CA - 911 call of man that shot and killed 2 people that were burglarizing the house next door

[Prometheus]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

I can't see the point in such vigilante justice. The criminal "justice" system we have now produces far too many false positive guilty verdicts... I have the feeling that number will rise when mob mentality is used to summarily convict and execute people.

There is a stark difference between catching someone in the act ("red handed") of a crime and forming lynch mobs for "vigilante justice".

One of the reasons our justice system is so screwed up is the overload on it placed by people unwilling to stop these people and get them red handed. Crooked cops trying to bolster numbers, look at chicago this past month, top DUI cop in the state is having hundreds of DUI convictions over turned because they found out he was lying, faking test results and in some cases never giving the tests... or the chicago captain who tortured hundreds of suspects over his 18 year career, finally some subordinates are coming forward, hundreds more convictions might be tossed over this guy alone. Don't confuse one problem with another.

In this situation a real good neighbor confronts bad guys and offers them the chance to surrender. They refused, posed a threat and got what was coming to them.

Especially if, as you suggested, people be killed just for having the intent to commit crimes without actually having committed any.

I never suggested that. I was merely pointing out that virtually all home burglars start out hitting unoccupied houses and escalate to home invaders. I have not, nor will I ever support 'thought crimes'.

We all know the longer criminals get away with things the more brazen they become. It's a fact.

This man probably saved some woman from this next week:
<warning disturbing audio> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fc8_1187887010

Like I said, give him a medal. Two scumbags are dead and the community is better for it. The only thing this guy did wrong IMO was having 'loose lips'... and that shouldn't be a crime.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Prometheus wrote:

... I was merely pointing out that virtually all home burglars start out hitting unoccupied houses and escalate to home invaders.

Cite?

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

... I was merely pointing out that virtually all home burglars start out hitting unoccupied houses and escalate to home invaders.

Cite?

Yes, I'm also looking for a citation or reference. Is this like how most marijuana users end up shooting heroin?

The point I'm trying to make is that while we may have a strong hatred for "criminals", we need to separate this emotion from our actual response.
1) "Criminal" is a very fluid definition. What one person considers minor may be what another person considers serious. There is tremendous inconsistancy when both guilt and punishment is doled out by citizens. How many people believe that open carry is illegal? How would we respond to citizens' killing OCers because they, in good faith, thought they were making a "good kill"?
2) This opinion completely disregards the fact that the punishment philosophy for criminal justice does not work. Especially when the punishment is arbitrarily applied.
3) There is no proportionality to this proposed use of force. Is it really a justified use of force to shoot and kill a burglar just because he is a burglar? What crimes justify the instant death penalty?
4) I wasn't referring to "thought" crime. You word your posts to say that a person deserves to die because he is a "criminal type".
5) This gentleman was not going outside to confront the burglars in an effort to stop them from committing their crime. He went out to kill them. Which is evidenced by his saying "I'm gonna kill 'em" repeatedly. It would have been one thing if he had said to the dispatcher that he was going to confront them, that he was going to hold them at gunpoint, that he was going to go defend his neighbor's property, even that he was going to kill them if they threatened him. But he said explicitly that he was going to kill them regardless. He made it up in his mind to execute them for being burglars before actually confronting them. Even if he was then indeed threatened by them after the confrontation, he still had the express intent of killing them whether or not he was threatened.

:shock:

 

[TheApostle]

imported post

Two guys went to break into someone's house...they got killed by a neighbor. It is hard to use a brush to paint them as victims. As a society, we have minimalized the sacredness of one's property through home owner's insurance and moralizing that someone's life is worth more than stolen loot and a stripped sense of security. Thieves capitalize on this. These thieves didn't plan for this contingency.

Horn went against the socially accepted philosophy of above. Was it right or wrong? Keep yielding to thieves and such other villainous thugs, and criminals will truly have more rights than the innocent.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

So where does it end? What crimes are punishable by instant death? If a shop owner sees a kid stealing a piece of gum, can he shoot him dead? How about if it's an adult stealing a piece of gum? An adult stealing a bag of chips? An adult stealing a CD? An adult stealing a video game? An adult stealing a small TV? How about in residences... If a group of kids is toilet papering a house, is it a "good kill" if the homeowner's neighbor shoots them all dead as they're running away? They're criminals, anyway. Better stop those vandalizing scum before they escalate to terrorists, like practically all childhood vandals do. I think we should stop yielding to speeders. One minute someone's disobeying an arbitrary speed limit, the next day they'll be killing schoolyards of children. Clearly, we should be able to sit on our front porches and shoot all drivers who come by speeding at so much as 1mph over the limit. We have to stop yielding to these criminals.

Sure, I'm being ridiculous. But where is the limit for justified civilian executions of criminals? Especially when those criminals aren't even on your property. I have absolutely no problem if this guy shot these two guys in self-defense. But the evidence we have doesn't really seem to support that. And beyond that, we seem to have a group of... I don't know what to call them... who believe that it is morally right for civilians to make snap judgements to execute people who are committing any crime.

 

[Heartless_Conservative]

imported post

1) "Criminal" is a very fluid definition. What one person considers minor may be what another person considers serious. There is tremendous inconsistancy when both guilt and punishment is doled out by citizens. How many people believe that open carry is illegal? How would we respond to citizens' killing OCers because they, in good faith, thought they were making a "good kill"?

And I take it that allowing citizens to arm themselves is gonna flood the streets with blood? There is a bit of a difference between a guy walking down the street and 2 dudes with crowbars smashing their way into someone elses house.

 

[TheApostle]

imported post

We can venture into hyperbole. These two guys break in to this home, and get away with it. Emboldened by their previous success, they break into another house that they figure is empty. That homeowner is unfortunately at home, and is overpowered. Sexual assault, assault and battery, or murder result from it. Good. We delight that these two burglars were given an opportunity for further profit, and some "vigilante" with a gun didn't kill them. People with guns are scary, and are apt to take the law into their hands. These two burglars were just trying to make a living, and got an added perk of getting to harm someone. Just a piece of that American dream.

Back to reality...

Breaking into someone's house is different from shoplifting, or merely defacing a house with toilet paper. To venture into someone's house involves a greater element of personal risk than walking into a store and stealing gum. There is no reasonable expectation to get shot by a cashier. However, armed confrontation by someone repelling a home invasion is a possible outcome. The Risk/Return analysis for shoplifting/burglary doesn't even match up.

Anyways, its a personal decision. :celebrate

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

TheApostle wrote:

We can venture into hyperbole. These two guys break in to this home, and get away with it. Emboldened by their previous success, they break into another house that they figure is empty. That homeowner is unfortunately at home, and is overpowered. Sexual assault, assault and battery, or murder result from it. Good. We delight that these two burglars were given an opportunity for further profit, and some "vigilante" with a gun didn't kill them. People with guns are scary, and are apt to take the law into their hands. These two burglars were just trying to make a living, and got an added perk of getting to harm someone. Just a piece of that American dream.

Back to reality...

Breaking into someone's house is different from shoplifting, or merely defacing a house with toilet paper. To venture into someone's house involves a greater element of personal risk than walking into a store and stealing gum. There is no reasonable expectation to get shot by a cashier. However, armed confrontation by someone repelling a home invasion is a possible outcome. The Risk/Return analysis for shoplifting/burglary doesn't even match up.

Anyways, its a personal decision. :celebrate

Alright, so shoplifting isn't included, then. Now, if the burglars are breaking into a vacant house, is that grounds for vigilante execution of the burglars? What if they are breaking into a commercial building? Is auto theft covered under instant execution? Is stealing items off of a person's property without breaking into the struture kill-worthy? Where is that line drawn? What amount of criminal liability is equal to the criminal's life? How does the neighbor or passerby know whether or not the "burglar" has permission to be on the property?

The point is... criminal justice is complicated enough for trained professionals to administer properly through the court systems. Encouraging vigilante "justice" is just exacerbating the problems already in the system. Once again, self-defense is fine. Self-defense of imaginary future victims is not. I'm sorry, but murder isn't a "personal decision".

 

[kimbercarrier]

imported post

I'm not condoning or condeming him but, I'll bet other would be criminals take notice and stay out of this neighborhood.

If we all looked out for our neighbors and watched out for one another, stuff like this might not even happen. And don't forget that alot of scum from New Orleans washed into Houston after hurricane katrina.This city is right next to Pasadena according to one report which is where the perps were from.

 

[Prometheus]

imported post

TheApostle wrote:

We can venture into hyperbole. These two guys break in to this home, and get away with it. Emboldened by their previous success, they break into another house that they figure is empty. That homeowner is unfortunately at home, and is overpowered. Sexual assault, assault and battery, or murder result from it. Good. We delight that these two burglars were given an opportunity for further profit, and some "vigilante" with a gun didn't kill them. People with guns are scary, and are apt to take the law into their hands. These two burglars were just trying to make a living, and got an added perk of getting to harm someone. Just a piece of that American dream.

Back to reality...

Breaking into someone's house is different from shoplifting, or merely defacing a house with toilet paper. To venture into someone's house involves a greater element of personal risk than walking into a store and stealing gum. There is no reasonable expectation to get shot by a cashier. However, armed confrontation by someone repelling a home invasion is a possible outcome. The Risk/Return analysis for shoplifting/burglary doesn't even match up.

Anyways, its a personal decision. :celebrate

Pearls before swine my friend.

It seems some here are incapable of seeing a difference between shooting two men with a crowbar and shooting some kid for stealing gum. You can't use logic or reason with a person like that, they have none. It's like trying to explain to a raging liberal why you own a gun. You can''t do it. They refuse to use any logic, reasoning or anything beyond their bleeding hearts. They also miss the point of this story, which is shooting men for failure to comply and threatening with deadly force. Once again, they twist and turn to suit their twisted games.

In the past I wondered how ridiculous gun laws like "duty to retreat" (in which a home owner MUST retreat to the back of his house before him/herself) and "three step laws"... I think I finally have an answer.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

Prometheus wrote:

TheApostle wrote:

We can venture into hyperbole. These two guys break in to this home, and get away with it. Emboldened by their previous success, they break into another house that they figure is empty. That homeowner is unfortunately at home, and is overpowered. Sexual assault, assault and battery, or murder result from it. Good. We delight that these two burglars were given an opportunity for further profit, and some "vigilante" with a gun didn't kill them. People with guns are scary, and are apt to take the law into their hands. These two burglars were just trying to make a living, and got an added perk of getting to harm someone. Just a piece of that American dream.

Back to reality...

Breaking into someone's house is different from shoplifting, or merely defacing a house with toilet paper. To venture into someone's house involves a greater element of personal risk than walking into a store and stealing gum. There is no reasonable expectation to get shot by a cashier. However, armed confrontation by someone repelling a home invasion is a possible outcome. The Risk/Return analysis for shoplifting/burglary doesn't even match up.

Anyways, its a personal decision. :celebrate

Pearls before swine my friend.

It seems some here are incapable of seeing a difference between shooting two men with a crowbar and shooting some kid for stealing gum. You can't use logic or reason with a person like that, they have none. It's like trying to explain to a raging liberal why you own a gun. You can''t do it. They refuse to use any logic, reasoning or anything beyond their bleeding hearts. They also miss the point of this story, which is shooting men for failure to comply and threatening with deadly force. Once again, they twist and turn to suit their twisted games.

In the past I wondered how ridiculous gun laws like "duty to retreat" (in which a home owner MUST retreat to the back of his house before him/herself) and "three step laws"... I think I finally have an answer.

I'm asking where the line is drawn. What can be told to the average civilian as to when it's alright to kill someone? The current standard in gun-friendly states, which I feel is a good one, is that it's alright to shoot if you or someone else is immediately threatened bodily harm by another person. What you and others around here are proposing is that civilians be told it's alright to murder someone else if that person is committing some crimes against property, although other crimes against property aren't execution-worthy. Once again, where is the line drawn? What is this new definition of where deadly force is justified? And what margin of error is left for when civilians shoot erroneously? Are we prepared to deal with civilians who start executing house sitters because they didn't know the neighbor was on vacation?

 

[hamourkiller]

imported post

He did not murder them.

IN TEXAS YOU CAN BE SHOT FOR STEALING PROPERTY!

Is that clear? if not:

IN TEXAS YOU CAN BE SHOT FOR STEALING PROPERTY!

This happened in TEXAS not PA or NY etc. but TEXAS. The Grand Jury will rule soon and we will know if the old man is to be tried or no billed. He is far enough on the good side of TEXAS law that he has NOT been arrested.

I have seen repo men, hub cap stealers, two case of beer thieves etc shot dead here in Texasfor thievery and the shooters no billed, I expect the same here.

Good job Sir! Good job!

 

[HankT]

imported post

hamourkiller wrote:

He did not murder them.

IN TEXAS YOU CAN BE SHOT FOR STEALING PROPERTY!

Is that clear? if not:

IN TEXAS YOU CAN BE SHOT FOR STEALING PROPERTY!

What law says you canYOU CAN BE SHOT FOR STEALING PROPERTY IN TEXAS?

What does thelaw say?

 

[hamourkiller]

imported post

First of all I am not a lawyer and make no such claim. But people get shot for stealing property on a regular basis in Texas. This I can tell you from being raised in and living most of my life in Texas.

On the forums here in Texas some of the lawyer types say he stepped over the line and others say he did not. In my opinion the ones that say he did not step over a legal line are correct most of the time. Thus my conclusion that we must wait for the Grand Jury to decide and I suspect he will walk.





Texas Penal Code
§ 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;


§ 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.

§ 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;


Here is a link where this case is discussed pro and con, and the above quote was copied from.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/viewtopic.php?t=11446

The main point of contention seems to be over shooting scums over some one elses property not over your own.

Another indicator is the fact Mr. Horn remains free and not under arrest, if the police thought he was a "murderer" they would have him in custody.

 

[Legba]

imported post

Jesus, that law is scary. That certainly doesn't wash here. That said, I guess this guy has a workable defense even if/when he is charged. I still don't agree morally that theft ought to be a capital crime, absent come direct threat to a person's life or safety (which escalates it robbery here). I guess thieves should take notice in Texas...

-ljp

 

[Guest]

imported post

Closest thing I see..

Certainly one for the lawyers..and ordragging this thread to a few hundred more posts

Texas Statutes

Penal code. Title 2, Chapter 9.



SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY


§ 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.


§ 9.42. 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.

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.

----------------------------------------------------------

Either way this is a sad story. I can see it either way also. The dead mens families. Mr. Horns present worries. Hmm how long until Mr. Horns house mysteriously burns down?

If Horn is charged and I'm on the jury, he walks. And dont bother questioningmy morality. I've been the victim before including theft of personal firearms. Finances and credit screwed for years. I wont question your morality for simply calling 911.

Perhaps the Provocative Act Doctrin, dont know if Texas has it but... Once they engaged in felony burglary breaking in and robbing someones castle, they are responsible for whatever happens. Their own deaths.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

There is a difference between the rights of the State, ie the gov't, and the rights of citizens. A big difference and that seems to be where people seem to be talking across each other instead of to each other about this.

We can all agree that within the criminal justice system, there are very few capital offenses, pretty much limited to high treason in time of war and 1st degree murder.

For citizens we have numerous situations were we can use deadly force where, if we do not kill the perpetrator, the State will/would only jail them for a period of time. If your life is physically threatened or a third parties life is physically threatened or you or a third party are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm, you or a third party can use lethal force to stop the attack/crime. You can act as judge/jury/executioner (to borrow the perspective from elsewhere in the thread), however, if you do not and the perp escapes and is later caught by the State, tried and convicted, s/he will only get some prison time. No execution. Attempted murder, felonious assault, rape and other crimes against persons, even if premeditated but not resulting in death, or non-premeditated and resulting in death are (generally) not capital offenses. I, like most others here, do not want the State executing people for commiting theft or breaking and entering. But after those clear cut defense of person scenarios it gets murkier.

I do support individual citizens' right to defend their, their neighbors and their community's property during, and only during, the time of the crime. If during the commission of the crime a citizen attempts to stop the crime I find that not only valid, but desireable and something that has been sorely missing in the last 40 years in our society allowing soaring crime rates.

Here's where we get back to this case: If in the process of attempting to protect and defend their property, their neighbors property or the community's property, the perps act in any manner that threatens the physical welfare of the citizen, I find lethal force to be a reasonable and correct response.

Pre-castle doctrine in Missouri, if someone were committing a property crime, if you physically intervened to stop them, and then the situation escalated to a reasonable lethal force response by you, you were the bad guy because, in the eyes of the court, if not for you acting to protect your property the justified lethal force situation would not have arisen. You had to retreat. Castle doctrine statutes put the responsibility back where it really belongs - if not for the perp committing a crime that a citizen reasonably attempts to stop/prevent the lethal force situation would not have occured. It puts the responsibility on the criminal rather than on the good citizen trying to stop the criminal.

In a fairly recent situation in Texas of an off duty police officer shooting a guy at a convenience store (it was all over the net a few months ago), the prosecuting attorney said something along the lines of, "This is how the castle doctrine is supposed to work. It says that a citizen doesn't have to wait for a criminal to get the drop on them before they defend themselves."

So what seems to be at issue here is not the right of the citizen to protect his, his neighbor's or his community's property, but at what point does he have to retreat from said defense. Castle doctrine pretty much says he never has to retreat. Some attorney from the Northeast was all over MSNBC about this case and kept saying that the subject shooting was illegal because you must meet force with equal force and no more. Well, that is the case in most of the Northeast as I understand. That is NOT the case in a castle doctrine state. Castle doctrine allows the citizen to bring a gun to what the criminal thinks is a knife fight. It gives as much if not more right to the citizen than to the criminal thereby over turning 40 years of sliding the other way.

The troubling part of all this are the statements on the 911 tape that he is going to kill the perps. That is where I think the moral confusion arises for most of us. If he did indeed step outside not to protect his neighbors property but instead to harm the perps then he crossed the line. If as his lawyer said, he attempted to stop the perps and they acted in a threatening manner towards him then he is at least technically justified. If everything else had been the same but he had never said that he was going to shoot or kill the perps this would be a black and white issue for me. I would be on the side of the citizen wholeheartedly.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

There is a difference between the rights of the State, ie the gov't, and the rights of citizens. A big difference and that seems to be where people seem to be talking across each other instead of to each other about this.

We can all agree that within the criminal justice system, there are very few capital offenses, pretty much limited to high treason in time of war and 1st degree murder.

For citizens we have numerous situations were we can use deadly force where, if we do not kill the perpetrator, the State will/would only jail them for a period of time. If your life is physically threatened or a third parties life is physically threatened or you or a third party are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm, you or a third party can use lethal force to stop the attack/crime. You can act as judge/jury/executioner (to borrow the perspective from elsewhere in the thread), however, if you do not and the perp escapes and is later caught by the State, tried and convicted, s/he will only get some prison time. No execution. Attempted murder, felonious assault, rape and other crimes against persons, even if premeditated but not resulting in death, or non-premeditated and resulting in death are (generally) not capital offenses. I, like most others here, do not want the State executing people for commiting theft or breaking and entering. But after those clear cut defense of person scenarios it gets murkier.

I do support individual citizens' right to defend their, their neighbors and their community's property during, and only during, the time of the crime. If during the commission of the crime a citizen attempts to stop the crime I find that not only valid, but desireable and something that has been sorely missing in the last 40 years in our society allowing soaring crime rates.

Here's where we get back to this case: If in the process of attempting to protect and defend their property, their neighbors property or the community's property, the perps act in any manner that threatens the physical welfare of the citizen, I find lethal force to be a reasonable and correct response.

Pre-castle doctrine in Missouri, if someone were committing a property crime, if you physically intervened to stop them, and then the situation escalated to a reasonable lethal force response by you, you were the bad guy because, in the eyes of the court, if not for you acting to protect your property the justified lethal force situation would not have arisen. You had to retreat. Castle doctrine statutes put the responsibility back where it really belongs - if not for the perp committing a crime that a citizen reasonably attempts to stop/prevent the lethal force situation would not have occured. It puts the responsibility on the criminal rather than on the good citizen trying to stop the criminal.

In a fairly recent situation in Texas of an off duty police officer shooting a guy at a convenience store (it was all over the net a few months ago), the prosecuting attorney said something along the lines of, "This is how the castle doctrine is supposed to work. It says that a citizen doesn't have to wait for a criminal to get the drop on them before they defend themselves."

So what seems to be at issue here is not the right of the citizen to protect his, his neighbor's or his community's property, but at what point does he have to retreat from said defense. Castle doctrine pretty much says he never has to retreat. Some attorney from the Northeast was all over MSNBC about this case and kept saying that the subject shooting was illegal because you must meet force with equal force and no more. Well, that is the case in most of the Northeast as I understand. That is NOT the case in a castle doctrine state. Castle doctrine allows the citizen to bring a gun to what the criminal thinks is a knife fight. It gives as much if not more right to the citizen than to the criminal thereby over turning 40 years of sliding the other way.

The troubling part of all this are the statements on the 911 tape that he is going to kill the perps. That is where I think the moral confusion arises for most of us. If he did indeed step outside not to protect his neighbors property but instead to harm the perps then he crossed the line. If as his lawyer said, he attempted to stop the perps and they acted in a threatening manner towards him then he is at least technically justified. If everything else had been the same but he had never said that he was going to shoot or kill the perps this would be a black and white issue for me. I would be on the side of the citizen wholeheartedly.

I'll admit that I was wrong in thinking that this gentleman's behavior was illegal... apparently in Texas it might be legal. Then again, the government's wiretapping without warrants is now, legal, so...

Anyhow, re: the first bolded part, I have absolutely no problem with someone walking outside of their house, shotgun in hand, and saying, "What the hell are you doing?" while trying to stop a crime in progress. There are pretty much three outcomes to this. They'll stop and obey (possibly clearing up any mistaken identity), they'll run away, or they'll attack the good citizen. If the last option happens, then by all means the citizen can shoot them dead. As for the other two options, the crime is stopped, and the threat has ceased. It is not alright to shoot a criminal just because "they'll get out of prison and harm more people." A civlian can't execute a criminal for crimes not yet committed. But by all means a good citizen should confront apparant illegal activity.

Re: the latter bolded part, for me it would have been a clear-cut case for me of self-defense if he had gone outside, told them to stop and put their hands in the air, and they had run at him and he fired in self-defense. I wouldn't have asked any questions. But he says, "They're not getting away with this, I'm gonna kill 'em, I'm gonna shoot 'em" [essentially], goes outside, says, "Move, you're dead!", waits a little less than a second and then fires two shots, then a third, presumably as one of them is running away. He went outside to kill them, not just to stop the burglarly.

Once again, this gentleman may have legitimately acted in self-defense. I'm mainly appalled that some people believe that it is a citizen's job to remove criminals from society through executing them. Stop the crime, defend yourself or another's life, and let the police take the criminals away (and do the job they're actually supposed to do).

 

[Prometheus]

imported post

Legba wrote:

Jesus, that law is scary. That certainly doesn't wash here. That said, I guess this guy has a workable defense even if/when he is charged. I still don't agree morally that theft ought to be a capital crime, absent come direct threat to a person's life or safety (which escalates it robbery here). I guess thieves should take notice in Texas...

-ljp

It's a beautiful law. Steal from someone and refuse to stop... you get killed. Seems logical enough for anyone to get behind.

For those of you claiming this guy said:' "move and you're dead" waited one second then fired you need to listen again'. He tells them twice over the span of a few seconds and if none of you have ever had a person walk towards you they can cover alot of ground in 1 seconds let alone several. Listen to the actual shots. He fires twice... those two shots are several seconds after the first warning. That first sound must be him (re)racking the action or something. The two LOUD bangs are the shots.
He also engage both men according to the reports at UNDER 15 feet and on his property.
Under texas law he is justified 3 times:
His life
His property (since they were on it)
Neighbors property that was stolen.

Shooting someone without warning for stealing is IMO wrong. Shooting somone stealing property after you tell them to stop, 100% justified provided the subect appears to be of 'legal age' (no 3 year olds stealing candy, but a 200# 16 year old gang banger with a crowbar is fair game).

Problem with this country is that everything is now 'letter of the law' instead of 'spirit of the law'. It's why a woman spills coffee on herself and gets 100 million dollars and why a man shooting an intruder in his house at oh-dark-thirty gets life in prison.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Prometheus wrote:

Problem with this country is that everything is now 'letter of the law' instead of 'spirit of the law'. It's why a woman spills coffee on herself and gets 100 million dollars ...

Cite?


Prometheus wrote:

...and why a man shooting an intruder in his house at oh-dark-thirty gets life in prison.

Cite?