Texan kills burglars next door, citing 'castle doctrine'

[Spike Lee]

Texan kills burglars next door, citing 'castle doctrine'
11/16/2007 @ 10:48 am
Filed by David Edwards and Muriel Kane

A so-called "castle doctrine" law recently passed in Texas allows people to use deadly force to protect their homes and property. However, a case in which a Houston-area man in his 70's killed two apparent burglars he observed breaking into his neighbor's house has raised new questions about how far that doctrine might extend.


The man called an emergency dispatcher when he first saw the alleged burglars, saying "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," replied the dispatcher. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, ok? ... I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."

"I understand that," the caller replied, "but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the 1st, and you know it and I know it."

After five minutes, the dispatcher was no longer able to restrain the caller, who stepped outside and shot both men, reporting, "Here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going. ... Boom, you're dead. ... I had no choice."

A grand jury will decide whether the man can be charged with a crime. He will probably be found to have acted legally if it is determined that the neighbor whose house was broken into had asked him to protect his property, but not otherwise.

The Texas state senator who wrote the law said it was not meant to apply to anyone's property but your own and "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action."

Similar laws are on the books in other states and have already given rise to a number of controversial incidents.


http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=8308

This man should be thrown in jail. He was not defending himself or anyone. There was no known danger to him. If they came in after him, it would of been self defense and I would of not cared. That wasn't the case. There was no one in that house and obviously this fucker was trigger happy.

[Zantutsuken]

Article seemed to leave out the rest of his sentence:

"I had no choice."

=

"I had no choice, they came in the front yard with me, man."

If the yard he's talking about is his own, I don't see why he'd go to jail.

[Mr. Heskey]

Very dumb thing to do.



But hey, population control.

[Spike Lee]

Article seemed to leave out the rest of his sentence:

"I had no choice."

=

"I had no choice, they came in the front yard with me, man."

If the yard he's talking about is his own, I don't see why he'd go to jail.

No. His statement is that he was defending his NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. Never, and apparently, did his his home appear to be in any danger. The 911 dispatcher told him to stay put. Apparenly, he decided to go outside and call attention to himself and then the pull the trigger. And based on what I heard in that 9/11 call, he seemed eager to shoot.


I believe that if they came into his domain, he should shoot for his protection and his family's. But it doesn't appear to be the case here. It also was not his property.

[Sander]

The neighbour will most likely say 'yeh i gave him permission to protect my property with force' since he did stop his house from getting burgualeredd.

[Zantutsuken]

No. His statement is that he was defending his NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. Never, and apparently, did his his home appear to be in any danger. The 911 dispatcher told him to stay put. Apparenly, he decided to go outside and call attention to himself and then the pull the trigger. And based on what I heard in that 9/11 call, he seemed eager to shoot.


I believe that if they came into his domain, he should shoot for his protection and his family's. But it doesn't appear to be the case here. It also was not his property.


If he seemed so eager to shoot he wouldn't have called 9-1-1 at all, let alone stay on the phone for five minutes.

He states, "I had no choice, they came in the front yard with me, man." If he was in his house, and were in the front yard with him, looks as if they'd be on his property. It doesn't say he went outside and then they came to his yard. If he just saw them rob his neighbor's house and now they're in his yard he could have just stepped outside to shoot them. However, we won't know which scenario happened and which didn't until an investigation have been launched and concluded.

[Just Spurplin]

Kind of a tough call, because they were criminals, but he also went out of his way to get their attention and claim self defense. If you are in your house and some people come in, of course you should be able to shoot them. But going outside to shoot people in another yard? That is just extremely fucking dangerous, for his life and anyone else's in the area. Especially since no ones life was in danger.

And yeah, its pretty clear from the phone call he was more interested in shooting two people then being a good citizen.

If he seemed so eager to shoot he wouldn't have called 9-1-1 at all, let alone stay on the phone for five minutes.

He states, "I had no choice, they came in the front yard with me, man." If he was in his house, and were in the front yard with him, looks as if they'd be on his property. It doesn't say he went outside and then they came to his yard. If he just saw them rob his neighbor's house and now they're in his yard he could have just stepped outside to shoot them. However, we won't know which scenario happened and which didn't until an investigation have been launched and concluded.
If they were in his front yard before he went outside, he would have said it to the operator. He said he was going outside before he said anything about them being anywhere near him. And he also said that one of the bodies was in the other yard, which would mean he waited for them to come into his yard, then waited for them to run into another yard, then pulled the trigger.

If they made any move towards him, its because he called unnecessary attention to himself. It would be like running in the middle of the street to be hit by an ambulance so you can sue them for reckless driving.

[dude22]

He obviously felt the need to help out his neighbor.

[Sander]

I heard they walked through his lawn on there way out. He shot both of them. One died on his lawn and the other started running but died a few doors down. Im not sure if its possible to run after being shot with a shotgun but thats what i heard.

[Spike Lee]

If he seemed so eager to shoot he wouldn't have called 9-1-1 at all, let alone stay on the phone for five minutes.

He states, "I had no choice, they came in the front yard with me, man." If he was in his house, and were in the front yard with him, looks as if they'd be on his property. It doesn't say he went outside and then they came to his yard. If he just saw them rob his neighbor's house and now they're in his yard he could have just stepped outside to shoot them. However, we won't know which scenario happened and which didn't.

Where the fuck are you getting that text. I have done a google news search and I have found no text of that nature closest thing was an ambigous line from an article here:

Before he can be convinced otherwise, Horn tells police he sees the burglars coming out of his house.http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5538780
Coming out of his window?

[Zantutsuken]

Where the fuck are you getting that text. I have done a google news search and I have found no text of that nature closest thing was an ambigous line from an article here:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5538780
Coming out of his window?

What text? The front yard bit? He states in the phone call, did you listen to the phone call?


If they were in his front yard before he went outside, he would have said it to the operator. He said he was going outside before he said anything about them being anywhere near him.

He said, "Here it goes buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going." which could have been the response to them coming onto his yard.



And he also said that one of the bodies was in the other yard, which would mean he waited for them to come into his yard, then waited for them to run into another yard, then pulled the trigger.

He didn't say he was in another yard. He said, "one of them's in the front yard over there." Simply could have been referring to a body on his lawn that's not near him.


If they made any move towards him, its because he called unnecessary attention to himself. It would be like running in the middle of the street to be hit by an ambulance so you can sue them for reckless driving.

That's one scenario, as I explained, yes. The other is: He went outside because they were in his yard, not they were in his yard because he went outside. Two possible scenarios.

[silverspade14]

Boom. Your dead.

[deballedtomcat]

I say give the man a medal for cutting the scumbag population by 2.

Seriously.

[Spike Lee]

I say give the man a medal for cutting the scumbag population by 2.

Seriously.

So, if I kill the president and half the board here, I have your blessing?

[chefwaffles]

that man should NOT go to jail, he is a hero. Sure they werent on his property, but right next to it. How did he know that those guys wernt going to rob him next? his neighbors are lucky to him.

[dude22]

So, if I kill the president and half the board here, I have your blessing?

You won't, pussy.











lol

[Cur67]

§ 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


From the article it seems to have occurred during daylight, in which case
he is in trouble unless the neighbor asked him to watch his house.

I hope he gets off light if he gets charged.
And fuck the liberals that want to cry about the value of "human" life.
We have too many sub-human cockroaches increasing in number each day.
Don't want to get shot? Don't fuck with other people or their property.
Want to talk about the value of human life, then talk about the honest
people who work their LIVES away to get what they have.

[PsiRedEye22]

Don't want to get shot? Don't fuck with other people or their property.


Hey, that's a new concept, not robbing people. I like it.

I am in full support of killing fuckfaces who steal your shit.

[deballedtomcat]

So, if I kill the president and half the board here, I have your blessing?

Spike,you can usually come up with better than that.

But if that be the road we shall take,then yes,if the president and half the board here are no good criminals who are out burglarizing decent hardworking people,then hell yeah,mow 'em down.

Cheaper to bury 'em then to try them and house them and give them 3 squares and free medical care while decent people cannot even fucking afford health insurance or to be able to eat 3 meals a day,yet do not resort to stealing the hard earned possessions of other people.

In short,and in street terms,"Fuck 'em,they got what they deserved",and I have no problem with that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ps...............................have YOU ever been the victim of someone breaking into your home and stealing your stuff while you were off at work trying to provide a living for your children?I HAVE,and I would cheerfully cut those pigs throats and then whip out my dick and piss on thm as they were rolling around on the ground gurgling and choking on their own blood,had they been caught and had I the opportunity to do so.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for scum and criminals.None at all.

And please don't take the low road and say that everybody who ever breaks a law or speeds is a "criminal",that would be the easy way out.

[Cur67]

I'm wondering . . .

Are there any liberals that understand the man's frustration?
It's not my house so not my problem? Well hey, it IS my neighborhood
and it is my world and it's going to shit. The cops can't be everywhere
and they can't always get there in time but I'm just supposed to call
911 and then crawl back to the couch and forget about everything
and enjoy the slime oozing from the TV set?

[drahkcorjc]

Where is the line drawn, though? If this is allowed, then basically we're back to the days of cowboys and injuns in Texas.

What if this guy were walking in a different neighborhood, and saw the same crime? Could he run up and shoot the burglars?

What if they were doing that show on Discovery Channel about those two ex-burglars that go and show people how easy it is to break into their houses?
Some senile asshole would see a house getting broken into and start shooting.

This is why the police have more power than us. They are trained to use deadly force and they are also trained in restraint.

It is not acceptable to kill anyone who is not presenting lethal danger to you or someone around you. That being said, if someone breaks into YOUR house, I believe you have every right in the world to kill them. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

[Sketcher]

Sure, he acted illegally. But you know what? I don't give a shit. As far as I'm concerned, he did the right thing.

[Manc]

I live in the UK..if i caught somebody in my home..i would do exactly the same thing as this Texan...Criminals get far too much say in how they are punished...in fact prison is a reward for these people..

[Spike Lee]

So basically you all admit that he did wrong. You all admit that he did wrong but support him. This man is no hero. He killed two people, albeit, two people who were stealing.

Property (that is not yours) does not equate to human life. I don't care if the fucking neighbor came to his home and found shit missing. A necklace or some sentimental shit will never compare to human life. The whole purpose of the castle doctrine is to protect your family, life and property. He did none of that.

[Sketcher]

So basically you all admit that he did wrong.

Wrong in a legal sense, yeah. But that doesn't sway my support for what he did.

Here's the thing. The mass majority of buglers don't break into just one house. They almost ALL repeat offenders. These criminals probably robbed other houses in the past and they were more than likely going to rob more houses in the future. And there is no guarantee that all the houses they rob are going to be empty of people. And there is no guarantee that the people in those houses will be able to defend themselves. And there is no guarantee that the cops would have gotten there soon enough to catch them. As far as we know, this guy could have potentially saved some lives by doing what he did.

I don't think this following story has made national news, so you may not know about it. but here in CT it made HUGE news in July - in a town right next to mine, a house was robbed by two guys who have had a long history of burglary. The husband was knocked unconscious, and his wife and two daughters were tied up and raped. They then set the house on fire. The husband was able to escape but his wife and daughters died in the fire. Again, these two pieces of trash had a long record of robbing houses. Now, don't you feel that it would have been worth it if a neighbor had seen them trying to break into the house and shot them?

I honestly don't care what you think or what the law says. This guy did the right thing. The next house these robbers may have broken into may have had some victims that may not have been so lucky.

You all admit that he did wrong but support him. This man is no hero. He killed two people, albeit, two people who were stealing.

Not a hero. Just a citizen doing the right thing.

[Spike Lee]

Wrong in a legal sense, yeah. But that doesn't sway my support for what he did.

Here's the thing. The mass majority of buglers don't break into just one house. They almost ALL repeat offenders. These criminals probably robbed other houses in the past and they were more than likely going to rob more houses in the future. And there is no guarantee that all the houses they rob are going to be empty of people. And there is no guarantee that the people in those houses will be able to defend themselves. And there is no guarantee that the cops would have gotten there soon enough to catch them. As far as we know, this guy could have potentially saved some lives by doing what he did.

I don't think this following story has made national news, so you may not know about it. but here in CT it made HUGE news in July - in a town right next to mine, a house was robbed by two guys who have had a long history of burglary. The husband was knocked unconscious, and his wife and two daughters were tied up and raped. They then set the house on fire. The husband was able to escape but his wife and daughters died in the fire. Again, these two pieces of trash had a long record of robbing houses. Now, don't you feel that it would have been worth it if a neighbor had seen them trying to break into the house and shot them?

I honestly don't care what you think or what the law says. This guy did the right thing. The next house these robbers may have broken into may have had some victims that may not have been so lucky.



Not a hero. Just a citizen doing the right thing.
I don't agree with what this fat old dude did morally and legally. People may do this or that and who knows. I'm not gonna bother with that because that is paranoia. They may do this or not. I can say that about other people. They can be criminals, abusive individuals or people that I think are mentally retarded. It has to stop. And whomever didn't stop the individuals in the case you mentioned, well, its no ones fault. No ones fault except the people who commited the heinous act.

[Just Spurplin]

As far as we know, this guy could have potentially saved some lives by doing what he did.

Well since we are talking about potentially here, the man could have potentially killed two friends of the owner, who were there to pick up some stuff (that the owner was well aware of), forgot their key and had to go through the window instead.

But I guess potentially killing two guilty people is more important then potentially killing two innocent people.


And to the rest of your post, it's like cjrockhard said, where is the line drawn. What if this guy just walks around the streets, shooting whoever he sees climbing out of a window, be it a robber, or some kid sneaking out of his parents house to go to a party.

The law is that you can shoot someone on YOUR PROPERTY for a reason. That's because if he is on your property, you know for damn sure if they are supposed to be there or not. On anyone elses property, you have no fucking clue what they are doing there, which is why we let the police handle it, cause they at least try to get the whole story before shooting, they don't walk out the door excited as fucking about being able to shoot someone with a shotgun.

[Zantutsuken]

The law is that you can shoot someone on YOUR PROPERTY for a reason. That's because if he is on your property, you know for damn sure if they are supposed to be there or not. On anyone elses property, you have no fucking clue what they are doing there, which is why we let the police handle it, cause they at least try to get the whole story before shooting, they don't walk out the door excited as fucking about being able to shoot someone with a shotgun.


Which no one has yet proven that they didn't come onto his property, it's odd you all keep leaving that out. You seem to be able to hear every statement he makes in the phone call, but for some reason you can't make out his statement of, "I had no choice, they came in the front yard with me, man."?

Odd.

[Sketcher]

And whomever didn't stop the individuals in the case you mentioned, well, its no ones fault. No ones fault except the people who commited the heinous act.

I didn't say it was anyone's fault but the robbers. I asked you if it would had been worth it if a neighbor had shot them before they were able to enter the house.

And to the people who keep bringing up the law, I already said that this guy broke the law. My point is that I don't care.

[Just Spurplin]

Which no one has yet proven that they didn't come onto his property, it's odd you all keep leaving that out. You seem to be able to hear every statement he makes in the phone call, but for some reason you can't make out his statement of, "I had no choice, they came in the front yard with me, man."?

Odd.

Yeah, and it's odd that he only says that after he has been denied for a full 7 minutes of "Please Mr. Operator, can I go outside and shoot em? Can I? Can I? Please, I can, I really want to." Of course he's going to say "they came at me," that makes everything he did legal.

He also said he was going out there because they were "getting away." How would they be getting away if they were on his lawn while he was minding his own business inside his house?

[Zantutsuken]

Yeah, and it's odd that he only says that after he has been denied for a full 7 minutes of "Please Mr. Operator, can I go outside and shoot em? Can I? Can I? Please, I can, I really want to." Of course he's going to say "they came at me," that makes everything he did legal.

He also said he was going out there because they were "getting away." How would they be getting away if they were on his lawn while he was minding his own business inside his house?

Agreed, odd he'd wait seven minutes to shoot someone, since he's obviously so bloodthirsty.


Here's a better article, that doesn't seem to leave text out as the aforementioned one seems to:

http://wjz.com/national/joe.horn.shoots.2.570499.html


He also said he was going out there because they were "getting away." How would they be getting away if they were on his lawn while he was minding his own business inside his house?

Looks like he went outside to see which way they were escaping:


Horn: "They got a bag of loot."

Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.

Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"

Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."

Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."

Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."


They couldn't have possibly stepped foot on his lawn to get away could they? I suppose I'm missing the part in the article where it states it would be asinine to step on someone else's lawn in the process of leaving a house you've just robbed.

Also, another statement he made of them coming onto his lawn:

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the -- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"


Basically, your argument is that his bloodthirsty seventy year old man wanted to commit murder and when finally presented with the means to do so, did. Now to cover his tracks he lied about them coming into his yard, so he can be free to kill again? ;)

As I've said, I'll wait for the investigation to be completed before I choose which scenario to believe.

[Spike Lee]

Also, another statement he made of them coming onto his lawn:

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the -- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"


Honestly, this is the only statement I hav heard of these guys going on his lawn. And is doesn't say when he says it either. Did he say that after he drew attention to himself?

[Zantutsuken]

Honestly, this is the only statement I hav heard of these guys going on his lawn. And is doesn't say when he says it either. Did he say that after he drew attention to himself?

It says they went on his lawn in the phone call of the article you linked. Can't say what event took place first, which is why I haven't made my mind up on what scenario to go with. These two men must have been quite moronic to have just robbed a house then approach a man wielding a shotgun, which is why I tend to lean to the scenario of him shooting them when they came on his lawn.

[drahkcorjc]

So where were the bodies found? On his property? I think that will be the key piece of evidence here.

[Sketcher]

Aaaaand Spike Lee ignores my question.

[Zantutsuken]

Aaaaand Spike Lee ignores my question.

You get used to it.

[PsiRedEye22]

So basically you all admit that he did wrong. You all admit that he did wrong but support him. This man is no hero. He killed two people, albeit, two people who were stealing.


I'm sorry, but people like you are what makes America shitty. Obviously, if it were legal to shoot criminals, then some innocent people may die.

However, this number will be astronomically fucking LOWER than the innocent people killed by lowlife shitbags that are allowed to walk the streets at night because of people like YOU.

This is the simplest statistical logic on the planet. I can't see any other viewpoint on this, maybe I am stubborn.

[Zeeboe]

Those piece of crap criminals deserved it. They had it coming to them. They deserved to die. That man made the world a little bit safer by getting rid of them.

Joe Horn is my hero. He has my support 100%. I'll be following this story for sure. I hope he doesn't go to prison. He should get a medal. He makes me proud to be a Texan. We don't take any crap from any outlaws around here.

[Son of God]

I have a question.

Should the punishment for being convicted of a burglary/robbery charge be changed from whatever it is now, to lethal injection?

If you're not only applauding what happened but also championing it, then shouldn't it follow that you'd have no problem with death sentences being doled out for these types of crimes?

[Mahalo]

Vigilante justice much?

Sometimes you people are just fucking nuts.

[Avo]

seems to me he wanted to experience killing somebody before he himselfs dies of old age.

[Zeeboe]

I bet if one of those thugs killed somebody, no one would care and it would get no attention, and even if it did catch the attention of the ebaumers, some of you idiots would be making mean jokes about it and not give two shits about the victims.

But a brave man stands up to two dirtbags, and all of a sudden, it's an issue, and you care about those pieces of trash that died.

I guess scum has to look out for it's own.

[Bergs]

§ 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


From the article it seems to have occurred during daylight, in which case
he is in trouble unless the neighbor asked him to watch his house.

I hope he gets off light if he gets charged.
And fuck the liberals that want to cry about the value of "human" life.
We have too many sub-human cockroaches increasing in number each day.
Don't want to get shot? Don't fuck with other people or their property.
Want to talk about the value of human life, then talk about the honest
people who work their LIVES away to get what they have.

Section 9.42 doesnt mean anything without Section 9.41. Note

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

§ 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.

In accordance with 9.42(1) the actor must satisfy one of the clauses of 9.41 AND a clause of of 9.42 to be justified.

It wasnt his property. It was his neighbors property. Force is not authorized under 9.41 and therefore deadly force is not authorized under 9.42.

Besides that, I am actually disturbed by the wording of 9.42. Under that you can use deadly force to stop night time criminal mischief! Criminal mischief is a very vague category that can be applied to everything from graffiti, vandalism, theft of relatively minor items among other things. If a frat boy stole a "Dick Weed for Trustee" campaign sign from your front lawn at 2 in the morning, that statute makes it legal to shoot him. EVEN IF HE IS FLEEING!!!! Those legislators need their fucking heads examined.

[Zantutsuken]

It wasnt his property. It was his neighbors property. Force is not authorized under 9.41 and therefore deadly force is not authorized under 9.42.


"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."


"No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the -- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

[david_slupper]

The concept that an object has more value than a human life is simply barbaric and sickening.

This man should be charged with murder, because that's what he did. He nor anyone else was in no imminent danger and it wasn't his house being robbed.


"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."


"No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the -- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

So, you're saying it's ok to shoot people who walk on your yard? There was absolutely no imminent threat to him nor anyone else.

[Zantutsuken]

So, you're saying it's ok to shoot people who walk on your yard?

If you witness them rob a house, and they walk on your lawn and you don't know what they're going to do to you, I can understand it.


There was absolutely no imminent threat to him nor anyone else.

You know that how? You don't. He didn't. That's why he opened fire.

[david_slupper]

If you witness them rob a house, and they walk on your lawn and you don't know what they're going to do to you, I can understand it.

They were fleeing. At least that's what they were doing when he shot them.

[Zantutsuken]

They were fleeing. At least that's what they were doing when he shot them.

If you're trying to imply they were running and he shot them in the back, doesn't look like that would be the intelligent claim to make. One was shot in the chest, the other in the side.

Yes I know because I have heard the actual 911 call and nowhere does it say anything about anyone else being on the house.

Doesn't matter, he claims they came into the yard towards him, he felt threatened because he didn't know what they'd do. Rob his house next, kill him, or simply flee, he didn't know and nor do you or I.

[PsiRedEye22]

The concept that an object has more value than a human life is simply barbaric and sickening.


Only behind your computer screen. If I was coming out of your house with your shit, you'd want to kill me too. Don't be a retard.

[Bergs]

If you witness them rob a house, and they walk on your lawn and you don't know what they're going to do to you, I can understand it.




You know that how? You don't. He didn't. That's why he opened fire.

If he didnt know whether they were an imminent threat, than they werent an imminent threat. Knowledge is implied by the definition of the word imminent.

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."


Their presence on his yard justifies only reasonable force under 9.41. He did not use reasonable force. Under 9.42, deadly force is only authorized (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.

Since it was not his property that was stolen there is no possibility of repossession. Hence, deadly force is not warranted.

And David is right, the idea being promoted on this board, which goes even further than this barbaric texas statute, that an object is worth more than a human life, is barbaric and sickening.

Only behind your computer screen. If I was coming out of your house with your shit, you'd want to kill me too. Don't be a retard.

Perhaps. But the question is would he be legally justified and is that a policy that a civilized society should want to adopt? No fucking way.

[david_slupper]

Doesn't matter, he claims they came into the yard towards him, he felt threatened because he didn't know what they'd do. Rob his house next, kill him, or simply flee, he didn't know and nor do you or I.

Dude, you just don't kill someone simply because he/she is on your lawn. As you said, it wasn't clear what the burglars were going to do next, but that is not reason enough to shoot someone simply because he/she is on your lawn and may have bad intentions.
He was also clearly told by the 911 operator to stay inside, he disobeyed.

If you listen to the 911 call, he says "I'm not gonna let them go" "I'm gonna shoot them" He says this even before they supposedly got on his lawn. Then he says "They're getting away" does that sound like a case of self-defense?
He's going to have to prove this was a self-defense case, but that's going to be very difficult for him to prove.

Here's the 911 call:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4dc_1195205938

Only behind your computer screen. If I was coming out of your house with your shit, you'd want to kill me too. Don't be a retard.

Not if you were getting away, which is what the burglars were doing. Now, if you came to my porch and tried to force the door open, that's a whole different story.

If you're trying to imply they were running and he shot them in the back, doesn't look like that would be the intelligent claim to make. One was shot in the chest, the other in the side.

In the 911 call he clearly states that they were getting away. He didn't shoot these people for self-defense reasons, he was just pissed that people were stealing shit. Listen to the 911 call, it should make things clearer.

[slapnpopbass]

This man did a service to a country. The courts should award him a cake or something.

[david_slupper]

This man did a service to a country. The courts should award him a cake or something.

Dude, burglary shouldn't carry a death penalty, but that's just me.

[Avo]

This man did a service to a country. The courts should award him a cake or something.

Would you still hold this opinion if it was your brother, best friend, etc who was gunned down by a shotgun? would it still be a good service to this country?

[Bergs]

This man did a service to a country. The courts should award him a cake or something.

Burglary does not justify a death sentence!!! Holy shit. Yes, arrest them. Lock them up for the period stipulated by the statutes of that jurisdiction. But killing them? Are you fucking nuts?

[Spike Lee]

Aaaaand Spike Lee ignores my question.
What question?
Only behind your computer screen. If I was coming out of your house with your shit, you'd want to kill me too. Don't be a retard.

He probably would, doesn't mean he should. But you're neglecting the fact that is was not his property.

[Anti Flag]

So, if I kill the president and half the board here, I have your blessing?

wow, so all of us have been ransacking people's houses, the man defended himself and his neighbors.

Would you still hold this opinion if it was your brother, best friend, etc who was gunned down by a shotgun? would it still be a good service to this country?

because, the burglars who could've been violent or had weapons and are STEALING FROM PEOPLE'S HOUSES were doing good service.

my brother was 2 bit HOUSE THEIF, poor him.

[Chewy]

This man did a service to a country. The courts should award him a cake or something.

The man circumvented the US constitution and due process. What your suggesting is rewarding anarchistic vigilantism.

[IrishNed]

Burglary does not justify a death sentence!!! Holy shit. Yes, arrest them. Lock them up for the period stipulated by the statutes of that jurisdiction. But killing them? Are you fucking nuts?
I suspect that the 71-year old shooter is playing with less than a full deck.

Technically, the victims were not even guilty of burglary: they were guilty of Breaking & entering and larceny, both lesser felonies than Burglary. And they were looting a neighbor's house, not the shooter's.

It's a matter of law that one may use deadly force when one's life is in danger. The Texas Legislature recently passed a law allowing the use of 'deadly force' to protect one's property (unlikely to stand up in the Texas State Supreme Court).

[Queenbunnywitch]

All I know is if my neighbor shot someone trying to rob my apartment I'd be so fucking appreciative.

[Spike Lee]

wow, so all of us have been ransacking people's houses, the man defended himself and his neighbors.

The man did not defend himself and he did not defend his neighbor's life.

because, the burglars who could've been violent or had weapons and are STEALING FROM PEOPLE'S HOUSES were doing good service.
There are too many ifs being thrown out there. He could of, would of, should of...
[sigh]

[Manc]

The criminals deserve respect people...as if..It is a shame these men died..but at the end of the day...if you enter someones property and are going to steal thing they have bought and paid for then they deserve punishment..they were armed and were therefore dangerous.

the man did what he did...in self defence..i wish i had a neighbour like him..he deserves a medal.

[Spike Lee]

The criminals deserve respect people...as if..It is a shame these men died..but at the end of the day...if you enter someones property and are going to steal thing they have bought and paid for then they deserve punishment..they were armed and were therefore dangerous.

the man did what he did...in self defence..i wish i had a neighbour like him..he deserves a medal.

No he didn't. Thats the deal here. He is nothing more than a vigilante. He was never being robbed and he was never threatened. And death as a punishment for robbery is asinine as well.

[Manc]

spike this is just speculation..ive heard the same recording as you..the guy on the other end of the phone told him not to go out.."you might get shot" or something he said.."il kill em" the guy said..obviously not meaning it in pre med..no jury in Texas will convict him..

Besides the charges against him will probably be dropped..also the criminals ran at him on his property..so they were in his yard about to attack him when he fired the three shots..they were attacking him..he shouted for them to stop then as they were about to attack him he opened fire..

put it this way...if he was unarmed and got killed by those two men..this story would have got no more than5 seconds in the news..the fact that criminals were shot in the act by a good citizen is the headlines...crazy world huh..

Thousands of americans are murdered in their own homes accross america..they get 5 seconds attention unless they are raped..besides the press dont hound the criminal who did those things..yet a guy who fights back is houned like he is a criminal..? lol cmon man.

[Nocturnal]

Seems like a proper citizen would have merely detained them with the threat of force.

It's going to be rough when somebody else does this and winds up killing their neighbor who was trying to break into their own house, or their teenager sneaking out.

The criminals deserve respect people...as if..It is a shame these men died..but at the end of the day...if you enter someones property and are going to steal thing they have bought and paid for then they deserve punishment..they were armed and were therefore dangerous.

the man did what he did...in self defence..i wish i had a neighbour like him..he deserves a medal.

As a society we have decided that the punishment for burglery is not death. We have also decided that justice can not be metered out without the courts. The exception is when you are defending yourself, or another person. This doesn't seem to apply to somebody elses TV.

I don't give a damn that those two retards died. The issue here is if an ordinary citizen has a right to be an executioner for a relatively minor crime.

[kevinsmith]

No he didn't. Thats the deal here. He is nothing more than a vigilante. He was never being robbed and he was never threatened. And death as a punishment for robbery is asinine as well.

Yeah...instead we'll throw 'em in jail where they'll sap up thousands of tax payer dollars, learn to become better criminals, come out of prison and likely do it again. Yay us.



I don't give a damn that those two retards died. The issue here is if an ordinary citizen has a right to be an executioner for a relatively minor crime.

In all honesty, I agree with you there and to some extant with Spike. Do I care that these two are dead? Hell no. There are too many douchebags in this country who do whatever they want because they know 99 percent of us won't do anything about it. But at the same time, this dude kinda did the same thing. I know this doesn't sound "civilized" but I don't think his punishment should be prison. Honestly, look at the "value" of the two people killed. They're burglars. Not exactly wonderful people. Who gives a shit. We tend to deify the dead, and I for on get really annoyed by that.

[Zantutsuken]

If he didnt know whether they were an imminent threat, than they werent an imminent threat. Knowledge is implied by the definition of the word imminent.



Their presence on his yard justifies only reasonable force under 9.41. He did not use reasonable force. Under 9.42, deadly force is only authorized (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.

Since it was not his property that was stolen there is no possibility of repossession. Hence, deadly force is not warranted.



I'm failing to see "reasonable force", I can just see "force", which I'd say he used:

(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.



If he believed they were going to rob his house or harm him, which would deem them an imminent threat seeing as how he just witnessed them rob one house and they are now on his property, he acted within accordance of the law. He did not go onto the neighbor's property and shoot them, they came onto his own. He could have thought they were going to rob or kill him and in believing so he had the right to defend himself with force. Not "reasonable force", mind you, "force".



-


Dude, you just don't kill someone simply because he/she is on your lawn. As you said, it wasn't clear what the burglars were going to do next, but that is not reason enough to shoot someone simply because he/she is on your lawn and may have bad intentions.
He was also clearly told by the 911 operator to stay inside, he disobeyed.



I said it wasn't clear because I didn't want to presume to read the man's mind, which is a character trait some of you seem to possess. He didn't simply kill someone for being on his lawn, he killed someone for robbing a house and feeling threatened that their being on his property could have been an attempt to rob/harm him. Again, the "could" is my not being able to read the man's mind.



If you listen to the 911 call, he says "I'm not gonna let them go" "I'm gonna shoot them" He says this even before they supposedly got on his lawn. Then he says "They're getting away" does that sound like a case of self-defense?
He's going to have to prove this was a self-defense case, but that's going to be very difficult for him to prove.

I've listened to the 9-1-1 call, he talks a big game but he remains on the phone while doing so. When the 9-1-1 operator asked him which way they were going he said he'd go outside and look. He never went outside and walked over to the neighbor's house and shot them, which is something keeps being omitted by those that call this man a vigilante. He went outside, to his own property, they were in his yard and could have felt his life was in danger so he shot them.

"They're getting away!" doesn't sound like self-defense. However, "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice!" sure does.

[Spike Lee]

spike this is just speculation..ive heard the same recording as you..the guy on the other end of the phone told him not to go out.."you might get shot" or something he said.."il kill em" the guy said..obviously not meaning it in pre med..no jury in Texas will convict him..

Besides the charges against him will probably be dropped..also the criminals ran at him on his property..so they were in his yard about to attack him when he fired the three shots..they were attacking him..he shouted for them to stop then as they were about to attack him he opened fire..

put it this way...if he was unarmed and got killed by those two men..this story would have got no more than5 seconds in the news..the fact that criminals were shot in the act by a good citizen is the headlines...crazy world huh..

Thousands of americans are murdered in their own homes accross america..they get 5 seconds attention unless they are raped..besides the press dont hound the criminal who did those things..yet a guy who fights back is houned like he is a criminal..? lol cmon man.

That is certainly not true. But till the "investigation" says othewise it appears this guy is toast. And honestly, I don't care if my tax dollars are "wasted". I pay for prison, they better use it.

[Manc]

That is certainly not true. But till the "investigation" says othewise it appears this guy is toast. And honestly, I don't care if my tax dollars are "wasted". I pay for prison, they better use it.

i heard they approached him?..why would they be on his property? i mean it is not as if you can actually belive anything the american media says..they make up half of the news over there..Britany Spears new hair style is big news lmao..cmon.

[Spike Lee]

i heard they approached him?..why would they be on his property?

They never approached him based on the evidence available to us. Self defense is fine where ever. But in cases of theft, you have the right to shoot, unless that property is not yours. Which in this case, it isn't his.

[Zantutsuken]

They never approached him based on the evidence available to us. Self defense is fine where ever. But in cases of theft, you have the right to shoot, unless that property is not yours. Which in this case, it isn't his.

What evidence do you have they didn't approach him? I'd like to read it.

[Spike Lee]

His testimony, the 911 call.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4dc_1195205938

[Zantutsuken]

His testimony, the 911 call.

His testimony states they came into his yard. So by all means, explain?

[camjoe87]

It's going to be rough when somebody else does this and winds up killing their neighbor who was trying to break into their own house, or their teenager sneaking out.


I highly doubt this will EVER happen ... Most people know what their neighbors look like, and I'm sure these guys were doing something ALL TOO obvious to kind of give them away.

[Spike Lee]

His testimony states they came into his yard. So by all means, explain?

No he didn't. He never says that. I want a source on that because everything he has said in that 911 call never indicates that.

[Zantutsuken]

No he didn't. He never says that. I want a source on that because everything he has said in that 911 call never indicates that.

Yes, he did. It's in the phone call of the very link you posted in the start of this thread, 1:30 in the video. I've told you this time and time again:

What text? The front yard bit? He states in the phone call, did you listen to the phone call?


It says they went on his lawn in the phone call of the article you linked. Can't say what event took place first, which is why I haven't made my mind up on what scenario to go with. These two men must have been quite moronic to have just robbed a house then approach a man wielding a shotgun, which is why I tend to lean to the scenario of him shooting them when they came on his lawn.


I don't know if it's ignorance or just being lazy, but you really need to work on your "tactic" of omitting things. Now please, don't ask the same question, I've now answered three times for you, again.

[Spike Lee]

Thats your defense. He drew attention to himself by taking the law in his own hands. I'm not ignoring your shit, its hard to ignore that when I have no idea what that fat ass geriatric was saying in the first place. On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.

"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.

Then Horn is back on the phone:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."


Dusty should of not gone out there in the first place.
Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the -- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

Dispatcher: "Did you shoot somebody?

Horn: "Yes, I did, the cops are here right now."

Dispatcher: "Where are you right now?"

Horn: "I'm inside the house. ..."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, put that gun down before you shoot an officer of mine. I've got several officers out there without uniforms on."

Horn: "I am in the front yard right now. I am ..."

With that said, I'm backing off of this guy. Whatever the jury decides, I will be satisfied with. By any means though, this Dusty here is far from a hero. He saved no ones life.

[Zantutsuken]

Thats your defense. He drew attention to himself by taking the law in his own hands.

I said he stated they came onto his lawn, you stated that he never said that.


I'm not ignoring your shit, its hard to ignore that when I have no idea what that fat ass geriatric was saying in the first place. On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.

You're grabbing at straws. In the video of the article you posted they give subtitles, if you can read what I type you can read what he said. It's clear you didn't even watch the video in the very article you posted. There's no excuse other than not taking the time to review something you presented, that falls on you, not some "fat ass geriatric".



Dusty should of not gone out there in the first place.

9-1-1 dispatcher asked him which way they were going and he went outside to check. You can get angry at him all you want, but I can't find a law he's broken by going outside.

Thankfully, the people going over the investigation will actually investigate instead of simply not review facts and cast a verdict based on nothing other than personal opinion.

[Spike Lee]

Thankfully, the people going over the investigation will actually investigate instead of simply not review facts and cast a verdict based on nothing other than personal opinion.
I watched the video and there were no subtitles for that part. And even so, he says they charged at him when he went to the front with the gun. There was no good reason for him to go out there and stop it the way he did after the 911 operator told him no. And thankfully the "being a good neighbor" argument is personal opinion as well.

And I'll admit that it was foolish to ignore that apect, but truth be told, this guy had every opportunity to not do what he did. And he had a choice. It was not as if he didn't have a choice ( till he drew attention to himself).

[Zantutsuken]

I watched the video and there were no subtitles for that part.

Glad you finally watched the video, better late than never.


And even so, he says they charged at him when he went to the front with the gun.


So, by your own words, you admit that he said, "they charged at him"? Now wouldn't that conflict with your earlier assessment of:

They never approached him based on the evidence available to us.

That's why I'd prefer to look at facts before casting an opinion, things can always change when you go by opinion alone.



There was no good reason for him to go out there and stop it the way he did after the 911 operator told him no.

Again, he could have stopped it at any time, he didn't leave his home and go shoot anyone. He didn't take one step off his property. The 9-1-1 operator asked him which way they were going and he said he'd go check, in the process of checking seems he found them and perhaps felt they may harm him so he acted in self defense.



And thankfully the "being a good neighbor" argument is personal opinion as well.

True. You'd have a point, had I made an argument using him just being a "good neighbor". However, I choose to go by evidence, not opinion.

However, I will give you one opinion I have:

If you want to cut the risk of being shot by a dramatic percent, get a job and don't rob houses.

[Spike Lee]

I'll asnwe those later. I feel like chillin' on the web for a couple hours.

TO BE CONTINUED.

[Manc]

I don't give a damn that those two retards died. The issue here is if an ordinary citizen has a right to be an executioner for a relatively minor crime.
If that is the issue well then you should read up on the Law you are discussing...the law says yes...they were on HIS property when he shot them..they charged at him and he acted in accordance with the law..

I don't believe he will be charged..and he he should not be charged anyway...the case would be unimaginable...and what charge would they bring upon him anyway..

It a self defence law also ..not an executioner law? lmao i understand your point mate but i don't think you can fully comprehend what has happened with the man...the event itself..or the law which we are discussing..you got the issue wrong..k..good issue wrong thread

[Nocturnal]

If that is the issue well then you should read up on the Law you are discussing...the law says yes...they were on HIS property when he shot them..they charged at him and he acted in accordance with the law..

I don't believe he will be charged..and he he should not be charged anyway...the case would be unimaginable...and what charge would they bring upon him anyway..

It a self defence law also ..not an executioner law? lmao i understand your point mate but i don't think you can fully comprehend what has happened with the man...the event itself..or the law which we are discussing..you got the issue wrong..k..good issue wrong thread

If they did come onto his property and charged at him, then that should be born out in the investigation. That was not indicated by the original article.

[david_slupper]

He said "I'm not gonna let them get away with this" He clearly planed to stop or even shoot these people from the beginning. Needless to say, it isn't up to him to stop or shoot at people.


However, "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice!" sure does.

He'll have to prove they were going to harm him and he him or his property were in danger. I doubt that will fly; especially when he was told repeatedly to stay inside while the cops were on their way.

[Zantutsuken]

He said "I'm not gonna let them get away with this" He clearly planed to stop or even shoot these people from the beginning. Needless to say, it isn't up to him to stop or shoot at people.



And when he said that he was inside, still on the phone. Five to seven minutes passed since first saying it, he's quite the slow vigilante. He didn't go outside until asked which direction they were heading:


Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"

Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."

Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."

Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."



He'll have to prove they were going to harm him and he him or his property were in danger. I doubt that will fly; especially when he was told repeatedly to stay inside while the cops were on their way.


He'll have to prove he feared for his life or his property and acted in self defense. Seeing as how the very criminals he watched rob a house and called 9-1-1 on are now in his yard, I think it shouldn't be that hard for a grand jury to believe he felt his life/property were in danger:


He gets more agitated. The dispatcher asks if he can see the suspects but they had retreated into the target's house, out of view: "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."

-

"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?


Stating he doesn't want to shoot someone, but if he feels his life is in danger that he has no other choice.

Time will tell.

[Bergs]

I'm failing to see "reasonable force", I can just see "force", which I'd say he used:

(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.


You fail to see reasonable force because you dont know what the fuck youre talking about and you have no clue how to read a statute.

"Reasonably believes the force is necessary" is the exact same thing as saying "force reasonably necessary," "reasonable force necessary to," or "necessary reasonable force." They all mean the same thing, which is reasonable force.

And force without a qualifier NEVER means deadly force. Only specifically stated deadly force means deadly force, not to mention that your entire argument that force means deadly force is nullified by 9.42, which lays out the instances where deadly force is authorized.


If he believed they were going to rob his house or harm him, which would deem them an imminent threat seeing as how he just witnessed them rob one house and they are now on his property, he acted within accordance of the law. He did not go onto the neighbor's property and shoot them, they came onto his own. He could have thought they were going to rob or kill him and in believing so he had the right to defend himself with force. Not "reasonable force", mind you, "force".

He has a right to defend his property only with reasonable force. Mere trespass, even under the insanity of 9.41-9.42 does not authorize deadly force. There is no doubt that his actions are not protected under the Texas statutes. Which is saying alot since they are ridiculously broad.


He'll have to prove he feared for his life or his property and acted in self defense. Seeing as how the very criminals he watched rob a house and called 9-1-1 on are now in his yard, I think it shouldn't be that hard for a grand jury to believe he felt his life/property were in danger.

How does the fact that they robbed a house justify a reasonable inference that life is in danger? It doesnt.

[deballedtomcat]

I just got back from a aod trip,so Im posting as I read the thread,so far I have gotten to page 3 where Son Of God wrote:

I have a question.

Should the punishment for being convicted of a burglary/robbery charge be changed from whatever it is now, to lethal injection?

If you're not only applauding what happened but also championing it, then shouldn't it follow that you'd have no problem with death sentences being doled out for these types of crimes?

How about instead of going to that extreme we as a society actually make prisons a place where criminals dread to go,and actually making them serve out their sentences,instead of giving them multiple opportunities before actually doing anything to them?

Of course,we can't do that,It violates their "rights",fuck the victim,the criminal is more important.

[Bergs]

How was this guy a victim? He was a vigilante who took matters into his own hands and murdered two people. His crime is worse than theirs. That doesnt excuse their crime, send them to jail. Don't kill them, and certainly don't allow some redneck to shoot thme for no damn good reason.

[BeeEmmmDeebahya]

Right, he's so smart and afraid that he ignores the best advice of the dispatcher and goes out, to put himself in a much greater of a dangerous situation. You can't play the victim card when you do something like that. He put himself into the situation, he was not forced into it. If this goes as far as a trial, the lawyers and jury will be wondering just that. "If you felt so threatend by these men, why did you put yourself at further risk to increase it?"

And to deballed How about instead of going to that extreme we as a society actually make prisons a place where criminals dread to go,and actually making them serve out their sentences,instead of giving them multiple opportunities before actually doing anything to them?

Of course,we can't do that,It violates their "rights",fuck the victim,the criminal is more important.

Well, the there are various reasons people comit crimes. The thing is, however, that people do so because they believe they will get away with it. They are 100% positive they will get it away with it. Punishment has almost no bearing on their decision. They may be less likely, sure, but in reality any punishment you make the criminal will not even be thinking about it...because in their mind it will never happen.

--------


Also, I think some of you forget that these people ARE people. They do deserve respect and humane treatment. People make mistakes. Some learn from them some stay in jail their entire lives. But you have to remember that people do deserve a second chance, sometimes more.

A lot of people here have done some really stupid shit, most of us have been lucky enough to get away with it and learn from it without taking the punishment in the first place. I did a few things when I was younger that would be considered felonies. I never hurt anyone or anything personal to anyone, but I did some things I am very lucky to have gotten away with. I have spent two weekends in jail (failure to pay tickets)...and you know what? Someone during that time would be thinking, 'look at this piece of shit kid, he doesn't have respect for shit and I hope he has some horrible shit happen to him'. I don't blame them. BUT, now that I am 23, I have learned from that, I have moved on from it and realized how incredibly stupid the things I did were. I stopped hating police because it was my own stupid fucking fault for my problems, and I realized that. I blamed nobody but myself (a very rare occurance, I know). I have become a much better person. I haven't gotten in trouble once since, I went on to work as 911 dispatcher (no longer do that though). I have since done work and am continuing my education for the job and responsility of helping other. And I respect everybody, all life.

So my point is, dont judge someone from something messed up they may have done in life, because these guys here could have ended up like me. Learning from their mistakes and doing whatever they can to help better peoples lives they don't even know, for society.

[Just Spurplin]

A lot of people here have done some really stupid shit, most of us have been lucky enough to get away with it and learn from it without taking the punishment in the first place.

Yeah, I remember on at least one instance seeing a thread on here asking people what they have (if ever) stolen. There were hundreds of responses, damn near every person not only admitted to, but were rather proud of the fact that they had stolen and gotten away with it on multiple accounts. Guess all those people also think they deserve to be executed on the spot.

[kyro_02]

"Boom, you dead"

hahhahahahahahah

that old guy is awesome.

sucked in to the burglars

[slapnpopbass]

Burglary does not justify a death sentence!!! Holy shit. Yes, arrest them. Lock them up for the period stipulated by the statutes of that jurisdiction. But killing them? Are you fucking nuts?

If someone broke in my house, I would shoot them. Plain and simple. They know what they're getting into.

[shade]

The biggest question is why it took 5 minutes for a cop to get there.

[BeeEmmmDeebahya]

The biggest question is why it took 5 minutes for a cop to get there.

Why is that? Do you even know how the process works?

[Just Spurplin]

The biggest question is why it took 5 minutes for a cop to get there.

Cause the nearest cop was 5 minutes away. We could solve that with more cops, but that would mean higher taxes. How does Ron Paul feel about that again?

[Spike Lee]

Cause the nearest cop was 5 minutes away. We could solve that with more cops, but that would mean higher taxes. How does Ron Paul feel about that again?

Ron Paul wants SuperCops. Maybe we should learn a thing or two from Jackie Chan.

[JerkyMyTurky]

It really sounds like this guy wanted to shoot these two guys for simply robbing his neighbor's home. I don't buy for a second that he felt as if he was in danger and had to use his shotgun in self defense. He seems to be arguing with the dispatcher about how he has a right to shoot the guys, even though the dispatcher is asking him its not worth killing them. The guy was in no danger, he should have just stayed in his home and let the police deal with these guys. Burglars aren't going to attempt to rob two houses back to back, they probably took whatever they could in those few minutes and were most likely going to leave the neighborhood. They may have crossed across his yard as they were running, but that still doesn't give him a right to shoot them dead. The law he's talking about is more to do about protecting yourself, than protecting property and punishing the burglars. This guy was not in danger and the way he sounded on the phone, he didn't sound one bit nervous. You don't talk about your shotgun "clicking" and stating "boom, you're dead" if you are scared for you life. This guy sounded like he was giving commentary at a hunting show.

[Sketcher]

Cause the nearest cop was 5 minutes away. We could solve that with more cops, but that would mean higher taxes. How does Ron Paul feel about that again?

Ron Paul wants to eliminate FEDERAL income taxes. State taxes pay for local police.

[IrishNed]

Ron Paul wants to eliminate FEDERAL income taxes. State taxes pay for local police.Not! State Taxes pay for State Law Enforcement Officers (i.e., State Police, Highway Patrol, State Bureau of Investigation, State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, State Corrections Officers, etc.). My list is not all inclusive. The Texas Rangers, for example, is another State-level law enforcement entity unique to Texas.

Counties, being administrative subdivisions of State Government may also get a large portion of their law enforcement (i.e., County Sheriff) funding from State Government appropriation.

Local Police are funded by localities / municipalities.

Police forces at all levels are eligible to receive Grants-in-aid from the Federal Government for programs such as Crime Prevention; but in most cases these are Categorical Grants that may only be spent as directed.