Joined
·
571 Posts
Man kills 2 thugs burglarizing neighbors house
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
Excellent!!! As he stated on the phone, they were coming towards him...self defense. Friggin scum of society! I hope the bleeding hearts out there don't push for him to be indited. Both of these assholes had prior convictions for drugs and who knows what else. They deserved what they got.
He deserves a medal....period!
Steve
He deserves a medal....period!
Steve
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
The neighbors should be kissing this mans bottom. Excellant job I can guarantte that when other thugs read this story they arent going to be messing around in that neighborhood...
Joined
·
1,334 Posts
If B&E's have been a regular occurance around him he might get some symphathy there. But it will come down to how the castle doctrine is inturperted by the DA and the grand jury. There are parts of the 911 tape that probably won't go in his favor.
We will know if these guys were illegal, when the Mexican gov't steps in and demands this guy get thrown in jail. Much like the border patrol officers were.
Joined
·
1,018 Posts
The Mexican gov't will probably protest just because they could have been illegals.
But.... since you mention the case about the border patrol officers.... I read a news article a couple days ago that said the drug smuggler that the officers were pursuing has been arrested. For drug smuggling. He obviously thought he had a free pass to continue his business. I hope he winds up in the same prison the border patrol guys are in, and they get a chance to "talk" with him. But - the Mexican gov't. will probably protest his arrest and demand that he go free. After all, he was just doing the job that Americans didn't want to do.
Joined
·
170 Posts
Set the flames on "high."
OK, the info. from the story. The dispatcher warned him, "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over." Disregarded. He readily admits, "I DON'T know if they are armed or not . . " Also states "I'm gonna shoot! I'm gonna shoot!" (sure reads like pre-meditation to me, bordering on vigilante/blood lust) Told over ten times: "DO NOT go out of your house!" Disregarded. Then shouts out, "Boom, You're dead!" (NOT, the appropriate, "Don't move, drop your weapons, lie face down . . " etc.) Again, reads like pre-meditation. Yes, the state allows the Castle Doctrine, for YOUR property. Typical justified use of lethal force? "The IMMENIENT and UNAVOIDABLE risk and/or danger of DEATH or GRAVE BODILY HARM to the known innocents." He was warned repeatedly to STAY PUT! He shot and killed 2 people over a simple B & E. Yes, they had priors, for drugs. What, maybe possession? Were they to be considered armed and extremely dangerous? (Armed with what, a bag of loot?) Not sure if this guy was after some media attention, but sure seems to me he may be headed for "3 hots and a cot" unless he can pony up some BIG money for some serious defense attorneys. If he had stayed put, got their description/vehicle ID, the cops could have done their job, the insurance would have covered the loss, and everybody would still be breathing. Out.
OK, the info. from the story. The dispatcher warned him, "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over." Disregarded. He readily admits, "I DON'T know if they are armed or not . . " Also states "I'm gonna shoot! I'm gonna shoot!" (sure reads like pre-meditation to me, bordering on vigilante/blood lust) Told over ten times: "DO NOT go out of your house!" Disregarded. Then shouts out, "Boom, You're dead!" (NOT, the appropriate, "Don't move, drop your weapons, lie face down . . " etc.) Again, reads like pre-meditation. Yes, the state allows the Castle Doctrine, for YOUR property. Typical justified use of lethal force? "The IMMENIENT and UNAVOIDABLE risk and/or danger of DEATH or GRAVE BODILY HARM to the known innocents." He was warned repeatedly to STAY PUT! He shot and killed 2 people over a simple B & E. Yes, they had priors, for drugs. What, maybe possession? Were they to be considered armed and extremely dangerous? (Armed with what, a bag of loot?) Not sure if this guy was after some media attention, but sure seems to me he may be headed for "3 hots and a cot" unless he can pony up some BIG money for some serious defense attorneys. If he had stayed put, got their description/vehicle ID, the cops could have done their job, the insurance would have covered the loss, and everybody would still be breathing. Out.
Joined
·
3,401 Posts
Why didn't the homeowner do this, and do that... here's a better question- WHY DIDN'T THE CRIMINALS JUST STAY HOME THAT MORNING? WHY DIDN"T THEY JUST TURN AROUND, SET THE STUFF DOWN, AND WALK AWAY??? Seems to me your comments above want to find fault with the old man who was trying to protect his neighborhood from these predators, but if you are going to point fingers, start with the criminals whose own actions PUT them in the position that wound up costing them their lives.
As far as the old man goes, he *might* be looking at some jail time. Or maybe not. Even IF he winds up indicted, they still have to find a jury of 12 who would convict him. And in Texas, that might not as much of a given as if he had been in one of the more liberal socialist-leaning states.
Personally, I may be for giving him a medal, but I sure wouldn't put him in jail, either. The CRIMINALS put themselves in that situation in the first place. They took their chances, and they knew what the risks were when they decided to commit the crime. TSOL for them. End of story.
It could have been his house they were trying to rob. I dont see how they will convict him, he stayed on the phone and when they came into his yard, well boom. Case over! I kinda feel sorry for the man as he is going to by reliving this for a while and thinking of ways it could have be different outcome.
Joined
·
1,018 Posts
Panzerfaust, I pretty much agree with you - the guy messed up, at least in the legal sense. (Though I still have sympathies with him offing known criminals.) But, just for the sake of discussion, let me play devil's advocate here.
What will be the real deciding evidence is the half-hour taped statement he gave the police. Since that was not included in the story, we can only guess about its contents. But he really would have been much smarter to wait until he had an attorney present before giving that statement. It's what is included in that statement that will free him or hang him, and there's not much an attorney can do about it now unless he can get that statement thrown out.
That was the dispatcher's opinion, not necessarily supported by law.
At that point, prior to them confronting him in his own yard, he didn't know. But there was indication he saw one of them holding a crowbar, and he may have discovered they were armed once he was outside.
That's going to be tough to argue around.
Could be that he meant that phrase to scare them into cooperation - after all, he is not a trained professional. He might have meant to scare them, but they attacked him rather than back down.
Although he was told to stay inside, he was the only person on site, and may have felt compelled to take protective action. The order to stay inside was not necessarily legally binding, and was made by someone not on site and not able to fully evaluate the circumstances. Once the guy was outside, he may well have faced immanent risk of harm or death. Going outside may or may not have been bad judgement, but it was his legal right, and he may be able to justify this action.
They were armed with at least a crow bar, and we don't know what else. Some places allow the use of deadly force to halt a crime in progress. Don't know if that applies here, but he certainly halted a crime in progress.
What will be the real deciding evidence is the half-hour taped statement he gave the police. Since that was not included in the story, we can only guess about its contents. But he really would have been much smarter to wait until he had an attorney present before giving that statement. It's what is included in that statement that will free him or hang him, and there's not much an attorney can do about it now unless he can get that statement thrown out.
Joined
·
482 Posts
no jury in texas is going to convect joe horn even if charges are pressed.
Joined
·
3,034 Posts
I hope you're right. 
Joined
·
170 Posts
Hey now, lighten up.
Gents, I have no love for any criminals, but I have less love for vigilantes. Bill made some valid points, BUT, this WAS someone else' property. Sure, you can argue, "He THINKS they were armed with a crowbar" but what about "disparity of force?" In essence, that means that Mr. Neighborhood Watch COULD have "legally" confronted them with a similar weapon, another crowbar. let's face it, we all know a shotgun is gonna kill, especially when pitted against a crowbar. Now regarding the dispatchers commands (and pleas) chances are that at a minimum, he (the dispatcher) is/was a "special" police officer, therefore his commands "can" be legally binding. As importantly, he told him over TEN times, "Stay put, DON'T go outside!" If you would like to play 'Devil's Advocate" how about this potential scenario? Mr. Vigilante then sees yet another individual approaching him ( a third perp?) he cocks and fires AGAIN, yet this time he ends up killing an undercover, plain clothes LEO. (responding to the call) What then? Pin a medal on him? This has all been recorded on a 911 tape? Pretty solid evidence. And as Bill pointed out, he then gave video testimony, and it sure sounds like he is/was VERY PROUD of his uhm . . . . "executions." If they had been attempting a B & E on HIS property, the latter opinions would be quite different. I hope he gets a sympathetic jury, and in Texas, he just might. Switch burners ON! Out.
Gents, I have no love for any criminals, but I have less love for vigilantes. Bill made some valid points, BUT, this WAS someone else' property. Sure, you can argue, "He THINKS they were armed with a crowbar" but what about "disparity of force?" In essence, that means that Mr. Neighborhood Watch COULD have "legally" confronted them with a similar weapon, another crowbar. let's face it, we all know a shotgun is gonna kill, especially when pitted against a crowbar. Now regarding the dispatchers commands (and pleas) chances are that at a minimum, he (the dispatcher) is/was a "special" police officer, therefore his commands "can" be legally binding. As importantly, he told him over TEN times, "Stay put, DON'T go outside!" If you would like to play 'Devil's Advocate" how about this potential scenario? Mr. Vigilante then sees yet another individual approaching him ( a third perp?) he cocks and fires AGAIN, yet this time he ends up killing an undercover, plain clothes LEO. (responding to the call) What then? Pin a medal on him? This has all been recorded on a 911 tape? Pretty solid evidence. And as Bill pointed out, he then gave video testimony, and it sure sounds like he is/was VERY PROUD of his uhm . . . . "executions." If they had been attempting a B & E on HIS property, the latter opinions would be quite different. I hope he gets a sympathetic jury, and in Texas, he just might. Switch burners ON! Out.
Joined
·
4,253 Posts
it doesnt apply to the LEO`s so it also doesn`t apply to citizens either ,a crow bar IS a DEADLY WEAPON ,say if you have a knife LEO training says shoot if 20-30 feet away with deadly force not a tazer and they were found in His yard ,they were shot at 15 feet away this means they were approaching him ,not the other way around . think about it
Joined
·
170 Posts
Uhm, disparity of force most certainly does apply.
It especially applies to mobs, or to when/if women need to shoot, even if the male attacker IS unarmed. So, where the lines of demarcation between yards clearly marked? Did the criminals have to cross over a marked boundary? (a fence, a stone wall, etc.) Was the shooters property clearly posted with "No Tresspassing" signs, signed and dated by the owner? Well then, how exactly would the 2 robbers know where one yard started, and where one ended? Therefore, can the shooter claim they were indeed tresspassing, and he was justified in using deadly force? Or just maybe he should have followed LEO's directions, stayed in his house, locked his doors, THEN, yep THEN he may have grounds for using deadly force, IF they attempted to gain illegal entry. Aside from what the cost may be in dollars for his legal defense (read: "Ka-ching!") this guy now has to face the psychgological actions for his shootings. (Mark Of Cain complex, etc.) Time and distance always favor the trained individual, and this shooter opted to use neither, and disregard the pleas/commands of local LEO's. As soon as he exited his own home, (armed) he exacerbated the situation, and brought the conflict to a higher level. Out.
It especially applies to mobs, or to when/if women need to shoot, even if the male attacker IS unarmed. So, where the lines of demarcation between yards clearly marked? Did the criminals have to cross over a marked boundary? (a fence, a stone wall, etc.) Was the shooters property clearly posted with "No Tresspassing" signs, signed and dated by the owner? Well then, how exactly would the 2 robbers know where one yard started, and where one ended? Therefore, can the shooter claim they were indeed tresspassing, and he was justified in using deadly force? Or just maybe he should have followed LEO's directions, stayed in his house, locked his doors, THEN, yep THEN he may have grounds for using deadly force, IF they attempted to gain illegal entry. Aside from what the cost may be in dollars for his legal defense (read: "Ka-ching!") this guy now has to face the psychgological actions for his shootings. (Mark Of Cain complex, etc.) Time and distance always favor the trained individual, and this shooter opted to use neither, and disregard the pleas/commands of local LEO's. As soon as he exited his own home, (armed) he exacerbated the situation, and brought the conflict to a higher level. Out.
Joined
·
1,018 Posts
"Disparity of force" sure doesn't apply in Arizona. There have been rulings on this, including the use of guns against rock-throwers. Deadly force is deadly force. Period. If someone uses deadly force against you, regardless of whether its throwing rocks, weilding a crowbar, or carrying a gun, you are legally allowed to use deadly force in self defense. There is no requirement that the forces be equal.
Texas may be different, but I doubt it. Obviously a lawyer would immediately refer to Arizona cases as precedent, and would argue that the principle applies across the board, and it's pretty likely he would win his point.
The premise is obvious - if you are attacked and your life is in danger, you are not going to have the option of choosing a weapon similar to that of your attacker. You will have to defend yourself with whatever is at hand. In the case of the firearms vs. rock-throwers, it could be argued that the guy with the gun could have left his gun holstered and picked up a rock - but he didn't, and the court ruling supported him. ANY deadly force is acceptable to counter ANY OTHER deadly force for purposes of self defense. (Of course, if the deadly force you use for defense is something that is illegal to own, that will come back to bite you - but as a separate issue.)
Irrelevant. You are entitled to defend your home and your property whether someone else recognizes it as your home/property or not. I don't need a NO TRESPASSING sign on my home to legally justify defending it. However, this does not mean you can shoot all trespassers. There still has to be the "immediate danger" aspect.
For that matter, I don't even need to be on my own property to be legally allowed to defend myself. If the guy in the case that started this thread was actually standing just over the line in his neighbor's yard and the robbers attacked him, he would still be allowed to shoot in self defense.
All that aside though, I think this guy's going to have a tough time convincing the law and the jury that he wasn't a vigilante. He did voluntarily leave the security of his own home, armed and intending to kill someone who at that point had not presented a threat to him. The fact that the burglars were fleeing their crime scene will also weigh heavily in this. At least here in Arizona you can shoot someone who is directly threatening you - until they turn to run away. No matter what threat they had previously presented, once they start to flee they are no longer considered a threat to your life (in most situations - some possible exceptions could apply).
Joined
·
1,167 Posts
A friend of mine from that area tells me that the law there is you are allowed to use deadly force to protect personal property, and that the law extends to your neihbors home as well. I have'nt seen that in writing so I'm just parroting what he told me. I heard a texas prosecutor on the Shnitt show the other day say that though he "may" be indicted, it will be dropped because you are allowed to shoot and kill a burglar in that district/county or whatever they call it there. If this shooting happened here in Florida, the guy would go to prison. We are only allowed deadly force in your own home, or your automobile (castle extends to your vehicle), but not just to protect personal property like the guy in Texas did.
Joined
·
170 Posts
Thanks Bill.
Well, how lucky for you boys out West! See here, we DO have a "disparity of force" doctrine. And, we also don't allow 'citizens arrest" and other misconceptions regarding "LEO" laws vs. "civilian" laws. Your input is of course appreciated. However, nobody has addressed the "what if" of shooting a plain clothes LEO? Is he still a hero? Again, an unfortunate occurrence, but you better make damn sure you are justified, before you pull any steel. A lot of lives have been ruined via "good intentions" gone awry. Out.
Well, how lucky for you boys out West! See here, we DO have a "disparity of force" doctrine. And, we also don't allow 'citizens arrest" and other misconceptions regarding "LEO" laws vs. "civilian" laws. Your input is of course appreciated. However, nobody has addressed the "what if" of shooting a plain clothes LEO? Is he still a hero? Again, an unfortunate occurrence, but you better make damn sure you are justified, before you pull any steel. A lot of lives have been ruined via "good intentions" gone awry. Out.
Texas Castle law does allow for the protection of personal Property . The trouble is ,it has to be ,your ,property . Its like the guy who shot those crooks trying to steal copper tubing from a house he was making in Ft. Worth ,the tubing was his property . Another case was in Waco ,A farmer shot and killed a crook trying to steal his neighbors truck ,no charges were ever filled on him .Remember this is Texas ,for murder they will pop a needle in your arm so fast your MaMa didn't even get the news .
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
