Texas man cleared of shooting neighbor's robber

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
http:///forum/post/2669602
mabie then a 60 plus year old man with terrible reflexes shouldnt own a gun then
MUCH happier instead if robbers who rob a house next to a 60 year old with a gun, get shot in the back.
 

xtreeme

Member
NO ONE has the right to take someone elses life unless THEIR life is risked. He was playing god deciding who has right to live and die. He was not in danger. No respect for this person he is why gun laws are so debated. Im pro gun but I know the difference between right and wrong. Problem is when people get guns and act like they are the law.
In PA you get shot with a shotgun its loaded with rock salt. No they wont run after- burns too bad. Friend got it corning one halloween and it drops you right then.
If he wants to be a hero he should get rock salt or bean gun. Better get a security camera. He has to live with what he did. I just hope he must face their relatives and see ALL the people effected.
 

jennythebugg

Active Member
just cause ... how would anyone know that the neighbors daughter or wife wasnt still in that house getting raped or killed - oh i forgot the criminals have a right to commit their crimes but we dont have the right to protect ourselves or others from them....my mistake
 

jennythebugg

Active Member
in my OPINION only an animal is gonna break into someone elses house and steal from them instead of getting a job and working for it like real PEOPLE do
 

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by xtreeme
http:///forum/post/2669646
They are human like it or not.
When did it become a good thing to murder?

Originally Posted by jennythebugg

http:///forum/post/2669658
in my OPINION only an animal is gonna break into someone elses house and steal from them instead of getting a job and working for it like real PEOPLE do
Ditto, criminals such as these (note, I'm not saying ALL criminals) do not equal to humans, or at least the same 'rights' as humans. I wouldn't trade a Hot Wheels to save one their lifes...
 

xtreeme

Member
He wasnt protecting himself. He was stepping in. They werent home and criminals ran from him. He gunned them down. Animals? Arent we all animals....
Defense can be done without death. Um shot in the leg etc. He just went all out.
Problem is no one should be judge and jurry and decide who is human who deserves to die. If everyone acted like that TOTAL ANARCHY. Yikes. The middle ages back again.
Whats odd is one of my friends got robbed week ago. Criminal is in jail he wont be out for long time. See how that worked and he is still alive.
 

aw2x3

Active Member
Originally Posted by xtreeme
http:///forum/post/2669627
NO ONE has the right to take someone elses life unless THEIR life is risked. He was playing god deciding who has right to live and die. He was not in danger. No respect for this person he is why gun laws are so debated. Im pro gun but I know the difference between right and wrong. Problem is when people get guns and act like they are the law.
In PA you get shot with a shotgun its loaded with rock salt. No they wont run after- burns too bad. Friend got it corning one halloween and it drops you right then.
If he wants to be a hero he should get rock salt or bean gun. Better get a security camera. He has to live with what he did. I just hope he must face their relatives and see ALL the people effected.

Objectively speaking, I'd like to see what your opinion would be, if it was your house they'd have broken in to. What if your family had been home and been hurt or killed? Would you still be as headstrong as you as, if it would've been your neighbor who would've killed two men breaking into your house?
What about the unmarked officer, that was sitting in the street. Who's to say that if that old man wouldn't have been there, that both of the criminals wouldn't have killed that officer, just to get away, which happens numerous times per day, in this great country of ours.
Maybe that officer wouldn't have been able to stop them and they got away. Who's to say that the next day, the next week, the next month, they wouldn't have broken into someone else house and maybe killed a person? You think just cause an old man with a shotgun would've scared them, that they wouldn't do it again?
Texas and Tennessee have some of the lowest crime rates, in this country, because citizens are allowed to protect themselves. Criminals, in those two states, know home owners don't mess around and they don't take the chance on getting shot, while trying to steal a VCR (causing sometimes thousands of dollars worth of damage, stealing $100 worth of valuables).
There was a story a few years ago, here in IL, when I lived in Chicago. Guy, lives with his family, in a suburb that had passed a law for no firearms. One night, burgler breaks into this dudes house and steals a few sets of keys, along with random other stuff. Next night, the same burgler comes back (armed this time) and attempts to tie up the home owner, his wife and kids and has plans to steal the guys two cars, etc. etc.. Home owner ends up shooting and killing the burgler. Believe it or not, the home owner was prosecuted by the suburb and ended up spending 6 months in prison, for owning a pistol.
As numerous other people have said...I certainly wouldn't mind having this guy as a neighbor. As a law abiding, tax paying citizen of these United States, I'll always own firearms and not think twice to shoot someone that tries to invade my home or my friends/families home.
 

xtreeme

Member
The problem is thats alot of what ifs that change the case in point totally distorting the facts in this one.
IF I was killed I would want the man to stop them and have them punished proper. Death is quick I would rather they were in jail for life and suffer.
None of that changes the fact that we do not have the right to be judge and jurry and as much as you want we do not have the right to decide who should live. A jury by trial of peers is ONLY ones that have that right. I dont see how this mans actions were justified in any way. He had many options and choose the most lethal.....were they mexican or something? Maybe he little racsist. Someone had to say it.
If were exploring the what if cases. What if he had a vendetta with them and setup the whole thing. Kicked in the door and made it look like they did after he shot them. Just saying if you let things like this become OK then it opens many other doors. This is why we have a system, we dont need renegade self proclaimed officers. IF he was at risk ok but he wasnt he knew that from the go. He decided to take them on, he should have thought what to do. He did I will KILL them. I dont think he wanted them to stop.
 

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by xtreeme
http:///forum/post/2669703
He had many options and choose the most lethal.....were they mexican or something? Maybe he little racsist. Someone had to say it
He (the 60 year old) did not choose anything. The criminals chose their own fate as stated a couple posts up. The elderly man did not simply run outside and shoot. All he wanted to do is detain the suspects till police arrived. The buglers chose to run at/by/whatever the man.
Originally Posted by xtreeme

http:///forum/post/2669703
None of that changes the fact that we do not have the right to be judge and jurry and as much as you want we do not have the right to decide who should live.
Sure we do. Either lay down and wait for police, or run at a man with a loaded shotgun. That's all the judge/jury we need.
 

xtreeme

Member
"Sure we do. Run at a man with a loaded shotgun. That's all the judge/jury we need."
Not same at all. That would be self defense since his life was at risk which I said earlier.
"NO ONE has the right to take someone elses life unless THEIR life is risked. He was playing god deciding who has right to live and die. He was not in danger"
Oh well being buddhist I respect all life as it IS precious but thats me. Its all opinion. I leave US if it comes down to wild west in US 2010. Which is sad since my first ancestor came here before it was even america.
 

reefraff

Active Member
God help anyone that comes in my house but I am not sure I could pull the trigger on someone leaving someone else's house.
I have absolutly zero sympathy for the two crooks. Wonder what would have happened if there was a kid home at the time. Some idiot quoted in the article was complaining about people with hispanic sir names not getting justice. Was it justice when those two losers broke into that house?
Had the guy shot them in the feet they would have just ended up suing him.
 

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by xtreeme
http:///forum/post/2669721
"Sure we do. Run at a man with a loaded shotgun. That's all the judge/jury we need."
Not same at all. That would be self defense since his life was at risk which I said earlier...
Which is exactly what happened. If you read the article, or the other posts in this thread, a police detective in plain clothes, was at the scene at the time and saw what happened. Read post #16
 

xtreeme

Member
Doesnt say they were armed? Did I miss it? They were shot in the back as they ran away. How did he feel threatend? Not self defense. Only in texas. I still think he over reacted and acted as judge and jurry. Possible they were so scared of this crazy texan old guy with a thick accent yelling at them they ran in fear rather then understanding him. Possible the jurry left him go, he was old. If he were younger I think he would face some kind of punishment.
If he shot them in the leg he would be sued? Your joking right.....I mean he got away with murder but you feel hurting them he would have been punished.
btw, I think its cool we can discuss this calmly. No flame wars nice and civil with nothing personal. I enjoy this kind of chat. It is all opinion of course if was simple as black and white there would be no need to discuss.
 

tangman99

Active Member
Evidently by not pressing charges against him, they felt he was justified. One thing you have to consider also is that there were two burglers. One bad guy is confusing enough. Two adds many degrees of difficulty and danger to the situation.
I was well trained to handle one on one. When it becomes two on one, the rules change. It no longer is defend yourself and subdue. It becomes incapicitate the first SOB that is within reach and then deal with the second one normally.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by xtreeme
http:///forum/post/2669745
Doesnt say they were armed? Did I miss it? They were shot in the back as they ran away. How did he feel threatend? Not self defense. Only in texas. I still think he over reacted and acted as judge and jurry.
If he shot them in the leg he would be sued? Your joking right.....I mean he got away with murder but you feel hurting them he would have been punished.
Dead men file no lawsuits
I would be willing to lay down a good sized bet the guy gets sued by a family member of one or both of the crooks.
 

tangman99

Active Member
Originally Posted by xtreeme
http:///forum/post/2669745
If he shot them in the leg he would be sued? Your joking right.....I mean he got away with murder but you feel hurting them he would have been punished.
Actually that is exactly how it works. Many people have been found not guilty in a court of law and found liable in civil court. They work completely different. Just look at O.J.
 
Top