Another Texan Defends His Neighbor

[Guillermo]

Maybe killing for “stuff” seems immoral to some of you.

I would like to hear how many of you would not shoot a car thief.

Or an arsonist starting to torch your house.

Or someone hauling your gun safe away with a forklift.

I imagine that it is all a matter of how much you value the “stuff” before lethal force becomes moral in your eyes.

 

[mec]

Lately it seems to be working out for the shooters but it's never been a sure thing. The law does have the above mentioned language about protecting property but the Ch9 language about Justification also contains the proviso that the harm you use force to prevent clearly outweighs, by all reasonable standards, the harm that you employ to prevent it.
this leaves grand and petit juries with quite a bit of leeway. they could decide that use of deadly force was excessive or that you could have asked the police to find the stolen property for you.

In any case, from reading the internet blogs, newspapers or watching television news, we can't be sure of the actual events. The car reported to be driving away may have actually been standing still or comming at the shooter.

 

[BruceRDucer]

"So the argument is that we shoot everyone who steals anything, on the premise that it might, somehow, save the victim's life?"---38 Special

How did you get from what somebody else does, to an obligation upon everybody? Where'd that come from?

[Double checks blood pressure, checks breathing and the TV Remote...everything's "okay" so far.]

 

[Joe Demko]

Before you non-Texans get too carried away singing the praises of Texas law, you might want to do a bit of research. Yeah, there're the laws that come into play in this particular case. There are also lots of other laws in Texas. The laws there are an odd combination of "frontier justice" and bluenosed restrictiveness.
I lived there for several years, and while there is much to love about the place, don't kid yourself that it is some kind of neo-Libertarian paradise.

 

[papajohn]

Whatever happened to the law stating that if you're in the process of committing a crime, and someone dies during its commission, that YOU get charged with murder? Sounds like it ought to come into play here, if the wounded BG dies.

We don't know all the facts yet, and may never know everything, but if the bad guys were fleeing the scene, TOWARD the shooter, he was totally justified in opening fire.

I've had vehicles come at me after I interrupted crimes in progress, and the gun has been pointed at the driver, but I didn't pull the trigger, because they veered before they got to me. But every cop I talked to afterwards told me I would have been totally justified in shooting the driver, had I been so inclined.

My other question is, what was the guy in the back seat doing when he got shot? We'll never know if he was holding a gun, because the vehicle wasn't found until much later. In other words, it comes down to he said/she said. No true bill. End of story.

PJ

 

[JWarren]

Other states besides TX have laws permitting the defense of property.

I live in one. And I am a supporter of the right to defense of property.


-- John

 

[RX-178]

My analysis, worth just as much as you're paying for it:


Putting myself in his shoes... I see an unfamiliar car in the neighbor's driveway across the street. I know the neighbor in question is not home... that's automatically suspicious, but there could still be reasonable explanations for it. A relative stopping by from out of town, a friend staying there after a fight with their spouse, whatever.

I go over to check it out, not because I'm looking for a confrontation, but just to make sure things are all right. Still suspicious enough that I'm not going to go there unarmed, so I grab my trusty .45, stick it in my belt/holster/pocket whatever... start going across the street. I'm on alert, but I'm not EXPECTING to shoot anyone. I mean, there's still a good possibility that I ring the doorbell, and their cousin from out of town answers the door, I introduce myself, maybe go in and have a beer... no problems.

But instead, I see thugs piling my neighbor's belongings into the car. Now I'm out in the open, these thugs may or may not have seen me. I didn't call 911 from the beginning because I didn't know the car was full of burglars. I /DO/ have my .45, and now I see one of the bad guys is reaching for something under the seat.

Hell yes, I'm going to draw my weapon and fire. Just because he hasn't started shooting back yet doesn't mean he's not going to. Just because the car's starting to drive away doesn't mean there aren't about to be bullets flying back at me through the back window. I fire, and keep firing until the car is out of sight and/or I'm out of ammo, then I go in and call 911.



I don't really see how this man could've handled it any better, given the situation.

 

[Guns and more]

Go for the license number and let the police nab them.

Well, the police aren't going to "nab" them. They'll swear they weren't anywhere near you, and their family will vouch for them. "He's a gooood boy." It might go to trial, and if found guilty, they'll probably get probation, again. Then you better watch your back, and your family, because they're coming for you, but hey, you did the right thing. Yes?
One day a bullet might be fired at your house from a car no one can identify. Just a random act? Sure.

 

[rondog]

What about the possibility that the neighbors WERE home, and the burglars had injured or killed them, but the shooter didn't know that yet? Letting them get away would be a grave mistake then, yet if the shooter didn't know.....

 

[October]

"An eye for an eye" sounds just fine to me. But taking away all the remaining hours of someone's life because he took a few dozen of yours doesn't strike me as a reasonable thing.

This struck me as a curious philosophy, so I'd like to hear more. What are your parameters for a "reasonable" exchange of hours? Does it have to be exactly equal, i.e., if a crook steals a year's worth of stuff, then the victim can shoot him dead if the crook has a terminal disease which gives him an equal 12 months to live? Do you need to verify something like that before firing, or can you just sort of eyeball it? "Well, officer, he looked like he was pretty old, one foot in the grave sort of thing. I figured he only had 3 or 4 more years to live and the collectible garden gnome - imported from Italy - that he swiped easily cost me 5 years of work."

The other conclusion I draw from this is that the younger criminals can steal more valuable items than the older criminals. If I'm a 25-year old crook, I can steal a house that someone paid off after 30 years with little relative risk whereas if I'm a 65-year old crook, I better stick to items that have been amortized over a much shorter period, like used cars.

 

[Mike J]

I don't really think I could judge whether the man did right or wrong. We would all like to think that in a self defense scenario once the threat was neutralized or we had the upper hand we would stop. But do any of us really know that we would. I met a man when I was younger that did time over killing a man. They had gotten into a fight over a hustled pool game-the other guy pulled a knife on him. He took away the mans knife & killed him with it. It's easy to say I would stop but wide open on adrenaline & anger do you really know you could.
Another thing to consider that I know as the first city born generation of a family with rural roots is people away from the city have a different mindset. An earlier poster-I don't remember who-said some areas in that locale are sparsely populated. People that live in the country are more inclined to handle things themselves. They are very aware that the closest help is not likely to get there until long after everything is over with. So if anything happens you are on your own.
I'm not saying anything about whos right or wrong just some things to consider. Besides like others have said you go around theiving -messing around other peoples homes-you make a choice-choices have consequences.

 

[junyo]

vigilante
Pronunciation:
\ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
Date:
1856

1. a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly
2. a self-appointed doer of justice

It's one thing to use violence in self defense, or when the state's mechanisms for justice have been tried and failed. But to justify violence when your life's not in any real danger and there's a reasonable chance that the system of justice will work (perhaps not to your satisfaction) seems to me to make gun owners look blood thirsty and trigger happy. And justifying it on the basis of some future crime that might be, will potentially be committed strikes me as a rationalization, the same way that the predictions of "blood in the streets" justifies every gun law.

Maybe killing for “stuff” seems immoral to some of you.

I would like to hear how many of you would not shoot a car thief.
Isn't that's what insurance is for? Now, if your wife or kid is in the car, that represents something else. But then you're not defending the car, you're defending the individuals within it.
Or an arsonist starting to torch your house.
An arsonist is clearly a threat to the lives of the inhabitants of your home, as well as those of any home nearby, plus the firemen who will have to put out the fire.
Or someone hauling your gun safe away with a forklift.
Again, you have clear knowledge that a person stealing a gun safe will be or already is threat. As opposed to a guy stealing a toaster.
I imagine that it is all a matter of how much you value the “stuff” before lethal force becomes moral in your eyes.

 

[Code3GT]

Good visual RX-178...I completely agree.

 

[bdickens]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdickens
We have to wait on the Grand Jury and possibly the trial jury to know for sure.

We will?

Quote:
No charges have been filed against the homeowner.

It took roughly nine months before Joe Horn was referred to the Grand Jury.

 

[MDHunter]

Are You Serious?

But honestly, how often do the victims of theft die as a result of that theft? It's rare enough that I cannot honestly think of an example. But this thread is not the first example we have recently seen of someone being shot in the back for stealing a VCR, or some silverware, or other typically burgled items. I just can't get behind that, and I believe that any law justifying it is wrong.

Dude - I'm not gonna do your research for you, but if you look I'm sure you'll see that criminals tend to go back to neighborhoods and areas where they've successfully stolen before. And while you're at it, check on how many home invasions and burglaries result in injury or death to the residents. It happens fairly often, and in my opinion ONCE is too often. If a few more thugs got shot trying to pull this crap, they'd think a lor harder before trying it.

How about this? SEAN TAYLOR. Ever heard of him?? All pro safety for the Washington Redskins?? VICTIM OF THEFT KILLED BY THE THIEVES. Do you consider that an example?

And while you're at it, go talk to people who have been victims of home invasion and burglary. Ask them about how it feels not to feel safe or secure in your own home anymore, about not being able to sleep at night, about being nervous around strangers and afraid when you arrive home at night. If you think all that got taken was the VCR, you got a lot to learn.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Often I look after the neighbor's/friend's places when they are away.
As I'm checking the place I carry a pistol grip shotgun.

It's a very simple concept.
If you value your life don't try to steal from us.

 

[HankB]

Even if what he did isn't chargeable, it's immoral and just plain wrong.

I believe a great many people disagree with that assessment.

I'm one of them.

 

[Browning]

"I think he had a good idea that they had something they were reaching for down in that car," said Wheat of the shooting incident, which put one man into the hospital.

nalioth : I think you guys who are calling for his head overlooked this item:

He was defending his life, at that point, I'd say.

Good eye, I missed that part the first time around.

 

[Caipirinha]

If this happened at night which it sounds like it did, I don't see how they could charge him under Texas statutes.

 

[rondog]

The driver of the car might have been coming at him too, trying to run him down.

 

[Guillermo]

An arsonist is clearly a threat to the lives of the inhabitants of your home, as well as those of any home nearby, plus the firemen who will have to put out the fire

Assume the house is empty, does Junyo shoot?

Or someone hauling your gun safe away with a forklift.
Again, you have clear knowledge that a person stealing a gun safe will be or already is threat. As opposed to a guy stealing a toaster.

Really? I have guns and I am not a threat to you now or in the future.

 

[Soybomb]

junyo I believe vigilante is a very poor choice of words given the man's actions were within the law.

What of the person who doesn't have full coverage car insurance? Those can't pay the deductable if they do? Those who can't miss going to work or not having the tools in that car to go to work? You and I can sit here and decide that we'd rather just pay a bit and let the insurance sort everything out. Not all of society is as privileged as we are to be in that position. Why do you have the right to condemn them to suffer at the will of theives because of it?

 

[MICHAEL T]

Steal my things They take chance I will give you several little things.
Iam sick and tired of these repeat offenders . Steal and pay with your life sounds fair to me. I worked and paid for these thing I suggest they do the same. Plan A. Calling Police and fileing a report is a waste of time. Been their done that. nothing happens .I like plan B better.

 

[LWGN]

In the two months before we moved out, our neighborhood, which had been relatively crime-free for years, had fifteen burglaries. The first fourteen happened during the day while the homeowners were gone. No one lost anything but their stuff (and their sense of safety and security in their own homes). During the fifteenth, the unarmed homeowner walked in while the burglars were still there. She ended up in the hospital because she had the bad luck to come home early and find herself between the BG's and the door.

The police still haven't caught the perpetrators.

Burglars can certainly be dangerous if you surprise them.

It seems like a valid shoot under Texas law. I can't really say what I would actually do without having been in the situation.

 

[doc2rn]

The car coming at you in itself is a 3000 lb weapon. The guy thought the burglar was reaching for his own weapon. He was afraid for his safety and that of his neighbor, castle doctrine will clearly cover him.

We need to make this a national law, then the power will return to the people. Just maybe we should do like the Sherriff in Maricopa, put the hard back in hard time.