Texas man kills 2 men robbing his neighbor's home

[Jefe]

Killing someone for robbing a home is not appropriate, I really don't care if you think "they deserve it".
If killing someone for that reason was legitimate, the penalty for a conviction would be death. Notice how it isn't.
I don't condone robbery in any way, but seriously guys, come on. I'm glad I live nowhere near that backwards-ass state.

It is also not "natural selection", people throw that bullshit phrase around far too much.

I almost gave up on this POS thread till I saw this post, someone buy this man the expansion songs for GHIII.

First the notion of "protecting loved ones" obviously does not apply to this case, since the house was empty. Also, the assumption of "well, if they do it again they'll come back and potentially kill someone!" There is no fucking way to prove that in fact they will do it again, and it's irrelevant to this case. For those of you pseudo-logicians: begging the question/irrelevant conclusion.

Is it morally justified? Nope, I'd like to think human life is more valuable than property.

[Remyo]

Yes I know, just a play on words. A reverse an hero.

there is no reverse an hero. unless you called him "oreh na"

oic.

Direkshunz?

1. Get your iPod stolen.
2. Receev gun.
3. ???
4. PROFIT

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com.../Mfailurel.jpg


only suicide can label one an hero, leave it alone.

[Remyo]

Is it morally justified? Nope, I'd like to think human life is more valuable than property.

it's not a question of morals as they differ from person to person, it was legally justified though.

[Kuya]

Killing someone for robbing a home is not appropriate, I really don't care if you think "they deserve it".
If killing someone for that reason was legitimate, the penalty for a conviction would be death. Notice how it isn't.
I don't condone robbery in any way, but seriously guys, come on. I'm glad I live nowhere near that backwards-ass state.

It is also not "natural selection", people throw that bullshit phrase around far too much.

I almost gave up on this POS thread till I saw this post, someone buy this man the expansion songs for GHIII.

First the notion of "protecting loved ones" obviously does not apply to this case, since the house was empty. Also, the assumption of "well, if they do it again they'll come back and potentially kill someone!" There is no fucking way to prove that in fact they will do it again, and it's irrelevant to this case. For those of you pseudo-logicians: begging the question/irrelevant conclusion.

Is it morally justified? Nope, I'd like to think human life is more valuable than property.

Though i rather not get too involved in this debate because of a disparity in my opinions, but i absolutly agree with what was sead above.

[Jer]

Killing someone for robbing a home is not appropriate, I really don't care if you think "they deserve it".
If killing someone for that reason was legitimate, the penalty for a conviction would be death. Notice how it isn't.

What a penalty for a conviction should be, and what it actually is, often isn't the case. For example, I absolutely think that if you murder someone you should receive the death penalty. However because there's a certain group of people, even murderers often don't get it. That said, I don't think the man should face any punishment.

[Khamsin]

I don't care if they walked in unarmed through an unlocked door to steal a loaf of bread for their starving families and left a note saying "Sorry" in it's place. If they don't want this sort of thing to happen, they won't break into people's houses.

On that note, I don't think human life is less valuable than a loaf of bread, but the fault does lie with the people who choose to do stupid shit like this.

[killerx]

isn't the main reason the nra says people should have guns to protect their home? why wouldn't this be justified?

he protected someone ELSE's home.

clearly wasnt his own.

This is apparently going to be the major sticking point in defending him - this guy had to have reasonable expectation to be "in charge" of defending his neighbor's property in order to be protected by law, unless he can come up with a "self-defense" charge depending on what exactly happened right before he shot the guy. If it had been his house he'd be fine, but when it's someone else's, he has to be in a position where he is "responsible" for the property he is defending - like if the neighbor told him "keep watch of my house while I'm gone" sort of thing.

I thought it was legal to protect a neighbor's home like this, in Texas, without having to be responsible for it? All that's required to be a neighbor is to live next to them.

As for "I'd shoot him in the kneecaps", well personally, I'd shoot his thumbs off first to prevent him from attacking me, then I'd shoot off one of his ears and tell him not to do anything funny or I'll shoot the other ear off.

then you get your lawsuit

[Bunnykillah]

Its best we kill them at the neighbors house, don't want them following us home. Isn't that the Texas motto?

[Shuemue]

2 less THF to outparse

[Tyche]

Killing someone for robbing a home is not appropriate, I really don't care if you think "they deserve it".
If killing someone for that reason was legitimate, the penalty for a conviction would be death. Notice how it isn't.
I don't condone robbery in any way, but seriously guys, come on. I'm glad I live nowhere near that backwards-ass state.

It is also not "natural selection", people throw that bullshit phrase around far too much.

I almost gave up on this POS thread till I saw this post, someone buy this man the expansion songs for GHIII.

First the notion of "protecting loved ones" obviously does not apply to this case, since the house was empty. Also, the assumption of "well, if they do it again they'll come back and potentially kill someone!" There is no fucking way to prove that in fact they will do it again, and it's irrelevant to this case. For those of you pseudo-logicians: begging the question/irrelevant conclusion.

Is it morally justified? Nope, I'd like to think human life is more valuable than property.

There is no fucking way of knowing they WON'T do it again. Statistics I made up for this post would suggest they would. Seriously, I've experienced this first hand. Some guns were stolen from an outbuilding in my community, then over the next several weeks, many outbuildings were looted. When criminals begin to feel comfortable in a particular area, they'll stick with that area. Also, don't play the "it doesn't apply to this case" when joe horn specifically said "i don't know those neighbors"...he had no idea if they had possibly left their children there with a babysitter and if someone was home or what the thief's intentions were. What if the thieves had scouted this house for weeks, and on the day they plan to loot, the kids are sick and they call in an emergency babysitter...he didn't know if they were armed or what they were capable of.

[Beckwin]

Let the police catch them, don't try to play Rambo. Middleage W. McFuckwad has no training to pursue criminals and could've gotten himself killed, not to even mention that he ended up murdering 2 men for breaking into an empty house. Those two men would not have received the death penalty (even in texas) for home burglary.

This is disgusting.


PS- criminals that inevitably will "come back" to the neighborhood (since you can't stamp out common burglary ever) will now be coming back almost certainly with firearms and readiness to use them.

[Khamsin]

isn't the main reason the nra says people should have guns to protect their home? why wouldn't this be justified?

he protected someone ELSE's home.

clearly wasnt his own.

This is apparently going to be the major sticking point in defending him - this guy had to have reasonable expectation to be "in charge" of defending his neighbor's property in order to be protected by law, unless he can come up with a "self-defense" charge depending on what exactly happened right before he shot the guy. If it had been his house he'd be fine, but when it's someone else's, he has to be in a position where he is "responsible" for the property he is defending - like if the neighbor told him "keep watch of my house while I'm gone" sort of thing.

I thought it was legal to protect a neighbor's home like this, in Texas, without having to be responsible for it? All that's required to be a neighbor is to live next to them.

As for "I'd shoot him in the kneecaps", well personally, I'd shoot his thumbs off first to prevent him from attacking me, then I'd shoot off one of his ears and tell him not to do anything funny or I'll shoot the other ear off.

then you get your lawsuit

Then I'll shoot the mole off his nose, then threaten to shoot his sideburns off next.

[Kuya]

Killing someone for robbing a home is not appropriate, I really don't care if you think "they deserve it".
If killing someone for that reason was legitimate, the penalty for a conviction would be death. Notice how it isn't.
I don't condone robbery in any way, but seriously guys, come on. I'm glad I live nowhere near that backwards-ass state.

It is also not "natural selection", people throw that bullshit phrase around far too much.

I almost gave up on this POS thread till I saw this post, someone buy this man the expansion songs for GHIII.

First the notion of "protecting loved ones" obviously does not apply to this case, since the house was empty. Also, the assumption of "well, if they do it again they'll come back and potentially kill someone!" There is no fucking way to prove that in fact they will do it again, and it's irrelevant to this case. For those of you pseudo-logicians: begging the question/irrelevant conclusion.

Is it morally justified? Nope, I'd like to think human life is more valuable than property.

There is no fucking way of knowing they WON'T do it again. Statistics I made up for this post would suggest they would. Seriously, I've experienced this first hand. Some guns were stolen from an outbuilding in my community, then over the next several weeks, many outbuildings were looted. When criminals begin to feel comfortable in a particular area, they'll stick with that area. Also, don't play the "it doesn't apply to this case" when joe horn specifically said "i don't know those neighbors"...he had no idea if they had possibly left their children there with a babysitter and if someone was home or what the thief's intentions were. What if the thieves had scouted this house for weeks, and on the day they plan to loot, the kids are sick and they call in an emergency babysitter...he didn't know if they were armed or what they were capable of.

First of all, can we stop using what ifs? That won't help anyone's argument. And as to the reason why i'm unsure about this is because:

A) It is, apperently, legal for him to do this.
B) Since he's not a cop, you can't expect him to know the proper way to approach a situation like this. And because i'm not holding him to the same standard as a cop, i'm wary of attacking him for his actions.

Next, what i don't understand is, why is it ok for a civilian to kill a burgler, yet it is not ok for the state to execute one? I don't understand the huge double standard here, if it can even be called one, because i'm absolutly sure that if the state had killed a burgler, we would have a total media shitstorm. And last time i checked, civilians don't have the right to kill unless it is out of self-defense.

Also, were the burglers armed? And did he at least say that he warned them to leave the property before he decided to fire? (not expecting the last one from a middle aged civilian with no training in the matter)

[Beckwin]

Kuya, did you listen to the phone call? Just curious. The officer on the phone repeatedly told him to stay inside, and this guy fairly quickly went out and fired 2 or 3 shots when he saw the men exiting the home. He also stated to the officer that he didn't know the residents of this particular house very well.

[Kuya]

Kuya, did you listen to the phone call? Just curious. The officer on the phone repeatedly told him to stay inside, and this guy fairly quickly went out and fired 2 or 3 shots when he saw the men exiting the home. He also stated to the officer that he didn't know the residents of this particular house very well.

Nope, but now i do.
edit: Just finished hearing it, the operator warned him several times that killing someone over property is not worth it. Guess he sternly disagreed.

[Tyche]

I used the "what if" in mockery because someone said "what if they don't come back to rob another house...". Both, my example and their example defy probability, although the chances of someone being home is probably more likely than the thieves turning a new leaf and all of a sudden developing great decision making skills.

[killerx]

Kuya, did you listen to the phone call? Just curious. The officer on the phone repeatedly told him to stay inside, and this guy fairly quickly went out and fired 2 or 3 shots when he saw the men exiting the home. He also stated to the officer that he didn't know the residents of this particular house very well.

I can't rember but i know i've been told from different police officers that if you are going to shoot and kill the guy they have to be IN your house to do it. Just thought id toss somthing else into this.

[SupHammer]

I wish this would happen more often. If the consequences for criminal activities were always this severe then criminals would be more discouraged to commit crimes. As it stands now the system favors the guilty and these scum would've been released with a 6 month probation and a $500 court fee. And guess where they would get the $500 for that fee...

[Khamsin]

And last time i checked, civilians don't have the right to kill unless it is out of self-defense.

Keep in mind this is Texas, where civilians do have the right to kill outside of self-defense. If someone is in the house next door, you can legally go in and gun them down. They don't have to be armed or threaten you, and you don't have to give them the option to leave. Just hide right outside the front door and shoot them in the back of the head as they walk out, if you want.

Keep in mind, also, the difference between government and civilians. Civilians can get away with a whole lot more than the government can, due to accountability issues. Nobody is paying taxes to civilians, no civilian has authority over the population, and so nobody cares about accountability of civilians. The government, on the other hand, everybody watches like a hawk.

I wish this would happen more often. If the consequences for criminal activities were always this severe then criminals would be more discouraged to commit crimes. As it stands now the system favors the guilty and these scum would've been released with a 6 month probation and a $500 court fee. And guess where they would get the $500 for that fee...

Don't they confiscate the stolen money when you're caught, or at least an amount equal to what you stole if you spent it already?

[SupHammer]

Don't they confiscate the stolen money when you're caught, or at least an amount equal to what you stole if you spent it already?

I'm sure they're not allowed to keep it. I was saying they would have to burglarize more innocent families to pay their fines.