Source

-- Summary --

Man sees 2 people robbing his neighbor’s house. (Texas has a state law 'Castle Law' where a person can kill someone if they feel threatened in their house, work, or car). He called 911 and was repeatedly told to not leave his house to go approach/defend his neighbor's house. He insisted that he should do the right thing and not let them get away with it since the police would not get their quick enough. He eventually, dropped the phone, approached the men, and ordered them to stop or he would shoot them. They refused and got shot in the backs and died.

He was cleared of all charges, since he felt endangered since this was his neighbor and Texas law allows you to defend a neighbor’s home as long as you have permission, which he, and the judged, believed he did.

Needless to say, some say he should have left it to the police, who were already on their way. Others deemed that he was justified to defend his neighborhood and indirectly his own home by stopping the criminals with deadly force, if necessary.

-- End summary --

Personally, I agree with him. I have had my car in front of my house broken into multiple times, along with various neighbor's cars. It cost me over $700 to fix my door and ignition and replace my stereo. Not to mention the added stress of wondering if my house was next (I have an alarm on the house), or if my family would be endangered if these criminals decided to force they way in, when they came home or something. These people should be shot on site. Granted, the police are paid and trained to take them without lethal force, but, when my family and self are in real present danger, the criminals lives are of no importance to me. I don't own a gun, but I would use a blunt object to beat the crap out of them until they died. Thank fully in Arizona, it also legal to kill someone who is illegally on your premises.

Good thing he got cleared, I would've done the same.

I agree. I will be buying a gun soon for just such an occasion. Self-defense and the defense of someone's property should be protected, even to the point of lethal force. Amen.

Dunno how I feel about this, seems like they should start a guns for tazers scheme for families who want protection.

Glad this dude was cleared. I remember the controversy when this story first broke, but I lost track of the story. He did a good deed, IMO.

The OP and the opinions...
I'm at a loss for words...

Why didn't he just write down their license plate number, look to see what direction they drove off in, and then tell the police that information when they arrived? Or are the police insufficient at their own job?

If anything, why the hell didn't he just shoot them in their legs. That way they wouldn't be dead, and they wouldn't have gotten away either.

I believe this situation could have easily been avoided, and shouldn't have happened.

I'm sorry but that's awful.

He confronted them, and spoke to them, and he shot them BOTH in the back?

I'm all for "protecting yourself" in your own home and everything, but this doesn't exactly sound like self-defense. I mean if he confronted them like that he must have had time to aim, in which case he should have shot at the mans leg at worst, but really shouldn't have shot at all unless they threatened him, which they can't have been because he shot them in the back... Then there is the fact he shot both of them!

Just read the full article, he had a shotgun and he shot them in the back whilst they were presumably running away, and if that is a true transcript of the phonecall he was intending to kill them, and they were in no way threatening his life.

The guy should be in jail.

Good for him; I remember that hippie state of Mass. passed a law or whatever saying that you can't defend your home if you are being robbed.

Those idiots had it coming.