Get off my neighbors lawn (or why I live in TX)

[pohibaba]

I completely agree with most people who argue for our Second Amendment rights, but I don't think there can be any doubt that what he did was unjustifiable. He killed 2 men simply because they had a bag of loot from a neighbor's house that he didn't even know all that well. He should be spending the rest of his life in prison.

[Correction]

To be complete on the issue, this is not the first time a Southern jury has valued property over human life and let manslaughter/murder charges slip off the table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... gewanted=1

[Tyche]

It could have been prevented if that shitty old man had just followed directions and stayed in his house.

Or if the shitty thief had just followed the law and stayed in his house.

True, but that doesn't make murder an acceptable response to thievery, especially when you're in no physical danger from the robbers and it's not even your shit they're stealing. Pretty interesting that they were supposedly advancing on his property yet he shot them in the back. Moonwalking burglars?

Many many states make it an acceptable response to thievery has sir beckwin has already pointed out. Also, the police department (keep in mind there was an officer on scene) reported that they were in his front yard, I'm assuming they ran once they seen a fucking shotgun wielding fat guy on a porch. Not going to argue the right/wrong of this case, we did that a while back. Unbeknownst to Beckwin however, Texas has a law completely separate from the Castle Doctrine (which would be completely out of context in this case anyway, any of the media talking about it are certainly misusing it). Texas Penal Code Title 2, Chapter 9, Sec 4x

[Khamsin]

It could have been prevented if that shitty old man had just followed directions and stayed in his house.

I know you won't agree, but I would even consider the following scenario ok:

Two men are trying to decide what to do with their afternoon. One man proposes they watch TV or take a walk. The other suggests they go break into a home. One man points out that they may be injured in the process, and asks if its worth their lives to commit robbery today. They deliberate and eventually agree that they are willing to risk their lives to deprive others of their property, and they take off to look for a home to break into.

Along the way, the two men come across a house.

"Do you know who lives here?" one man inquires.

"No, I do not. Perhaps there may be items of value inside?" the other responds.

Together, they stealthily approach the window so as not to alarm whoever might be home. Quickly, they break the window and leap inside, ready to confront the homeowner and incapacitate him. But they are lucky, he is not home. Elated with their luck, they begin searching for anything worth taking.

Pocketing a sentimental heirloom, one man turns and asks "Worthington, have you found anything of which to deprive this poor homeowner?"

To which Worthington responds, "Yes, Buckley. It will wound his soul to find these missing. They are one of a kind, and cannot be replaced."

"Excellent, we must be going then. It is almost time for tea."

"Indeed, my good chap."

As the two men exit the house, the neighbor catches a glimpse of the two escaping thieves. He dashes outside as the felonious criminals are stepping out of the yard. "STOP!" he yells.

"Time to make haste, Worthington!"

"I verily agree!"

The two criminals begin running, arms full of loot, as the neighbor gives chase. Two, three, four blocks they run. Soon, the thieves are short of breath and begin to slow down. They slow down just enough that the neighbor can close in and get off a shot, killing Worthington.

"Oh well, we knew the risks," Buckley admits, accepting of his fate. He collapses to the floor as the next shot takes his head clean off. They would not get away with robbery this day.

*Note: Race is not mentioned, and unimportant. I doubt the neighbor would have let them get away just because of their race, if they were older white men.

[Khamsin]

Just to clarify my own point of view, I would never consider tailgating worthy of the death penalty. I don't think a bit of bumper paint is worth someone getting killed.

On the other hand, if it does end up happening, I'd just chalk it up to an accident and not prosecute the driver involved. It may not have been an actual "accident" per se, but you never know how people will react when you brake-check them, and it was an outcome that could have been prevented by simply not driving like a granny in the first place.

Is driving like a granny a felony? At least use an example from the following selection, if you're going to make an analogy like that: assault/battery, arson, murder, rape, kidnapping.

Those are felonies like burglary/robbery. Tailgating and driving like a granny aren't exactly in the same league.

Same league? I'm just pointing out ad absurdum how empty your argument is. It can be word-substituted to justify any kind of consequence to someone doing anything against the law. Try inserting "littering" or "noise violation" or similar nuisance-crime.

Ever heard of context? Word-substitution to justify consequences to other activities only work if the substitution is comparible. And last time I checked, driving like a granny or littering was not comparable to robbery, either by the law or by common perception. And I've never known of a case where someone shot someone for littering and was acquitted in court. But insert other felonies like murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. and there have been cases where someone was killed in response to those crimes. And the jury let them go.

[aurik]

Just to clarify my own point of view, I would never consider tailgating worthy of the death penalty. I don't think a bit of bumper paint is worth someone getting killed.

On the other hand, if it does end up happening, I'd just chalk it up to an accident and not prosecute the driver involved. It may not have been an actual "accident" per se, but you never know how people will react when you brake-check them, and it was an outcome that could have been prevented by simply not driving like a granny in the first place.

Is driving like a granny a felony? At least use an example from the following selection, if you're going to make an analogy like that: assault/battery, arson, murder, rape, kidnapping.

Those are felonies like burglary/robbery. Tailgating and driving like a granny aren't exactly in the same league.

Same league? I'm just pointing out ad absurdum how empty your argument is. It can be word-substituted to justify any kind of consequence to someone doing anything against the law. Try inserting "littering" or "noise violation" or similar nuisance-crime.

Ever heard of context? Word-substitution to justify consequences to other activities only work if the substitution is comparible. And last time I checked, driving like a granny or littering was not comparable to robbery, either by the law or by common perception. And I've never known of a case where someone shot someone for littering and was acquitted in court.

Context isn't the point, the point is that you're making an argument that has no substance.

[Khamsin]

Just to clarify my own point of view, I would never consider tailgating worthy of the death penalty. I don't think a bit of bumper paint is worth someone getting killed.

On the other hand, if it does end up happening, I'd just chalk it up to an accident and not prosecute the driver involved. It may not have been an actual "accident" per se, but you never know how people will react when you brake-check them, and it was an outcome that could have been prevented by simply not driving like a granny in the first place.

Is driving like a granny a felony? At least use an example from the following selection, if you're going to make an analogy like that: assault/battery, arson, murder, rape, kidnapping.

Those are felonies like burglary/robbery. Tailgating and driving like a granny aren't exactly in the same league.

Same league? I'm just pointing out ad absurdum how empty your argument is. It can be word-substituted to justify any kind of consequence to someone doing anything against the law. Try inserting "littering" or "noise violation" or similar nuisance-crime.

Ever heard of context? Word-substitution to justify consequences to other activities only work if the substitution is comparible. And last time I checked, driving like a granny or littering was not comparable to robbery, either by the law or by common perception. And I've never known of a case where someone shot someone for littering and was acquitted in court.

Context isn't the point, the point is that you're making an argument that has no substance.

If it's substance you're worried about, you're in the wrong thread. I haven't seen a substantial argument that this was unexpected and unacceptable, either. With the exception of the court ruling, everything else in this thread has been opinion. You might have missed the "my own point of view" part of my post. I don't expect you or Beckwin to see things the same way. That, and I have a really nasty habit of being facetious. I guess it's just another form of ad absurdum, although the core view is still there... just to a lesser extreme that it would seem.

I just consider it a risk that anyone doing something like that should be aware of. It's stupid to break into a place and not at least consider the possibility of being injured in the process. They're probably the kind of people to go recover their hat from under a rollercoaster ride. Whether it's justified or not is irrelevant. You can blame the neighbor, but I still prefer to blame the stupidity of the two guys breaking into someone's home. They're the ones who committed the felony, here, which provoked the neighbor's response and ultimately their own deaths.

Besides, you can take any argument, no matter how well structured and supported, and make it absurd by word substitution. That's why you have to substitute comparable concepts to successfully make your point.

[Daydreamer]

didn't see it in the OP or the link, this is the first I've heard of it(I don't watch TV) LOL at the 911 call http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

Notice how he said "The laws have changed in this country after Sepember the FIRST"

[aurik]

I prefer to think of it as the next-door neighbour who made the conscious decision to step outside of his house, armed and with the intent to kill, the one who instigated the situation.

[Venture]

I'm not even littering in Texas. Motherfucking Greenpeace with ethanol-powered chainsaws!

[Tyche]

didn't see it in the OP or the link, this is the first I've heard of it(I don't watch TV) LOL at the 911 call http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

Notice how he said "The laws have changed in this country after Sepember the FIRST"

The guy was obviously much much more educated than you. You have been wooshed.

edit: To clarify, it has nothing to do with 9/11. That's all I'll tell you, I'll let you educate yourself.

[Kuya]

So, he shot two thieves dead who weren't personally threatening him, something that if done by the cops, would lead to a total shit storm. Not even the State would be allowed to execute thieves.

Did he even give the two guys a warning before he shot?

[aurik]

The 911 call is on youtube, I can't bear to listen to it again. If I recall, it wasn't much of a warning, if at all. Been a while since I heard it.

[Beckwin]

It could have been prevented if that shitty old man had just followed directions and stayed in his house.

Or if the shitty thief had just followed the law and stayed in his house.

Two wrongs make a right, eye for an eye till nobody can see.

[Tyche]

Like a half a second warning lol.

Edit: Not funny as in two guys getting shot, but funny as in the guy pretty much said "MOVE AND YOUR DEAD" .5 seconds pass, BOOM

[Stee]

This is ridiculous, I can understand protecting property even if it is your neighbors, however this guy clearly shot the robbers because he had a itchy trigger finger. Notice how he says stop then barely a second later you hear the shots, from what I have read about it he didn't even bother trying to fire warning shots or waiting a few seconds before firing.

I don't care how irrational of a robber you are but when a man fires a weapon into the air or somewhere near you, you will fucking stop and surrender especially since none of the robbers even had a gun.

There was a 100% chance the robbers were going to be caught, and the robbers lives could have been spared but simply put the neighbor with the gun wanted to take a human life not because he felt it was his responsibility to stop the robbers but because he wanted to have a real bullseye for his shotgun.

[Khamsin]

I prefer to think of it as the next-door neighbour who made the conscious decision to step outside of his house, armed and with the intent to kill, the one who instigated the situation.

You make it sound like he was just looking for an excuse to kill someone, and was lucky he caught a couple felons in the act that he could get away with shooting.

Otherwise, he may have shot an innocent passerby to satisfy his urge.

Do you not believe that his decision to grab his shotgun and confront them was based on the fact that he saw them robbing his neighbor?

Back to your tailgating example. As you put it, if the tailgater rear-ended granny, the tailgater would be at fault. But let's say the granny driver did something illegal (and stupid), say turning left from the through lane, cutting across your lane and making you stop abruptly. If you had hit her, who would the insurance company find at fault? What if you had decided to be a dick and purposely hit her to teach her a lesson, knowing the insurance company had your back because she was committing the illegal maneuver? At worst, that's what the neighbor did.

[Robert]

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/6...ornkhoulm1.jpg

[Azalee]

After seeing his picture, he totally fits the description of someone that would shoot someone else just for burglary.

[Khamsin]

It could have been prevented if that shitty old man had just followed directions and stayed in his house.

Or if the shitty thief had just followed the law and stayed in his house.

Two wrongs make a right, eye for an eye till nobody can see.

To do eye for an eye implies one person takes your eye, so you take theirs. Correct?

Well, if he takes your eye, and you don't take his.. you still lost an eye. If he does it again, guess what? You're blind anyway, same as the eye-for-an-eye scenario, the only difference is the guy who took your eyes can still see.

In a world where there's no eye-for-an-eye, only criminals can see. Kinda like the argument against gun bans.