God Bless Texas

Off Topic
61

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Are you saying that, since they arent Americans, that they arent human beings and can be killed at whim? Or is it that since they were possibly illegal aliens means its ok to kill them? Did you ever stop to think that if they had paperwork, the might just have been here legally? Bleeding-hearts? No, maybe “thinking minds” is a better term.[/quote]

No, I am saying that in this situation we have two deceased men possibly accountable for two different crimes. Which then leads to questioning how many other crimes they may have been involved in. If this is the case then with each crime committed the odds of retribution increase.

One man had multiple IDs, which may mean he had multiple citizenships or multiple aliases. If its the latter then the question is “why” and “for what means”?

“Thinking” seems to be a very loose term.

This is a very different debate. In my opinion doing something is better than doing nothing, especially when it involves looking yourself in the mirror everyday there after. Lawful or unlwaful will be decided by a jury. Right or wrong will be debated by the masses.

[quote]
Are you implying that they should have been shot since they werent good at being criminals?[/quote]

I loathe shoulda, coulda, woulda arguments.

I’m saying that being stupid or at the very least not planning ahead leads to events like this happening. Committing the crime at night or at least using a lookout may have changed outcome of this situation. Again by choosing to commit crimes one is subject to all forms of retirubution no matter how drastic (deserved or undeserved) it may be, lawful, unlawful, right, or wrong.

[quote]
Were not rooting for any criminals here, if we were, wed be backing up the crazy old bastard who saw some people breaking into his neighbors house, called the polce, and then went over and shot both men at close range with a shotgun. Where did anyone say that the men breaking into the house wasnt wrong? Last time I checked my list of sins though, Murder(x2)>stealing. Oh wait, they werent Americans though, their lives dont matter, right?

Youre right on one thing, the lack of common sense on this board is astounding. [/quote]

This is where you are jumping to conclusions. In the article the old man had not been arrested or charged, nor has a grand jury been arraigned to determine whether or not there is a case to be tried. Therefore the old man has not yet been declared a criminal/murderer. However the two deceased did break into a home and exit with stolen goods. Their current status renders due process unnecessary, so I have no qualms with labeling them as criminals. Say about that what you will.

While we know the range in which the shots were fired, we don’t know how the range was covered. Did they approach him? Did he approach them? Combination of the two? Did they flee? Surrender? Engage? Etc???

Depending on the interpretation of the Bible all sins can be held equal or placed in a hierarchy. Right or wrong is a highly subjective debate. It would be best to choose either the legality or the morality of the situation and argue that point.

62

Bujo, I think you’re confusing two separate arguments. I think most, if not all, on this board can agree that perpetrating a crime increases your chances of something bad happening to you, or as you put it “getting shot.” That said, what was proposed by Stronghold and a few others was that the man was not within his rights, either legally or morally, to kill two people for stealing.

In the United States, you are legally allowed to use deadly force if defending yourself or your loved ones from imminent harm. In Texas, that law extends the use of deadly force to the protection of one’s home. That’s simply not what happened. The man left his home to shoot two criminals who were fleeing a vacant house. He wasn’t in danger. His neighbors weren’t in danger as they weren’t even there. All that was in danger were his neighbor’s possessions.

Many of us, myself included, simply don’t think that you kill people for stealing. Criminals deserve to be punished. But this is America, and we’ve got due process. The man denied them that process, and he’s not allowed to do that because “he thought it was right.”

[quote]Bujo wrote:
No, I am saying that in this situation we have two deceased men possibly accountable for two different crimes. Which then leads to questioning how many other crimes they may have been involved in. If this is the case then with each crime committed the odds of retribution increase. [/quote]

Again, here you’ve combined the two separate arguments. You assume that they are illegal aliens, and then further assume that as such, they are likely to have committed more crimes. Even if we hold your assumption to be valid, it doesn’t justify that “retribution” being the use of deadly force by someone whose house they weren’t robbing. A man may be “asking for it” if he slashes my tires twice and he is incompetent enough to let me figure out it was him. I’ll still get arrested if, in retribution, I go and slit his throat-and I’d deserve to. He deserves whatever punishment the law has for him, but I don’t get to decide he needs killin’ just because “he’s a criminal.”

[quote]Bujo wrote:
One man had multiple IDs, which may mean he had multiple citizenships or multiple aliases. If its the latter then the question is “why” and “for what means”? [/quote]

Or maybe they didn’t. I mean, there are all kinds of hypotheticals we could come up with that may help justify the situation after the fact. Maybe they really were international terrorists. Maybe they were baby killers. But then again, maybe they weren’t. We could do this all day. The very fact that we would have to make these up should signal that this act wasn’t justified with the way it seems to have played out.

[quote]Bujo wrote:
This is a very different debate. In my opinion doing something is better than doing nothing, especially when it involves looking yourself in the mirror everyday there after. Lawful or unlwaful will be decided by a jury. Right or wrong will be debated by the masses. [/quote]

I’d agree, doing something is better than doing nothing. Calling the police was good. It wasn’t nothing. But “doing something” didn’t have to mean, and shouldn’t have meant, shooting them down. And I don’t know about you, but as far as “looking at myself in the morning,” I’d much rather wake up and say, ‘I hope those guys get a strong sentence for taking Jim’s TV (having called the police),’ than, ‘I hope I did the right thing killing those guys for taking Jim’s TV.’

[quote]Bujo wrote:
I’m saying that being stupid or at the very least not planning ahead leads to events like this happening. Committing the crime at night or at least using a lookout may have changed outcome of this situation. Again by choosing to commit crimes one is subject to all forms of retirubution no matter how drastic (deserved or undeserved) it may be, lawful, unlawful, right, or wrong. [/quote]

I disagree. I agree that they increase their chances of suffering retribution. I don’t think that makes gratuitous retribution any more justified. You could smoke pot 13 days straight. If you get caught on day 14, I don’t think you deserve a bullet in the head. Punishment simply doesn’t fit the crime.

[quote]Bujo wrote:
While we know the range in which the shots were fired, we don’t know how the range was covered. Did they approach him? Did he approach them? Combination of the two? Did they flee? Surrender? Engage? Etc??? [/quote]

Yeah, you’re right, we don’t know. But how you take that uncertainty as proof that he was justified in shooting them is odd. I mean, if he had come back to the 911 operator and said “they charged me with knives, and I shot them,” then this is a completely different argument, because his life would have been in danger, and we’ve already agreed on deadly force in that situation. But there’s nothing on that tape that suggests that. At all. In fact, what circumstantial evidence we do have at this point (listen to the recording) suggests he was the one chasing them. So again, we’ve reverted to creating hypotheticals that might justify a gratuitous response. Just doesn’t hold water.

[quote]Bujo wrote:
Depending on the interpretation of the Bible all sins can be held equal or placed in a hierarchy. Right or wrong is a highly subjective debate. It would be best to choose either the legality or the morality of the situation and argue that point.[/quote]

I agree with confining it to a moral or legal debate. But even biblically, God says: “Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you,” Matt 7:1-2. In this particular case, the guy not only decided they were guilty, but figured that he had the right to sentence them to death for stealing.

I don’t disagree that they were stupid. I don’t disagree that committing a crime increased their chances of suffering “retribution.” But that simply doesn’t make him killing them justified.

63

Thanks for typing up my exact thoughts, Sabre. I didnt have the patience to do so earlier.

64

[quote]Contrl wrote:
BlakeAJackson wrote:

The wager for sin is death.

Sin? Or crime? Because I’m afraid the bible isn’t stuck into the Constitution. Sorry for that. So if we go by the law, which is all that matters here, robbery does not merit death.[/quote]

Actually much of out system is based on the writings of John Lock. So many of the laws are founded on principles of the bible. That being said, I do not believe in a heaven or hell so the bible or any other religious text is not the purpose of posting that. Death is unavoidable to everyone in the end. Reason would show that we are all sinners based on the statement that I made. However in the case of people coveting their neighbors goods I believe that it was extra funny. I also knew that it would polarize any liberals to the far left in this discussion. Just as your cling to your tactics of creating a worse case scenario that could have played out or how it is so much different to shot someone for committing a crime at you neighbors house then your own. I went and employed a right winged tactic of implementing a religious justification for the outcome. Both the worst-case scenario and the religious ramifications are persuasive to many but really say nothing about what happened.[/quote]

[quote]
You don’t value life if the person doesn’t value their life, okay that’s all heart-warming and enlightening and what-not, but again… we’re talking about the legal repercussions of robbery, murder, and vigilantism. Whether or not you, or that old man, value life only under whatever circumstances you might like or dislike, it doesn’t matter. What he did was murder, not self-defense. Even assuming the, infact, one of those robbers stepped onto his land, it doesn’t justify the murder of the other one.

Personal beliefs and vigilantism have no place in the law. [/quote]

Once again you may want to look up the laws surrounding citizens arrest. As for it being premeditated, I can see how one would interpret the tape that way. However I do not get the same feeling. I also believe that if you listen to the 911 operator that he is almost to nonchalant with the caller at the beginning and completely ridiculous at the end.

If you listen to the last tape, the man sounds very panicked, not like he got off his rocks shooting some people. I believe that a jury will decide this mans fate, I also believe that he probably went to far, but I do not know if I agree that he is a murder in the cold blooded sense that so many are trying to portray him.

As for personal beliefs not belonging in the law, that is ridiculous. Do you think that the people who founded this system were not calling on or influenced by their personal beliefs? Your statement should be if you don’t agree with my viewpoint then I could not imagine how anything that comes out of your mouth regarding philosophy or legal interoperation has any merit.

65

[quote]pookie wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Yay for Texan murderers. There should be more of them.

Murder schmurder.

Yeah, you’re right.

Allow me to rephrase:

Yay for homicidal Texan crazies. There should be more of them.
[/quote]

Hey, criminals: People in Quebec won’t stand up for themselves or protect their neighbor’s property! Feel free to just walk in and take what you like. If the wife and kids are at home alone, well, there’s really nothing to fear. No neighbors there to blow you away before you have a little fun. Enjoy!!!

66

Wow, I’ve never seen so many people worried about the rights of criminals.

Break the law, take your chances. There just might be someone there who objects rather forcefully to what you’re doing.

67

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

What does it matter if they had a right or wrong justification for doing what they did? Is it right to allow a bystander to decide whether they live or die? Who are you to decide how much another’s life is worth? They took the risk of getting killed, but does this give a neighbor the right to kill them?[/quote]

It is irrelevant if he has the right. He killed them.

[quote]
The wages of sin is death? Please move back to Iran where they execute you for premarital sex and chop off 5-year old’s hands for stealing apples. Fucking think about what you are saying for a minute, but first only after getting out of your “AMERICA FUCK YEAH” mindset. Are you completely ignorant of the fact that we have laws and a legal system in this country?[/quote]

I am aware that the legal system that you are defending fails both the victims and or helps the criminals in some cases. Depending on social status, money, loop hoes and presidents. I would like to believe that it gets it right more often than not. Do not idealize or make it something that it is not. I am also aware that this is the best system that exists in the world. I am not suggesting otherwise by not agreeing with you.

Thanks for your agree or get out attitude, very strange from someone that is posing as a voice or reason to all of the misguided souls who think that maybe this guy is not crazy for not allowing his neighbors to get robbed and the guys get away. I am not patriotic in most cases, I would feel the same way if I was in any country. Hard working people deserve to not be robbed by lazy degenerates.

[quote]
It wasnt his stuff being stolen, it wasnt his house, he called the police and told them he was going to kill the burglars, left his house, murdered them, and then returned to the house. That sounds an awful lot like premeditated murder. Please explain to me how that could be anything BUT premeditated murder.[/quote]

I have tried numerous times to explain how I see it differently, but since you quoted none of those points and then used my personal feelings to attack me I do not believe that you would listen if I tried to explain it again.

68

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Good question. One that’s tough to answer. Kinda like internet armchair quarterbacking. Until you’re on the field and Dwight Freeney is headed your way unabated you can’t really say why you would choose to attempt a pass to that particular receiver.[/quote]

Receiver. Now that is funny.

69

Very interesting thread.

Here’s my 0.2

Human life is sacrosanct.

BUT - When an individual or individuals in this case step over a certain line (defined by law, government policy, society, or another persons own judgement) they cease being human in many respects and become a target.

Whether that is a target for the law or a bullet is really down to who gets there first and what their own personality tells them is the right thing to do.

In this case the two guys who were allegedly robbing the house became targets in the old guys mind and maybe it was only social conscience that made him call 911. He’d already made up his mind what had to be done as is the right of any individual.

In doing so however he made the descision to become a target himself. This time for the law and he must stand by his choice.

I don’t know what I’d have done in the old guys position. I’ve seen crime first hand and called the police, I’ve also seen it first hand and stepped in and dealt with it myself. It depends too much on the actual situation to be able to make a call on whether the guy was right to do what he did or not. In his mind however, the situation was clear cut. Otherwise he wouldn’t have pulled the trigger. He must now live with his actions.

70

Well, since we’re injecting our feelings and thoughts on this topic, I’ll give mine.

The man is legally in the wrong for killing the two men. There is no law giving a person the right to fire on trespassers on property you don’t own. End of discussion.

Now, did the men get what they deserved? I feel they did. Why? When you take in upon yourself to invade a home, you already know what possible legal consequences you could face if you get caught. You also know you could run into trouble if someone is home, or, like in this case, someone is watching you from next door. To rob a house in broad daylight is not only bold, but arrogant.

Now, the man saw what was happening, and did call the cops, but he also let his anger get the best of him and, well, he’ll probably be up on murder charges. As for the robbers, you take your chances when you break the law. You might get away, you might get caught and go through the legal system, or could wind up dead. In this case they wound up dead. Oh well. Bad things happen to bad people, so I feel no remorse for them.

Now, does that make me some heartless bastard? No. When you do something stupid, don’t be surprised if the results of your actions far outweigh the possible gain. It’s not like the man blew away two men who were minding their own business. He stopped a crime, though he acted outside the law in doing so. But that man will get what he deserves for his actions too.

So, in summary, the man is guilty of murder, and the two robbers picked the wrong neighborhood to hit. The possibility of getting killed is part of criminal behavior. You risk your life anytime you commit a crime like that.

71

[quote]Contrl wrote:
I’m all about protecting one’s own family and property, but… that old crazy son of a bitch wasn’t protecting anybody’s life. He blatantly kept repeating that he intended to go outside and kill the burglars because he was upset with them robbing from his neighbor’s (an abandoned) house. That’s not being protective, that’s plain murder. The only thing that separates that crazy son of a bitch from other murderes is there’s a ton of other trigger happy Texans (who mind you, are only fucking up the support for the 2nd Amendment) out there willing to say he did the right thing.[/quote]

“I’m all about protecting one’s own family and property, but… that old crazy son of a bitch wasn’t protecting anybody’s life.”

Not a life, but he was protecting property which is also legal.

72

[quote]Hagar wrote:
mr_slick wrote:
Hagar wrote:
Fuck burglars. I could care less about someone who preys upon the innocent.

Did hell just froze over? Did soembody from California actaully agree with the Texas law?

Yes. I’ve always admired Texas for having the most executions in the country. I don’t understand why we keep so many of these horrible people alive. Texas is way ahead of the game.

Granted my views are in the minority around here. [/quote]

Not only the most but more than the other 49 states combined.

73

[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
Actually much of out system is based on the writings of John Lock.
[/quote]
Personally, I favor John Stuart Mill over Lock. But that’s just me, I’m of the school of thought that subjective morality has no place being integrated in the law for the purposes of mere civil uniformity.

And I believe you may want to look up federalism, because there is no federal law for citizen’s arrest. It is a state regulated principle. Secondly, it should be noted that there was no arrest; only an execution.

I believe it was premeditated because he meets the definition of premeditated murder, meaning he demonstrated to rationally consider the timing and method of wrongfully causing death to another person. As you may remember, his words were (rather calmly) “I’m gonna kill 'em. I can’t let them get away with this shit.” And before that, he said “I got a shotgun, want me to go outside and stop 'em?” You may argue that he did progressively become more unstable, but I hardly see how that nullifies premeditation. Premeditated murder is there by the crude definition of it.

I agree, a jury will in fact determine his fate. Now, whether a jury within his district give him a fair trial is another issue. I strongly believe it will be a doubtlessly bias and legally baseless decision by the jury; why? Because nobody cares for the life or a thief, despite the Constitution’s disagreement with that. I will grant you that he was certainly not a cold-blooded murderer in our traditional sense of the term. I agree that he was just a man tired of witnessing crime go unpunished and wanted to do something about it. But as you’ve said yourself, it is inarguable that he got carried away. Extremely carried away.

I should have elaborated more on my point. It was meant to portray those with an undying agenda that seek to reform and amend the constitution (as well as local and state laws) to suit their regimented beliefs and causes that should have no place in the legislature. Obviously my choice of words was wrong, but the basis of law should be strictly philosophical. Why? Because to resort to ethics leaves a massive void with the varying degrees and types of ethics. To resort to morality in the sense of theism is far worse, because it implies almost a militant pursuit of reform and a boundless reach of the law. Now, you may seek to argue that “What is philosophy if not interpretation?” False, true philosophy is to choose the answer that is most right (as there can never be a true right), and refining such said rightness so that it may survive criticism and protest. This is not belief, it is to seek an answer unattached to belief.

Having said so, I do believe the Constitution has more of a foundation in philosophy than it does personal belief. There are many, many proofs of this, such as that all 39 delegates who signed their name had individual interpretations of justice, theism, and rights. Yet the philosophical context within the lines of the Constitution were such that all could agree. This could certainly not be said of belief.

74

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Contrl wrote:
I’m all about protecting one’s own family and property, but… that old crazy son of a bitch wasn’t protecting anybody’s life. He blatantly kept repeating that he intended to go outside and kill the burglars because he was upset with them robbing from his neighbor’s (an abandoned) house. That’s not being protective, that’s plain murder. The only thing that separates that crazy son of a bitch from other murderes is there’s a ton of other trigger happy Texans (who mind you, are only fucking up the support for the 2nd Amendment) out there willing to say he did the right thing.

“I’m all about protecting one’s own family and property, but… that old crazy son of a bitch wasn’t protecting anybody’s life.”

Not a life, but he was protecting property which is also legal. [/quote]

Is killing in order to protect another’s property legal?

75

[quote]pookie wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
What if every body in jail is actually innocent? Maybe we should abolish laws and let people do as they do.

Do you manage to breathe unassisted?

People in jail got their due process and are there because they were found guilty by either a judge or a jury.

They had a chance to explain themselves and/or claim their innocence.

They also get to walk out when their sentence is over.

No one is saying that criminals should go free or shouldn’t be detained/punished. The people arguing against the old guy are saying that he was wrong to decide by himself that the two other guys deserved to be killed for their actions.

Repeatedly exaggerating our position to “all criminal should run free” and then arguing against that just makes you look stupid.

[/quote]
In Texas, getting shot mid-robbery is one way to “get your due process”.

Break in to a house, get shot, sucks to be you. The criminals in question were caught red handed.

76

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Contrl wrote:
I’m all about protecting one’s own family and property, but… that old crazy son of a bitch wasn’t protecting anybody’s life. He blatantly kept repeating that he intended to go outside and kill the burglars because he was upset with them robbing from his neighbor’s (an abandoned) house. That’s not being protective, that’s plain murder. The only thing that separates that crazy son of a bitch from other murderes is there’s a ton of other trigger happy Texans (who mind you, are only fucking up the support for the 2nd Amendment) out there willing to say he did the right thing.

“I’m all about protecting one’s own family and property, but… that old crazy son of a bitch wasn’t protecting anybody’s life.”

Not a life, but he was protecting property which is also legal.

Is killing in order to protect another’s property legal?[/quote]

This is the angle the courts will be debating. We shall soon see.

78

I’m with the majority on this one - he went too far.

79

[quote]oldcrabbybastard wrote:
Not only the most but more than the other 49 states combined.[/quote]

What the hell is wrong with the other states?

Its like the people who run the show live in plush neighborhoods and they never get victimized by crime. Keep in mind the prison system is a business.

80

I could have sworn that a person has the right to shoot another person in order to stop a felony in progress. And it seems pretty obvious this guy did just that.

As for murder…not in this case. He didn’t murder them, he killed them. And as they say in Texas, these were men who “needed killin’”. Heck, even the Bible says killing is OK, it’s specifically murder that is prohibited in the 10 Commandments. There’s a lot of killing going on in the Old Testament; God even does a lot himself.

I’ll bet no piece of shit will come by and try to rob that neighborhood again for quite a while.