burglary now punishable by death in texas

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
The 911 tape was all over the radio when this happened. He went outside to confront them. He told the 911 operator that he was "gunna get em" We all thought he was going to go to jail for this. The tape condemned him. Strange stuff.

Not at all...he did nothing illegal or immoral by confronting them. He did something stupid by telling 911 he was gonna shoot em, kill em, get em, etc, but he wasn't on trial for stupidity.

In the off topic thread the law is quoted and states what he did as legal. I never knew that.
The russ martin show has a lawyer on the "crew" and he thought the guy was toast.

Does not really bother me, I don't rob homes.
The fact that is was all recorded was interesting.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is one of a many reasons I will never live in Texas. I do not want a bunch of gun slinging vigilantes for neighbors firing rounds into my property despite their best intentions. People make mistakes and those mistakes in this kind of scenario could place my family in great danger.

So you'd rather live in a place that doesn't allow you to own guns, and will punish you for defending yourself or others? Because there's this place called England...

Living in Texas, I've never seen anyone haphazardly discharge a firearm around other people's homes. I've fired a shot, but it went directly into the scumbag I was aiming at on my porch.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Living in Texas, I've never seen anyone haphazardly discharge a firearm around other people's homes. I've fired a shot, but it went directly into the scumbag I was aiming at on my porch.

Now that's real gun control.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is one of a many reasons I will never live in Texas. I do not want a bunch of gun slinging vigilantes for neighbors firing rounds into my property despite their best intentions. People make mistakes and those mistakes in this kind of scenario could place my family in great danger.

So you'd rather live in a place that doesn't allow you to own guns, and will punish you for defending yourself or others? Because there's this place called England...

Living in Texas, I've never seen anyone haphazardly discharge a firearm around other people's homes. I've fired a shot, but it went directly into the scumbag I was aiming at on my porch.

No, I just want my neighbors to call the cops instead of trying to shoot someone that they believe is a criminal on my property. I really don't care if the cops can make it in time or not. I would rather have my crap stolen than risk a bullet hitting someone that was mistaken for a criminal or the bullet missing the target and flying through my window. I want to feel safe knowing that any random dumb ass who thinks he is a hero isn't going to try and do something stupid. As for the rest of the security whether it involves ownership of a firearm, security systems, bars, etc I would prefer to take charge of that on my own without my neighbors getting involved.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is one of a many reasons I will never live in Texas. I do not want a bunch of gun slinging vigilantes for neighbors firing rounds into my property despite their best intentions. People make mistakes and those mistakes in this kind of scenario could place my family in great danger.

So you'd rather live in a place that doesn't allow you to own guns, and will punish you for defending yourself or others? Because there's this place called England...

Living in Texas, I've never seen anyone haphazardly discharge a firearm around other people's homes. I've fired a shot, but it went directly into the scumbag I was aiming at on my porch.

No, I just want my neighbors to call the cops instead of trying to shoot someone that they believe is a criminal on my property. I really don't care if the cops can make it in time or not. I would rather have my crap stolen than risk a bullet hitting someone that was mistaken for a criminal or the bullet missing the target and flying through my window. I want to feel safe knowing that any random dumb ass who thinks he is a hero isn't going to try and do something stupid. As for the rest of the security whether it involves ownership of a firearm, security systems, bars, etc I would prefer to take charge of that on my own without my neighbors getting involved.

I can only assume if you were being beaten and raped in your front lawn, you'd prefer your neighbor put his gun away and go call the police rather than risk your life by helping you.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: jman19
I don't know about you guys, but I see something overly cowardly about shooting two men in their backs. I can see how it might happen with one (quick reaction), but to shoot the second guy that way? Just smells like a reason to kill to me.

I dunno what it's like where you live, but burglary is rampant in Texas, lots of the burglaries turn violent, and we're developing 0 tolerance for this kind of shit.

I also don't personally know a soul that gives a flying f*ck about illegal immigrant career criminals.

My post has nothing to do with illegal immigrant criminals... I don't care who they are, and you can sure as hell bet the guy who shot them in the back didn't know this either.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I can only assume if you were being beaten and raped in your front lawn, you'd prefer your neighbor put his gun away and go call the police rather than risk your life by helping you.

Considering the odds of that happening on my front lawn are ridiculously slim, I will gladly take that risk if it prevents dumb people from potentially doing dumb shit with their guns on my property. The last thing I need is someone getting shot on my property when they were doing nothing wrong. For example, if my kid decides to hop the fence because he got locked out and my neighbor didn't know who this person hopping my fence is and decides to shoot first and ask questions later I might be a little upset. I do not assume that the average joe is smart enough to not do such a thing. Catch my drift?

 

[lupi]

What the 911 operator said doesn't mean shit when the law on the books says you're free to use firearms as response to theft of personal property.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: daniel1113


This is a textbook example of elitism. You state that you want to be selective about "who we hand them [handguns] out to" as if one should even need permission from our government to make a gun purchase in the first place. Next, you make the assumption that there is a group of individuals that should able to pick and choose who gets to own a gun because they know better than the rest of us. You also include yourself in that group. So, you think you should have the power to select who owns firearms in this country. You think you know better than the rest of us. That is the definition of elitism.

And, comparing firearms to all those other examples is moot, as none of those are activities are explicitly protected by the Constitution. Should we also elect a committee that selects who can and cannot exercise their first amendment rights?

Just a question, did a group of elitist create the Constitution in your opinion?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Not at all.

Do you KNOW they were no threat? Do we have an absolute report of what happened once he went outside? Because if they threatened him in ANY way he was justified.

Even if not (in which case his actions WERE illegal and morally questionable) the law was followed completely. He was brought to a grand jury, they said he's free, that's the end of it. I totally support that decision as, regardless of the legality of his actions, two absolutely horrible wastes of human flesh will no longer plague the world and I celebrate that. I just wish every criminal like them would face the same fate.

What don't you understand about shooting someone in the back. If you shoot them in the back, they are not facing you. That means they are running away from you, and not running at you. How is a person running away from you a threat? 😕

Do you have the IQ of a kumquat?

Having your back to someone is NOT running away from them, and even if it is if it happened subsequent to a threat and during the process of firing the weapon there is no question that it was justified.

In other words:

A man with a shotgun goes out and says stop, the police are on the way.

One or both of the criminals says "we'll fucking kill you old man" and takes a step towards him.

The man raises the shotgun to defend his life, believing that he is reasonably in danger.

As he does so the two men naturally stop their forward movement and begin to turn away.

The man, already committed to an action which takes only a second or two to complete, fires the gun at the two threats.

The end result is a lawful shooting, despite the fact that the criminals were hit in the back.

I'm not saying that IS what happened, I'm saying that COULD happen, and if you don't have proof, if there is reasonable doubt, then you MUST side with the good guy against the KNOWN criminals.

Fortunately, we have the eyewitness testimony of a police officer.

http://patterico.com/2007/12/07/joe-horn-has-a-problem/

He *may* have been justified in shooting the first burglar, but the second burglar was obviously fleeing and no threat at all. And fortunately this nutjob didn't go after the plainclothes officer parked out front, if he had killed a police officer he'd surely be in jail.

Wrong again. He is justified under state penal code to "stop" someone from fleeing the scene of a burglary if he believes that there is no other way of recovering the stolen property.

I meant morally he wasn't justified, the case was obviously a slam dunk legally. Any rational person should realize that his use of force was unwarranted and excessive. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like rational people write the laws in Texas.

 

[spacejamz]

I wonder what the crime rate would be in an area compromised of all the people here who are siding with the burglars on this issue. The houses wouldn't even need locks on their front doors and the cars would not need alarms because the houses and cars only contain a few thousand dollars worth of material possessions. Just let the burglars come in and clean them out every once in awhile since they would be out on the street in a few months if they were caught anyway.

The liberals would be happy that the burglars are alive and unharmed and the thieves would be happy because they have more stuff to sell to support their drug habit. Everyone else would happy because their stuff wasn't stolen....Win/Win for everyone!!!

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Nebor
I can only assume if you were being beaten and raped in your front lawn, you'd prefer your neighbor put his gun away and go call the police rather than risk your life by helping you.

Considering the odds of that happening on my front lawn are ridiculously slim, I will gladly take that risk if it prevents dumb people from potentially doing dumb shit with their guns on my property. The last thing I need is someone getting shot on my property when they were doing nothing wrong. For example, if my kid decides to hop the fence because he got locked out and my neighbor didn't know who this person hopping my fence is and decides to shoot first and ask questions later I might be a little upset. I do not assume that the average joe is smart enough to not do such a thing. Catch my drift?

So don't live in Texas if you don't like it... Live in DC if you want to watch your wife and daughter tag teamed by a couple of perps while you hide in the closet waiting for the cops...

This thread is about a property owner defending a neighboring property that was being burglarized. This isn't about some dumbshit shooting their kid in the woods after mistaking him for a deer, or a neighbor kid jumping the fence to use your example. Entirely different situations and you know it, but keep grasping for straws to justify the actions of a criminal versus the moral right of neighboring property owners to defend their property.

These thieves exercised free will and paid the ultimate price for a poor decision. It costs the taxpayers less money to incarcerate parasites like this and provides a wonderful deterrent effect for other would-be burglars who realize the consequence for breaking into someone's house might be greater than they are willing to deal with. God forbid we try to prevent a crime or two with a little old fashioned negative reinforcement versus putting them up in a state run motel and trying to understand their inner child...

Some people are just not wired right and exist only by victimizing the legitimate producers and citizens in this country. I won't shed a tear for any criminal who gets taken out in the act of robbing someone's home or otherwise putting a person's friend or relatives at risk. If you prefer the huggy bear approach, by all means - good luck with that.

 

[misle]

"burglary now punishable by death in texas"

It is also legal in these states:
Alabama
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Tennessee

Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii (Retreat required ouside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri (Extends Castle Doctrine to one's vehicle)
Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family)
North Carolina
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Wyoming

Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Minnesota (Homicide justified to prevent the commission of a felony in the home)
Montana (Deadly force justified to prevent felony in the home).
Utah
Washington

See HERE for more information

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Good excuse to be a vigilante. I'll walk around the city with my shotgun and when I see a crime, I'll charge and I'll be defending myself.

As much as I would love to see the day when that is allowed (and welcomed), there is a huge difference between stopping a crime that occurs around someone's home and patrolling around the town waiting for crimes to occur.

Well technically in Texas you could do that. Since we have open carry laws for shotguns and rifles. As long as you are not carrying it hoping to causes fear or a disturbance you are in the clear. 😀

And hopefully soon we will have open carry for handguns.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Nebor
I can only assume if you were being beaten and raped in your front lawn, you'd prefer your neighbor put his gun away and go call the police rather than risk your life by helping you.

Considering the odds of that happening on my front lawn are ridiculously slim, I will gladly take that risk if it prevents dumb people from potentially doing dumb shit with their guns on my property. The last thing I need is someone getting shot on my property when they were doing nothing wrong. For example, if my kid decides to hop the fence because he got locked out and my neighbor didn't know who this person hopping my fence is and decides to shoot first and ask questions later I might be a little upset. I do not assume that the average joe is smart enough to not do such a thing. Catch my drift?

So don't live in Texas if you don't like it... Live in DC if you want to watch your wife and daughter tag teamed by a couple of perps while you hide in the closet waiting for the cops...

This thread is about a property owner defending a neighboring property that was being burglarized. This isn't about some dumbshit shooting their kid in the woods after mistaking him for a deer, or a neighbor kid jumping the fence to use your example. Entirely different situations and you know it, but keep grasping for straws to justify the actions of a criminal versus the moral right of neighboring property owners to defend their property.

These thieves exercised free will and paid the ultimate price for a poor decision. It costs the taxpayers less money to incarcerate parasites like this and provides a wonderful deterrent effect for other would-be burglars who realize the consequence for breaking into someone's house might be greater than they are willing to deal with. God forbid we try to prevent a crime or two with a little old fashioned negative reinforcement versus putting them up in a state run motel and trying to understand their inner child...

Some people are just not wired right and exist only by victimizing the legitimate producers and citizens in this country. I won't shed a tear for any criminal who gets taken out in the act of robbing someone's home or otherwise putting a person's friend or relatives at risk. If you prefer the huggy bear approach, by all means - good luck with that.

What are you babbling about? I started off in this thread simply stating that this is why I will never live in Texas. Not once did I ever try to push my beliefs on what is "right" or "wrong" on to others. It was others who decided to try to convince me to believe otherwise.

 

[WHAMPOM]

BURGLERS CAUGHT IN THE ACT ARE SHOT DEAD BY SENIOR CITIZEN

Besides theives, killers and rapists, who could be against that?

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
The simple solution to all this?

Answer: Don't go around breaking into other peoples homes.

I am sure this guy didn't wake up thinking...."Hey you know what I need to shoot someone today." unlike those other 2 guys who more then likely had talked about and planned to go break into home belonging to another person.

True true, I mean these people do know they are in Texas. You take your life in your own hands when trying to pull some crap in Texas. Heck, I thnk its on the Welcome sign "Welcome, dont mess with Texas" Some things are best read literally.

 

[dmw16]

This thread sure has devolved into nonsense. We go from a discussion about a man shooting two fleeing burglars to a "wife and daughter getting tagged teamed by perps." What a vile and base way to build an argument!

If you want to make a case then do it intelligently rather than with statements that are meant to do nothing but scare.

Also, someone else mentioned something about getting raped on your front lawn. Again, very extreme. There is a big difference between a guy stealing a TV and someone raping a person.

There has been nothing but one stupid statement after another by some "contributors" to this thread.

I think the legal and moral question here is interesting especially given the recent supreme court ruling (which I thought was the right one by the way), but can we keep it above the board. There are plenty of sites on the internet that can provide useful statistics that can make a case for or against gun control and/or guns used as a means to defend life and/or property.

To make my position clear. I am pro gun as long as they are in the hands of responsible citizens who recognize the boundaries of the law in both letter and SPIRIT. What Horn did while maybe within the letter of the law was outside what I think was the spirit of it. Killing is not a just punishment for theft. A firearm should be used to protect life and life alone. Again, I know that isn't the letter of the law.

I can't get over how big into "sanctity of life" the conservative states are, but when stuff like this happens you can practically hear people hooting and hollering in joy.

Anyway, I just figured I'd say all that as this thread has turned into an Idiot Circus and I figured I'd throw my hat into the center ring.

 

[Nebor]

Force should be used to stop crimes in progress. You people just seem to think that the police should have a monopoly on that force. Every single one of us, as members of society, have a duty to intervene when we see wrong being done.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dmw16
What Horn did while maybe within the letter of the law was outside what I think was the spirit of it. Killing is not a just punishment for theft. A firearm should be used to protect life and life alone. Again, I know that isn't the letter of the law.

I have just a couple of questions regarding this then: If I cannot defend my property with any force necessary to retain possession of said property, can I truly be said to own that property? If I cannot use force, up to and including deadly force, to retain possession of my own property, then isn't it more accurate to say that I am merely temporarily holding said property contingent upon the whim of whomever may decide that they want to take my property away?

If we are required to allow a thief to take away our property without resisting (and all forms of resistance entail the potential for escalation to deadly force), then we don't own that property at all.

Would I personally shoot someone who was stealing my TV but running away? No, I wouldn't. But that's a personal decision and should not be legally mandated. The ability to own property is foundational to a society and without it, society eventually crumbles. Legally I cannot fault Horn and I do not believe that the law should be changed.

ZV

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Force should be used to stop crimes in progress. You people just seem to think that the police should have a monopoly on that force. Every single one of us, as members of society, have a duty to intervene when we see wrong being done.

Do you have any idea how chaotic it would be if everyone believed that they can do whatever they want and where ever they want to stop what they believe is a crime using force? You certainly do have a lot more faith than I do in the average person to use good judgment and take proper action when they are presented with such a scenario. Let's just keep this stuff in Texas. I'm ok with that.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm torn on this one. I'm a fervent 2nd Amendment defender, and believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves and their property with deadly force if need be, but this is definitely an edge case. I guess I'll just trust the jury system and their decision since I don't have all the facts. Still, seems like shooting people in the back is beyond the idea of defense.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm torn on this one. I'm a fervent 2nd Amendment defender, and believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves and their property with deadly force if need be, but this is definitely an edge case. I guess I'll just trust the jury system and their decision since I don't have all the facts. Still, seems like shooting people in the back is beyond the idea of defense.

Considering no one's life was in danger at the time of the shooting, I feel that this guy should have been more concerned with stopping the crime. It is perfectly clear that he was not interested in doing just that based on his 911 phone call though. Stopping the crime was not enough. He wanted to deliver justice by killing them in addition to stopping the crime. That's the moral problem here.

Now, even though I believe every word that I just stated, I feel it is only fair to note that I do not have sympathy for the criminals that got killed. "If you play with fire then you get burned." However, this is not outcome that I would like to see occur on a regular basis. We gotta draw the line somewhere and imo the idea of such a reaction become standard practice by everyone is crossing that line.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Penalty not commensurate with the crime, FTL!

While I detest criminals preying on society, no court in the land would ever issue a death sentence for household burglary. While I'll defend this guy's right to defend himself, I question his frontier justice.

He shot both unarmed men in the back. That's downright cowardly. Even the cops get taken down for that sort of itchy trigger finger.

They wernt shot for burglary but threating an old man which is commensurate.

Threatening an old man = death. Wow, what state law allows the death penalty for that?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Penalty not commensurate with the crime, FTL!

While I detest criminals preying on society, no court in the land would ever issue a death sentence for household burglary. While I'll defend this guy's right to defend himself, I question his frontier justice.

He shot both unarmed men in the back. That's downright cowardly. Even the cops get taken down for that sort of itchy trigger finger.

They wernt shot for burglary but threating an old man which is commensurate.

Threatening an old man = death. Wow, what state law allows the death penalty for that?

Furthermore, how could the two men be threatening Horn with their backs turned to him? Ridiculous. Horn clearly fabricated this story about them threatening him after he talked with his attorney.