It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars

page: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

BTW, you may be right about us bloodthirsty Americans after all. After what I have been through and the oaths I have sworn to that constitution I would have more than words for you had you uttered that remark to my face. Careful what you say if you ever meet an American in real life who isn’t from Rhode Island.


And now we see your true colours.

I do not care what you have been through. If you need counselling go get some from a professional. Seriously. Dont go gobbing off on forums. We ain't doctors!

You threaten me with physical violence because I made the remark that the ammendments maybe out of date?

You are seriously nuts.


You wanna be careful. Me and my mates work at the security camera manufacturing plant. There are thousands of us due to so many cameras being put up. I have lots of friends see. We will see you coming on our cameras and get the jump on you. Weirdo.




[edit on 1/12/2007 by skibtz]




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 


That was Squire in the respectfully gentlemanly fashion sir!



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by Flyer
I have, the average IQ for Texans is 92 which means they are way below average and 40th out of 50 in this list.

www.mindfully.org...


That study is a known fake and has been debunked here on ATS, although I don’t know why I expected you to be able to figure out that an entire geographical area with tens of millions of people living in it cant have an AVERAGE IQ ABOVE AVERAGE.


Oh no , I'm sure they are right about that Texas IQ thing. That must be why :


In 2006, Texas had a gross state product of $1.09 trillion, the second highest in the U.S. after California, after recently surpassing New York state. Gross state product per capita as of 2005 was $42,975.

Texas has more Fortune 500 company headquarters (56) than any other state except New York, which has 57. This has been attributed to both the growth in population in Texas and the rise of oil prices in 2005, which resulted in the growth in revenues of many Texas oil drilling and processing companies.

In 2006, for the fifth year in a row, Texas was ranked as the number one state by export revenues. Texas exports for 2006 totaled $150.8 billion, which is $22.1 billion more than 2005 and represents a 17.2 percent increase. In 2002, the Port of Houston was 6th among the top sea ports in the world in terms of total cargo volume; Air Cargo World rated Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport as "the best air cargo airport in the world".

Wikipedia


Wow we sure do got the dumb. If only we could emulate others better.



The economy of Texas is a dominant force in the economy of the United States. One of the largest growing economies in the nation, [skip] Texas has an economy that is the second largest in the nation and the 15th largest in the world based on GDP (PPP) figures. As the largest exporter of goods in the United States, Texas currently grosses more than 100 billion dollars a year in trade with other nations.


Yall sure are lucky you don't live here with us and these huge piles of money.


Other proof of our idiocy : Data collected by the Census Bureau's American Community Survey shows Austin, Texas is the 5th most educated city in America with 44.1% of people over 25 having a bachelor's degree or higher. Texas also ranks 4th on the list of states with the most colleges (208).

When considering Texas crime rates and other statistics keep in mind we get a lot of illegal immigrants per year. In 2005 133,045 illegal immigrants were arrest who weren't from Mexico. It's estimated that Texas has about 1.7 million illegal immigrants.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by discomfit]

[edit on 1-12-2007 by discomfit]

[edit on 1-12-2007 by discomfit]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Did he hang up the phone before he went toward the neighbors house? The stories seem to conflict. How can they say they heard the boom and also he "called back"?

He did want to stop them and that's apparent. Did he have a right to confront them? When confronting them did he have the right to defend himself? The repercussions of this case are enormous.




thanks for posting the story!



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Wait, certainly not in Jolly Old England! Sure you weren’t in Texas at the time?


Nope...was on the rainy streets of Manchester. Although had anyone else come along at the time of the mugging, they would have patiently queued to wait their turn to be mugged too



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
And now we see your true colours.


Yes, friend, now you do. Red for the blood we shed, black for the mourning.


You threaten me with physical violence

I didn’t threaten you at all. Just a warning that some of us over here are still men, still eat red meat, and lost friends and family (and sometimes part of ourselves) in defense of what that constitution means.

I thank you and your ancestors for being so helpless as to provide the necessity of the constitution, and I would thank you to keep your yellow bellied self out of American gun control debate. Last thing we need is a bunch "civilized" yellow girly men who cant keep their teenagers from acting the fool for the whole world to see telling us how we should be more like them.


You are seriously nuts.

No, I am sane in an insane world.


You wanna be careful. Me and my mates work at the security camera manufacturing plant. There are thousands of us due to so many cameras being put up.


So you are professional peeping tom and you call me a weirdo?


I guess I understand why a professional snitch would feel the way you do. And working as a government camera jockey I understand how you would side with criminals, seeing as you are a predator who lives off of other people’s taxes.


I have nothing else to say to a confessed rat.


[edit on 1-12-2007 by cavscout]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
just posting a kudos on the neighbor's behalf.
those two thieves could have killed someone if cornered. i seriously doubt day time thieves wouldn't be armed and if cornered who knows what would have happened to the home owners.

so in my opinion, justice was served.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith
Although had anyone else come along at the time of the mugging, they would have patiently queued to wait their turn to be mugged too




And those camera rats would have called the cops, who would have shown up 20 minutes later armed with a stick.



Like I said, shoot me a U2U if you ever come to my neck of the woods. We can go shoot some targets, cause round here the criminals fear the good guys and we dont all get bad guys to shoot at like that poor old man in Texas did.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Discomfit already posted a link to the Texas law that cover this, but I think we need another posting of it to make things clear. Luckily this isn't worded like the Constitution so nobody hear should get the wrong idea of what is legal in Texas.

tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us...

§ 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.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

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.


I know that should take a few minutes to read, but it is worth it to end all the ignorance on this thread. This is the law in Texas. Any further comments that mention anyone breaking the law should be towards those who did the break in, not the guy who shot them.

[edit on 2007121 by NJ Mooch]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


Yeah. That's right matey. We are all yellow bellies and make security cameras.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. We can see you. Even now. From across the pond. It's what we do don't you know.

Put that cup of coffee down when I am talking to you!!!!!!

How rude!



p.s. I have nothing but full respect and admiration for the brave friends and family We have lost for The Causes, your constitution included.

[edit on 1/12/2007 by skibtz]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NJ Mooch
 


Great information NJM


I didnt even know any of that!



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

p.s. I have nothing but full respect and admiration for the brave friends and family We have lost for The Causes, your constitution included.



Yes, and I thank you for the lives of your countrymen when they tried to oppress us and found out that hard way that we don’t need a nanny.

Thankfully, because of the oppression of your ancestors our women don’t have to get raped and old men can still stand up for their neighbors.

It's just a shame so many Brits (and Americans) had to die before yall got the point.

Now, with that said you can expect no further response from me, I tend to make it a habit not to debate with rats or those who earn a living off of taxpayer money. Nothing personal, just a higher standard.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout


And those camera rats would have called the cops, who would have shown up 20 minutes later armed with a stick.



And they probably would have arrested the victim and charged him with some totally bogus "racist" hate crime!



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


Oh no!


You really believe that I make security cameras?


From your posts (the ones before you imploded), you seemed like an educated fella with a sense of humour.

Now you just sound like a bad man who holds guns for pleasure.

I had you all wrong. Doh!

Edit: Removed the slightly overthe top character assassination.


[edit on 1/12/2007 by skibtz]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Wot a dolt - Duplicate post removed.

How did this happen?!!



[edit on 1/12/2007 by skibtz]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
they probably would have arrested the victim and charged him with some totally bogus "racist" hate crime!



Maybe disturbing the peace, what with all the yelling "help!" "HELP!"



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Please focus on the thread topic people. And stop arguing with each other.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


I do apologise.

Handshake to cavscout.


While there was some tittle-tattle, I do believe it did centre around the US-UK stances on gun control and attitude to crime and the relevant laws in place. In essence? Partly? A little bit?

Ok. Will be focusing on the OP from now on


[edit on 1/12/2007 by skibtz]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Double post removed.



[edit on 1/12/2007 by skibtz]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 



seeing as how the police are a "reactive" form, instead of an immediate one.


I don't want to judge to harshly, but, I think he should have waited for the police, and or taken pictures of the event. I think he crossed the line by taking matters into his own hands.

Speaking of waiting...

They had time to break in (when he made the phone call to police), steal, and exit.

What was the response time for the police?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join