Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Or maybe we should allow you to do what you are asking to be allowed to do. Have your wish. But if you are wrong even one time....you get put away for a 1/4 of your life expectancy. The DA can then prosecute your case, since you were so gung-ho to shoot, as felony manslaughter and should serve 20 without parole. That would be just peachy for you mandatory sentence folks that think that you can shoot anyone at anytime. At least then there would be a "deterrent" for some of you idiots.

There are two problems with this:

1) Prosecuting people for mistakes has the side effect of discouraging correct behavior.
2) Police officers kill innocent people on a fairly regular basis (happens at least once every couple of months) and are almost never prosecuted. These citizens can be considered to be acting as a sort of police officer, making them less liable for their actions.

Your first point is exactly what my point was...

Allowing people to skate without any punishment whatsoever for mistakes has the side effect of allowing some people the thoughts that they can shoot anyone at any time and just say....Oops, my bad.

You second point is something that is unfortunate, but it is also something that the shooter(s) involved are trained and when/if something like that happens, they are investigated and some sort of disciplinary action is taken (even if criminal charges aren't).

I think you missed my point. Let's say that I am in a state where CCW is legal. I catch someone in the act of raping a woman. In shooting them (killing someone committing a rape is generally legal in any state IIRC), the bullet goes through the person, but then ricochets, goes through a window some distance away, and kills someone sleeping in their bedroom. Now, what would prosecuting me do? The odds of such a thing happening are probably a million to one, but it does happen. If prosecuted, everyone else with a CCW would be far, far less likely to fire their weapon (and CCW holders almost never do as it is) because they would be afraid that despite the fact that they would save a life, they would go to prison. It would have the same effect as prosecuting everyone who got in a car accident where another person was killed (and drugs/alcohol were not involved)...nobody would want to drive.

This also gets into the second point where they are acting in the capacity of law enforcement officers.

You and I are talking about the same exact thing but from opposite sides of the fence. I believe that you have a right to do what you described. I also feel that you should not be prosecuted in some freak accident circumstance as you described but the felony in progress claim needs to be fully investigated.

However, I also feel that the idiot in the OP should be prosecuted because there was no clear danger to himself or anyone else AT THE TIME of the shooting. He was clearly sporting a Ron Jeremy size hard on thinking about his chance to get to shoot someone from the 911 transcripts.

The law in TX is poorly written so as to give unabated pathways to murder with the claim that they were witnessed committing a felony at the time. There needs to be a common sense middle ground to both sides of this equation and TX does not come close to this from the side of respect for human life and the opposite side goes to far in restricting people's rights from self defense in other states.

I agree that there needs to be a middle ground, but I think that is largely impossible to legislate. Since it is all going to depend on the circumstances, Texas has decided to take a "the homeowner is right by default and anything otherwise has to be proven." Most other states have a policy of "you have to prove that a life was in imminent danger and there was no possibility of escape." Both viewpoints are valid in their own way. One restricts the right of someone to defend themselves while the other restricts the rights of the perpetrator. How do you come to a middle ground in that? I don't think you can. You have to accept that either a few innocent homeowners die or that those committing somewhat minor crimes will die. It would be nice if we could have a single person (preferably God) preside over every case like this to be able to hand down clear, consistent rulings, but unfortunately we don't have it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

They were caught in the act and that makes them fair game. The neighbor has a 911 recording to back up his side of the story. Most of the anti arguments on this topic seem to stem from a lack of reading comprehension or transference of their own base motives to the neighbor.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
They were caught in the act and that makes them fair game. The neighbor has a 911 recording to back up his side of the story. Most of the anti arguments on this topic seem to stem from a lack of reading comprehension or transference of their own base motives to the neighbor.

I don't think that you make make the transference argument in my case. My transference would have had him gathering as much info as possible and staying in his own house so as to not put his own self and family in danger.

IF the criminals were not hit and had weapons also, what would have stopped them from firing back at Rambo and then going into his house also for a "bonus round" raid of his own property?

His side of the story, according to the recording, is that he was going to shoot these men no matter what without any positive way of verifying that what they were doing was in fact, criminal in nature.

The guy was an idiot with a cowboy mentality that should not be applauded.

Edit: Within the first 20 seconds of the call he says "I've got a shotgun do you want me to go out there?"

 

[jhbball]

Yeah, this is murder.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
They were caught in the act and that makes them fair game. The neighbor has a 911 recording to back up his side of the story. Most of the anti arguments on this topic seem to stem from a lack of reading comprehension or transference of their own base motives to the neighbor.

No, it doesn't. That's the entire point that you seem to be missing. I understand perfectly what happened, this neighbor had the same cowboy attitude that you have, one that I don't think is practically or morally defensible. The fact that someone is committing a crime doesn't give you the right to kill them, period. I don't give a shit about motivations, I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing...but he wasn't. Using deadly force to defend yourself or someone else is one thing, appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner is something else entirely.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

No, we don't know those facts but apparently some people are ready to act as his judge, jury, and executioner anyway.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

No, we don't know those facts but apparently some people are ready to act as his judge, jury, and executioner anyway.

That seems to go both ways. Most of the discussion here seems to be driven by the numerous comments made indicating that it doesn't really matter, that shooting them was justified and a good idea regardless of the situation.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

If they ended up threatening him, at that point shooting them would be OK...but I don't think you could say that he acted responsible and correctly in any case. The details we DO know are that he went after them with a gun when there was no self-defense reason to do so and ended up shooting them. Whether or not he eventually ended up in a situation where he needed to shoot them, the fact is that he didn't start out that way.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

If they ended up threatening him, at that point shooting them would be OK...but I don't think you could say that he acted responsible and correctly in any case. The details we DO know are that he went after them with a gun when there was no self-defense reason to do so and ended up shooting them. Whether or not he eventually ended up in a situation where he needed to shoot them, the fact is that he didn't start out that way.

He was stopping a crime in progress. The only difference between the police and every other citizen is that it's the police's full time job to enforce the law, everyone else has other day jobs.

Your overlords won't always be there to protect you, and everytime you decry someone doling out some real-time justice, you're contributing to the pussification of America.

Hang 'em high and often. :thumbsup:

By the way, like I've said all along, this guy will never face charges, because even the lib-tard Harris County DA knows that no jury in the lone star state would convict him.

Our laws work for us just fine. If you have a problem with them, stay the hell out of Texas.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I saw an interview this AM on MSNBC and the lawyer that they had on from Houston said that he will certainly be charged.

Edit: The lawyer stated that he and his legal team are going to have an incredibly difficult time proving that he was in danger considering he placed himself in the situation by going outside to confront them.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

If they ended up threatening him, at that point shooting them would be OK...but I don't think you could say that he acted responsible and correctly in any case. The details we DO know are that he went after them with a gun when there was no self-defense reason to do so and ended up shooting them. Whether or not he eventually ended up in a situation where he needed to shoot them, the fact is that he didn't start out that way.

That's your opinion, not fact. The fact is that he went outside and he had a gun and he had expressed intent on stopping the crime and/or criminals. That's all 100% legal, moral, ethical, etc. It is completely legal to carry a gun around on your property, it is completely legal to go outside, and it is completely legal to attempt to stop a crime in progress. So up until the actual trigger pull we do know that he was acting legally, reasonably, and responsibly. The only question is rather he fired with cause, or without.

You can have the personal opinion that it's wrong to confront a criminal, but you'll never ever be able to support it meaningfully, or prove that it's a 'fact'.

I, for instance, have a gun on me 24/7/365. I also do not allow meaningful crime to be committed in my presence. That doesn't mean I'm looking to shoot people however. I will only escalate my force as necessary. Everyone is allowed (and in my opinion personally responsible/obligated) to act to prevent wrongness in their presence...that includes the commission of crimes. Should that act result in an escalation of violence resulting in injury/death/damages that's just too bad, and is a direct result of the criminal action, not the lawful attempt to prevent such action while protecting oneself. It is the act that instigates...the force which changes the status quo, which is responsible for subsequent results. Therefore the act of breaking the law makes the criminal solely responsible for what comes after, because it was his/her action which changed things from their normal state. In my opinion at least.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I saw an interview this AM on MSNBC and the lawyer that they had on from Houston said that he will certainly be charged.

Edit: The lawyer stated that he and his legal team are going to have an incredibly difficult time proving that he was in danger considering he placed himself in the situation by going outside to confront them.

Just a liberal legal consultant. Unless it was the District Attorney, his opinion doesn't mean squat. Come to think of it, the Harris County DA is a liberal douchebag, so his opinion still doesn't mean squat.

Found this in today's news though: The woman who lives across the street from Horn says she has always seen him as a grandfather figure. ?He is the guardian of the neighborhood. He takes care of all our kids. If we ever need anything, we call him.?

Good goin' grandpa :thumbsup:

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I saw an interview this AM on MSNBC and the lawyer that they had on from Houston said that he will certainly be charged.

Edit: The lawyer stated that he and his legal team are going to have an incredibly difficult time proving that he was in danger considering he placed himself in the situation by going outside to confront them.

Just a liberal legal consultant. Unless it was the District Attorney, his opinion doesn't mean squat. Come to think of it, the Harris County DA is a liberal douchebag, so his opinion still doesn't mean squat.

Found this in today's news though: The woman who lives across the street from Horn says she has always seen him as a grandfather figure. ?He is the guardian of the neighborhood. He takes care of all our kids. If we ever need anything, we call him.?

Good goin' grandpa :thumbsup:

:thumbsup: kudos to him for a job well done

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

If they ended up threatening him, at that point shooting them would be OK...but I don't think you could say that he acted responsible and correctly in any case. The details we DO know are that he went after them with a gun when there was no self-defense reason to do so and ended up shooting them. Whether or not he eventually ended up in a situation where he needed to shoot them, the fact is that he didn't start out that way.

That's your opinion, not fact. The fact is that he went outside and he had a gun and he had expressed intent on stopping the crime and/or criminals. That's all 100% legal, moral, ethical, etc. It is completely legal to carry a gun around on your property, it is completely legal to go outside, and it is completely legal to attempt to stop a crime in progress. So up until the actual trigger pull we do know that he was acting legally, reasonably, and responsibly. The only question is rather he fired with cause, or without.

You can have the personal opinion that it's wrong to confront a criminal, but you'll never ever be able to support it meaningfully, or prove that it's a 'fact'.

I, for instance, have a gun on me 24/7/365. I also do not allow meaningful crime to be committed in my presence. That doesn't mean I'm looking to shoot people however. I will only escalate my force as necessary. Everyone is allowed (and in my opinion personally responsible/obligated) to act to prevent wrongness in their presence...that includes the commission of crimes. Should that act result in an escalation of violence resulting in injury/death/damages that's just too bad, and is a direct result of the criminal action, not the lawful attempt to prevent such action while protecting oneself. It is the act that instigates...the force which changes the status quo, which is responsible for subsequent results. Therefore the act of breaking the law makes the criminal solely responsible for what comes after, because it was his/her action which changed things from their normal state.

I'm wondering if you are at work while making this post. If you are, do you have the personal ability to dictate policy and grant yourself permission to be surfing/posting instead of working? If not, you are stealing from your employer.

Leaving work early, taking extra time for lunch, calling in sick, making personal use of company equipment and supplies, using company time to sell school fund-raisers, taking creative tax deductions, failing to disclose defects in items we sell and engaging in sweetheart deals ? stealing by any other name is still stealing.

What steps are you taking to ensure that these crimes are not taking place on your watch? Because you can be sure that you and everyone else that you know are doing these things and, as you have so righteously claimed...you are personally responsible and obligated to intercede.

Oh, that's right, you put in your little disclaimer about "meaningful". What is meaningful and why do you get to circumvent the law and decide what is or isn't? What if someone else's view of meaningful includes those items? Are they allowed to execute you? After all, they are personally responsible and obligated by your very own statements to stop what they deem "meaningful" crime.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

No, we don't know those facts but apparently some people are ready to act as his judge, jury, and executioner anyway.

That seems to go both ways. Most of the discussion here seems to be driven by the numerous comments made indicating that it doesn't really matter, that shooting them was justified and a good idea regardless of the situation.

Until the facts are know there just isn't much to discuss. I personally don't think I would shoot two burglars who were running away from me.... especially with someone else's property and unless they took a threatening posture of some kind I have a difficult time believeing someone else would do that.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

If they ended up threatening him, at that point shooting them would be OK...but I don't think you could say that he acted responsible and correctly in any case. The details we DO know are that he went after them with a gun when there was no self-defense reason to do so and ended up shooting them. Whether or not he eventually ended up in a situation where he needed to shoot them, the fact is that he didn't start out that way.

That's your opinion, not fact. The fact is that he went outside and he had a gun and he had expressed intent on stopping the crime and/or criminals. That's all 100% legal, moral, ethical, etc. It is completely legal to carry a gun around on your property, it is completely legal to go outside, and it is completely legal to attempt to stop a crime in progress. So up until the actual trigger pull we do know that he was acting legally, reasonably, and responsibly. The only question is rather he fired with cause, or without.

You can have the personal opinion that it's wrong to confront a criminal, but you'll never ever be able to support it meaningfully, or prove that it's a 'fact'.

I, for instance, have a gun on me 24/7/365. I also do not allow meaningful crime to be committed in my presence. That doesn't mean I'm looking to shoot people however. I will only escalate my force as necessary. Everyone is allowed (and in my opinion personally responsible/obligated) to act to prevent wrongness in their presence...that includes the commission of crimes. Should that act result in an escalation of violence resulting in injury/death/damages that's just too bad, and is a direct result of the criminal action, not the lawful attempt to prevent such action while protecting oneself. It is the act that instigates...the force which changes the status quo, which is responsible for subsequent results. Therefore the act of breaking the law makes the criminal solely responsible for what comes after, because it was his/her action which changed things from their normal state.

I'm wondering if you are at work while making this post. If you are, do you have the personal ability to dictate policy and grant yourself permission to be surfing/posting instead of working? If not, you are stealing from your employer.

Leaving work early, taking extra time for lunch, calling in sick, making personal use of company equipment and supplies, using company time to sell school fund-raisers, taking creative tax deductions, failing to disclose defects in items we sell and engaging in sweetheart deals ? stealing by any other name is still stealing.

What steps are you taking to ensure that these crimes are not taking place on your watch? Because you can be sure that you and everyone else that you know are doing these things and, as you have so righteously claimed...you are personally responsible and obligated to intercede.

Oh, that's right, you put in your little disclaimer about "meaningful". What is meaningful and why do you get to circumvent the law and decide what is or isn't? What if someone else's view of meaningful includes those items? Are they allowed to execute you? After all, they are personally responsible and obligated by your very own statements to stop what they deem "meaningful" crime.

Your last paragraph answers your first three. Meaningful crimes. Even many/most police know that it's not meaningful to prosecute a teenager for having a joint. They'll just have you put it out. Many will ignore non-reckless traffic crimes, because they aren't meaningful. There are some VERY obvious distinctions. Rape isn't jaywalking. It's not rocket science.

To answer your question, reread what I said. Stopping a crime has nothing to do with violence. If you see someone stealing you confront them, tell them to stop, place them under citizens arrest, tell them the cops have been called, or whatever else is reasonable. If they then choose to escalate the encounter to violence it's on them, not you. Hence no one is going to get shot for forgetting to return a pen a work. You'll have it mentioned, maybe even on evaluations, but that's about it. Because that is the reasonable response to a meaningless crime.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

If they ended up threatening him, at that point shooting them would be OK...but I don't think you could say that he acted responsible and correctly in any case. The details we DO know are that he went after them with a gun when there was no self-defense reason to do so and ended up shooting them. Whether or not he eventually ended up in a situation where he needed to shoot them, the fact is that he didn't start out that way.

That's your opinion, not fact. The fact is that he went outside and he had a gun and he had expressed intent on stopping the crime and/or criminals. That's all 100% legal, moral, ethical, etc. It is completely legal to carry a gun around on your property, it is completely legal to go outside, and it is completely legal to attempt to stop a crime in progress. So up until the actual trigger pull we do know that he was acting legally, reasonably, and responsibly. The only question is rather he fired with cause, or without.

You can have the personal opinion that it's wrong to confront a criminal, but you'll never ever be able to support it meaningfully, or prove that it's a 'fact'.

I, for instance, have a gun on me 24/7/365. I also do not allow meaningful crime to be committed in my presence. That doesn't mean I'm looking to shoot people however. I will only escalate my force as necessary. Everyone is allowed (and in my opinion personally responsible/obligated) to act to prevent wrongness in their presence...that includes the commission of crimes. Should that act result in an escalation of violence resulting in injury/death/damages that's just too bad, and is a direct result of the criminal action, not the lawful attempt to prevent such action while protecting oneself. It is the act that instigates...the force which changes the status quo, which is responsible for subsequent results. Therefore the act of breaking the law makes the criminal solely responsible for what comes after, because it was his/her action which changed things from their normal state.

I'm wondering if you are at work while making this post. If you are, do you have the personal ability to dictate policy and grant yourself permission to be surfing/posting instead of working? If not, you are stealing from your employer.

Leaving work early, taking extra time for lunch, calling in sick, making personal use of company equipment and supplies, using company time to sell school fund-raisers, taking creative tax deductions, failing to disclose defects in items we sell and engaging in sweetheart deals ? stealing by any other name is still stealing.

What steps are you taking to ensure that these crimes are not taking place on your watch? Because you can be sure that you and everyone else that you know are doing these things and, as you have so righteously claimed...you are personally responsible and obligated to intercede.

Oh, that's right, you put in your little disclaimer about "meaningful". What is meaningful and why do you get to circumvent the law and decide what is or isn't? What if someone else's view of meaningful includes those items? Are they allowed to execute you? After all, they are personally responsible and obligated by your very own statements to stop what they deem "meaningful" crime.

Your last paragraph answers your first three. Meaningful crimes. Even many/most police know that it's not meaningful to prosecute a teenager for having a joint. They'll just have you put it out. Many will ignore non-reckless traffic crimes, because they aren't meaningful. There are some VERY obvious distinctions. Rape isn't jaywalking. It's not rocket science.

And many believe that the law is the law is the law. Are you perfectly fine if one of those types executes you, a family member or friend for committing a crime that, to them, is meaningful?

It's a simple yes or no question.

Edit: I want you to describe why this "grandpa" gets to decide what is meaningful yet someone that believes that all sin/crime is equal doesn't by your double standard. Because, in my eyes, a theft of some personal property, while an inconvenience, is not really meaningful because 99.9% of all things taken can usually be replaced by running to the mall.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

If they ended up threatening him, at that point shooting them would be OK...but I don't think you could say that he acted responsible and correctly in any case. The details we DO know are that he went after them with a gun when there was no self-defense reason to do so and ended up shooting them. Whether or not he eventually ended up in a situation where he needed to shoot them, the fact is that he didn't start out that way.

That's your opinion, not fact. The fact is that he went outside and he had a gun and he had expressed intent on stopping the crime and/or criminals. That's all 100% legal, moral, ethical, etc. It is completely legal to carry a gun around on your property, it is completely legal to go outside, and it is completely legal to attempt to stop a crime in progress. So up until the actual trigger pull we do know that he was acting legally, reasonably, and responsibly. The only question is rather he fired with cause, or without.

You can have the personal opinion that it's wrong to confront a criminal, but you'll never ever be able to support it meaningfully, or prove that it's a 'fact'.

I, for instance, have a gun on me 24/7/365. I also do not allow meaningful crime to be committed in my presence. That doesn't mean I'm looking to shoot people however. I will only escalate my force as necessary. Everyone is allowed (and in my opinion personally responsible/obligated) to act to prevent wrongness in their presence...that includes the commission of crimes. Should that act result in an escalation of violence resulting in injury/death/damages that's just too bad, and is a direct result of the criminal action, not the lawful attempt to prevent such action while protecting oneself. It is the act that instigates...the force which changes the status quo, which is responsible for subsequent results. Therefore the act of breaking the law makes the criminal solely responsible for what comes after, because it was his/her action which changed things from their normal state.

I'm wondering if you are at work while making this post. If you are, do you have the personal ability to dictate policy and grant yourself permission to be surfing/posting instead of working? If not, you are stealing from your employer.

Leaving work early, taking extra time for lunch, calling in sick, making personal use of company equipment and supplies, using company time to sell school fund-raisers, taking creative tax deductions, failing to disclose defects in items we sell and engaging in sweetheart deals ? stealing by any other name is still stealing.

What steps are you taking to ensure that these crimes are not taking place on your watch? Because you can be sure that you and everyone else that you know are doing these things and, as you have so righteously claimed...you are personally responsible and obligated to intercede.

Oh, that's right, you put in your little disclaimer about "meaningful". What is meaningful and why do you get to circumvent the law and decide what is or isn't? What if someone else's view of meaningful includes those items? Are they allowed to execute you? After all, they are personally responsible and obligated by your very own statements to stop what they deem "meaningful" crime.

Your last paragraph answers your first three. Meaningful crimes. Even many/most police know that it's not meaningful to prosecute a teenager for having a joint. They'll just have you put it out. Many will ignore non-reckless traffic crimes, because they aren't meaningful. There are some VERY obvious distinctions. Rape isn't jaywalking. It's not rocket science.

And many believe that the law is the law is the law. Are you perfectly fine if one of those types executes you, a family member or friend for committing a crime that, to them, is meaningful?

It's a simple yes or no question.

And wholly outside the scope of this discussion. You've created it as a strawman to attempt to cast derision upon me, and therefore my position. However neither is going to happen because I very carefully crafted my initial posts, as well as my responses to you.

Oh, and I added an edit on the post you just quoted so you might want to glance at that before responding to this one.

To somewhat answer your question, however. If 'the law is the law is the law' then not only would the old man in the story not be charged (since there is a law on the books giving him 100% right to do what he did), but many states can once again enjoy the freedom to act responsibly against crime. For instance in Washington, according to the 'law' we are allowed to use lethal force to prevent ANY felony in our presence. It is only because lawyers and judges have chosen to ignore or work around the law that people are currently prosecuted if they choose to do so without imminent threat of harm. So in your scenario, I still win.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

And wholly outside the scope of this discussion. You've created it as a strawman to attempt to cast derision upon me, and therefore my position. However neither is going to happen because I very carefully crafted my initial posts, as well as my responses to you.

Oh, and I added an edit on the post you just quoted so you might want to glance at that before responding to this one.

This gentleman's motives ARE the scope of this discussion. You are arguing that he was stopping what amounted to him to be a meaningful crime (and by your own definition, you agree).

I am asking, if I believe that ALL THEFT is equally meaningful and take the personal responsibility that you say I am morally obligated to take and shoot you in the head for theft for using company resources without proper permission....would you want your family to vindicate me?

I am not creating a strawman but am merely showing you the logical conclusion that you and the others that are applauding this man seem to be missing. That you and I are all criminals in one way or another and could be held "responsible" for our actions by someone with a hair trigger and a pea brain that feels "threatened" when the pull a weapon on us and then think we are confronting them.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Edit: I want you to describe why this "grandpa" gets to decide what is meaningful yet someone that believes that all sin/crime is equal doesn't by your double standard. Because, in my eyes, a theft of some personal property, while an inconvenience, is not really meaningful because 99.9% of all things taken can usually be replaced by running to the mall.

Really? You can? Where is this mall? I desperately need to pick up another 11 years of life, some safety, a box of peace of mind, a sixpack of trust in my fellow man, and while I'm at it lower my insurance rates after the increase in crime has caused them to go up proportionately. Because, you see, that's really what theft takes from you. The items are nothing, but the psychological damage is immense, and the economic impact far-reaching...to say nothing of the sentimental losses and the loss of time it took you to earn the money to buy those things.

I have never claimed that grandpa did anything of the kind. Trying to stop a theft in progress is not only legal, it's nearly inarguably moral and ethical. The fact that he had a gun on him at the time is 100% irrelevant. You can have a pencil in your hands all day long, but if you stab someone in the eye with it (without provocation) you've committed a crime. He was reasonable and rational and legal in what he did...right up until the second he pulled the trigger. He might have been legal in doing that too, but we don't have the facts to back it up. Up until that point, however, we know without question that he acted correctly.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

And wholly outside the scope of this discussion. You've created it as a strawman to attempt to cast derision upon me, and therefore my position. However neither is going to happen because I very carefully crafted my initial posts, as well as my responses to you.

Oh, and I added an edit on the post you just quoted so you might want to glance at that before responding to this one.

This gentleman's motives ARE the scope of this discussion. You are arguing that he was stopping what amounted to him to be a meaningful crime (and by your own definition, you agree).

I am asking, if I believe that ALL THEFT is equally meaningful and take the personal responsibility that you say I am morally obligated to take and shoot you in the head for theft for using company resources without proper permission....would you want your family to vindicate me?

I am not creating a strawman but am merely showing you the logical conclusion that you and the others that are applauding this man seem to be missing. That you and I are all criminals in one way or another and could be held "responsible" for our actions by someone with a hair trigger and a pea brain that feels "threatened" when the pull a weapon on us and then think we are confronting them.

His motives were to stop the crime. That motive is inarguably moral, ethical, and legal. His METHODS are in question in this case. However, as I've pointed out, the law allows for his particular method even if he wasn't in imminent danger. However if we ignore the third person property law and go purely on imminent harm, then we have to know what transpired outside in order to make the correct judgement.

If you feel that ALL THEFT is equally meaningful then you have the right to take action to stop it. You don't have the right to kill me of course, not just for that. I'm fine if you have a gun on you when you talk to me though, because I always assume that everyone has a weapon at all times anyway. When you confront me if I admit my crime and surrender myself to punishment then all is well. If I run away and am no threat to you then unless you have authorization under the law to take my life then you have to let me go, or at least not shoot me in the back. If I threaten you, or attempt to engage you, then I expect you to fire at me until I am dead and it would be 100% my own fault.

And that is why we need to know all of the facts before passing judgement. His actions up until he pulled the trigger ARE NOT in question. It is ONLY what directly caused him to fire that could result in charges against him.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I saw an interview this AM on MSNBC and the lawyer that they had on from Houston said that he will certainly be charged.

Edit: The lawyer stated that he and his legal team are going to have an incredibly difficult time proving that he was in danger considering he placed himself in the situation by going outside to confront them.

Just a liberal legal consultant. Unless it was the District Attorney, his opinion doesn't mean squat. Come to think of it, the Harris County DA is a liberal douchebag, so his opinion still doesn't mean squat.

Found this in today's news though: The woman who lives across the street from Horn says she has always seen him as a grandfather figure. ?He is the guardian of the neighborhood. He takes care of all our kids. If we ever need anything, we call him.?

Good goin' grandpa :thumbsup:

I like how you say that those you consider 'liberal' don't have meaningful opinions. What's also strange is how I've noticed that whatever you don't tend to like suddenly becomes "liberal". Seems like a pavlovian response to me.

Please enlighten me by letting me know who can have opinions on this case that will mean 'squat'?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzitUntil the facts are know there just isn't much to discuss. I personally don't think I would shoot two burglars who were running away from me.... especially with someone else's property and unless they took a threatening posture of some kind I have a difficult time believeing someone else would do that.

Not knowing all the facts didn't stop Joe Horn from shooting two "alleged" burglars of a home whose owner he doesn't even know. Have they even found the home owners yet?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Do we know for sure yet what happened when he confronted them? Were they threatening, did they advance on him, or into his property? Or did they turn and run immediately, did the man step off of his own property with the weapon? Until we know that, we know nothing useful.

Although it appears legal under Texas law I would agree that he was out of line if he fired without provocation. However if he merely went to the edge of his property and commanded them to surrender, or warned them that police were on the way, and they threatened him or came onto his property then he acted responsibly and correctly in every way.

If they ended up threatening him, at that point shooting them would be OK...but I don't think you could say that he acted responsible and correctly in any case. The details we DO know are that he went after them with a gun when there was no self-defense reason to do so and ended up shooting them. Whether or not he eventually ended up in a situation where he needed to shoot them, the fact is that he didn't start out that way.

He was stopping a crime in progress. The only difference between the police and every other citizen is that it's the police's full time job to enforce the law, everyone else has other day jobs.

Your overlords won't always be there to protect you, and everytime you decry someone doling out some real-time justice, you're contributing to the pussification of America.

Hang 'em high and often. :thumbsup:

By the way, like I've said all along, this guy will never face charges, because even the lib-tard Harris County DA knows that no jury in the lone star state would convict him.

Our laws work for us just fine. If you have a problem with them, stay the hell out of Texas.

What the heck are you talking about? I know you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense, and the way you KNOW I know that is because I said so. In fact, I've said it multiple times. Only this wasn't self defense, and it wasn't defending someone else, it was being a vigilante. And if you want to debate THAT particular activity, be my guest, but don't pretend it's something it's not.

But you want to know what's contributing to the "pussification" of America? It's you, and everyone like you who can't tell the difference between being a man and being an asshole. Life is not an action movie, and I can't help it if you don't feel manly unless you can talk big about shooting people. But I don't think our society should center around helping you compensate for your anxious masculinity. That's what you're doing, and that's what the dumbass neighbor in this story was doing.

I'll say it again. I have no problem with self-defense, even violent or lethal self-defense, if the situation calls for it. People who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety, and who refuse to help if someone else is in danger, piss me off to no end. But you guys at the other end of the spectrum piss me off just as much. Refusing to ever resort to violence to preserve some sense of being above it all is stupid, and wanting to always resort to violence even when it's not necessary just to prove to the world how manly you are is just as stupid. And at the end of the day, the folks at both ends of the spectrum are equally dangerous to the rest of us. If you want to be high-minded, join a philosophy club. If you want to feel manly, join a free weights gym. But when it comes to self-defense, practicality rules.

Edit: And I'm not making a legal argument here, I'm just saying that whatever the law says, this guy acted like a moron. And seriously, you couldn't PAY me to live in Texas. I like the more permissive attitude about self-defense Texas has, but other than that, I'd take San Francisco over Texas any day of the week