Texas - I love living here!!!

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I assume he'd ask you not to run at him after breaking into a house at night.

Give me a break. They were both shot in the back. They were running away. The dude told the 911 operator he was going to kill them. It wasn't self defense. It doesn't have to be self defense for it to be legal, so don't pretend like it was self defense.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

How are you going to stop him?

You don't stop him - you just accept that whatever he took from you is worth a LOT less than what you'd be taking from him and move on with your life...

(I have to question the mental health of someone who values material possessions over human life...)

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

What if you hit him in the legs in an artery and he bled to death? This isn't a movie.

At least the burglar has a chance to stay alive and it wasn´t the purpose to kill him. Because if you shoot him to death, you can adopt the death penalty for burglars (thieves) straight away.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Give me a break. They were both shot in the back. They were running away. The dude told the 911 operator he was going to kill them. It wasn't self defense. It doesn't have to be self defense for it to be legal, so don't pretend like it was self defense.

Originally Posted by Underdog

Frankly, if I'm this guy's neighbor, I'd wonder if he'd shoot me for stepping on his lawn...

I think you ought to weigh both of these as hyperbole. I don't have a problem with him shooting them at all. They were thiefs who had broken into his neighbors house and stolen from them. It was dark and for all he knew they had an uzi. He was scared and shot 'em, tough.

Again...NYC he goes to jail, Texas he's my hero.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

At least the burglar has a chance to stay alive and it wasn´t the purpose to kill him. Because if you shoot him to death, you can adopt the death penalty for burglars (thieves) straight away.

Hey you either stop them or you don't, you dont' get to have some sort of movie ending here where you shoot the gun out of their hands.

It's okay with me if you'd let them take your stuff. It's your stuff.

It's also quite okay with me that this guy stopped some criminals from taking his neighbors stuff. Maybe they shouldn't have stolen it.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think you ought to weigh both of these as hyperbole. I don't have a problem with him shooting them at all. They were thiefs who had broken into his neighbors house and stolen from them. It was dark and for all he knew they had an uzi. He was scared and shot 'em, tough.

Again...NYC he goes to jail, Texas he's my hero.

For all I know, everyone who walks across the sidewalk in front of my house is trying to rob me - is it okay to shoot them as long as I "assume" they have an Uzi?

Also, what if they were neighbor kids instead of illegal immigrants?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Underdog

For all I know, everyone who walks across the sidewalk in front of my house is trying to rob me - is it okay to shoot them as long as I "assume" they have an Uzi?

Also, what if they were neighbor kids instead of illegal immigrants?

If they had been white, suburban kids this would be a national story.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Underdog

For all I know, everyone who walks across the sidewalk in front of my house is trying to rob me - is it okay to shoot them as long as I "assume" they have an Uzi?

Also, what if they were neighbor kids instead of illegal immigrants?

Neighbor kids that were holding 2000 in c ash and jewelry and stuff that didn't belong to them?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

For all I know, everyone who walks across the sidewalk in front of my house is trying to rob me - is it okay to shoot them as long as I "assume" they have an Uzi?

Also, what if they were neighbor kids instead of illegal immigrants?

Well these guys were breaking into his neighbors house, were grown men and it was nightime. So no the guy didnt' shoot someone walking down the street.

With respect to neighbor kids...probably makes no difference to me if they were clearly robbing the place and had 2K on them from it.

[dalmations202]

This reminds me of an old saying my Great Uncle who was a World War II vet used to tell me.

If you get so drunk that you mistake my houses bedroom window, for your houses front door........then I guess you just shouldn't have gotten that drunk.

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

With that said, the guy who called and went looking for the people and then shot them in the back should have dragged them inside, because if he went outside, then it can be claimed that he wasn't in eminent danger and should have defended, not gone after.

This was a very grey area, IMO. I think he was found innocent due to lots of reasons including age, racial makeup, etc. I don't think these things should have been taken into consideration, but I'll bet they were by the jury.

I don't know that 5 out of 10 differing juries would have found him innocent though, just like I don't know that 5 out of 10 would have found him guilty. Strange case.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Neighbor kids that were holding 2000 in c ash and jewelry and stuff that didn't belong to them?

Maybe we should stop giving speeding tickets and start cutting off fingers instead as well.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

If they had been white, suburban kids this would be a national story.

Possibly, but it says as much about our media as it does this case. In either way, I'm acquitting him.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hey you either stop them or you don't, you dont' get to have some sort of movie ending here where you shoot the gun out of their hands.

It's okay with me if you'd let them take your stuff. It's your stuff.

It's also quite okay with me that this guy stopped some criminals from taking his neighbors stuff. Maybe they shouldn't have stolen it.

It´s not OK, if you steal something, but it`s also not OK if you kill someone (which again, is a much more serious crime).

If I hear your comments, are you sure your don´t want to adopt the death penalty for thieves?

Maybe the problem of overcrowded prisons is solved then...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

It´s not OK, if you steal something, but it also not OK if you kill someone (which again, is a much more serious crime).

If I hear your comments, are you sure your don´t want to adopt the death penalty for thieves?

Maybe the problem of overcrowded prisons is solved then...

No I don't want to adopt the death penalty for thieves. But if for example this was a cop and he told these thieves to stop and they didn't and he shot, 'em. I acquit. They made the choices, twice.

[92bDad]

Criminals are simply that...they break laws.

Breaking into someone house in Texas has a serious consequence...you might get SHOT!!!

However in other parts of the country, you don't have to worry about it...so perhaps criminals will move out of Texas in order to preserve their own lives.

In the end, Texans are safer as crime goes down.

Now, what do you do with the friends of criminals? What about friends of thieves?

How many people know when something is stolen, but never report it?

How do you report activity that may or may not be questionable?

I would love to see criminals caught, tried, sentenced and have an opportunity to pay their debt to society and hopefully recover and reform to be a healthy productive member of society.

But I equally defend the right for one to defend themselves, their property and their neighbors property.

This incident has to do with one neighbor...this is not about a guy who lives in Dallas, was traveling through Houston, witnessed a robbery and killed someone.

Again this is about a next door neighbor...chances are that these neighbors knew each other!!! In my neighborhood we know each other to the point that we recognize each other and we recognize when someone is a stranger...

that doesn't mean we shoot strangers...but we do ask questions and observe. If I see someone crawling in and out of a window carrying bags of stuff, I'm asking myself, why are they not using the front or back door?

Yes, I would call the police...unfortunately, I don't carry guns in my house, so I would not be able to stop these guys...but If I did, I would at least be in a position to shoot if I felt I needed to.

As for shooting them in the legs, back, head...at that moment the adrenaline is flowing and if I'm shooting, I don't want the criminal to have a chance at coming after me. IMHO, a Gun is for Deadly force...if I'm lucky enough to NOT kill the criminal and they go down unable to keep attacking then great, that's icing on the cake...but if they are killed, then it was there choice, not mine.

It's quite simple...don't Rob a House in Texas and you don't have to worry about getting shot!!!

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No I don't want to adopt the death penalty for thieves. But if for example this was a cop and he told these thieves to stop and they didn't and he shot, 'em. I acquit. They made the choices, twice.

I am sure that a cop has the ability to shot the burglar, without killing him.

[dalmations202]

Just a FYI -- you are taught to never pull the trigger unless you are willing to KILL.

If you injure, he has a chance to kill you.

Just a note --- never so much as pull a gun on a person you are unwilling to kill unless you are a peace officer. As a civilian, you pull it, you may be shot by anyone including the cop who is looking for the guy who just broke into your neighbors house.

[jthig32]

So here's a question: At what point do you draw the line on the whole "neighbor" thing? If you're out walking your dog and you see someone in a ski mask jumping out the window of a house a block from yours, are you pulling your piece and gunning them down?

Legally, you're not allowed to do this, but I would like to pose this question to Dude and others. Would you convict someone that did that?

I mean, by the general logic of this thread, why aren't police allowed to use deadly force for all confrontations with burglars, etc?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

As for shooting them in the legs, back, head...at that moment the adrenaline is flowing and if I'm shooting, I don't want the criminal to have a chance at coming after me. IMHO, a Gun is for Deadly force...if I'm lucky enough to NOT kill the criminal and they go down unable to keep attacking then great, that's icing on the cake...but if they are killed, then it was there choice, not mine.

It's quite simple...don't Rob a House in Texas and you don't have to worry about getting shot!!!

This is the point, the burglars were not coming after Mr. Horn, they ran away from him...

[Flacolaco]

I guess I'm with you thig, I think the guy should have stayed in his house.

He started out the right way, he called the cops. The cops were coming. But then the guy was worried they were going to get away, and decided to go outside. I don't think I could've brought myself to go outside, even with the gun.

But hey, if someone comes into my house, I reserve the right to f#ck them up.

Did the report say how long after he shot them the police arrived?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jthig32

So here's a question: At what point do you draw the line on the whole "neighbor" thing? If you're out walking your dog and you see someone in a ski mask jumping out the window of a house a block from yours, are you pulling your piece and gunning them down?

Legally, you're not allowed to do this, but I would like to pose this question to Dude and others. Would you convict someone that did that?

I mean, by the general logic of this thread, why aren't police allowed to use deadly force for all confrontations with burglars, etc?

That ends up being for a jury to decide, IMO.

I consider abortion, murder of an unborn child. That doesn't mean I have the right to kill Drs and women alike that kill children under the law. If that child is born then, and someone kills it -- then I kill them, then I am a hero for killing a child killer.

Be very careful as all of this gets to be very complicated as to where the line is for justification of killing.

[92bDad]

The point is that they came towards Mr. Horn...even made it onto his property.

At this point you are in a showdown...Mr. Horn pulled his gun and they ran...what is to keep them from coming back? Now that Mr. Horn has confronted them, showed them his Gun...he is now at risk of being attacked by these criminals.

Had they just stopped, dropped and waited on the Police, then they would still be alive. But ultimately, the criminals chose the corse of action that got them killed. They chose wrong, but again, it was their choice...not Mr. Horns.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

So here's a question: At what point do you draw the line on the whole "neighbor" thing? If you're out walking your dog and you see someone in a ski mask jumping out the window of a house a block from yours, are you pulling your piece and gunning them down?

It's hard to say, I certainly wouldn't be as invested in that person. Maybe he's getting his stuff back?? Again because of the uncertainty probably not.

Would I acquit, also problematic. I'd be less inclined but possibly.

I mean, by the general logic of this thread, why aren't police allowed to use deadly force for all confrontations with burglars, etc?

This is because they are trained professionals who know what they are doing. But I can't see me having too much of an issue with it.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I guess I'm with you thig, I think the guy should have stayed in his house.

He started out the right way, he called the cops. The cops were coming. But then the guy was worried they were going to get away, and decided to go outside. I don't think I could've brought myself to go outside, even with the gun.

But hey, if someone comes into my house, I reserve the right to f#ck them up.

Did the report say how long after he shot them the police arrived?

It appears that the police saw it, he was in his car.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I guess I'm with you thig, I think the guy should have stayed in his house.

He started out the right way, he called the cops. The cops were coming. But then the guy was worried they were going to get away, and decided to go outside. I don't think I could've brought myself to go outside, even with the gun.

But hey, if someone comes into my house, I reserve the right to f#ck them up.

Did the report say how long after he shot them the police arrived?

Exactly. Once you transition from "they better not come in here" to "they're getting away, I gotta get them" you've just decided to play copper, and I'm not ok with that.

But yes, if you step one foot inside my house, I reserve the right to blow your head off if I catch you in there.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Exactly. Once you transition from "they better not come in here" to "they're getting away, I gotta get them" you've just decided to play copper, and I'm not ok with that.

But yes, if you step one foot inside my house, I reserve the right to blow your head off if I catch you in there.

Underdog would put you in jail.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

The point is that they came towards Mr. Horn...even made it onto his property.

At this point you are in a showdown...Mr. Horn pulled his gun and they ran...what is to keep them from coming back? Now that Mr. Horn has confronted them, showed them his Gun...he is now at risk of being attacked by these criminals.

Had they just stopped, dropped and waited on the Police, then they would still be alive. But ultimately, the criminals chose the corse of action that got them killed. They chose wrong, but again, it was their choice...not Mr. Horns.

They ran away! No need to shoot them at this moment. If they would turn again and get in his direction, then he has the right to shot. This way it was vigilantism.

[dalmations202]

Texas Penal Code 9.42 - Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

1. if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

2. when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

A. to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

B. to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

3. he reasonably believes that:

A. the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

B. the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.





From what I have read, he might have been able to convince a jury of the bolded above.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Underdog would put you in jail.

Well that I definitely don't agree with. Very much in favor of the castle law.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Underdog would put you in jail.

Presumptuous, as usual...

I'd blow your f*cking head off if you threatened my life, but I wouldn't do it over an iPod...

[Flacolaco]

Does the law protect you, even if it was through your own action/stupidity (leaving his house) that you put yourself in danger?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Does the law protect you, even if it was through your own action/stupidity (leaving his house) that you put yourself in danger?

The castle law actually protects your entire property, not just your house.

So techincally I guess you could sit on your property line with a shotgun and shoot someone in a ski mask as soon as they stepped onto it.

I don't really have a problem with it, because if you restricted it to the house you would get unfortunate grey areas for people defending themselves.

However, I think people need to try and see the purpose of the law, not the letter of it. The guy in the article at the beginning of this thread is protected by the letter of the law, but this is certainly not the situation the law was put in place for, in my opinion.

[GOGOJOJO]

I find it hard to believe people think it is alright to shoot two humans in the back. What if it were Kids or relatives joking around in the neighbors house. This isn't the 1800's.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The castle law actually protects your entire property, not just your house.

So techincally I guess you could sit on your property line with a shotgun and shoot someone in a ski mask as soon as they stepped onto it.

I don't really have a problem with it, because if you restricted it to the house you would get unfortunate grey areas for people defending themselves.

However, I think people need to try and see the purpose of the law, not the letter of it. The guy in the article at the beginning of this thread is protected by the letter of the law, but this is certainly not the situation the law was put in place for, in my opinion.

I think you got it exactly correct with the statement in bold above.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Just a FYI -- you are taught to never pull the trigger unless you are willing to KILL.

If you injure, he has a chance to kill you.

Just a note --- never so much as pull a gun on a person you are unwilling to kill unless you are a peace officer. As a civilian, you pull it, you may be shot by anyone including the cop who is looking for the guy who just broke into your neighbors house.

To further dalmations comments here.... if you shoot to harm and not to kill, you will then find yourself in court sued by the person you shot, for assault and battery. How many times have we read stories in the news about a burgular sueing a homeowner, because they were injured while trying to burgularize the home??? And in many cases, the thief wins the lawsuit!

I'm with dude, dalmations, et al... shoot the bastards.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

To further dalmations comments here.... if you shoot to harm and not to kill, you will then find yourself in court sued by the person you shot, for assault and battery. How many times have we read stories in the news about a burgular sueing a homeowner, because they were injured while trying to burgularize the home??? And in many cases, the thief wins the lawsuit!

What a paradox...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jefelump

To further dalmations comments here.... if you shoot to harm and not to kill, you will then find yourself in court sued by the person you shot, for assault and battery. How many times have we read stories in the news about a burgular sueing a homeowner, because they were injured while trying to burgularize the home??? And in many cases, the thief wins the lawsuit!

I'm with dude, dalmations, et al... shoot the bastards.

I agree that it has happened way too many times.

That is not my issue though. Maybe the guy you wounded had an ankle gun hidden, and you shoot him in the leg. He falls, pulls the gun -- shoots you, and your dead.

What were you trying to do? You either let him go if you aren't in imminent danger, or you kill him, if you are.

IMO -- 99% of the time Property isn't worth dying or having to take a life over.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Texas Penal Code 9.42 - Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

1. if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

2. when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

A. to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

B. to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

3. he reasonably believes that:

A. the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

B. the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.





From what I have read, he might have been able to convince a jury of the bolded above.

I think the law regarding this is totally antiquated and should be reviewed and edited to adapt it to this century.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I think the law regarding this is totally antiquated and should be reviewed and edited to adapt it to this century.

Written 1973 ..... amended 2007.

Just a FYI

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I agree that it has happened way too many times.

That is not my issue though. Maybe the guy you wounded had an ankle gun hidden, and you shoot him in the leg. He falls, pulls the gun -- shoots you, and your dead.

What were you trying to do? You either let him go if you aren't in imminent danger, or you kill him, if you are.

IMO -- 99% of the time Property isn't worth dying or having to take a life over.

An "easy solution" would be, not to leave the house (like the dispatcher urged Horn) and shoot the burglars if they try to get in your house...