Texan kills 2 guys breaking in next door

[JDMJAYDC2]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Shocki...next_1116.html


make sure you listen to the audio of the older man

do you think this guy was right for what he did??

should he be charged with murder??

Does race play a factor in this case as this man has not been charged with anything?

[Ran]

Two thieves we no longer have to worry about. Give the man a medal.

[osiriskidd]

2 thieves we don't have to worry about.

but he was trying to be a gunslinging hero.

its very controversial. he could bring in the "what if" factor about them coming back...them going into HIS home etc etc.

but he was a little eager to shoot them though.

[dnugs03rsx]

u just dont rob someone in texas ppl are crazy out there

[HalfBaked]

Why would race prove a factor? They never said what race anyone has...

[Grimm Reeper]

You hear the guy say that I have a right to protect myself.... Ok, but their not breaking into your house.

[Grimm Reeper]

Why would race prove a factor? They never said what race anyone has...

The shooter, it's clear to hear that he is in fact white. So he's saying what if that was a black guy who would of shoot 2 people, would he still be free or would he be locked up?

[SL65AMG]

i think what he did is right. hes protecting the neighbors property. maybe the neighbor didnt have a weapon, maybe he wasnt home..... they could have come back to his house, they could have hurt the owners of that house, if they had been home.

i think he deserves a medal as well.


they were OBVIOUSLY breaking and entering and committing a crime



Castle Doctrine FTMFW. (it applies to your car as well.)





I would neg rep the hell out of you(as much harm as that would do, lol) for even bringing race into this but..... you drive an EF.

[HalfBaked]

The shooter, it's clear to hear that he is in fact white. So he's saying what if that was a black guy who would of shoot 2 people, would he still be free or would he be locked up?

If he was black, he would have been breaking into the house...


















I kid I kid.

[Grimm Reeper]

If he was black, he would have been breaking into the house...


















I kid I kid.

lol or maybe a lil of

[ISAtlanta300]

"Property is not worth killing someone over" You've got to be kidding me!! Most thiefs wouldn't think twice to kill YOU over your stuff. Better them than me.

[Grimm Reeper]

You'll have to excuse me up top I shouldn't of just limited to be black but to all other minorities as well.

[HalfBaked]

Sean Taylor...

[JDMJAYDC2]

Why would race prove a factor? They never said what race anyone has...

i dont know why this site does not say it but the two guys breaking in the house were 2 hispanic guys and the shooter was a older white man.

as far as me saying does race have anything to do with it im asking would this guy still be free if he was hispanic and shot 2 white guys breaking in next door


i agree with shooting someone if they are breaking in YOUR HOUSE but these guys were not. This man was eager to shoot them as you can hear him saying boom your dead! as if he is getting some enjoyment out of it.

my second thought on this is how the 911 operator is telling him to stay inside but he is saying i can see them i aint gonna let them get away with this.

To me if im in the jury box hes guilty of murder. He knew what he was gonna do by telling the operator you hear the shotgun clicking im gone! He is in no threat at all he is in his house.

I wish the site i got this off played the full audio i heard on the radio today as it is alot longer and you can hear the operator begging this man to not get involved and just wait for the cops as they showed up 2 mins after the guys were shot and killed.

now what would you get if you were convicted of breaking in someones home?? 1- 2 years maybe with probation def. not the death penalty.
as this guy went above what the law would have given out to these two guys.

I'm not hispanic so im not taking up for these guys because of race i just wanted to know what other ppl thought.

[HalfBaked]

He isn't guilty of murder.

It is self defense, he sees criminals doing criminal acts near him. He doesn't know if they aren't going to come after his house next. He did what he had to do to neutralize them. Who the **** cares if they are dead.

If you don't wanna get ****ing shot, don't put yourself in the position to get killed doing criminal acts.

[osiriskidd]

He isn't guilty of murder.

It is self defense, he sees criminals doing criminal acts near him. He doesn't know if they aren't going to come after his house next. He did what he had to do to neutralize them. Who the **** cares if they are dead.

If you don't wanna get ****ing shot, don't put yourself in the position to get killed doing criminal acts.

truth

[Glides]

I say, good riddance. We need more people like him. If we had em, there wouldn't be so many robberies, jails wouldn't be overcrowded and our tax dollars could go to much more useful and effective things than housing some idiot for stealing a DVD player.

Shoot em dead.

[silversol]

Two thieves we no longer have to worry about. Give the man a medal.

X2 they were probably illegals anyway!

[Glides]

i dont know why this site does not say it but the two guys breaking in the house were 2 hispanic guys and the shooter was a older white man.

as far as me saying does race have anything to do with it im asking would this guy still be free if he was hispanic and shot 2 white guys breaking in next door


i agree with shooting someone if they are breaking in YOUR HOUSE but these guys were not. This man was eager to shoot them as you can hear him saying boom your dead! as if he is getting some enjoyment out of it.

my second thought on this is how the 911 operator is telling him to stay inside but he is saying i can see them i aint gonna let them get away with this.

To me if im in the jury box hes guilty of murder. He knew what he was gonna do by telling the operator you hear the shotgun clicking im gone! He is in no threat at all he is in his house.

I wish the site i got this off played the full audio i heard on the radio today as it is alot longer and you can hear the operator begging this man to not get involved and just wait for the cops as they showed up 2 mins after the guys were shot and killed.

now what would you get if you were convicted of breaking in someones home?? 1- 2 years maybe with probation def. not the death penalty.
as this guy went above what the law would have given out to these two guys.

I'm not hispanic so im not taking up for these guys because of race i just wanted to know what other ppl thought.

Isn't your stance on this subject kinda hypocritical. You know, seeing as how you wouldn't call the police to help. I know this because you made it a point to take a photo of your car in front a wall proudly displaying '**** the Police on it".

[JDMJAYDC2]

He isn't guilty of murder.

It is self defense, he sees criminals doing criminal acts near him. He doesn't know if they aren't going to come after his house next. He did what he had to do to neutralize them. Who the **** cares if they are dead.

If you don't wanna get ****ing shot, don't put yourself in the position to get killed doing criminal acts.

i agree with you somewhat i see your going on the what if thing someone else posted in this thread but the guy was in his house to begin with so is it still self defense if he was in no threat? He is talking to the operator with the gun already in his hands. Is that still self defense? or is it only self defense when he walked outside knowing full well he was gonna shoot them when he went outside.

[HalfBaked]

Isn't your stance on this subject kinda hypocritical. You know, seeing as how you wouldn't call the police to help. I know this because you made it a point to take a photo of your car in front a wall proudly displaying '**** the Police on it".

No, he'd call the police, then ***** about how long it took them to get there.





Also, it says the 2 robbers were shot outside, one in the yard one in the street. The cops weren't going to get there in time, they were going to get away with it. You really think the cops would have captured them if they had escaped that night.

[HalfBaked]

i agree with you somewhat i see your going on the what if thing someone else posted in this thread but the guy was in his house to begin with so is it still self defense if he was in no threat? He is talking to the operator with the gun already in his hands. Is that still self defense? or is it only self defense when he walked outside knowing full well he was gonna shoot them when he went outside.

He is covered by the castle doctrine if his neighbor had told him to protect his house.


I think we need more citizens like him, and less like you. Obviously you'd just watch your neighbors **** get jacked without doing **** to help.

[JDMJAYDC2]

maybe your right matt?? i really dont know what i would do if it happend to me u gave your .2 and i gave mine i posted it for debate like this because i think its important to hear another persons thoughts on a situation

[Grimm Reeper]

I know that anyone can copy and paste anything but here's something that I believe could be useful:
Conditions of use
Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what amount of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited
The intruder must be acting illegally -- i.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

[JDMJAYDC2]

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had
reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was
used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment of the actor; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by
Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against
a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense
of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the
time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry
in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.
SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action
that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action
that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by
the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is
continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

[Glides]

Haha JDM, I can't reply to you, mailbox full.

[JDMJAYDC2]

its empty now glides i posted the castle doctrine for TEXAS just in case ppl were not up to date on it as i wasnt until now

[Glides]

Yea, everyone is touchy when it comes to their stuff. I personally think these laws are great. But I can also see where it gives people that idea that they can just Dirty Harry it if it comes down to them. I think that's wrong. But I will say this. If I were the homeowner and I came back to learn that my next door neighbor had shot someone breaking into my house. Me and my neighbor (after I told the police I gave him permission whether I had or not) would be heading straight out to Red Lobster.

[quickdodge®]

Here are my thoughts on this:

Although I can't stand burglars as much as the next person, I think this guy overstepped the boundaries of the law. Big time. What he did was ok in my book(sort of), but in the eyes of the law, I think he'll be guilty. They(robbers) were posing no threat to him or his property at the moment. Only when/if they did head his way and make a move onto his property should he have gone this route. If they were just going in, he should have left it to law enforcement. Nice of him to watch out for his neighbor, but the phone call to 911 would have been sufficient. It's hard to say, but I think I'd be surprised if he were acquitted of this. If so, probably because of his age. Later, QD.

[JDMJAYDC2]

this is exactly what i was trying to say this guy just overstepped the law all together i wanna hear some other ppls views too post up ppl.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (6 members and 1 guests)
JDMJAYDC2, JDM_EK4, matthewAPM, Glides, HalfBaked, GAtegs

[dnugs03rsx]

yea he shouldnt have told the 911 operator he was going to shoot the guy especially when hes loading the shotgun haha what if the burglars were on a crack binge for like weeks and went door to door and stole **** if it was my neighbor i wouldnt blow them away with a shotgun id block their car in or watever and proceed in beating the ever living **** outta them with a bat or just take a nice katana sword and repeatedly hack at their knee caps haha then id tie them up and leave a nice message like spiderman would

[HalfBaked]

I don't see how someone could consider him a murderer.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a law and order like that.

[JDMJAYDC2]

lol at you halfbaked for the law and order lol thats my show reps if i can

[bigdare23]

Here are my thoughts on this:

Although I can't stand burglars as much as the next person, I think this guy overstepped the boundaries of the law. Big time. What he did was ok in my book(sort of), but in the eyes of the law, I think he'll be guilty. They(robbers) were posing no threat to him or his property at the moment. Only when/if they did head his way and make a move onto his property should he have gone this route. If they were just going in, he should have left it to law enforcement. Nice of him to watch out for his neighbor, but the phone call to 911 would have been sufficient. It's hard to say, but I think I'd be surprised if he were acquitted of this. If so, probably because of his age. Later, QD.

cosign!

[Init2winit]

Two thieves we no longer have to worry about. Give the man a medal.

Exactly! I wish the laws were different in Georgia about protecting your land and property. Its a shame!

[Init2winit]

If I had neighbors like that, I'd have a lot more ****.

[Papa_Smurf]

i heard the full audio clip on either 99x or 96 rock in the morning a week or so ago...

that old dude was crazy

[bigdare23]

That old dude was a retired cop from dekalb county.

[SL65AMG]

Exactly! I wish the laws were different in Georgia about protecting your land and property. Its a shame!

the castle doctrine is a federal law i believe..... so it applies here in GA as well....

That old dude was a retired cop from dekalb county.

[redrumracer]

not that sad of a day in my opinion. but the one thing that is liable to bite him in the ass is that he said one was running down the street.