Old redneck shoots burglars...

[Jadeite]

Damn it.. How do you make this thing put an image on the bottom of my posts like you guys have? I tried both the url and the img tags at the location where the picture is. What am I doing wrong?

You're not actually linking to an image, you're linking to the page that hosts the image. Put the actual image address between [img] tags.

[General Zod]

One could look at it from another point of view: The robbers were valuing property as much as their lives, by purposely taking that risk. Why should we condemn the old man for placing exactly the same value upon them that they put upon themselves?

The old man was stupid. It wasn't his property to defend and he had no business going out there. If anything he was putting himself at risk for no reason except some deluded sense of self-righteousness. Especially since the robbers could have easily been armed themselves.

[Justforfun000]

You're not actually linking to an image, you're linking to the page that hosts the image. Put the actual image address between [img] tags.

I can't seem to do that. I right click on the gif that's on the My Space server, but it only bring ups that page description you're already seeing in the [url] tags.

[Glocksman]

Most ISP's have a limited amount of free space (usually 10MB or so) on their servers for customer's personal pages.

If you right click on by sig banner, you'll see that it's a simple direct link to the image itself, whereas the myspace link in your sig is not quite as simple.

[Glocksman]

As for the old man in question, I personally wouldn't do what he did under those circumstances for a host of reasons.
Not the least of which is that arriving police just might mistake you for the burglar and shoot you because you're holding a gun on two 'hostages'.

Frankly, the only crimes that'd justify injecting yourself into the situation the way he did would be those against people and arson against the home itself.
Rape, murder, etc. would justify taking immediate action. So would watching them pour gasoline around the home and trying to burn it down.
Two burglars fleeing from a home he knew to be unoccupied doesn't cross that line in my mind.

If he'd shot the two while they were breaking into his own home, I'd be the first to give him an 'attaboy'.
As it is, his statements to the police dispatcher just may send him to prison.
If I were on that jury, I'd be giving them a long, hard listen to.

[Lord Insanity]

In the 911 dispatch recording they guy allegedly states: "Don't move. You're dead!" Is it possible he actually stated: "Don't move or you're dead!" If he had stated that and then the robbers did in fact lunge at him, he was totally justified in shooting them. That said I will agree he should never have gone outside and confronted them in the first place. I suppose using a video camera to film them through the window so the police had iron clad evidence to prosecute never actually entered his head. Shooting anyone should always be an absolute last resort and he should not have put himself in a situation unneccessarily where it was a propable outcome. Without further evidence though, I will give the moron the benefit of the doubt over the robbers.

[Flagg]

If he'd shot the two while they were breaking into his own home, I'd be the first to give him an 'attaboy'.
As it is, his statements to the police dispatcher just may send him to prison.
If I were on that jury, I'd be giving them a long, hard listen to.

That's my feeling on this, too. If they had tried to break into his house, then fuck em.

But it's clear that that's not what happened. He intentionally put himself into a situation where he could be attacked with the clear intention of killing these 2 morons. He flat out says it to the dispatcher. When you say "I'm gonna go outside and kill these guys" and then you go outside and kill those guys, it's fucking murder.

[Death from the Sea]

You mean the damn news report when this happened where they specifically stated that that DA was hesitant to press charges due to the large vocal support Horn had over his actions?

The DA is still waiting for the detectives to finish investigating the case.

And this happened in Pasadena, TX not Houston, since the article had wrongly said it was in Houston.

[General Zod]

And this happened in Pasadena, TX not Houston, since the article had wrongly said it was in Houston.

No it didn't.

Horn was home in Pasadena, about 15 miles southeast of Houston, on Nov. 14 when he heard glass breaking, said his attorney, Tom Lambright. He looked out the window and saw 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and 30-year-old Diego Ortiz using a crowbar to break out the rest of the glass.

[Stuart]

But it's clear that that's not what happened. He intentionally put himself into a situation where he could be attacked with the clear intention of killing these 2 morons. He flat out says it to the dispatcher. When you say "I'm gonna go outside and kill these guys" and then you go outside and kill those guys, it's fucking murder.

The moral of this tale being, if you intend to shoot somebody keep your mouth shut. If you've just shot somebody keep your mouth shut Nobody ever made anything better by getting verbal diarrhea.

[brianeyci]

This came out of totally fucking nowhere and has pretty much nothing to do with this thread.

Yeah, you don't like it do you.

Why should we condemn the old man for placing exactly the same value upon them that they put upon themselves?

Maybe they didn't expect that a grumpy old man with nothing better to do than watch their neighbor's place would pump them full of damn lead. They waited until the neighbor was gone, and probably scoped out the house. No expectation of dying if there's nobody there to shoot you.

I sure condemn the old man: when Glocksman condemns a shooter, you know the shooter has to be in the wrong.

[Jaepheth]

You don't have to be in immediate danger to shoot a criminal in this state.

It doesn't even have to be your property at risk.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

So basically, a judge is going to ask him if he reasonably believed that shooting the criminals was necessary to prevent them from getting away with stolen property, if the judge accepts his answer, he walks.

[Flagg]

But it's clear that that's not what happened. He intentionally put himself into a situation where he could be attacked with the clear intention of killing these 2 morons. He flat out says it to the dispatcher. When you say "I'm gonna go outside and kill these guys" and then you go outside and kill those guys, it's fucking murder.

The moral of this tale being, if you intend to shoot somebody keep your mouth shut. If you've just shot somebody keep your mouth shut Nobody ever made anything better by getting verbal diarrhea.

Well, I would say the moral of the story is don't fucking steal shit in Texas.

If this crazy old murderer does happen to be charged and by some miracle is actually indicted and found guilty, then another moral of the story would be not to tell someone on a recording that you're about to go shoot 2 people right before doing so.

[Glocksman]

So basically, a judge is going to ask him if he reasonably believed that shooting the criminals was necessary to prevent them from getting away with stolen property, if the judge accepts his answer, he walks.

His belief that it was 'reasonable' is irrelevant.
The word refers to the reasonable person standard.

The "reasonable person" is a hypothetical individual who is intended to represent a sort of "average" citizen. The ability of this hypothetical individual to understand matters is consulted in the process of making decisions of law. The question, "How would a reasonable person act under the same or similar circumstances" performs a critical role in legal reasoning in areas such as negligence and contract law.

A jury may decide that he was indeed acting reasonably, but it may very well not.
The quoted Texas law is not a blanket license to shoot someone, and if you act like it is, you may find yourself in jail.

[Glocksman]

when Glocksman condemns a shooter, you know the shooter has to be in the wrong

That's almost sig worthy.

[General Zod]

Yeah, you don't like it do you.

What exactly was the point of your anti-libertarian rant anyway? Except to post obvious flame bait and show everyone how much you hate libertarians that is.

So basically, a judge is going to ask him if he reasonably believed that shooting the criminals was necessary to prevent them from getting away with stolen property, if the judge accepts his answer, he walks.

You missed clause C.

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

There's no reason to believe anyone or anything in that property was under his care whatsoever except in his own mind. Hardly a good defense.

[Glocksman]

There's no reason to believe anyone or anything in that property was under his care whatsoever except in his own mind. Hardly a good defense

In some reports I've read, supposedly the neighbor asked him to 'keep an eye on' the house.
Whether or not that meets the legal standard of being under his care is for a judge and jury to decide if this goes to trial.

[General Zod]

In some reports I've read, supposedly the neighbor asked him to 'keep an eye on' the house.
Whether or not that meets the legal standard of being under his care is for a judge and jury to decide if this goes to trial.

Depends on whether or not the neighbor testifies that he did I'm guessing. Otherwise it's hearsay.

[Jaepheth]

You missed clause C.

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

No, you missed the "or"s

A person is justified in using... deadly force... if,... justified [as defined in defense of one's own property] and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;

or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
[implied 'or']
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

So he only needs the justifications provided for self defense and only one of the following: 1, 2a, 2b, or 2c

[brianeyci]

What exactly was the point of your anti-libertarian rant anyway? Except to post obvious flame bait and show everyone how much you hate libertarians that is.

What is the point of you? What kind of point are you trying to make?

I don't particularly like the idea that people's political beliefs should only be challenged when it's convenient and defensible. Maybe you should mind your own business: last time I checked you didn't have mod tags on you. I already mentioned that many people share the belief with libertarians that human life can be regarded interchangebly with property. That is a good enough reason right there, and situations like this make it painfully obvious to moderates who might be considering valuation of human life like this.

[General Zod]

What is the point of you? What kind of point are you trying to make?

I don't particularly like the idea that people's political beliefs should only be challenged when it's convenient and defensible. Maybe you should mind your own business: last time I checked you didn't have mod tags on you.

Boo fucking hoo. Go blow yourself. Libertarianism had absolutely nothing to do with the thread until you went on a lameass hijack, so I challenged you to show how it's relevant in the slightest. So far you haven't. Or are you saying your opinions are somehow magically above criticism unless I'm a mod?

I already mentioned that many people share the belief with libertarians that human life can be regarded interchangebly with property. That is a good enough reason right there, and situations like this make it painfully obvious to moderates who might be considering valuation of human life like this.

Let me put this in terms you might be able to understand. Not everyone who places enough value on property to kill for it is a libertarian. Unless you're suggesting that every psychopath who decides to break into someone's home or business is a libertarian by default. Using your idiot logic you can interject your stupid rant about libertarians into any thread involving theft or people getting shot over theft, but I suppose that's enough for you to completely justify making that kind of massive sweeping generalization and strawman. Frankly it has about as much logic behind it as Anne Coulter going on one of her anti liberal rants.

[General Zod]

So he only needs the justifications provided for self defense and only one of the following: 1, 2a, 2b, or 2c

If he can't provide justification for self defense, it's fucked. Let's face it here, he wouldn't have been in any position to need to defend himself at all if he hadn't went out there with a shotgun and just waited for the police to show up.

[Jaepheth]

So he only needs the justifications provided for self defense and only one of the following: 1, 2a, 2b, or 2c

If he can't provide justification for self defense, it's fucked. Let's face it here, he wouldn't have been in any position to need to defend himself at all if he hadn't went out there with a shotgun and just waited for the police to show up.

But justification for self defense under section 9.41 if (a) he is preventing or stopping trespass or unlawful interference with property or (b) if attempting to recover stolen property immediately after theft or immediately after fresh pursuit.


Personally, I don't think I'd use deadly force in this situation and would have waited for police. But under the letter of the law, I think this guy is in the clear.

[Flagg]

So he only needs the justifications provided for self defense and only one of the following: 1, 2a, 2b, or 2c

If he can't provide justification for self defense, it's fucked. Let's face it here, he wouldn't have been in any position to need to defend himself at all if he hadn't went out there with a shotgun and just waited for the police to show up.

He'll almost certainly get off, if he's even charged at all. I doubt he even will be, since it's the asshole of America with some batshit insane deadly force laws

[General Zod]

But justification for self defense under section 9.41 if (a) he is preventing or stopping trespass or unlawful interference with property or (b) if attempting to recover stolen property immediately after theft or immediately after fresh pursuit.

Just because you seemed to miss it.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

9.41 only applies to defense of your own property. Not the property of others. The additional "or" qualifiers state the conditions which you can use deadly force to defend someone else's property. So again, unless this guy had been asked to do so he has no defense. At least in any reasonable state, but this is Texas.