God Bless Texas

[InTheZone]

[quote]Chewie wrote:
InTheZone wrote:
Who the hell isn’t on this thread?

What?

You and your “rough” hood huh? Wow man, that teary story of how tough that place you grew up in made me cry. Try Oakland buddy boy, you aren’t the only one who has a perspective on tough

Oakland is probably rougher in places as are parts of Houston. This isn’t the point. The point is that the area is/was rough and he was acting as he was conditioned to in said area.

I see this as justifiable based upon the aforementioned agreement within the community.

That doesn't change anything. We weren't there. The only reason I'm against what he did, was the way he called the cops and the things he was saying, like, "I'm gonna go out there and shoot them". 

I agree with you for this point and only this point.

If they saw him, they might have wanted to get rid of the witness. That would make me feel threatened.

I see it as that you cannot predict what someone is going to do, especially a criminal. Prepare for the worse. No one is there to protect you.

And the old man was “fighting back”? No one brought the fight to him, he went out and took his percieved “justice” out on them.

They did. It was a crime committed within feet of his residence.

Look if these dickwads had approached/assaulted him, then I could see him shooting them. But for him to go out of his way and his home to go and shoot them for no other reason besides deeming it "necessary" justice, just doesn't fly.

I’m not saying the guys were in any way not deserving of harsh justice, but killing them outright is just not acceptable pal. That’s not being “righteous” what I said, it’s just being rational. Whatever man, you think you have the perfect crystal clear perspective on the whole thing from your reaction. Well bullshit, you’re just as uninformed as the rest of the people here on this thread, whether you lived there or not. You weren’t there when it went down, so shove that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yeah, I get drug tested about every month. I may consider your invitation if that wasn’t the case.

I don’t see it as being rational. I see it is giving the criminals too much credit. We (as a society) are in no way obligated to rationalize what criminals are doing.

          By the way, aside from this little disagreement, I'm impressed with what you've been through medically, and have no ill feelings towards you on a personal level. Just thought I'd tell you that.

                   ToneBone   

Yeah, thanks. It was a pain. You inspired me to post on the "Lowest Point in Your Life " Thread.

We cool.

[/quote]

        Well, I have to admit, after some more thought on it, I tend to see your points now. Rainjack made some good points about it too. In my gut I have a hard time blaming the old coot. There are many ways to look at it I guess is what I'm really saying. The truth is it COULD be he went overboard, and it COULD be he didn't. I just tend to think it was slight overkill, but in honesty I can't say I'm not wrong since I wasn't there. Hell if anyone respects older folk it's me. They deserve a hell of a lot more than they get from most of our society, so I may just have to rethink it again. Anyway, as you can see, I'm not set and won't budge on it, and that's all I'm asking of you guys too. Just say it MIGHT have been poor judgement. Anyway, I've been to your fine state, and enjoyed it when I was there for what that's worth. 

        It's good to think both sides out.

Being completely polarized either way probably isn’t the best thing after all.

                   ToneBone

[Molotov_Coktease]

Live by the sword die by the sword. How do you say that in Spanish?

[Stronghold]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
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.

It was a fucking 911 operator, dipshit. That is their standard reply to everything.

You have no clue about this case, how things are done in Texas, or had a neighbor that has entrusted you to protect his property while is is gone. I highly doubt you have ever owned any property worth defending.

The guy is in his 70’s. You honestly think he went out looking for a fight? Are you delusional? Let me repeat this for you - the guy you think is out looking for a fight is 70-fucking years old.

There is a law on the books in Texas, signed by Rick Perry, that states you have the right to defend you property with deadly force. That extends to a neighbor’s property if said neighbor has asked you to watch his property and you agree.

Tell me what right the supposed Puerto Ricans had being on private property with a bag full of stolen property?

They were told to stop - they ignored the order. They are dead now. The old man is a fucking hero.

If you don’t like it, don’t move to Texas. [/quote]

Just because that is their standard reply, does that mean it was bad advice or that possibly the dispatcher had the best intentions for both the old man and the officers he was dispatching to the scene? He even tells the old man that there were nonuniform officers in the area. Regardless of whether this was true or not, what would you have said if the old bastard had gone out and shot an officer thinking he was a robber after having been told to stay in his house? Chew on that one for a moment.

The neighbor didnt entrust him to do shit. They didnt know each other. I dont give a fuck how you think you do things in Texas. Murder is murder is murder, no matter how you slice it. Why do you doubt that I have owned any property worth defending? Is it because I am younger than you? Do you always go that route when you know your argument isnt going to hold water?

Im basing my decision on the old man’s intentions on the fact that before the shooting, he told the dispatcher that he was going to show the men, that he was going to shoot them. That he “had to shoot”. Sounds to me like he went looking for a fight. No one kicked his door down. He was inside his house. He got a gun and went outside of it with the intent of killing. That sounds like looking for a fight to me. Explain to me your exact definition of “looking for a fight”. I know you wont because you are older than me and therefor do not have to accept any logic that I present.

He didnt know his neighbor. The neighbor had not entrusted him to watch his property as far as the article is concerned.

Tell me what right a crazy old bastard had to go and kill said Puerto Ricans for being on private property with stolen goods? Not “right to defend himself”. He wasnt defending himself. He went after them.

He was told not to go outside. He ignored the order. He shot two people (regardless of their criminal past, they were still people, sorry to break that to you jackass. Puerto Rican burglars still qualify as human beings.) and now he has to deal with the consequences of his actions. He wasnt defending himself or his own property. He chased down two people with the intent to kill them. Listen to the recordings from the 911 call. He was looking for it. What does his age have to do with it? He still killed 2 people.

Chew on this one for a second: Had it been two white teenagers robbing the house would your opinion have been any different. I doubt you would be calling the old bastard a hero if he had blasted two 16 year old white boys for stealing.

[Zap_Branigan]

It is amazing to me that people want to strip others of the right to confront and stop criminals.

I don’t know the whole situation and neither does anyone else posting here but I understand what the old guy did and wish more people cared enough to try and make a difference.

[rainjack]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

Just because that is their standard reply, does that mean it was bad advice or that possibly the dispatcher had the best intentions for both the old man and the officers he was dispatching to the scene? He even tells the old man that there were nonuniform officers in the area. Regardless of whether this was true or not, what would you have said if the old bastard had gone out and shot an officer thinking he was a robber after having been told to stay in his house? Chew on that one for a moment.[/quote]

If the officer failed to identify himself, and had a bag full of stolen property - he should be just as dead as the real thieves.

The neighbor didnt entrust him to do shit. They didnt know each other. I dont give a fuck how you think you do things in Texas. Murder is murder is murder, no matter how you slice it. Why do you doubt that I have owned any property worth defending? Is it because I am younger than you? Do you always go that route when you know your argument isnt going to hold water?

They knew each other. Read the article. He said he didn’t know his neighbor that well. You have no way of knowing if there was an agreement between the the old man and his neighbor. I assume that there was because that is customary here to have your neighbors look after your shit when you are gone. How intimately they knew each other has no bearing on this case. How is my argument not holding water? Because you say so? I doubt you are a property owner because you display no understanding of the idea of defending personal property.

Im basing my decision on the old man’s intentions on the fact that before the shooting, he told the dispatcher that he was going to show the men, that he was going to shoot them. That he “had to shoot”. Sounds to me like he went looking for a fight. No one kicked his door down. He was inside his house. He got a gun and went outside of it with the intent of killing. That sounds like looking for a fight to me. Explain to me your exact definition of “looking for a fight”. I know you wont because you are older than me and therefor do not have to accept any logic that I present.

Read the law, asshole. You don’t have to be in your home to defend your property with deadly force. Or - by extension - defend a neighbor’s property if there is an agreement between you and the neighbor.

I think you have already defined “looking for a fight”. You are the one that is holding the position that the old man was looking for a confrontation. My definition has no place here, as I believe he was well within his rights to blow holes in the fucking scumbags.

And when you actually start presenting logic - it will be accepted. So far you are whiffing badly in the logic department.

He didnt know his neighbor. The neighbor had not entrusted him to watch his property as far as the article is concerned.

You are repeating yourself. You have no idea what the agreement between the two neighbors was - as the neighbor was unavailable for comment. But

Tell me what right a crazy old bastard had to go and kill said Puerto Ricans for being on private property with stolen goods? Not “right to defend himself”. He wasnt defending himself. He went after them.

I have already told you - there is a law that allows him to do so. How do you know he is crazy? I didn’t see that in the article. You have inside information as to the mental stability of the old man?

He was told not to go outside. He ignored the order. He shot two people (regardless of their criminal past, they were still people, sorry to break that to you jackass. Puerto Rican burglars still qualify as human beings.) and now he has to deal with the consequences of his actions. He wasnt defending himself or his own property. He chased down two people with the intent to kill them. Listen to the recordings from the 911 call. He was looking for it. What does his age have to do with it? He still killed 2 people.

He stopped two thieves. I certainly hope he intended to kill them. Evidently warning them to stop didn’t work. Age should have nothing to do with it other than it makes your argument that he went looking for a fight seem a little ridiculous.

Chew on this one for a second: Had it been two white teenagers robbing the house would your opinion have been any different. I doubt you would be calling the old bastard a hero if he had blasted two 16 year old white boys for stealing.

No need to chew. If ANYONE is breaking, entering,and stealing property from my house, or my neighbor’s house - I will kill them dead. I have that right, and am not afraid to exercise it.

Do you usually think in such racist terms? Tell me why you think I should value the lives of white teen aged thieves over Puerto Rican 20-something thieves.

Thanks for playing. Now run along.

[Chewie]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Chew on this one for a second: Had it been two white teenagers robbing the house would your opinion have been any different?[/quote]

Nope.

[Stronghold]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Stronghold wrote:

Just because that is their standard reply, does that mean it was bad advice or that possibly the dispatcher had the best intentions for both the old man and the officers he was dispatching to the scene? He even tells the old man that there were nonuniform officers in the area. Regardless of whether this was true or not, what would you have said if the old bastard had gone out and shot an officer thinking he was a robber after having been told to stay in his house? Chew on that one for a moment.

If the officer failed to identify himself, and had a bag full of stolen property - he should be just as dead as the real thieves.

The neighbor didnt entrust him to do shit. They didnt know each other. I dont give a fuck how you think you do things in Texas. Murder is murder is murder, no matter how you slice it. Why do you doubt that I have owned any property worth defending? Is it because I am younger than you? Do you always go that route when you know your argument isnt going to hold water?

They knew each other. Read the article. He said he didn’t know his neighbor that well. You have no way of knowing if there was an agreement between the the old man and his neighbor. I assume that there was because that is customary here to have your neighbors look after your shit when you are gone. How intimately they knew each other has no bearing on this case. How is my argument not holding water? Because you say so? I doubt you are a property owner because you display no understanding of the idea of defending personal property.

Im basing my decision on the old man’s intentions on the fact that before the shooting, he told the dispatcher that he was going to show the men, that he was going to shoot them. That he “had to shoot”. Sounds to me like he went looking for a fight. No one kicked his door down. He was inside his house. He got a gun and went outside of it with the intent of killing. That sounds like looking for a fight to me. Explain to me your exact definition of “looking for a fight”. I know you wont because you are older than me and therefor do not have to accept any logic that I present.

Read the law, asshole. You don’t have to be in your home to defend your property with deadly force. Or - by extension - defend a neighbor’s property if there is an agreement between you and the neighbor.

I think you have already defined “looking for a fight”. You are the one that is holding the position that the old man was looking for a confrontation. My definition has no place here, as I believe he was well within his rights to blow holes in the fucking scumbags.

And when you actually start presenting logic - it will be accepted. So far you are whiffing badly in the logic department.

He didnt know his neighbor. The neighbor had not entrusted him to watch his property as far as the article is concerned.

You are repeating yourself. You have no idea what the agreement between the two neighbors was - as the neighbor was unavailable for comment. But

Tell me what right a crazy old bastard had to go and kill said Puerto Ricans for being on private property with stolen goods? Not “right to defend himself”. He wasnt defending himself. He went after them.

I have already told you - there is a law that allows him to do so. How do you know he is crazy? I didn’t see that in the article. You have inside information as to the mental stability of the old man?

He was told not to go outside. He ignored the order. He shot two people (regardless of their criminal past, they were still people, sorry to break that to you jackass. Puerto Rican burglars still qualify as human beings.) and now he has to deal with the consequences of his actions. He wasnt defending himself or his own property. He chased down two people with the intent to kill them. Listen to the recordings from the 911 call. He was looking for it. What does his age have to do with it? He still killed 2 people.

He stopped two thieves. I certainly hope he intended to kill them. Evidently warning them to stop didn’t work. Age should have nothing to do with it other than it makes your argument that he went looking for a fight seem a little ridiculous.

Chew on this one for a second: Had it been two white teenagers robbing the house would your opinion have been any different. I doubt you would be calling the old bastard a hero if he had blasted two 16 year old white boys for stealing.

No need to chew. If ANYONE is breaking, entering,and stealing property from my house, or my neighbor’s house - I will kill them dead. I have that right, and am not afraid to exercise it.

Do you usually think in such racist terms? Tell me why you think I should value the lives of white teen aged thieves over Puerto Rican 20-something thieves.

Thanks for playing. Now run along.

[/quote]

I repeated my statement about him not knowing his neighbors because you apparently didnt understand that and you apparently still dont. Are you basing your entire argument on the assumption that there was an arrangement between the two neighbors? Basing an argument on such uncertain terms, to me, qualifies an argument as not holding water.

I brought up the racial ideas not because I am a racist (I am not) but because if a 25 year old Puerto Rican man had shot and killed two white teenagers after they had robbed his neighbors house, I am entirely certain that you and your good ol boy cronies would be screaming for his immediate death by firing squad. Why? Because this is Texas and thats how you do things here. Other people cant possibly understand.

Is death an appropriate punishment for theft? Answer that.

Warning them made no difference. He had his mind made up before he went out there that he was going to kill them. This wasnt a citizen’s arrest, it was premeditated murder. Once again, listen to the tape. Listen to the man tell the dispatcher that he is going to kill the two men, then run outside, immediately shout “YOURE DEAD” at them before unloading the shotgun into them, and then come back in and tell the dispatcher that they are both dead.

As far as my understanding of defending property, I have more than you think I do. My understanding may be different than yous as I value human life above my stereo, but things have been stolen from my property before, and I have gone and found and taken them back without having to kill or maim anyone.

Does property mean more to you than another human’s life, Rainjack?

Sorry, Rainjack, but the word “logic” does not mean “anything Rainjack agrees with”.

[Chewie]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I repeated my statement about him not knowing his neighbors because you apparently didnt understand that and you apparently still dont. Are you basing your entire argument on the assumption that there was an arrangement between the two neighbors?
[/quote]

The point that RJ is making is the same one I made. The way things are done around here is that neighbors band together collectively in order to stop crime.

I brought up the racial ideas not because I am a racist (I am not) but because if a 25 year old Puerto Rican man had shot and killed two white teenagers after they had robbed his neighbors house, I am entirely certain that you and your good ol boy cronies would be screaming for his immediate death by firing squad. Why? Because this is Texas and thats how you do things here. Other people cant possibly understand.

Not at all. The Houston Metropolitan area is one of the most culturally diverse places I have ever been and I have been to A LOT of places.

Is death an appropriate punishment for theft? Answer that.

People used to be hanged for stealing horses all the time.

I don’t think that the punishment fits the crime. However, if I felt threatened by a thief, then I would do everything in my power to stop him.

Warning them made no difference. He had his mind made up before he went out there that he was going to kill them. This wasnt a citizen’s arrest, it was premeditated murder. Once again, listen to the tape. Listen to the man tell the dispatcher that he is going to kill the two men, then run outside, immediately shout “YOURE DEAD” at them before unloading the shotgun into them, and then come back in and tell the dispatcher that they are both dead.

You are probably right here. I agree on this point.

But…

I bet no one will break into any residences in that neighborhood anytime soon.

As far as my understanding of defending property, I have more than you think I do. My understanding may be different than yous as I value human life above my stereo, but things have been stolen from my property before, and I have gone and found and taken them back without having to kill or maim anyone.

You have balls for this. I couldn’t approach a thief without feeling that my life is in danger.

[quote]
Sorry, Rainjack, but the word “logic” does not mean “anything Rainjack agrees with”.[/quote]

That’s pretty funny.

[texasguy2]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Stronghold wrote:

Just because that is their standard reply, does that mean it was bad advice or that possibly the dispatcher had the best intentions for both the old man and the officers he was dispatching to the scene? He even tells the old man that there were nonuniform officers in the area. Regardless of whether this was true or not, what would you have said if the old bastard had gone out and shot an officer thinking he was a robber after having been told to stay in his house? Chew on that one for a moment.

If the officer failed to identify himself, and had a bag full of stolen property - he should be just as dead as the real thieves.

The neighbor didnt entrust him to do shit. They didnt know each other. I dont give a fuck how you think you do things in Texas. Murder is murder is murder, no matter how you slice it. Why do you doubt that I have owned any property worth defending? Is it because I am younger than you? Do you always go that route when you know your argument isnt going to hold water?

They knew each other. Read the article. He said he didn’t know his neighbor that well. You have no way of knowing if there was an agreement between the the old man and his neighbor. I assume that there was because that is customary here to have your neighbors look after your shit when you are gone. How intimately they knew each other has no bearing on this case. How is my argument not holding water? Because you say so? I doubt you are a property owner because you display no understanding of the idea of defending personal property.

Im basing my decision on the old man’s intentions on the fact that before the shooting, he told the dispatcher that he was going to show the men, that he was going to shoot them. That he “had to shoot”. Sounds to me like he went looking for a fight. No one kicked his door down. He was inside his house. He got a gun and went outside of it with the intent of killing. That sounds like looking for a fight to me. Explain to me your exact definition of “looking for a fight”. I know you wont because you are older than me and therefor do not have to accept any logic that I present.

Read the law, asshole. You don’t have to be in your home to defend your property with deadly force. Or - by extension - defend a neighbor’s property if there is an agreement between you and the neighbor.

I think you have already defined “looking for a fight”. You are the one that is holding the position that the old man was looking for a confrontation. My definition has no place here, as I believe he was well within his rights to blow holes in the fucking scumbags.

And when you actually start presenting logic - it will be accepted. So far you are whiffing badly in the logic department.

He didnt know his neighbor. The neighbor had not entrusted him to watch his property as far as the article is concerned.

You are repeating yourself. You have no idea what the agreement between the two neighbors was - as the neighbor was unavailable for comment. But

Tell me what right a crazy old bastard had to go and kill said Puerto Ricans for being on private property with stolen goods? Not “right to defend himself”. He wasnt defending himself. He went after them.

I have already told you - there is a law that allows him to do so. How do you know he is crazy? I didn’t see that in the article. You have inside information as to the mental stability of the old man?

He was told not to go outside. He ignored the order. He shot two people (regardless of their criminal past, they were still people, sorry to break that to you jackass. Puerto Rican burglars still qualify as human beings.) and now he has to deal with the consequences of his actions. He wasnt defending himself or his own property. He chased down two people with the intent to kill them. Listen to the recordings from the 911 call. He was looking for it. What does his age have to do with it? He still killed 2 people.

He stopped two thieves. I certainly hope he intended to kill them. Evidently warning them to stop didn’t work. Age should have nothing to do with it other than it makes your argument that he went looking for a fight seem a little ridiculous.

Chew on this one for a second: Had it been two white teenagers robbing the house would your opinion have been any different. I doubt you would be calling the old bastard a hero if he had blasted two 16 year old white boys for stealing.

No need to chew. If ANYONE is breaking, entering,and stealing property from my house, or my neighbor’s house - I will kill them dead. I have that right, and am not afraid to exercise it.

Do you usually think in such racist terms? Tell me why you think I should value the lives of white teen aged thieves over Puerto Rican 20-something thieves.

Thanks for playing. Now run along.

I repeated my statement about him not knowing his neighbors because you apparently didnt understand that and you apparently still dont. Are you basing your entire argument on the assumption that there was an arrangement between the two neighbors? Basing an argument on such uncertain terms, to me, qualifies an argument as not holding water.

I brought up the racial ideas not because I am a racist (I am not) but because if a 25 year old Puerto Rican man had shot and killed two white teenagers after they had robbed his neighbors house, I am entirely certain that you and your good ol boy cronies would be screaming for his immediate death by firing squad. Why? Because this is Texas and thats how you do things here. Other people cant possibly understand.

Is death an appropriate punishment for theft? Answer that.

Warning them made no difference. He had his mind made up before he went out there that he was going to kill them. This wasnt a citizen’s arrest, it was premeditated murder. Once again, listen to the tape. Listen to the man tell the dispatcher that he is going to kill the two men, then run outside, immediately shout “YOURE DEAD” at them before unloading the shotgun into them, and then come back in and tell the dispatcher that they are both dead.

As far as my understanding of defending property, I have more than you think I do. My understanding may be different than yous as I value human life above my stereo, but things have been stolen from my property before, and I have gone and found and taken them back without having to kill or maim anyone.

Does property mean more to you than another human’s life, Rainjack?

Sorry, Rainjack, but the word “logic” does not mean “anything Rainjack agrees with”.[/quote]

“if a 25 year old Puerto Rican man had shot and killed two white teenagers after they had robbed his neighbors house, I am entirely certain that you and your good ol boy cronies would be screaming for his immediate death by firing squad. Why? Because this is Texas and thats how you do things here. Other people cant possibly understand.”

Bullshit.

[Stronghold]

I believe that the issue up for debate here is whether or not the man was in enough danger to have warranted him killing the two men. I personally feel like he would have been better off staying in his house and letting the police handle it. They were on the scene almost immediately (listen to the tape, the cops show up less than a minute after the gunshots).

[Chewie]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I believe that the issue up for debate here is whether or not the man was in enough danger to have warranted him killing the two men. I personally feel like he would have been better off staying in his house and letting the police handle it. They were on the scene almost immediately (listen to the tape, the cops show up less than a minute after the gunshots).
[/quote]

Too bad they were needed in seconds.

[rainjack]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I repeated my statement about him not knowing his neighbors because you apparently didnt understand that and you apparently still dont. Are you basing your entire argument on the assumption that there was an arrangement between the two neighbors? Basing an argument on such uncertain terms, to me, qualifies an argument as not holding water.[/quote]

The article states that he does not know his neighbor that well. How in the hell do you get to not knowing him at all?

Your ignorance of how things are done here is astounding, yet you continue. The assumption that he was asked to look after his neighbor’s property is a given down here. The big assumption is that the neighbor didn’t ask. Guess who is making that one?

I brought up the racial ideas not because I am a racist (I am not) but because if a 25 year old Puerto Rican man had shot and killed two white teenagers after they had robbed his neighbors house, I am entirely certain that you and your good ol boy cronies would be screaming for his immediate death by firing squad. Why? Because this is Texas and thats how you do things here. Other people cant possibly understand.

Your bigotry not withstanding, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. And you are the one that has the hard-on for logic? Please show me the logic in such a racist statement because I just can’t see it.

Is death an appropriate punishment for theft? Answer that.

Will the dead guys break into anymore homes and steal cash? Answer that.

Warning them made no difference. He had his mind made up before he went out there that he was going to kill them. This wasnt a citizen’s arrest, it was premeditated murder. Once again, listen to the tape. Listen to the man tell the dispatcher that he is going to kill the two men, then run outside, immediately shout “YOURE DEAD” at them before unloading the shotgun into them, and then come back in and tell the dispatcher that they are both dead.

The only thing premeditated was protecting his neighbor’s property. If he were looking to kill them as you suggest - he would not have called 911.

As far as my understanding of defending property, I have more than you think I do. My understanding may be different than yous as I value human life above my stereo, but things have been stolen from my property before, and I have gone and found and taken them back without having to kill or maim anyone.

Good for you. The issue is not the stereo, or the cash. The issue is the right to protect your property. I don’t give a shit what it is. No one has the right to enter my property, and take shit from me. The State of Texas agrees, and has given me the right to protect my property with deadly force.

Does property mean more to you than another human’s life, Rainjack?

I do not value the life of someone who attempts to take my property, or endanger my family. Such a person has no regard for me. Why should I value his life over mine?

Sorry, Rainjack, but the word “logic” does not mean “anything Rainjack agrees with”.

I disagree with plenty of folks that display logical thinking. You are caught up in bigotry, and racism. There is no logic to be found in either of those.

[texasguy2]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I believe that the issue up for debate here is whether or not the man was in enough danger to have warranted him killing the two men. I personally feel like he would have been better off staying in his house and letting the police handle it. They were on the scene almost immediately (listen to the tape, the cops show up less than a minute after the gunshots).
[/quote]

He absolutely was in enough danger to warrant gun shots. When do you consider a situation dangerous enough to pull a gun? After one has been drawn on you? Good luck.

The guy lived in a rough area, Chewie knows first hand and I’ll second that having grown up in the same city, though in a different neighborhood. Pasadena does have some rough spots. The guy lived in one, witnessed a complete disregard for the law and was proactive in protecting himself, rather than waiting to see if he should have acted, in which case he would have been too late. That is how self protection works. Take action to protect yourself before you get hurt, not after.

In high school, I worked at a Redwing shoe store off of N. Gessner, in a neighborhood that also wasn’t that great. I was robbed in broad daylight, and at the behest of the store owner, did not have a gun. At first the robbers just told me to give them the cash, I told them to fuck off and one of them pulled a pistol, confiscated my phone and the store phones, herded me to the back room and then went up front to break the drawer open with his buddy.

Fortunately, the store opened to an ally from the back, so I took off out the door and over a fence. The cops who came to write the report said the robbery was one of a string that had so far killed a handful of gas station and retail clerks. I asked the cop what the self defense laws were, and he told me as soon as I felt nervous, I could have shot had I had a gun.

I didn’t even have to see a threat. The act of the robbery itself was inherently threatening as I did not know what the men had planned and if I felt the need to shoot them, I could do so.

Now, telling me to open a cash drawer does not threaten my life, but legally it creates a scenario of possibilities that allowed me to protect myself had I had the means. Come to find out, shooting them would have been the best option as they did have a gun and had killed people. (I identified them on a tape and they were tied to the robberies/murders) If the guy had shot me before going to open the drawer, I would have been fucked. Luckily he didn’t, and I had a way out, but I wouldn’t trust luck all the time.

I don’t see how that is much different from this guys case.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I believe that the issue up for debate here is whether or not the man was in enough danger to have warranted him killing the two men. I personally feel like he would have been better off staying in his house and letting the police handle it. They were on the scene almost immediately (listen to the tape, the cops show up less than a minute after the gunshots).
[/quote]

He feels differently and it looks like his actions were inside the law.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
…

He absolutely was in enough danger to warrant gun shots. When do you consider a situation dangerous enough to pull a gun? After one has been drawn on you? Good luck.

…[/quote]

Look at what happened to Sean Taylor.

[texasguy2]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
…

He absolutely was in enough danger to warrant gun shots. When do you consider a situation dangerous enough to pull a gun? After one has been drawn on you? Good luck.

…

Look at what happened to Sean Taylor.[/quote]

Exactly.

[Headhunter]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
SteinJorgen wrote:
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.

A good deal of innocent people were executed too. There’s ample evidence to support that.

Evidently the Great State of Texas could care less. If a killer can be positively ID’s by 2 or more eyewitnesses during the commission of a crime and the murder - you get bumped to the front of the line. In other words - we put in a fucking express lane (Ron White’s words).

I find it quite ironic that lixy has the balls to post about capital punishment when he sees nothing wrong with ass raping 13 year old girls then having them arrested for being sluts. [/quote]

I like the Texas justice system, where killers don’t get to make friends with ‘Chester the Molester’ in the next cell while spinning out their 10 or 15 years with appeal after appeal. If someone’s as guilty as sin, fry their balls ASAP.

[Stronghold]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
…

He absolutely was in enough danger to warrant gun shots. When do you consider a situation dangerous enough to pull a gun? After one has been drawn on you? Good luck.

…

Look at what happened to Sean Taylor.[/quote]

Was the man’s house being broken into? Sean Taylor was attacked. This man was the attacker. Listen to the recordings. Does looking for a fight constitute self defense. I could go to a bar and tell a guy I was going to kill him, then when he looked at me, I could shoot him. Would that constitute self defense? He may have attacked me, that, according to your logic would allow me to shoot him and claim self defense. Once again, listen to the recordings, and while youre at it, look up the term “necessary force”.

[Stronghold]

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
I believe that the issue up for debate here is whether or not the man was in enough danger to have warranted him killing the two men. I personally feel like he would have been better off staying in his house and letting the police handle it. They were on the scene almost immediately (listen to the tape, the cops show up less than a minute after the gunshots).

He absolutely was in enough danger to warrant gun shots. When do you consider a situation dangerous enough to pull a gun? After one has been drawn on you? Good luck.[/quote]

The man was in no danger until he left his house. He left his house knowing that he was putting himself in a dangerous situation but he continued because he intended to kill both men.

The guy lived in a rough area, Chewie knows first hand and I’ll second that having grown up in the same city, though in a different neighborhood. Pasadena does have some rough spots. The guy lived in one, witnessed a complete disregard for the law and was proactive in protecting himself, rather than waiting to see if he should have acted, in which case he would have been too late. That is how self protection works. Take action to protect yourself before you get hurt, not after.

He wasnt protecting himself from shit. Once again, he left his house and entered what he knew was a potentially dangerous situation with the intent of killing both men. Thats not self defense, its premeditated murder.

In high school, I worked at a Redwing shoe store off of N. Gessner, in a neighborhood that also wasn’t that great. I was robbed in broad daylight, and at the behest of the store owner, did not have a gun. At first the robbers just told me to give them the cash, I told them to fuck off and one of them pulled a pistol, confiscated my phone and the store phones, herded me to the back room and then went up front to break the drawer open with his buddy. [/quote]

This scenario has more to do with your right to carry a weapon (which I support) than your right to use it. In this situation, you could claim defense.[quote]

I don’t see how that is much different from this guys case.

Once again, read my previous two statements in this post.

[rainjack]

You are against the use of deadly force to protect your property. You feel more empathy towards thieves than you do property owners. You have strong racist issues.

We get it.

Stay out of Texas.

Thanks.