Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

‘You Sneeze, You’re Dead Man’: Texas Man Humiliates Burglars With 12-Gauge

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by gunsmith, Oct 13, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gunsmith

    gunsmith member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
  2. esheato

    esheato Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,784
    Location:
    NoVa
    LOL...hey, whatever works.
     
  3. FieroCDSP

    FieroCDSP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,146
    Location:
    Wooster, Ohio
    Nice.... Critics would claim he's watched too many movies and shouldn't be gung-ho. Those are also the people who are screaming for you to go see their latest shootem-up action flick, so what do they know. Kudos to the guy.
     
  4. Geno
    • Contributing Member

    Geno Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,281
    Mrs. Hero said:

    Ahhhhhhh!!!!! Bad images!!!!! Ah!!!!!! My ears!!!!!!! Let's just leave it at "Freeze or you're dead! or Sneeze and you're dead!" Hey, it worked! :cool:

    I'm sure that if my sister saw this clip she'd proclaim "Man with a gun!" I just say good for him. Anyone want to bet the neighbors will bake the man some cookies? There's a new sheriff in town!

    Doc2005
     
  5. JamisJockey

    JamisJockey member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,745
    Location:
    Northern VA
    [devil's advocate]
    He probably shouldn't have gone running out into the wee hours to check on his possesions in his garage, facing unknown number of burglars armed with unknown number and types of firearms.
    People, burglars steal firearms! We all know this. Who's to say the house before his didn't have an AK with a few full mags for the burglars to make off with?
    Great way to be an obituary instead of a hero.
    [/devil's advocate]


    Well within his rights to protect his property, IMHO. Shooting someone over a car stereo or some tools isn't exactly morally superior, though.
    This is the perfect opportunity to allow the cops to do thier job.
     
  6. Mannlicher

    Mannlicher Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,431
    Location:
    North Central Florida and Miami Florida
    great story. Good outcome. Two bad guys off the streets now, no one hurt, and 'his wife feels like a newlywed'. That can't be a bad thing ;)
     
  7. JWarren

    JWarren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,632
    Location:
    MS and LA

    Let's please not re-hash the defense of property debate again. This is a decision wholly based in the state statutes and the conscience of the person in question.


    Let's just respect the decisions of others to apply or waive the right to defend property as they see fit.

    I don't think we need any more threads calling out the morals or lack thereof of other persons' choices in how THEY choose to apply their rights.

    One could as easily apply a moral compass to NOT defending property by saying that not providing resistence as a whole has emboldened criminals to the point that they EXPECT no reprecussions.

    A moral compass that begins and ends with concern over a criminal's personal safety and health is short-sighted.

    Now, I am not trying to advocate one position over another, per se. I am at peace with my view that I am willing to defend my property. But I will not fault another for choosing otherwise-- or for being legally limited from doing so. And I do think it would be best if everyone put their moral compasses in thier pocket.


    -- John
     
  8. GRB

    GRB member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,774
    I think he did okay, but I don't think he should have mentioned those words: Sneeze and your dead, to anyone, especially a news crew. In the future, if this guy is accosted and he shoots someone dead, and another bad guy at the scene later says this guy was trigger happy - well guess what will be used as evidence in any potential prosecution. Don't make it seem as if you were just hoping to shoot the guy for even something as trivial as a sneeze whether he actually meant to or not. Intent is often shown by our previuous actions and words. This could potentially haunt him.

    All the best,
    Glenn B
     
  9. Pumpkinheaver

    Pumpkinheaver Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,255
    Location:
    missouri
    He's right, every home owner should respond the way he did.
     
  10. JamisJockey

    JamisJockey member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,745
    Location:
    Northern VA
    No, no its not. At what point do you cross the line when it comes to defending property? Does someone taking your power drill and screwdriver set deserve to die? Do you deserve the aftermath of shooting someone over taking your beloved car stereo?
     
  11. AndyC

    AndyC Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    Hypotheticals aside, he got the job done and nobody was shot; I'll call that a win.
     
  12. ilcylic

    ilcylic Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,002
    Location:
    Desert Southwest, USA
    Wow, John, [strike]it's almost like[/strike] he completely ignored everything you wrote except the bit he wanted to argue with.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2007
  13. JWarren

    JWarren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,632
    Location:
    MS and LA

    Seriously, yes... it is shortsighted. When we apply more concern over the safety of one who is commiting an injurous act (stealing your property IS an injurous act) than we do to the person that decides how he/she deals with it, I see that as short-sighted.


    If you do a search here, this subject comes up regularly. It gets debated for 8 or 9 pages and dies out until the next one comes up. It gets weary.


    The bottom line is this.

    If defending property IS allowed in your state and you choose to do so, it is between you and your conscience. What we don't need is more people attempting to apply THEIR ethos to others who live within the law.


    Whether I think someone deserves to get shot over stealing from me is a personal matter as long as I am within the law. I'll argue that there is more personal responsibility to be applied to the person who CHOSE to accept whatever consequences that may come in order to STEAL my little screwdriver and drill. Remember, these situations BEGIN with an unlawful and harmful act, and if you do defend property where you are allowed to, they don't END with one.

    I suspect that we will disagree on the basic premise of this topic, and I am OK with that. What I am not OK with is people attempting to overlay thier moral position on others who act within the law and make a personal choice based upon thier own moral position within the law.

    This is The High Road, not The High Horse.



    -- John
     
  14. lanternlad1

    lanternlad1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    770
    "No, no its not. At what point do you cross the line when it comes to defending property? Does someone taking your power drill and screwdriver set deserve to die? Do you deserve the aftermath of shooting someone over taking your beloved car stereo?"


    Criminals get emboldened when they commit crimes and get away with it. Its human nature. The severity of the crimes tend to escalate to violence as time progresses. These criminals will think twice before going back to their old habits when they get out. They are very lucky to be leaving the property alive. I myself would have no compunctions about killing a home invader, and it doesn't matter why he decided to invade my home.


    "If defending property IS allowed in your state and you choose to do so, it is between you and your conscience. What we don't need is more people attempting to apply THEIR ethos to others who live within the law."


    Defending one's property and family is outside of the rule of law. There comes a time when the basic need for survival and protection trumps words on a piece of paper. Even if it wasn't "legal" to protect my family (like in England where people go to jail for doing just that) I would still do my utmost to protect what is mine. Those criminals who get away with burglarizing the garage will come back to see whats in the house. I would rather leave them to the ages and take my chances with a jury.
     
  15. rich0372

    rich0372 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2007
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    Ct
    Maybe not but, if more thiefs/criminals thought that they could be shot and/or killed if the go around breaking in peoples houses and stealing they would think twice about doing so. They will think IS MY LIFE WORTH A CAR STEREO.
     
  16. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Sure it is. How do you KNOW, FOR SURE KNOW, that the guy wasn't gonna come for more than your tools. Maybe you or your wife or kid were next he just hadn't gotten that far along yet. Garages are part of the house.

    A scumbag comes inside your home and you question his intentions? An armed homeowner defending his home will always have the moral, and legal, high ground.

    It has been made very clear in Texas both by actions like this and the Legislature that this kind of stuff can and does result in the thief being dead.

    That's ample warning. Someone that ignores that possibility takes their life into their own hands.

    Anyone who comes inside my home illegally has made that decision for me.

    How can you say you will protect your family if you are going to question the motives of someone who has come inside your home illegally. That hesitation is just long enough for them to gain the advantage.
     
  17. springmom

    springmom Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    3,599
    Location:
    Spring TX
    God bless Texas!

    John is right. In this state it is legal for the man to do what he did. You will note that the deputies praised him and his neighbors agreed that this is what homeowners should do. In that light, I'd say he's on pretty solid ground here.

    And for those of you riding that high horse, please note that the man did NOT shoot over a car stereo. He went far enough to stop the behavior, and held the thieves for police. Sounds like he used enough force, and not a bit more.

    And yeah....God bless Texas.

    Springmom
     
  18. JamisJockey

    JamisJockey member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,745
    Location:
    Northern VA
    Whatever.
    The high horse may be dead, but it needs to be beaten.
     
  19. akodo

    akodo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778
    there is also a big difference between confronting a property thief while armed, and actually choosing to shoot a property theif. I think it is quite reasonable to take many steps short of lethal force to protect your property. I also think if you are going to confront an intruder, arming yourself is prudent because you don't know what he is willing to do.
     
  20. TCB in TN

    TCB in TN Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,938
    Location:
    Middle, TN
    See below!

    +100000000, the willingness to arm and defend yourself and your property is often (not always) deterrent enough to stop most bad guys from the act. If a higher % of folks in this nation were to have the will and the legal right to do so them it would be even more so.

    As for my moral compass, well a man breaks into your house (or living area) for your stuff then it is HIS moral compass that is broke, not yours for confronting him. Further more if you really want to talk moral compass, this guy did exactly the right thing, he stopped two thieves from robbing him w/o hurting them. Now if they had attacked him for that then shooting them would have been exactly what he should have done morally, as they would have demonstrated a willingness to not only steal but to hurt/kill someone while doing so. Removing that threat from society would certainly be the moral thing to do! What is totally imoral in my book is the insistance so many have on moral pacifism. IMHO we have a moral imperitive to protect not only those we love, but also society as a whole, and again it seams this guy did that exceptionally well in this case.

    BTW big props to the local boys in blue. 2 min response time sounds like they were really on the ball there!
     
  21. JWarren

    JWarren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,632
    Location:
    MS and LA

    Not really. Beating that horse is only an attempt to:

    a. Impose one's own ethics on others.

    b. label other law-abiding citizens as immoral if they do not conform to one's own ethical position




    Be at peace with your ethical position, and I'll be at peace with mine. If we are both within the law, it becomes a matter between us and our Gods/conscience/etc. And we can all keep it to ourselves.

    But one may not want to go nosing around my tools in the middle of the night.



    -- John
     
  22. Brian Williams

    Brian Williams Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,869
    Location:
    Kampong Cham, Cambodia
    Remember, discuss the concept, not poke at the person.

    Bump this back 200 years, when defending your stuff was a life or death situation, somebody stealing your seed corn or your put up meat, could mean the difference tween survival and death. Now move it forward to now, someone finds they can steal from you and with no moral compass, will either go and steal from someone else or from you again, maybe with more malice and greed.

    I wish that our judicial system has not been neutered so much that the threat of hard time is nothing.
     
  23. cpttango30

    cpttango30 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    791
    Location:
    Virginia
    He did not shoot anyone. He mearly used a tool (Happend to be 12 ga) to hold criminals at bay untill police arrived. Would you be pissing and moaing if he would have grabed a 18" cresent wrench?

    If you want to confront criminals that may or may not be armed and willing to kill you for a car stero without any protection what so ever you can go right ahead.

    He did not run out of the house shooting his shotgun in the air yelling "I'm gona kill ya sucka".

    I for one would rather be well armed and looked at like a vigilanty vs end up being the guy on the six o'cloock news who was killed in a break in.


    It is there (Criminals) fault that they are breaking the law and if they get shot well too effin bad. It is that mentality that is screwing up the nation and the world. Well he did not do any thing real bad just ground him and he will learn. if these low life scum bags knew that trying to steal a $200 car stero will cost you your life then maybe we would not too many people stealing them.

    Guess what some jobs have higher risks than others. If you want to rob and steal and break in to people houses well then you are going to have put up with the few of us that will arm ourselves and protect ourselves. If someone is breaking into my house then they are out to hurt my family or me there for they MUST DIE. Sorry if you do not like that.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2007
  24. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    As a side note, and I wish I could find the article where I read it, tools are one of the big reasons that Texas adopted the law allowing deadly force in protection of property. Tools and livestock.

    The argument goes that if a man makes his living with his tools and someone steals them, he has no way to make a living, endangering his life and the lives of his family. Stealing tools is the same as stealing food from his family. Same with livestock.

    This is one of those odd "ethics" things that tends to split along the Mason/Dixon line almost. I am talking state law here not residents beliefs.

    States north seem to have more limits on when deadly force can be used than southern states. Seems that way to me anyway. Just an odd observation not rooted in any research.
     
  25. JamisJockey

    JamisJockey member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,745
    Location:
    Northern VA
    Suddenly I'm a pacifist?
    This guy left his home, which was presumably secure, where he was armed and would have the immediate drop on anyone trying to enter (being he was awake and cognizant of the burglary), and rushed into a detached garage to confront them stealing property. It's a recipe for disaster and yes, I think it could have put him in a legal and morally questionable situation.
    Being Texas, he's got more leeway in his actions with property thieves. However, had he been forced to shoot one of them, would the law and the bloodsuckers that call themselves Personal Injury Lawyers have a different take on his actions?
    We live in a world of hypotheticals, right up until we are in the situation where we're pointing a firearm at someone debating the need to pull the trigger.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page