U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 11-18-2007, 07:22 PM
 
Location: Bayou City Megaplex
2,978 posts, read 2,978,220 times
Reputation: 2411

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee View Post
Yes, and even more sad, are those bloodsucking vampires whose job depends on defending these criminals...making them look like victims....sad....
In this case the criminals are in a sense victims, inasmuch as their punishment (death) didn't fit their crime (burgulary of a residence).

No due process, no letting the legal system work like it was designed to. Just instant, unwarranted vigilante justice.

 
Old 11-18-2007, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Bayou City Megaplex
2,978 posts, read 2,978,220 times
Reputation: 2411
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie94 View Post
i am not trying to insult you but that mentallity is exactly why a woman can get raped in broad daylight in front of people and nobody will do anything
Under Texas law (i.e., Protection of Person), the shooter in question would have been justified in using such force to prevent the rape.
 
Old 11-18-2007, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,172 posts, read 11,284,653 times
Reputation: 6342
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSykes View Post
There are assumptions, and then there are facts:

1. The burgulars were unarmed.

2. The neighbor's residence was unoccupied at the time of the burglary.

3. He did not attempt to detain the burgulars. He stated his intention to kill them to the dispatcher and followed through after repeated requests to remain indoors and await the arrival of the police.

4. The SHOOTER escalated the incident by provoking the burgulars, which is clearly prohibited by the Texas Castle Doctrine.

5. The man wasn't in immediate danger until he VOLUNTARILY went outside to confront the burgulars.

6. The shooter was not well-acquainted with his neighbors, and had NOT been requested by them to guard their premises in their absence. Had there been such an agreement between the two parties, the shooter would be covered under Texas law.



I grew up and currently reside about 10 miles from where the incident took place. Looking out for your neighbors is one thing, but killing two unarmed burgulars who posed no immediate threat to you in the first place is certainly another. The police here wouldn't even have been justified in using deadly force in such a situation.
Mr Sykes no you are making assumptions.
1. How do you know the criminals wouldn't have gone into the armed mans house?
2. How do you know that after seeing that an eye witness existed they would not have beat the man to death?
3. Antagonized them? They were robbing his neighbor...Who was antagonizing who?
4. Why didn't they just stop as he commanded? Because they thought he was bluffing, because they are criminals, they thought 2 on one aint bad odds.
I for one am glad that they were gunned down like the rabid dogs they are.
As far as I am concerned anyone who would break into another persons home and rob them deserve no compassion.
 
Old 11-18-2007, 07:36 PM
 
Location: chicago
783 posts, read 1,348,863 times
Reputation: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee View Post
maybe, this wasn't the first, second or third time these homes were robbed...maybe it's a daily occurance and people who live there are getting sick of it....

No one, but no one has the right to break in another person's home.
I understand what you're saying and I myself wouldn't hesitate to lay somebody down that was trying to break into my home. That's an immediate threat to me. But my point is, unfortunately in this guy's case, he pretty much hung himself. The fact that there was no immediate threat to him directly and him clearly telling the operator he is going to kill these dudes, the courts are going to tear him apart. All the lawyer has to do is read Mr. Sykes's post laying out the facts and its a slam dunk case.

Don't get me wrong, it is a messed up situation for the old guy. But if he felt he just had to shoot somebody so bad, he should not have said that dumb sh!!!!t to the dispatcher. Cause you know the lawyers are going to run with the pre-meditated murder argument.
 
Old 11-18-2007, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,172 posts, read 11,284,653 times
Reputation: 6342
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSykes View Post
In this case the criminals are in a sense victims, inasmuch as their punishment (death) didn't fit their crime (burgulary of a residence).

No due process, no letting the legal system work like it was designed to. Just instant, unwarranted vigilante justice.
The only thing they are victims of is their own stupidity and complete lack of respect for anothers property.
 
Old 11-18-2007, 07:48 PM
 
1,352 posts, read 3,225,954 times
Reputation: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
It is incidents like this that involve questionable judgment in using a weapon that anti-gun advocates jump all over. How long do you think it will be before it's used to promote some half-baked gun control law somewhere?

Maybe some see this man as a hero. All I see is a man that tossed reason out the window and did a very stupid thing that just makes the vast majority of his fellow gun owners look bad.
Tony you are right. the anti-gun advocates will and have already jumped on this story. It's national news now I'm sure that we'll see more pressure for "even more" gun control laws because of this man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerP View Post
The fact that there was no immediate threat to him directly and him clearly telling the operator he is going to kill these dudes, the courts are going to tear him apart. All the lawyer has to do is read Mr. Sykes's post laying out the facts and its a slam dunk case.

Don't get me wrong, it is a messed up situation for the old guy. But if he felt he just had to shoot somebody so bad, he should not have said that dumb sh!!!!t to the dispatcher. Cause you know the lawyers are going to run with the pre-meditated murder argument.
I don't understand either why this guy would say the things he said to 911 operator knowing it would be taped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cremebrulee View Post
How much you wanna bet, Sharpton jumps on this. I was thinking of him the other day, and how he sends a "SO wrong signal. Wish more people would listen to Cosby....they'd be doing something. Sharpton, endorses crime...
What does Sharpton have to do with this
 
Old 11-18-2007, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Hill Country Texas
119 posts, read 134,440 times
Reputation: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
The only thing they are victims of is their own stupidity and complete lack of respect for anothers property.

EXACTLY, well said.

when someone breaks into someones home and steals from them, they are not just taking "things" they are taking someone's sense of security away from them. It's an INVASION and in my mind it is a violent act. This man did the right thing.

I thought I heard on the recording that they were coming towards him, onto HIS property when he confronted them. How was he suppose to know if they were armed?? was it dark?
 
Old 11-18-2007, 08:04 PM
 
1,392 posts, read 1,855,464 times
Reputation: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSykes View Post
Killing someone who posed no immediate threat to you or any other in the first place is never justified, regardless of whether or not they were in the process of committing a (non-violent) crime.

You're not by any chance from NY are you ?
 
Old 11-18-2007, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,640 posts, read 14,662,574 times
Reputation: 11099
They took stuff. Just stuff. They didn't commit an act of violence. It was just stuff. It was probably insured stuff, at that.

A man chose to kill people over another person's stuff.
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:12 PM
 
294 posts, read 281,160 times
Reputation: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
If he was concerned for his life, he could just as easily have followed the police guidance and gone back to the safety of his home. He chose his actions.
yes he could have. and he did choose his actions and two CRIMINALS died becasue of it.

he confronted somebody commiting a crime they at that point caused concern him for for his life...

some people in this world will face danger to do something right. those criminals could have sat there and put there hands in the air couldnt they? why didnt they do that? why didnt they say ok, we will stop?

they chose to approach him probably (cant say 100%) to intimidate him, scare him off or even kill him...

when it comes between my life and theres...well..i choose mine
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top