Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Nebor
Under Texas law, this guy walks. Deadly force is authorized to stop a felony in progress. Same in most states. Why do you people think criminals have rights during the commission of their crimes?

Honestly? I think a better question is why do you think you have the right to kill someone for stealing? Are you a SUPER-UBER cop? Because cops don't even have that authority. The show COPS would be pretty boring if we lived in the world you envision. There would be no chases, no foot pursuits, just "Hey that guy is running out of the bank, shoot him!" It is a rhetorical question tbh having read many of your recent posts on a variety of topics. I almost get the impression you are a parody poster as no one can be that skewed.

I am not buying that it is OK in Texas for the police let alone the average Joe to gun down fleeing criminals unless their lives are in danger first. Having read what DM copied and pasted about Texas law pertaining to 3rd parties and the actors committing the crime, I am not reading where it says it is OK to shoot and kill them. Only that the 3rd party is to be held to the same laws as the actual homeowner being robbed would in defending the property. Sheesh.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

You're obviously not familiar with free states, like Texas, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, etc. Deadly force to stop a felony in progress, or damage or theft of property is authorized. That applies to crimes as petty as criminal mishief. That's right, you can be shot and killed legally for spray painting someone's wall.

I promise you what this guy did is ok by Texas law. Why do you think the police didn't arrest him? From everything I've heard, they patted him on the back and have said he was "just defending his neighbors property." Most people are widely supporting his actions.

I wish he was my neighbor. :thumbsup:

Uh....since when is criminal mischief a felony? Just asking cause that is one of the requirements for the use of deadly force.

Uh, no it's not. Did you read what I posted? I highlighted it for you.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Nebor
Under Texas law, this guy walks. Deadly force is authorized to stop a felony in progress. Same in most states. Why do you people think criminals have rights during the commission of their crimes?

Honestly? I think a better question is why do you think you have the right to kill someone for stealing? Are you a SUPER-UBER cop? Because cops don't even have that authority. The show COPS would be pretty boring if we lived in the world you envision. There would be no chases, no foot pursuits, just "Hey that guy is running out of the bank, shoot him!" It is a rhetorical question tbh having read many of your recent posts on a variety of topics. I almost get the impression you are a parody poster as no one can be that skewed.

I am not buying that it is OK in Texas for the police let alone the average Joe to gun down fleeing criminals unless their lives are in danger first. Having read what DM copied and pasted about Texas law pertaining to 3rd parties and the actors committing the crime, I am not reading where it says it is OK to shoot and kill them. Only that the 3rd party is to be held to the same laws as the actual homeowner being robbed would in defending the property. Sheesh.

You're obviously not familiar with free states, like Texas, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, etc. Deadly force to stop a felony in progress, or damage or theft of property is authorized. That applies to crimes as petty as criminal mishief. That's right, you can be shot and killed legally for spray painting someone's wall.

I promise you what this guy did is ok by Texas law. Why do you think the police didn't arrest him? From everything I've heard, they patted him on the back and have said he was "just defending his neighbors property." Most people are widely supporting his actions.

I wish he was my neighbor. :thumbsup:

I wish you were MY neighbor.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He called the cops so we know what his intentions were, but when the looked to be getting away he shot them, right. Tough luck for the burglars, in my opinion. Why should his neighbor's house be any different than his own. Us liberals are our brothers keepers.

In Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you steal. It's pretty barbaric, except for the fact, there's hardly ever any theft. If we have lots and lots of burglars dying at the scene I bet the crime rate drops.

He gave them the option to freeze, what more could he do? If they weren't smart enough to freeze when someone (with a shotgun) has the drop on them and they're obviously caught red handed then they have to pay the price for their decision, this time with their lives. It's sad, but they brought it on themsleves.

 

[KAZANI]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He called the cops so we know what his intentions were, but when the looked to be getting away he shot them, right. Tough luck for the burglars, in my opinion. Why should his neighbor's house be any different than his own. Us liberals are our brothers keepers.

In Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you steal. It's pretty barbaric, except for the fact, there's hardly ever any theft. If we have lots and lots of burglars dying at the scene I bet the crime rate drops.

Are you suggesting we model our criminal justice system on Saudi Arabia?

You're probably right sirjonk... I've seen this before too. Maybe it is best to get out now before things get too stupid.

What's strange, is that the same kind of people also clamour against the islamisation of the western world.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
He gave them the option to freeze, what more could he do?

If they weren't smart enough to freeze when someone (with a shotgun) has the drop on them and they're obviously caught red handed then they have to pay the price for their decision, this time with their lives.

It's sad, but they brought it on themsleves.

No sadly that is not the way the laws are written.

The criminals have all the rights, even the dead ones.

This guy may not get the death penalty but tax payers will certainly be paying for his incarceration for a long long time.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Nebor
Under Texas law, this guy walks. Deadly force is authorized to stop a felony in progress. Same in most states. Why do you people think criminals have rights during the commission of their crimes?

Honestly? I think a better question is why do you think you have the right to kill someone for stealing? Are you a SUPER-UBER cop? Because cops don't even have that authority. The show COPS would be pretty boring if we lived in the world you envision. There would be no chases, no foot pursuits, just "Hey that guy is running out of the bank, shoot him!" It is a rhetorical question tbh having read many of your recent posts on a variety of topics. I almost get the impression you are a parody poster as no one can be that skewed.

I am not buying that it is OK in Texas for the police let alone the average Joe to gun down fleeing criminals unless their lives are in danger first. Having read what DM copied and pasted about Texas law pertaining to 3rd parties and the actors committing the crime, I am not reading where it says it is OK to shoot and kill them. Only that the 3rd party is to be held to the same laws as the actual homeowner being robbed would in defending the property. Sheesh.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

You're obviously not familiar with free states, like Texas, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, etc. Deadly force to stop a felony in progress, or damage or theft of property is authorized. That applies to crimes as petty as criminal mishief. That's right, you can be shot and killed legally for spray painting someone's wall.

I promise you what this guy did is ok by Texas law. Why do you think the police didn't arrest him? From everything I've heard, they patted him on the back and have said he was "just defending his neighbors property." Most people are widely supporting his actions.

I wish he was my neighbor. :thumbsup:

Uh....since when is criminal mischief a felony? Just asking cause that is one of the requirements for the use of deadly force.

Uh, no it's not. Did you read what I posted? I highlighted it for you.

Uh, I am responding directly to your statement "That applies to crimes as petty as criminal mischief".

Texas penal code (look at Chapt. 28 for Criminal Mischief and it's classification as a misdemeanor)

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
He gave them the option to freeze, what more could he do?

If they weren't smart enough to freeze when someone (with a shotgun) has the drop on them and they're obviously caught red handed then they have to pay the price for their decision, this time with their lives.

It's sad, but they brought it on themsleves.

No sadly that is not the way the laws are written.

The criminals have all the rights, even the dead ones.

This guy may not get the death penalty but tax payers will certainly be paying for his incarceration for a long long time.

I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even get charged. This was in TX, not CA.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Nebor
Under Texas law, this guy walks. Deadly force is authorized to stop a felony in progress. Same in most states. Why do you people think criminals have rights during the commission of their crimes?

Honestly? I think a better question is why do you think you have the right to kill someone for stealing? Are you a SUPER-UBER cop? Because cops don't even have that authority. The show COPS would be pretty boring if we lived in the world you envision. There would be no chases, no foot pursuits, just "Hey that guy is running out of the bank, shoot him!" It is a rhetorical question tbh having read many of your recent posts on a variety of topics. I almost get the impression you are a parody poster as no one can be that skewed.

I am not buying that it is OK in Texas for the police let alone the average Joe to gun down fleeing criminals unless their lives are in danger first. Having read what DM copied and pasted about Texas law pertaining to 3rd parties and the actors committing the crime, I am not reading where it says it is OK to shoot and kill them. Only that the 3rd party is to be held to the same laws as the actual homeowner being robbed would in defending the property. Sheesh.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

You're obviously not familiar with free states, like Texas, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, etc. Deadly force to stop a felony in progress, or damage or theft of property is authorized. That applies to crimes as petty as criminal mishief. That's right, you can be shot and killed legally for spray painting someone's wall.

I promise you what this guy did is ok by Texas law. Why do you think the police didn't arrest him? From everything I've heard, they patted him on the back and have said he was "just defending his neighbors property." Most people are widely supporting his actions.

I wish he was my neighbor. :thumbsup:

Uh....since when is criminal mischief a felony? Just asking cause that is one of the requirements for the use of deadly force.

Uh, no it's not. Did you read what I posted? I highlighted it for you.

Uh, I am responding directly to your statement "That applies to crimes as petty as criminal mischief".

Texas penal code (look at Chapt. 28 for Criminal Mischief and it's classification as a misdemeanor)

Read what I highlighted for you. When property is being stolen or damaged via criminal mischief, deadly force is authorized. It doesn't matter if it's not a felony, it's specifically allowed.

 

[Rainsford]

I think a lot of you guys defending the shooter here need to read the story a little more closely. I have no problem with defending your neighbor from potential violence, and while breaking into a house might not result in violence, it COULD, so I think it's morally justified to use deadly force to stop that from happening.

The problem is that this ISN'T what the guy in the story did. He didn't stop them from going in or robbing the place, he shot them as they were leaving so they wouldn't get away. You can't possibly make the argument that anyone was in danger at that point, so at best all he did was stop them from getting away with the loot. And I think that's a lot more of a morally ambivalent question. Using lethal force to defend yourself, your family or anyone else is morally defensible. But when you cross the line from self-defense to law enforcement, I'm not sure that's quite so clear cut. Is it then OK for an armed citizen to kill ANYONE if they are committing a crime anywhere? Once you've moved from defending a life to stopping a criminal from getting away, where do you draw the line?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think a lot of you guys defending the shooter here need to read the story a little more closely. I have no problem with defending your neighbor from potential violence, and while breaking into a house might not result in violence, it COULD, so I think it's morally justified to use deadly force to stop that from happening.

The problem is that this ISN'T what the guy in the story did. He didn't stop them from going in or robbing the place, he shot them as they were leaving so they wouldn't get away. You can't possibly make the argument that anyone was in danger at that point, so at best all he did was stop them from getting away with the loot. And I think that's a lot more of a morally ambivalent question. Using lethal force to defend yourself, your family or anyone else is morally defensible. But when you cross the line from self-defense to law enforcement, I'm not sure that's quite so clear cut. Is it then OK for an armed citizen to kill ANYONE if they are committing a crime anywhere? Once you've moved from defending a life to stopping a criminal from getting away, where do you draw the line?

You make a valid point. I "assumed" that once he told them to freeze they made some kind of a move for him or why else would he shoot them?

I never listened to the recording of the call, I just read the article. Perhaps there is more evidence (one way or the other) in the recording??

 

[wazzledoozle]

According to texas law, as has been posted numerous times, this guy isn't going to get charged.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable outcome. Justice.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He called the cops so we know what his intentions were, but when the looked to be getting away he shot them, right. Tough luck for the burglars, in my opinion. Why should his neighbor's house be any different than his own. Us liberals are our brothers keepers.

In Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you steal. It's pretty barbaric, except for the fact, there's hardly ever any theft. If we have lots and lots of burglars dying at the scene I bet the crime rate drops.

I've got to hand it to you, this post of yours stole my breath away in one (or two) clean shots.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think a lot of you guys defending the shooter here need to read the story a little more closely. I have no problem with defending your neighbor from potential violence, and while breaking into a house might not result in violence, it COULD, so I think it's morally justified to use deadly force to stop that from happening.

The problem is that this ISN'T what the guy in the story did. He didn't stop them from going in or robbing the place, he shot them as they were leaving so they wouldn't get away. You can't possibly make the argument that anyone was in danger at that point, so at best all he did was stop them from getting away with the loot. And I think that's a lot more of a morally ambivalent question. Using lethal force to defend yourself, your family or anyone else is morally defensible. But when you cross the line from self-defense to law enforcement, I'm not sure that's quite so clear cut. Is it then OK for an armed citizen to kill ANYONE if they are committing a crime anywhere? Once you've moved from defending a life to stopping a criminal from getting away, where do you draw the line?

You make a valid point. I "assumed" that once he told them to freeze they made some kind of a move for him or why else would he shoot them?

I never listened to the recording of the call, I just read the article. Perhaps there is more evidence (one way or the other) in the recording??

Yeah, there are certainly things that would be helpful to know here that weren't included in the article. Given his statements on the phone, I can imagine he would have shot them in the back as they ran away...but maybe they were making a threatening move towards him.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
According to texas law, as has been posted numerous times, this guy isn't going to get charged.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable outcome. Justice.

It's not "justice"...justice is when the punishment is proportionate to the crime, stealing someone's TV isn't the same as taking a life. I understand the wild west attitude here, but I think people need to put down the Mad Max DVD and remember that we live in the real world, where everything that pisses you off shouldn't result in someone dying.

 

[beyoku]

WOW, you can even hear the gunshots on the audio. I wouldnt want my neighbor to kill anyone stealing from my home if i was not there. I on the other hand would shoot and possibly kill someone if they were breaking into my home. Its really about safety. Anything stolen from a home is not worth killing someone over. I think the guy should have stayed in his home.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
According to texas law, as has been posted numerous times, this guy isn't going to get charged.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable outcome. Justice.

Further reason why Texas should be given back to Mexico and the fence moved a few hundred miles north of where it is now.

"Horn tells the dispatcher that he understands his rights and even makes reference to the September 1 expansion that gives homeowners greater protection from prosecution should they choose to confront someone breaking into their home."

Sounds like Christmas came early this year for this asshole.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: beyoku
WOW, you can even hear the gunshots on the audio. I wouldnt want my neighbor to kill anyone stealing from my home if i was not there. I on the other hand would shoot and possibly kill someone if they were breaking into my home. Its really about safety. Anything stolen from a home is not worth killing someone over. I think the guy should have stayed in his home.

Exactly. I am all for self-defense, but this is something else. And it's all the more stupid when you think about the fact that what he did greatly increased the risk to innocent life (ie, his and those of bystanders), which is kind of the opposite of what we should be going for.

But then again, I got my thoughts about self-defense from martial arts, not the NRA (although I think guns are great for self-defense). And the message repeated over and over in any decent martial arts school is that the best way to defend yourself or others is to get away if at all possible. I don't care if you are a 6th degree black belt, if you get in a fight, there is a much greater chance of getting hurt or killed than if you DON'T get in a fight. I see no reason the equation changes when we're talking about guns. If your life or the life of someone else is in danger and you can't get away, by all means, introduce some extra holes into the bad guy's body. But risking your life for your stereo...that's just stupid.

I don't think this is about the law so much as it is about intelligence, and people who put their property on the same level of importance as their life are being dumb. I know it feels like it, but having a gun doesn't make you an invincible superman. If you get in a violent conflict with someone, you've just dramatically upped your risk of ending up dead, gun or no gun.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
According to texas law, as has been posted numerous times, this guy isn't going to get charged.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable outcome. Justice.

Further reason why Texas should be given back to Mexico and the fence moved a few hundred miles north of where it is now.

"Horn tells the dispatcher that he understands his rights and even makes reference to the September 1 expansion that gives homeowners greater protection from prosecution should they choose to confront someone breaking into their home."

Sounds like Christmas came early this year for this asshole.

You have to understand the mindset here...and it has nothing to do with self-defense. Listen to the people in this thread, it's pretty clear everyone has seen too many action movies.

 

[RaiderJ]

Well, if I saw someone breaking into my neighbor's house, I'd probably call the cops and get out my shotgun (maybe they'll come to my place next). However, I don't think I'd actually go over there... increases the chance that I might get shot. Still, I don't really have a problem with what the guy did. You break into someone's home, you deserve to get shot. Does it matter who did it?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Well, if I saw someone breaking into my neighbor's house, I'd probably call the cops and get out my shotgun (maybe they'll come to my place next). However, I don't think I'd actually go over there... increases the chance that I might get shot. Still, I don't really have a problem with what the guy did. You break into someone's home, you deserve to get shot. Does it matter who did it?

I think that's the tricky part. I'm not sure I buy the idea that stealing someone's TV warrants a death sentence. Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone stealing my TV, but there's a point at which we ridiculously devalue human life. I don't think the death penalty for burglary would be an appropriate punishment, why would it be OK for a private citizen to do what the state shouldn't be allowed to do?

It's a little too easy to get wrapped up in righteous anger over criminals, but it follows a little too closely with the logic that I can shoot the guy who cuts me off in traffic. Not comparing the offenses, mind you, just the idea that how pissed off I am over something should dictate the other guy's punishment.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Genx87
While I really dont have a problem with 2 dead scumbags. The law I am sure doesnt approve of somebody not in direct danger going out and shooting two people to death.

If this was his home he is 100% justified. But this was a neighbor's home. I think he may be looking at excessive force at the very least, murder in some degree at the worst.

Actually in many places the law allows for lethal force to prevent the commission of any felony. The problem is that somewhere along the lines the courts decided to ignore the law and add the 'imminent danger' clause to all decisions.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: daveymark
Texas law:

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. 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



looks like everybody's a winner in this situation

That law needs to become federally enforced across the board.

 

[Pliablemoose]

It's threads & responses like the ones in this thread that make me glad I live in Texas.

The guy was within his rights to do exactly what he did.

:thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He called the cops so we know what his intentions were, but when the looked to be getting away he shot them, right. Tough luck for the burglars, in my opinion. Why should his neighbor's house be any different than his own. Us liberals are our brothers keepers.

In Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you steal. It's pretty barbaric, except for the fact, there's hardly ever any theft. If we have lots and lots of burglars dying at the scene I bet the crime rate drops.

I've got to hand it to you, this post of yours stole my breath away in one (or two) clean shots.

My thoughts on some of the issues:

1. It's a tough issue but I knew it was in Texas and I knew the Texas law and I presumed the thieves did too. You take the risks and pay the consequences. The were running from somebody who could legally shoot them.

2. Burglary is a violent offense and a profound invasion of other peoples rights. The crime leaves lasting scars on the psyche. It is important that those responsible be held accountable to help heal those kinds of scars. They were being asked to pay that price by stopping and allowing themselves to be arrested. This is a crime that causes seething rage and demoralization in faith in our fellow humans. It is a crime against the will to be good.

3. They chose not to stop or pay a more modest price.

4. I very much wish we had Saudi Arabia's crime rate. You consider the rights of thieves but not the tremendous cost of life in a high crime atmosphere of suspicion and police state mentality. The Saudis almost never have to cut off a hand. You can leave you wallet in the middle of the street and go back and get it the next day. They can picture that hand coming off as they reach for it, no.

5. Because a country may have sound policy regarding theft does not mean they are free from prejudice against women. But as hard on sexual promiscuity as they are, you don't see Saudi women sleeping under bridges or engaged in prostitution. Again, when you look at our society you see a society that is profoundly sick, also, in my opinion. Women here are free as birds to totally screw up their lives. But we can't have any big bad men protecting them.

6. A conservative conserves the good and the bad. A liberal want any kind of change. I want to conserve what is good and change what is bad for the better. I want to think carefully about which is what.

Sometimes I'm a liberal and sometimes conservative. On this issue, it Texas, and there's too damn much crime.

I don't want to coddle criminals but I want to reform them when they're caught and give them real knowledge to get up to speed. Just don't run when ordered to stop because it's our duty to stop crime in my opinion.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
It's threads & responses like the ones in this thread that make me glad I live in Texas.

The guy was within his rights to do exactly what he did.

:thumbsup:

And it's idiots like the jackass in the OP story and you that make me fearful that I live in Texas.

Look, it's a TV (or whatever inanimate object they might have had). How did this cowboy (and I mean that in the GWB sense of the word) know without a single doubt that his neighbor didn't just sell whatever they might have had on Craigslist?

If he didn't know with absolute certainty, then he shouldn't have shot. If the argument is that his neighbor wasn't home so he couldn't have sold them, then someone with so little regard for human life (even petty thieves like these are still human) obviously never intended to attempt to get them to stop.

This is almost to the point of premeditated murder. It sounds to me like the only reason for the 911 call was for an alibi.

Edit: I have been the victim of theft on four different occasions, I have had a motorcycle of mine stolen twice and my car stereo was jacked once and my car was broken into and cds and other things ripped off. Never once have I wanted, wished or thought that someone so desperate that they would need to steal something of so little value needed to be put to death. I suggest some of you actually look into finding a nice counselor that can help you regain your ability to realize that theft of property is nothing in the grand scheme of things and that you learn that insurance can replace your stuff but will never return you from the dark side of human nature that you have entered.

Quick question for you all drooling over, applauding and clamoring for this type of reaction...

Are you Christian (or religious in general) and/or do you support abortion?