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: 22
24
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Okay, you've answered your own question. This law pertains to individual morality and Texas law only. Everybody has a different opinion, and you keep bringing irrelevant factors to the discussion. From those two factors only can we find the outcome. Not with Islam, Hitler, Cutting off hands, or Baby Ruths. This is exactly why this discussion has raged on for 21 pages with no end in sight. Stay within the confines of the argument.




posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
This may not be a case of defending property, it may be self defense. The perps were in his yard. He states that came toward him. If one still had the crow bar, that could be a deadly weapon.

One thing the law does states is that one cannot provoke an incident and necessarily end it with deadly force.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 



I'm not following your line of reasoning.


Because it conflicts with your own stubborn and convoluted line of reasoning.


Why, exactly, is it irrelevant to point out the hypocrisies in condemning a society for cutting the hands off of thieves while celebrating shooting them down in the street?


Because it is absolutely irrelevant. There should be NO comparison in these situations based on cultural differences alone.


No, it's not relevant in a court of law, but for the purposes of this discussion (which is largely centered on social values), it strikes me as being rather key.


Well, seems you've fallen out of line with what this discussion is really about. It's about the a man shooting another, who happens to be robbing his neighbors house. No need for all this babble surrounding the justification from both sides about why it's right or wrong.


I suspect you just don't like the comparison and would rather it not be brought up because it undermines the social smugness that is such an integrated part of Western society. It's simply not a comfortable thought, so you'd rather not deal with it.


Life, death, and the differences in humanity don't make me uncomfortable at all. Death is absolutely and ultimately relevant to life. The issue I have with your talking points are that they are irrelevant and can only be further debated while straying from the topic at hand. It's cheap tactic to make people associate with the point you're trying to make. I am aware the western society is fubar, and the same goes for Islamic society, but the comparisons between the two have no bearing on this conversation or the morality and social differences between western society and Islamic ones.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


I'm looking at two supposedly diametrically opposed cultures and showing that they are both willing to murder for irrelevant points. How is one supposed to judge the situation if not from an outside point of view? And using that outside point of view, the only conclusion that one can come to is that all of these yokels who flip out over Sharia Law, then go shooting people up because of their own twisted values.

All of that aside, this guy is no better than those yelling to have a woman shot for a teddy bear.

In any case, he's still a killer, and they're still dead for no reason.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by samuraijack
Frontier ... is why.........in my opinion we wait for the proper authorities that have been trained to respond accordingly. If our authorities are'nt responding fast enough then that's when we speak up and complain about them not doing their jobs.


Good God! What was all that... And in one paragraph?

Here is a typical misinterpretation of reality. Sorry, but come on folks...
The Police man is not your friend. His duty is not to respond in time to keep you from having to make a moral ethical, self-determination. The Police are there to control crime, period. Unfortunately, that happens after the fact, more often than not. When we speak up about them not doing their job? They are, doing their jobs.

I get that for you it is more reasonable for someone else to have to get their hands dirty and do your work for you.

If you want the Television version of the police, you need to live somewhere where there is at least one policeman, armed and uniformed, living on every block in every area where people reside, 24 hours a day.

It is also up to you to defend yourself if you are threatened. Fortunately, recently, more states (not just Texas) are starting to wise up to the self defense rights of people who own homes, property and perhaps have loved ones they don’t want to depend on Mr. Police Officer to defend... And just so happen to not be afraid to do what is necessary to keep the criminal element in check. The extent of the victim mentality just, on occasion, makes me shake my head.

For you, I would reiterate Thomas Jefferson, whom I believe said, approximately, "Those who are willing to give up their individual freedoms for protection, deserve neither.




[edit on 2-12-2007 by sigung86]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree, although I was hoping you would make an argument for your case rather than simply stating your opinion as if it were fact.

Allow me to retreat back to where we share some common ground... that no good was done here and that it is a tragedy, pure and simple.

How does one prevent things like this from happening again?
As I see it, there's two main ways;

1) Eliminate crime. Since this is rather an unlikely thing to happen any time soon, I don't think it bares too much discussion.

2) Make this a precedent where the shooter must face the consequences of his actions, thus deterring others from taking the same course of action.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 



See how the jury feels... They may also decide to let him go free, and serve as a warning to deadbeat losers who have no greater motive than live off of your or my efforts... Or worse... Maybe want to rape or kill our family members.

Ripley often found things Stranger than Fiction, and so on...



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 



How does one prevent things like this from happening again?
As I see it, there's two main ways;

1) Eliminate crime. Since this is rather an unlikely thing to happen any time soon, I don't think it bares too much discussion.

2) Make this a precedent where the shooter must face the consequences of his actions, thus deterring others from taking the same course of action.


Crime has always been and will always be. You're definitely right about it not being an issue to discuss. And as far as making the shooter responsible for his actions, I agree, but not the extent of your common, criminally minded person. His outlook on the situation was he was going to "protect" his neighborhood and his neighbor directly. The criminals had it in mind to "harm" these people in one way or another. The contrast between the two motives are very, very different, Bitraiser.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Again, we've found common ground.
As I previously stated, I think he should be tried for Manslaughter despite there being some compelling evidence for a Murder one charge to take into account both the grey area of the law and his motivation.

That sound reasonable to you?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


Maybe, if it was "justifiable manslaughter," though I don't think it was necessarily "justifiable." Maybe a heavy probation period that would limit his decisions to stay inside or go outside and confront but without blowing a hole through some guy. I definitely think that would make him think twice and concisely about his future actions regarding guns and human lives. I don't agree with jail time or the chance of a civil suit.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Rasobasi:

Please give up the analogy between the actions of this INDIVIDUAL and Islam, their is absolutely no correlation.

No public annoucement have been made here to go out and make line to shoot thieves, no where in our laws says that we should kill burglars. No where adulterers are being stoned to death in this country, passion crimes are committed almost everyday and they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, so I don't understand from were your analogy comes from.

If you telling me that I have to feel sorry because a stupid low life thug found himself breaking the LAW on the wrong place at the wrong time, too bad for them, may be they need it to polish there low life skills a little better.

May be we should have a program where this scumbags can come and we can give them some S & R training and while we at it we can give them bulletproof vest and weapons too, so when they go out and do their thing they can do it the best and safest way possible.

If that sounds stupid to you, is the same way your analogy sounds to me.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
i have a lot of mixed feelings about this.

as a FIRM supporter of the 2nd amendment and someone willing to use deadly force to protect my life or the life of someone else i can kind of understand this guys actions. i wont say i applaud them and lemme 'splain why...

they were leaving. unless they had a hostage (in which case i wouldnt want him going after them with a shotty...scatter and all) there was nothng to tell him anyone was in jeapardy.

the flipside to that is, he had no immediate way to know if someone in the house had been harmed so in that respect his actions are a little more justified.

ive seen in this thread someone posting that property isnt worth a life. ill agree to a point but what do you think the burglars would have done once inside had anyoen been home. property may not be worth a life to YOU but what about them. so if they want my property bad enough to harm me or mine to get it then they are going to have a very bad day.

my biggest problem is that if someone is exiting an area and you shoot first and forget the questions that does seem a little cowardly. anyone know if he made any attempt to get them to oh..say..stop? before he shot?

last thought on this is: to all of you saying "shoot them in the leg or something" i have to ask..have you taken any firearms training? do you realize that trying to target JUST the leg of a moving person is a real challenge with a pistol or rifle and nearly impossible with a shotgun unless its loaded with slugs? thats why cops, military, anyone with a brain that shoots and trains to shoot humans aims center mass (unless yer a sniper)

you shoot at a target to hit it, so you aim for the largest part of the target to increase your chances of scoring said hit.

just thought id throw that out there, its not like hollywood kids.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
All of that aside, this guy is no better than those yelling to have a woman shot for a teddy bear.

How you can compare the naming of a teddy bear by a young child to breaking in and robbing someones home?

Naming a teddy bear is only a crime to the radical islamic #s who riot and kill people over satirical cartoons.

Robbery is a crime no matter what country you're in.


In any case, he's still a killer, and they're still dead for no reason.

They are dead because they chose to break into someone's home. How is that so hard for you to understand? If they had chosen to make an honest living instead turning to theivary they would very likely still be alive. They are dead because of their own actions. And don't give me that # about "they had no choice", anyone can go to a day labor agency and make minimum wage. Hell they could have stood in front of a Home Depot like all the illegal immigrants who are willing to work for less than minimum wage. Instead they decided to take the easy way out and in the end it cost them the ultimate price.

The ones who are responsible for this incident are the two jackasses who weren't man enough to be decent members of society.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
But killing them for stealing is a bit harsh.

I disagree. Killing someone for stealing food from a supermarket is harsh. That person's family may be starving. Killing someone for recklessly breaking into someone's home and stealing their property is not harsh. A "bag of loot" won't feed a starving family and there's just no excuse for it. The most unfortunate person in the world doesn't need someone's private possessions to survive.

If more people in this country were held accountable for their actions with very harsh penalties, the crime rate would drop like a rock. Wrongdoers don't fear our penal system - corrupt defense lawyers can exploit loopholes and get anyone out of anything these days


The justice system needs to start making examples of people. I say, why not chop off a few hands for stealing nonessential, valuable items from people's homes? Getting people scared of consequences again would drastically lower the crime rate and in turn save lives. How many innocent people do you think are killed a year by burglars breaking into their homes, then the residents catching them in the act? Knocking off a few of these scumbags would save the lives of many innocent people.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
what this old billy did was something you'd do on the Hitman videogame. not in real life. I've heard the call and the old folk sounds very, very racist towards Mexican-Americans. He did it for pleasure. thats no hero!



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
What a Hero!

There's 22 pages on this topic not sure if anyone has posted a link to the actual 911 call so here it is:
www.break.com...
regards.
Zelong



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 
Thanks for posting the 911 call lin.
that was intense! the guy shot 3 times! you could hear the shots clearly.
And then the officers showed up not 30 seconds later. if he had waited I think these guys would have been caught.

Oh well. I feel for this guy I hope he doesn't end up in trouble over this.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dont Taze Me Bro
Oh well. I feel for this guy I hope he doesn't end up in trouble over this.


why not? the guy killed those people. I wouldn't kill someone for stealing my star wars figures from my room. one time my best friend stole my artoo deetoo. did I shoot him? no. i'm not crazy. God can deal with that.

I would give him 3 years in prision to shape up!



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   
So who says the bloke with the shotty next door wasnt off his med's and had only seen part of what was going on ...or it was the neighbour's son getting some gear.. oh yeah thats right .. Might is Right.. what crap there could've been worse consequences like ending up in jail.. as the police said leave it.. its not his job.. and why isnt it his job to enforce neighbourhood law?


100 reasons and that could be far ranging from being a criminal himself or unable to see twenty feet.. 100 things.. Im glad I live in Australia when I read about dumb arsed yanks blowing each others heads off.. Nice place to live .. or die trying to pay for a hospital visit..



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
To Damocles

You Wrote "last thought on this is: to all of you saying "shoot them in the leg or something" i have to ask..have you taken any firearms training? do you realize that trying to target JUST the leg of a moving person is a real challenge with a pistol or rifle and nearly impossible with a shotgun unless its loaded with slugs? thats why cops, military, anyone with a brain that shoots and trains to shoot humans aims center mass (unless yer a sniper)

you shoot at a target to hit it, so you aim for the largest part of the target to increase your chances of scoring said hit. "


No thats wrong .. the reason you shoot for centre mass is that in times of stress the human body is designed to suffer and sustain great damage, you shoot for centre mass is that is where all the blood flows to in times of crisis or when theres a lot of adrenaline.. the damage that is ensured from a centre mass kill is because the body is protecting its main organs with blood concentration , loose a arm or loose a leg and its still all systems go.. and also hitting someone in the legs with a shotty is a hell of a lot easier than with any other weapon ..



new topics




 
24
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join