Another Texan Defends His Neighbor

[Mr. D]

I like what RX-178 said. If the situation was close to what he gave, I believe the man is justified. Now, perhaps the situation was like that and maybe it wasn't. We just don't know. Perhaps we'll never know. The guy said he believed he had no other choice. I can only assume that he is telling the truth and that he really does/did believe that. In which case, I really can't say he wasn't justified. I wasn't there so I don't know.

 

[Drgong]

This man is most likely justified under texas law, and he a good shooter to hit someone in a fleeing car. Dont get on this guy bad side!!

I personally would not have shot a fleeing car as I would be worried that I would miss and hit someone.

 

[rjohnson4405]

I find it funny that so many people on here are of the philosophy "If you don't want guns, that's fine, but don't take away my right to them."

Then, they jump all over someone for their moral decisions, well within the law of their state.

I wouldn't do the same thing in his situation from what I've read, however, people in that state ELECTED officials to keep/put these laws in place. They choose the law and they make their OWN moral decisions.

If you disagree that's fine, don't do it, but don't try and take away their right to decide.

 

[drgrenthum]

Considering the story was written by the media we have no clue what fleeing means? I think of it as the guys were on the street driving away. In which case i would have not shot but the guy was well within his legal right. I have a feeling that the media would use the word fleeing as soon the vechile was in gear and starting to move. In this case since they were under a carport beside or behind the house (not sure if the story specifies) when that vechile started to move it is likely that it moved in the direction of the shooter. In which case i think the media would write the story as shooting at a fleeing vechile, since they were attempting ot flee the scene. If that is actually what happened i woudl have emptied more then one mag. We will never know the whole story and hopefully the shooter is not charged.

On another note someone mentioned the law were if you where in the middle of doing a crime and one of your accomplices dies you could be charged with murder. That law is plain hogwash, you should be tried and convicted of the laws they broke. If one of their boys dies in the process it serves as a reminder to them that what they are doing is dangerous and they have to deal with the loss of their friend. However, 25 to life for trying to stealing a TV and the homeowner kills their friend seems a little harsh.

 

[kevindsingleton]

It's not harsh; it's "just desserts". It doesn't have to be a fellow perp; it could be anyone, including innocent bystanders, or victims of a subsequent car crash during flight. If death is a reasonable consequence of stealing, why not 25-to-life?

 

[Guillermo]

Once again I ask the "it was immoral" people where they would draw the line.

Would you shoot to stop an arsonist of your unoccupied house?
The thief of your 1970 440 six-pak Cuda?
Your gun safe?
Your riding lawn mower?
An ICBM?

Where would you use lethal force to protect "stuff"?

 

[BruceRDucer]

Guillermo's question

"Once again I ask the "it was immoral" people where they would draw the line?"---Guillermo

Although I'm not one to adopt the: "it was immoral" position, I think this is a very important question.

I think the issue Guillermo's question leads to, is this:

Do we turn all of our legal system upside down, so as to primarily prosecute the PROPERTY OWNER (or his neighbor defending property) at law?

If that is so, then innocent homeowner's are going to end up in prison, a burden to the state's finances, while law-breakers such as Burglars, operate more freely because punishment is lighter for Burglary?

I'm really not trying to emotionally charge the argument, but what if a man's wife is home alone, and three men show up in a car to commit simple burglary? What are the chances that home privacy and property take on a deeper dimension?

Is the LAW a Prevention? Is the LAW a discouragement? Not much I would think.

How about a sign at the entrance of a neighborhood:

LAWBREAKERS TREATED FAIRLY HERE!
WE BELIEVE LETHAL FORCE IS UNETHICAL!

I don't think anyone wants that sign in his neighborhood, because part of the discouragement for unlawful or unethical behavior, is the threat of force, veiled or explicit.

______________________________________________________________________

I think the IMMORAL argument has another dimension. It suggests:

THERE IS AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF MAYHEM AND ASSAULT, UNIT LAWBREAKERS ARE CAUGHT.



Are we seeing these arguments from people who have direct experience of vicitimization? I doubt it.

Ethical constructs are easy, when its someone else's property; but the same people inhabiting these forums, cannot distinguish, if they are threatened, if someone intends to KILL them, or merely STEAL their handgun. If a lawbreaker pulls a gun on them, suddenly the rocket surgeon has it all figured out: {Bad-Guy-Wants-to-Kill-Me}

How do you know he DID NOT only want to rob you of your handgun, which is your PROPERTY?

So if your ETHICS are consistent, hand over your gun. Oh, and smile and be polite, because you have no right to offend anyone.


If a lawbreaker used a gun, maybe he merely wants to sexually assault you. Do your ETHICS dictate that is a minor violation of law, such that you cannot justify the useage of lethal force?

Think about it.

/
--------

/

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




/

 

[junyo]

Assume the house is empty, does Junyo shoot?

Is the house absolutely empty far enough away from anything to garuantee that fire can't possibly spread? And I'm close enough to verify all this, but in no immediate danger from the fire myself? Is no one going to put the fire out? It's next to impossible for me to imagine a scenario for utterly safe arson. And even if I could, I would the the over/under on dead guy, and proving that he was trying to commit arson, inevitable wrongful death lawsuit, versus damage/destroyed structure, insurance check isn't in favor of the latter.

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

But criminal A who is carrying a gun safe and therefore is or soon will be armed, and capable of arming his friends, is in all likelihood a bigger threat than criminal B, who may or may not be armed, and carrying a toaster.

I think the IMMORAL argument has another dimension. It suggests:

THERE IS AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF MAYHEM AND ASSAULT, UNIT LAWBREAKERS ARE CAUGHT.

Are we seeing these arguments from people who have direct experience of vicitimization? I doubt it.

Ethical constructs are easy, when its someone else's property; but the same people inhabiting these forums, cannot distinguish, if they are threatened, if someone intends to KILL them, or merely STEAL their handgun. If a lawbreaker pulls a gun on them, suddenly the rocket surgeon has it all figured out: {Bad-Guy-Wants-to-Kill-Me}

How do you know he DID NOT only want to rob you of your handgun, which is your PROPERTY?

So if your ETHICS are consistent, hand over your gun. Oh, and smile and be polite, because you have no right to offend anyone.


If a lawbreaker used a gun, maybe he merely wants to sexually assault you. Do your ETHICS dictate that is a minor violation of law, such that you cannot justify the useage of lethal force?

Think about it.

So many strawmen, so little time. Yes, I've been the victim of thief and vandalism, and yes, it sucks. And I don't think that anyone has suggested that you don't defend yourself. I believe that we have a right, if not a duty, to protect life. When one life is in the balance over another, I'll defend my own, my family's, the defenseless, or the person that I believe to be in the right without question or hesitation. But it violates the basic respect for life to end a life over nothing more than property. Now, again, before the argument turns to whether that means you have to coddle criminals if/when they victimize you, that's not what I'm saying. If you genuinely have a fear for your life, then by all means, defend it. But from the initial account, it's not clear at all whether this gentleman A) was in a life threatening situation, or b) had to be involved in the situation in the first place. And most of the sentiments expressed here seem an awful lot like people not interested in preventing the immediate crime or acting in self defense so much as people interested in dispensing street/frontier justice and/or "send a message" and as long as the law covers it it's fine. Well legality doesn't make or destroy morality. You can mock ethics all you want, but at the end of the day, that's what separates the good guys from the bad guys, is the stuff you won't due, regardless of the circumstance, and whether or not you can get a way with it. Further, we're not the only people on these forums; being mad as heck over crime is great and all, but when we start applauding death, and/or questionable shootings we give our enemies the way reinforce the stereotype of us as blood thirsty and trigger happy looking for an excuse to kill.

There is an acceptable level of "mayhem and assault". Being in a free society means that people are free to screw up, and there is an attendent amount of disorder and crime that accompanies that. If absolute security were the ultimate goal of society, then a benevolent dictatorship, with a myriad of draconian punishments, would be the ideal government. They're far more effective at providing security than a free society. One of the cornerstones of justice is the idea of the benefit of the doubt; i.e. "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". What about the potential "mayhem" that we accept for advocating the widespread ownership of guns? Most everyone here accepts that the cost of the Columbines and Virginia Tech's are a tragic but acceptable price for freedom and the ability to maintain it. I don't think it's unreasonable to then say that a certain amount of thief is acceptable versus state sanctioned summary executions.

 

[papajohn]

The part about people dying during the commission of a felony is "Hogwash"? How would you feel if your elderly father interrupted a burglary, was tied to a chair to keep him from alerting anyone, then dies of a heart attack while trying to free himself? If it was your father you'd be screaming for blood and vengeance and a public hanging of anyone connected to the crime.

How about a bank robbery.......an armed citizen tries to shoot the robber as the guard accidently steps in front of him, and the guard is shot and dies. Who is to blame? I say it's the robber, who started the whole chain of events. The armed citizen was reacting to the robbery, and never would have drawn his weapon had it not been for the robbery happening in front of him. Felons MUST be held accountable for their actions, and the consequences of their actions, intended or not.

If you forgot to engage the emergency brake in your car, and it rolled down the hill and crushed a little kid, you'd expect to be held accountable, wouldn't you? Unintended consequences are consequences nonetheless. Criminal behavior that leads to other stuff happening should be treated MORE harshly, if anything.

Papajohn

 

[LiquidTension]

Legal or not, I just don't feel bad when bad things happen to bad people.

 

[xsquidgator]

Legal or not, I just don't feel bad when bad things happen to bad people.

+1.

When I was in the service I made a bad error in judgment and moved into a bad part of town when I PCS'd. Car broken into and I caught a young hoodlum coming through my bedroom window after he'd used a straight razor to cut the screen. I lasted about a week and a half in that neighborhood before I broke the lease and moved, losing about 2 months worth of rent in the process that I could ill-afford. (And while attempting to go through USN nuclear power training at the same time).

I really don't want to shoot anyone over property, but if there is ANY benefit of the doubt in a case like this with the property owner, the property owner defending his (or his neighbor's) home gets my benefit of the doubt. The defender isn't the criminal here, not in my book.

+100 to whoever said "if you think a VCR was all that was stolen, you got a lot to learn". Having your HOME invaded by a burglar is a terrible feeling. I'll shed no tears for these criminals and I guaran-damn-tee you a large number of unknown people have been spared being the victims of these would-be hoods, by the actions of this homeowner.

 

[Skydivesnake]

Arrest warrant issued for homeowner...

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2008/08/04/man_accused_of_shooting_at_all.html

Llano County officials have issued an arrest warrant for a man they say shot at a vehicle leaving the scene of a burglary on Wednesday, injuring at least one person inside.

Tom Oakes, 64 of Kingsland, has been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second degree felony, Llano County District Attorney Sam Oatman said. Oatman said Oakes is expected to surrender to sheriff’s officials on Tuesday.

Oakes is accused of firing a .45 caliber gun at the vehicle as it drove away from his neighbor’s home. Llano County sheriff’s officials said Oakes had confronted several individuals he believed were burglarizing the home.

James Wheat, Oakes’ attorney, said his client had seen the vehicle pass by several times that morning, then back into his neighbor’s driveway. Wheat said Oakes decided to investigate, and confronted the men while visibly carrying his handgun.

Wheat said Oakes started shooting at the vehicle when he noticed that at least one of the men reach into the car for something, which he thought might be a weapon.

Oakes never saw a weapon, Wheat said. After the men had left, Oakes called 911, Wheat said.

Wheat said Oakes has not said why he did not call authorities before going to investigate.

Several minutes later, Casey Rowe, who investigators said was in the vehicle, was found at an EMS station in Kingsland with a gunshot wound to the back of his neck, officials said. He was in critical condition at University Medical Center at Brackenridge on Monday afternoon, a hospital official said.

The next day, Matthew Winger was arrested on a Burnet County warrant charging him with failure to appear in court on a previous theft charge, according to the sheriff’s department. When Winger was taken into custody he admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle involved in the shooting, the sheriff’s department said.

Investigators were looking for a third person who they believe was in the vehicle, identified as 24-year-old Michael Jeffers, who also uses the name Mike Jones, according to the Llano County Sheriff’s Department.

It was unclear on Monday whether Jeffers has been found.

Wheat said his client has been fully cooperative with authorities and believes he will be cleared.

 

[LightningJoe]

Nobody makes you live in Texas. Certainly, nobody makes you burglarize homes in Texas. It is easy to avoid being shot while committing such an act. Obey our laws. Very simple.


Also, don't mess with old men in Texas. They have guns and they've learned to shoot them.

 

[.38 Special]

While you may not personally feel comfortable taking a life to protect the goods you worked hard for, why should you be entitled to make that decision for someone else?

I am not. Society is. And they are for the same reason they are entitled to make laws about anything.

I am merely voicing my opinion about when it is right or wrong to take a life. Texas is free to ignore it.

 

[.38 Special]

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

From TexasRifleman's argument that thieves may be taking something upon which an innocent life depends, thus shooting thieves may save innocent life. I would feel an obligation to kill a guilty man in order to save an innocent one.

 

[plexreticle]

Texas has somewhat reasonable laws when it comes to shooting criminals after dark.

 

[.38 Special]

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.

I find it helpful to read the thread before making replies, so that I understand the context in which comments are made.

You might too.

The argument was that thieves could theoretically steal something upon which an innocent person depended to live, and that therefor the theft would lead to the death of that innocent person. It -- like this thread -- has got nothing to do with thieves who make physical attacks during the course of their crimes.

 

[.38 Special]

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.

Your post is a perfect illustration of the silliness behind the "My stuff cost me hours of my life to acquire which is why it's okay to kill for it". The further you follow the "logic", the more ridiculous it becomes.

 

[MechAg94]

I thought the "after dark" provisions in the Texas law had more to do with trespassing after dark, not just on the street. Maybe someone knows the relevant statutes.

Personally, I appreciate that Texas law has some flexibility. I don't like the idea that one or two technicalities could mean the difference between self defense and prison. That is more of a general statement rather than just about this thread.

 

[MechAg94]

Your post is a perfect illustration of the silliness behind the "My stuff cost me hours of my life to acquire which is why it's okay to kill for it". The further you follow the "logic", the more ridiculous it becomes.

The idea that no property is worth the life of the thief is much sillier than anything else said in this thread.

 

[.38 Special]

The idea that no property is worth the life of the thief is much sillier than anything else said in this thread.

I don't see how you'd know that. If you'd actually read the thread, you'd have seen where I admit that some things are worth killing over.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled knee-jerking.

 

[BruceRDucer]

Okay .38 Special. 1 point for you. Zero points for me.

 

[Guillermo]

Junyo

While I appreciate you answering directly, I find it hard to believe that you cannot imagine a senario where the situation exists.

For instance, you just moved out of a house in a rural area.

But hey, you don't want answer, that is fine.

I have no reluctance. My answer is pretty clear. If you are stealing or doing damage in any sort of a significant way, I will do my best to perferate you with prejudice.

While I would not shoot you over a toaster, I would kill you deader than a doornail for my lawn mower. If you are breaking into my house or my vehicle I will cap you.

Immmoral? I don't think so. If you are a Christian you believe Luke 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.

I am comfortable with my postion.

 

[junyo]

While I appreciate you answering directly, I find it hard to believe that you cannot imagine a senario where the situation exists.

For instance, you just moved out of a house in a rural area.

But hey, you don't want answer, that is fine.

I have no reluctance. My answer is pretty clear. If you are stealing or doing damage in any sort of a significant way, I will do my best to perferate you with prejudice.

While I would not shoot you over a toaster, I would kill you deader than a doornail for my lawn mower. If you are breaking into my house or my vehicle I will cap you.

Immmoral? I don't think so. If you are a Christian you believe Luke 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.

I am comfortable with my postion.

Taking verses out of context and cherry picking phrases is a bad practice, and it weakens your argument. The very next verse says "But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils." It says it in the Bible, does that means that it's okay to overpower you and steal your stuff as long as I'm stronger? The verse is said in illustration of a larger point (try reading 11:15-23).

If you want to make the argument a religious one, specifically a Christian one, I think Biblical morality is clear. Even under the law of Moses, theft wasn't usually punishable by death. The normal punishment was restitution, up to and including by servitude. A thief could be killed if he was caught breaking into your house at night, but bloodguilt was incurred if you killed him during the day (Exodus 22:2,3). Again, a thief breaking into your home during the day couldn't be killed with impunity. Further, the Lord instructed us to not focus on material things when he said "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:19-21, emphasis mine) And a large part of Christianity is forbearance; forgiving a wrong performed against you in recoginition of our own dependence on divine grace; "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew 6:14,15) I find it difficult to reconcile that message with "I would kill you deader than a doornail for my lawn mower."

 

[Mr. D]

Junyo you're right about thieves not receiving the death sentence Biblically. When someone broke into your house during the day (when you could see he wasn't armed and was after your stuff, not you) you couldn't kill him. However, if it happened during the night (you couldn't see if he was armed or not) you could kill him. This implies that if you think you are in imminent danger, you can defend yourself by killing the perp, even if you don't know if he is armed. I think that part of it applies in this case. The Texan went over to investigate, the guy reaches for something, Texan thinks it could be (and, given the situation, it most likely is) a gun, Texan shoots guy to defend himself. However, shooting after the fleeing card... we'll probably never know. As others said already, were the guys driving away from him, fleeing the scene? I'd have a hard time justifying his shooting after them. Were they fleeing the scene, but towards him? Obviously makes it a different scenario all together.

One interesting thing about Biblical law concerning thieves. The thief was required to pay back to the victim what ever he stole (or the equivalent worth, if returning the exact items wasn't possible) plus a bunch more. I forget how much more, but I think that the payback was to equal twice the amount he stole.