911 call of man that shot and killed 2 people that were burglarizing

[BFDNJFF]

Texas Justice



911 call of man that shot and killed 2 people that were burglarizing the house next door
Nov. 15, 2007 Pasadena
A Pasadena homeowner this afternoon fatally shot two men he believed were burglarizing his neighbor's house, police said.

About 2 p.m., the homeowner in the Village Grove East subdivision heard noises he thought sounded like broken glass, said Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett, with the Pasadena Police Department. The man determined the noise was coming from next door.

The man, who police have not identified, knew the owner of the house in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive was not home, and that the noise could possibly be a burglary, Corbett said. The man then called police to inform them he thought his neighbor's house was being burglarized.

The man then saw two men coming through a gate in the backyard of the neighbor's house.

"He confronted them with a shotgun," Corbett said, and asked them to stop. They did not and he fired two shots, striking each man once, Corbett said.

One man was found dead about two houses from where the reported burglary occurred. The other was found dead across the street, Corbett said.

Police are interviewing the homeowner.

A window in the back of the neighbor's house was broken

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=f3d_1195171937"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=f3d_1195171937"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>


Texas law was changed
on September 1st, 2007 to extend the 'Castle
Doctrine' to include vehicles and workplaces, and
eliminated the requirement to flee. (You can now
stand your ground, and not be forced by law to run
away, even if you could've prevented additional
harm, damage, or theft.)

Under the section "Protection of the Property
of Others", the law reads "A person is
justified in using force or deadly force against
another to protect the property of a third person
if he reasonably believes he would be justified to
use similar force to protect his own property, and
he reasonably believes that there existed an
attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft
or criminal mischief.

[hwoods]

Now, if we could get that Law extended to cover the other 49 States......

[ndvfdff33]

That's pretty wild stuff. Boom you're dead.:eek:

[johnny46]

The ridiculous thing is that we were ever supposed to flee in the first place, or that we cannot shoot someone down who is taking our stuff. You steal and the owner sees it and puts you down, tough ****e.

[DeputyMarshal]

What a frackin' cowboy idiot.

[johnny46]

I've read more, apparently. He observed them making entry and gave them a warning. They shouldn't have broken in in the first place and they should have stopped when the man with the shotgun told them to. I am glad he shot them and I hope he doesn't get in trouble for doing what more people should do.

[SPFDRum]

What a frackin' cowboy idiot.
Yea and when they rob, or rape, or murder your family close friend or relative, you let us know how you feel about it after that. Of course that doesn't surprise me that this comes from the east coast. Home of Wash. DC- strictest gun laws in the nation and some of the highest, if not the THE highest gun crime rate in the nation....
Answer this, who is really breaking the law; an individual breaking into your home, willing to rob you of your property, or worse? Or the home owner doing what it takes to defend himself and his hard earned property?

[DeputyMarshal]

Yea and when they rob, or rape, or murder your family close friend or relative, you let us know how you feel about it after that.

There were no lives in danger here. The PD was moments away and the caller knew it. He went out of his way to insert himself into a situation that he had no business in despite being explicitly told to stay out of it.

Of course that doesn't surprise me that this comes from the east coast.

That's pretty funny. Are you assuming I'm opposed to gun ownership just because I'm opposed to some cowboy lynching a couple of fleeing burglars?

Or the home owner doing what it takes to defend himself and his hard earned property?

You left out the vigilante neighbor determined to rush out and shoot two petty burglars quick before they could be arrested by the police and properly tried... The guy made it pretty clear that he wanted an excuse to shoot those people.

[sj2110]

We need more neighbors like this. Talk about a drop in the crime rate.

[SPFDRum]

I'm sorry I got carried away. I should have just assumed that after breaking into the home, they where going to the mission and feed the homeless, then to the orphan shelter to read to the children...
My bad.

[Higby916]

There were no lives in danger here. The PD was moments away and the caller knew it. He went out of his way to insert himself into a situation that he had no business in despite being explicitly told to stay out of it.



That's pretty funny. Are you assuming I'm opposed to gun ownership just because I'm opposed to some cowboy lynching a couple of fleeing burglars?



You left out the vigilante neighbor determined to rush out and shoot two petty burglars quick before they could be arrested by the police and properly tried... The guy made it pretty clear that he wanted an excuse to shoot those people.


Not to mention, we have insurance (or should have). I would rather pay the deductible than live with killing a human being for taking material possessions.

[BLSboy]

Nice shooting!
2 for 2!

[BFDNJFF]

Not to mention, we have insurance (or should have). I would rather pay the deductible than live with killing a human being for taking material possessions.

I think that would depend on the material possessions we are talking about.
I am in between on how I feel about what this man did. On one side heck yah 2 less scum to deal with that who knows may kill for there next robbery and I don't have to pay taxes for these jerks to rot in prison.

But on the other hand he put himself in harms way when he was told not to by the law.

[hornh8r]

Good Shoot, and the neighborhood just got a reputation for being a tough place to steal atv in so burglars will drive on by rather than target this place again. We should have more neighbors like this fella.

[FDAIC485]

Yeah, I was from the Northeast and was a softie on the whole "providing protection for you family and possessions" thing. I think they put something in the water. All I got to say is now is "Nice shooting, Tex." Let me replace those shells for you.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

It is rare that I would agree with my brother from CT, but he is dead on with this one. If this was NJ, this moron would be on his way to prison for at least 20 years-deservedly so.

1. As long as he stayed in the house, he was in zero danger.
2. He was specifically instructed by the dispatcher to NOT do what he did.
3. He sounded like a friggin' guy with a hostage: "I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it". As has been stated, he inserted himself into a situation where he didn't belong. He placed himself into the danger he later used as justification to kill another human being. Does anybody know if they were armed?
4. He was extremely fortunate that he was not shot. He was also extremely fortunate that he did not shoot a plainclothes officer.

I understand that you Texans are all jazzed up about your cowboy laws, but there is something seriously wrong when this type of killing is justified. It's just plain wrong that a person can get away with murder in this type of situation. Just plain wrong.

[johnny46]

Last time I checked, dispatchers weren't authorities over the action of citizens.

The man observed the burglars making entry and then running off with stuff. He went outside and told them to stop.

I believe there are circumstances under which it should be legal and is moral to shoot others. I believe catching someone in the act of burglarizing a home (one's own home or another's) is within his rights to shoot the offender. I believe if the homeowner had been the shooter, some wouldn't be so worried. I see no difference. Should burglars live because they are lucky to break into a house without people in the home? What happens when burglars stumble across an occupant? Do we believe this would have been their last job? It wasn't their first criminal offense, we know that. All they had to do was stop. They chose not to.

One might argue they were only material possessions. Certainly. But I argue that burglary itself is an act of violence. Many succesful burglars become more emboldened. Some intend not to physically harm people, but what happens when they come across an occupant? I'm not willing to wait to find that out. How do we know they haven't killed before? Or that they just killed someone in the house? Why are we letting them get away? What is the reason behind letting a known criminal now on the run (equals desperate and afraid) go running into our neighborhood, amongst the people we know? Even if we see no gun, are we to let them run loose? What if they force their way into someone's car or house? What if they get a mother with children in the car and steal it? This has happened before. Or if they get a car and get in a chase and someone gets hit by them? Criminals are dangerous. They don't like to go to prison and sometimes in their attempts to escape, they hurt people. The innocent do not deserve to have their lives risked for the sake of letting them go rather than stopping them. I have friends in Pasadena, and I don't want criminals on the run through there.

Another consideration. These guys get away. There is one guy who knows who they are. If they don't go to jail, or they get let out on bond, or they get convicted and then get released, why should this guy have to worry that they'll try to keep him quiet?

I believe the strong have a right and a duty to protect the weak, regardless of badges. In this case, this man was the strong. The criminals were not the weak, they were men who'd chosen to break into a home and steal things that did not belong to them. They chose this. They had a history of criminal activity. They weren't children.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Last time I checked, dispatchers weren't authorities over the action of citizens.

The man observed the burglars making entry and then running off with stuff. He went outside and told them to stop.

I believe there are circumstances under which it should be legal and is moral to shoot others. I believe catching someone in the act of burglarizing a home (one's own home or another's) is within his rights to shoot the offender. I believe if the homeowner had been the shooter, some wouldn't be so worried. I see no difference. Should burglars live because they are lucky to break into a house without people in the home? What happens when burglars stumble across an occupant? Do we believe this would have been their last job? It wasn't their first criminal offense, we know that. All they had to do was stop. They chose not to.

One might argue they were only material possessions. Certainly. But I argue that burglary itself is an act of violence. Many succesful burglars become more emboldened. Some intend not to physically harm people, but what happens when they come across an occupant? I'm not willing to wait to find that out. How do we know they haven't killed before? Or that they just killed someone in the house? Why are we letting them get away? What is the reason behind letting a known criminal now on the run (equals desperate and afraid) go running into our neighborhood, amongst the people we know? Even if we see no gun, are we to let them run loose? What if they force their way into someone's car or house? What if they get a mother with children in the car and steal it? This has happened before. Or if they get a car and get in a chase and someone gets hit by them? Criminals are dangerous. They don't like to go to prison and sometimes in their attempts to escape, they hurt people. The innocent do not deserve to have their lives risked for the sake of letting them go rather than stopping them. I have friends in Pasadena, and I don't want criminals on the run through there.

Another consideration. These guys get away. There is one guy who knows who they are. If they don't go to jail, or they get let out on bond, or they get convicted and then get released, why should this guy have to worry that they'll try to keep him quiet?

I believe the strong have a right and a duty to protect the weak, regardless of badges. In this case, this man was the strong. The criminals were not the weak, they were men who'd chosen to break into a home and steal things that did not belong to them. They chose this. They had a history of criminal activity. They weren't children.

Couple of thoughts, here.

1. The jerk with the shotgun was not an authority either.
2. Do we know that the dispatcher was not an officer?
3. It makes no difference if it was the homeowner, neighbor or dog catcher. As the dispatcher stated, there is no property worth killing someone over.
4. Burglary, by legal definition, is a property crime.
5. Even in a state with abusrd death penalty laws (I am generally in favor of capital punishment), there is no death penalty for burglary.
6. What if, what if, what if. What if he shot and missed? What about those rounds? If he kills an innocent party, what do we say? Too bad, your child died because someone stole my neighbor's watch?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Here is a much better article on the case that does not celebrate this action.

Nov. 15, 2007, 9:58PM
Shooting of theft suspects may test self-defense law


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



Somebody let me know when he gets indicted.

[johnny46]

Couple of thoughts, here.

1. The jerk with the shotgun was not an authority either.
2. Do we know that the dispatcher was not an officer?
3. It makes no difference if it was the homeowner, neighbor or dog catcher. As the dispatcher stated, there is no property worth killing someone over.
4. Burglary, by legal definition, is a property crime.
5. Even in a state with abusrd death penalty laws (I am generally in favor of capital punishment), there is no death penalty for burglary.
6. What if, what if, what if. What if he shot and missed? What about those rounds? If he kills an innocent party, what do we say? Too bad, your child died because someone stole my neighbor's watch?
1. Are only authorities allowed to kill people? Would it have been okay for the homoeowner to shoot these people?
2. I don't see him having authority to order someone to allow burglars to escape.
3. So we simply let people take things unless they brandish a weapon? DO we have to wait until they pull one? How do we know the money taken wasn't a mortgage payment or money set aside for something vital to the family?
4. Legally, yes, but it is a violent act.
5. There is also no death penalty for simply holding a weapon and staring at someone, yet people are shot for this. The penalties in courts are different because the act is past.
6. If he shot and missed and hit someone, there are laws to cover this. Shall we remove weapons from police, lest they miss when shooting someone? Your comment does not address the reality of allowing criminals on the run to get away. Am I to assume you would rather such proven criminals to escape and endanger the lives of the innocent in their attempt to escape?

[doughesson]

Not to mention, we have insurance (or should have). I would rather pay the deductible than live with killing a human being for taking material possessions.


I'm sure the guy took their non compliance with his order to stop what they were doing to be an implied threat to him.After all,Sarah Brady used to warn(or maybe threaten) that if you tried using a gun to defend yourself,it will be taken away from you and used against you.After all,what is a firearm but a material possession?
If they had complied and stopped,they probably wouldn't have gotten shot.The man on the scene is in the better position to decide whether or not they posed a threat to him.Not you and me and him and him and him.(pointing to other posters)
I,myself,was arrested in '95 for using a shotgun to stop my male and female now former roommates from using a hammer and their fists to assault me when I left a discussion of when I was going to move out.(I'd had to hold back my share of the rent for a week longer than agreed & had it on me that night)
I didn't have the shotgun at the start of the confrontation,I didn't have it loaded and they had both exits blocked from a second story apartment and until I thought about it later,their friend who was ostensibly there to help me move,was standing at my back next to the stove which had the cooking knives on the rangetop while I was wrestling her for the hammer and getting hit by him in the head.Not a good tactical situation.
When I got the 20 guage,I racked the action and ordered them to leave,which they did.I'm sure glad that they didn't call my bluff.The guy is 6'2'' and while she's 5'5",she's like the Cletus T.Judd song"Butt bigger than a Beetle" where it says"Deion Sanders better leave her alone." They both hit like they were trying to injure me.God knows what would have happened if she'd gotten me with that hammer.My head is missahapen as it is.I don't need more dents in it and I like being alive.
When the SO arrived,she was still in tears from my actions and was the reason they arrested me.
Even though at arraignment,they both said that they had attacked first,the charges were not dropped.When the court case was coming to trial with no sign of me begging mercy from the court(who'd already started calling it domestic violence the first day without hearing any facts),my mouthpiece told me that the DA had come to him with a deal:if they lower the charges to misdemeanors,I can plead guilty and then still be able to own firearms.
I took that deal at his and my ex's advice with great misgivings.If they were so sure they had a solid case,why NOT go into trial and let me trick f**k myself into a cell?
I still say the DA wanted to be the first kid on his block to get a conviction under the Domestic Violence Act which wasn't passed until AFTER my arrest.

[Steamin441]

Here in South Carolina we have somewhat recently passed a 'concealed weapons permit' law for citizens able to pass a SLED background check and take a training class. Which is surprising considering most of the state is armed one way or the other already. We also have fairly strict rights to defend ourselves in our homes. Unfortunately not as liberal as my native state. Yet. Oxymoron; Liberal Texas. I'm not sure but if I kill someone here on my front porch I think I have to drag their sorry butt inside prior to the law showing up.
This incident made news mostly 'cause it was very rare. Unless I missed it in the prior posts,I wonder if anyone asked the shooter if he knew the law and did he act based on it? Law or not he really hung his rear end out there for the circumstances. Ahwile back. Sometime in '90,91 in Austin, Texas a guy wakes up to some noise in his suburban neighborhood. Comes outside to find some knucklehead pushing his mustang down the street. Don't recall the details but he ends up shooting and killing this guy.(to stop the theft) He took him out a few houses down and the debate then obviously was he within his rights. I think he ended up getting no-billed. That was the first time I recall the 'rules of engagement' debate in Texas moved from intruder in the house to outside and brought in property protection. It took that incident (I am guessing) as precedent to get to this dicey addition of taking someone out on your neighbors behalf.
The interesting thing here is the neighborhood it took place in. The residents are not all on the same page. It freaked out some of the folks. Thats' not good.
I live in a rural area with hundreds of yards between some neighbors. It also contains families that have been in the community for over two hundred years. When I moved in it was their page I was on. We help each other. A local would we dealt with differently than a stranger. Unless someone was attacked somehow the most that would happen would be an attempt to hold them until the law got there. Maybe....We are a loonnng way from town.

[Steamin441]

Nice shooting!
2 for 2!











Especially if the 12 was on full choke

[skipatrol8]

I believe there are circumstances under which it should be legal and is moral to shoot others. I believe catching someone in the act of burglarizing a home (one's own home or another's) is within his rights to shoot the offender. I believe if the homeowner had been the shooter, some wouldn't be so worried. I see no difference. Should burglars live because they are lucky to break into a house without people in the home?

Allowed to live??? I don't think burglary is a capital crime in Texas.

One might argue they were only material possessions. Certainly. But I argue that burglary itself is an act of violence. Many succesful burglars become more emboldened. Some intend not to physically harm people, but what happens when they come across an occupant? I'm not willing to wait to find that out. How do we know they haven't killed before? Or that they just killed someone in the house? Why are we letting them get away? What is the reason behind letting a known criminal now on the run (equals desperate and afraid) go running into our neighborhood, amongst the people we know? Even if we see no gun, are we to let them run loose? What if they force their way into someone's car or house? What if they get a mother with children in the car and steal it? This has happened before. Or if they get a car and get in a chase and someone gets hit by them? Criminals are dangerous. They don't like to go to prison and sometimes in their attempts to escape, they hurt people. The innocent do not deserve to have their lives risked for the sake of letting them go rather than stopping them. I have friends in Pasadena, and I don't want criminals on the run through there.



How about we find out if the burglars killed someone before we go ahead and summarily execute someone? If I killed someone for every time they could have possibly killed someone, there would be an issue. Yes criminals are dangerous, but that doesn't mean we need to kill them all.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

1. Are only authorities allowed to kill people? Would it have been okay for the homoeowner to shoot these people?
2. I don't see him having authority to order someone to allow burglars to escape.
3. So we simply let people take things unless they brandish a weapon? DO we have to wait until they pull one? How do we know the money taken wasn't a mortgage payment or money set aside for something vital to the family?
4. Legally, yes, but it is a violent act.
5. There is also no death penalty for simply holding a weapon and staring at someone, yet people are shot for this. The penalties in courts are different because the act is past.
6. If he shot and missed and hit someone, there are laws to cover this. Shall we remove weapons from police, lest they miss when shooting someone? Your comment does not address the reality of allowing criminals on the run to get away. Am I to assume you would rather such proven criminals to escape and endanger the lives of the innocent in their attempt to escape?

Six absolutely ridiculous points.

[skipatrol8]

Six absolutely ridiculous points.

The last one is my favorite...take the guns away from people with the training? I could be wrong, but I don't think the 70 year old man toting his 12 gauge has the same training as a LEO. Also a LEO is trained to listen to instructions, unlike this man.

[GodSendRain]

I'm sorry I got carried away. I should have just assumed that after breaking into the home, they where going to the mission and feed the homeless, then to the orphan shelter to read to the children...
My bad.

My coffee!! What a mess.

I just have to add that I wonder what kind of medication that dispatcher is on. I have never heard anyone so calm and quiet; I think it's a good thing, but uncommon.

[johnny46]

Six absolutely ridiculous points.
Six questions. You apparently don't have the answers and think that slinging insults is a sign of winning.

EDIT: Some were assertions. Note to the wise, before being snarky, reread your own posts.

[johnny46]

Allowed to live??? I don't think burglary is a capital crime in Texas.
Nor is rape or assault or aiming a weapon at someone. Penalties issued by a court of law are after the fact, when all posibilities have been taken away. Armed robbery, for instance, is not a capital crime, but at the time of commision, the possibility exists for someone to get killed, hence most wouldn't take issue with shooting them. After the fact, it's apparent the end result of the act. When a man is desparate and has just commited an act such as burglary, he presents a hazard to the innocent as he flees. If he will not stop, how much are you willing to risk? I believe we should risk nothing and stop them. I don't believe if the man has been stopped that he should then be finished off. If a shot brings him down but does not kill him, then mission accomplished. If he dies, then that is the result of trying to stop him. We're not talking about someone who stole food to eat, we're talking about someone who broke into a home and stole personal property. People are killed all the time by such as this.

How about we find out if the burglars killed someone before we go ahead and summarily execute someone? If I killed someone for every time they could have possibly killed someone, there would be an issue. Yes criminals are dangerous, but that doesn't mean we need to kill them all.
They weren't summarily executed. They were shot, once each. They died. The shooter did not walk over and pump extra rounds into them. I admit a fine distinction between intending to stop someone and intending to kill them. We're not talking about a vigilante who was seeking out criminals. These men were in proximity, in his neighborhood and burgling his neighbor's home. Explain to me why you think one should let known criminals like this run through a neighborhood in an attempt to escape. Are there no cases of innocent people being hurt by criminals on the run? google "car stolen with infant children inside." I choose an extreme example, yes, but we are already in the extreme when we are discussing breaking and entering.

Would you feel more comfortable if the cops had shot them?

How do we know in the midst of the act whether or not they are armed?

How much risk do you believe the public should have to assume for known criminals? I believe very little or none, depending on the crime.


The shooter saw them make entry, saw that they were not children, saw them come out. He warned them to stop.

[johnny46]

The last one is my favorite...take the guns away from people with the training? I could be wrong, but I don't think the 70 year old man toting his 12 gauge has the same training as a LEO. Also a LEO is trained to listen to instructions, unlike this man.

They are questions. That is how grown people discuss things. When one argues that a stray shot could kill an innocent, then why have guns at all? This is a way of ironing out the limits of arguments and the true purpose of a person's statement, which is often vague at the outset. I asked questions and took logical conclusions of GW's arguments. Cops miss their targets in extreme situations. Even Marines sometimes miss moving targets.

Some countries have unarmed police, and they aren't dropping like flies. I don't think it's a good idea, myself.

You might be able to find an elementary school grammar book that will teach you what the various punctuation marks mean.

EDIT: Hoisted by my own petards. Looking back at my post, some of my questions were really assertions. If you find a cheap grammar book, send me the link.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

BTW, bubba. Have you ever pointed a firearm at another person?

[Sugarfoot]

What would you do if you came home and someone was in your house?




and they were armed..............


plus dispatch said no cops available, they were busy....

[FDAIC485]

BTW, bubba. Have you ever pointed a firearm at another person?

I can actually say that I have. It happend when I was in my senior year in college up in NYC. Funny how you instinctually look for hard cover after peering down the business end of a handgun. (No, I was not commiting a crime either. The other person was the criminal.) The anti-gun laws in NYC shift the playing field to insure only criminals can carry guns with little fear of immediate consequence.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I guess there are alot of guys named Bubba on TX college campuses, too.

Student Group Wants More Guns on Campus

By MICHELLE ROBERTS

SAN MARCOS, Texas (AP) - Mike Guzman and thousands of other students say the best way to prevent campus bloodshed is more guns.

Guzman, an economics major at Texas State University-San Marcos, is among 8,000 students nationwide who have joined the nonpartisan Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, arguing that students and faculty already licensed to carry concealed weapons should be allowed to pack heat along with their textbooks.

"It's the basic right of self defense," said Guzman, a 23-year-old former Marine. "Here on campus, we don't have that right, that right of self defense."

Every state but Illinois and Wisconsin allows residents some form of concealed handgun carrying rights, with 36 states issuing permits to most everyone who meets licensing criteria. The precise standards vary from state to state, but most require an applicant to be at least 21 and to complete formal instruction on use of force.

Many states forbid license-holders from carrying weapons on school campuses, while in states where the decision is left to the universities, schools almost always prohibit it. Utah is the only state that expressly allows students to carry concealed weapons on campus.

College campuses are different from other public places where concealed weapons are allowed. Thousands of young adults are living in close quarters, facing heavy academic and social pressure - including experimenting with drugs and alcohol - in their first years away from home.

W. Gerald Massengill, the chairman of the independent panel that investigated the Virginia Tech shootings, said those concerns outweigh the argument that gun-carrying students could have reduced the number of fatalities inflicted by someone like Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho.

"I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," said Massengill, a former head of the Virginia state police. "But our society has changed, and there are some environments where common sense tells us that it's just not a good idea to have guns available."

His view is echoed by Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who says campus safety concerns cannot be addressed by adding more guns to campuses.

"If there's more we need to do, we certainly need to do that, but introducing random access to firearms is not the solution," said Hamm. "You have more victims, not fewer victims."

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus gathered momentum after the April killings at Virginia Tech, where the gunman shot 32 people dead before killing himself.

With the help of the social networking Web site Facebook, the group mushroomed and organized its first nationwide protest in October. The group says it is not affiliated with the National Rifle Association, a political party or any other organization.

Like the students at TSU-San Marcos who were pushing Monday for a student government resolution on the issue, students at more than 110 colleges and universities went to class wearing empty holsters, said Scott Lewis, the national group's spokesman.

"We're not proposing to arm every student. We're not proposing that every freshmen get a handbook and a Glock," he said.

But he said students who are licensed to carry concealed firearms to movie theaters, public parks and other places should be allowed to take them on campus as well.

Candace Soya, a 20-year-old student at TSU-San Marcos, said she fears chaotic shootouts. If someone decided to open fire on the tree-lined quad in the middle of her campus, armed students would likely make matters worse, she said.

"It's not a situation where you can fight fire with fire," Soya said.

But advocates pushing for the campus concealed carry right say it's not just incidents like the one at Virginia Tech that create concern.

Campuses in higher-crime urban neighborhoods also pose risks for students, said Michael Flitcraft, a 23-year-old mechanical engineering student at the University of Cincinnati.

He argues, like most gun rights advocates, that weapons-free regulations only deter law-abiding students, not thugs or mentally ill shooters.

"Laws only affect the people who voluntarily abide by them," Flitcraft said.

[KyleWickman]

My coffee!! What a mess.

I just have to add that I wonder what kind of medication that dispatcher is on. I have never heard anyone so calm and quiet; I think it's a good thing, but uncommon.

I want that dispatcher working in my area. I thought he was awsome. I think he should be comended for being as calm as he was. Good, clear, calm speaking voice.

[JHR1985]

First off, to be a bubba, you have got to be really really really overweight.

And secondly, whats the big deal with taking out the scum on this planet?:eek:

[Steamin441]

The A.P. reported today that the Supreme Court will look at the Second Amendment next year.....just a heads up. That means I am going to have to carefully scrape that 'Cold Dead Fingers' bumpersticker off my rusty old Ford out under the tarp. And paste it on my new one. In case I screw it up anybody know where i can get a new one?


Growing up in Texas came with a few interesting legends. Like if you trespassed on the King Ranch they shot first and asked questions later. My first lesson in property rights. Directions to the Chicken Ranch was another. "If you are going to the Hill Country bring me back a case of Coors" another. (it didn't always sell on the East Coast) My favorite; If you find a man in your bed with your wife....you can shoot 'em both. God loves Texas. Amen!

[Res45cuE]

Come on lads, consider the source. George is speaking from 2 unique perspectives- he is from a very liberal state, and he is from a law enforcement background. Coming from the same background, I agree 100% with George.

Let me state unequivocally that I hope that this gentleman does not get indicted/ convicted on these charges. However...

Listen to the tapes carefully. He can be heard saying, "I'm going to kill them." From a prosecutor's standpoint, that constitutes "premeditation." Remember, (at least in NJ), deadly force is to "stop the action." The prosecutor has Mr. Smith on tape saying, "I'm going to kill them." Is that the sign of premeditation? He has admitted that he is not going to stop them, but kill them. I hate playing sh*thouse lawyer, but in law enforcement, this is our life. We must ALWAYS avoid that fateful choice of words that could be a prosecutor's jackpot.

"Stopping the action" means that you are in fear for your safety, and are defending yourself or a third person. Mr. Smith does a good job of covering his #ss when says, "They came at me, I had no choice (or something to that effect)."

In NJ, deadly force may be authorized to prevent flight. However, the actor must be a threat to the community (i.e. weapon in hand, known violent criminal history, etc.). As stated earlier, burglary is NOT one of the enumerated crimes.

Again, I praise his loyalty to his neighbor and his neighborhood, and I wish him the best of luck.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Come on lads, consider the source. George is speaking from 2 unique perspectives- he is from a very liberal state, and he is from a law enforcement background. Coming from the same background, I agree 100% with George.

Let me state unequivocally that I hope that this gentleman does not get indicted/ convicted on these charges. However...

Listen to the tapes carefully. He can be heard saying, "I'm going to kill them." From a prosecutor's standpoint, that constitutes "premeditation." Remember, (at least in NJ), deadly force is to "stop the action." The prosecutor has Mr. Smith on tape saying, "I'm going to kill them." Is that the sign of premeditation? He has admitted that he is not going to stop them, but kill them. I hate playing sh*thouse lawyer, but in law enforcement, this is our life. We must ALWAYS avoid that fateful choice of words that could be a prosecutor's jackpot.

"Stopping the action" means that you are in fear for your safety, and are defending yourself or a third person. Mr. Smith does a good job of covering his #ss when says, "They came at me, I had no choice (or something to that effect)."

In NJ, deadly force may be authorized to prevent flight. However, the actor must be a threat to the community (i.e. weapon in hand, known violent criminal history, etc.). As stated earlier, burglary is NOT one of the enumerated crimes.

Again, I praise his loyalty to his neighbor and his neighborhood, and I wish him the best of luck.

I do hope he gets indicted. The premeditation angle is one I did not think of, but you are right on.

Even the "to prevent flight" thing is screwy. There are a couple of court decisions that even make that a grey area.

NJ is a very liberal state, and I am very conservative. But the radical pro-gun "lets kill every scum bag we can find for whatever reason we can think of" attitude by Texans is very disturbing.

[JHR1985]

But the radical pro-gun "lets kill every scum bag we can find for whatever reason we can think of" attitude by Texans is very disturbing

I Personally love it.

Thank god we got the law now that if someone is stealing your vehicle you can shoot them and not worry about getting sued. Way to go Rick Perry:D

[mvfd27]

In NJ, deadly force may be authorized to prevent flight. However, the actor must be a threat to the community (i.e. weapon in hand, known violent criminal history, etc.). As stated earlier, burglary is NOT one of the enumerated crimes.

Again, I praise his loyalty to his neighbor and his neighborhood, and I wish him the best of luck.

You also raise a good point about situations when deadly force is authorized, it sounds like NJ is the same as WI in the fact that deadly force can be used by LE to stop flight in cases where an LEO reasonably believes the suspect has caused or will cause death or great bodily harm to another or the other factors you stated. In this Texas case it doesn't seem that these guys were presenting that apparent threat to life or limb or were armed. So it appears that not even the cops would have been allowed to shoot these burglars.

I do agree that his loyalty to his neighbors is admirable but am afraid he may not have a leg to stand on when it comes to indictment time. I think he acted based on what he thought was right, but as others have pointed out, he was not legally justified.

[rfdlou]

This character is going to need some high priced top defense lawyers. If he beats the criminal charges you know there will also be a lawsuit from the “victims” families. He should of followed the instructions of the police & let them do there jobs.

[Steamin441]

I do hope he gets indicted. The premeditation angle is one I did not think of, but you are right on.

Even the "to prevent flight" thing is screwy. There are a couple of court decisions that even make that a grey area.

NJ is a very liberal state, and I am very conservative. But the radical pro-gun "lets kill every scum bag we can find for whatever reason we can think of" attitude by Texans is very disturbing.

You sure the "lets kill" quote wasn't overheard at Dubyas ranch after 9/11 while Cheney was in for a quail hunt? Not disturbing at all.'Course Bush II ain't a native Texan but at least he is still trying.


As for our victims.I know...illegals are people too.

[johnny46]

BTW, bubba. Have you ever pointed a firearm at another person?
Am I to take it you've run out of arguments? I've no problem with the name Bubba as it is applied by the northern liberal intelligentsia. Rather Bubba than comrade, I think.

Someone mentioned the dispatcher, and although I disagree that he has any authority in this instance over a civilian, I think he did the right thing. He would have been right to have plainly lied to keep this one person safe. He had one person--the caller--who was behind concealment and probably safe. It was thus his job to protect this person and I think he tried admirably. It would have been irresponsible to put the caller into a combat situation, either by encouraging him or not telling him to stay inside.

[johnny46]

"lets kill every scum bag we can find for whatever reason we can think of" attitude by Texans is very disturbing.

What a lovely strawman tactic.

Subtle.

[AZFF25]

Hell....I hope he get's a medal and the key to the City!

That'll learn ya.......

[skipatrol8]

They are questions. That is how grown people discuss things. When one argues that a stray shot could kill an innocent, then why have guns at all? This is a way of ironing out the limits of arguments and the true purpose of a person's statement, which is often vague at the outset. I asked questions and took logical conclusions of GW's arguments. Cops miss their targets in extreme situations. Even Marines sometimes miss moving targets.

Some countries have unarmed police, and they aren't dropping like flies. I don't think it's a good idea, myself.

You might be able to find an elementary school grammar book that will teach you what the various punctuation marks mean.

EDIT: Hoisted by my own petards. Looking back at my post, some of my questions were really assertions. If you find a cheap grammar book, send me the link.

Yes the police miss targets, but I hope that they miss less then the civilian population does (note I don't know the whole story, for all I know the 70 year old could be competing in high-level skeet shooting competitions in his spare time).

I too hope we never go the unarmed police route, but where they do operate, it would seem that firearms are somewhat better regulated.

I would also hope that the police would not be forced to shoot them, often times it seems that the perps surrender at the sight of several M16/shotgun/large handgun carrying officers.

[johnny46]

Yes the police miss targets, but I hope that they miss less then the civilian population does (note I don't know the whole story, for all I know the 70 year old could be competing in high-level skeet shooting competitions in his spare time).

I too hope we never go the unarmed police route, but where they do operate, it would seem that firearms are somewhat better regulated.

I would also hope that the police would not be forced to shoot them, often times it seems that the perps surrender at the sight of several M16/shotgun/large handgun carrying officers.
We hope that, but it's not always the case. How much money would you be willing to pour into a government program to have civilians qualify like police? Wouldn't this create an elite--the poor or middle classes might not be able to afford such licensing. Some states have a concealed license--those with the spare cash are permitted to carry firearms legally. I think this is like a poll tax, and that it's unconstitutional for the same reasons.

This particular case is different because it's under question whether the burglars were a direct threat to the shooter's life. I don't see this as an issue, since I believe we have a right to defend the lives of others, as well, and I see the two burglars as a threat to innocent civilians.

While I cringe at the idea of any idiot with a gun going hogwild, I think it's worse when the actively evil (in the sense that their actions are not in accord with "the good," not a judgement on the overall disposition of their souls.) don't fear anyone but law enforcement. We don't have a cop for every citizen or group of citizens, thus it falls to citizens to protect themselves, and, I believe, each other. Criminals will arm themselves. In a forcefully unarmed (or essentially unarmed, as in the case of laws requiring someone to be in direct fear of one's life to shoot) society, criminals are basically wolves among sheep.

Even with laws, idiots will continue to act like idiots. Firearm laws affect the law-abiding worst. Criminals in a truly unarmed society might indeed not have guns. We don't live in such a utopia.

People like me spout off and say how glad we are. That's not proper. Perhaps these two men had a setback and fell back into their old ways. This time, they died. Perhaps this was truly a tragedy. These are all speculation. What we know: Two men with previous criminal records were observed breaking into a house. They came out with stolen property and were subsequently shot and killed by a neighbor. He did not miss, no one but the burglars were injured. I am glad they did not hurt anyone, and that they were stopped--any glee beyond that is savage and wrong.

To put this man in jail is to tell future burglars that they need not stop if confronted by a civilian with a gun. We might see more dead criminals, or we might see fewere living civilians, more crime, any number of results.

What we will do is put a man in jail for shooting two criminals. This makes no sense to me. This man presumably pays taxes and contributes to society. He has no history of killing lawful citizens and there's no indication he intends to in the future. Only known criminals were directly hurt by his action. How is it in society's interest to punish this man for stopping two known enemies of society?

[RyanEMVFD]

Honestly I don't like what the man did, he should have stayed inside. Besides it was his neighbor's house not his. I have no problem protecting my family and property if needed. Texas does have some great gun laws. The man probably won't face any civil action since he should be protected.

So what benefit comes out of sending a 70 year old man to jail?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Am I to take it you've run out of arguments? I've no problem with the name Bubba as it is applied by the northern liberal intelligentsia. Rather Bubba than comrade, I think.

Someone mentioned the dispatcher, and although I disagree that he has any authority in this instance over a civilian, I think he did the right thing. He would have been right to have plainly lied to keep this one person safe. He had one person--the caller--who was behind concealment and probably safe. It was thus his job to protect this person and I think he tried admirably. It would have been irresponsible to put the caller into a combat situation, either by encouraging him or not telling him to stay inside.

Why don't you just answer the question?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

We hope that, but it's not always the case. How much money would you be willing to pour into a government program to have civilians qualify like police?

Zero

This particular case is different because it's under question whether the burglars were a direct threat to the shooter's life. I don't see this as an issue, since I believe we have a right to defend the lives of others, as well, and I see the two burglars as a threat to innocent civilians.

They were,, at least as far as anyone here has posted, unarmed. They were not a threat to thelife of anyone.

While I cringe at the idea of any idiot with a gun going hogwild, I think it's worse when the actively evil (in the sense that their actions are not in accord with "the good," not a judgement on the overall disposition of their souls.) don't fear anyone but law enforcement. We don't have a cop for every citizen or group of citizens, thus it falls to citizens to protect themselves, and, I believe, each other. Criminals will arm themselves. In a forcefully unarmed (or essentially unarmed, as in the case of laws requiring someone to be in direct fear of one's life to shoot) society, criminals are basically wolves among sheep.

But we did have cops at this scene. That is a huge factor. They were on the way and only a scant couple of minutes out.

Even with laws, idiots will continue to act like idiots.

You've proven this theory.

Firearm laws affect the law-abiding worst. Criminals in a truly unarmed society might indeed not have guns. We don't live in such a utopia.

People like me spout off and say how glad we are. That's not proper. Perhaps these two men had a setback and fell back into their old ways. This time, they died. Perhaps this was truly a tragedy. These are all speculation. What we know: Two men with previous criminal records were observed breaking into a house. They came out with stolen property and were subsequently shot and killed by a neighbor. He did not miss, no one but the burglars were injured. I am glad they did not hurt anyone, and that they were stopped--any glee beyond that is savage and wrong.

Don't get all circumspect, now. YOU are the one doing cartwheels over the fact that a reneck fool went out and murdered two people. If anyone here is "savage", it was the redneck fool and you.

To put this man in jail is to tell future burglars that they need not stop if confronted by a civilian with a gun. We might see more dead criminals, or we might see fewere living civilians, more crime, any number of results.

Or we might see more armed criminals shooting every civilian they see just in case they were armed.

What we will do is put a man in jail for shooting two criminals. This makes no sense to me. This man presumably pays taxes and contributes to society. He has no history of killing lawful citizens and there's no indication he intends to in the future. Only known criminals were directly hurt by his action.

Not true. Those burglars undoubtedly had familes. I've locked up enough people to know that, very often, criminals come from homes with law-abiding, God-fearing families.

How is it in society's interest to punish this man for stopping two known enemies of society?

It is society's best interest because we are a society of that places great value on the fact that the government must prove every criminal is guilty at triel beyoind a reasonable doubt. This redneck fool is not the judge and jury. No one's life was in immediate danger.

Let me ask again. Have you ever pointed a loaded fireaem at another human being?

[johnny46]

Why don't you just answer the question?
I believe I've asked you a few questions that you simply dismissed. Once we're on even ground and you're discussing this instead of resorting to stereotypes and name-calling, I'll be happy to answer.

I changed my mind, because I am gracious and unafraid.

And humble.

[johnny46]

Originally Posted by johnny46
Zero
Me too.


They were,, at least as far as anyone here has posted, unarmed. They were not a threat to thelife of anyone.
They were running from the scene of a crime they commited and they knew they were observed. Have you ever made a dead beating victim?
The act was in progress and it's easy to hide a weapon. I guess you're taking the position that a criminal should not be stopped by use of deadly force unless they are certainly armed? Do you apply this only to civilians or to police as well?


But we did have cops at this scene. That is a huge factor. They were on the way and only a scant couple of minutes out.
The cops weren't on the scene when the shooter went out. How far can you run in a couple of minutes? I would rather the criminal be stopped than have them run through a neighborhood.


You've proven this theory.
Examples?


Don't get all circumspect, now. YOU are the one doing cartwheels over the fact that a reneck fool went out and murdered two people. If anyone here is "savage", it was the redneck fool and you.
I believe I said "some of us." Us indicates that I am including myself. I already called myself savage in that regard; I beat you to the punch.
You've decided, based upon news reports, that a man who shot two known criminals in the process of fleeing their most recent crime, is a redneck fool.


Or we might see more armed criminals shooting every civilian they see just in case they were armed.
Yes, we might. I agree that a minority of criminals on the edge of becoming murderers might decide to shoot witnesses when before they would not have. And there might be some who decide not to commit a crime because they are afraid of getting shot. I'm not a pragmatist; my real concern is whether we have a moral right to stop criminals, or whether this is the right solely of the state. I don't believe it's reserved to the state.


Not true. Those burglars undoubtedly had familes. I've locked up enough people to know that, very often, criminals come from homes with law-abiding, God-fearing families.
Directly. I used directly here as meaning injured by his act(shooting), as opposed to the result of his act (death.) Whether a criminal comes from a law-abiding family or not is of no concern. The crime is commited, regardless.


It is society's best interest because we are a society of that places great value on the fact that the government must prove every criminal is guilty at triel beyoind a reasonable doubt. This redneck fool is not the judge and jury. No one's life was in immediate danger.
Trials are for people who completed the act and were arrested. If I see someone steal something, I know they are guilty. Due process is for the courts because the act is remote. Witnesses (honest ones) know the actor is guilty. You are absolutely right, he was not judge and jury, he was a citizen who observed the act itself. Judges and juries don't see the act, they hear about it after it happened.
It depends upon how you define immediate. I believe desperate men on the run are dangerous. I know you needn't have a gun in your hand to have gun, or any other weapon. I also know you needn't have weapon to cause serious harm to another person. Many rapists, for instance, aren't armed with anything but muscle and the power of fear.


While these aren't the ones I asked you exaclty earlier, I think this is about as much as I can expect from you, so I'll answer now.

Yes, one time many years (13 or so years) ago, I pointed a loaded weapon at a group of five men in a car who threatened my buddy's wife. Had I been alone, I would have simply run away, but she was in no condition to remove herself from the area so quickly, so I chose the gun. I did not have to shoot, and was lucky in that they weren't armed themselves, I'm aware, but I reckoned her life more important than mine. I've done the rabbit tactic before. I think it's very effective and far better than shooting someone down. Had I been the man in Pasadena, I am not sure (when speaking reasonably and not motivated by anger) what I would have done. But I am sitting here at a computer, not in the situation. Hearing that there were possibly plain clothes police around, I would have sat tight, just in case--I wouldn't want to plug one and I wouldn't want them to have to shoot me. I probably would not have shot them. If I had family in the house, I definitely wouldn't have gone outside, because I rate them as more to me important than strangers, just as I usually don't stop for emergencies if my family is in the vehicle and I can't find a very safe place to park. If someone were breaking into my home, I would shoot them until they were no longer a threat.

[DeputyMarshal]

The crime is commited, regardless.

Ah, the ironies of FH.com...

On another thread there was an argument that Islamic law is "barbaric" because it prescribes cutting off a thief's hand as punishment. Yet here you are arguing that, in Texas anyway, death is an appropriate punishment for thieves... :rolleyes:

In many other threads, one vocal faction argues that every single building on fire -- no matter how dilapidated or apparently vacant it may be -- must be searched in case there are people inside illegally (Dare I say, "criminals?") because they're people and they deserve our attempts to rescue them no matter what. Even if it kills us. But if we're pretty sure that they're criminals it's okay to shoot them as long as the building isn't on fire? :confused:

It depends upon how you define immediate. I believe desperate men on the run are dangerous.

The evidence in this case seems to indicate that ignorant cowboy vigilantes are more dangerous still... :rolleyes:

I've done the rabbit tactic before. I think it's very effective and far better than shooting someone down.

What makes this case any different? All the crusty old rabbit had to do was stay in his hole until the police arrived to do their job -- just like he was told to do.

If someone were breaking into my home, I would shoot them until they were no longer a threat.

Guess what? Me, too. Anyone caught breaking into my house will not find a pleasant reception. But there was no proximate threat in this case until the shooter intentionally created it against the clear, repeated directive of law enforcement's representative.

This is just an example of somebody going out looking for trouble and getting it.

The topic is titled Texas "Justice." If there's any justice in Texas, this guy will be charged, lose his right to own a firearm, possibly jailed, and then probably sued six ways from Sunday by the families of the deceased.

[johnny46]

Ah, the ironies of FH.com...

On another thread there was an argument that Islamic law is "barbaric" because it proscribes cutting off a thief's hand as punishment. Yet here you are arguing that, in Texas anyway, death is an appropriate punishment for thieves... :rolleyes: In many other threads, one vocal faction argues that every single building on fire -- no matter how dilapidated or apparently vacant it may be -- must be searched in case there are people inside illegally (Dare I say, "criminals?") because they're people and they deserve our attempts to rescue them no matter what. Even if it kills us. But if we're pretty sure that they're criminals it's okay to shoot them as long as the building isn't on fire? :confused:

Would you please point out where I said it should be a punishment? I have said that deadly force is acceptable to stop some fleeing criminals. I haven't argued that it's a punishment, nor have I advocated finishing off a wounded man.

Since I don't make the latter argument, I'll leave it to someone who does.




The evidence in this case seems to indicate that ignorant cowboy vigilantes are more dangerous still... :rolleyes:

I haven't seen his school record. Where did you get it?

There's an obsession with name-calling, isn't there? Isn't this man innocent? He hasn't been tried in a court of law, has he?

Names aside, it appears that 61 year old men might be dangerous to burglars.




What makes this case any different? All the crusty old rabbit had to do was stay in his hole until the police arrived to do their job -- just like he was told to do. As I might have done. He didn't and I don't fault him for shooting these two.



Guess what? Me, too. Anyone caught breaking into my house will not find a pleasant reception. But there was no proximate threat in this case until the shooter intentionally created it against the clear, repeated directive of law enforcement's representative. And I hold that there need not be a proximate threat to the shooter. I believe one can use such force to stop a threat to others.


The topic is titled Texas "Justice." If there's any justice in Texas, this guy will be charged, lose his right to own a firearm, possibly jailed, and then probably sued six ways from Sunday by the families of the deceased.

How are they going to estimate the loss to the families of the deceased?
"Well, when your son/husband/father was shot, he had 500$ stolen cash, some stolen jewelry amounting to 300$..." Will they figure in any money from his future drug sales? Will the money revert to the victims of the break in?

I don't see this as justice. Justice happens in a court room after all the events have occured. This stopped the event. This is simply action.

[DeputyMarshal]

Would you please point out where I said it should be a punishment? I have said that deadly force is acceptable to stop some fleeing criminals. I haven't argued that it's a punishment, nor have I advocated finishing off a wounded man.

Let me get this straight. You're arguing that it's okay to kill somebody who you think has committed a crime but you don't consider that a "punishment" for the crime? Do they still use English as a common language in Tejas or is it something else now? :confused:

I haven't seen his school record. Where did you get it?

I haven't seen your school record either. That doesn't preclude me making some educated guesses.

There's an obsession with name-calling, isn't there? Isn't this man innocent? He hasn't been tried in a court of law, has he?

Funny, you didn't seem too concerned with establishing guilt before killing someone. Why the suddenly worry about casting disparaging remarks about some geezer vigilante? It's okay to shoot someone based on personal opinion but not to accuse them of being a "cowboy?"

And I hold that there need not be a proximate threat to the shooter. I believe one can use such force to stop a threat to others.

Hey, guess what? We're in agreement. The problem is that there's nothing to indicate that there was any proximate threat to anyone until our cowboy ran outside with a shotgun with the stated intent of shooting someone.

(The perfect irony would have been if another neighbor had seen grampa chasing two apparently unarmed men with a shotgun and dropped him in his tracks...)

How are they going to estimate the loss to the families of the deceased?

Ask a lawyer. It's not an uncommon suit.

This stopped the event. This is simply action.

I beg to differ. The alleged burglary was over, the alleged perps were leaving. The bona fide LEO response was already in progress and its arrival on the scene was immanent. Cowboy intentionally created a new event. That's not action, it's provocation.

[johnny46]

Let me get this straight. You're arguing that it's okay to kill somebody who you think has committed a crime but you don't consider that a "punishment" for the crime? Do they still use English as a common language in Tejas or is it something else now? :confused: So you consider all negative actions as punishment? I believe it lies in the intent. Punishment is exacted in response to an action as a penalty for that action. Like putting a kid in a corner. In the case of this shooting, I evaluate it as putting a stop to the fleeing of two known criminals. The shooter observed the crime.
Example: A man points a gun at the cops. They shoot him. If he lives, he will not face the death penalty. He will be punished with a lengthy prison term if at all. The shooting is not a punishment, it is an action taken to preserve life. It is neccesary to "take the fight out of the man." Punishment is exacted after the fight has been taken out of the man.
American English is quite common in Texas, as are other languages including German, Czech and various Spanish variants. As with all languages, there is proper usage and there is common usage. I simply refined your words for you.



I haven't seen your school record either. That doesn't preclude me making some educated guesses.
Ignorance is the absence of knowledge, though in vulgar usage it's used as a synonym for "stupid," which is the term I think you're really searching for. Without knowing the man, you haven't a way to evaluate whether he is ignorant or not. Hotheaded, maybe, but ignorant?



Funny, you didn't seem too concerned with establishing guilt before killing someone. Why the suddenly worry about casting disparaging remarks about some geezer vigilante? It's okay to shoot someone based on personal opinion but not to accuse them of being a "cowboy?"

If I observe someone breaking into a house, I know they're guilty of breaking into a house. Again: Determining guilt in a court of law is a process remote from the act in question.


Hey, guess what? We're in agreement. The problem is that there's nothing to indicate that there was any proximate threat to anyone until our cowboy ran outside with a shotgun with the stated intent of shooting someone. Here is where we part ways. I see a fleeing criminal as dangerous. I see two fleeing burglars as possibly enough of a danger to warrant shooting to stop.

(The perfect irony would have been if another neighbor had seen grampa chasing two apparently unarmed men with a shotgun and dropped him in his tracks...)
Yes, it would have been. Then we would have two repeat criminals let out within a few years' time (if they were ever caught) and even more expense.



Ask a lawyer. It's not an uncommon suit. How many are brought a year? I'm well aware that this sort of idiocy occurs in our judicial system. A dog that does not bark can be construed as a "silent danger" to someone who breaks into a home. The fact that something is legal does not indicate it is sane.



I beg to differ. The alleged burglary was over, the alleged perps were leaving. The bona fide LEO response was already in progress and its arrival on the scene was immanent. Cowboy intentionally created a new event. That's not action, it's provocation.I believe the getaway is part of the criminal act (not legally, but philosophically and functionally.), and perhaps more dangerous than the commision, in this case.

I thint it's precious that you use "cowboy" as a pejoritive.

I think you mean "imminent," as "immanent" means present, whereas imminent means soon to be immanent.

[DeputyMarshal]

So you consider all negative actions as punishment? ....

A lovely example of sophistry. Do you think that the two dead guys found any such subtle distinctions? They were punished for their perceived actions.

I simply refined your words for you.

With all due respect, I'll state my own arguments, thank you. Your "refinement" changed their stated meaning.

Ignorance is the absence of knowledge, though in vulgar usage it's used as a synonym for "stupid," which is the term I think you're really searching for.

You're "refining" again. If I'd meant "stupid" I would have said "stupid." I meant "ignorant." (Ignorance can potentially be cured. Stupidity tends to be forever. You're exactly right that I don't know him nearly well enough to determine if he's stupid although I'm certainly not ruling it out.)

If I observe someone breaking into a house, I know they're guilty of breaking into a house.

Actually, no. You only know that they've broken into a house. You don't know that they're "guilty" of anything. I've personally probably broken into many, many houses and vehicles over my career both on and off duty. Am I "guilty" of something that I wasn't aware of?

Again: Determining guilt in a court of law is a process remote from the act in question.

It's first a process of determining if any crime has been committed. Breaking into a house isn't inherently a criminal act.

Here is where we part ways. I see a fleeing criminal as dangerous.

Absent any other rational evidence, that's a very shaky position to take. Even accepting that such an alleged criminal might potentially be dangerous, there's still no proximate danger unless some other objective behaviors are observed. Running after said alleged criminal with a shotgun only raises the potential -- it certainly doesn't lower it.

I thint it's precious that you use "cowboy" as a pejoritive.

It may come as a surprise to you that it's a very common usage outside of Texas.

I think you mean "imminent," as "immanent" means present, whereas imminent means soon to be immanent.

Mea culpa. I've committed a typo. Surely this invalidates my entire argument. (BTW, did you mean "pejorative" above?)

[GodSendRain]

How about:

Everyone who likes the laws in Texas, simply move to Texas. Everyone who doesn't like the laws in Texas, don't go to Texas and try to steal something. ;)

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

How about:

Everyone who likes the laws in Texas, simply move to Texas. Everyone who doesn't like the laws in Texas, don't go to Texas and try to steal something. ;)

I prefer,

Everybody who likes the laws in Texas, move to Texas. Everyone who likes the freedoms our Constitution guarantees, such as tril aby a jury of your peers, can live in the other 40 states.

[DocVBFDE14]

Let me ask again. Have you ever pointed a loaded fireaem at another human being?


While being back in the military during this stint, I did a year of Physical Security for Naval Station Norfolk. During that time I served on the overnight shift of 4pm to 4am.

Unfortunately I had to point a loaded weapon at another human being during a crime two times. The first time I was on a break from being Chief of the Guard when one of the DoD police officers called out for immediate help due to a riot of 30+ sailors outside one of the barracks. After chasing down people we had to finally point weapons at them to make them stop and surrender.

The second time, a non-military drunk college student from the university on Hampton Blvd, decided to open a closed gate at 2am by running through the wrought iron fence and concrete barricades. He then took off running deeper into the base toward the on base home of the CO, ComSecFlt Admiral home (vacant), and several other high ranking Navy admirals (all vacant). Again, we had to point weapons for this individual to stop.

While I am not messed up, nor do I dwell on it. I never again want to point a loaded weapon at another human being.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Dep, you did an excellent job of exposing the redneck cowboy attitude that is so troubling. You even had this guy making more contradictory posts to try to justify his barbaric belief system. You did a great job. I will not repeat anything you stated so well.

You forgot one thing.

I guess you're taking the position that a criminal should not be stopped by use of deadly force unless they are certainly armed? Do you apply this only to civilians or to police as well?


Deadly force is to be used to overcome deadly force. It is to be used to protect your life or the life of another person. Deadly force can rarely if ever be used against someone who is not armed.

That said, tragic mistakes happen. The decision to use deadly force must often be made in a split second. In judging that mistake, one cannot Monday morning quarterback. One must evaluate what that person perceived to be the situation at that split second in time.

Your argument actually works against your hero here. He decided long before he encountered the two burglars what he was going to do. He told the dispatcher during his initial call that he was going to kill someone. And he did. He shot two unarmed petty thieves who were fleeing a crime scene. There was no deadly force to overcome.

Methinks your hero is in for a rude awakening.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

While being back in the military during this stint, I did a year of Physical Security for Naval Station Norfolk. During that time I served on the overnight shift of 4pm to 4am.

Unfortunately I had to point a loaded weapon at another human being during a crime two times. The first time I was on a break from being Chief of the Guard when one of the DoD police officers called out for immediate help due to a riot of 30+ sailors outside one of the barracks. After chasing down people we had to finally point weapons at them to make them stop and surrender.

The second time, a non-military drunk college student from the university on Hampton Blvd, decided to open a closed gate at 2am by running through the wrought iron fence and concrete barricades. He then took off running deeper into the base toward the on base home of the CO, ComSecFlt Admiral home (vacant), and several other high ranking Navy admirals (all vacant). Again, we had to point weapons for this individual to stop.

While I am not messed up, nor do I dwell on it. I never again want to point a loaded weapon at another human being.

This is exactly my point. It is a sobering experience to come within a hair of ending someone's life. It gives you a very different perspective on the use of deadly force. The one thing that I praise God for every day is that he let me survive twenty years in law enforcement without having to fire that weapon in the line of duty.

I also believe that redneck johnny has no idea of how it feels to point a firearm at another human being. That's why it gives it the seriousness of throwing a water balloon at someone.

[Raughammer1]

Thankfully my neighbors here in Pasadena don’t feel the way a few on this board feel about this issue. The over whelming majority of home owners and their families are solidly behind Mr. Horn protecting property in his (our) neighborhood.
I live next to the community (neighborhood) where this happened, my son goes to school almost right in this guys back yard (it's a few blocks away), I just went camping with my sons boy scout troop this past weekend where most of, if not all of the dads and few moms who showed up lived in that neighborhood or adjacent to it.

ALL, let me repeat ALL of them supported Mr. Horn in his actions. At the camp, we had two police officers who are scout masters assistants/dads for the troop who were there, and they put it this way: "There is not a jury in the county that would convict that man". Another of the cop/dads ( one Houston police officer and one Pasadena police officer were there ) said it like this: "we could have charged him right there and took him away...but we did not, what does that tell you?" was how he responded to my query about if he thought Mr. Horn would be charged.

Texas law is behind the home owner in this case... we have a law that lets us protect property, it does not say YOUR property it just says property.

I am behind Mr. Horn, the neighborhood is behind Mr. Horn, the community is supporting Mr. Horn, the town is behind Mr. Horn, the county is behind Mr. Horn and it seems the states lawmakers have crafted the law in a way that Mr. Horn will not be charged.

He observed the guys breaking in, they were carrying a crow bar (what they used to break in with) when he confronted them and they were just 15 feet from Mr. Horn....

Will he be charged with anything? I doubt it. If he is charged I SERIOUSLY doubt he will be convicted.

If the home owner had ever asked him to "look after my house while I’m away" then Mr. Horn has ownership rights over the property in question (Don’t think right now there are not phone calls going back and forth to the homeowner who was robbed making sure he remembers asking Mr. Horn to look after his stuff. )
If Mr. Horn was ever on the neighborhood watch it could and will be argued that he had rights to protect the neighborhood, there are a plethora of ways he can fight this if he is indicted.

Some here have spoken of the value of a mans life when compared to property. I submit that the robber at the point where he commits a crime that can result in his death has devalued his own life to the point that it is a moot point.

Lastly others talk of a persons right to a jury trial to determine guilt or innocence, sorry that is if you surrender to a LEO or some other person in authority (someone with a gun on you), if you choose commit a crime where you put yourself in a position where you could be shot if you do not comply immediately to a command to cease and desist its your own fault if you get shot, if you choose to do those things you choose to give up your right to a jury trial.

Basically I and others are saying: "If you do not want to get shot, don’t rob houses."

The law and the community are both behind Mr. Horn in this matter...

If you don’t believe it, go to the website of the Pasadena Citizen and read the comments, or the Houston Chronicle. Sure there are some nay sayers but by and large the over whelming majority of the sentiment is in support for Mr. Horn.

P.S.: Can we please have the posters refrain from snide, rude personal attacks on the other posters in this thread? It would be appreciated.

[jasper45]

I am in no way anti-gun. However, this situation just leaves me with a 'not-so-good' feeling. I guess I feel that way because the caller, in my opinion, all but committed premeditated murder.

Now, don't take me as having sympathy for the petty thieves. I have always felt that when you commit a crime, no matter how petty it may be, you deserve whatever you get. You never know what will happen when you try to steal someone else's property.
Did they deserve to be shot for their crime? No, but they did open themselves up to it by committing a crime in the first place. This 911 caller also committed a crime, and I don't see how anyone can justify deadly force in this case. I'm not an expert in justifying deadly force, but I just don't see how any life was in immediate peril.

[jasper45]

The law and the community are both behind Mr. Horn in this matter...



I agree with this statement, because I do believe that if they weren't robbing a home in the first place, they would still be alive. This whole episode just feels like vigilante justice to me. I don't support vigilantes.
The other aspect that really bothers me is that he was told by police to not jump into the situation. The police are the experts here. What would have happened if the police had arrived on scene, and because of circumstances killed the caller? What would have happened if they would have had another buddy helping the commit the robbery, and they overpowered and then took the man's weapon, and used said weapon on the police, or the caller?

The caller is not a trained police officer. On top of that, his life, as well as any other life were not in immediate jeopardy. He did his civic duty in being aware and notifying the police; nice job. I do feel he exceeded it by killing the robbers, and jumping into a dangerous situation.

I have no problem with protecting home and property. I also believe in the death penalty, as well as the use of deadly force, when it warrants. I do however, believe that some form of murder was committed here. I have no sympathy for the robbers, make no mistake about that. That does not mean that they deserved to be killed for what they were doing.

[Raughammer1]

I am in no way anti-gun. However, this situation just leaves me with a 'not-so-good' feeling. I guess I feel that way because the caller, in my opinion, all but committed premeditated murder.

Now, don't take me as having sympathy for the petty thieves. I have always felt that when you commit a crime, no matter how petty it may be, you deserve whatever you get. You never know what will happen when you try to steal someone else's property.
Did they deserve to be shot for their crime? No, but they did open themselves up to it by committing a crime in the first place. This 911 caller also committed a crime, and I don't see how anyone can justify deadly force in this case. I'm not an expert in justifying deadly force, but I just don't see how any life was in immediate peril.

Hi,
See that’s the crux of the disconnect I think with Texas law and many other states. In Texas you don’t have to be in immediate peril. You are justified in using deadly force in the protection of not just life but property as well.

The cops did not indict him then and there, the community is behind the shooter and the so far...things are going Mr. Horns way, not the robbers.

You may not see how it is justified, but here in this area (where the burglary happened) we sure see how it not only was justified but it was legal, warranted, desired and fervently hope that it prevents other robberies in the area.

The perps devalued their own life when they dressed up as meter readers, took a crow bar and broke into a mans home then when confronted by an armed man they did not comply IMMEDIATELY when they were caught in their crime.

Score one for the good guys...justice was served.
Thank you for debating with out resorting to belittling comments or disparaging remarks. I hope others can emulate your example.

[Raughammer1]

I agree with this statement, because I do believe that if they weren't robbing a home in the first place, they would still be alive. This whole episode just feels like vigilante justice to me. I don't support vigilantes.
The other aspect that really bothers me is that he was told by police to not jump into the situation. The police are the experts here. What would have happened if the police had arrived on scene, and because of circumstances killed the caller? What would have happened if they would have had another buddy helping the commit the robbery, and they overpowered and then took the man's weapon, and used said weapon on the police, or the caller?

The caller is not a trained police officer. On top of that, his life, as well as any other life were not in immediate jeopardy. He did his civic duty in being aware and notifying the police; nice job. I do feel he exceeded it by killing the robbers, and jumping into a dangerous situation.

I have no problem with protecting home and property. I also believe in the death penalty, as well as the use of deadly force, when it warrants. I do however, believe that some form of murder was committed here. I have no sympathy for the robbers, make no mistake about that. That does not mean that they deserved to be killed for what they were doing.


I understand your concerns, but in the end it did not play out in any way like you’re worried about what could have happened.

No one was shot but the bad guys, no gun was confiscated by the bad guys, property was saved, justice was served and those two "meter readers" will not ever break into someone’s home ever again.

You speak of "deserving" to be killed, sir, and that’s an opinion I suppose, we each have a personal opinion in this case. But if you break into a home and get caught and you get shot and die whether someone feels you "deserved" to die or not...you are still dead.

Don’t break into homes... and you won’t get shot stealing someone’s hard earned property.

The law is penned that we can shoot in defense of property. The thieves broke into a home...in a place where we don’t have to retreat, we don’t have to be a victim and where we can fight back.

The man exited his house on his own property, it has been said the robbers where 15 feet from him when he encountered them...on his own property and they were carrying a crow bar.
They were warned not to move...they moved.

In the end, if they had not been criminals... they would still be alive.
There is a lesson there.
There is not a jury in Harris County that will convict that man.

Have a great day.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

A few thoughts...

1. It is astounding to me that virtually the only people on this board who share a redneck cowboy attitude about the use of deadly force are residents of Texas.

2. It is astounding to me that virtually every place else in the US honors the US Constitution guarantee of a trial by jury.

3. It IS vigilante justice.

4. No one, but no one who commits a property crime deserves to die. No one.

5. My guess would be, that if someone took your precious "shoot all the scumbags and let God sort it out" law were challenged in the US Supreme Court, you would lose 9-0.

6. I assume that you are talking about my "snide, rude" comments. Time to grow up. My comments have been directed, for the most part, about your collective attitudes, not your personal character. Next thing you know, you'll start killing people over personal attacks via Internet.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

It's all about attitude and culture.

Texas Man Shoots Teen, 15, in Road Rage Incident
Saturday , November 24, 2007



ADVERTISEMENTDALLAS —

Dallas police say a man shot and killed a 15-year-old after both brandished guns.

Police say they'll refer the death of Frank Vega to a grand jury.

Investigators say 30-year-old Anthony Gray told them he was going home early Friday morning when a teenager in a Cadillac cut him off in the roadway, leading to an argument. Gray says both men pulled out guns.

Police say the teenager didn't fire his weapon.



The 15 year old was probably a scum bag who would probably have burglarized somebody's home someday anyway.

[Raughammer1]

A few thoughts...
. I assume that you are talking about my "snide, rude" comments. Time to grow up. My comments have been directed, for the most part, about your collective attitudes, not your personal character. Next thing you know, you'll start killing people over personal attacks via Internet.

Attack, belittle, disparage....i guess if it makes you happy.

[jasper45]

I understand your concerns, but in the end it did not play out in any way like you’re worried about what could have happened.

Fortunately, none of the scenarios I thought of did happen, this time.


No one was shot but the bad guys, no gun was confiscated by the bad guys, property was saved, justice was served and those two "meter readers" will not ever break into someone’s home ever again.

The use of the term 'justice' here, is also an opinion. The argument can be made that there is an additional bad guy here, or even a murderer.


You speak of "deserving" to be killed, sir, and that’s an opinion I suppose, we each have a personal opinion in this case. But if you break into a home and get caught and you get shot and die whether someone feels you "deserved" to die or not...you are still dead.

I agree with you in that they are dead because they broke the law, and they broke into a home. I don't think that simple B&E is a death sentence, though. And yes, they are still dead, and they're still dead because they broke into someone else's home.


Don’t break into homes... and you won’t get shot stealing someone’s hard earned property.

No argument from me.


The law is penned that we can shoot in defense of property. The thieves broke into a home...in a place where we don’t have to retreat, we don’t have to be a victim and where we can fight back.

There was a case here about a year ago, with many similarities. A man discovered kids breaking into his car, on his property. He retrieved his hand gun, and shot and killed one, and wounded the other. This man is now in prison here. If I can find a link, I will post a link to it.

We have an absolute right to defend ourselves here, and to not be a victim, as well. It's just that this whole scenario leaves me uncomfortable.


They were warned not to move...they moved.

Why should they stop? What right does he have to detain them, especially if they are leaving the property? It would seem to me that if they were leaving, the threat is gone.
Granted, I am no expert, so maybe a LEO could clarify your ability as a citizen to detain someone against their will.


Have a great day.

You do the same.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Attack, belittle, disparage....i guess if it makes you happy.

Attack, belittle, disparage a barbaric, non-American attitude and culture?

Every time, buddy. Every time.

[Raughammer1]

The use of the term 'justice' here, is also an opinion. The argument can be made that there is an additional bad guy here, or even a murderer.


I concur, though the legal system will decide that one. That the man was not arrested at the scene is probably a good indicator of the law officers thoughts on the legality of the incident.


I agree with you in that they are dead because they broke the law, and they broke into a home. I don't think that simple B&E is a death sentence, though. And yes, they are still dead, and they're still dead because they broke into someone else's home.

B&E is not a death sentence (in court) but if your caught (in the act) you stand a fair chance of losing your life. Once again... dont break into peoples homes and i doubt you will be shot for breaking into someones home.


There was a case here about a year ago, with many similarities. A man discovered kids breaking into his car, on his property. He retrieved his hand gun, and shot and killed one, and wounded the other. This man is now in prison here. If I can find a link, I will post a link to it.

You can if you want too, but if it was not in Texas, i do not see how it is relevant. A homeowner must adhere to his local laws when dealing with those who are threatening his life/property. Or he will face the consequences of breaking those laws...just like those two robbers faced the consequences for Breaking and Entering.

We have an absolute right to defend ourselves here, and to not be a victim, as well. It's just that this whole scenario leaves me uncomfortable.

Someone dying...should make all of us somewhat uncomfortable, i understand your concern and your sentiments and we will have to wait and see how it all plays out. The Thanksgiving holiday/weekend is about over, tommorrow or the next day should bring some new info on this issue. If they were waiting for the weekend to end before they issued an indictment i think monday or tuesday would be a probable date to move forward with an indictment if that is thier plan. (just thinking out loud)


Why should they stop?

They were caught red handed with a pilow case full of money and a crow bar...not to mention the man had a gun pointed at them.

What right does he have to detain them, especially if they are leaving the property?

Well by law the man with the gun had the right given to him by the castle doctrine and was (arguably) in the right and they were in the wrong.

It would seem to me that if they were leaving, the threat is gone.

Sir the law is penned to protect property, not just health and well being. They were stealing property which the law says the man could defend.
It had little to do with "threat" and everything to do with "ownership".

Granted, I am no expert, so maybe a LEO could clarify your ability as a citizen to detain someone against their will.

I once again find myself agreeing with you, but i would caution that the LEO should be someone familiar with local state laws in Texas.


Thanks for the conversation.

[jasper45]

I don't know how relevant this is, but it is interesting food for thought. Here are a couple of links to this other incident.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=530397

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=386055

[Raughammer1]

I don't know how relevant this is, but it is interesting food for thought. Here are a couple of links to this other incident.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=530397

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=386055


Thank you for taking the time to post that information, unfortunately, this is one of the few internet sites i can visit due to our firewall. (Mostly govt., weather, and chemical sites are the only things we can peruse while here.)

Is there anything in there we could/should discuss?

A few years back, here in Houston a man woke to find his truck being hauled away by a wrecker driver, he grabbed a rifle and shot the tow truck operator as the truck was driving away. The driver died in a ditch a few blocks away.

The shooter was no billed by a grand jury. yes he got off for the shooting, but in the end it was too much for him to bear. He killed himself a few years later.

Taking someones life is no small thing. It was too much for the shooter in the above mentioned incident to bear.

Once again, thanks for trying to share that info.
Have a good one.

[jasper45]

You can if you want too, but if it was not in Texas, i do not see how it is relevant. A homeowner must adhere to his local laws when dealing with those who are threatening his life/property. Or he will face the consequences of breaking those laws...just like those two robbers faced the consequences for Breaking and Entering.

I posted them, if nothing else it might show why some opinions are different from other areas of the country. It may also help you explain your thoughts better. Hard to say, but it doesn't hurt to read and learn about other incidents.


They were caught red handed with a pilow case full of money and a crow bar...not to mention the man had a gun pointed at them.

The man could have pointed his gun at anyone, but it doesn't make it right. I know they had property in their possession that they had stolen. For him to shoot, because they refused to stop, I think is where this incident goes very wrong.
The crime had already happened, he didn't prevent anything with his actions. The robbers were clearly leaving the home, and by all guesses, leaving the area without threatening further. The immediate 'threat' to this man, if there ever was one, was gone, by the information available.

Police are often criticized for using too much force. They are often criticized for continuing high speed chases. The reasons they are criticized often center around a danger, whether it's perceived or real, to the general public. I know for a fact that anytime police use their firearms, they are scrutinized extensively. I certainly feel that this man should be scrutinized, and forced to explain why he felt a need to use deadly force. After all, he did discharge a shotgun in a residential neighborhood. A potentially very dangerous act, especially if he missed his target.

Well by law the man with the gun had the right given to him by the castle doctrine and was (arguably) in the right and they were in the wrong.

Thats the part I would like to know more about.

Sir the law is penned to protect property, not just health and well being. They were stealing property which the law says the man could defend.
It had little to do with "threat" and everything to do with "ownership".

I guess in my opinion he wasn't defending it anymore, he was chasing. They had already exited the home. At this point, let the professionals do the job that they're paid to do.
He recognized that they were robbing the home. I guess I feel that defending property would take place before hand, while they were still trying to enter the home in the first place.

[jasper45]

Here you go.

Racine - Rejecting the defense's argument of self-defense, a jury Monday found Adrial C. White of Racine guilty of first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of attempted homicide in the shooting death of a Racine man and the wounding of another in a case that divided the community.

Adrial C. White (left) was found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide for killing Christopher "Eric" Carbajal, 19. White was also found guilty of two lesser charges. His lawyer, Robert D'Arruda (right), says they plan to appeal.



Ruth Stickles, fiance of Adrial White, weeps outside the courtroom after White was found guilty. White could face life in prison for the first-degree intentional homicide conviction.





The verdict means White could face life in prison when he is sentenced Jan. 8. White, 29, had contended that he was acting in self-defense when he went outside his house early Jan. 18 and found three teens attempting to break into his girlfriend's car.

White was found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide in the shooting death of Christopher "Eric" Carbajal, 19. He was also found guilty of attempted second-degree intentional homicide and attempted first-degree reckless homicide, both of which were reduced by the jury, for shooting at two other young men, seriously wounding one of them.
No emotion shown

Immediately after the verdict was announced, White showed no emotion. Members of his family said in interviews after the verdict that White didn't receive a fair trial because he was convicted by a mostly white jury.

"This is garbage," said Edwina Woodington, White's sister. "This happened because he is a black man. I have no faith in the system. I'm hurt and I'm angry."

Carbajal's family members, who were escorted by court officials into and out of the courtroom, did not comment on the verdict.

White testified that he felt threatened when he confronted the young men and one of them raised a tire iron above his head. Prosecutors, however, contended that White had no right to use lethal force to defend property.

"He did not have to use a gun," said Michael Nieskes, Racine County's district attorney, who commended the prosecutors in the case. "This was a tough case to get through."
Race allegation denied

Nieskes rejected accusations that the verdict was based on race.

"It wasn't a decision on race; it was a situation of what the defendant did," he said.

Some in the community thought White had acted like a vigilante in the shooting; others thought he had the right to take a stand against crime in his neighborhood.

"This has been unjust. My son was protecting his family," said Henry White, the convicted man's father. "He is my son, working every day to raise his family."

Minutes after the jury's verdict, White's fiancée, Ruth Stickles, broke down in tears.

Deliberations started Friday

The jury in the White murder trial started deliberating the case Friday afternoon and resumed deliberations Monday morning. More than an hour into deliberations Monday, jury members asked to see a tire iron, which had been submitted as evidence during the trial.

Defense lawyer Robert D'Arruda said White had testified that one of the young men who were breaking into his girlfriend's car had held the tire iron above his head before White began shooting.

"I'm obviously disappointed in the verdict," said D'Arruda, adding that he plans an appeal. "It appears that there was some kind of compromise reached by the jury. You are supposed to seek the truth and not compromise."
Reason for appeal

He said he will base his appeal on that, as well as the jury being mostly white.

"I understand their frustration," he said. "There was one African-American on the jury."

D'Arruda said White is "shocked, stunned and in disbelief" at the verdict.

White faces life in prison, plus five years, on the first-degree intentional homicide conviction and 35 years each for the attempted homicide convictions.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=530397

[Raughammer1]

I posted them, if nothing else it might show why some opinions are different from other areas of the country. It may also help you explain your thoughts better. Hard to say, but it doesn't hurt to read and learn about other incidents.

Thank you, i just wish i could see them.

The man could have pointed his gun at anyone, but it doesn't make it right.

Thing is he was not just pointing it "anyone", he was pointing it at two theives. Two robbers who were carrying thier ill gotten gains including one who was brandishing a crow bar.

I know they had property in their possession that they had stolen. For him to shoot, because they refused to stop, I think is where this incident goes very wrong.

Yea.. i see this is where our opinions on the incident begin to diverge. If someone were caught stealing from my home i would hope my neighbor that caught them did not "just let them go...since they had already stolen it and were running away.

The crime had already happened, he didn't prevent anything with his actions.

He prevented them getting away with his neighbors property. Yes?



The robbers were clearly leaving the home, and by all guesses, leaving the area without threatening further. The immediate 'threat' to this man, if there ever was one, was gone, by the information available.

I disagree sir. Yes they were leaving THAT home, but there is nothing to suggest that they were or were not eaving the area, or just going to thier truck and putting up one houses property before going to hit another house...maybe the one where the old man was, maybe one where a young mother was home alone, who knows. Here is i guess another instance you and i disagree on. *grin* I's going to happen in this discussion i suppose with more regularity than normal i would venture.


Police are often criticized for using too much force. They are often criticized for continuing high speed chases. The reasons they are criticized often center around a danger, whether it's perceived or real, to the general public. I know for a fact that anytime police use their firearms, they are scrutinized extensively. I certainly feel that this man should be scrutinized, and forced to explain why he felt a need to use deadly force. After all, he did discharge a shotgun in a residential neighborhood. A potentially very dangerous act, especially if he missed his target.

Sir i dare say that police are not scrutinized nearly as closely as they should be nor nearly as often as they should be and i doubt many are scrutinized as closely as this man will be for his actions that bloody afternoon. There is little doubt in my mind that his actions that day have been and will be scrutinized for a good while to come. (i sure hope they are, if he was in the wrong it needs to be brought out and if he was in the right i would like to hear of that as well.)


Thats the part I would like to know more about.

Sir, the wording of the law is out there.. unfortunately i do not have unfettered world wide web access. But i am sure you can bring up the necessary information with a googgle search or maybe someone else will come forward with the information.


I guess in my opinion he wasn't defending it anymore, he was chasing.

Sir, it is my impression is he never ventured far from his front porch. It is also my opinion that he was defending "it's" removal from the property. Just because a thief pockets an item does not make it his....
Yea its a poor analogy but i think you can get the gist my my point.


They had already exited the home. At this point, let the professionals do the job