Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars at neighbours' - Page 43 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Wallaroo · #**631** (**permalink**) 03-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

You may have missed it in the 40+ pages of this thread, but in Texas, the way the law is written, he was justified in killing them regardless.

We allow the use of deadly force to protect property. Shooting them in the back is perfectly legal. In fact, had he shot them in the back, as they were running down the street 500 yards from his home, it would STILL be perfectly legal.

We take a very dim view of thieves down here.

There are two serious problems with these new laws - misunderstandings, and the fact that people can take advantage of them if they wanna kill somebody.

Scenario one: I live in Texas too, and you give me permission to borrow one of your bikes while you are on vacation. I come by your house to pick it up (just like we agreed on), but your trigger happy neighbor thinks that I'm stealing it, and blows my head off.

Nobody can charge him!

Scenario two: I want to kill you, so I invite you over to my Texas home for a cold one and a ride on my new Harley, while my neighbors are at work. You start it up in my driveway, and I pull out my gun and shoot you dead.

Wow, I've just committed the perfect murder, and nobody can charge me either!

drgoodtrips · #**632** (**permalink**) 03-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

Scenario two: I want to kill you, so I invite you over to my Texas home for a cold one and a ride on my new Harley, while my neighbors are at work. You start it up in my driveway, and I pull out my gun and shoot you dead.

Wow, I've just committed the perfect murder, and nobody can charge me either!

If the Horn case is a precedent, you needn't even have him at your place. Just follow him until he goes on someone else's property and shoot him 15 or 16 times, later to explain that you couldn't just stand by and watch him threaten someone's private property.

drgoodtrips · #**633** (**permalink**) 03-14-2008

Or, here's an even better one. Start an account on Craigslist at an internet cafe, and list your address as that of your neighbor. Strike a bargain with the person you want to kill, and tell him to come get it at a time when your neighbor won't be home. Tell him to leave the money in the mailbox and pick up the "item" around back. Then, you can legally shoot him for tampering with your neighbor's mailbox or when he goes around back - just be sure to call 911 and let them know you're going hunting. You kill two birds with one stone - you get to frag someone and you get your mug on the local news as a 'hero'

Wallaroo · #**634** (**permalink**) 03-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

If the Horn case is a precedent, you needn't even have him at your place. Just follow him until he goes on someone else's property and shoot him 15 or 16 times, later to explain that you couldn't just stand by and watch him threaten someone's private property.

It sounds like you wouldnt like to live in Texas either with those stoneage laws. Im glad that most of us feel that way!

What the hell were those Texan politicians thinking when they made those laws - they must be completely fucking irrational.

Traveler · #**635** (**permalink**) 03-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I was sitting around bored earlier today, and thinking of this thread for some reason. Let's take, at face value, that Texas law allows for citizens to make the determination that someone is a thief, and, apparently, determine whether that theft is felony, misdemeanor, or breach of contract the way a trained official such as a police officer might. Let's also assume that Texas law allows civilians, unlike police officers, to gun people down in the commission of such a theft, after rendering their layman's legal verdicts.

Now, since a civilian has no real training in distinguishing types of theft from one another or even that a theft is occurring, there are likely to be some understandable mistakes, no? Let's say that I'm walking down the street with my friend Horn, and we happen upon a man with a crazy look in his eyes, shoddy clothes, and a suspicious demeanor. He's walking out of a very ritzy looking house, carrying a television and looking around furtively.

Naturally, being good citizens, Horn and I approach him, force him to get down on his knees and open his mouth, put the gun in it, and squeal with delight as all manner of brains, blood and gore coat us in the sticky spray of justice. As we're exchanging high-fives and cries of "wait til the guys here about this", however, a woman screams and runs out of the house calling our noble deed 'murder' because the man, in fact, lived there and was her husband.

Now, clearly a mistake has been made, but shouldn't Texas law allow for these sorts of "oops-es"? After all, Horn and I saw what really, really looked like a felony being committed, and we were just doing our civic duty. How were untrained civilians like us supposed to know better? We were simply preventing the theft of some stranger's property when no one had asked us for any help. No life is more important than a random person's property, and these things will happen.

And, furthermore, let's say that we give the wife a heartfelt apology for the little misunderstanding and leave her to prepare for her closed casket funeral and make our way home. Now, let's say the police show up and want to arrest us. On the one hand, they are the police, but then, on the other hand they are attempting to kidnap and forcibly detain two people just acting in their natural capacity as citizens. Should we shoot the policemen or not?

Oh that's a great post man...i thought Wallaroo was good at these hypothetical scenarios!!

But alas yes it would be legal in the very broadest of interpretations of the law i guess but i do think its to do with private property only so if a guy was robbing it from a shop or something it wouldn't be acceptable.

If it was indeed the case that they shot a guy in the pre-tense you did i'm not so sure that it would just be open and shut seeing as you gave the guy no chance to surrender so technically i guess it would be more difficult than Horny's situation.

However the law doesn't require that you even warn them so theoretically it would be legal i guess. But you reall are pushing this one i mean you wouldhave to show some reasonable evidence that you did genuinly believe this was a robbery, on which if the situation was ridiculous enough you may not get the benefit of the doubt if prosecutors wanted to throw the book at you.

Common sense will generally dictate, i don't think its much of an issue at all.

As for the latter part well i assume that was just tongue in cheek right? If you know they are law enforcement and the authority then obviously that trumps your laws of self defense unless they're gonna kill you, which ofcourse they wouldn't unless they were defending themselves so its not a possible scenario aside of an absolutely hurrendous misunderstanding.

Traveler · #**636** (**permalink**) 03-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

It sounds like you wouldnt like to live in Texas either with those stoneage laws. Im glad that most of us feel that way!

What the hell were those Texan politicians thinking when they made those laws - they must be completely fucking irrational.

Well the biggest proponent of the law is Ron Paul...

Traveler · #**637** (**permalink**) 03-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I'm not so sure about that.

It wasn't even his own property to begin with & his safety was never in danger. If it was, he was the one who put it danger by venturing outside after being instructed by the 911 operator to stay inside.

Shooting two people in the back & killing them over a minor property theft puts that guy on a lower level of scum than the the thieves he shot & I hope they throw the book at him & the families of the dead guys sue him & take his house away from his heirs.

How many times does it have to be established in this thread that he acted within the boundries of the law for you to understand it? Not only will he not be charged anyway but what he did was legal. If folks wanna sue him then their loss of money i guess (unless its pro bono or claimed to be recovered from the other side by trial lawyers) because it won't get anywhere.

Traveler · #**638** (**permalink**) 03-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Or, here's an even better one. Start an account on Craigslist at an internet cafe, and list your address as that of your neighbor. Strike a bargain with the person you want to kill, and tell him to come get it at a time when your neighbor won't be home. Tell him to leave the money in the mailbox and pick up the "item" around back. Then, you can legally shoot him for tampering with your neighbor's mailbox or when he goes around back - just be sure to call 911 and let them know you're going hunting. You kill two birds with one stone - you get to frag someone and you get your mug on the local news as a 'hero'

Brilliant again! But that would (i assume) not only be murder but conspiracy to murder too seeing as you set the whole thing up and lured him into the property! You gave himn the direct false information to shoot him, at very worst you would be seen as intentionally putting him in harms way knowing what that you yourself were going to kill him and then maybe say you got ammnesia or something, or claim you're bi-polar or split personality disorder or something, it might be an interesting insanity defense that's for sure. Gotta love the "tampering with your neighbor's mailbox" line....

Traveler · #**639** (**permalink**) 03-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

If the Horn case is a precedent, you needn't even have him at your place. Just follow him until he goes on someone else's property and shoot him 15 or 16 times, later to explain that you couldn't just stand by and watch him threaten someone's private property.

Yeah but you would have to be in some sort of (at the least) aquaintance with the property owner or geographically linked to the property in some way!! Or i assume otherwise be 100% sure he was breaking in, or just, like you said, fire away..

Traveler · #**640** (**permalink**) 03-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

There are two serious problems with these new laws - misunderstandings, and the fact that people can take advantage of them if they wanna kill somebody.

Scenario one: I live in Texas too, and you give me permission to borrow one of your bikes while you are on vacation. I come by your house to pick it up (just like we agreed on), but your trigger happy neighbor thinks that I'm stealing it, and blows my head off.

Well the theory would be that the guy on vacation would tell the neighbor...i ravel a lot and frequently tell my neighbor nobody should be entering my property whom he doesn't already know and things are fine, he makes the judgement call of whether to fire or not.

Quote:

Nobody can charge him!

Well no, if he did know you weren't a threatand had permission to borrow the bike then he wouldbe in trouble; if it was totally a misunderstanding then who knows, he probably wouldn't wouldn't be harmed.

Quote:

Scenario two: I want to kill you, so I invite you over to my Texas home for a cold one and a ride on my new Harley, while my neighbors are at work. You start it up in my driveway, and I pull out my gun and shoot you dead.

Wow, I've just committed the perfect murder, and nobody can charge me either!

Well no that wouldn't work as it could probably be traced that you set it up, our law enforcement isn't stupid.

First scenario is plausable, second isn't.

Slon · #**641** (**permalink**) 03-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I was sitting around bored earlier today, and thinking of this thread for some reason. Let's take, at face value, that Texas law allows for citizens to make the determination that someone is a thief, and, apparently, determine whether that theft is felony, misdemeanor, or breach of contract the way a trained official such as a police officer might. Let's also assume that Texas law allows civilians, unlike police officers, to gun people down in the commission of such a theft, after rendering their layman's legal verdicts.

Now, since a civilian has no real training in distinguishing types of theft from one another or even that a theft is occurring, there are likely to be some understandable mistakes, no? Let's say that I'm walking down the street with my friend Horn, and we happen upon a man with a crazy look in his eyes, shoddy clothes, and a suspicious demeanor. He's walking out of a very ritzy looking house, carrying a television and looking around furtively.

Naturally, being good citizens, Horn and I approach him, force him to get down on his knees and open his mouth, put the gun in it, and squeal with delight as all manner of brains, blood and gore coat us in the sticky spray of justice. As we're exchanging high-fives and cries of "wait til the guys here about this", however, a woman screams and runs out of the house calling our noble deed 'murder' because the man, in fact, lived there and was her husband.

Now, clearly a mistake has been made, but shouldn't Texas law allow for these sorts of "oops-es"? After all, Horn and I saw what really, really looked like a felony being committed, and we were just doing our civic duty. How were untrained civilians like us supposed to know better? We were simply preventing the theft of some stranger's property when no one had asked us for any help. No life is more important than a random person's property, and these things will happen.

And, furthermore, let's say that we give the wife a heartfelt apology for the little misunderstanding and leave her to prepare for her closed casket funeral and make our way home. Now, let's say the police show up and want to arrest us. On the one hand, they are the police, but then, on the other hand they are attempting to kidnap and forcibly detain two people just acting in their natural capacity as citizens. Should we shoot the policemen or not?

I think the incompatibility here is that this isn't really a case of the Texan arresting and then punishing the guy (as in judge, jury, executioner), but rather stopping him from committing a crime and, in the process, killing him. Your example shows the use of unnecessary force at stopping the crime and acting as a punisher, rather than simply a stopper of the crime.

pramjockey · #**642** (**permalink**) 03-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

There is no conflict here. One is not using force to specifically kill as a penalty - force is being used to recover the property.

Killing the criminal is a bonus effect of the use of lethal force.

LMAO

So now killing another human being is a "bonus." You were saying something about how much you value life....

pramjockey · #**643** (**permalink**) 03-15-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

No but then why would anyone shoot them? I think the scenario is unlikely, i've never heard of folks shooting at repo men

happens quite frequently

Traveler · #**644** (**permalink**) 03-15-2008

Woah...i've never heard about it, that's pretty insane.

I tried looking around for the laws about repossession and its beyond complicated, i mean if you owe money then they have the right to seize the money but not the collaterol unless stated othereise and fo both they need different and specific court orders and so on. Its a total mess.

Traveler · #**645** (**permalink**) 03-15-2008

Moral of the story on that one btw is don't take out loans against your property/the name of your property!