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: 25
24
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Another true story. One of my friends came home for lunch one day. When he got home, he realizied that he didn't bring his house keys.

Luckily, he remembered that his bathroom window didn't lock. So, he went to the side of his house and crawled in the bathroom window. His neighbor, just saw a pair of legs going through the window and called the police.

The next thing my friend notices is the flashing lights outside his living room windows and peaks out. He said that it looked like the entire police force was out in the street.

He causually opened the front door, with his sandwich in the other hand, to see what had happened when he hears "Freeze, we've got you covered. " Then he was tackled by cops who were appearently just outside his front door.

It took him a while to convince the cops that he was indeed the home owner and had just come home for lunch.

It's a pretty funny story but think what could have happened if his neighbor, instead of calling the police had instead just taken his deer rifle and shot him.

In the situation described in this article, I think that the shooter has stepped outside the law. I don't think that you use deadly force unless your life is in danger.

If someone was breaking into his house and he shot them, I think that it would have been justified.

In this case, it could just as easily have been someone that had a legal right to enter the neighbors house and get something. (Say the neighbor had sent a co-worker or a step child to retrieve something).
He was talking to the police dispatcher who told him hot to go outside and not to shoot them. I think he was wrong.




posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


He didn't just look and shoot. He had communication with them. Told them what would happen and they continued to rob the place.

A neighbor pulled a gun on me because I was climbing my house to get into a 2nd floor window. I too had lost my keys. He pulled his gun, shouted at me to stop, I put up my hands, turned toward him and said "hi."

You make it sound like this guy looked out his window, saw some a figure and just started sending bullets their way without a word of warning.

Have you heard the 911 call? He went on warning them for longer than I would have.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The police were on the way.

The point that I was trying to make is that it is possible to missinterpert a situation. That's why I don't think that the neighbor was justified in using deadly force.

You can't take the bullets back. In my opinion, if my life or the life of a loved one, wasn't in danger, I wouldn't kill someone else, especially if the police were on the way.

Personally, I'm glad that he didn't make a mistake. He killed robbers.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I wish more crimes ended this way. If every American took it upon himself/herself to protect their person/property with deadly force we wouldn't have any prison overcrowding.

Umm ok, but then you would have overcrowding graves, and confused kids, and a world turning more evil.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I wish more crimes ended this way. If every American took it upon himself/herself to protect their person/property with deadly force we wouldn't have any prison overcrowding.

Umm ok, but then you would have overcrowding graves, and confused kids, and a world turning more evil.


And a world where thugs can rob, loot, steal, maim, and rape with impunity isn't confused and evil enough?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The man didn't shoot them in his neighbor's window or yard.

They were already leaving with stolen property. The confrontation take place on his property not the neighbor's. The men were in his yard.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


Nah, we have lots of grave space. And why would kids turn "evil?" Daddy thought it would be a good idea to mug somebody and was killed. Dad wanted to rape some woman and now he's dead.

What's better than a clearly visible action/consequence scenario for learning?

You want to be a rabid animal you get put down like a rabid animal. Cut and dry and we can all get on with our lives. Or do you prefer years of prison, high recidivism, constant intervention of impotent social workers day in day out dragging the whole ordeal out for the extant of the childs "childhood?"

It's your opinion against my opinion. I'd rather have it the way I stated. You'd your. Congratulations on the post.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


A suspect or both suspects were ALLEGEDLY in the witness' yard. Only the witness' account is featured in the OP article. Forensics will determine if in fact the witness is telling the truth.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


Nah, we have lots of grave space. And why would kids turn "evil?"


Well first of all it would confuse kids that adults solve their problems with violence and murder, thus making them grow up influenced and more violent.

If you really think murdering petty thiefs is the answer, well thats worries me about our future.

Many politicians like your idea of violence and murder, and what has come from that? MORE innocent people living in pain by corrupt people.

Something like you mention would only be the first step to what may lead to more crazy ideas.

Setting examples to kids is what I meant, bad examples influence kids to become bad too.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
The man didn't shoot them in his neighbor's window or yard.

They were already leaving with stolen property. The confrontation take place on his property not the neighbor's. The men were in his yard.


He was inside his house and not confronted by these two criminals. He was not threatened at all. He just didn't like the fact that these criminals were stealing from his neighbor.

If they were attacking someone and or entering his house this would've been justified.

If we decide it is OK to blast anyone for any suspected crime, America will look like Iraq before you know it.

Agree with them or not we are a nation of laws.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Boondock78
 



heh if a morons dumb enough to pull a knife on you while youre wearing a pistol on yer hip, ok, imo they kinda deserve one in the kneecap as a reminder of just how stupid they are and how bad drugs are for their brain.

i missed your earlier question.

yes, kind of. twice i had people try to get in while i was home. they tried to open my sliding glass door and failed and left. they didnt know that the first time i was in the kitchen with my pistol waiting for them and the second time i was in the same kitchen with my 9mm carbine rifle while my roomie was on the landing to the stairs at the window above the patio with his 12g (and my gf was in my room with my pistol just in case they made it past both of us)

now, given that i had position and element of suprise, would i have fired first and asked questions later? not likely. in all likelyhood id have kicked them the phone and had THEM call 911 to explain that i had busted their dumb behinds breaking into my house and that they should hurry and come get them while they're still alive. but, as they didnt make it inside ill never have to know what id have really done.

but, i can totally understand your point of view and if someones dumb enough to break into your home while youre there, while im not one on advocating taking a life, i say do what you gotta do and id support your choice.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


LMFAO classic texan hilbily styl usin a shotty, i dont blame him though 1: he done his neighbors a favor and 2 where the law fail's to respond swiftlyto emergencey call'sthen why is it not appropiatefora lawbinding citizen to take the law into there own hand's. the only part i DONT agree with is killing them, that's the part that went to far, he could have atleast took off a leg, that sure would have slowed them down pahh! lol ...juggaloco



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by on_yur_6
 

It's been gone over this enough so I'll make this my last on the point. The Texas statutes have provisions for recovery of third party stolen property during daylight hours including deadly force. He may or may not have met the criteria allowed for what he did. It may also be within the realm of self-defense even though he did go outside. The grand jury will decide where this goes.

It's just a shame that in such a large metro area the police were not able to response sooner. Check in with the San Antonio news, for instance, and you see the killing is daily and almost 100% by crooks and gangs in action. Houston isn't much different. There are old people terrified of their own neighborhood because of what goes on crime wise.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Good point!

reply to post by gormly
 





posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by Toy_soldier
Infact I am planning on joining the police force, only a few steps away now, and that choice may present itself to me someday soon.

My PERSONAL opinion is that it's sad that you feel the need to have guns in order to feel safe. I would feel quite a bit more unsafe with a gun in my house.


What will you be doing with your firearm once you join the force. Why would you even want to become a police officer if you are so against force and weapons?


...because it is the police forces JOB to keep the peace, deal with dangerous situations and the like. It's their job to put their lives in danger, and in most situations a gun will be needed. It's what they're trained for, rather extensively.

They are not some random oafs handed weapons carelessly just because they hold a badge. They are the ones who told our hero NOT to go outside and NOT to put his life in danger, yet he did. IMHO he is the random oaf acting carelessly with his weapon.

I am against normal everyday civilians being armed with guns, but not the police force.

Had the police been the ones who had taken out the robbers then I can tell you without a doubt that I would be singing a different tune in my posts. Because police are professionally trained to deal with situations like this and will only use deadly force as a last possible resort, and they would be able to make a much better judgement as to whether these guys should have been shot or not. The police are who this guy should have waited for.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   


SB 378

Effective on 9/1/07
Signed by the Governor 03/27/2007

www.capitol.state.tx.us...

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:


(a)��Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor�[he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor�[himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force.
�The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:

(1)��unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2)��unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(3)��was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(e)��A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used
is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.


(f)��For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.


.32.��DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. �(a) �A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1)��if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2)��[if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated
; and
[(3)]��when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)��to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B)��to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.


(b)��The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had
reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was
used:


(1)��unlawfully entered, []

(3)��was committing or attempting to commit an offense []

(c)��A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d)��For purposes of Subsection (a)(2),

in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


[extra bold that last one]


law.onecle.com...
(b)��Section 83.001 This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.


----------------------


§ 30.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:
(A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and
(B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.

(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use.

(3) "Vehicle" includes any device in, on, or by which
any person or property is or may be propelled, moved, or drawn in
the normal course of commerce or transportation, except such
devices as are classified as "habitation."

---------------------------------


Ap·pur·te·nant
a.

[F. appartenant, p. pr. of appartenir. See Appurtenance.]
Annexed or pertaining to some more important thing; accessory; incident; as, a right of way appurtenant to land or buildings. Blackstone. 1994.

---------------------------------------

The Four Rules

1. All firearms are always loaded
2. Never let the muzzle of a firearm point at anything you are not willing to destroy
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it

Protecting thy neighbors home December 2007.

Am I the only one that can see how this legislation could lead to a civil war? Or is that the plan?


Sri Oracle


[edit on 3-12-2007 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toy_soldier
...because it is the police forces JOB to keep the peace, deal with dangerous situations and the like. It's their job to put their lives in danger, and in most situations a gun will be needed. It's what they're trained for, rather extensively.



[emphasis mine]

i bolded that part to dissagree with ONLY that part of your post. i think statistically speaking, most officers go their whole careers without ever drawing their weapons.

so, past that, i wish you a long, healthy, and gunfire free career in law enforcement



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Oh, what I actually meant was in most of those situations where they put their lives in danger a gun will be needed. But actually, I still think you are correct. I'm sure pepper spray, a baton or good ol' bare hands have been used to deal with deadly situations much better than the gun.

Well pointed out!

And thank you very much!
I am very very hopeful that I never find myself in such a difficult decision like our texan did. I can only be so lucky.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Well i have no idea as the laws or views in Texas,

Though in Sydney, even when a Cop or Security Guard shoots dead a criminal, they still go on trial, which i think is wrong as it is their job to take them out if they see the need to.

However, it sounds as if this guy was never confronted by the burglars, instead he took it upon himself to confront them and murder them.

As far as i have read they two were armed with a crowbar. lol. in my view this guy is a coward shooting dead 2 people, for stealing some property when he was never in harms way himself.

Have you ever stole anything ??? I bet you have some time in your life, how would you like it if some insane over-protective texan came up and blew yuor head off!



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Toy_soldier
 

What I was pointing out was that you seemed very much against and had a fear of firearms (at least in your home) in the post I quoted. Therefore I wondered why you would want to be a police officer.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join