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

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He called the cops so we know what his intentions were, but when the looked to be getting away he shot them, right. Tough luck for the burglars, in my opinion. Why should his neighbor's house be any different than his own. Us liberals are our brothers keepers.

In Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you steal. It's pretty barbaric, except for the fact, there's hardly ever any theft. If we have lots and lots of burglars dying at the scene I bet the crime rate drops.

Holy sh1t, I agree with Moonbeam... :shocked:

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He called the cops so we know what his intentions were, but when the looked to be getting away he shot them, right. Tough luck for the burglars, in my opinion. Why should his neighbor's house be any different than his own. Us liberals are our brothers keepers.

In Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you steal. It's pretty barbaric, except for the fact, there's hardly ever any theft. If we have lots and lots of burglars dying at the scene I bet the crime rate drops.

Are you suggesting we model our criminal justice system on Saudi Arabia?

You're probably right sirjonk... I've seen this before too. Maybe it is best to get out now before things get too stupid.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: teclis1023
"We have a different opinion of criminals. I'd hang them, you probably want them back on the street after rehabilitation. " (Jaskalas)

You'd hang...every criminal? Or just some? I'm confused about your statement.

Rehabilitation works. Jail doesn't. I'm not sure whose idea it was to lock a bunch of violent criminals together and then release them back into public after a few years, but obviously they didn't study psychology...or they had never met people before.

Mostly pertaining to violent crimes in which the circumstances are clear and not grey. Home invasion robbery is certainly a candidate though.

You?re right, jail isn?t working. I have a solution, you have a solution.

Black and White cases are the easiest. It's the gray cases that really stress one's beliefs on the matter.

I think we'd all be surprised by the results of actually attempting to help rehabilitate those who need it the most.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Number1
Would a cop get away with this?

I mean, is it standard operating procedure in CALIFORNIA for cops to shoot unarmed criminals running away from a burglary?

I doubt it.

Why should this guy get away with this?

the guy's not a cop. civilians aren't cops. if they were, there'd be no need for cops. everyone would be cop citizens.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He called the cops so we know what his intentions were, but when the looked to be getting away he shot them, right. Tough luck for the burglars, in my opinion. Why should his neighbor's house be any different than his own. Us liberals are our brothers keepers.

In Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you steal. It's pretty barbaric, except for the fact, there's hardly ever any theft. If we have lots and lots of burglars dying at the scene I bet the crime rate drops.

In Saudi Arabia they also sentenced a girl to jail and 90 lashes for being raped. Is that better?

link

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2
Welcome to the real world where bad things happen and the criminals get away because the police are spread few are far between, and their "Leadership" has them writing traffic tickets because they want the easy money.

This is why most normal Americans outside of the rabid liberal zones absolutely shake their heads and laugh at gun laws preventing law abiding Americans from the right to bear arms. Because for sure, at some point, these criminals would break into a house with people inside it, and - like usual - the police wouldn't be there. Better to have at least a fighting chance of protecting you and yours rather than just get F'd (sometimes literally) because someone with a gun paranoia wanted you to depend on the police. Depend on the police...I actually just laughed...that's little better than depending on the UN...

Chuck

What was that about gun control?

Of course they don't say exactly what laws they would tighten, etc but an awful lot of people apparently think gun control laws should be even stricter then they are now. I guess 60% of the country or so is "rabidly liberal".

Show me the actual area codes called and I'll comment..."nationwide" could be 40% CA, 40% some other liberal area, and 20% the rest of US.

Funny when I read those numbers though, sure seems to me the first polling date there says 51% (of whoever was actually polled, we don't know that yet) want stricter gun control laws, with 39% wanting them as now and 8% wanting less strict. Funny that the Stricter trend is decreasing, and the Same as Now trend is increasing. Shows that what we have now is parity, and in another few years - if the trend continued with this data - it'd trend to less strict laws.

Maybe people are figuring out that law abiding citizens who don't commit crimes generally anyway don't need stricter laws, whereas the criminals just don't give a F? Nah, couldn't be... :roll:

Chuck

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Number1
Would a cop get away with this?

I mean, is it standard operating procedure in CALIFORNIA for cops to shoot unarmed criminals running away from a burglary?

I doubt it.

Why should this guy get away with this?

the guy's not a cop. civilians aren't cops. if they were, there'd be no need for cops. everyone would be cop citizens.

I understand this. I am comparing his action to what cops would normaly do in this circonstance.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Number1
Would a cop get away with this?

I mean, is it standard operating procedure in CALIFORNIA for cops to shoot unarmed criminals running away from a burglary?

I doubt it.

Why should this guy get away with this?

the guy's not a cop. civilians aren't cops. if they were, there'd be no need for cops. everyone would be cop citizens.

I understand this. I am comparing his action to what cops would normaly do in this circonstance.

if the burglars were REALLY coming towards him on his lawn like he said to dispatch over the phone, then a cop would do the same thing.

 

[alchemize]

IMO - home invasion is a violent crime, regardless of if anyone is home or not (because the criminal can't know if anyone is home). It's a very different crime than stealing cards, or shoplifting. They were in the act of committing a violent crime. The question is, should a neighbor intercede much like a police officer should, making a "citizen's arrest". If either of the men were armed, even with a knife, he was justified. If they ran towards him, he was justified. If they ran away and he shot them in the back, then it should be manslaughter, not murder. Cop or citizen. Somebody should never be charged with murder if a violent crime is being committed, as the person who is committing the crime has already escalated the situation into a possible death.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Show me the actual area codes called and I'll comment..."nationwide" could be 40% CA, 40% some other liberal area, and 20% the rest of US.

Funny when I read those numbers though, sure seems to me the first polling date there says 51% (of whoever was actually polled, we don't know that yet) want stricter gun control laws, with 39% wanting them as now and 8% wanting less strict. Funny that the Stricter trend is decreasing, and the Same as Now trend is increasing. Shows that what we have now is parity, and in another few years - if the trend continued with this data - it'd trend to less strict laws.

Maybe people are figuring out that law abiding citizens who don't commit crimes generally anyway don't need stricter laws, whereas the criminals just don't give a F? Nah, couldn't be... :roll:

Chuck

These are scientific surveys using established procedures for random sampling. If you have a problem with how they are conducting this polling then you do not understand how they are doing it. Or... you don't like the data it gives you. I know what I would guess.

In addition the trend downward for making laws more strict would make sense... as gun laws have become more strict in the last 20 years. In addition the 'less strict' has pretty much stayed hovering around 6-7% (accounting for margin of error). In fact, accounting for MoE public opinion is the same about looser gun laws now as it was 16 years ago.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He called the cops so we know what his intentions were, but when the looked to be getting away he shot them, right. Tough luck for the burglars, in my opinion. Why should his neighbor's house be any different than his own. Us liberals are our brothers keepers.

In Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you steal. It's pretty barbaric, except for the fact, there's hardly ever any theft. If we have lots and lots of burglars dying at the scene I bet the crime rate drops.

Are you suggesting we model our criminal justice system on Saudi Arabia?

You're probably right sirjonk... I've seen this before too. Maybe it is best to get out now before things get too stupid.

Well you're not going to convince them that a human life, even a stealing thieving criminal, is worth more than whatever dead, innert, replaceable material piece of crap he's stealing is worth. And they aren't likely to convince you that shooting someone fleeing with property, even if it is a unique one of a kind, sentimentally valued watch left to you by your beloved deceased grandfather, is justified. So what's there to discuss?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He called the cops so we know what his intentions were, but when the looked to be getting away he shot them, right. Tough luck for the burglars, in my opinion. Why should his neighbor's house be any different than his own. Us liberals are our brothers keepers.

In Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you steal. It's pretty barbaric, except for the fact, there's hardly ever any theft. If we have lots and lots of burglars dying at the scene I bet the crime rate drops.

Are you suggesting we model our criminal justice system on Saudi Arabia?

You're probably right sirjonk... I've seen this before too. Maybe it is best to get out now before things get too stupid.

Well you're not going to convince them that a human life, even a stealing thieving criminal, is worth more than whatever dead, innert, replaceable material piece of crap he's stealing is worth. And they aren't likely to convince you that shooting someone fleeing with property, even if it is a unique one of a kind, sentimentally valued watch left to you by your beloved deceased grandfather, is justified. So what's there to discuss?

You two do realize you are responding to Moonbeam, not Nebor right? :roll:

 

[Fern]

All this discussion enforces the point that he's gonna have problems.

When you're in this situation and the authorities are trying to answer all these questions, you'd damn well beter hire an attorney. And it's unlikely to be cheap.

Geez, if it was a cop responding that shot & killed the two people you can be sure there would be an inquest too.

And given that this took place in CA, I wouldn't be surprised if the dead burglers relatives sued him in civil court. Again, an expensive defense.

I live in North Carolina and have a CCP. In doing the test/studying for it, I can tell you what he did is not allowed here. No matter how good the intentions.

You can probrably gather something about my view on self defense from my having guns and a CCP. Even so, I really really don't wanna kill anybody. When somebody gets killed, no matter the circumstances, it's always gonna be a problem and/or a big deal with teh authorities.

Fern

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87
While I really dont have a problem with 2 dead scumbags. The law I am sure doesnt approve of somebody not in direct danger going out and shooting two people to death.

If this was his home he is 100% justified. But this was a neighbor's home. I think he may be looking at excessive force at the very least, murder in some degree at the worst.

Seems about right. If my neighbors house was being robbed I would number 1 laugh because he is an asshole and a drunk but secondly, I would *probably* get my shotgun, go outside and confront them as they left. If they pulled guns, end of story. If they didn't have guns chose to ignore my warnings and fled on foot or in a car, I HIGHLY doubt that even half asleep, I would pull the trigger.

 

[piasabird]

While a police officer is trained in the proper use of force, the average citizen is not. If for an example he says halt citizens arrest and they dont halt I think he is within his rights to kill them. It is not vigilante. Citizens have a right to make a citizens arrest. I can not really condone the out right killing of criminals on someone elses property. However, if he went up to the criminal's car and let the air out so the police could catch the that would be fine. If the criminals were armend and they resisted arrest the cops could probably shoot them if they turned around or attempted to fire at the cops. How the law treats a police officer and the average citizen is completely different.

The way I look at it, any criminal who runs from the police should be shot down like a dog. The law on the other hand may see things differently.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy
you can't just go up and down the street shooting everyone who you see breaking into a house. That would be completely insane.

We have a different opinion of criminals. I'd hang them, you probably want them back on the street after rehabilitation..

WTF is up with what is imo, a misconception that Liberals want to rehabilitate criminals? This gun toting Liberal would like to see ALL criminals serving life sentences (and those condemned to die) and all those who decide to follow in their footsteps sent to a remote, super-fenced in location (not a jail), the kind that Snake Pliskin would be proud of and let them sort out the rules, laws, government and who lives and dies. Fuck rehabilitation for 90+% of career criminals. It is true, some men you just can't reach.

 

[Nebor]

Under Texas law, this guy walks. Deadly force is authorized to stop a felony in progress. Same in most states. Why do you people think criminals have rights during the commission of their crimes?

He'll never be arrested or spend a day in jail. He will almost certainly go before a Grand Jury and be no billed though.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: chucky2
It is a sad sad F'ing day for America when we're going to discipline a citizen for standing up to criminals stealing property.

Chuck

It is a sad, sad F'ing day for America when this many of its citizens think that a TV has more value than human life.

Even if they were committing a petty crime, they did not deserve what this Charles Bronson wannabe did to them.

Originally posted by: dahunan

I still feel that anyone willing to enter a residential dwelling is willing to kill or seriously maim anyone who tries to apprehend or stop them.. personally that is evidence enough for me.

<Moonie-mode on>

You are projecting your own desire to be animalistic and your self hate is portrayed in your willingness to harm others.

</Moonie-mode off>

I think that I could very easily steal if it meant my family eating. I don't think that I could harm someone else without an eminent threat to them and not just myself.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He called the cops so we know what his intentions were, but when the looked to be getting away he shot them, right. Tough luck for the burglars, in my opinion. Why should his neighbor's house be any different than his own. Us liberals are our brothers keepers.

In Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you steal. It's pretty barbaric, except for the fact, there's hardly ever any theft. If we have lots and lots of burglars dying at the scene I bet the crime rate drops.

Oh shite....I spoke too soon. But this does beg to question what you think about the woman in the other thread getting extra floggings. After all, she was breaking the law.

Originally posted by: alchemize
IMO - home invasion is a violent crime, regardless of if anyone is home or not (because the criminal can't know if anyone is home).

It's a good thing that your opinion isn't the basis for law then. Maybe they had staked out the neighbor's house and were absolutely certain that there was no one home? It's kinda hard to commit a "violent" crime when you do everything in your power to AVOID VIOLENCE. I'm not arguing that arguing that these guys were smart enough to do that because then I would be as stupid as you are being for assuming that they didn't and that all crimes are the same.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Under Texas law, this guy walks. Deadly force is authorized to stop a felony in progress. Same in most states. Why do you people think criminals have rights during the commission of their crimes?
He'll never be arrested or spend a day in jail. He will almost certainly go before a Grand Jury and be no billed though.

Because they do... duh?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Under Texas law, this guy walks. Deadly force is authorized to stop a felony in progress. Same in most states. Why do you people think criminals have rights during the commission of their crimes?

Honestly? I think a better question is why do you think you have the right to kill someone for stealing? Are you a SUPER-UBER cop? Because cops don't even have that authority. The show COPS would be pretty boring if we lived in the world you envision. There would be no chases, no foot pursuits, just "Hey that guy is running out of the bank, shoot him!" It is a rhetorical question tbh having read many of your recent posts on a variety of topics. I almost get the impression you are a parody poster as no one can be that skewed.

I am not buying that it is OK in Texas for the police let alone the average Joe to gun down fleeing criminals unless their lives are in danger first. Having read what DM copied and pasted about Texas law pertaining to 3rd parties and the actors committing the crime, I am not reading where it says it is OK to shoot and kill them. Only that the 3rd party is to be held to the same laws as the actual homeowner being robbed would in defending the property. Sheesh.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Nebor
Under Texas law, this guy walks. Deadly force is authorized to stop a felony in progress. Same in most states. Why do you people think criminals have rights during the commission of their crimes?

Honestly? I think a better question is why do you think you have the right to kill someone for stealing? Are you a SUPER-UBER cop? Because cops don't even have that authority. The show COPS would be pretty boring if we lived in the world you envision. There would be no chases, no foot pursuits, just "Hey that guy is running out of the bank, shoot him!" It is a rhetorical question tbh having read many of your recent posts on a variety of topics. I almost get the impression you are a parody poster as no one can be that skewed.

I am not buying that it is OK in Texas for the police let alone the average Joe to gun down fleeing criminals unless their lives are in danger first. Having read what DM copied and pasted about Texas law pertaining to 3rd parties and the actors committing the crime, I am not reading where it says it is OK to shoot and kill them. Only that the 3rd party is to be held to the same laws as the actual homeowner being robbed would in defending the property. Sheesh.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

You're obviously not familiar with free states, like Texas, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, etc. Deadly force to stop a felony in progress, or damage or theft of property is authorized. That applies to crimes as petty as criminal mishief. That's right, you can be shot and killed legally for spray painting someone's wall.

I promise you what this guy did is ok by Texas law. Why do you think the police didn't arrest him? From everything I've heard, they patted him on the back and have said he was "just defending his neighbors property." Most people are widely supporting his actions.

I wish he was my neighbor. :thumbsup:

 

[shira]

For those of you who really, really get behind the "justice" of this shooting (and who are typically the same group who like to cite the ticking time-bomb scenario to justify torture):

Suppose we had a genetic test that could predict with 100% accuracy those who would grow up to burgle a house at least one time in their lives. Under those circumstances, do you approve of aborting the fetus? Or is a 21-years-post-delivery "abortion" with a shotgun at the moment of burglary the only valid option?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: alchemize
IMO - home invasion is a violent crime, regardless of if anyone is home or not (because the criminal can't know if anyone is home).

It's a good thing that your opinion isn't the basis for law then. Maybe they had staked out the neighbor's house and were absolutely certain that there was no one home? It's kinda hard to commit a "violent" crime when you do everything in your power to AVOID VIOLENCE. I'm not arguing that arguing that these guys were smart enough to do that because then I would be as stupid as you are being for assuming that they didn't and that all crimes are the same.

How can you be absolutely certain that somebody isn't home? What if there is a grandma down in the basement, or a disabled person? Speaking of stupid, apparently that didn't cross your mind?

Every home invasion has tremendous violence potential.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Nebor
Under Texas law, this guy walks. Deadly force is authorized to stop a felony in progress. Same in most states. Why do you people think criminals have rights during the commission of their crimes?

Honestly? I think a better question is why do you think you have the right to kill someone for stealing? Are you a SUPER-UBER cop? Because cops don't even have that authority. The show COPS would be pretty boring if we lived in the world you envision. There would be no chases, no foot pursuits, just "Hey that guy is running out of the bank, shoot him!" It is a rhetorical question tbh having read many of your recent posts on a variety of topics. I almost get the impression you are a parody poster as no one can be that skewed.

I am not buying that it is OK in Texas for the police let alone the average Joe to gun down fleeing criminals unless their lives are in danger first. Having read what DM copied and pasted about Texas law pertaining to 3rd parties and the actors committing the crime, I am not reading where it says it is OK to shoot and kill them. Only that the 3rd party is to be held to the same laws as the actual homeowner being robbed would in defending the property. Sheesh.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

You're obviously not familiar with free states, like Texas, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, etc. Deadly force to stop a felony in progress, or damage or theft of property is authorized. That applies to crimes as petty as criminal mishief. That's right, you can be shot and killed legally for spray painting someone's wall.

I promise you what this guy did is ok by Texas law. Why do you think the police didn't arrest him? From everything I've heard, they patted him on the back and have said he was "just defending his neighbors property." Most people are widely supporting his actions.

I wish he was my neighbor. :thumbsup:

Uh....since when is criminal mischief a felony? Just asking cause that is one of the requirements for the use of deadly force.

 

[Nebor]

NM