2 burglars shot dead in Pasadena (West, Buffalo: legal, garage, train)

[Lindsey_Mcfarren]

Originally Posted by Mom2Feebs

I don't think anyone here feels that these guys weren't thugs. I think some of us just feel the shooter might not have had the best judgment and might have brazenly broken the law himself. Do two wrongs make a right? Not if his mistake ultimately affects whether or not I can protect myself in the future. This is just the kind of stuff anti-gun folks eat up with a spoon.

Someone asked on another board why he didn't aim for their legs, arms, or feet. It's not like he was unfamiliar with a shotgun. I have to wonder the same thing.

There was only ONE wrong here and that was the men breaking into someone else's house. The law states this man's actions were not wrong. Your assesment of them is that it was wrong, that does not change the reality that the state of Texas has the final word and he did NO wrong.

[Huckleberry3911948]

difference in language huh.
obviously the bad guys were from california
in california
halt means ignore me
i got a gun means ignore me im guna get arrested for branishing a weapon
you are trespassing means ignore me, leave when you are good and ready
stop or ill shoot means im mouthing off ignore me
trouble was they did not speak good texas english
i like texas
they got boundaries

[MrSykes]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Did you have any fried okra last night, MrSykes?

But seriously, again, I don't know all that much about the particulars of the case itself. And, other than making a general statement in favor of the Castle Doctrine and "third party rights" to use deadly force, I can't really offer a knowlegeable comment on this incident.

BUT...it DOES seem like -- and no disrepect intended, this is an exchange between people of good will -- you are taking a reflexive negative position against the man. And, (granting I could be wrong) seizing on the race card a bit.

Nah, went straight to bed.

Had the burgulars broken into the man's own house and were shot dead, there would be no objection from me. In fact, I would have likely done the same thing (having been a victim of armed robbery once myself). And while race may or may not have been a factor in the man's willingness to fell the two burgulars with his beloved shotgun, one thing cannot be denied: It is much easier for a man to pull the trigger on someone whom he would readily consider an outsider.

[MrSykes]

Originally Posted by Guerilla

But who knows how long it would have taken the cops to get there. And who knows where the burglars would have went next. Maybe the old man's house.

Which was all the more reason why the old man needed to stay in the house with his gun, not go outside to "solve" the problem with preemptive intimidation and homicide.

What if they were armed and shot him first?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Guerilla

If he shot and injured the person, then he could have been prosecuted. The law says the robbers (burglars, etc.) must be killed. They can sue you if you get injured. For example, if they get cut for breaking into your window, you can get sued.

Actually, Guerilla, I THINK that the new "Castle Doctine" law which went into effect this last September, has a provision (rightfully and thank God) which now protects against civil suits in certain instances. As I understand it, if one has the legal right to use "deadly force" then they are also immune to lawsuits stemming over the same.

With all that said though, I stand by my original position. Which is that, while the shooter might have used some bad judgement, he was STILL in the right.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by MrSykes

And while race may or may not have been a factor in the man's willingness to fell the two burgulars with his beloved shotgun, one thing cannot be denied: It is much easier for a man to pull the trigger on someone whom he would readily consider an outsider.

I don't think it is ever easy to pull a trigger on someone regardless of their race. Yes, I know myself well enough to know I am capable of using deadly force to protect my loved ones (which if someone broke into my home, I would assume is a threat to the same). BUT...it doesn't mean it would be an easy thing, and would probably not haunt me the rest of my life.

I wasn't in the military, but come from an extended family full of veterans, and a few who went into law enforcement later. And am good friends with an ex-LA cop. Anyway, the common denominator among those few who actually have had to shoot someone in self-defence is that it is an extremely traumatizing experience. No matter how justified the circumstances, if one is human at all, it is lived and relived and while memories may fade, it never goes away completely...

[Mom2Feebs]

Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren

There was only ONE wrong here and that was the men breaking into someone else's house. The law states this man's actions were not wrong. Your assesment of them is that it was wrong, that does not change the reality that the state of Texas has the final word and he did NO wrong.

The state hasn't decided yet whether this man was wrong. Your perception of reality and what is actual reality has not been made clear just yet.

That being said, I would certainly not be opposed to changing the law, if necessary to do so, to make it legal to protect others' property using deadly force without their permission. My only worry would be that some trigger-happy man like Mr. Horn (and he was quite trigger-happy) would shoot the owner's kid or husband by mistake.

From Click2Houston.com:

The Castle Doctrine permits people to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property.

State Sen. Mario Gallegos was one of the supporters of the bill.

"The Castle Doctrine -- you have the right to protect your domicile and your castle," Gallegos said.

But Gallegos said that if it's a neighbor pulling the trigger, he has to have been asked to protect the property.

That may not have been the case, according to the 911 call.

911 Operator: "Do you know your neighbors?"

Caller: "No, I really don't know these neighbors. I know the neighbors on the other side really well. I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something."

"Just on pure assumption and not seeing the police record, I would think that this case does not come under the Castle Doctrine," Gallegos said.

[usc619]

Originally Posted by Mom2Feebs

The state hasn't decided yet whether this man was wrong. Your perception of reality and what is actual reality has not been made clear just yet.

That being said, I would certainly not be opposed to changing the law, if necessary to do so, to make it legal to protect others' property using deadly force without their permission. My only worry would be that some trigger-happy man like Mr. Horn (and he was quite trigger-happy) would shoot the owner's kid or husband by mistake.

From Click2Houston.com:

The Castle Doctrine permits people to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property.

State Sen. Mario Gallegos was one of the supporters of the bill.

"The Castle Doctrine -- you have the right to protect your domicile and your castle," Gallegos said.

But Gallegos said that if it's a neighbor pulling the trigger, he has to have been asked to protect the property.

That may not have been the case, according to the 911 call.

911 Operator: "Do you know your neighbors?"

Caller: "No, I really don't know these neighbors. I know the neighbors on the other side really well. I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something."

"Just on pure assumption and not seeing the police record, I would think that this case does not come under the Castle Doctrine," Gallegos said.

Enough said, mom2bfeebs why even waste your time? as much as I love living in houston one thing my wife and I always laugh about is "It's 2007 and Texas is still not a progressive state" lol some people's thinking will never change.

We have the fourth largest city in the country and we still don't even have a decent public transportation

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by usc619

Enough said, mom2bfeebs why even waste your time? as much as I love living in houston one thing my wife and I always laugh about is "It's 2007 and Texas is still not a progressive state" lol some people's thinking will never change.

We have the fourth largest city in the country and we still don't even have a decent public transportation

I am sorry, but I cannot let this one go...even though it might be OT. What do you mean by "progressive state"? And are you a native Texan? If you are, then you have an unquestionable right to speak. If you are not, then your use of the third person possessive "we" is not applicable.

Anway, define, specifically, what it means to be "progressive" Hell's belles, one makes "progress" if they walk toward the end of a cliff.

[usc619]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

I am sorry, but I cannot let this one go...even though it might be OT. What do you mean by "progressive state"? And are you a native Texan? If you are, then you have an unquestionable right to speak. If you are not, then your use of the third person possessive "we" is not applicable.

Anway, define, specifically, what it means to be "progressive" Hell's belles, one makes "progress" if they walk toward the end of a cliff.

No, not a native Texan just a land/home owner ( I guess that's makes me just as much of an texan as anyone else )