Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I'm a gun owner. I believe in the 2nd Amendment, think the use of force to defend oneself is more than justified, and have zero sympathy for criminals of any kind. With that being said, I think the man in question was flat wrong to do what he did.
It is clear from the transcript of the 911 call that his life was not in imminent danger. He was not being threatened in any way. The crime was not being committed against him but rather his neighbor's property. He was told repeatedly by the 911 operator to stay in his home but he refused. The last exchange between the caller and the 911 operator before the burglars were shot was this:
911: "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with the gun."
Caller: "You wanna make a bet? I'm going to kill them."
I'm sorry, but how can any reasonable person say that this man's actions were justified? He didn't have to go outside and confront these criminals, but he chose to. He created a possible "self defense/deadly force" situation that would not have existed had he simply stayed in his home andlet the police handle it.
you mean the underpaid understaffed guys who would come out just in time to take a report and probably never find the guys who did it?
its called being a responsible citizen, he saw a crime being commited, called it in and the took action when the POLICE effectivly couldnt...
I realize that Texas law may be on his side in this matter, which I guess is fine. But to my mind it doesn't make what he did right.
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?
i agree partially here, but still think this guy did the right thing. BUrglars violating the sanctity of someones home to take things that dont belong to them were killed by an armed citizen acting responsible to prevent a crime
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.
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
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.
Many times an innocent person can get killed, which would make the most hardened anti-crime person feel terrible (otherwise it would mean the "anti-criminal" outlook is just a disguise for an anti-person outlook).
There have been rare moments in all of our lives were we could have been killed if we had the "wrong" neighbor...once when I stopped by my sister's house to pick up a package from the doorstep on the way to my parents for Christmas (she had left a few days earlier) and I could hear that the smoke alarms were malfunctioning (she had shut off the heat to save $$$ and the low temp set them off). Since I lived 2 states away, I didn't have a key and had to jimmy open a window on the 2nd floor to get in and shut them off. I could have easily been mistaken by a neighbor as a "bad guy". Would DEATH have been an appropriate outcome?
Also, here is a fairly well known case of a Japanese exchange student who was mistaken for a burglar and killed. How terrible would you feel if you killed a child because they didn't know what "freeze" meant? Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I live about 2 miles from where this happened. I haven't read every post here but here is what I know. These two guys were on their way out of the neighbors house with their loot, not going in as someone here said. The person who shot them was on the phone with 911 for over seven minutes. I'd like to know why it took the Pasadena police over 7 minutes to get there when they knew a crime was being commited at the time. As of yesterday he had not been charged with any crime for the shooting and this may go to a grand jury without any charges being filed..One of the crooks was on parole for another crime.
Defending ones life or property or their neighbors in Texas is NOT murder.
Bravo!!!! and I understand, it's a grandfathered law or something like that, right?
I personally think, this guy became frustrated with all the crime in his neighborhood and decided to defend his neighbors home...like I said before, wish he were my neighbor...in my mind, he's a hero.
Criminals usually do not change, you give them a chance, and they go right back out and break the law, again and again....
My son is a police officer, and our tax money is being spent to defend these criminals and put them back on the street, jeprodizing the lives of police officers and causing more paper work, when a police officer could be out on the street catching more criminals....repeated offenders has become a career.
Look...we're having to make several assumptions as we read about this...
Assumptions here are:
1) These people were making some sort of forced entry indicative of criminal behavior obvious to the average reasonable person, and
2) The man had at least a reasonable cause to believe that they were in the commission of a felony crime of burglary ("robbery" is actually taking property from someone by means of force or fear, i.e. "bank robber" versus "burglary" which is entering a four-sided structure with the intent to commit a theft).
If we're working from these two very critical assumptions, then I for one don't think he needed an invitation from his neighbor to defend his neighbor's property. He was simply attempting to make a lawful detention (the proper term) of two suspects for the police. It was THEIR choice to escalate the incident, as had they complied with his directives they would be alive and able to have due process of law and their state-appointed defense attorney.
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.
Quote:
MrSykes...I don't know where you live, but I can assure you that around our ranching community here in North Idaho (and most of the rest of Idaho I would guess) we look out for each other, and if I was checking out a neighbor's place due to observing some suspicious activity, I'd be armed with either my 12ga shotgun or AK-47 (which, by the way, you can buy at a swap meet here with no paperwork required...yet gun crime is still low....hmmmm)
Of course, around here, I'd choose the shotgun to go check out a disturbance most likely, since if it's a bear or cougar, the shotgun will do more spread damage at close range...it's what I take outside at night when our livestock makes a fuss that gives me cause for alarm...
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.
that is not murder. this, at least from what has been presented was a justified killing.
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.
he did give them (police) the opportunity to do there job, guess what they couldnt get there in time.
not trying to be insulting but that is a victim mentality bigger then anything. he tried to stop a commision of a crime. that is what responsible citizens do.
Responsible citizens do not take it upon themselves to do what the police are trained to do. Unless the burgulars were in the process of committing a violent act upon somebody (which they weren't, given that the house was known to be empty at the time), the shooter should have heeded the instruction of the dispatcher and remained indoors until the police arrived. Had the police showed up and saw the shooter brandishing his shotgun, you bet their attention would not have been focused on the burgulars.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
It's not all fun and games though
