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.
Most adults know how to distinguish between legitimate self defense and execution-style murder. Why can't you two?
Even if they were "drugged-up teens" up to no good, that does not give you the right to murder. It gives you the right to initial self defense and a call to the police to put them behind bars.
Why is this even controversial?
What if one of your family members or friends was involved in some sort of a break-and-entry situation, and after they were shot in the arm / leg / somewhere that incapacitated them, the cop or the security guard walked up and blew their brains out? Do you really think that would be justified? You think that every criminal who is apprehended should just be executed on the spot without any sort of a trial?
I will defend me and my home as I see fit. If you're too stupid, drugged up, or arrogant that you break into a house that IS NOT YOURS, you might get shot. I'm not going to wait and see if you're up to no good. I'm not going to wait for the cops to come and find my dead body.
I can guarantee you that my family members or friends wouldn't be involved in ANY sort of breaking and entering, but if they were, I'd say "hey, probably shouldn't have acted like a criminal. Because it's a dangerous way to act, and you MIGHT GET KILLED."
As for you last question - yes. I often talk about the need for an "execution gun". You're caught red-handed committing a violent crime (and BREAKING into my home while I am there IS a violent crime IMO), and you might get that sentence handed to you.
True, which is why if you are serious about using lethal force for your personal defense, you should train not only in how to fire a weapon, target acquisition and grouping, but also in basic expectations and approaches to a given scenario. Not to mention, the person if they want to protect themselves, should really read up on the details of their local and state laws concerning this process. By doing so, like your example, a toaster fire never becomes a big fire.
Those years of Navy firefighting training came in handy at home. Wife was cooking and some spilled over and caught fire. Wife ran screaming. I walked up, put the lid on the pot, turned off the burner, and grabbed the fire extinguisher with pin pulled ready to fire. She kept yelling "shoot it, shoot it, shoot it". Think of the fire extinguisher as your weapon and the chemical agent inside as your ammo. You don't waste ammo. If the fire got bigger, I'd use the extinguisher. Instead it quickly burned itself out and I still have the fire extinguisher. If I wasn't home when it happened, we would have lost the home.
The way I was taught to use my Beretta 92F by the Marine Corps was to shoot twice, in rapid succession (a.k.a. "double tap"), aiming first at center mass (the chest), then at the head. Additionally, as a hunter I know better than to approach a wounded and potentially dangerous animal without first being absolutely certain it is dead.
Yep, such techniques are most efficient in putting down your target. Even seen a triple burst suggested (two to the chest, one to the head) unofficially by some officers. Maximizes hit chance and the head shot can be reasoned off as recoil adjustment from the multiple bursts. Though for multiple targets, a two shot burst is the best option due to time and efficiency.
Oh come on, quit the romanticizing of the old man. Conversely, I'm not going to sugar coat the kids -- they put themselves in danger breaking into a man's home. The argument is that his subsequent actions after shooting them were completely over the top and out of line. The castle doctrine absolutely would not hold any water here. Shooting them -- regardless of where -- is the extent of the castle doctrine. Walking up to two prone, incapacitated individuals and making the decision to execute them is manslaughter/murder. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that.
The old man was angry and exacted his anger upon those kids, plain and simple. We can argue vigilante justice ad nauseum, but we are a law and order society. It's as simple as that. He deserves whatever he has coming to him.
And regardless of whether us internet commandoes feel any sympathy, those kids had parents and siblings who are grieving right now.
I agree. I'm a single woman who lives alone, I'm a gun owner, I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment and Texas's castle laws, and I would vote to indict AND convict this guy based on what I've heard so far.
It sounds like a cold-blooded execution to me. That is not the point of the castle law.
I will defend me and my home as I see fit. If you're too stupid, drugged up, or arrogant that you break into a house that IS NOT YOURS, you might get shot. I'm not going to wait and see if you're up to no good. I'm not going to wait for the cops to come and find my dead body.
I can guarantee you that my family members or friends wouldn't be involved in ANY sort of breaking and entering, but if they were, I'd say "hey, probably shouldn't have acted like a criminal. Because it's a dangerous way to act, and you MIGHT GET KILLED."
As for you last question - yes. I often talk about the need for an "execution gun". You're caught red-handed committing a violent crime (and BREAKING into my home while I am there IS a violent crime IMO), and you might get that sentence handed to you.
Intent of theft is not justification of lethal force in Texas. The person has to be in the process of the crime for such to be used (you fear that by not applying such force they will deprive you of your property). Now in Texas, lethal force can be applied to a trespasser at night (not during the day without a proper staged elevation of force).
.
You might want to brush up on TX law:
A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglars while he was talking to a 911 dispatcher won't be going to trial. A grand jury on Monday declined to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in Pasadena, Texas, just outside Houston. Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor's Burglars - ABC News
I will defend me and my home as I see fit. If you're too stupid, drugged up, or arrogant that you break into a house that IS NOT YOURS, you might get shot. I'm not going to wait and see if you're up to no good. I'm not going to wait for the cops to come and find my dead body.
I can guarantee you that my family members or friends wouldn't be involved in ANY sort of breaking and entering, but if they were, I'd say "hey, probably shouldn't have acted like a criminal. Because it's a dangerous way to act, and you MIGHT GET KILLED."
As for you last question - yes. I often talk about the need for an "execution gun". You're caught red-handed committing a violent crime (and BREAKING into my home while I am there IS a violent crime IMO), and you might get that sentence handed to you.
Oh Lord....*facepalm*
The argument is NOT against self defense/gun ownership. Yes, if you break into a home "you might get shot". "You might get shot" doesn't equal "you get a gun muzzle to your chin once you've been rendered not a threat".
As for your last paragraph, last I checked we do not live in Dodge City. There is no law on the books that states that if you commit a violent crime, ordinary citizens can summarily put a gun to your head once you're down and kill you. If you go and shoot someone in defense of your home and they happen to get shot in a vital organ, that's defense. An execution is when the person is clearly down, no longer a threat, and you made the conscious decision that they were not fit to live. That, my friend, is not your right.
For good or for bad, we have laws in this society. That's what civilization is all about. If you go Judge Dredd, then you now will face the penalty for breaking the law. Trying to argue a la unsung vigilante/Falling Down is pointless.
And I wouldn't guarantee that people you know/family wouldn't commit such an act. As the wise man Rick James said so eloquently, "Drugs is a powerful thing." I have two children. I will try and do my part so that they don't get messed up/caught up in drugs, but there's about so much parents can do. The drug addict is someone's daughter/son..and while I am not gonna drum up a wellspring of sympathy for bad life choices, I will say that drugs can turn once decent people into punks, etc. Point is, some mother right now is going to live with the pain of losing her son/daughter to drugs and the knowledge that a man murdered them. If anything, this is a sobering tale for other teens who think getting high on prescription meds/recreational drugs is "cool".
A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglars while he was talking to a 911 dispatcher won't be going to trial. A grand jury on Monday declined to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in Pasadena, Texas, just outside Houston. Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor's Burglars - ABC News
/sigh
Do you know anything about that case and why he was cleared?
The burglars:
1) Were already holding and leaving with their stolen goods from his neighbor when they were encountered. (ie their intent was established through action).
2) They approached him on his property at night (automatically justifies lethal force in Texas).
That is why he was cleared.
They were already in the act of stealing, intent had already been validated.
Not only that, but the the man did more than he was required to. He even called out to them, told them to drop the stuff, and warned them not to approach him or he would shoot. He shot in a necessary manner to defend life and his "neighbors" property which is also legal.
Seems like you need to do a little bit more reading yourself, or maybe you just need to work on the critical reading part as your understanding seems to be what is lacking here.
I have conflicting feelings on this but in the end, I don't want to live in a state where you can basically execute two human beings in your house and not go to jail.
This man is going to jail. How long is for a jury to decide.
Where, wonder, is the "conflict"? You said it nicely " I don't want to live in a state where you can basically execute two human beings in your house and not go to jail." Why isn't that the takeaway for everyone here? If we can get to the bottom of that apparent paradox. we can possibly discover why our country, despite having so much, ranks at the bottom, absolute bottom, of every ranking for which being at the bottom is bad and at the absolute top of every ranking for which being at the top is bad.
H
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.
