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.

 

Abrams: Texas jury OKs shooting burglars in the back?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

San Antonio, Texas 1971 - 1974. Love that country.

I got to go back on a visit a few years ago to relive old times and see old friends... I now have some fine pictures, wonderful memories, and a bumper sticker that has a prominent place on my fridge door, "I'm not frm Texas, but I got here as quick as I could"!





posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Animal
 


If you want a response to that particular post (out of all the ones you have made), then just ask for it.



Shameful. Killing over robbery? Shooting people in the back justified? Something about this does not seem very legitimate to me.

"Deadly force" to protect your property seems like a very slippery and dangerous slope.

Shooting someone for stealing my old broken down hibachi grill? What the hell is wrong with people today?

This to me is a perfect example of why state sovereignty should be trumped by the federal government.


this is the one, correct? OK..here goes.

1. It is not "killing over burglary". it is killing men who encroached upon HIS yard after he told them to stop, and then after he warned him to not move. He was willing to allow the men to lie down and wait for the police, but they chose to run. It isn't the fact that they ran that got them shot. it was the fact that they made sudden movement. Put yourself in that position, two men standing in your yard and they make a sudden movement.


And now you are doing what you accuse me of. The robbers were in his neighbors yard. He was told not to approach them. He made a DECISION to CREATE the confrontation (PREMEDITATION). some how I do not think it very likely that he could not see the men well enough to know they were trying to get away from the man with the gun.



2. a "slippery slope" argument is an informal fallacy and cannot be debated. It relies on a series of "what ifs". the fact is that it is the law in Texas, and that is what the people of Texas have decided, per the process of the state and US constitution. As well, the protection of property was exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they instituted the bill of rights. That is WHY we get to keep guns, and WHY soldiers cannot take up forced residence in your home.


This is exactly why I called such a law a "slippery slope". Because making the assumption that allowing people to shoot people for entering their property is going to have beneficial consequences ASSUMES a certain chain of events that MAY or MAY NOT come to pass...An assumption that also dismisses an entire world of other possibilities...



3. There was no mention of what the property was. No one mentioned a hibachi grill, that i saw. It is unrelated to the case. What was stated is that they had a "bag of property".


Me making a point and using a device known as humor.



4. State sovereignty is a constitutional matter. That is the way our nation was created. Further, Texas has "special" rights of sovereignty beyond the other states.


Ah but this is still ONE NATION, lets not forget the federal governments ability to regulate at the state level.



Now, since i went to the trouble to reply to the one specific post that you seem to have wanted me to reply to, will you address your misrepresentation of how/why they were shot in the back? Your insinuation is presumptive, as you are not including all facts in the assertion.


I have already responded to this accusation and I know my response was legitimate and understandable. They were shot in the back, as I stated by a man who CHOSE to create the confrontation and CHOSE, premeditatively, that he was going to use LETHAL FORCE. All the facts are already common knowledge in this thread and saying that I somehow am hiding information from people is silly. Everyone here knows how to read I do not need to repete all the information over and over in every post...



I have no problem with you not agreeing with the decision. But at least be honest in your discussion about it.



I have been nothing but honest and once again I will ask that you stick to the topic and refrain from making this 'personal'.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Animal]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

The Universal Law of Consequences has rendered judgement.


No, some human with a gun and the propensity to KILL rendered their judgment. I guess in Texas a gun gives you the right to CHOOSE who lives and dies.

I stand by my previous statement that the Feral Government should come down on laws such as this like a ton of bricks.

Guns are for hunting and protecting ones life NOT ones Nintendo and stereo. Validating such behavior is barbaric.

You sound like someone who lives like one indoctrinated under a program of detrimental social engineering, without taking the opportunity to question & decide for yourself what really constitutes proper social behavior & informal social contracts.
I've found at the Supreme Law Firm that may make my last statement a little more clearly understood...Yes, you can even take law courses there. A link to a particular legal & social study I found at that website makes one wonder...Do you really like living as a coward in A Nation of Cowards?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


I would argue that my firm stance on NOT killing over things like robbery make me less of a coward than someone who feels it is necessary.


MBF

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
As we sat down to eat at noon one day, the door bell rang. I got up and went to the door. There was this very cute little girl at the door and she wanted to speak to the man of the house. It was cold and the wind was blowing kind of hard and she didn't have on heavy clothing so I asked her into the utility room while I went to get my father. I got most of the way through the house and looked over my shoulder and she was right on me heels. She gave him a BS story about cleaning the carpet, but my father declined. A couple of weeks later, her picture was on the front page of the paper along with her brother for breaking into dozens of homes. I think the only reason they didn't come back to our house to rob us was that when she walked by my fathers chair she saw the shotgun that he keeps there all the time.

If anybody breaks into our house they WILL BE SHOT.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
well they know the rules and risks if your gonna be dumb and go somewhere your not supposed to and do who knows what then it might cost you your life, everyone knows that if your from texas you can shoot someone if they go onto ones property, and am not even from their i stay in fl



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Shameful. Killing over robbery? Shooting people in the back justified? Something about this does not seem very legitimate to me.

"Deadly force" to protect your property seems like a very slippery and dangerous slope.

Shooting someone for stealing my old broken down hibachi grill? What the hell is wrong with people today?

This to me is a perfect example of why state sovereignty should be trumped by the federal government.
you should also keep in mind,situations like this get the adrenaline pumping,makes it a little harder to think.maybe theifs should wake up and realize they will get a testicle blown off, or something if they try this crap.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
What's wrong with killing a burglar?
Nothing that's what.
I will not cower down tearfully hoping a burglar doesn't off my wife, her daughter and myself.
If someone breaks into my home it's gonna be high noon baby.

Twin G30's in 45 ACP - come on in....



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I cant believe there is even a thread about this. These two guys were pieces of crap. The world is a better place without them here. I imagine that animal has never had his house broken into, so he doesnt know how violated and vulnerable you and your family feel. Trust me, it is not a good feeling. These people could have stolen everything from his neigbhor. the report says a bag of items, but lets see, i bet your bank info, check book, credit cards, passport, social security cards, etc, could have all fit in that bag. You steal these things, you have basically stolen that persons life and they will be screwed for a very long time trying to get everything straightened out, not to mention items that hold a very high personal value that might have been stolen. i live in texas. im proud to live here, im proud my state lets me defend myself and my property. and yes, my property is worth more then the human life that tries to steal it. ive spent my whole life saving for the items i own, and ill be damned if someone tries to take them from me.

just a few weeks ago, there were a bunch of hispanic males leaving a property in my parents neighborhood. A police car drove by and they tried to run and get in their vehicle (which was stolen by the way), these guys did have guns and turned around and started shooting at the cop. They ended up leaving the vehicle and running on foot. my parents live on a golf course with lots of trees and creeks so these guys were able to hide there and finally get away. There are 4 schools within a mile of this neighborhood, all of which were on lock down because these criminals hadnt been caught. my point is, the cops came to a house and still didnt stop the criminals. If there was a neighbor like mr horn, thousands of kids would not have had to been terrified of someone coming to kill them at school. a vehicle, and all the possessions of the house would not have been stolen. also, these criminals turned away to run from the police, they still had a gun though, and still turned around and shot at the policeman.

i had my truck broken into 3 times in my drive way. If i would have been awake or heard a noise, i damn well would have grabbed my gun and shot them. if your willing to take something from others, you are basically a worthless piece of crap and deserve to die. its a better place without you here.

i cant believe every state isnt like texas. What am i supposed to do if someone breaks into my house? do i have to wait until he physically assaults me before i can do anything?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


In the state of Texas, both of your assertions are wrong. Read our law. It is that way because the people of Texas want it his way and have voted it to be so.


So in Texas, you kill people over property, and its not premeditated murder if you plan to do it beforehand? Sounds like a great place to raise the kids.



Sounds like a bad situation waiting to happen. while i'm all for protecting myself if a burglar. What happens when a person jogging next to the house getting robbed and is mistaken for a running robber? Or a kid playing getting hit with buckshot? Tell u what had that guy shot my kid by mistake the cops would have found three bodies.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Texas relies on the grand jury system as the first line of defense in your personal rights. "By the people, of the people, for the people."

while a prosecutor can try to empanel a new jury, he's got to work to avoid double jeopardy. And since prosecutors are almost always elected officials in Texas, a prosecutor that throws out a grand jury's refusal to proceed to trial ( a "no bill") has little chance of being re-elected.

In some jurisdictions in Texas, the grand jury is empaneled for a given term. If the prosecutor there wants to charge the defendant again, it will be almost exactly the same jury that saw the original case.


It's funny that posters like animal focus on the state's law, when their real problem is with the values of the people who live here.

Posters like that don't want to live free, and they cannot stand the idea that someone else they've never met, in another state, is still living free and unafraid. Some people are allergic to liberty, and are worried that it might be contagious.


Funny how you don't see too many texans telling other people how to live. But a lot of northerners want to tell texans exactly how to live. And the answer is always to stop being yourself and stop being free and happy.


Pardon me for racheting things up a notch, but liberals always have a problem with the reality of evil. They also have a problem with consequences. They don't want to admit that either can exist.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

It's funny that posters like animal focus on the state's law, when their real problem is with the values of the people who live here.

Posters like that don't want to live free, and they cannot stand the idea that someone else they've never met, in another state, is still living free and unafraid. Some people are allergic to liberty, and are worried that it might be contagious.


Okay, I have a problem with the values of the community and the subsequent laws, I will not ague that point.

The rest of what you say is baseless and erroneous conjecture. I am sure that dismissing me as a freedom hating loon makes you feel better about yourself and your ideals, but it is still only baseless conjecture.

Freedom - Order. It is a delicate balance. In the case presented I think freedom has dangerously over powered order.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


could you elaborate a little more, i really dont know what you were getting at there,liberals and texans telling how northerners.........wait maybe its just me nevermind.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!"

I'm pretty sure I read that in another member's post here on ATS somewhere. It's fitting to this situation.

I'm also pretty sure that any one of our founding fathers would have done the same thing in the same situation. That makes it good enough for me.

I want you all to really, REALLY think about that quote and how true it is before you go on defending these two prick burglars who gave up their rights when they snuck into our country and decided to make a career out of infringing on everyone else's.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Generally, people who stick up for criminals in this sort of case are the type who have never worked a hard days work in their entire lives. So dont know what its like to have something that you worked - gave up hours of your life - for.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by Animal
Shameful. Killing over robbery? Shooting people in the back justified? Something about this does not seem very legitimate to me.

"Deadly force" to protect your property seems like a very slippery and dangerous slope.

Shooting someone for stealing my old broken down hibachi grill? What the hell is wrong with people today?

This to me is a perfect example of why state sovereignty should be trumped by the federal government.


Since I know you won't shoot me, can I have your address? I'd like to come to your house and take everything you own since you won't be defending it.

I won't hurt anyone, I just want your stuff.

Address please?


i live at 1600 pennsylvania ave ,washinton dc. come rob this place and see if you dont get shot. do you think there would be questions asked? well then why should the pres have the right and i dont? and that stuff doesnt belong to him either.
i lived in TEXAS for 20 years,and they care about each other. when they made it legal to shoot someone in the commission of a felony it was a great feeling to know you could keep someone from hurting someone else and not have to be afraid of the consequences,not like here in new jersey, the state of fear. oh, and crime sure dropped too. TEXAS PRIDE RULES

oh, and slackwire,i was just trying to reenforce your statement,not give you a hard time

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Spectre0o0]


[edit on 2-7-2008 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Would I kill someone for stealing my property? Probably not, I'd have to live with it the rest of my life and I think every time I'd lay my head down on the pillow a bit more of me would die, wondering if I'd made an error and maybe killed someone that could of turned their life around or I'd killed some mothers child and my action had brought more pain into the world.

Then again, last year a couple strangers I gave a ride to in my van, tried to thank me by stealing the laptop computer I'm writing this on by hiding it under their jacket as they got out.

I grabbed my camping hatchet that was in my camping box as I was on my way home from a camp out and since there was two of them with one over 300lbs I figured I needed to threaten them with a weapon to get my computer back. I probably wouldn't of killed them on purpose, but I definitely would of whacked em pretty hard to make sure I'd kept control of the situation.

I already had another computer stolen out of my truck a year prior to that and still carrying that anger, I wasn't about to buy another - so yeah I understand lethal force to defend personal property.

I think the little guy just about pissed his pants and immediately gave it up and I let em go on their way. Calling the cops would have just cost me more time and wouldn't of amounted to anything, but an extra headache or who knows they could of arrested me.

So yeah, I believe you have to stand up for yourself in this world, if you don't want to get stepped on. I don't need some pussies on 911 telling me to let them walk off with a computer I'll never see again and a years worth of work & photo's of my pretty baby to boot.

Would I stand up for a neighbor that shot a burglar? Absolutely, but I'd feel a little guilt if he shot em in the back.

This is a nasty situation, but as an American I have to defend the rights of other Americans to defend themselves, their property and that of their neighbors even if that means the use of lethal force.

It's really the only way to keep a balance. Every few years a burglar gets shot and the rest of em think twice about what happened.

The police usually don't get there in time to do anything, but file reports and give lectures, I don't give a damn what a 911 operator says - they have no authority - they are there to assist us not to give orders.

I agree shooting these guys in the back was a cowardly thing to do, but I wasn't there so I don't know what he was going through and I'd rather error on his side, rather than take all of our rights away of defending our properties as we see fit.

Curious, were the dead burglars black and the shooter white? Are some saying that he shot them because he was a racist? If so that does change things a bit and maybe deserves a review by the feds.

I don't know - I guess I prefer Texas law than the nanny state of Washington that I live in where the shooter would probably go to jail and the burglars families would probably take everything he owned in court while he sat in jail.

There is no perfect solution, except maybe we educate everyone enough so they don't turn into burglars or killers.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I honestly do not see the issue here . . . why are you guys making a stink about it?

This right here makes be proud to be a Texan. Generally speaking we have each others backs.




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


I think there are two issues. Some people expect the government to take care of the dirty work and they don't want us to take care of ourselves, so we become dependent on others to survive. Obviously many of us here reject that.

The other issue is the guy shot em in the back - as he was chasing them off. That's a bit extreme even for defenders of his rights, like me.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by verylowfrequency]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join