Shoot first????

[CDN_Merlin]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/01/rol ... index.html

Did he really need to kill them? Were they threatning his life? Could he not of just fired in the air and told them to stay put until the cops arrived? After reading he actually told the dispatch he was going out there to kill them, I think he should be in jail.

Your thoughts?

[Cuda68]

Thats a very one sided and subjective view point. Do you have a link to a more neutral or factual telling of it?

They way it is told there I would have to say he was wrong. He should have tried to detain them and if they resisted then deadly force could be applied. But as I read that I get the feeling this story may be all wrong in its telling.

As for shooting in the air, no way. If you fire a gun you fire at a target never in the air. What goes up must come down.

[Dakatsu]

Thats a very one sided and subjective view point. Do you have a link to a more neutral or factual telling of it?

They way it is told there I would have to say he was wrong. He should have tried to detain them and if they resisted then deadly force could be applied. But as I read that I get the feeling this story may be all wrong in its telling.

As for shooting in the air, no way. If you fire a gun you fire at a target never in the air. What goes up must come down.

You aim at them and say don't move or stop or something, but you don't kill them for no damn reason. Stupid Texas.

Here are more links to the article though:
http://www2.islandpacket.com/blogs/post/31905
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374223,00.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5867308.html
http://www2.islandpacket.com/blogs/post/31905

[woodchip]

According to a Texas statute, he was within the law and thus was why he was acquitted.

[Gooberman]

Texas has a castle law, where you can shoot someone who is entering your property. That is what made this controversial, is that it was his neighbors property. So the question was does the 'castle' streach to ones neighbors.

From what I heard, Horn told them \"Move and your dead,\" and they started running, so he shot them in the back.

I think its a pretty dangerous precedent. I think as a side effect burglers will just likewise adopt the shoot first policy.

On that note, however, I'm sure this month's crime report for Horns neighborhood is smaller then this post.

Also, to stir the pot some more, I doubt he would of gotten off scott free except for the fact that these were illigal immigrants. Sort of a double castle law there I suppose.

[Will Robinson]

It wasn't murder in the eyes of the law but he wasn't in imminent danger so in my mind he set out to stop them or kill them. It's a tough scenario, my gut tells me it's murder but really it isn't.
I might have let them go, on the other hand I wouldn't want them to get away with it and possibly return next week and break into my house and possibly hurt my family...so maybe I would have done the same.

Since Texas law allows you to intervene on behalf of your neighbors to stop a criminal who is trying to escape with stolen property, and the law says you can shoot them even if they are trying to escape, he really had a right to shoot them. I think that law is separate from the Castle Doctrine.


The law allows it and he took advantage of it and, yes, if they had been two local white teenagers he would have been indicted...probably would have been found guilty and then appealed and been found not guilty by a jury less connected to the community a year or so down the road because the law says he's innocent.

I disagree that this will entice criminals to become more dangerous, they are already dangerous, even those that don't plan to kill their victims often try to as things unfold during a robbery. I think this will deter criminals from being so bold and they will seek out less threatening victims/neighborhoods.

Texas wants criminals to know it is the wrong place for them, the message has been delivered once again....

[Cuda68]

Thats a very one sided and subjective view point. Do you have a link to a more neutral or factual telling of it?

They way it is told there I would have to say he was wrong. He should have tried to detain them and if they resisted then deadly force could be applied. But as I read that I get the feeling this story may be all wrong in its telling.

As for shooting in the air, no way. If you fire a gun you fire at a target never in the air. What goes up must come down.

You aim at them and say don't move or stop or something, but you don't kill them for no damn reason. Stupid Texas.

Here are more links to the article though:
http://www2.islandpacket.com/blogs/post/31905
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374223,00.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5867308.html
http://www2.islandpacket.com/blogs/post/31905

The whole story still is not told in any of those articles, although they come closer. They are all one sided, especially the islandpacket site. To say they are anti gun would be an understatement, kinda like the NRA is pro gun - you know what they are gonna say before you read more than 2 sentences.
IMHO the sticky point here is where they armed or not. If they where shame on them and good ridince to trash, legal immigrants or not. If they where unarmed, shame on him he should be tried for murder.

[woodchip]

Don't forget he did not get off scott free....he now has a atty. bill to pay. And the time he lost going to court to defend himself. Reason enough a lot of peeps would have let the crooks go.

[Bet51987]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/01/rol ... index.html

Did he really need to kill them? Were they threatning his life? Could he not of just fired in the air and told them to stay put until the cops arrived? After reading he actually told the dispatch he was going out there to kill them, I think he should be in jail.

Your thoughts?

I heard the conversation between the police and him. In this particular situation his life was not in any danger so he should have followed the instructions given to him. IMO he should be in prison for murder.

Bee

[CDN_Merlin]

Are the people on the phone not cops themselves? If so, would he not be in jail for not followign police orders? If not, maybe they should be and this way there would be penalties for stuff like this.

I know they were illegal immigrants but it doesn't matter. He said \"they are breaking the law, they deserved it\" or something like that.

So if this guy goes over the speed limit, we are allowed to fire a rocket at his car because he deserved it?

I understand the right to protect yourself but he flat out went out with intent to kill. That's just wrong even if the law states it isn't. Texas laws need to be looked at and changed.

[Will Robinson]

So if this guy goes over the speed limit, we are allowed to fire a rocket at his car because he deserved it?

You do what you want to do but if the law doesn't support your decisions you might go to jail. As far as the police telling him to stay inside, I don't think a police officer on the phone would have any authority to stop you from doing what have a legal right to do. If the cop was on the scene it would be different because it would be interfering with the officer who could control the scene of the crime and stop people from going where they otherwise would be free to go etc.

I don't particularly enjoy taking his side in this but the more I think about it the more I feel he was within the law.
I wouldn't mind if the law was changed to be limited to the basic rules of self defense instead of including defending property.
The problem there is he has a right to self defense within his own property, and at least in Texas, his neighbors yard also, so if he wants to go out and confront the criminals and they cause him to feel threatened he can shoot them under the self defense laws as well!

How can you rewrite the law to stop this from happening without making self defense illegal?

[CDN_Merlin]

Like I said, I know it's legal in Texas but maybe putting it only on your property and not your neighbours.

Now, imagine if he had been shot in return and killed? Would there have been a hoopla of trouble brewing about changing the laws to protect him.

It is a tough call. On one hand, he was right according to the law. On the other hand, I find it's a case of trigger happyness. Another reason I'm against guns in the first place. But that's another story.

[Foil]

Caught the story and the 911 call this morning before I left for work. From his voice, and from the interview with him, I got the very distinct impression that this guy wasn't just \"trigger-happy\", he wanted nothing less than to kill those two men. Despite the pleas of the 911 operator, he kept saying things like \"I'm gonna shoot 'em\", \"I'm gonna kill 'em\", \"Here I go...\"; he wasn't going to let them get away alive. It clearly wasn't self-defense, and I don't believe for a second that his concern was about his neighbor's property.

With that said, I agree that legally it's a tough question, because of the way the law was written in Texas. I'm not sure they could reasonably charge him with murder, but I wonder if a lesser charge could stick, based on his repeated statements on the 911 call about his intentions to kill.

[Cuda68]

Like I said, I know it's legal in Texas but maybe putting it only on your property and not your neighbours.

Now, imagine if he had been shot in return and killed? Would there have been a hoopla of trouble brewing about changing the laws to protect him.

It is a tough call. On one hand, he was right according to the law. On the other hand, I find it's a case of trigger happyness. Another reason I'm against guns in the first place. But that's another story.

In Colorado so long as a crime takes place in your home or on yur property, you can chase them down the street and shoot them. The point is if you break into someones home be prepared to pay the price. Don't do it period.

[Spidey]

Well, if the guy didn’t break any laws, then be mad at the law.

[snoopy]

I'm not sure what to think.

If you see it from a protection of property perspective, I think it's valid to have your castle extend to your neighbors, to some extent. Here are the available options, as I see them:

1. Stay in your house. I think it's pretty well established the petty burglars work in \"turfs\"... thus letting them get away would tend to encourage them to come back again for more.... thus increasing the chance that they'll target your house next time.

2. Go out and confront them, but do nothing to stop them if they run. This could result in either you becoming a target of theirs, or scaring them off so they don't return to the neighborhood.

3. Go out, and try to shoot at something neutral as a warning when they run. This is probably the best option. You encourage them to stop by showing that actually have a loaded gun, but you don't outright kill them. If you do hurt them somehow, say hello to lots of lawsuits. Also, if they keep running, this accomplished nothing while damaging something in the process.

4. Shoot at them. Obviously, you shoot at the center of mass... and end up killing them. This is what he did.

In the end, I don't like any of the options. the question is, how long is reasonable for the police to respond, and if they don't respond on time, *should* you take action to enforce the law yourself. I don't really know. It's not as simple as trying him for murder, as some claim. A person has to be able to defend themselves at some point.... where that point is in the question. He wasn't killing them for the sake of killing them.

As far as the \"illegal immigrant\" part goes, I don't agree with people's speeding analogy. There are degrees of crimes.... speeding is a minor misdemeanor, while breaking and entering & theft are higher degrees of crimes, that entail a greater endangerment of people's lives. Should there be a point at which a person's own disregard for the law excludes them from being protected by it? Probably not, but one's emotions make it hard to really stick to that.

[CDN_Merlin]

In the end, I don't like any of the options. the question is, how long is reasonable for the police to respond, and if they don't respond on time, *should* you take action to enforce the law yourself

At some point, someone will take the law into their own hands and cause major damage. This is what I don't like about this Castle law. They weren't stealing from him, he should of minded his own business. If you think criminals will not come back, think again. He will become a target from the gang they belonged to.

[Spidey]

They weren't stealing from him, he should of minded his own business.

Wow, I can’t disagree more!

Note: this is not a comment directed toward the OP.

[Cuda68]

In the end, I don't like any of the options. the question is, how long is reasonable for the police to respond, and if they don't respond on time, *should* you take action to enforce the law yourself

At some point, someone will take the law into their own hands and cause major damage. This is what I don't like about this Castle law. They weren't stealing from him, he should of minded his own business. If you think criminals will not come back, think again. He will become a target from the gang they belonged to.

Naa, they are looking for easy marks. Once the local gangs figure out you won't take there crap they go for an easier mark. Once they know you will wimp out they come for you again and again. At least thats the way it was in St. Paul MN. I had only 2 run ins with the local gangs, my neighbor had them on a weekly basis because he always gave them what they demanded.

[CDN_Merlin]

Cuda, this all depends on the gangs. Some won't take your BS, others will and leave.

[Cuda68]

So I should have joined my neighbor and submitted to them?

Wasn't the way I was brought up - sorry

[Ford Prefect]

Glad I read this thread and understand better the laws of Texas. There is no way I would ever live in that state. I'm sure there are many that feel just the opposite and I'm glad I have options and they have options and they can go and live their little Wild West dreams without me.

[Spidey]

Why not Ford, are you a thief? Because that’s the kind of people those laws are designed to dissuade from living there.

And yea, aint choice great!

[Ford Prefect]

Not a thief. Just a man that holds the value of human life above that of simple possessions and likes to stay amongst those that feel the same. Not that there are not people just like that guy here in my area but we don't give them the legal right to behave that way. Societal pressure is just a little more civilized here.

[Sergeant Thorne]

They weren't stealing from him, he should of minded his own business.

I wouldn't mind my own business if someone was robbing my neighbor's house. What kind of an attitude is that? What are neighbors for?

I would step in, and I wouldn't regret it if there were repercussions.

[Jeff250]

Well, if the guy didn’t break any laws, then be mad at the law.

The claim by your opponents is that he violated, if not a Texas law, then a moral law. If he did, then that is always blameworthy.

[Spidey]

Well, my comment was directed at the legal aspect of the event. But……

My comment still has validity, because if a law allows someone to act in an immoral way, it should be changed.

Laws should be in compliance with accepted morality, correct?

You are also making a false assumption, that being I agree with the guy’s actions, no my point was exactly that it is a bad law, in need of changing because it encourages bad behavior.

[Jeff250]

Yes, I agree--the law needs changing.

[Spidey]

What I think…

1. You have the right to kill anyone who violates the sanctity of your home, except for law enforcement or firefighters etc. (in self defense of course)

2. You do not have the right to protect property with deadly force…unless the theft or destruction of such could result in the potential loss of someones life or limb.

3. You do have the right to intervene it a theft, and use a firearm to protect yourself when doing so. (make a citizens arrest) You may use the weapon to disable the thief if necessary.

4. You may or may not have the right to shoot someone in the back…but that’s just poor sportsmanship.

Just my 2cents.

[Kyouryuu]

While the law says he was justified, killing two people over some stolen property seems like a pretty weak cause to me. No one's life was in imminent danger, it was just a bunch of stolen goods.

I think what disturbs me about the case is how... I don't know, enthusiastic he was on the phone toward the 911 dispatcher who repeatedly told him not to do it. This was not a person who was in any way reluctant about killing these two thieves. Practically speaking, he had other options. He could have fired the gun into the air. He could have shot the tires on the car. Heck, he could have shot them in the legs.

It's an excellent example of just because the law says you can, it doesn't mean you should. The \"Castle\" laws have their history and their place, but the presence of the law should not be a substitute for human judgment.

All of that said, though, it's not like I'm going to weep over the death of the two thieves. You play with fire, sometimes you get burned.

[Ferno]

Instead of thinking it was 'just goods', think of it this way.

you work a very long time to get something nice that you've had your eye on for years. Maybe it's a collection of silverware. maybe it's an engagement ring. maybe it's an heirloom that's been in the family for years. A pricless collection of photos even. Maybe it's something your kids have always wanted and would accept nothing else even though you remember asking them about ten different alternatives.

you work for years in order to pay for it. you make sacrifice after sacrifice in order to get it. You finally do get it and the look on your kids or spouses face is absolutely priceless.

two weeks later, two crooks break in and steal everything from you. they're not just stealing goods. they're stealing something you've shed blood and sweat for. something that has more worth than can be calculated. something that cannot truly be replaced because the effort and value is GONE.

now then... are they still 'just goods'?

What I've just laid out here is exactly what a person goes through when they're robbed.

It's easy to sit back and debate what this guy should or should not have done. but once you go through being robbed... everything changes.

[CDN_Merlin]

Ferno, my house was robbed back in 97, I ended up loses rings and watches my grandfather had given me before passing away. Yes, I was very upset, but I wouldn't of taken someone's life over it.

[Ferno]

well I got no problem with what you chose to do. you have to live with yourself either way.

[fliptw]

outside of the fact it wasn't his stuff being stolen.

[Cuda68]

I was only a little pissed about what was stolen, went outraged me was that someone was in my HOME going through my stuff. A very real feeling of being violated. thats when I brought home Ralph.

[woodchip]

They weren't stealing from him, he should of minded his own business.

Wow, I can’t disagree more!

Note: this is not a comment directed toward the OP.

Spidey is correct. Too often people do not get involved and thus criminals get bolder and bolder. When the petty crook understands he may die in the process of robbing someone, the less they will steal.
People on drugs and stealing is a whole other matter as they are not rational.
Hopefully this story is published in Mexico to let their citizens know that coming here to do crime has a high risk factor.

[CDN_Merlin]

Yeah, I guess after thinking about it, we should do more for our neighbours. It's just so scarey these days. You can't even tell some punk ass kid on the bus to take his feet of the seat so you can sit down because they can tell you to GTH and there is nothing you can do about it. Or they may pull a knife on you etc. Our society has become very dangerous from my point of view.

[Ford Prefect]

Hopefully this story is published in Mexico to let their citizens know that coming here to do crime has a high risk factor.

LOL you think there is not a high risk factor in Mexico?
A Federale catches you there and you better hope you have enough scratch to pay him off because you may not survive the \"interview\".

[MD-1118]

What I think…

1. You have the right to kill anyone who violates the sanctity of your home, except for law enforcement or firefighters etc. (in self defense of course)

2. You do not have the right to protect property with deadly force…unless the theft or destruction of such could result in the potential loss of someones life or limb.

3. You do have the right to intervene it a theft, and use a firearm to protect yourself when doing so. (make a citizens arrest) You may use the weapon to disable the thief if necessary.

4. You may or may not have the right to shoot someone in the back…but that’s just poor sportsmanship.

Just my 2cents.

Allow me to throw in my own proverbial two cents as well. I couldn't agree more with you, Spidey. If someone were to break into my house and threaten myself or my family, well, let's just say I value our lives far more than the life of whoever happens to be the crook, and I've got a twelve gauge Mossberg with their name on it. On the other hand, if they're just here to steal some things, well, that's okay. As the old adage goes, 'Psychological/emotional damage lasts longer than physical damage'... and boy, do I know how to dish it out. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Texas crooks, and think twice before you come to Florida.

Also, I may not like my neighbors all that much (heck, I don't even know them that well), but if I see a burglar or some sort of mischief maker on their lawn, I'm going by the same rules. Who's to say they won't swing by my place afterwards? I'd rather stop them before they've even started.