Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[BrianH]

He shot them in the back. What does that tell you? The man is a coward.

It was witnessed by cops who SAW him and the situation unfold. The testified in Joe Horn's defense. It doesn't matter if it was in the back or the front. Personally, I wouldn't have killed them, but blew their legs out from under them, but, he was acting in accordance with the law.

TEXAS LAW:

"Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what amount of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

* An intruder must be making an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited
* The intruder must be acting illegally -- I.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an office of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties."

Texas Castle Law

 

[BrianH]

According to your moronic analogy, it is ok.

You justified the shooting of these guys by saying "oh, well, its a dangerous job". Guess what else is a dangerous job?

You can hate it all you want, he's in accordance with Texas State Law.

 

[Taomon]

Because idly standing by and watching crime happen in your neighbor's house is such a BRAVE act

Or maybe it would be brave to go all UFC on them? Challenge them to a competition of wits? Slap their face with a glove and challenge them to a duel with pistols at dawn?

So one is not brave when one preserves human life, no matter how despicable one views it to be?

Any pussy can shoot someone from a distance. It would take true courage to confront the thieves in hand-to-hand combat.

Personally, I would have called the police and cooperated with them, including providing details leading to their arrests. But you had to express some machismo here so I will call you out on it. Shooting a gun is cowardly, especially when shooting someone in the back.

Were the neighbors being raped or murdered or were they having material possessions stolen? There is a huge difference between these things.

 

[Taomon]

It was witnessed by cops who SAW him and the situation unfold. The testified in Joe Horn's defense. It doesn't matter if it was in the back or the front. Personally, I wouldn't have killed them, but blew their legs out from under them, but, he was acting in accordance with the law.

TEXAS LAW:

"Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what amount of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

* An intruder must be making an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited
* The intruder must be acting illegally -- I.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an office of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties."

Texas Castle Law

I understand; the law is wrong and the man is no hero.

 

[Larkinn]

You can hate it all you want, he's in accordance with Texas State Law.

You are confusing my opinion of your retarded analogy, and my opinion of the case.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm not sure the guy actually falls within the Castle Doctrine. I think the grand jury just said screw it, we're not indicting him.

 

[DiamondDave]

So one is not brave when one preserves human life, no matter how despicable one views it to be?

Any pussy can shoot someone from a distance. It would take true courage to confront the thieves in hand-to-hand combat.

Personally, I would have called the police and cooperated with them, including providing details leading to their arrests. But you had to express some machismo here so I will call you out on it. Shooting a gun is cowardly, especially when shooting someone in the back.

Were the neighbors being raped or murdered or were they having material possessions stolen? There is a huge difference between these things.

Preserves innocent life at the expense of your own or thru your own sacrifice... yes, THAT is considered brave

Personally, if I had seen that the police would show up in time, and I knew that nobody was in personal danger... I would agree that you might call the police as your first resort.... if it is clear that they will be getting away before police help can arrive, I do what is neccesary to stop them (and yes, if I had a gun option at that time, i would indeed use it)... if I feel endangered, blammo... if I am walking in to these burglars and I am in a dangerous situation with unknowns, blammo... but hell, a surprise baseball bat to the face would work as well if that was my only option... or maybe a pickaxe to the groin... I have no sympathy for these criminals/thieves/burglars/rapists/etc... if more realized that their lives were in danger from those of us who will fight back with whatever force we can (including the use of guns... without fear of some kook liberal trying to prosecute those people protecting themselves and their property), there would be fewer crimes happening

And ahhhhh yes.... it is just fine to let criminals get away with crime as long as it is not murder or rape

 

[Taomon]

Preserves innocent life at the expense of your own or thru your own sacrifice... yes, THAT is considered brave

Personally, if I had seen that the police would show up in time, and I knew that nobody was in personal danger... I would agree that you might call the police as your first resort.... if it is clear that they will be getting away before police help can arrive, I do what is neccesary to stop them (and yes, if I had a gun option at that time, i would indeed use it)... if I feel endangered, blammo... if I am walking in to these burglars and I am in a dangerous situation with unknowns, blammo... but hell, a surprise baseball bat to the face would work as well if that was my only option... or maybe a pickaxe to the groin... I have no sympathy for these criminals/thieves/burglars/rapists/etc... if more realized that their lives were in danger from those of us who will fight back with whatever force we can (including the use of guns... without fear of some kook liberal trying to prosecute those people protecting themselves and their property), there would be fewer crimes happening

And ahhhhh yes.... it is just fine to let criminals get away with crime as long as it is not murder or rape

It is not right to kill over theft.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not sure the guy actually falls within the Castle Doctrine. I think the grand jury just said screw it, we're not indicting him.

I don't think so, it does fall under it. I read the other day that more and more cases aren't being prosecuted in states that have these laws because it's a waste of time. Even gang slaying can be excused over the law we now have in Florida.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's burglary, not theft.
Theft is taking something from an open store, or running away from a restaurant without paying the check.
Burglary is breaking into somebody's home.

Big difference, and it is good and right to protect your home and the home of your neighbors.

 

[Taomon]

It's burglary, not theft.
Theft is taking something from an open store, or running away from a restaurant without paying the check.
Burglary is breaking into somebody's home.

Big difference, and it is good and right to protect your home and the home of your neighbors.

What does the Bible tell us about killing AllieBaba?

 

[Ravi]

I understand; the law is wrong and the man is no hero.

Far from it. He's a coward and quite twisted. Listen to the 911 tape if you get a chance.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is not right to kill over theft.

If there is theft/burglary... by nature if you are in that situation, you are in a dangerous situation with an unknown criminal element.... would it be preferable to have a perfect situation where you KNOW you could surprise and subdue with no injury to you or the other person? OF course.... but this is not a likely situation at ALL... would it be still better if you would wound and apprehend, over killing the criminals? Of course.... but that is still a less likely situation....

In a situation where you are in danger, there is much unknown as to your safety as the situation would go on, and you are protecting yourself, your family, and your property, you do what is necessary.... and yes, that can include the possible use of deadly force if it comes down to that

 

[Taomon]

Far from it. He's a coward and quite twisted. Listen to the 911 tape if you get a chance.

I agreed with you. He is not a hero. He was wrong and the law is wrong.

 

[Larkinn]

It's burglary, not theft.
Theft is taking something from an open store, or running away from a restaurant without paying the check.
Burglary is breaking into somebody's home.

Big difference, and it is good and right to protect your home and the home of your neighbors.

Actually Burglary is generally considered to be breaking into someones home after dark. This was during the daytime.

 

[Taomon]

If there is theft/burglary... by nature if you are in that situation, you are in a dangerous situation with an unknown criminal element.... would it be preferable to have a perfect situation where you KNOW you could surprise and subdue with no injury to you or the other person? OF course.... but this is not a likely situation at ALL... would it be still better if you would wound and apprehend, over killing the criminals? Of course.... but that is still a less likely situation....

In a situation where you are in danger, there is much unknown as to your safety as the situation would go on, and you are protecting yourself, your family, and your property, you do what is necessary.... and yes, that can include the possible use of deadly force if it comes down to that

They were shot in the back. How much danger was he in? Don't try and inflate his danger level. He was out for blood. It was probably race motivated.

 

[Larkinn]

If there is theft/burglary... by nature if you are in that situation, you are in a dangerous situation with an unknown criminal element.... would it be preferable to have a perfect situation where you KNOW you could surprise and subdue with no injury to you or the other person? OF course.... but this is not a likely situation at ALL... would it be still better if you would wound and apprehend, over killing the criminals? Of course.... but that is still a less likely situation....

In a situation where you are in danger, there is much unknown as to your safety as the situation would go on, and you are protecting yourself, your family, and your property, you do what is necessary.... and yes, that can include the possible use of deadly force if it comes down to that

He was not protecting himself, his family, or his property.

 

[DiamondDave]

What does the Bible tell us about killing AllieBaba?

Hmmm... if I remember it is "Thou shalt not MURDER".... self defense, self protection, self preservation, etc is not murder

also remember a little something about home defense in Exodus 22:2. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"

 

[AllieBaba]

They were shot in the back. How much danger was he in? Don't try and inflate his danger level. He was out for blood. It was probably race motivated.

You know what? In a dangerous situation you take advantage where you can. YOu don't know anything about hte situation. You don't take 10 paces, turn and fire like a duel for God's sakes when somebody is committing a crime a few feet away.

The cops saw him and thought it was justified. So did the grand jury.

It's a done deal.

 

[Taomon]

Hmmm... if I remember it is "Thou shalt not MURDER".... self defense, self protection, self preservation, etc is not murder

also remember a little something about home defense in Exodus 22:2. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"

The 10 Commandments say Thou shalt not kill. Period. Do you really think God will be sorting whether or not the killing was legally justified?

Do you want to put words in God's mouth?

Don't get me wrong, I will kill to protect my family. But if my family is not in danger, I will not kill to protect material possessions. Nor would I shoot someone in the back.