Texas man cleared of shooting neighbor's robber

[harlikwin]

I read someone called it cowardly shooting a scavenging predator in the back. Well I heard on the radio this morning that someone had attempted to help someone being robbed by drawing on the perpetrator, and he was then promptly shot and killed by the robber. Had he shot the scum in the back like this old man had, he could have been the "coward" of the day instead of another victim. I think a person who can take from his fellow man with this reckless disregard puts their safety at risk. If you want to do safer crimes, go shoplift from a store. Don't go breaking and entering and making people afraid in their own homes. We kill terrorists abroad, it's about time we start killing them here, because that is exactly what these people are. I've had my place broken into twice and had the most pidly things stolen that had much more sentimental value to me than cash value. You feel violated and enraged when it happens to you, and I can tell you that if I caught someone stealing in my basement, me shooting them in the back would be the nicest thing I could do. I'd rather blow their knees off and beat them the rest of the way to death. We all live, we all die, if you put your life at risk by engaging in risky activities then you face a potentially shorter life, applying the life is precious argument to this is arbitrary.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2669799
Under Texas law you can use leathal force to protect your own or a neighbor's property. The guy was preventing them from leaving with the neighbor's belongings
That is if someone asks you to protect their property... Apparently, he wasn't authorized or asked to do so.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2670301
That is if someone asks you to protect their property... Apparently, he wasn't authorized or asked to do so.
There is two different laws they are talking about, the castle doctrine refers to their own house, car and store front. I think, however I'm not sure they did not indite him because they though he was subject to personal harm.

 

[sepulatian]

Maybe I was not clear in what I was trying to say earlier. It isn't that these two men shouldn't have been punished. It is the fact that this man was allowed to shoot two people, who were not an immediate threat to his personal safety, and he got away with it. If they were in his house then that would be different. That is self defense. I don't see how it is alright that he took the law into his own hands. If that is the law there then what is the line that is drawn? If you drive past someone's house that you know, and you see someone walking away from that house with their TV, can you shoot them? What if it is someone visiting and they have permission to borrow the TV? Do you see what I am getting at here? That is why we have due process. Mistakes happen. How can it be alright to just shoot someone because you spot them committing a crime? What if you are wrong?

 

[cowfishrule]

glad he was cleared.
although i cant really speak from experience, but to me it seems that the back is easier to hit than the legs.
dont get me wrong, somebody breaks into my house, they are going to get smoked. dont care who they are / how old they are.
more reasons why we should all have guns. level the playing field a bit. laws dont apply to criminals, so maybe they'd think twice knowing that somebody else is packing heat.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Harlikwin
http:///forum/post/2670300
I read someone called it cowardly shooting a scavenging predator in the back. Well I heard on the radio this morning that someone had attempted to help someone being robbed by drawing on the perpetrator, and he was then promptly shot and killed by the robber. Had he shot the scum in the back like this old man had, he could have been the "coward" of the day instead of another victim. I think a person who can take from his fellow man with this reckless disregard puts their safety at risk. If you want to do safer crimes, go shoplift from a store. Don't go breaking and entering and making people afraid in their own homes. We kill terrorists abroad, it's about time we start killing them here, because that is exactly what these people are. I've had my place broken into twice and had the most pidly things stolen that had much more sentimental value to me than cash value. You feel violated and enraged when it happens to you, and I can tell you that if I caught someone stealing in my basement, me shooting them in the back would be the nicest thing I could do. I'd rather blow their knees off and beat them the rest of the way to death. We all live, we all die, if you put your life at risk by engaging in risky activities then you face a potentially shorter life, applying the life is precious argument to this is arbitrary.
They're just things though... you can't take them with you. This man put his own life at risk..and for what. He also has to live with he killed two people...
His life wasn't at risk... He went out there.. They were probably walking.. he told them to freeze... they ran... he shot them..
He went over there... could have been killled or injured... (but this wasn't a concern to him.. he told the dispatcher he would get them first... his intentions were clear) Second, he put his life and family at risk because he could be doing 15- life right now.
I understand how people want to protect what is theirs. I believe you have the right to do that, but this man crossed the line. This neighbor intended to go over there and hurt someone. His property was not in danger, neither was his life.
He said freeze...BOOM, BOOM, BOOM. 30 seconds later... police are there.

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
http:///forum/post/2670308
Maybe I was not clear in what I was trying to say earlier. It isn't that these two men shouldn't have been punished. It is the fact that this man was allowed to shoot two people, who were not an immediate threat to his personal safety, and he got away with it. If they were in his house then that would be different. That is self defense. I don't see how it is alright that he took the law into his own hands. If that is the law there then what is the line that is drawn? If you drive past someone's house that you know, and you see someone walking away from that house with their TV, can you shoot them? What if it is someone visiting and they have permission to borrow the TV? Do you see what I am getting at here? That is why we have due process. Mistakes happen. How can it be alright to just shoot someone because you spot them committing a crime? What if you are wrong?
This guy did not simply go over there to shoot the individuals, he went over there to try and detain them. If you don't think his was in harm, that's fine, but a police detective said other-wise.
IMO, if you are borrowing a friends TV and are trying to get it into your car through a broken window, after you survey the house dressed in hoodies in Texas, you deserve to get shot.

 

[bronco300]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
http:///forum/post/2670308
Maybe I was not clear in what I was trying to say earlier. It isn't that these two men shouldn't have been punished. It is the fact that this man was allowed to shoot two people, who were not an immediate threat to his personal safety, and he got away with it. If they were in his house then that would be different. That is self defense. I don't see how it is alright that he took the law into his own hands. If that is the law there then what is the line that is drawn? If you drive past someone's house that you know, and you see someone walking away from that house with their TV, can you shoot them? What if it is someone visiting and they have permission to borrow the TV? Do you see what I am getting at here? That is why we have due process. Mistakes happen. How can it be alright to just shoot someone because you spot them committing a crime? What if you are wrong?
this wasnt just a saw someone walk out of their house though, they had broken in and it was known...that doesnt mean everyone should go shooting them at the first sign they think something is wrong, but when it is clear like that, i don't see nearly as much of an issue...i doubt you can ever make clear lines of what is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to things like this...
if someone is willing to take the law into their own hands and break into peoples houses, then they have every given themself every right to be shot for disobeying the law, and fleeing nonetheless.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2670307
There is two different laws they are talking about, the castle doctrine refers to their own house, car and store front. I think, however I'm not sure they did not indite him because they though he was subject to personal harm.
He subjected himself... is my argument. Because he confronted the men... not the other way around.
2nd, listening to the tape... As soon as he goes out he says freeze... and then shoots. ... okay I heard nothing about them being armed... and then the fact they were shot in the back.. which means to me they were fleeing... and that he was the threat.
Its just not right..

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sepulatian
http:///forum/post/2670308
Maybe I was not clear in what I was trying to say earlier. It isn't that these two men shouldn't have been punished. It is the fact that this man was allowed to shoot two people, who were not an immediate threat to his personal safety, and he got away with it. If they were in his house then that would be different. That is self defense. I don't see how it is alright that he took the law into his own hands. If that is the law there then what is the line that is drawn? If you drive past someone's house that you know, and you see someone walking away from that house with their TV, can you shoot them? What if it is someone visiting and they have permission to borrow the TV? Do you see what I am getting at here? That is why we have due process. Mistakes happen. How can it be alright to just shoot someone because you spot them committing a crime? What if you are wrong?
They were on his property... This isn't a case of law into their own hands, or judging them. It is a case that 2 guys broke into the neighbors house, he watched them go in, and when they came out they went onto his property, in an aggressive manner and he shot them. If they'd stopped, or had not been breaking into people's houses in the first place, it would have never happened.

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2670325
He subjected himself... is my argument. Because he confronted the men... not the other way around...
What's the difference between a potential home invasion and some other violent crime? Are you saying that no one, at any point, should step in? What about some 'forcing themself' onto a female? Would you not approve of someone stepping in?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Bronco300
http:///forum/post/2670324
this wasnt just a saw someone walk out of their house though, they had broken in and it was known...that doesnt mean everyone should go shooting them at the first sign they think something is wrong, but when it is clear like that, i don't see nearly as much of an issue...i doubt you can ever make clear lines of what is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to things like this...
if someone is willing to take the law into their own hands and break into peoples houses, then they have every given themself every right to be shot for disobeying the law, and fleeing nonetheless.
disagree, theft IMO doesn't warrant killing that person. If police had done this, they would be wrong. A person fleeing doesn't warrant shooting. Disobeying the law doesn't warrant being killed either. Out of all the crimes that are commited .. only a few warrant death.

 

[tizzo]

Now remind me... why do we care so much again??
We are really gonna sit here and argue the justice of a couple of useless thugs??
You wouldn't invite them into your house, wouldn't trust them around your kids, you lock your doors cause you know they feel they can wander in, and your gonna sit here and argue with cyber friends about what their rights are??
Who cares?
They messed up. They robbed the wrong guy. They died.
You can break it up all day long, but the bottom line is, they committed an illegal crime and unlike most people who do that in this country, they got punished.
Is robbery punishable by death? Why not?

 

[tizzo]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2670331
disagree, theft IMO doesn't warrant killing that person.
Why?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2670330
What's the difference between a potential home invasion and some other violent crime? Are you saying that no one, at any point, should step in? What about some 'forcing themself' onto a female? Would you not approve of someone stepping in?
I think people should step in if someone is being assulted.(Or at least call 911) If I see my neighbor's home being broken into I am going to call the police, I am not going to go over there. I will attempt to get a license plate or look for characteristics... but I am not going to put my life at risk over possessions. When it comes to guns.. and these decisions you have to be very clear headed... because even the very best of intentions can put you in a cell.

 

[stdreb27]

It isn't a punishment issue, it is an issue of violation. They violated his safe place and he took control instead of letting it control him.

 

[darthtang aw]

One thing sticks out at me about this.....both dead were illegal...which means they continued to break the law after breaking it the minute they set foot in this country. Maybe if they had been law abiding illegals they would be alive.....
Had we addressed the illegal imigration problem they would be alive in Columbia.

 

[tizzo]

Good point DT, I wonder what happens if you rob somebody in Columbia. I gotta go research that...

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Tizzo
http:///forum/post/2670335
Why?
because we value material things more than life... when odds are we can go out the next day and buy another TV, or watch... or my insurance will cover my vehicle. People get killed all the time for not just giving up their shoes, watch, wallet.. etc... because they resist.. and get shot. Instead of thinking about their family or life in general... and what is worth more.
I believe you should be able to defend your property... but you should consider is it worth it.
People steal or all sorts of reasons.. that person could be looking to just feed their family... how would that make you feel... I wouldn't want to live with killing someone who's family was starving, and they were at the point were they had to steal. With that said, people who steal for a living... they are scum... yes they belong in jail/prison... but they don't deserve to killed unless they provoke that, which it doesn't seem like these men did. Now if the homeowner did it, it would be different IMO/

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2670344
It isn't a punishment issue, it is an issue of violation. They violated his safe place and he took control instead of letting it control him.
no, his safe place was his home.... not his neighbor's