God Bless Texas

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are against the use of deadly force to protect your property.[/quote]

I hold the value of human life above the value of my stuff.

I feel empathy for the families of the two men who are dead because some old man decided that he was going to take the law into his own hands.

Your comprehension skills are poor. I was simply pointing out the fact that many of the people saying that this old man is a hero would change their positions very quickly if the shoe was on the other foot and two white teens were dead at the hands of a person of hispanic descent.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
You have strong racist issues.
Your comprehension skills are poor. I was simply pointing out the fact that many of the people saying that this old man is a hero would change their positions very quickly if the shoe was on the other foot and two white teens were dead at the hands of a person of hispanic descent.
[/quote]

No - what you did was make a bigoted assumption based on race.

Make excuses all you want. You played the fucking race card. You made bullshit assumptions based on skin color. There is no way to wiggle out of it. That is blatant racism in its purest form.

I comprehend just fine. You need to get some help with your bigotry.

Take a look at this. I know that many people feel that he was out of line but, I believe that he could have been making a citizens arest. I know that people say that he did not say that, but it is irrelivant to me. The 911 operator should have told him of his right to issue the arrest himself if he felt capible or inclined to do so. IMO

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm

“A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen’s arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual’s natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen’s arrest.”

“Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen’s arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)”

I like Kentucky’s take on it.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
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.

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”.[/quote]

Yes it can be self defense. The man has a right to leave his home. He has a right to stop a criminal act. He has a right to defend himself if he feels threatened by criminals.

He was not looking for a fight, the criminals were.

Texas seems to be the only sane state nowadays. Many other states require people to flee when threatened.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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

Once again, read my previous two statements in this post.
[/quote]

The criminals could very well have broken in to his house next, and killed him if they found him home. He proactively prevented this. This is what the law allows.

The stretch is that the property was his neighbors, the subculture here is to protect your neighbors as you would yourself, not to mention the guy was in danger. He didn’t go looking for criminals, they found him.

As rainjack has put it, stay out of Texas if you don’t like it. The man was within legal bounds, he was certainly within cultural bounds and his actions are in line with what most would expect for the area.

If you don’t like, don’t move here.

If you are threatened, defend yourself. If other is threatened, defend them.

If a dvd-player or other household items is threatened, stay out of it and call the police.

simple.

No, actually, it can’t.

He had a chance to stay in his home and NOT go outside to ‘put himself in danger.’ He intentionally left his home and bet the operator he could go outside and not get killed. Where was his ‘fear’ ?

And please don’t throw around the argument that the criminals could’ve gone to his house, too. In broad day light? Who the hell hits two houses next to each other in broad day light? You’re trying to get in and out as fast as possible.

And push…

I respect a lot of what you usually say, and even what you say here can hold true but NOT in this case.

You are referring to centuries past, which is fine, but the whole point of not having vigilante justice - which is what we’re trying to achieve in our society - is to evolve FROM those times when anyone could shoot anyone. Why are you referring to a lesser evolved state of society? It simply doesn’t hold water.

If the man was able to get within 15 feet of these guys, A) they saw him coming, B) they were unarmed else they would have reacted, which means what the old POS should have done was make the guys get down on the ground and keep them there until police arrived. THAT would have been the proper thing to do. And again, don’t argue that he could have feared for his safety, because I would be he had zero fear in him even at 15 feet. If no fear, then no excuse.

Vigilante justice holds if say you witness someone getting mugged/raped/beaten. I would personally harm the attacker as much as possible. If I see a shoplifter running out the store with something, should I stab him with a knife if I can? No, just let the authorities deal with it.

Funny how the same guys preaching that this old bastard did the right thing are most likely the same ones who probably support our troops overseas because they feel we are there to ‘spread freedom, free those people from tyranny’ in a land where there IS vigilante justice and corruption and is therefore a lesser evolved state than where we live. Why go up in arms about others living in those conditions but be ok to live it here, where we are supposed to be the models of civility?

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
It can be argued that the guy did fear for his own safety

No, actually, it can’t.

He had a chance to stay in his home and NOT go outside to ‘put himself in danger.’ He intentionally left his home and bet the operator he could go outside and not get killed. Where was his ‘fear’ ?

And please don’t throw around the argument that the criminals could’ve gone to his house, too. In broad day light? Who the hell hits two houses next to each other in broad day light? You’re trying to get in and out as fast as possible.
…[/quote]

This is the heart of it. Many appear to believe that he was obligated to cower in his house because criminals were outside. I believe it is his right and almost his duty to step outside his house and confront the criminals.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
It can be argued that the guy did fear for his own safety

No, actually, it can’t.

He had a chance to stay in his home and NOT go outside to ‘put himself in danger.’ He intentionally left his home and bet the operator he could go outside and not get killed. Where was his ‘fear’ ?

And please don’t throw around the argument that the criminals could’ve gone to his house, too. In broad day light? Who the hell hits two houses next to each other in broad day light? You’re trying to get in and out as fast as possible.

This is the heart of it. Many appear to believe that he was obligated to cower in his house because criminals were outside. I believe it is his right and almost his duty to step outside his house and confront the criminals.[/quote]

Confront, yes. Execute, no.

[quote]SteinJorgen wrote:
Confront, yes. Execute, no.
[/quote]

That’s a personal call. He had the right to use deadly force under the law.

I really don’t see how one can call cowering in the corner evolving. We are more evolved because we give criminals a free run on our property?

Bullshit. Law, or no law - thieves with no regard for other peoples’ property deserve what they get.

You can sit back and voluntarily be a victim as you and the others suggest - or you can refuse. The old man refused and did the right thing.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You can sit back and voluntarily be a victim as you and the others suggest - or you can refuse. The old man refused and did the right thing. [/quote]

Nicely put.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
SteinJorgen wrote:
Confront, yes. Execute, no.

That’s a personal call. He had the right to use deadly force under the law.

I really don’t see how one can call cowering in the corner evolving. We are more evolved because we give criminals a free run on our property?

Bullshit. Law, or no law - thieves with no regard for other peoples’ property deserve what they get.

You can sit back and voluntarily be a victim as you and the others suggest - or you can refuse. The old man refused and did the right thing. [/quote]

So I’m voluntarily being a victim?

Right…
As long as no one is threatened you can either do a citizens arrest and/or wait for police. You don’t execute people for it, or do you have to kill someone for not being a “victim”?

pfft.

[quote]SteinJorgen wrote:
So I’m voluntarily being a victim?[/quote]

Based on you postings here - absolutely.

[quote]Right…
As long as no one is threatened you can either do a citizens arrest and/or wait for police. You don’t execute people for it, or do you have to kill someone for not being a “victim”?

pfft.[/quote]

Translation: Hide in the corner and wait for someone else to protect you and you property.

The choice to live or die was that of the thieves.

If you enter my property, and I don’t know you and fear for my safety, and the safety of my family - i can kill you dead.

If you steal my shit, and I catch you in the act - I can kill you dead regardless if you are on my property or not.

I don’t have to kill you, but I have that right.

You need to understand that, in the State of Texas, your career choice as a thief can be fatal to your health. No public defender, no court date, no cable tv in prison. You have a damn good chance of dying on the job.

It’s called common sense, and thank God the State of Texas is giving property owners the right to exercise it.

I find it hard to discuss with you, since you are very good at pissing me off and making it personal instead of discussing the case. You insult me by saying I’m a coward for not wanting to kill anyone, and you use discussing techniques like “common sense.” To me your common sense seems like raving lunacy. I’m very glad I don’t live where you live.

What also baffles that you don’t seem to acknowledge that thieves are humans. Just for the sake of argument: what if you got a daughter, she does very well until she’s 16 years old. She gets mixed up with some bad kids, drugs and all. The decide to rob a house they know are empty, they get in - steal some booze and a dvdplayer. The neighbour sees this and get his shotgun. And shoot your daughter.

Still think it was deserved?

And there can be other scenarios.
Maybe a young adult is kicked out by his abusing father, and living on the streets. After not eating for a week he decides to rob a house.

A girl is sexually abused, and becomes a drug addict. Becomes a criminal.

You see, these are all people with different fates that have led to this. You say that they deserve it…

You know too little to decide if someone should cease existing.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
SteinJorgen wrote:
So I’m voluntarily being a victim?

Based on you postings here - absolutely.

Right…
As long as no one is threatened you can either do a citizens arrest and/or wait for police. You don’t execute people for it, or do you have to kill someone for not being a “victim”?

pfft.

Translation: Hide in the corner and wait for someone else to protect you and you property.

[/quote]

Eh… Some translation.

Also, I would say it demands more balls to arrest someone, than just shooting anyone. Especially an unarmed opponent.

It’s like swatting a fly with a canon.

[quote]SteinJorgen wrote:
I find it hard to discuss with you, since you are very good at pissing me off and making it personal instead of discussing the case. You insult me by saying I’m a coward for not wanting to kill anyone, and you use discussing techniques like “common sense.” To me your common sense seems like raving lunacy. I’m very glad I don’t live where you live. [/quote]

I never called you a coward. No one is talking about wanting to kill. I don’t want to kill anyone. You want to limit what a person can do to protect his property. I don’t.

[quote]What also baffles that you don’t seem to acknowledge that thieves are humans. Just for the sake of argument: what if you got a daughter, she does very well until she’s 16 years old. She gets mixed up with some bad kids, drugs and all. The decide to rob a house they know are empty, they get in - steal some booze and a dvdplayer. The neighbour sees this and get his shotgun. And shoot your daughter.

Still think it was deserved? [/quote]

What is it with you guys that think it makes a difference if it is a kid? IF she was somewhere she wasn’t supposed to be - and she gets killed because of it that is out of my control. If she dies in the act of a robbery, it is deserved. I should have been a better father. But that has dick to do with the subject at hand.

[quote]And there can be other scenarios.
Maybe a young adult is kicked out by his abusing father, and living on the streets. After not eating for a week he decides to rob a house.

A girl is sexually abused, and becomes a drug addict. Becomes a criminal.

You see, these are all people with different fates that have led to this. You say that they deserve it…

You know too little to decide if someone should cease existing. [/quote]

I don’t care about their circumstances. I care about my property. None of those situations is an excuse for violation of personal property. The only thing I need to know is that they are on my property stealing my shit. There are no provisions in the law that state I have to spend time with the fucking thief before I need to make a split second decision about whether to shoot them or not.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I don’t care about their circumstances. I care about my property.

[/quote]

nuff said…

[quote]SteinJorgen wrote:
rainjack wrote:
SteinJorgen wrote:
So I’m voluntarily being a victim?

Based on you postings here - absolutely.

Right…
As long as no one is threatened you can either do a citizens arrest and/or wait for police. You don’t execute people for it, or do you have to kill someone for not being a “victim”?

pfft.

Translation: Hide in the corner and wait for someone else to protect you and you property.

Eh… Some translation.

Also, I would say it demands more balls to arrest someone, than just shooting anyone. Especially an unarmed opponent.

It’s like swatting a fly with a canon.[/quote]

The fly should not have been trying to rob a house.

How did he know they were unarmed? How do you know who is armed or who isn’t?

It’s not about balls. It’s about protecting your property. How is it that you guys who are so into protecting the life of a fucking thief - who has absolutely no regard for anyone but themselves - completely miss the fact that they are the ones breaking the law?

Feel good liberals…WTF?

[quote]SteinJorgen wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I don’t care about their circumstances. I care about my property.

nuff said…[/quote]

Why is it my responsibility to understand the thief? I doubt that, if put in the situation, you would take the time either. Not saying you would shoot - because it’s pretty hard to get a clean shot off when you are hiding.