to bed with my Doors unlocked at night

so, let me get this straight--youre bitching about the two suspects because they "refused to adhere to the laws of society", but you cheer on this old man who refused to adhere to the laws of society.....whats more, youre cheering him on BECAUSE he refused to adhere to the laws of society. Action is needed, yes, but the kind of action is not as back-seat as you are making it out to be. Breaking the law to respond to law-breakers is NOT THE WAY TO DO THIS. Learn that.

Not only that.........I had plenty to say on the subject, you just focused in on the Liberalism.

The fact that you brought that comment into the mix to begin with shows that the focus on it does in fact come from you, and not from me or the others here in this thread. Such a comment has no place in this topic, and thats why nothing ever gets resolved in the gun debate--because for decades, the two sides do little more than hurl partisan check-lines back and forth. Maybe its time for you to gain a little maturity and accept the fact that NEITHER side wins with this incident. NO ONE DOES. It was a tragic shooting that never should have taken place, no matter what side of the gun issue you are on. The law was not followed when they broke into a house, and it was broken again when the guy pulled the trigger. The conditions that the law uses to justify force were nowhere close to being met.

You didn't see where I mentioned
*Texas and CCW

--which has exactly nothing to do with this crime--no concealed weapon was even involved. So CCW law is 100% irrelevant to this thread.

*Citizens weary of crime

--if your intent is to fight crime, but you dont follow the law yourself, you are no better than those you aim to stop. end of story on that one, I seriously dont think that any more than that needs to be said about being "weary of crime"....do you?

*The fact that one criminal was shot in the Chest rather than behind....miss that crucial one?

No, it wasnt missed at all. the info was already in the article, and the only one who missed it, apparently, was you.

*The law changing to include a person property

Do you even know what that law says? here--have a look. the law considers deadly force justified if AND ONLY IF the suspect is:

Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

Now, you are allowed to defend YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY that way, but ONLY if its reasonable to assume that a legitimate threat exists. When they are leaving, there is no threat. They also didnt endanger the shooter in any way, nor did they put any of HIS property at risk. The provision in the law that is key is this:

Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place

Picture this--you are at home, it's late at night. Someone is trying to kick in your door. This law allows you to use that force because one could reasonably assume a threat against their safety from this scenario. You dont know whos on the other side of that door and you cannot see if he has weapons, etc etc. BUT--this was not the case here. The guy walked up to them, in broad daylight, saw that they were carrying no weapons, and were in fact LEAVING, not trying to enter protected property. The law doesnt say "shoot them when they leave if you didnt do it when they were trying to get in". This is very important, because when interpreting these laws, the courts will look at every word in that law just as I did here. Face it, this was a very bad call.

*The drastic drop in Crime in Texas

1--so, I guess you are satisfied with the end justifying the means...well, I am not. And no one should be, either, including you.

2--this was NOT a reduction in crime--it was an INCREASE. they broke the law, committed a crime. That's one. Then he broke the law twice when he used deadly force two times, outside the parameters of what the law requires as justification. From one crime, we now have THREE. So DO TELL, how exactly this incident reduced crime in Texas, genius.

Yea, I got nuttin' else to say but Liberalism.......

Well, the other points you brought up were all either assumptions, incorrect, or irelevant. So, again, what is your point? Oh yeah, when those are the rest of your points, the only thing you are left with is your partisan politics.

Better luck next time.

The moral here is not to take away guns and incarcerate citizens....rather...don't break into another persons domicile

WRONG--the moral here is for EACH AND EVERY GUN OWNER TO ENSURE THAT THEIR ACTIONS ARE 100% RESPONSIBLE. If you cannot handle that then you cannot handle owning a gun. THAT is the real lesson here. This isnt about trying to take our guns away, so stop trying to make that the issue. It is about RESPONSIBILITY. As gun owners, we have a responsibility to ourselves and to everyone around us to have a clue, be educated, and be responsible. This is not negotiable. If you could get off the soap box for one minute you just might see that.

You know, if a cop did this, we'd be hearing all the negatives about cops.

Bullshit, I say.

This guy is a murderer, flat out. Like the old man that shot a kid for walking on his grass.

Dude, how else do you explain people that care more about criminals than the victims they are stealing from.

Did oyu read the thread? They weren't stealing from the shooter. He SUSPECTED they were stealing from his NEIGHBOUR. The cops told him to stay at his place and not go near the scene.

Where does it say they were illegals? New York, for one, is full of Puerto Ricans. are they all illegal? When I'm in the US, does that automatically mean I'm illegal? If you're in Canada, you're illegal? Stop being a shithead.

yea, those are pretty good.

But The story states that there was one shot.....then moments later another. There is too much time in between for a reaction where the guy just get one in the chest.......

/Story

So no one in the history of mankind, when witnessing someone they know being shot, has stopped in their tracks in shock, eh? More shitheadism from you. You're above that.

You know, if a cop did this, we'd be hearing all the negatives about cops.

Bullshit, I say.

This guy is a murderer, flat out. Like the old man that shot a kid for walking on his grass.

thats about the size of it. In fact, most of the time when a cop is justified in a shooting the public still jumps on his ass about it. Especially if the incident involves someone who is of a different race....

So no one in the history of mankind, when witnessing someone they know being shot, has stopped in their tracks in shock, eh? More shitheadism from you. You're above that.

not likely, because the second suspect was shot in the side....as in 'while running away from the shooter'. Thats the most likely scenario based on the info we have. Note that he was found two houses away from the scene as well, which will not happen if he's standing still or charging the shooter.

I don't think there's a need to toss out words like "liberalism". All I'm saying is that so far according to the one story here, there's not a legal justification for the shooting. Well, that's my main point anyway.
I understand the frustrations involved.

I have one question for the people who feel this is justified. Where do you draw the line. Following your logic would it then be okay to shoot someone who looked at any of your property twice? After all they just might be thinking of stealing it so shooting them could prevent a possible crime from happening. I'm not for the criminals who were committing a B+E, they are most likely drug addicts. My point is making everyday people judge, jury and executioner can lead to an even scarier society. Everyone loaded to bear and with itchy trigger fingers would be like walking on glass.

I have one question for the people who feel this is justified. Where do you draw the line. Following your logic would it then be okay to shoot someone who looked at any of your property twice? After all they just might be thinking of stealing it so shooting them could prevent a possible crime from happening.

how does following the logic lead to this conclusion? what is the logic? I do not see the logic you speak of here! The old man did not assume they were breaking in BEFORE they entered the house. He made his assumption after seeing them inside the house and then leaving.

And where is the line drawn? The line should be drawn on a crime taking place. Thinking about stealing something is not illegal, telling others you plan to steal isn't illegal for you to do. And of course, trying and/or succeeding is illegal. And if I knew someone was killed by a neighbor when they were stealing, well, I'm going to find a different neighbor hood to steal from!

If for some reason more laws were created to "prevent crime based on a person's assumed intentions" then things would go to hell! Look, I just bought a gun, so I must be planning to kill someone or poaching animals. I just bought a 10 yr old sports car, I must be planning to street race and speed. I just looked at some jail bait as I passed them in the mall, I must be thinking of underage sex. You see an action and then you assume you know ones thoughts because of that action.

Now, lets play with this whole idea of seeing an action and attempt to guess someone's motivation:
I see you in the store, your buying party supplies. are you setting up something in your basement to rape kids or are you planning a party for your co-worker's birthday? I see you buying a gun, are you going to shoot someone or do you go to the range as a hobby. Your buying a 10 yr old sports car, do you plan to street race or restore it back to being like new? You look at jail bait as you pass them in the mall, are you wanting to have sex with them or do you think the coat one of them has on would be something your 14 yr old daughter would like? Your Catholic and want to become a priest, so you must like small boys, or your just very devout and want to help guide others to the light.

Well, sky summed everything up really well but I'm bored and feel like adding my POV. Credit to the source if I repeat anything that's already been said.

Dude, how else do you explain people that care more about criminals than the victims they are stealing from.

First off, I personally don't care about the intruders beyond the fact that I don't believe that they deserved to die for the crime that they committed. I don't care about the shooter (the third criminal) beyond that fact that I hope he is convicted for his crime (murder). If the above is criteria enough to label me a liberal, then label away.

ooohhhh boo effin hoo some poor ass illegals got shot stealing shit from Decent Tax paying citizens.......when are you gonna have enough?? When are you gonna see the light??

The fact that you people need to make assumptions about these two guys ("they were drug addicts", "they were illegals") speaks volumes. If the shooter's actions were justifiable then it shouldn't matter if it was a flock of nuns fleeing the scene and there would be no need to assume the worst of them.

Let's try this: imagine that the two intruders were a couple of teenagers from another neighbourhood who heard that the owners of the home would be away. Imagine that they were born in America and were not drug addicts. Still okay with shooting first and asking questions later?

A very small percentage of the population refuse to adhere to the laws of society....they CHOOSE not to adhere to the laws....as all of us are capable of committing crimes, they willingly commit the crimes whereas you and I go without until payday........Round up this small population, Lock them away and I can go to bed with my Doors unlocked at night

Hey, I've got no problem with that, but, when you try to twist the above into allowing people the right to enact their own brand of justice, outside of the law, then I object.

Can I live in this Utopian society that I picture?? HELL NO, and I'll tell you why.....some asshole liberal feels sorry for that small percentage of Scum. They Feel better by showing compassion to those that do not deserve freedom and the scream to let them free.......we can rehabilitate them they cry......rehab what I ask?? A conscious decision??? How do you REHAB Conscious thought from a human?? YOU CAN'T!!!!!!!

I don't think that it's as cut and dry and you make it out to be. First of all, prison does not rehabilitate anyone and second, I don't feel that believing someone should not have been murdered for committing a crime that does not warrant the death penalty is showing compassion.

So please, wake up and put the criminals away so we can all live in peace and harmony and keep our shit in our house. And as long as your social programs are stealing Tax monies from law enforcement efforts...then I guess Us citizens are burdened with the fact that we have to arm ourselves to protect what is ours.

There you go again, assuming that I'm a liberal because it makes me easier to argue against. Once more, we aren't talking about ANYONE'S refusal to put criminals away, we are talking about murdering people as they flee the scene. You've got to have more sense than that.

So yea, I can blame a lot of shit on Liberalism.

No, I can tell that you mislabel a lot of shit as Liberalism.

So lets think about this. All of the fuck tards that do this type of shit are actually helping the left wing wacko's whittle away at our gun rights.

So those who thing the guy was ok to shoot these two thieves are actually helping the left wingers with their cause.

That shit is what is really getting me pissed off....

The point I was trying to make is where do you draw the line? If you allow people to execute over property do you then allow Wal-Mart to shoot shop lifters? Its a slippery slope. Just like letting government take away any rights because once they start doing that its really hard to stop them. I'll be captain obvious from now on.

The point I was trying to make is where do you draw the line? If you allow people to execute over property do you then allow Wal-Mart to shoot shop lifters? Its a slippery slope. Just like letting government take away any rights because once they start doing that its really hard to stop them. I'll be captain obvious from now on.

if stores were permitted to shoot confirmed shop lifters, then i'm sure the amount of shop lifting would decrease. If we had stricter punishments for crimes, i'm sure crime would decrease. But we have too many people who are conserned with the well being of the convicted. I kill someone, I took their life from them, took all their rights, and what happens to me? I go to jail and sit there til i die, living off the money from tax payers and other contruting peoples. Do I have to pay taxes while i'm in? nope, i dont think so...

i violate the rights of someone else and then have pay for my stuff, my electric, water, food, clothing, etc. sure i can't go out and live in the civilian world, but screw that, its tough on the out side.

i dont even want to consider how much it cost to house a single convicted murder for a life sentence but i'm sure it is considerably more than the cost of a single bullet to remove them from this world in a good old fashion firing squad. A good hanging in the streets would do wonders for crime prevention too i'm sure!

if stores were permitted to shoot confirmed shop lifters, then i'm sure the amount of shop lifting would decrease. If we had stricter punishments for crimes, i'm sure crime would decrease.

It sure is refreshing to hear just how callous some people are with human life. Give Walmart employees the right to shoot people for shop lifting and everything will turn out fine. Leave it up to people to police themselves and no one will ever use poor judgement and kill innocent people or abuse their power. You know why shop lifting would stop? Because people would stop going to Walmart... something about not wanting to shop under gun point.

But we have too many people who are conserned with the well being of the convicted.

Because the idea that once you steal something, you forfeit everyone of your rights as a citizen is just ridiculous.

I kill someone, I took their life from them, took all their rights, and what happens to me? I go to jail and sit there til i die, living off the money from tax payers and other contruting peoples. Do I have to pay taxes while i'm in? nope, i dont think so...

Think of all the other stupid shit that your tax money pays for and prison becomes a drop in the pond.

i violate the rights of someone else and then have pay for my stuff, my electric, water, food, clothing, etc. sure i can't go out and live in the civilian world, but screw that, its tough on the out side.

You are a very disillusioned person my friend. If prison sounds so great, why don't you go check yourself in?

i dont even want to consider how much it cost to house a single convicted murder for a life sentence but i'm sure it is considerably more than the cost of a single bullet to remove them from this world in a good old fashion firing squad. A good hanging in the streets would do wonders for crime prevention too i'm sure!

Which is all well and good until you find out that new evidence has just exonerated someone who was previously found guilty and subsquently executed.

How do Americans counter the claim that they are trigger happy? They call everyone else liberal pussies...

It sure is refreshing to hear just how callous some people are with human life. Give Walmart employees the right to shoot people for shop lifting and everything will turn out fine. Leave it up to people to police themselves and no one will ever use poor judgement and kill innocent people or abuse their power. You know why shop lifting would stop? Because people would stop going to Walmart... something about not wanting to shop under gun point.


i've spent time in the marines :) human life is just one more thing i was trained to put an end to. also, i feel that if i say its ok to kill someone for wrong doing, then i'm accepting that i could be killed for doing something wrong.

Because the idea that once you steal something, you forfeit everyone of your rights as a citizen is just ridiculous.

you shouldn't have broken the law...change the system and this idea is complete acceptable


Think of all the other stupid shit that your tax money pays for and prison becomes a drop in the pond.

again, time in the marines, i know well...its just money :)


You are a very disillusioned person my friend. If prison sounds so great, why don't you go check yourself in?

already have considered it actually...but i wouldn't be allowed to simply "check myself in" i would have to commit a crime..and well, thats just bad :)

Which is all well and good until you find out that new evidence has just exonerated someone who was previously found guilty and subsquently executed.

shit happens, life isn't fair...


How do Americans counter the claim that they are trigger happy? They call everyone else liberal pussies...
if we kill everyone who disagrees with us, then the world becomes a better place :) it is because of those who are so willing to pull the trigger that we are permitted to enjoy the freedoms we do and have liberals...

but no point in arguing, u have ur mind made up, as do i...so i'm just here to read my own typing...not to mention i dont know you and ur life...much like you dont know me and mine...so to each their own

Interesting that this argument would end amicably. I must be getting soft.

I'm left wondering why if someone was actually in the Marines, then why would they not capitalize the word Marines?

But anyway....

Some of these posts are starting to sound pretty funny. The old dude will get his time in court and then we'll see how things pan out. Not much we can do about it until then, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

First off, I personally don't care about the intruders beyond the fact that I don't believe that they deserved to die for the crime that they committed. I don't care about the shooter (the third criminal) beyond that fact that I hope he is convicted for his crime (murder). If the above is criteria enough to label me a liberal, then label away.
Look how quickly you readily label the law abiding Citizen as a murderer. Do you not see that.....I do. You are not making assumptions are you? How do you know what happened and why? Yet you are quick to defend the criminals and conclude the Citizen as a murderer for following the law.

"The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection."

The fact that you people need to make assumptions about these two guys ("they were drug addicts", "they were illegals") speaks volumes. If the shooter's actions were justifiable then it shouldn't matter if it was a flock of nuns fleeing the scene and there would be no need to assume the worst of them.
The news story clearly states that the criminals only had I.D. from South of the border. If they went through the process they would at least have an ID form the state of Texas........so yes they were Illegal, it doesn't take a whole lot to figure that one out yet you refuse to try.

"One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had paper indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, he said."

Let's try this: imagine that the two intruders were a couple of teenagers from another neighbourhood who heard that the owners of the home would be away. Imagine that they were born in America and were not drug addicts. Still okay with shooting first and asking questions later?
Sure, kill 'em. What are they doing helping themselves to other private earned property? I could care less if they were green....color makes no difference nor does motive.

Hey, I've got no problem with that, but, when you try to twist the above into allowing people the right to enact their own brand of justice, outside of the law, then I object.
Again you are quick to convict the Law abiding Citizen. Remember the Laws in Texas allow you to use deadly force to protect property.....a small little detail you want so desperately try to set aside. The Story revolves around using this episode to try to change the existing law.....not prosecute the Citizen.

"The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection."


I don't think that it's as cut and dry and you make it out to be. First of all, prison does not rehabilitate anyone and second, I don't feel that believing someone should not have been murdered for committing a crime that does not warrant the death penalty is showing compassion.
No, B&E does not warrant the death penalty....but until you show me a film or produce a witness as to what really happened, you are assuming. The Buglers may have even stopped and put there hands up, only to take a shot gun blast to the chest.......but that is an assumption on my part.


There you go again, assuming that I'm a liberal because it makes me easier to argue against. Once more, we aren't talking about ANYONE'S refusal to put criminals away, we are talking about murdering people as they flee the scene. You've got to have more sense than that.
Dude you can claim you are conservative all day long, but I watch what you do and what you say. Your actions define you, you sir are a bleeding heart liberal and you know it.



No, I can tell that you mislabel a lot of shit as Liberalism.
And I can tell you label a lot of liberalism as the "way things should be but for some reason the majority just won't agree with ark2"

Look how quickly you readily label the law abiding Citizen as a murderer. Do you not see that.....I do. You are not making assumptions are you?

Yep, you bet I'm labeling him a murderer as what he did was outside of the law.

How do you know what happened and why? Yet you are quick to defend the criminals and conclude the Citizen as a murderer for following the law.

Where did I defend the first two criminals? Where have I defended their actions? All that I have said is that they did not deserve too die and in this instance, the law agrees with me.

"The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection."

Alright, so the neighbor says to the soon to be murderer "could you keep an eye on the house while I'm gone?" Suddenly the murderer becomes a legal guardian over the neighbour's property? Don't think so. Hell, even if this were the case, you conveniently left out the second part of this law:

But the person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings and must suspect that taking less drastic measures could expose themselves or others to serious danger.

Now, I wasn't there and I don't know what exactly occurred but anyone can tell that the murderer was not in any serious danger while he was inside his home calling the police.

The news story clearly states that the criminals only had I.D. from South of the border. If they went through the process they would at least have an ID form the state of Texas........so yes they were Illegal, it doesn't take a whole lot to figure that one out yet you refuse to try.

Right you are, I missed that. My mistake.

Sure, kill 'em. What are they doing helping themselves to other private earned property? I could care less if they were green....color makes no difference nor does motive.

LOL...Big tough guy doesn't give a shit, eh? Keep that in mind if it ever happens to someone you care about.

Again you are quick to convict the Law abiding Citizen.

Now you're the one assuming that he's a law abiding citizen.

Remember the Laws in Texas allow you to use deadly force to protect property.....a small little detail you want so desperately try to set aside.

I never "set that detail aside" and there is nothing desperate about my argument. Re-read the law that you so selectively quoted and tell me that he didn't break it.

No, B&E does not warrant the death penalty....but until you show me a film or produce a witness as to what really happened, you are assuming.

You've got me there but so are you. The difference between us is that I'm making reasonable assumptions.

Dude you can claim you are conservative all day long, but I watch what you do and what you say. Your actions define you, you sir are a bleeding heart liberal and you know it.

I get it, a liberal to you is someone who is intellectually inferior to yourself so when arguing with someone, it helps to place them in that category. It doesn't matter that I don't believe in gun control or would perfer private healthcare, to you I have to be a liberal because otherwise you would run the risk of losing. I've got news for you though, regardless of what I am, you're still losing this one.

And I can tell you label a lot of liberalism as the "way things should be but for some reason the majority just won't agree with ark2"

Not likely but even so, in this case it would be the "way things are but for some reason a few people just won't agree with Ark2," because your boy there, broke the law.

how does following the logic lead to this conclusion? what is the logic? I do not see the logic you speak of here! The old man did not assume they were breaking in BEFORE they entered the house. He made his assumption after seeing them inside the house and then leaving.

And where is the line drawn? The line should be drawn on a crime taking place. Thinking about stealing something is not illegal, telling others you plan to steal isn't illegal for you to do. And of course, trying and/or succeeding is illegal. And if I knew someone was killed by a neighbor when they were stealing, well, I'm going to find a different neighbor hood to steal from!

If for some reason more laws were created to "prevent crime based on a person's assumed intentions" then things would go to hell! Look, I just bought a gun, so I must be planning to kill someone or poaching animals. I just bought a 10 yr old sports car, I must be planning to street race and speed. I just looked at some jail bait as I passed them in the mall, I must be thinking of underage sex. You see an action and then you assume you know ones thoughts because of that action.

Now, lets play with this whole idea of seeing an action and attempt to guess someone's motivation:
I see you in the store, your buying party supplies. are you setting up something in your basement to rape kids or are you planning a party for your co-worker's birthday? I see you buying a gun, are you going to shoot someone or do you go to the range as a hobby. Your buying a 10 yr old sports car, do you plan to street race or restore it back to being like new? You look at jail bait as you pass them in the mall, are you wanting to have sex with them or do you think the coat one of them has on would be something your 14 yr old daughter would like? Your Catholic and want to become a priest, so you must like small boys, or your just very devout and want to help guide others to the light.

not one word of this post has anything to do with this case. The shooter clearly saw those two people break into the house, so there was no assumption made on his part. Where you are getting that whole concept from, I have no clue, because it didnt happen in this incident at all. The problem was not with an assumption being made, it was the fact that he tried to use a 'self defense' law to justiy acting for reasons other than self defense.

Look how quickly you readily label the law abiding Citizen as a murderer. Do you not see that.....I do. You are not making assumptions are you? How do you know what happened and why? Yet you are quick to defend the criminals and conclude the Citizen as a murderer for following the law.

first off, you need to get a clue. This guy didnt follow the law. its that simple. And, when you kill another human being because you didnt follow the law, you ARE a murderer. Thanks for playing.

"The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection."

Two things--one, instead of using a reporter's editorialized version, why are you using the exact wording of the law itself? Because the law shows you are wrong, thats why.

And two, how many times do I have to say this? THIS WAS NOT AT ALL ABOUT PROTECTING PROPERTY. If you see someone breaking into your neighbor's house and your goal is to protect the property, YOU WOULDNT BE WAITING FOR THEM TO DO ALL THE DAMAGE and then approach them to "stop" them AFTER IT WAS DONE. no, his goal was to stop them from leaving, which the law does NOT consider adequate justification for shooting two unarmed men!! When are you going to stop this bullshit and be honest about that?

The news story clearly states that the criminals only had I.D. from South of the border. If they went through the process they would at least have an ID form the state of Texas........so yes they were Illegal, it doesn't take a whole lot to figure that one out yet you refuse to try.

"One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had paper indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, he said."

now who's making assumptions?? It said they had foreign ID--how is that the same as "illegal"?? I dont suppose you ever thought about the possibility of them being legally allowed visitors to America?? News flash--the vast majority of illegal aliens do not go around carrying ID that identifies them as being from somewhere else....I know this because I have a ton of experience chasing down illegals who also happen to be wanted for other crimes. In Kansas a large part of the bail enforcement business is exactly that.

No, you saw "foreign" and immediately ASSumed illegal. Wrong again, sparky.

Sure, kill 'em. What are they doing helping themselves to other private earned property? I could care less if they were green....color makes no difference nor does motive.

but what DOES matter is the law, bonehead, and them breaking the law does not justify someone else also breaking it.

Again you are quick to convict the Law abiding Citizen. Remember the Laws in Texas allow you to use deadly force to protect property.....a small little detail you want so desperately try to set aside. The Story revolves around using this episode to try to change the existing law.....not prosecute the Citizen.

"The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection."

Again, you are not even close. you are trying to tell us what that law says, but you repeatedly quote a reporter's interpretation instead of the law itself!! THIS is the law you mentioned:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm

Allow me to show you exactly where you keep failing on this one:

Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Three things right there--first, the "actor" means the shooter. This law allows that he would be justified in using " a reasonably appropriate level of force" against someone who was breaking into HIS HOUSE, not everyone else's.

Second, the law states that he can justifiably use this force against someone who is COMMITTING or ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT those crimes....it does NOT allow that force to be used against someone who PREVIOUSLY committed this crime and was leaving the scene! At that point the act is OVER, and you should be smart enough to know that you dont have the right to shoot someone over what they did before!

Third, read this part again:

a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force.

Two unarmed guys, who are walking away from you and refuse to stop when you tell them to.....do you REALLY, HONESTLY think that killing them is an appropriate response to this? Come on, if you actually believe this, then you dont have any friggin business owning a gun!! ONLY TO THE DEGREE NEEDED TO PROTECT THE ACTOR AGAINST THE USE OR ATTEMPTED USE OF FORCE, but there was NO FORCE used against this shooter, was there??

Didnt think so.

See what happens when you get all your "facts" from the media instead of checking the source like you should? Come to think of it, isnt that the same thing I have seen you bitch about to "liberals" on here countless times?? And here you are, doing it yourself....good call, sport.:bigthumb:

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.

This means this--a person who does NOT have the right to be on that property MUST RETREAT BEFORE USING THE FORCE. It was not his property. He was on someone else's private property. STRICTLY GOING BY THE LAW, this means he was required to retreat in an attempt to find safety before using any force. He didnt. This law was broken a half dozen ways....but when you rely on a reporter's editorialized version, you wouldnt know that, would you?

NOW--now that you have seen exactly what this law says, how in the world can you even begin to think this was a justified shooting?? The law is clear as a bell on this one, and the only reason why you havent seen this yet is because you were too busy ASSuming everything.

No, B&E does not warrant the death penalty....but until you show me a film or produce a witness as to what really happened, you are assuming. The Buglers may have even stopped and put there hands up, only to take a shot gun blast to the chest.......but that is an assumption on my part.

A witness?? HOW ABOUT THE SHOOTER? Wasnt HE a witness? This story reports what he told police! THAT IS WITNESS TESTIMONY. What about the 911 call? That is detailled here as well--no assumption needed. What about the police reporting that makes no mention of weapons on the dead guys? What--they chucked their guns AFTER he killed them??

By the way, for someone bitching about assumptions, you sure are making your fair share of them yourself. Funny how we dont see much comment from you about that though--your entire position is based on assumptions, from what happened that day to what the law in TX actually allows!

Dude you can claim you are conservative all day long, but I watch what you do and what you say. Your actions define you, you sir are a bleeding heart liberal and you know it.

He just might be...BUT I AM NOT. And I have been the loudest vouce against your posts. So why havent you had even one comment for me? I am saying basically the same exact things he is--but you dont reply to a single one of my posts, and you save it all up for that "pinko commie liberal", just so you can get in some partisan shots? yeah, because at the end of the day, partisanship is what's really important in this incident, right??

When the hell are you gonna wake up and start being honest??

He just might be...BUT I AM NOT. And I have been the loudest vouce against your posts. So why havent you had even one comment for me? I am saying basically the same exact things he is--but you dont reply to a single one of my posts, and you save it all up for that "pinko commie liberal", just so you can get in some partisan shots? yeah, because at the end of the day, partisanship is what's really important in this incident, right??


You nailed it there, sky. He'll respond to me because he feels that he can attack my character, but with you he'd have to discuss the facts which he's just not able to do. If I could set the record straight though, I'm not a liberal (neither small nor capital "L").

Look how quickly you readily label the law abiding Citizen as a murderer.

If he was law-abiding, there wouldn't be this controversy. Fact is, it seems they were breaking the law by robbing his neighbour. And it seems he broke the law and killed them. Yet in your mind, he's law abiding and they're not citizens, so it's okay.


The news story clearly states that the criminals only had I.D. from South of the border. If they went through the process they would at least have an ID form the state of Texas........so yes they were Illegal, it doesn't take a whole lot to figure that one out yet you refuse to try.

Guess what? When I'm in the US I still hold a Canadian passport and often had my Canadian health card, license, etc. in my wallet. If I got gunned down and they found said ID on me, that automatically means I was there illegally?

Again, quit being a shithead.

fuck em

It was probably a couple of crack heads trying to score some shit to sell to buy some more crack. The world is better off. You all are just a bunch of pussies.

I've gotta agree with this. There is great moral hazard in this society of protecting the incompetent, the lawless, the greedy and the selfish. Who will uphold what is truly righteous? Sure it was a bit extreme to shoot two thieves but how many thieves do not shoot, stab, or run over their victims when their heist does not go as smoothly as planned?

Thats a stupid argument...

but how many thieves do not shoot, stab, or run over their victims when their heist does not go as smoothly as planned


Let me guess ...THESE two thieves.

Start using your brain, just because you are a thief doesn't make a murderer.
It may make you a bad person, but not that kind of bad.

Sure its quick to say that these were crack head dope smoking robbers.
Anyone want to see the flip side of this? Maybe there were poor hungry fathers who needed money to get their kids medicine? I'm no bleeding heart liberal, but I can see someone stupid enough to rob someone to save their kid. ( Damn, I did play the liberal side WTF !!!11!!!!!!!)

I've gotta agree with this. There is great moral hazard in this society of protecting the incompetent, the lawless, the greedy and the selfish. Who will uphold what is truly righteous? Sure it was a bit extreme to shoot two thieves but how many thieves do not shoot, stab, or run over their victims when their heist does not go as smoothly as planned?


Well, mr wizard, according to the article, the two suspects had:

1--no gun in their possession
2--no knife in their possession
3--no car--they were leaving on foot when he confronted them.

SO, genius, tell me with honesty the likelihood of these two shooting, stabbing, or running over this old man while getting away from the scene?? Any guesses?

:owned:

Arent you supposed to be one of the christians on this board?? Arent you the one with one hand firmly on yzf's buttocks all the time? Yet all the preaching in the world about what is in the scripture is strangely absent from both of you right now--all of a sudden it seems to have become a game of "kill them first, even if they have no weapon, simply because they did something wrong..."

Good to see that you spent all that time preaching in here about God, yet you dont even have Him in your own life and set of values....thanks for playing.

I find it amazing that people keep coming into this thread and getting owned by it. You think that they'd learn by now.

learn?? They cant--they all must be those "liberals", remember??

learn?? They cant--they all must be those "liberals", remember??

Idiots more like it....

Come to think of it, it must be all of those piss ant wanna be 'men' who think that owning and shooting a gun adds inches to their dick.

WTF is wrong with the so called, self proclaimed 'enlighten' ones. They are the true threat to society....oh ya they hit the OT but ran out of stream before they read the NT.

He just might be...BUT I AM NOT. And I have been the loudest vouce against your posts. So why havent you had even one comment for me? I am saying basically the same exact things he is--but you dont reply to a single one of my posts, and you save it all up for that "pinko commie liberal", just so you can get in some partisan shots? yeah, because at the end of the day, partisanship is what's really important in this incident, right??

When the hell are you gonna wake up and start being honest??
He does say some of the same things you say, you have not addressed me directly until now. That Is why I have addressed you.

This isn't about politics as much as it is about ideology and I never thought you'd be so soft on criminals and hard on ones that are after civic justice.

the Law you posted are subject to interpretation and the facts are not presented. Only a court can sort it out right or wrong.

My point is this, You guys are quick to judge the Law Abider and quicker to claim innocence for Law breakers from other countries.

That part cannot be disputed.

I find it amazing that people keep coming into this thread and getting owned by it. You think that they'd learn by now.
Ownage? The fact that you ran all your assumptions and brash judgments towards a Citizen while all the time defending law breaking scum and me pointing out to the world that you are a bleeding heart.

Ok if you think that is ownage...blast off captain.

Again, the whole story doesn't even concern whether they are going to bring charges against the Man. But don't let that bother you, no one notices.

This isn't about politics as much as it is about ideology and I never thought you'd be so soft on criminals and hard on ones that are after civic justice.

Are you ignorant by choice or is it that you just cant help it?? THIS IS NOT CIVIC JUSTICE! Two UNARMED men were SHOT and KILLED while WALKING AWAY FROM THE SHOOTER and people are trying to use a law that REQUIRES reasonable perception of a legitimate threat as a defense for it!

Do you REALLY believe that shooting two unarmed men is JUSTICE? What the fuck do we haev the entire judicial system for, with proscribed penalties in place for all these different crimes, if you claim this to be civil justice??

What the fuck is the matter with you? Seriously??

Oh, one more thing, where was I "soft on criminals"? They committed a crime, but THERE IS AN APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT FOR THAT CRIME....and "street justice" IS NOT IT. So, I want the system to work as it is supposed to, and you think that makes me "soft on criminals"?? You're looking dumber by the minute, J, and honestly I never figured you for this kind of ignorance....

He does say some of the same things you say, you have not addressed me directly until now. That Is why I have addressed you.

I quoted you directly two pages ago and have been doing it ever since....but this is the first time I addressed you??

hmmmm.....ok....

the Law you posted are subject to interpretation and the facts are not presented. Only a court can sort it out right or wrong.

bullshit, and you know it. Why have you spent all this time proclaiming the shooter was justified? Only to now change your tune and say "oh, its up to the courts"?? Sorry, I aint buying that. You didnt seem to think it was "up to the courts to decide" when you continually call him a law abiding citizen who acted in the right! But now that someone has posted points you cannot refute, this is your tactic?? Dude, you have to do better than this crap.

you know, the law IS up to interpretation, but many parts of it are simply cut-and-dried. For example, when the law states that a reasonable perception of threat must be present, what part of that dont you understand? When the law states that the property that you are allowed to defend must be a property that you have the right to inhabit, where in the world do you come up with the notion that you can walk onto anyone's private property and have the same rights?? YOU DONT.

When the law clearly states that you have the right to use "only an appropriate level of force relative to the situation" and this guy shoots two unarmed men who, according to the shooter himself, were just trying to get away, where the hell is the malfunction that prevents you from seeing what went wrong there? Lest you forget, this is not a DEADLY FORCE law--it is a USE OF FORCE AND DEADLY FORCE law...it doesnt only cover killing people. So, there are other levels of force besides nothing or death. This man chose to go for only one--all the way to the end, with no stops in between. This law PLAINLY does not allow that.

When the law states that you have the right to use force when the commission of a crime is either imminent or in progress, and this guy waits until they have already completed the offense and left the house, what is the problem that prevents you from getting that?

We could go on for days, but the simple fact is this--the guy completely broke this law. You have not one shred of information from any source that discredits what I have posted, about the law, or about the events as they happened. Not one.

My point is this, You guys are quick to judge the Law Abider and quicker to claim innocence for Law breakers from other countries.

you're serious?? You really DID hit your head, didnt you??

Tell you what--go back through my posts. I want you to find just ONE example of me calling these two criminals "innocent". Find me ONE, and I will kiss my own ass if you can. In other words, once again, you are dead wrong. you ASSume what I think based on reading snippets of my posts.....I can say that because on at least a couple of occasions I have clearly stated that they are criminals and that they deserve the APPROPRIATE punishment....wanna see for yourself? here ya go:

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=161555&postcount=39

they were criminals who deserved punishment, but last time I checked, the death penalty was not that punishment for that crime.

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=161556&postcount=40

they broke the law, committed a crime. That's one. Then he broke the law twice when he used deadly force two times, outside the parameters of what the law requires as justification. From one crime, we now have THREE.

Still think I am running around calling them innocent, Mr. Wizard? Thanks for playing.

That part cannot be disputed.

It just was, and successfully so, I might add. Anything else, or will you finally start being honest about this event and the posts everyone is making about it??

Let's take this a little further.

You cried up and down about them being foreigners.....because they came from Puerto Rico. News Flash for you--PR is a US territory, and as such, anyone who is born there is a US citizen just the same as someone born in any state in the country. So, they were NOT foreigners. They both resided in Houston, and it is legal to do so with PR identification. There goes your assumption about that.

Now, between the two of these men, there was precisely one criminal conviction--one of the men failed to identify himself to a police officer in 2004 and pled guilty to it. Thats it. So much for the crack-fiend bullshit as well that others were shovelling earlier.

And then lets go one step further--how would you like to hear the 911 tape? here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

Pay special attention to the obvious mindset of this guy. First he says "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to go voer there and stop them?". He repeatedly tells dispatch "I aint gonna let them get away, I will go out there and get em". Then he says "I dont know these neighbors well at all, now if it was the house on the other side of me, I knwo them very well, and I can assure you if it was that house I would have already gone over there and stopped them...." And then, listen to how many times this guy talks about how he's gonna go over there and shoot the crooks. The dispatcher keeps telling him "dont go outside, stay in your house...." and he says "sorry, I cant put up with this shit". He racks the slide and basically tells 911 "you hear that, its my shotgun, I'm gonna go out there and stop them, they're getting away". Did you catch what he said before he shot?? "MOVE, YOURE DEAD" Then he fires.

Calls 911 back and claims that they rushed him in his own yard, but the first body is found all the way across the street. The second is found two houses away. If you have ever seen what a shotgun blast at close range does to someone you will know that there is a VERY small chance of that first crook getting shot, then moving to the spot where he fell. Not to mention, do you REALLY think that two crooks, when faced with a man pointing a shotgun at them, will run AT him, when they have no weapons? I suppose youre going to say that they had a death wish too...

This tape is actually really incriminating. For one thing, the jury will hear his state of mind on there, where he keeps talking about how he has the right to "defend himself" even though he is safe in his house. And then, claiming to fear for his safety, he then goes outside with two known criminals there? riiiiight.... And his reaction when faced with the decision to pull the trigger--"MOVE,YOURE DEAD"....sorry, but it isnt looking very good for your "law abiding citizen". It is 100% clear that he got pissed off at two robbers and decided to take the law into his own hands.

sorry, but you cannot assume your way out of this one. the tape is clear as a bell. Even the guy's mindset--he talks about how the laws have changed, and specifically tells 911 that he "has the right to defend HIMSELF". This was never about protecting the property, it was about him. And even if the property was a motive, it wasnt property he was legally allowed to use that forec to protect.

That last post was a pretty well structured argument, basically closes the case right there :P (At least as far as American Law is concerned)

Ownage?

Dude, you're getting owned so hard right now it's becoming difficult to watch. Seriously, you aren't even on life support anymore.

The fact that you ran all your assumptions and brash judgments...

I conceded that I made some assumptions but stressed that they were reasonable ones. Turns out that every one of them has been verified.

...towards a Citizen while all the time defending law breaking scum...

Sorry bud, but this isn't a leg that you can stand on anymore.

...and me pointing out to the world that you are a bleeding heart.

Like I said, when you've got nothing else to say... just scream liberalism.

Ok if you think that is ownage

I've seen you call owning someone for a lot less. You've even made a thread about it here:
http://www.theforumlounge.com/icemark-getting-thumped-t9058.html

Consider that everyone of your points has been soundly refuted and you pretty much have to agree with me on this one.

Again, the whole story doesn't even concern whether they are going to bring charges against the Man. But don't let that bother you, no one notices.

That does bother me actually. That makes me very angry to be honest with you because it tells me that this guy could get away with murder. I guess people like you, who are soft on criminals, aren't really bothered by that.

Let's take this a little further.

You cried up and down about them being foreigners.....because they came from Puerto Rico. News Flash for you--PR is a US territory, and as such, anyone who is born there is a US citizen just the same as someone born in any state in the country. So, they were NOT foreigners. They both resided in Houston, and it is legal to do so with PR identification. There goes your assumption about that.

Now, between the two of these men, there was precisely one criminal conviction--one of the men failed to identify himself to a police officer in 2004 and pled guilty to it. Thats it. So much for the crack-fiend bullshit as well that others were shovelling earlier.

And then lets go one step further--how would you like to hear the 911 tape? here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

Pay special attention to the obvious mindset of this guy. First he says "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to go voer there and stop them?". He repeatedly tells dispatch "I aint gonna let them get away, I will go out there and get em". Then he says "I dont know these neighbors well at all, now if it was the house on the other side of me, I knwo them very well, and I can assure you if it was that house I would have already gone over there and stopped them...." And then, listen to how many times this guy talks about how he's gonna go over there and shoot the crooks. The dispatcher keeps telling him "dont go outside, stay in your house...." and he says "sorry, I cant put up with this shit". He racks the slide and basically tells 911 "you hear that, its my shotgun, I'm gonna go out there and stop them, they're getting away". Did you catch what he said before he shot?? "MOVE, YOURE DEAD" Then he fires.

Calls 911 back and claims that they rushed him in his own yard, but the first body is found all the way across the street. The second is found two houses away. If you have ever seen what a shotgun blast at close range does to someone you will know that there is a VERY small chance of that first crook getting shot, then moving to the spot where he fell. Not to mention, do you REALLY think that two crooks, when faced with a man pointing a shotgun at them, will run AT him, when they have no weapons? I suppose youre going to say that they had a death wish too...

This tape is actually really incriminating. For one thing, the jury will hear his state of mind on there, where he keeps talking about how he has the right to "defend himself" even though he is safe in his house. And then, claiming to fear for his safety, he then goes outside with two known criminals there? riiiiight.... And his reaction when faced with the decision to pull the trigger--"MOVE,YOURE DEAD"....sorry, but it isnt looking very good for your "law abiding citizen". It is 100% clear that he got pissed off at two robbers and decided to take the law into his own hands.

sorry, but you cannot assume your way out of this one. the tape is clear as a bell. Even the guy's mindset--he talks about how the laws have changed, and specifically tells 911 that he "has the right to defend HIMSELF". This was never about protecting the property, it was about him. And even if the property was a motive, it wasnt property he was legally allowed to use that forec to protect.

Excellent post, if this doesn't end the debate over this shooting, than nothing will.

Let's take this a little further.

You cried up and down about them being foreigners.....because they came from Puerto Rico. News Flash for you--PR is a US territory, and as such, anyone who is born there is a US citizen just the same as someone born in any state in the country. So, they were NOT foreigners. They both resided in Houston, and it is legal to do so with PR identification. There goes your assumption about that.

Now, between the two of these men, there was precisely one criminal conviction--one of the men failed to identify himself to a police officer in 2004 and pled guilty to it. Thats it. So much for the crack-fiend bullshit as well that others were shovelling earlier.

And then lets go one step further--how would you like to hear the 911 tape? here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

Pay special attention to the obvious mindset of this guy. First he says "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to go voer there and stop them?". He repeatedly tells dispatch "I aint gonna let them get away, I will go out there and get em". Then he says "I dont know these neighbors well at all, now if it was the house on the other side of me, I knwo them very well, and I can assure you if it was that house I would have already gone over there and stopped them...." And then, listen to how many times this guy talks about how he's gonna go over there and shoot the crooks. The dispatcher keeps telling him "dont go outside, stay in your house...." and he says "sorry, I cant put up with this shit". He racks the slide and basically tells 911 "you hear that, its my shotgun, I'm gonna go out there and stop them, they're getting away". Did you catch what he said before he shot?? "MOVE, YOURE DEAD" Then he fires.

Calls 911 back and claims that they rushed him in his own yard, but the first body is found all the way across the street. The second is found two houses away. If you have ever seen what a shotgun blast at close range does to someone you will know that there is a VERY small chance of that first crook getting shot, then moving to the spot where he fell. Not to mention, do you REALLY think that two crooks, when faced with a man pointing a shotgun at them, will run AT him, when they have no weapons? I suppose youre going to say that they had a death wish too...

This tape is actually really incriminating. For one thing, the jury will hear his state of mind on there, where he keeps talking about how he has the right to "defend himself" even though he is safe in his house. And then, claiming to fear for his safety, he then goes outside with two known criminals there? riiiiight.... And his reaction when faced with the decision to pull the trigger--"MOVE,YOURE DEAD"....sorry, but it isnt looking very good for your "law abiding citizen". It is 100% clear that he got pissed off at two robbers and decided to take the law into his own hands.

sorry, but you cannot assume your way out of this one. the tape is clear as a bell. Even the guy's mindset--he talks about how the laws have changed, and specifically tells 911 that he "has the right to defend HIMSELF". This was never about protecting the property, it was about him. And even if the property was a motive, it wasnt property he was legally allowed to use that forec to protect.



It is 100% obvious from that tape that this guy WANTED to shoot these people from the get-go. He was instructed to stay inside, police were on the way, yet this guy kept insisting on his rights as of "September 1st", he clearly said he was going to kill them, and how he had to "defend himself", meanwhile he was safely inside of his house. The guy was clearly a fucking stupid crazy asshole, and that was not the right thing to do.

Calls 911 back and claims that they rushed him in his own yard, but the first body is found all the way across the street. The second is found two houses away. If you have ever seen what a shotgun blast at close range does to someone you will know that there is a VERY small chance of that first crook getting shot,.

Sorry dude.

Both men were shot once at a range of less than 15 feet with blasts from a 12-guage shotgun.

That simple fact negates everything you've said so far.

Keep going, I know how you hate to lose an argument.

The Rest of you, you are so quick to jump on a Law abiding citizen and feel sorry for criminals. Pull your heads out of you asses.

Crime is way way down. I'm shocked that one that makes a living using a gun as an everyday tool could possibly 2nd guess a man confronting two criminals......from a distance of less than 15 feet. But don't let that part bother you, you will make an excellent argument in an attempt to discredit me for disagreeing with you.

But you and I both know, 15 feet and two desperate men that were just caught by a feeble old man........criminals are defiant and desperate even when confronted and out numbered by armed police with a badge and uniform.

Don't make me post all the Police involved shootings and Killings to prove what I just said. You know it is an everyday event.

And let's keep talking about the men "Fleeing". The story said they were "Fleeing" the neighbors yard........15 feet, one shot to the Chest and one to the Side. The criminals may have been "fleeing" the neighbors yard......somehow became face to face with the shooter who was within his rights making a Citizens arrest. You, Sky, can tell us all about Citizens arrest can't you?


So, Today, a Citizen involved shooting of two criminals somehow is a murder and no way would the Citizen be justified and all guns should be confiscated. oh boo hoo.......poor criminals.

15 feet, two desperate men against a 70 year old feeble man.......sure

That simple fact negates everything you've said so far.


No, it doesn't. If they were shot at a range of less than 15 feet, and fell 2 blocks away from the shooter's house, how can your "law abiding citizen" claim they were rushing him on his own property?

No, it doesn't. If they were shot at a range of less than 15 feet, and fell 2 blocks away from the shooter's house, how can your "law abiding citizen" claim they were rushing him on his own property?
No, one was two houses away and one across the street

Sorry dude.



That simple fact negates everything you've said so far.

Keep going, I know how you hate to lose an argument.

The Rest of you, you are so quick to jump on a Law abiding citizen and feel sorry for criminals. Pull your heads out of you asses.

Crime is way way down. I'm shocked that one that makes a living using a gun as an everyday tool could possibly 2nd guess a man confronting two criminals......from a distance of less than 15 feet. But don't let that part bother you, you will make an excellent argument in an attempt to discredit me for disagreeing with you.

But you and I both know, 15 feet and two desperate men that were just caught by a feeble old man........criminals are defiant and desperate even when confronted and out numbered by armed police with a badge and uniform.

Don't make me post all the Police involved shootings and Killings to prove what I just said. You know it is an everyday event.

And let's keep talking about the men "Fleeing". The story said they were "Fleeing" the neighbors yard........15 feet, one shot to the Chest and one to the Side. The criminals may have been "fleeing" the neighbors yard......somehow became face to face with the shooter who was within his rights making a Citizens arrest. You, Sky, can tell us all about Citizens arrest can't you?


So, Today, a Citizen involved shooting of two criminals somehow is a murder and no way would the Citizen be justified and all guns should be confiscated. oh boo hoo.......poor criminals.

15 feet, two desperate men against a 70 year old feeble man.......sure

You really aren't very smart, are you?

You really aren't very smart, are you?
Please Tell us all......enlighten us oh bleeding heart one

I have told you, several times actually... as have Manntis, sky, and several others. It just seems that you are too stupid to figure it out.

Dude, you have devolved into basically calling me a stupid poopoo head.....and posting pwned.



Yeah you are scoring zingers left and right.

I did some thinkin' Ark and let me explain

This is not the Klub. Those that are over here are actually old friends from years at the Klub.

Roller has only called me a name at a rate of 10 per post.....that is being nice for Roller. And no matter what He says during this debate, I still like him very much

Manntis has shown his disdain for my position, but if you'll notice He has basically called me names in a playful kind of way. He and I go back 3 years and he'll gladly tell you that.....IF....IF you present an argument that proves your point. I will and have gladly conceded and accepted the opposing position. I have the utmost respect for Manntis and The Klub without him is a pure loss. Yet we disagree.

2ndGen doesn't like what I said...but basically leaves it at that. 2nd Gen is a great guy

We all have a respect for each other over here at TFL. You need to present a bit better than calling me a poo poo head and posting pwned.

I did some thinkin' Ark and let me explain

This is not the Klub. Those that are over here are actually old friends from years at the Klub.

Roller has only called me a name at a rate of 10 per post.....that is being nice for Roller. And no matter what He says during this debate, I still like him very much

Manntis has shown his disdain for my position, but if you'll notice He has basically called me names in a playful kind of way. He and I go back 3 years and he'll gladly tell you that.....IF....IF you present an argument that proves your point. I will and have gladly conceded and accepted the opposing position. I have the utmost respect for Manntis and The Klub without him is a pure loss. Yet we disagree.

2ndGen doesn't like what I said...but basically leaves it at that. 2nd Gen is a great guy

We all have a respect for each other over here at TFL. You need to present a bit better than calling me a poo poo head and posting pwned.

Alright, let's look at this reasonably. I said that you are not very bright then subsequently called you stupid. Was this unfair on my part? You yourself said that your actions here define you, and as such felt justified in asserting that I am a "bleeding heart liberal." You're the one who started labeling others in this thread and when it is extended to you, you attempt to appeal to some sense of weathered camaraderie that I, am absent from. Why? Who knows... want me to apologize for calling you stupid? Stop putting words in my mouth and address what I actually say and I'd be happy to.

Or, continue to falsely accuse me of being soft on crime and caring more about criminals. Either way, I don't really care.

I'm just saying that you have dropped back and started throwing beer while others brawl.

Sorry dude.

yes, you most definitely are sorry, at least as far as this debate goes.

That simple fact negates everything you've said so far.

not so fast, oiler boy....

you have forgotten the article's information, no doubt. here--let me refresh your memory:

The man told investigators that he encountered the pair when they exited his neighbor's through a gate leading to the front yard.

Did you catch that? The shooter first caught up to them at the front gate of the neighbor's house, and THEN shot them from a range of "less than 15 feet". So, DO TELL, since you cant admit your mistakes no matter what, how exactly did the first crook make it to that spot across the street, when he started out at the gate(as in NOT across the street)? The guy claimed on the 911 tape that they rushed him, but he approaches them CLOSER to his property(at the front gate) but they were shot FURTHER AWAY from his property(across the street).

Now, sport, you look at that information and tell me why your theory doesnt hold any water. If they were not leaving the scene, wouldnt they still have been closer to the property? Or would they be further away?? THINK, son...use a little common sense. On the tape, you can tell clear as day that not very much time elapsed between when he went outside and when he said "MOVE, YOURE DEAD". So, there is only ONE logical conclusion--that they were at the gate when he approached them and then they TRIED TO LEAVE. He even said himself that he told them to stop and they didnt!!

So....that one thing blows my whole case apart, huh?? You havent been paying attention very well....thanks for playing.

Keep going, I know how you hate to lose an argument.

Losing?? I havent lost anything--youre getting spanked here, son. be a man and admit it already...

Crime is way way down. I'm shocked that one that makes a living using a gun as an everyday tool could possibly 2nd guess a man confronting two criminals......from a distance of less than 15 feet. But don't let that part bother you, you will make an excellent argument in an attempt to discredit me for disagreeing with you.

Stop being such a tool--like anything else there is a right way and a wrong way to approach a criminal. And THIS WAS CLEARLY THE WRONG WAY. So, dont even begin to lecture me about this. Maybe its because I carry a gun that I have the pov that I do. Perhaps it is because I have had to face criminals like that, that I have this pov. You obviously have not had to do so, so again, dont even think you have any place questioning me based on my experience when you have none yourself!

And let's keep talking about the men "Fleeing". The story said they were "Fleeing" the neighbors yard........15 feet, one shot to the Chest and one to the Side. The criminals may have been "fleeing" the neighbors yard......somehow became face to face with the shooter who was within his rights making a Citizens arrest. You, Sky, can tell us all about Citizens arrest can't you?


why yes, I can, dumbass, and you obviously cannot. A citizens ARREST is not a citizen's SHOOTING, dipstick....when someone is arrested they then face trial. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....remember?? No, of course, you already have determined wrongly that they were drug-addict illegals, right??

An ARREST is so that they can answer the charges. It is NOT so they can be KILLED. That punishment did not fit the crime. A citizen's arrest is not what you think it is--if the criminals run away, THAT DOESNT MEAN YOU THEN CAN OPEN FIRE AT YOUR LEISURE. Sorry, jack, but you have lost this one. Big time. Suck it up...

But you and I both know, 15 feet and two desperate men that were just caught by a feeble old man........criminals are defiant and desperate even when confronted and out numbered by armed police with a badge and uniform.

yeah, criminals are desperate, and even the average idiot that watches cops knows that they RUN when they get desperate far more times than they chareg the cops, you retard. Criminals ALMOST ALWAYS run from the cops, genius. So, there is not one reason at all why two crooks, unarmed, and not drug addicts, would run TOWARDS a guy who was supposedly 15 feet away and armed with a shotgun! They RUN, Mr. Wizard, which is exactly what the evidence shows in this case. You lose again.

So, Today, a Citizen involved shooting of two criminals somehow is a murder and no way would the Citizen be justified and all guns should be confiscated. oh boo hoo.......poor criminals.

ok, stop being a dumbass, seriously. There is only one person in this entire thread that has even posted the phrase "all guns should be confiscated", and it's YOU. Not ONE person in here is saying these things, NOT ONE. So, if you cannot read what people are actually saying then do us all a favor and just shut the fuck up. All youre doing is whining and bitching like a little girl, about points that no one is even trying to make against you. I NEVER said those things, NEVER implied those things, and neither did anyone else! SO WHY ARE YOU STILL STUCK ON STUPID WITH THOSE POINTS?

How about you actually address the discussion that is really taking place instead of this bullshit? You said nothing about how I proved your "illegals" crap wrong, nothing about the distances and what they prove, nothing about the shooter's obvious willingness to go shoot these guys as he keeps saying on the tape...but you instead replace the real discussion with complaining about things that none of us have even said??

Get a clue, sport....you have lost this one. You couldnt have displayed any more fail. Now, be a man, admit your mistakes, and call it a day....you have not used any of the evidence to refute even one thing I have said, but I have completely killed off every theory you presented using only two things--the evidence we have in this case and the actual text of the law.

Good day.

Dude, you have devolved into basically calling me a stupid poopoo head.....

Well you are a poo poo head ....

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q255/95whitepep/pph.jpg

I'm just saying that you have dropped back and started throwing beer while others brawl.

I was "brawling" up until you began ignoring what I, and everyone else was saying. Then it was like I was punching concrete. At this point I think that you need to just admit that you were wrong and call it a day.

^ Ya come on...confess!, Admit it! Come on!

Sorry, no matter what you guys say, The guy went over there to stop a crime and someone got shot.....the criminal(s).

That is the bottom line and the minutia (at least what you posted) isn't going to sway my decision.

Sorry, no matter what you guys say, The guy went over there to stop a crime and someone got shot.....the criminal(s).

That is the bottom line and the minutia (at least what you posted) isn't going to sway my decision.

no, wrong again...can you get anything right in this??

Whats your name--and dont cheat by looking at your driver's license...

The bottom line is this--the guy saw a crime in progress, and WAITED UNTIL AFTER THE CRIMINALS HAD FINISHED COMMITTING THAT CRIME BEFORE ACTING. How does one "stop a crime" by waiting until it is all over, and THEN acting, bonehead??

Here's the other bottom line--you havent gotten one point right this whole time. And you also have not had anything to say about all the times you've been proven wrong, either. What--you cant man up and face facts?? Shit dude, you like the oilers, so you should be used to swallowing your pride and admitting defeat!! c'mon already, admit you screwed the rooster on this one.

Tell us all about your ill-informed "illegals" bit.
Own up to your mistakes when it comes to these two crooks fleeing(obviously) the scene.

Do SOMETHING...ANYTHING....face it like a man. All this time, you came out with all guns blazing, but the instant you were proven wrong on all counts, suddenly you decide that all these very relevant points are reduced to simply being "minutia". Thats what typically happens when someone who is that insecure cant deal with the fact that he cant get one detail right.....

The truth doesnt change. What truthfully took place in this incident as of today will still be what truthfully took place in this incident five years from now. But this is interesting--your story has changed, your claims have changed, each time a new piece of the puzzle is revealed. If the truth doesnt change, and your story has done nothing but change, then what does that say about how truthful your account(s) are?? I thought so.

If this does go to trial, no jury is ever gonna convict this guy, thats the messed up thing. But thats not a reflection in any way on the specifics of the law. They wont convict a 61 year old man to spend the rest of his life in jail....or worse...but that changes nothing about the fact that this moron acted illegally, easily breaking the use of force law a half dozen different ways.

Let's sum this up with a very simple comparison--do you watch cop shows? Do you know anyone who is a cop? If you do, put this scenario in their face and ask them for their response:

Suppose a cop was the one standing there in front of these two crooks. The cop draws his gun and yells at them to freeze. They start to run. CAN THAT POLICE OFFICER LEGALLY SHOOT TWO SUSPECTS WHO ARE RUNNING AWAY FROM HIM? The answer is NO. He CANNOT. Unless, of course, he has evidence to suggest that they are running away to go put someone else in immediate danger--and that simply was not the case. Two unarmed suspects. Running away. you tried to throw out the "citizen's arrest" before, well here is the best comparison there is--an actual arrest scenario using the same data.

This was a bad shoot. Period. Now, man up already, admit your mistakes, and earn a little respect from the board. OR, keep on denying the blatantly obvious and keep on crying how we all are "boo hoo for the poor little crooks" like a dumbass....either way, you lost this one massively. Its been a while since this much fail was to be found in a thread. Thanks for playing.

if you listen to the 911 call I posted, right around 6:07 or so, the man actually says to the dispatcher, "I'm gonna kill them". This is when he sees them coming out the window and starting to leave, and he's telling the dispatcher, "sorry, I gotta go, I aint letting them get away with this shit".

he actually says the words "I'm gonna kill em".

howfuckingmuch more could you possibly need to see that stopping a crime was nowhere near his intention? He waits until the crime is over and done with, at which time it is obviously too late to stop it from happening anyways, and then he tells the dispatcher word for word that he is going to go out there and "kill em"!!

Right around 7 minutes, you can hear the shots. This guy was shooting at two targets, at a range of less than 15 feet. Each criminal was hit one time. The shooter has claimed that they were coming after him. But he fired THREE SHOTS. Not two. THREE. So, J, you have insisted that criminals are "defiant" and that they could have easily rushed at him....if someone is coming straight at you from less than 15 feet away, HOW THE FUCK COULD YOU MISS WITH A SCATTERGUN?? The fact that a third shot was necessary in itself is evidence that his target was NOT COMING STRAIGHT AT HIM. One of his shots MISSED, so his target was obviously moving, and not straight at him or straight away from him either. The second crook was hit in the side, and it took two shots to do it, meaning HE WAS NOT IN ANY DANGER AT ALL. If you think that an unarmed man running AWAY from you poses enough danger that you must end his life for your own safety, then you are not only a pussy, but youre a few sandwiches short of a picnic too.

I have two words for this whole train wreck of a thread:

FUCK TEXAS

Right around 7 minutes, you can hear the shots. This guy was shooting at two targets, at a range of less than 15 feet. Each criminal was hit one time. The shooter has claimed that they were coming after him. But he fired THREE SHOTS. Not two. THREE. So, J, you have insisted that criminals are "defiant" and that they could have easily rushed at him....if someone is coming straight at you from less than 15 feet away, HOW THE FUCK COULD YOU MISS WITH A SCATTERGUN?? The fact that a third shot was necessary in itself is evidence that his target was NOT COMING STRAIGHT AT HIM. One of his shots MISSED, so his target was obviously moving, and not straight at him or straight away from him either. The second crook was hit in the side, and it took two shots to do it, meaning HE WAS NOT IN ANY DANGER AT ALL. If you think that an unarmed man running AWAY from you poses enough danger that you must end his life for your own safety, then you are not only a pussy, but youre a few sandwiches short of a picnic too.

you're such an asshole with your speculative know-it-all routine, jonnie

the world will benefit from your early demise

Look who's back

Look who's getting banned again soon............I'll give you a hint.....His name starts with Mass and ends with Extinction, but we all know him as Markypoo.......WWHHHEEEEEEEEEE!







Mark sucks.

you're such an asshole with your speculative know-it-all routine, jonnie

the world will benefit from your early demise

tsk tsk.

7 days in the penalty box.

LMMFAO! M1 tank indeed.....

LOL, skidMark back in his hole.
And it only took him 23 posts! He has hit a new all time low even for himself.

And WTF is up with the name 'David' in your profile.

How do you shoot someone in the CHEST if they are running away from you? The law in Texas says you can use deadly fource to protect your neighbor's property. He tried to get the cops there but they werent fast enough, they only huried up when he told the dispatcher he was going outside.

^^Don't ask...........

The law in Texas says you can use deadly fource to protect your neighbor's property.

No, the law says you can IF the neighbour has specifically asked you to look after the property.

1) he didn't know the neighbour that well, and had received no such request
2) the cops told him not to do it
3) The guy that drafted the law says this isn't how it was meant to be applied

about the guy being shot in the chest - as I stated earlier in the thread, people aren't static. Someone shouts, odds are you turn in their direction.

I suggest you listen to the call and read the full story, as well as followup stories that have been published.

How do you shoot someone in the CHEST if they are running away from you? The law in Texas says you can use deadly fource to protect your neighbor's property. He tried to get the cops there but they werent fast enough, they only huried up when he told the dispatcher he was going outside.

Already addressed--right before he started firing, he yelled "Move and youre dead". He called to the two suspects. What you fail to grasp here, clearly, is the fact that the first suspect's body somehow travelled all the way from the gate to across the street. It is far easier to imagine the guy turning around when the shooter yelled at him than it is to imagine that the guy was shot at basically point blank range with a 12 guage, and then simply strolled on over across the street to fall down over there. A shot to the chest at such close range is very likely to be fatal almost instantly, if not instantly....so how do you explain him being able to walk all that way after being shot?

you cant....which leaves us with the conclusion we have already come to.

Then, let's play even further--suppose, for the sake of discussion, the first suspect was a legal shoot....what would make the second suspect's death necessary when all of the evidence clearly shows he WAS running away?

Now, on to the law you claimed exists. It does, but not in such a fashion that would make this shooting legal. The law you are speaking of is Texas Penal Code Section 9.43. It allows the use of "force or deadly force" to protect someone else's property. BUT--there are stipulations....

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

In other words, in order to use any force at all, the shooter must be legally allowed to use force as provided in sections 9.41 or 9.42--thats where we will start. Here's 9.41:

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.

So, 9.41 requires that, in order to be a legal use of force, the suspect must have used force, threat, or fraud against the actor. None of those things happened in this case....there was no force against a person, no threat of force against a person, and no commission of fraud. So, 9.41's requirements were NOT satisfied. OK, it doesnt need to be, as long as 9.42's requirements are. here is 9.42:

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.


Now, thats a lot of "ands" there. Let's sum it up like this. In order to legally use deadly force, these things must be true:

1--the theft occurred AT NIGHT
2--the stolen property cannot possibly be recovered any other way
3--to use anything less than deadly force would only put the actor at risk of death or serious injury
4--section 9.41 must also apply, which it has already been shown not to fit this incident.

So, you mean to tell me that a crime that happened at around 2 P.M.(not at night), by two unarmed suspects(that didnt have the means to put the actor at risk of death) couldnt be stopped any other way when the cops were almost there?

--no risk of death because suspects were unarmed and as the evidence shows they were LEAVING THE SCENE. That takes the use of deadly force out of legal options right there by itself.

--it is not reasonable to assume that only deadly force would be able to recover the property, people run from the cops like this all the time and many of them are caught while still in the vicinity. And, look at the timing of events on this one...

1--he shoots them
2--he goes inside and calls 911 right back
3--almost immediately afterwards the cops are on-scene

This proves that they would not have been able to get very far at all before the cops arrived. Hence, increasing the chance that they would have been caught that day, still in the area. They were on foot, remember?

OK, sorry for the long drawn out post but thats the fact of it-this was simply a bad shoot. A very poor decision. When you consider the 911 call itself, even before things got to the point of shooting, the guy was specifically saying that he was going to kill them, and repeatedly talked about how he was gonna stop them no matter what. These comments and his decision to get his gun and confront them all took place BEFORE the suspects had the opportunity to respond to the threat of him pointing a shotgun at them....so, he didnt know if they were going to rush him, if they were armed, etc etc, but it didnt matter---that was already his frame of mind and already what he clearly intended to do.

I went to school for criminal justice, so crime scene investigation is something I have dealt with. I know a thing or three about the topic....

^^Don't ask...........

maybe you should have handled your mistakes like a man instead of being a sore loser about it like this. I see how you do things--comment all over the place about what someone else does or says but refuse to look at your own actions....not very honest way of doing things, if I may say so myself.

I expected better out of you, J...I really did. I didnt expect you to be such a hypocrite like this.

Sorry, no matter what you guys say, The guy went over there to stop a crime and someone got shot.....the criminal(s).

That is the bottom line and the minutia (at least what you posted) isn't going to sway my decision.

Yeah what he said. The robbers got shot. So what now? You want to put an old man in jail for shooting them?

Yeah what he said. The robbers got shot. So what now? You want to put an old man in jail for shooting them?

So what, you think the law no longer applies because of the age of the shooter now? What an assinine comment....

Let me spell it out for you this way--the shoot was bad. It was illegal. The guy, no matter his age, had no business leaving what is reasonably considered to be safety(his house) to put himself in a position that involves risk, and then bitch and moan that he had no choice but to shoot them because they were supposedly coming after him--especially when they clearly were heading the opposite direction.

You apparently know a bit about things like this--so you tell me, when was the last time you saw someone take a point-blank shotgun blast to the chest and still be able to walk or run? Yeah, didnt think so. So, I guess the first suspect just magically floated all that way across the street after he was already dead??

Here's something you also havent considered, apparently--the fallout of this incident. If this guy is allowed to get away with completely disregarding the laws pertaining to use of deadly force, all it will do is open up the door for anyone else to disregard those same laws in the future down there. Eventually someone will shoot a person they THOUGHT was trespassing, and it will turn out to be some neighbor out for an early morning jog or something! This is how ridiculously preventable tragedies start...

I dont give a shit how old you are--if you cannot handle the responsibilities of gun ownership, then you dont own a gun. And this guy was literally chomping at the bit to go out there and, in his own words, "kill em". Sorry, but you two need to really wake up and get a clue. The truth is right there in black and white...

I'm just stating facts. To asshole criminals were shot and an old man did it. Rather than blame the criminals you want to put the old man in jail.

I'm just stating facts. To asshole criminals were shot and an old man did it. Rather than blame the criminals you want to put the old man in jail.

for the SHOOTING, I blame the old man, you putz...for the break-in I blame the two crooks like everyone else does. But they didnt illegally pull the trigger, and regardless of their actions HE CHOSE TO SHOOT. That makes it HIS FAULT, moron, not theirs. I wanted to put the criminals in jail too, but since the old fart thought he could take the law into his own hands, we no longer have that option. Seriously, where do idiots like you get off claiming that we arent blaming the crooks for their actions?? Like I said, get a clue.

maybe you should have handled your mistakes like a man instead of being a sore loser about it like this..
Dude relax,

I heard the 911 tapes today......The guy said "I'm gonna go kill 'em."

mkay maybe in this case the guy went out there to kill the burglers.

I'm not YZF, you win. jeeez call a spade a spade, beat the horse, yadda yadda yadda.

feel better?

for the SHOOTING, I blame the old man, you putz...for the break-in I blame the two crooks like everyone else does. But they didnt illegally pull the trigger, and regardless of their actions HE CHOSE TO SHOOT. That makes it HIS FAULT, moron, not theirs. I wanted to put the criminals in jail too, but since the old fart thought he could take the law into his own hands, we no longer have that option. Seriously, where do idiots like you get off claiming that we arent blaming the crooks for their actions?? Like I said, get a clue.

Ok first off I agree with jhammons01 you need to relax.

But anyway I blame the criminals for putting him in that situation. Had they not been there committing a crime he would not have shot them. When you're old or a woman or a kid or something your life is more in jeopardy than an able bodied man. Everybody isn't a fake ex navy seal like you. If he had went over there and said, "hey you wipper snappers need to get out of here". They probably would have killed him and you can't just say he should have hid in his house either and not got involved. He was asked to watch that house. He did and two criminals got what was coming to them.

Thanks to TFL, I feel smarter and smarter everyday. It's like a carnival of people just not understanding basic shit.

Ok first off I agree with jhammons01 you need to relax.

But anyway I blame the criminals for putting him in that situation. Had they not been there committing a crime he would not have shot them. When you're old or a woman or a kid or something your life is more in jeopardy than an able bodied man. Everybody isn't a fake ex navy seal like you. If he had went over there and said, "hey you wipper snappers need to get out of here". They probably would have killed him and you can't just say he should have hid in his house either and not got involved. He was asked to watch that house. He did and two criminals got what was coming to them.


They didn't put him in any situation. He was in his own house, not the house that was being broken into. He was on the phone with 911, who clearly stated the police were on the way. His life was not in jeopardy by any stretch of the imagination. He was not asked to watch that house, on the tape he said he didn't even know the fucking people that lived there.

Now, what DID happen (I don't know why this has to be spelled out again for the 45th time), is this guy was hell bent on stopping the crime himself, with his shotgun. He clearly stated "I'm going to kill them", two guys who were not in his house, nor posed any threat to him. HE confronted them as they were leaving, and shot them as they were running away. There was absolutely ZERO threat to his personal safety.

So people breaking into your neighbor’s house would be ok with you? You would be ok with that? It wouldn't make you feel any less safe or fear for your life? You would be ok with leaving your house or going to sleep in it?

Maybe this guy didn't want to feel like a prisoner in his own house. Locking the doors and sitting there waiting till it's his house they break into.

So you feel more safe if people can shoot whoever they think is doing something wrong, and not be held accountable?

I'll shoot YOU Manntis. You devil-loving piece of shit. I hope you DIE. You're a filthy human being for disagreeing with me and you don't deserve the life God gave you to do with as you please. Scum bag.

That's MISTER scum bag to you ;)

And all is forgiven

Ok first off I agree with jhammons01 you need to relax.

But anyway I blame the criminals for putting him in that situation. Had they not been there committing a crime he would not have shot them. When you're old or a woman or a kid or something your life is more in jeopardy than an able bodied man. Everybody isn't a fake ex navy seal like you. If he had went over there and said, "hey you wipper snappers need to get out of here". They probably would have killed him and you can't just say he should have hid in his house either and not got involved. He was asked to watch that house. He did and two criminals got what was coming to them.

you really arent very smart....

first off, where do you get the idea that he was asked to watch the house?? Thats bullshit right there--he clearly said on the 911 call that he didnt even know that neighbor....who exactly asked him to watch that house? That's your first lie.

Second, getting on the phone to 911 and relaying information about what is happening, deescriptions of the crooks, etc, IS getting involved. So yes, I can just say he should have stayed in his house and not confronted them like that. You actually just said the guy was not in the physical condition to properly confront two criminals, and because of that we cant say he should have just stayed in his house and not confronted them! How fucking retarded are you? Seriously?? If he was not in the proper physical shape to confront them, THEN HE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFRONTED THEM. This is why we have police officers, you moron....the average citizen, regardless of physical condition, is not adequately prepared to handle that confrontation with criminals anyways, which is why face-to-face involvement is not always the best option. Dont sit there and make it sound like this guy was supposed to get in their face, even though he was an old man that isnt able to handle it in a legally sound manner!!! IF YOU DO NOT POSSESS THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING LEGALLY, THAT IS NO EXCUSE FOR JUST DOING IT ILLEGALLY. What did he save that could not be saved any other way? The cops were almost there when he shot them. Two guys, on foot, that he had full physical descriptions of...police officers are trained to catch suspects with far less information and when the crooks have more of a head start than that.

You clearly didnt even listen to the tape--he was at one point saying he was scared. Then he said he was gonna go kill them. They showed not one single hint of aggression towards him at that point, and he had already stated his intention repeatedly to the 911 dispatcher...."I'm gonna kill them"....Dispatcher says "dont go out there, you could get shot"....his response was "wanna bet? I'm gonna kill them". This was NOT some fragile, frail old man who could barely walk and needed that shotgun as a first response. This was a 61 year old man who is not a small man, who is not handicapped, who still has the use of his arms and legs, and who had a head of steam and was ready to take the law into his own hands. Go listen to the tape, genius...you might just learn something.

Third, can your crap about the "fake" shit. You asked me about that tower, and only someone who has seen it can tell you what it looks like....which is exactly what I did, right down to the color paint on the handrails and girders. So, fuck you very much for that....This world doesnt need your approval for something to be true, and neither do I. Dont like it? I dont give a shit. But you dont have the right to talk shit about me when you dont know me, and when I answered your question just fine. I served this country and got a purple heart for my troubles....and youre a real asshole if you think thats something to fuck with for shits and giggles. Get a fucking life.

So people breaking into your neighbor’s house would be ok with you? You would be ok with that? It wouldn't make you feel any less safe or fear for your life? You would be ok with leaving your house or going to sleep in it?

Maybe this guy didn't want to feel like a prisoner in his own house. Locking the doors and sitting there waiting till it's his house they break into.

so what--you think that responding outside of someone's capabilities is the way to go all of a sudden? Geez, youre really ignorant. Yeah, I can understand that feeling--thats why he should have simply worked with the police--thats what they are there for! And where the hell do you get off acting like doing anything less than what he did automatically means that we "are ok" with criminals breaking into a house? There is this thing called a "proportionate response"....go look into it sometime. Anyone who uses force, in order to abide by the law, needs to know what the term proportionate response means. This guy clearly didnt. and neither do you. You are demonstrating your ignorance just fine--according to your posts, he shot them because it would not have been right if he "didnt get involved". So, in other words, you believe that the only way to get involved is to open fire?!? He had no other viable, less-violent options? Two guys, walking away from him, with no weapons, and he had no option other than to fire three times? What did you hit your head on, sport?

Dude, you have issues. Big ones.

Dude relax,

I heard the 911 tapes today......The guy said "I'm gonna go kill 'em."

mkay maybe in this case the guy went out there to kill the burglers.

I'm not YZF, you win. jeeez call a spade a spade, beat the horse, yadda yadda yadda.

feel better?

I was relaxed just fine when I posted that, youre the one who was swimming in ignorance and not being honest.

you didnt have to be yzf to be acting ignorant. Nor did you have to be yzf to refuse to admit mistakes. All I did was challenge you to be honest. If you think that means I need to relax, then you need to simply leave this forum altogether--this thread has been quite tame by TFL standards. You of all people should know better....

I hope no one on here is downloading illegal copies of music or movies because that gives the companies a right to come shoot. After all they would just be protecting their property. Maybe blackwater can start contracting out to the RIAA or MPAA. If that old man gets away with this then that sets a precedent for the industry to start doing that. Well at least in Texas.

It literally scares me that some of these people own guns. Seriously bolsters the case for undergoing a psychological screening prior to purchasing one.

It literally scares me that some of these people own guns. Seriously bolsters the case for undergoing a psychological screening prior to purchasing one.


So you're saying you break into people's homes to steal shit to sale so you can buy crack?

No, I'm saying that anyone who honestly thinks what this guy did was somehow acceptable should not be in possession of a weapon.

No, I'm saying that anyone who honestly thinks what this guy did was somehow acceptable should not be in possession of a weapon.


Well I'm glad that what you think doesn't matter.

Tell that to the millions of other people who agree with me, and have voting power.

Thanks to TFL, I feel smarter and smarter everyday. It's like a carnival of people just not understanding basic shit.

sums it up pretty well. Couldn't make this shit any simplier even if I used sock puppets and still people anin't getting it.

It is this kind of shit that prevents me from even going near wooded areas during deer season anymore. I can't count how many times I would be sitting in my tree stand and hear 3 people shoot off 12 fucking rounds in succession, and then see a 60lb fawn come limping by me with a broken leg and it's ass blown off. I had so many mercy kills that I just got sick of being anywhere near the retarded assholes who have a gun and don't have a shred of intelligence or responsibility to go along with it.

Tell that to the millions of other people who agree with me, and have voting power.


I'm pretty sure you are a minority in GA. So yeah what you think doesn't really matter.

I'm pretty sure you are a minority in GA. So yeah what you think doesn't really matter.



I'm not a minority in the country, and that DOES matter.

Are you drunk right now?

I was relaxed just fine when I posted that, youre the one who was swimming in ignorance and not being honest.

you didnt have to be yzf to be acting ignorant. Nor did you have to be yzf to refuse to admit mistakes. All I did was challenge you to be honest. If you think that means I need to relax, then you need to simply leave this forum altogether--this thread has been quite tame by TFL standards. You of all people should know better....

*Fingers in ears, singing Lalalalalalalalalala*

*Fingers in ears, singing Lalalalalalalalalala*

I'm not YZF....



hmmmm.....good job, bonehead....

I'm pretty sure you are a minority in GA. So yeah what you think doesn't really matter.

How does that work? If no one thinks the way that he does then it doesn't matter because his single vote won't make a difference. Alternatively, if everyone thinks as he does, then the absence of his vote wouldn't matter. By your logic, the only way one's beliefs could matter is if they hold the deciding vote.

And it isn't like the fact that I live in GA and my opinion is that a lot of retards hold guns really means anything at all.

Ark, 2nd gen, sky...... did your parents tell you constantly to "shut up"? I bet they did. I could say the sky was blue and you guys could talk about why I was wrong for days.

Ok I'll try to make this more simple. If....your.....opinion....is....in.....the......mi nority......it......doesn't......really.....matter ......because.......the........majority........... rules. What is so hard to understand about that.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

but

Everything that vibrates the air creates the potential for sound, regardless of what conscious being is there to perceive it in the first place. If there is nothing to perceive it occurring, then it could not exist. Sound is a subjective interaction with matter. All sound is, is vibrations through a medium, without humans to perceive it, those vibrations that we call sound, when the tree fell, would make vibrations, but "sound" as we know it, couldn't exist, since no conscious being was there to interpret those vibrations.

Ark, 2nd gen, sky...... did your parents tell you constantly to "shut up"? I bet they did. I could say the sky was blue and you guys could talk about why I was wrong for days.

The sky is black right now as it is night time.

Ok I'll try to make this more simple. If....your.....opinion....is....in.....the......mi nority......it......doesn't......really.....matter ......because.......the........majority........... rules. What is so hard to understand about that.

It seems more like no single opinion matters by the way that you are stating it.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

but

Everything that vibrates the air creates the potential for sound, regardless of what conscious being is there to perceive it in the first place. If there is nothing to perceive it occurring, then it could not exist. Sound is a subjective interaction with matter. All sound is, is vibrations through a medium, without humans to perceive it, those vibrations that we call sound, when the tree fell, would make vibrations, but "sound" as we know it, couldn't exist, since no conscious being was there to interpret those vibrations.

What, a forest with no squirrels?

It seems more like no single opinion matters by the way that you are stating it.


Ok let me try a different analogy.

If five people want to get a pizza. They're only going to get one pizza. Three of them want pan pizza and two want thin crust. Unless the two that want thin are women and the other three are men. They're going to get pan. So it really didn't matter that the other two wanted thin because they're going to eat pan.

Ok let me try a different analogy.

If five people want to get a pizza. They're only going to get one pizza. Three of them want pan pizza and two want thin crust. Unless the two that want thin are women and the other three are men. They're going to get pan. So it really didn't matter that the other two wanted thin because they're going to eat pan.

Unless the the two who wanted the thin crust make a convincing enough argument to sway one of the votes that was originally for pan pizza. The only opinions that don't matter are the ones that aren't held by anyone.

Bah, I guess we can agree that some of us would like to shoot criminals and some of us identify with the criminals.

Bah, I guess we can agree that some of us would like to shoot criminals and some of us identify with the criminals.

This is why this thread can't die, because people like you keep getting it wrong. No one is identifying with the criminals, no one is trying to help the criminals, no one is trying to educate the criminals and reintegrate them into society. All that we are saying is that just because someone breaks the law, you don't necessarily have the right to do whatever you want to them. Why is that so hard for you guys to understand. Had they broken into the shooters home while he was in it and he blew them away then I would have been one of the first to say that the intruders got what was coming to them.

just because someone breaks the law, you don't necessarily have the right to do whatever you want to them.


So true. A scared old man shot two ass holes that had it coming anyway. Just because he may have broke the law by shooting them, you can't just throw him in jail. Why are you so worried about protecting criminals?

Ark, 2nd gen, sky...... did your parents tell you constantly to "shut up"? I bet they did. I could say the sky was blue and you guys could talk about why I was wrong for days.

an absolutely pathetic attempt on your part at making a point--you just arent intelligent enough to understand this--you are wrong as could be about this incident, so it isnt anything at all like saying the sky was blue. Shit, dumbass--youre the one who's still whining about how this guy was supposedly "asked to watch the house" when it is 100% clear that no such thing happened. The shooter himself says on the tape that he doesnt even know that neighbor at all....but youre too ignorant and pitiful to simply admit you fucked up. So, when all else fails, and in the face of the facts themselves, your plan is to simply sit back and point the finger elsewhere, because it takes a man to be honest about his mistakes and youre still waiting on puberty, I guess.

Ok I'll try to make this more simple. If....your.....opinion....is....in.....the......mi nority......it......doesn't......really.....matter ......because.......the........majority........... rules. What is so hard to understand about that.

so...let me get this straight. Out of everyone in this thread, there is only one other person that agrees with you, for the most part....but WE are the minority all of a sudden? Oh, and the one that was on your side?? he changed his tune when he listened to the 911 tape, so I guess that leaves you pissing in the wind all by your lonesome.....on top of being that ignorant, you are retarded enough that you cannot count now, too? Let's try using something you rarely offer--intelligence.

In this incident, there are people right now, all over the country, that are debating whether this was legal or not. It's a safe bet that 100% or all the anti-gun follks are convinced this was a bad shoot, does that at least make sense to you?? NOW--there are more than a few pro-gun people who have very similar opinions to mine. So, divide the people right down the middle--pro-gun on one side and anti-gun on the other. The anti-gunners say it was a bad shoot. A significant portion of the pro-gunners also say it was a bad shoot. Which only leaves a portion of one of those two groups on your side--while one whole group and part of the other basically agree with my conclusions.

Now--your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to display a little friggin common sense and realize the fact that we are not the minority. Thanks for playing, jackoff.

Everything that vibrates the air creates the potential for sound, regardless of what conscious being is there to perceive it in the first place. If there is nothing to perceive it occurring, then it could not exist. Sound is a subjective interaction with matter. All sound is, is vibrations through a medium, without humans to perceive it, those vibrations that we call sound, when the tree fell, would make vibrations, but "sound" as we know it, couldn't exist, since no conscious being was there to interpret those vibrations.

you, sir, are a fucking moron.

The sound is still there, Mr. Wizard--just because you didnt personally hear it that doesnt change the fact that those vibrations will always result in sound being formed. Thats like saying the sun didnt rise today just because you had your eyes closed and didnt see it. In your same scenario, a squirrel could have been in the area--and he would have heard the sound, regardless of whether you did or not. The end result of your ridiculous attempt there is NOT "there was no sound", but instead it was "the sound was not loud enough for you to hear because you were not close enough to the source. The actual vibrations still happened, and those vibrations cause sound in the air all by themselves--it is not at all dependent on whether or not you were standing in that forest that day. The interpretation does not in any way change the fact of what physically happens. I could kick you in the ass--and the interpretation would be totally different on each side of the incident. You would not feel very much, whereas I would probably hurt my leg somehow when it got stuck in your cavernous over-invaded sphincter. But the physical incident did not change.

better luck next time, einstein.

Ok let me try a different analogy.

If five people want to get a pizza. They're only going to get one pizza. Three of them want pan pizza and two want thin crust. Unless the two that want thin are women and the other three are men. They're going to get pan. So it really didn't matter that the other two wanted thin because they're going to eat pan.

Please be kind enough to point out which part of this numbnuts analogy represents the certainty of the law and how it was broken. While you may think this is all about opinion, the law does in fact state certain requirements that are not open to interpretation--they stand as they are all by themselves. For example, when one of those laws states that the use of force is justified if it is done to stop a theft "that is occuring at night", but you try to interpret that as "its acceptable anytime I choose", then the certainty of the law has not been met.

So true. A scared old man shot two ass holes that had it coming anyway. Just because he may have broke the law by shooting them, you can't just throw him in jail.

Thanks for the good laugh there. Tell us then, what exactly is the purpose of prisons at all, if not to put those who "broke the law"?? WOW youre a moron....

"just because he acted illegally, you cannot just impose the legal consequences of acting illegally upon him...."

Please tell me this was a sad attempt at being funny, and not how you actually feel about this. Thats really pitiful, even for you.

Oh, yeah, everyone feel sorry for this "scared old man"....the same one that repeatedly told and practically BEGGED the 911 operator to let him take the law into his own hands...WOW he sure was scared on that tape!!! Especially when the operator said "dont go out there, you'll get shot"....and his reply was "You wanna bet?? I'm gonna kill them!"

WOW, what incredible fear he must have been feeling!!

Then again, someone who is really that scared of two unarmed people would NOT leave his house and approach them when they are walking away. But hey, you cant think intelligently enough to get any other part of this one right, so at least youre consistent. And THEN, after you just made a real idiot of yourself, you immediately followed that with:

Why are you so worried about protecting criminals?

The only one trying to protect a criminal here is YOU. Not one person in this thread said that the two crooks did not deserve punishment for their actions. Not one person said they were in the right. Not one person defended their criminal actions and said that they cannot or should not be held accountable. NOT ONE. However, you just admitted that the shooter broke the law, and here you are claiming that "just because he broke the law, doesnt mean you can throw him in jail".....You just tried to protect a criminal--the old man who acted illegally. You've been making excuses in his favor since you entered this thread. So, I've gotta ask you then:

Why are you so worried about protecting criminals?

No one else here tried to protect a criminal--by saying that they deserved the appropriate level of punishment instead of vigilante justice is NOT "protecting criminals". It IS, rather, saying that they did wrong and should be punished as our justice system demands. Did any of this finally sink in yet, sport?

So true. A scared old man shot two ass holes that had it coming anyway. Just because he may have broke the law by shooting them, you can't just throw him in jail. Why are you so worried about protecting criminals?

Setting aside the point that's been discussed (and ignored by you) ad nauseum in this thread, i.e. the shooter was even more guilty of law breaking than the alleged thieves, let me add this:

"Innocent until proven guilty".

Do we know conclusively that they actually broke into the house? No. Circumstantially, yes, but is circumstantial evidence grounds for execution without trial?

Wait 'till you're falsely accused of something serious, then we'll see what tune you sing.

I find it interesting that none of the guys who claim this was a good shoot have said anything of the fact that this case is in review by a grand jury. A grand jury reviews cases to see if there is enough evidence to proceed with a criminal trial against someone. If this was a clear-cut legal shoot the grand jury would never have been called in.

I'm not so solid on my previous stance.

Once the facts were reviewed I changed my opinion.

I've not said anything as you have said almost everything and there is no need to Parrot you........agree?

I'm not so solid on my previous stance.

Once the facts were reviewed I changed my opinion.

I've not said anything as you have said almost everything and there is no need to Parrot you........agree?

perhaps you need to learn how to read a bit better.....

I find it interesting that none of the guys who claim this was a good shoot have said anything of the fact that this case is in review by a grand jury.

Was this directed specifically or solely at you?? Somehow, I didnt think that was the case. But thanks for thinking this is the jhammons show. Obviously you were not the only one who saw things that way, and obviously you have since stated otherwise, so it would stand by simple common sense alone that this was aimed elsewhere, and not at you.

Killing thieves is a punishment of old and is useful. Kind of like killing deers to prevent starvation in its community, thus killing thieves only puts them out of their misery. Fuck thieves.

interesting when this topic was passed around our offices via email, the support was overwhelmingly in favor of the guy who took action with the shotgun

my dad has covered many B&Es, and, as I said before, B&E is a serious felony that can quickly turn into murder, because the perpetrators are often armed, and they have itchy trigger fingers

therefore, when witnessing a B&E, I would order someone to stop, and if they didn't, I would blow their head off...period....what little verbose ex-bounty psycho jonnie says about this topic is wholly irrelevant (as always)

Yeah anybody who is doing B&E’s at residential homes is like a wounded animal. There is something wrong with them. Otherwise they would be knocking off something worthwhile. It's the most likely way for it to end up in a murder. Just ask the guy who played for the Redskins who got murdered last week. I bet he wishes his neighbor was watching his house.

interesting when this topic was passed around our offices via email, the support was overwhelmingly in favor of the guy who took action with the shotgun

my dad has covered many B&Es, and, as I said before, B&E is a serious felony that can quickly turn into murder, because the perpetrators are often armed, and they have itchy trigger fingers

therefore, when witnessing a B&E, I would order someone to stop, and if they didn't, I would blow their head off...period....what little verbose ex-bounty psycho jonnie says about this topic is wholly irrelevant (as always)


And you would go to jail for second degree murder.

guess again

Yeah anybody who is doing B&E’s at residential homes is like a wounded animal. There is something wrong with them. Otherwise they would be knocking off something worthwhile. It's the most likely way for it to end up in a murder. Just ask the guy who played for the Redskins who got murdered last week. I bet he wishes his neighbor was watching his house.


You guys are some thick-headed motherfuckers. This is why so many people hate guns, gross disregard for responsibility.

guess again

What do you mean guess again? If you shoot an unarmed person who is running away from you, YOU GO TO JAIL FOR FUCKING MURDER. You don't get to invent your own version of the law bud, sorry.

if more people owned and used guns, crime rates would fall dramatically...you can count on it

it's a world of wimps

What do you mean guess again? If you shoot an unarmed person who is running away from you, YOU GO TO JAIL

wrong, dipshit

when someone breaks into the house, you have every right to shoot them dead...PERIOD...even if they attempt to flee the scene...there is no way to know if they are armed

wrong, dipshit

when someone breaks into the house, you have every right to shoot them dead...PERIOD...even if they attmept to flee the scene



Right, and what are you going to claim? Self defense against people that weren't in your house, and were running away from you? What, are you a lawyer now too?

if more people owned and used guns, crime rates would fall dramatically...you can count on it

it's a world of wimps

No, it's a world of crazy assholes like you and Amishboy who think they have the power to circumvent the law and take justice into their own hands.

I don't know if anyone is following this case, but this guy won't do any time

discussion ended

We'll see about that.

yep

and he will be exonerated, much to the consternation of liberals :)

This has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals. It is about someone deciding that they were the judge and jury, and shooting two people who were running away after breaking into SOMEONE ELSE'S house, whom he didn't even know. You have more than one Republican in this thread saying that this guy was wrong. We just don't have a God complex like you, and know that it is not OUR decision whether someone lives or dies.

a jury will decide...if he even goes to court? is he charged with anything?

if more people owned and used guns, crime rates would fall dramatically...you can count on it

The exact OPPOSITE is true.

Canada has higher gun ownership per capita, but with strict rules for transporting weapons, storing them at home, etc. - so far, far fewer weapons for "home defense" or "personal defense". Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters.

Yet Canada's violent crime rate is far lower than that of the US. In 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65% higher, its rate for aggravated assault was double the Canadian rate, and its murder rate was triple - and that year is indicative of historical averages of the difference in crime north and south of the border, not an 'extreme' example.

In fact, from an article comparing Canadian and US crime rates: "One of the most common explanations given for the historically higher violent crime rate in the United States are guns. Gun crimes are far more common in the United States."

Canada isn't any criteria of anything, it's a nothing country

gun ownership by law abiding citizens reduces crime, there are U.S. stats to show this, including FL

A law abiding citizen doesn't include a guy that runs out of his house and shoots people who pose no threat to him, while on the phone with the police saying "I AM GOING TO KILL THEM". That's almost pre-meditated murder guy, what is not clear here?

Canada isn't any criteria of anything, it's a nothing country


....riiight. :rolleyes: Can't debte the facts, so you hurl an insult. How mature of you.

A law abiding citizen doesn't include a guy that runs out of his house and shoots people who pose no threat to him, while on the phone with the police saying "I AM GOING TO KILL THEM". That's almost pre-meditated murder guy, what is not clear here?

I think he said "I'm going to stop them"

I think he said "I'm going to stop them"


Ok, now actually listen to the tape and tell me:

A) How that guy was in any danger whatsoever
B) How many times he said "I'm going to kill them"
C) How many times he was instructed to wait for the police

back to my previous question, which is really all that matters here:

has he been charged with anything?

Two days after the dude released this statement


“The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life," it said. "My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased.”

Remorse...sounds like it. The dude knows he did wrong.

I think he said "I'm going to stop them"

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

At issue is whether it was reasonable for Horn to fear the men and whether his earlier threats on the 911 call showed he planned to kill them no matter what, said Fred C. Moss, who teaches criminal law at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

Not to mention the statute that was written regarding this issue applies to your own personal property.

Not to mention the statute that was written regarding this issue applies to your own personal property.

And the guy who wrote the statue said this is NOT how it was meant to be applied.

has he been charged? if not, there isn't anything to debate

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

that's not the entire context

Question: have you listened to the tape?

Canada isn't any criteria of anything, it's a nothing country

gun ownership by law abiding citizens reduces crime, there are U.S. stats to show this, including FL

Meaning what exactly? That any evidence which proves contrary to your claims should be disregarded due to the fact that they don't support what you say?

You can call me a worthless liberal Canadian all that you like but I fully support gun ownership by responsible, law abiding citizens. There's just one problem here, your buddy, Joe Horn, isn't one of them.

that's not the entire context


Fine then here is the whole 911 transcript.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Read it a weep shit for brains.

that's not the entire context

You claimed "I think he said I'm going to stop them". I showed he said "I'm going to kill them".

In context, the cop was telling him to NOT go outside, NOT shoot at them, etc. He said multiple times he was going to kill them, then went outside and did so.

breaking and entering, you guys just don't get it

ask any long time police officer....I doubt he will be charged

You claimed "I think he said I'm going to stop them". I showed he said "I'm going to kill them".

nevertheless, my statement was correct

Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun.

"I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.

"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."

I'll tell ya, the applause for this guy in my firm on the email chain was just overwhelming

I didn't miss this place!

I didn't miss this place!

Come on now... Everyone here can see that this is not true.

Support for Horn was also running about 2-1 in an online survey of readers on the KHOU Web site.

The incident may prove a test for a new law recently passed in Texas which expands the right of citizens to use deadly force.

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

pretty much sums it up

again, I doubt charges will be filed

I think the reality is that most people are unaware of all the factors here. Many have not listened to the 911 tape (like yourself). Many are also unaware of what the exact law says pertaining to this matter. Polling personal opinion in this matter, when so much is assumed on the pollee's part, really holds no relevance.

pretty much sums it up

again, I doubt charges will be filed

WTF, idiot ...did you read what you quoted?



Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."


The dude was protecting his neighbors property not his own...

LOL you are the stupid person today...
http://people.cc.jyu.fi/~ilrepo/crap/fail/fail3.jpg

nevertheless, my statement was correct

In what universe? You claimed he said something other than what he actually said. That means you were incorrect. Your subsequent article quote backs up that he was telling the officer he was going out after them and does nothing to bolster your case.

Seriously, the stupidity in this thread is astounding. There are at least two people who should either go to a special needs camp, or just fucking kill themselves.

interesting when this topic was passed around our offices via email, the support was overwhelmingly in favor of the guy who took action with the shotgun

not really, since youre a bunch of dirt-diggers. On the other hand, I went to school for this actual field....whereas you didnt. So much for your firm's "expert" analysis, chief.

my dad has covered many B&Es, and, as I said before, B&E is a serious felony that can quickly turn into murder, because the perpetrators are often armed, and they have itchy trigger fingers

which is completely irrelevant, because in this particular case, the suspects were unarmed. That one piece of information, which you have termed "irrelevant", changes this whole issue, dumbass. Look--if they were armed, and they presented an aggressive posture, then you bet your ass my opinion would be different. But the FACT here is that they werent armed and they didnt pose that threat to him. Sorry, you lose.

therefore, when witnessing a B&E, I would order someone to stop, and if they didn't, I would blow their head off...period....

therefore, you would find yoor retarded ass in prison. Especially in your state...

http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/guidelines-for-the-use-of-deadly-force/

In case you are curious, at least in North Carolina, there are four conditions that all must be present to justify use of Deadly Force in self-defense:

There must be an real and immediate threat of death, serious injury, or sexual assault such that a normal person believes Deadly Force is necessary.
The threat must be otherwise unavoidable.
You cannot instigate the dispute: “If you start a fight, you lose your rights.”
You cannot use excessive force.

So much for what you thought you knew, dipstick. Even in your state you would be fucked. The problem with you is that you try to talk a tough game, and let your emotion run the situation. The truth of the matter is this--you dont have the experience to properly handle such a situation properly, and your knee-jerk "blow their head off" tough-guy bullshit responses prove it. The use of force is not something to be so hastily talked about as if it was always the best option, and you need to get off the hormone treatments so you can figure that out. Sure is easy to be a hard-ass tough guy with words, isnt it jackoff??

what little verbose ex-bounty psycho jonnie says about this topic is wholly irrelevant (as always)

hmmm....ok....the 911 tape, the laws themselves--all "wholly irrelevant" to you? Thanks for proving yet again just how ignorant you really are. Tell us something, moron---the grand jury is at this moment snalyzing this incident to determine whether charges should be filed. EXACTLY WHAT INFO DO YOU THINK THEY WILL BE LOOKING AT?? Why, the 911 tape and the laws themselves, of course. But sure, all that must be irrelevant simply because of who posted it here, right?? Jeez, you couldnt be a bigger dick if you were attached to John Holmes....

wrong, dipshit

when someone breaks into the house, you have every right to shoot them dead...PERIOD...even if they attempt to flee the scene...there is no way to know if they are armed

um, no, "dipshit"...

see my last post in regards to North Carolina law and the four requirements that must be met to justify use of deadly force.....you are simply wrong. Now, deal with it like a man already and stop being such an ignorant pussy.

breaking and entering, you guys just don't get it

ask any long time police officer....I doubt he will be charged


Have you even seen the police response to this incident?? No, of course you havent....

here, you can begin with this one--it's from a forum that is police-only:

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76849&page=2

The vast majority of the officers in that thread are saying this was not justified. Those that are saying it was are mostly using information that isnt even found in this incident--for example, one guy talks about whether or not they were armed, which they were not. he says if they were armed then it was justified. But they werent.

"ask any police officer....", right? Well, we just did....and they responded. And again, you lose. They reference his actions clearly as indications of unjustified use of force--saying he was gonna kill them, shouting "youre dead" before shooting them, etc etc etc.

you fail. :owned:

pretty much sums it up

why yes, it most certainly does....let's take a good look at the quote you said that about:

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

1--AT NIGHT, whereas this took place at 2 in the afternoon.

2--YOUR OWN PROPERTY, as in "not everyone else's on the block, where the house is empty and no one is even involved other than the suspects..."

yeah, youre finally right about something--that DOES sum it up. Thanks for playing!!

:bigthumb:

has he been charged? if not, there isn't anything to debate

back to my previous question, which is really all that matters here:

has he been charged with anything?

well, consider this--a grand jury is reviewing this incident as we speak, to compare the evidence to the law, and determine if there is sufficient evidence to file criminal charges against the shooter.

What does this mean? Simple--if this was a clear-cut good shoot, like you try to make it out to be, there would be no grand jury proceedings at all....would there? Funny how you like to pick and choose which parts of the news you will listen to in an article and which parts you pretend werent ever there....

gun ownership by law abiding citizens reduces crime

while gun ownership by half-cocked old farts that go off half-assed because they want to relive their glory days, trying to be a hero, or whatever other power trip this moron was on at the time, well, that only causes more crime. This guy turned one B&E into a B&E followed by two murders. All without any provocation or threat from the suspects, all without them even having any weapons to threaten him with, and all while the evidence proves they were walking AWAY from him and not charging onto his property as he claimed.

yeah, good call there, bonehead...:asshole:

You claimed he said something other than what he actually said.

really? read english much?

Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun.

"I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?"

f this was a clear-cut good shoot, like you try to make it out to be, there would be no grand jury proceedings at all

he stretched the limits of the law because it wasn't actually his house, that's the reason for the proceedings

I'm not sure what your oft-repeated "good shoot" grade school nonsense is about

the bottom line is if the stupid mexicans hadn't committed the crime, they wouldn't be six feet under right now, I applaud this type of action against criminals

Seriously, the stupidity in this thread is astounding. There are at least two people who should either go to a special needs camp, or just fucking kill themselves.

let's put you at the top of the list

he stretched the limits of the law because it wasn't actually his house, that's the reason for the proceedings

I'm not sure what your oft-repeated "good shoot" grade school nonsense is about

the bottom line is if the stupid mexicans hadn't committed the crime, they wouldn't be six feet under right now, I applaud this type of action against criminals

1--wrong....

--they were unarmed, and as such, they did not present the level of immediate threat necessary to justify the level of force he used.

--they were leaving the scene, not coming after him, thats why he dropped the first guy across the street when he first approached them directly next door to his property.

--Even if the first shoot was legal, the second suspect was without doubt on the run, and he keep shooting. That means that even if there was a credible threat from these two, it was now gone the instant the guy ran...and he fired anyways. This is, again, excessive force when compared to the actions of the bad guys.

In short, there are a dozen things wrong with this incident, not just the fact that it wasnt his house. In fact, there are two other laws that pertain to defense of third party property in TX, and neither one of those was satisfied either....so youre wrong. There's why. Case closed. You suck.

2--calling it a "good shoot" is a term that is often used by people who use firearms in such a capacity. Here you are, boasting about how your daddy was a longtime cop, and you dont even know the basic termonilogy that is used in such an instance??

Here--let me educate you, since you obviously need it:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/10/25/blackwater_contractor_not_a_good_shoot/8468/

Some Blackwater employees in Baghdad believe the shooting of civilians last month was unjustified, The New York Times reported Thursday.

"Some guys are thinking that it was not a good shoot, that it was not warranted," one contractor said. "I don’t think there was criminal intent involved. I just think it was the application of the use of deadly force gone horribly wrong."

The term means a shoot that follows the laws pertaining to use of force, moron. It isnt a term that means "oh, good, someone got shot", or anything else of the sort, retard.

:owned:

3--reading once again owns your pathetic ass. They werent mexicans, dumbass--they were Puerto Ricans, which by default means they were US citizens. They lived in the Houston area--legally as US citizens, I might add--and between the two of them there was not one arrest or conviction for any violent crime anywhere in their histories.

If you were owned any more, you would wear a leash and be tied out in the yard....

they were unarmed

there would have been no way to ascertain that, bonehead

geez, you were a bounty hunter? do you judge whether someone is armed by LOOKING AT THEM? I'm surprised you haven't taken a knife to the gut yet

anyway, he won't do any time, so all your ranting is much ado about nothing...you lose

geez, you were a bounty hunter? do you judge whether someone is armed by LOOKING AT THEM? I'm surprised you haven't taken a knife to the gut yet


Dude, that can be taken as a veiled wish of you wanting him dead again....Are you that fucking stupid that you can't learn? I can see the bannage coming soon.


anyway, he won't do any time, so all your ranting is much ado about nothing...you lose

Idiot, I'll bet anything that there will be a grand jury and this dude will be charged. Due process of law (which the guy did not give the robbers he shot BTW) will prevail, and I have no doubt that this guy will have a conviction in some manner....your assertion that he won't be charged is again your lack of any brain waves.

As for you skidMark, too bad people cant be charged with being a fucking idiot....too bad stupid isn't against the law, or you would be serving time.

I'll bet anything that there will be a grand jury and this dude will be charged.

I'll take that bet, asshole

what do you want to put up?

I'm waiting

trying to think up a witty reply for being forced to EAT YOUR WORDS YET AGAIN, SUPERHACK?

you're absolutely worthless

there would have been no way to ascertain that, bonehead

geez, you were a bounty hunter? do you judge whether someone is armed by LOOKING AT THEM? I'm surprised you haven't taken a knife to the gut yet

anyway, he won't do any time, so all your ranting is much ado about nothing...you lose


There would have been no way to tell??

You, sir, are one seriously retarded dumb shit.

They had NO WEAPON IN THEIR HANDS. They had NO VISIBLE WEAPON WITHIN REACH. Do you know what that means?? Of course not---let me educate your dumb ass yet again...

Suppose you walk up to me and I have a gun in the back of my waist. You cant see it. But you CAN see if I make a move to pull something from behind me. At that point, there WOULD BE an aggressive gesture, which would change the entire situation. BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Like I said, it all comes down to the actual visible level of threat at that very moment. AND THERE WAS NONE. he didnt wait to see if they had anything, or if they were trying to use anything, and the law REQUIRES that force be used ONLY TO AN APPROPRIATE EXTENT TO COUNTER THE THREAT. But there was no threat when two unarmed guys are walking AWAY FROM THE SHOOTER.

yes, dipshit, I am a bounty hunter. I have extensive experience apprehending armed subjects. I have more experience than you ever will. And like it or not what I am saying follows the law 100%.

In fact, speaking of the law, in your state there 100% MUST be a real threat to your safety. Not "could have been", or "hey may have a weapon", or "I couldnt tell". If you cannot tell, then he isnt coming at you with it or aiming it at you, is he?? THEN YOU CANNOT SHOOT. But hey, its only the law, who cares about it, right tough guy?

How many real-life shooting incidents have you actually seen, tough talker?? NONE. Not one. At least, based on how pathetic you sound, not one. I think I have the edge here. You clearly dont.

Good day, dumbass. Go back to worthy and work on your next permaban.

I'm waiting

trying to think up a witty reply for being forced to EAT YOUR WORDS YET AGAIN, SUPERHACK?

you're absolutely worthless

shit, I'll bet you your FD that there will be a grand jury.....
































....because there already IS one, stoopid!

read english, STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID?

the bet was, will charges be filed against Horn!

Horn was not taken into custody after the shooting. A Harris County grand jury will decide if charges are to be filed.

wow, you're a complete moron

and no, you can't tell if someone is armed by visual inspection, idiot, that's why they call it a concealed weapon, that's why people are frisked before they go into custody...DUH!

do I get paid to educate morons here?

yes, I am a bounty hunter. I have extensive experience apprehending armed subjects.

sure you do, asshole

you're a washed up plant inspector with a clapped out Thunderbird collection in south Louisiana...a real winner

Don't you two work?

Oh damn he's a bounty hunter too. Or is it ex bounty hunter?

former

retired

use to be

once was

i saw a movie

heard about somebody

i once saw

Don't you two work?

You know, I've wondered the same thing.

Especially sky's responses, they tend to be really, really long.

read english, STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID?

the bet was, will charges be filed against Horn!



wow, you're a complete moron

and no, you can't tell if someone is armed by visual inspection, idiot, that's why they call it a concealed weapon, that's why people are frisked before they go into custody...DUH!

do I get paid to educate morons here?



So by your logic, anyone could be armed! I get to walk around and shoot anyone committing a crime?

B&E is not just any crime

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

Anyway you slice it, this guy still broke the law. Can we at least agree on that?

Well I think you have to consider intent. Just like in football. It's illegal to go up to a player and hit him helmet to helmet or pull on his facemask. But after a good play your teammates will come up and do things like that to you. The referees don't call that. Even though technically it’s illegal.

I know you Canadians won't understand my football analogy. So where it says football, just put in hockey.

Especially sky's responses, they tend to be really, really long.

Yeah really. Does anybody read all of that shit? Besides YZ I mean. Oh I mean besides Mass Extinction.

Well I think you have to consider intent. Just like in football. It's illegal to go up to a player and hit him helmet to helmet or pull on his facemask. But after a good play your teammates will come up and do things like that to you. The referees don't call that. Even though technically it’s illegal.

How many times did he say "I'm gonna kill them" on the tape? There's your intent.

I know you Canadians won't understand my football analogy. So where it says football, just put in hockey.

lol

you got me there.

Well I think you have to consider intent. Just like in football. It's illegal to go up to a player and hit him helmet to helmet or pull on his facemask. But after a good play your teammates will come up and do things like that to you. The referees don't call that. Even though technically it’s illegal.

I know you Canadians won't understand my football analogy. So where it says football, just put in hockey.


That makes absolutely zero sense.

B&E is not just any crime


So? Is it within your right to just shoot someone that you see breaking into a building, without any reason to believe he is armed? No!

So you're saying intent is never a factor in deciding someone's guilt or innocence?

Ok was he looking to kill somebody that day? No

Was the two who got shot looking to rob somebody? Yes

So was the shooting premeditated? No

I only listened to the tape once. But I'm pretty sure the 911 dispatcher says don't go out there you'll get shot and he says no I won't I'll shoot them or I'll kill them or something like that. But that was a response to the dispatcher saying "they'll kill you". If anything the 911 dispatcher convinced him he would have to shoot them. Or he at least introduced the thought.

Well I think you have to consider intent. Just like in football. It's illegal to go up to a player and hit him helmet to helmet or pull on his facemask. But after a good play your teammates will come up and do things like that to you. The referees don't call that. Even though technically it’s illegal.


Actually, now that I think of it, the rule pertains to conduct between youself and your opponent, not your own teamate. Likewise in hockey, if I were to accidently clip my own teamate with a high stick, I would not be penalized with an infraction. Nice try though.

Anyway you slice it, this guy still broke the law. Can we at least agree on that?

no, he did not break the law, and the Grand Jury will side with him

So? Is it within your right to just shoot someone that you see breaking into a building, without any reason to believe he is armed?

he was asked to watch over the house by a friend

he saw a B&E in progress

granted, with police on the way, he likely should have let them handle it, but I understand his concern the crooks would just get away and live to do it again

The dispatcher handled it all wrong. If he wanted to keep that guy in his house. He should have engaged him in a way that would make him want to stay in the house and help at the same time. He could have said something like you need to watch from your window because it's a better vantage point. Or said I need you to tell me what's happening from where you're standing. Not saying hey if you go out there they'll shoot you. That insulted his pride and he was all I'll go show them. They aren't going to shoot me.

So you're saying intent is never a factor in deciding someone's guilt or innocence?

Who says that?

Ok was he looking to kill somebody that day? No

According to the tape he was.

So was the shooting premeditated? No

How do you figure? If I tell you that I'm going to go kill two guys across the street and then get my gun and proceed to do just that, exactly as was described beforehand, then how does that not qualify as premediatation?

I only listened to the tape once. But I'm pretty sure the 911 dispatcher says don't go out there you'll get shot and he says no I won't I shoot them or I'll kill them or something like that. But that was a response to they'll kill you. If anything the 911 dispatcher convinced him he would have to shoot them. Or he at least introduced the thought.

Listen to it again, this time without assuming his innocence until after.

Right, and the senator who wrote the legislation blatantly saying it was not meant to be used in this manner is just full of shit?

This guy is going to jail. I guarantee it.

The dispatcher handled it all wrong. If he wanted to keep that guy in his house. He should have engaged him in a way that would make him want to stay in the house and help at the same time. He could have said something like you need to watch from your window because it's a better vantage point. Or said I need you to tell me what's happening from where you're standing. Not saying hey if you go out there they'll shoot you. That insulted his pride and he was all I'll go show them. They aren't going to shoot me.

So what you are saying is the guy shot them out of pride? WTF? That somehow makes it ok?

no, he did not break the law, and the Grand Jury will side with him

Despite the fact that every law posted has been shown to not cover his actions? Give me a break.

he was asked to watch over the house by a friend

he saw a B&E in progress

granted, with police on the way, he likely should have let them handle it, but I understand his concern the crooks would just get away and live to do it again

He wasn't asked to watch the house, he clearly stated on the tape that he didn't even know the people that owned the house.

How do you figure? If I tell you that I'm going to go kill two guys across the street and then get my gun and proceed to do just that, exactly as was described beforehand, then how does that not qualify as premediatation?

sorry, that doesn't qualify as premeditated murder, premeditated murder is carefully planning something days, weeks, months, even years in advance

this was a very high tension situation where a decision was made in the heat of the moment...you can claim it was a bad decision, but not against the law

he WILL be found innocent of murder, you can count on it

he clearly stated on the tape that he didn't even know the people that owned the house.

bullshit, it was a "neighbor's property"

he was asked to watch over the house by a friend

By a friend? Who? Not the neighbour himself. We know this because the shooter said on the tape that he didn't know the neighbour very well... hell, he didn't even know if the neighbour was home at the time.


granted, with police on the way, he likely should have let them handle it, but I understand his concern the crooks would just get away and live to do it again

I'm curious, say hypothetically he didn't shoot them. Suppose he did something less noble and heroic than shooting two unarmed people at close range. Let's say that he raped them instead. Would you still be in support of this if he raped them? Afterall, I should think that the knowledge that the next house you break into could land you raped, would act as a pretty strong deterant.

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

are you saying "at night" disqualifies the rest of the law? give me a break!

Nope, the law is saying that.

So what you are saying is the guy shot them out of pride? WTF? That somehow makes it ok?


I'm saying the dispatcher was a dumb ass. You don't tell someone who obviously wants to go do something that if they do they’ll get shot. You don't make people do what you want like that. He practically was daring him to do it and he only mentioned killing someone after the dispatcher said that. The dispatcher said don't go out there you'll get shot. You could tell by the sound of his voice that made him mad. Then he said no they won't I'll kill them or something like that. The point is he never said anything about shooting or killing someone. It was a response to the dispatcher saying he would get shot. The dispatcher planted the thought that those were two armed criminals who were going to shoot him.

Suppose he did something less noble and heroic than shooting two unarmed people at close range.

again, he didn't know that for certain

Let's say that he raped them instead. Would you still be in support of this if he raped them?

I'm sorry, that's an absurd argument, you can do better

the law states DEADLY FORCE CAN BE USED...get it? wow

Nope, the law is saying that.

close inspection of the entire law would be required, obviously that's a paraphrase

he'll walk! watch!

bullshit, it was a "neighbor's property"

Did you even listen to the tape? He said he didn't know them!

according to ark2, he didn't know them "very well"

"know" is a relative term

Did you even listen to the tape? He said he didn't know them!


So what? I don't know my neighbors either. I would still do something if I saw someone break into their house.

So what? I don't know my neighbors either. I would still do something if I saw someone break into their house.

bingo.

Hell even if this does go to trial and I bet it won't. Even I could be this guy's lawyer and he would still get off.

Oh and that dispatcher should be fired.

again, he didn't know that for certain

LOL so then a police officer would have been justified in just opening fire on him because they too would not know for certain? Didn't think so. If this man wasn't capable of handling the situation within the confines of the law then he should not have gone outside.

I'm sorry, that's an absurd argument, you can do better

Absurd in the sense that it wouldn't happen, I agree but when people are applauding this loon because what he did will deter future B&E's, it fits just fine.

the law states DEADLY FORCE CAN BE USED...get it? wow

Yet not under these circumstances, so deadly force is just as absurd as rape... do you get it?

close inspection of the entire law would be required, obviously that's a paraphrase

Agreed.

he'll walk! watch!

I honestly hope not, but it has happened to criminals before.

according to ark2, he didn't know them "very well"

"know" is a relative term

Those were his exact words. We can debate the meaning of the word "know" all you like but one thing is for certain: he was not asked by the neighbour to watch out for the house. I could tell you to keep an eye out on the Kinkos down the street but my saying this would not give you legal authority to do so.

Hell even if this does go to trial and I bet it won't. Even I could be this guy's lawyer and he would still get off.

Oh and that dispatcher should be fired.

What would be your argument? His pride was hurt? He demanded satisfaction? The best thing this guy has going for him is that he's an old man.

Well let’s say I'm the neighbor and you stop two thieves from stealing my cash. Which is not covered in any insurance policy. I would get up in court and say I asked you to watch my house. I don't care if we had never talked before.

now if only the shooter didn't state otherwise on tape....

he over-reacted perhaps, but calling him a criminal is stupid

the real criminals are DEAD...and that's a good thing

What would be your argument? His pride was hurt? He demanded satisfaction? The best thing this guy has going for him is that he's an old man.


He was going out to stop the two guys. The dispatcher told him he would get shot. The dispatcher told this guy while he was upset and excited and scared that there were two guys who were going to shoot him. This guy was so scared and hopped up he probably saw a gun in both of the guys hands. The power of suggestion is strong when you’re scared. I bet I could get you to shoot two unarmed people and make you believe they were armed.

People think and see all kinds of crazy shit when they're scared. Cops in their 20's soldiers and these are people who are trained. This was a 70 year old man. Who was probably watching TV five minutes before two ass holes decided they would go rob somebody and you want the old man to go to jail. You want to call him a criminal? That's not right.

I figure Mr. Horn just saved the taxpayers of TX a nice chunk of change

and if the thieves (the real CRIMINALS in this case, regardless of what liberals here say) had been apprehended and prosecuted, what's the chances they would have done any time? nil....

see, alot of the "vigilante justice" mentality stems from our hopelessly complex, inept, and soft justice system

I say shoot 'em up

It is the justice system's responsibility to determine punishment. It is NOT yours or anyone else's right to determine that someone should die for a crime that they have not been tried for. Mr. Horn just stripped away the legal rights of two people, and sentenced them to death WITHOUT their due process. Regardless of what you may say or think, you are not the law and neither is he. As a citizen of this country, you are bound to the law.

we'll agree to disagree

the law of TX was not broken imo...a jury will decide

read english, STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID?

the bet was, will charges be filed against Horn!



wow, you're a complete moron

and no, you can't tell if someone is armed by visual inspection, idiot, that's why they call it a concealed weapon, that's why people are frisked before they go into custody...DUH!

do I get paid to educate morons here?

which is why a grand jury was also mentioned in his bet, dipshit?

fuck you very much, loser

Oh, and one more thing. I already addressed the concealed weapon bit, you retard. If it's concealed, then you would very obviously see the guy reaching to pull it out, wouldnt you?? If youre holding a shotgun(or any gun) and the suspect just begins to pull a weapon while youre already aiming at him, then WHO HAS THE UPPER HAND IN THE ENCOUNTER, you fucking dumbass??

If I walk outside, pointing a shotgun at your chest, and I see you start to pull out a gun, DONT YOU THINK AT THAT POINT THAT THE THREAT WAS JUST ESTABLISHED?? At that point, AND NOT ANY SOONER, the condition of imminent danger was just satisfied that the law requires to justify deadly force. If we used your logic, then it would be 100% legal for cops to shoot suspects merely because "they might be armed". BUT IT ISNT. And this case is not any different, bonehead.

If youre already taking aim at the suspect, then he reaches behind his back and starts pulling out a pistol, IF YOU CANNOT TAKE HIM DOWN BEFORE HE LEVELS, AIMS, AND FIRES AT YOU, then you are a complete moron who shouldnt be anywhere near a gun. This much SHOULD make sense to you--the little boy of a retired cop who owns guns for defense himself!! But this guy walked outside, aimed at them, THEY PULLED NO WEAPON IN RETURN, and he killed them. What friggin part of this is really this hard for you to comprehend??

again, he didn't know that for certain

this is what you dont understand--the law REQUIRES THE THREAT TO BE REASONABLY PERCEIVED AT THE VERY LEAST. So, if he had not one single clue that they were armed THEN THE THREAT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. Meaning, he never should have opened fire!

Lest you forget, a B&E is not in itself a violent crime, so even up to that point, they had not displayed one violent act, so he had NOTHING to make him believe that they were armed....NOTHING to show that they were a threat to him. This means that under the law, shooting was the wrong choice.

the law states DEADLY FORCE CAN BE USED...get it? wow

The law does NOT say deadly force can be used. It says that force APPROPRIATE TO THE LEVEL OF THREAT can be used. And stepping all the way to the most amount of force when there was not even a weapon being displayed, when no attempt was being made to do anything to him, DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.

It also says that force can be used when this crime occurs at night....which this one didnt. It also states that force can be used to protect your own personal property, not everyone else's in the town. We can go on for days, but we already covered this ground. It isnt my fault that you are this ignorant--it's yours.

Yeah really. Does anybody read all of that shit? Besides YZ I mean. Oh I mean besides Mass Extinction.

no :)

He was going out to stop the two guys. The dispatcher told him he would get shot. The dispatcher told this guy while he was upset and excited and scared that there were two guys who were going to shoot him. This guy was so scared and hopped up he probably saw a gun in both of the guys hands. The power of suggestion is strong when you’re scared. I bet I could get you to shoot two unarmed people and make you believe they were armed.

People think and see all kinds of crazy shit when they're scared. Cops in their 20's soldiers and these are people who are trained. This was a 70 year old man. Who was probably watching TV five minutes before two ass holes decided they would go rob somebody and you want the old man to go to jail. You want to call him a criminal? That's not right.

first off, the dispatcher did not at any time tell this man that the two suspects would shoot him. he said "youre gonna get yourself shot". This could just as easily have been a reference to the police showing up at any moment, they were already on their way, and they were going to no doubt show up with firearms at the ready. Now, in the heat of the moment, innocent people have been killed this way--a cop sees the man running their way with a gun....since the dispatcher made no such distinction, you dont get to assume whatever you like and then fault the dispatcher for your assumption. In fact the dispatcher, later in the call, specifically mentions the officers when he warns Horn about being outside with a gun in his hands....but he did not ever say that the two suspects would shoot him

Second, your theory might make a nice little story, but it is pure bullshit. Dont believe me? Fine--see for yourself...go back to the 911 tape, when the shooter explains that he doesnt even know these neighbors. What did he say about the neighbors on the OTHER side of his house?? this:

Horn told the dispatcher that he doesn’t know the neighbors well, unlike those living on the other side of his home. "I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something, because I know them very well," he said.

Here, he clearly states that if it wasnt this neighbor, he woudl not have waited for a 911 dispatcher to tell him anything--he would have acted first and called the police later. That is clear evidence that this man did not need spurring on by a dispatcher or anyone else to get involved. And that in itself isnt the problem--its how he chooses to get involved. Which brings us to:

Third--you are trying to make a case that the dispatcher put the idea into this guy's head to shoot these people. You couldnt be more wrong. This clip was from earlier in the 911 call:

"I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?"

That was very early on. Then, a little later, we see this:

"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."

He was being told this whole time not to go outside, that no property is worth shooting someone over. And that is his response--"I aint gonna let em go". Clearly, he had every intention right from the get-go of going outside with gun in hand. Which then brings us to:

Fourth--this one speaks for itself....

"I can go out the front [to look], but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."

"I'm gonna shoot". This whole time the dispatcher keeps telling him "stay inside" and "it isnt worth shooting someone over". But he isnt listening to that. he has already made his mind up on two things--

1--that he is going to go out there and "not let em get away
2--that if he has to go out there, he's gonna shoot

Clear--and his own words too, not mine.

NEXT!!

Fifth--right after that:

"Stay inside the house and don’t go out there, OK?" the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK?"

"I don’t want to," Horn said, "but I mean if I go out there, you know, to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?
"No, I don’t want you to go out there, I just asked if you could see anything out there."

"What choice am I gonna have?" It isnt worth shooting someone over--his reply is "what choice do I have?"

This is clear as day--he already has decided that he isnt letting them leave, and in order to stop them he would have to go outside. And, he also already decided that if he goes outside, he's gonna shoot! How is that the dispatcher's doing?? Obviously it isnt.