Teen kills elderly woman for $6

[Charismatic]

I'm gonna have to pull a Miz right here.


...lol

[Bunnykillah]

About six months ago, Kaliszeski's bird was killed by a raccoon that got into the house.

The evil in me laughed a couple seconds at this.

[Katlan]

lol at stealing 6$ for beer.. is this really how pathetic ppl are becoming?

I blame video games!! (j/k)

[tyven]

i heard they found his pockets stuffed with twinkies

[Woozie]

(And I'd be doubly sure not to if they'd kill me for it)

You're black, they'll do it.

[Gunitsoldier]

It's pretty obvious that computer games caused this, right

GTA, the virtual devil, etc...

[Mizango]

You're black, they'll do it.

No truer words have EVER been spoken.

[Callisto]

man that's like 30 chicken nuggets

[kuronosan]

Or 120 minutes of dialing 10-10-220!

[Kuya]

According to the laws in Texas, you can shoot anyone who barges into your home uninvited. One would assume to protect yourself from possible harm from an attacker. That makes sense, but of course we all know that the last two events in question had the particular quality of the homeowner not actually being threatened, one where he wasn't even in his own home but saw the kids and decided to go teach them a lesson, by lesson i mean kill one, and the other were the thieves were not even inside of the man's house but he took it upon himself to defend property that did not belong to him. In both of those cases what we got is vigilantism.

[archibaldcrane]

Well, in both cases the shooter stopped the criminals from stealing the property, right?

You are misinterpreting the texas castle defense law - it's not just protecting your life and health, it's also protecting property. You can disagree with whether that should be allowed, but that's part of the reasoning behind the law. Your assumption is incomplete.

[Kuya]

Oh, you bet there's a problem with reasoning that implies that deadly force should be used for anything other than the defense of human life. In either case, it is also ridiculous that you should be allowed to defend someone else's property with deadly force. We have cops for a reason, and we also have laws for a reason. Legalized vigilantism is about one of the worst things you can do, but i digress, considering American culture, this aberration of morality and logic is not surprising.

[archibaldcrane]

I guess it's just a framing issue. You see it as "killing a criminal as punishment for stealing", and Texas sees it as "being able to do what it takes to stop a criminal from stealing".

[Dimmauk]

I'm Born, Raised, and Currently living in Texas. I hope this kid gets the death penalty.

I think the gun law also exists, or used to be extended to the inside of your car.(maybe that was Florida).

[Kuya]

It is illogical to not allow the government or the cops to kill thieves but allow the average citizen to do it. It sets up a bad precedent, and i believe this is one of the rare cases where one could contend that a slippery slope argument has value. It's like extreme territoriality.

[archibaldcrane]

It is illogical to not allow the government or the cops to kill thieves but allow the average citizen to do it.

The point is that average citizens, unlike police or the state, don't always have the skill to subdue without lethal force, and Texas values the ability to protect your property enough to allow them to do what is necessary.

Not sure about your slippery slope thing - what more can a homeowner do beyond killing an intruder - where does it slide to?

(well, other than the torture-porn feature I'm going to write about this)

[Seraphise]

He didn't kill the lady for 6 dollars, I think he had intent to steal much more money but upon robbing this lady only 6 dollars was found. Age of credit cards tbh.

[Kuya]

The point is that average citizens, unlike police or the state, don't always have the skill to subdue without lethal force, and Texas values the ability to protect your property enough to allow them to do what is necessary.

Evidently, that's why they should be limited to using deadly force for self defense, for anything else they should allow the law to handle it.

Slippery slope: seeing as how the law is not going to stop their vigilantism, people will continue to push the envelope further, potentially even going on witch hunts. Why would they do that? Because they haven't been showed their limits with proper lawful reprimand.

[Khamsin]

Evidently, that's why they should be limited to using deadly force for self defense, for anything else they should allow the law to handle it.

Slippery slope: seeing as how the law is not going to stop their vigilantism, people will continue to push the envelope further, potentially even going on witch hunts. Why would they do that? Because they haven't been showed their limits with proper lawful reprimand.

They can be shown their limits when they go on a witchhunt and kill someone not on a property they were just in the act of commiting a theft/rape/murder on.

[Ruiner]

I didn't say you are anti-gun - I don't know what your stance is on guns.

The intent after the fact is obvious. At the time, at the moment that this woman is in her home and the door is forced open and there is a sub-150 lb. teenager coming in, how is she supposed to determine his intent? Does she wait until he pulls out a knife? Does she wait until she approaches him? Or if she has a gun, does she aim and fire when he comes through that door?

How long does she wait? Maybe he just wants to raid her candy cupboard. Maybe he wants to decapitate her.

A bit late, but 100% agree.