[quote]yorik wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Find that for me, because Im pretty sure that a person has the right to shoot in order to protect themselves or others. This doesnt extend to property. Use of necessary force is allowed, but do you really think that shooting and killing two fleeing burglars was necessary?
[quote]yorik wrote:
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.[/quote]
Right… well, while you’re off in La La land, we’ll be over here in Reality.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
yorik wrote:
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.
Find that for me, because Im pretty sure that a person has the right to shoot in order to protect themselves or others. This doesnt extend to property. Use of necessary force is allowed, but do you really think that shooting and killing two fleeing burglars was necessary?
[/quote]
"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."
“…and must suspect that taking less drastic measures could expose themselves or others to serious danger.”
It can be argued that the guy did fear for his own safety as well as his neighbors safety after witnessing a pair of criminals operating with no regard for the law or an individuals’ personal property while desecrating his neighborhood.
Could he, in good conscious, allow these criminals with no regard for the law to roam free through his neighborhood streets? Or could he rightfully assume they are dangerous individuals as he did catch them red handed in an act that can and historically has put lives at risk or even ended them?
Had he let them go and then found out they broke in to another house down the street where a little girl was home with her mother later that afternoon, and that they killed both as they were in the way, would he then be guilty as an accomplice, if not legally then morally?
Should he not look out for his fellow neighbors and citizens property as well; especially if they are out of town? I believe the courts will argue this. Technically no lives were in immediate danger as the home was vacant but property was being stolen and the criminals did prove to be circumstantially dangerous to society.
[quote]Sabre T wrote:
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]
IF he killed them for stealing, then I would agree (begrudgingly) he was acting beyond the boundaries of legality. If he killed them for thrill or out of bloodlust then I agree it was immoral. I believe the real issue is that the shootings could have been avoided had the old man stayed in his home. It seems many believe his legal duty would be to stay indoors until the police arrived, and they are correct. There is no legal requirement for one person to come to the aid of another, that I know of.
What I mostly take issue with is that the old man saw something wrong being done, and then decided to do what he could to stop it. (for my argument I am assuming he did so out of personal moral conviction and not a sociopathic desire to kill) For this he is being persecuted, mind you not by law but by public conjecture.
Without a full understanding of the crime scene I am unwilling to conclude that the old man murdered the to thieves and willing to give the benefit of the doubt that the possibility of self defense or other possibilities still exists. Again, we are only given the range at which the men were shot, a lot of crucial information was left omitted.
I have little interest in debating whether or not the thieves death was warranted or deserved. At this point it is fairly difficult to un-shoot them. I am much more interested in learning from this situation so as to:
[quote]Sabre T wrote:
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]
I didn’t assume. I stated it was a possibility given the information from the article in regards identifying the two dead men. I made that point by both quoting the article and stating my surmises in previous posts. I included both legal and illegal U.S. entrance alternatives which you seem to have omitted. I simply built on the fact that IF they were here illegally then that is two crimes committed, thus the possibility of more crimes is plausible.
Again, I am not debating whether death is deserved or undeserved. Like the bumper sticker reads “Shit Happens”. If you are unwilling to accept that death is a risk in nabbing somebody else’s TV then don’t take up burglary. Whether it is a 12 year old girl protecting her home or 61 year old neighbor interfering, getting shot is getting shot. If you don’t want to get shot then I am proposing that not initiating the crime will likely increase the odds of not getting a lead infusion. By corollary by initiating a crime then you are subjecting yourself to the odds that at some point somebody will show up somewhere with a gun.
You’re example is wrong. If you were to slit your neighbors throat while he was trying to slash your tires, then it would be more applicable.
[quote]Sabre T wrote:
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]
Re-READ the article and my previous posts.
[quote]Sabre T wrote:
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]
I might concede that the old man may have over reacted.
[quote]Sabre T wrote:
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]
REPEATED
Again, I am not debating whether death is deserved or undeserved. Like the bumper sticker reads “Shit Happens”. If you are unwilling to accept that death is a risk in nabbing somebody else’s TV then don’t take up burglary. Whether it is a 12 year old girl protecting her home or 61 year old neighbor interfering, getting shot is getting shot. If you don’t want to get shot then I am proposing that not initiating the crime will likely increase the odds of not getting a lead infusion. By corollary by initiating a crime then you are subjecting yourself to the odds that at some point somebody will show up somewhere with a gun.
[quote]Sabre T wrote:
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]
I’m not trying to be judge or jury. Just pointing out that there are other possibilities. Again, I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to the old man, before condemning him as a murderer.
I would like to think that if a 61 year old man ran down and shot two fleeing criminals in the back that the local police would arrest or at least detain the man for questioning. In the article the old man had not been arrested nor charged with a crime. Which I believe lends credence to the possibility that the old man was/is not a murderer nor a an executioner.
[quote]Sabre T wrote:
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.[/quote]
Again, not trying to be judge nor jury. I like to think benevolence to the wicked is better than malevolence to the innocent. Before I condemn anybody I would prefer having as much information as possible.
Before anybody decides to berate me for condemning the two criminals (they are far beyond the need of my mercy or disdain now), lets remember that stealing is still stealing. Even under the best hypothetical situations listed by Pookie, or Contl, or whoever breaking and entering is still illegal no matter the motivation behind it. For every person committed to breaking the law there is someone committed to enforcing it (authorized or not) and that tends to make things messy. When on the spot judgement calls are made the end solution is not always the ideal solution, such as the situation presented here.
[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
"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.
[/quote]
Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?
[quote]conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
"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.
Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?[/quote]
Night isn’t specifically identified.
Some guys mentioned the death penalty… interesting fact: Since 1973, 124 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
[quote]Bujo wrote:
Police have not found the families of the dead men. One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had documentation indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, Corbett said.
The number of bleeding hearts around here is higher than I expected. So we have two possibly illegal aliens in a country
[/quote]
one had identification saying he was from Puerto Rico the other might also have been from there, I’m that makes them legal US citizens
Puerto Rico is a U.S. Commonwealth with U.S. citizenship.
I agree they were criminals but the one at least is definitely a US citizen
How many of you have actually been to Texas?
How many of you have actually been to the part of Texas we are discussing?
How come so many of you seem to know how things are done there?
Here’s what I wrote on the other thread:
[quote]
Chewie wrote:
This occurred blocks from where I grew up.
In that area they have a Neighborhood Crime Watch Program where everyone agrees to look after each other. They even have stickers on the windows of houses that state this. When I was a child, I used to see the white sticker with a blue eye on it on all the houses. This system was set up to stop crime.
What I am getting at is that it is understood, in these parts, that you can depend on your neighbor to have your back. Also, in this part of the world, most neighbors are close friends. Most people don’t even know what their neighbors look like in other parts of the world.
Now combine the two. Agreement to defend your neighbor’s property + the neighbor being your friend, the result is obvious.
To add to this, there a lot of parts of Pasadena where crime rates are very high. When someone’s house gets robbed, the whole block (we say street around here) knows about it.
What do we have left?
Agreed Crime Watch Program + Looking after a friend + high crime area + fear of one’s life. The man was defending himself as well as upholding his civic duty.
[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
"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.
Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?
Night isn’t specifically identified. [/quote]
Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?
[quote]conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
"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.
Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?
Night isn’t specifically identified.
Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?[/quote]
I guess a jury will decide. Or maybe the courts will decide that it’s silly to defend yourself after dark only. A robbery is a robbery.
[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
"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.
Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?
Night isn’t specifically identified.
Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?
I guess a jury will decide. Or maybe the courts will decide that it’s silly to defend yourself after dark only. A robbery is a robbery. [/quote]
Does someone have to specify for you AGAIN that he left his house against the instructions of the police dispatcher and went after them? Thats like starting a fight, waiting until youre getting your ass kicked, and then killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
"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.
Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?
Night isn’t specifically identified.
Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?
I guess a jury will decide. Or maybe the courts will decide that it’s silly to defend yourself after dark only. A robbery is a robbery.
Does someone have to specify for you AGAIN that he left his house against the instructions of the police dispatcher and went after them? Thats like starting a fight, waiting until youre getting your ass kicked, and then killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.[/quote]
Does he have any obligation to follow the 911 operator’s instructions?
This is interesting to me how people from Texas have such different views to most of the other states. It’s as if Texas is a separate country within a country.
You guys are just so stubborn 
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
conner wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
"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.
Didn’t this happen in the early afternoon?
Night isn’t specifically identified.
Do you realistically believe people have to specify 2pm as NOT being “night”?
I guess a jury will decide. Or maybe the courts will decide that it’s silly to defend yourself after dark only. A robbery is a robbery.
Does someone have to specify for you AGAIN that he left his house against the instructions of the police dispatcher and went after them? Thats like starting a fight, waiting until youre getting your ass kicked, and then killing the guy and claiming it was self defense.[/quote]
No it’s not. They broke in to the house and “started the fight”. Terrible analogy.
[quote]AdamC wrote:
This is interesting to me how people from Texas have such different views to most of the other states. It’s as if Texas is a separate country within a country.
You guys are just so stubborn
- YouTube [/quote]
And we like it that way. I think a number of Texans would love to have our state be an independent country again. Fuck the US and OPEC bitches!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Well put…
nothing else can be added that already hasn’t been said w/n the on-going argument
[quote]Renton wrote:
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.
[/quote]
So by your logic, if you go a couple of years without paying your taxes, then I knock on your door and you open it, I should be unconditionally allowed to shove a knife in your chest, since I got there before the law did, right?
If the local Texan court rules in favor of that old man, relatives of those men can appeal to a higher court, where they’ll determine if there may have been a technicality in the trial. If not, then they can proceed to appeal to a federal court, in order to determine whether a federal law (and only under this circumstance) or right was violated.
I’m fairly certain that Texas state law goes against the Constitution on this, and if the relatives appeal high enough, the old man WILL be found guilty of either 2nd degree murder, or 1st degree manslaughter.