Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[Ravi]

I wonder what the grand jury would have done if the weapon were different...if he'd hacked them up with a knife, took out his chainsaw and cut off their heads, or just run them over with his car.

I imagine he'd look more like a lunatic then.

 

[Shogun]

I wonder what the grand jury would have done if the weapon were different...if he'd hacked them up with a knife, took out his chainsaw and cut off their heads, or just run them over with his car.

I imagine he'd look more like a lunatic then.

I wonder what the grand jury would have done if the two criminals were engaged in raping the neighbors wife in the ass three seconds before they were blown away... See, we can all speculate, Ravi.

 

[AllieBaba]

Those criminals have a right to a trial, the penalty for rape is NOT death! That guy who killed them shot them in the BACK! They weren't killing the neighbor's wife...what if it had been the NEIGHBOR bonking his wife and they mistook his behavior and thought he was trying to kill her and horror of horrors, KILLED HIM!

What gobbledygook.

 

[Ravi]

I wonder what the grand jury would have done if the two criminals were engaged in raping the neighbors wife in the ass three seconds before they were blown away... See, we can all speculate, Ravi.

No, that's a different crime altogether. But dead is dead as it applies to this law. I'm wondering how much gun rights is playing into their decision. After all, a gun is just a tool.

 

[Shogun]

No, that's a different crime altogether. But dead is dead as it applies to this law. I'm wondering how much gun rights is playing into their decision. After all, a gun is just a tool.

Seems to me that it's not so much the GUN but the circumstances that puts us where we are today. Your chainsaw speculation would be a different circumstance altogether as well. But, id imagine he could defend himself with a chainsaw just as well as a shotgun since, atthe end of the day, he'd still be DEFENDING himself.

 

[Ravi]

Seems to me that it's not so much the GUN but the circumstances that puts us where we are today. Your chainsaw speculation would be a different circumstance altogether as well. But, id imagine he could defend himself with a chainsaw just as well as a shotgun since, atthe end of the day, he'd still be DEFENDING himself.

Why would the chainsaw be different? Or the car? They are also just tools, no?

 

[AllieBaba]

It's the whole property thing that people have problems with. People who don't think we, as Americans, deserve what we have..and who don't think we should enjoy individual rights and freedoms, cannot comprehend the right to defend oneself. They think that everybody else should bend over and take whatever life decides to hit them with, and even when in danger and afraid, be able to coolly see into the future and make dead-on judgments. They have never been in dangerous circumstances themselves and they have never been in want and so do not understand the necessity of protecting oneself and ones property. They think that because they have always had what they needed and been protected by others, anybody who feels compelled to protect his or herself, or advance in the world, is suspect.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why would the chainsaw be different? Or the car? They are also just tools, no?

You're the one who implied it was different, Ravi.

 

[Shogun]

Why would the chainsaw be different? Or the car? They are also just tools, no?

They are tools, yes. But you assume a motive other than self defense when you assume a chainsaw would illustrate something other than what we see now. Again, it doesn't seem that the gun is the point of conjecture here so much as the application of the castle doctrine.


if he'd hacked them up with a knife, took out his chainsaw and cut off their heads, or just run them over with his car.
I imagine he'd look more like a lunatic then.

 

[Ravi]

It's the whole property thing that people have problems with. People who don't think we, as Americans, deserve what we have..and who don't think we should enjoy individual rights and freedoms, cannot comprehend the right to defend oneself. They think that everybody else should bend over and take whatever life decides to hit them with, and even when in danger and afraid, be able to coolly see into the future and make dead-on judgments. They have never been in dangerous circumstances themselves and they have never been in want and so do not understand the necessity of protecting oneself and ones property. They think that because they have always had what they needed and been protected by others, anybody who feels compelled to protect his or herself, or advance in the world, is suspect.

You're projecting. I doubt anyone would much care if they were breaking into his house while he was in it. But they weren't. I'm thinking you nuts are just having a knee-jerk reaction because a gun was involved.

 

[Ravi]

You're the one who implied it was different, Ravi.

The crimes the perps committed, Allie. Not the killing of them. Try to follow along.

 

[Ravi]

They are tools, yes. But you assume a motive other than self defense when you assume a chainsaw would illustrate something other than what we see now. Again, it doesn't seem that the gun is the point of conjecture here so much as the application of the castle doctrine.


if he'd hacked them up with a knife, took out his chainsaw and cut off their heads, or just run them over with his car.
I imagine he'd look more like a lunatic then.

But, if you really believe he was acting in self-defense, his manner of defending himself should be immaterial.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, it's because it's about the protection of property.
It has nothing to do with the gun. I'd feel the same if he'd used a golf club. It has nothing to do with race. I'd feel the same if the ppl killed were the grown of the local DA. It has nothing to do with killing someone. It has to do with protecting our individual rights, freedom and property.

We have the right to defend ourselves. If we are denied to right to protect ourselves from criminals, we effectively might as well have no rights at all, because we are simply sitting ducks. You might as well open all the doors and use big neon signs to point to the valuables.

 

[AllieBaba]

The crimes the perps committed, Allie. Not the killing of them. Try to follow along.

Ok, you're officially a moron now.
I can read. I suggest you do the same. And perhaps give some measured thought to your comments before you make yourself look more foolish than you already do.

I wonder what the grand jury would have done if the weapon were different...if he'd hacked them up with a knife, took out his chainsaw and cut off their heads, or just run them over with his car.

I imagine he'd look more like a lunatic then.

 

[Ravi]

No, it's because it's about the protection of property.
It has nothing to do with the gun. I'd feel the same if he'd used a golf club. It has nothing to do with race. I'd feel the same if the ppl killed were the grown of the local DA. It has nothing to do with killing someone. It has to do with protecting our individual rights, freedom and property.

We have the right to defend ourselves. If we are denied to right to protect ourselves from criminals, we effectively might as well have no rights at all, because we are simply sitting ducks. You might as well open all the doors and use big neon signs to point to the valuables.

So if he ran them down with a car because he didn't have a gun you feel he'd have gotten off just the same?

 

[Ravi]

Ok, you're officially a moron now.
I can read. I suggest you do the same. And perhaps give some measured thought to your comments before you make yourself look more foolish than you already do.

I wonder what the grand jury would have done if the weapon were different...if he'd hacked them up with a knife, took out his chainsaw and cut off their heads, or just run them over with his car.

I imagine he'd look more like a lunatic then.

Go back and read the thread from that post and get back to me. Just what was in that omelet you had for lunch?

 

[AllieBaba]

Mushrooms!

 

[editec]

If he had shot anyone else, he'd have been indicted and they'd have let the jury decide.

Very likely, Jullian.

The law, contrary to the popular myth, is not at all blind.

The more distrubing part of this story is how many people will think this murderer of unarmed burgulars (who shot said burgulars while they were running away) is an heroic citizen.

I'm having a hard time finding anyone in this sordid tale I can relate to, to be honest.

 

[AllieBaba]

He didn't know they were unarmed.
Does anyone have any statistics for the likelihood of losing your life if you interrupt or surprise home burglars?

I know it's pretty high.

 

[Care4all]

I wonder what the grand jury would have done if the two criminals were engaged in raping the neighbors wife in the ass three seconds before they were blown away... See, we can all speculate, Ravi.

DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROBBERY AND BURGLARY?

No one is robbed in a burglary...

A burglary is not even considered a violent crime, a robbery is....

I repeat, a burglary involves no violence to another human being that you are stealing from, a Robbery is when a threat or violence occurs to ones own life while the theft occurs.

A burglary is small change compared to a robbery or armed robbery....

have you answered how the SC could rule that a convicted child rapist could not receive the death penalty because this would be cruel and unusual punishment for the crime of child rape while you are salavating on this man having the right to shoot dead a burglar of a neighbor and no threat to the neighbor or to him?

Judge, jury and executioner...

The man was absolutely nuts, who else in their right mind would DISOBEY THE POLICE on the 911 call? I know i would not have gone out to kill them, I know my husband would not have gone out to kILL THEM, I know my father would not have gone out to kill them, I know my mother would not have gone out to kill them, I know a policeman would not have gone out to KILL THEM....he would have at least shot them in the legs or buttocks perhaps....but to kill 2 men that DID NOT HAVE GUNS and for a burglary is unjust and criminal in and of itself, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE this man was not in any danger and nor was any neighbor's life in danger....GOT IT? You don't kill for no reason at all.....you don't kill because someone is just a burglar at your next door neighbor's house....PERIOD! Even the LAW states such....

your brain and heart is waxed COLD as ICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was litterally jumping at the bit to go out there with his shot gun and kill them, for burglary...breaking and entering, not EVEN ROBBERY....

Even the law says you can NOT use DEADLY force unless you are in imminent danger from them.

THIS MAN WAS NOT IN IMMINENT DANGER of them killing him or killing anyone, PERIOD.

The law is good, the grand jury ain't worth a poopie, imo and from what we do know about the case.

care



and, maybe i missed it again, there are sooooo many posts on this thread, do you think if these were white, American men with no guns, and they were shot dead in the back, that the grand jury would not send this to a trial?