By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor's Burglars in Texas. Damn Right!

They refused and got shot in the backs and died.


Normally I am all for protecting yourself and your home but this is ridiculous. Since they got shot in the back I assume they wanted to run away and didn't attack him.

And honestly a burglary should not be the cause for two people to die even if they were slimebags. He should have been indicted.



Around the Network

He shot 3 times. You'd think after 1 or 2 shots he'd notice they're not even facing him. Unless they were running at him backwards, he had no reason to keep shooting. He wanted to kill them, which is what he was telling the cops on the phone, and they were telling him to stay in his house.



steven787 said:
Who is to decide whether he was in danger or not, he caught two people robbing his neighbor. If he hadn't have shot they might have been running the other direction (towards him).

Maybe that person walking down the street is going to turn around and attack you, you better shoot him in the back too.

 

That is the most ridiculously large maybe, a person whose neighbor is being robbed is clearly not in any direct danger of losing his life. To claim that this is shooting in self defense is entirely absurd.



I've heard the phone call on the radio, the guy is nuts. He should be locked up for psychological reasons. Still, the act itself was not wrong. he was protecting his neighbors property when he shot the two people who were carrying things out.

911 dispatchers and police officers are not lawyers, judges, or jurors. They provide a valuable service but judging, punishing, advising, counseling, and interpreting laws and norms are not part of their jobs.

He gave warning (not even a requirement). The police still hadn't been there after 8 minutes from the time the call originated. Where were the police? How long after he hung did the police show up?

You shouldn't be outraged over the crazy guy, you should be outraged that the wealthiest nation in the world can't provide adequate police service, that all the wealth of its people is being blown on wars, weapons, and aide abroad instead of providing services for the taxpayers.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

The Ghost of RubangB said:
MrBubbles said:
did anyone else find it funny he was getting death threats from the people who thought he was wrong to shoot them?

Where'd you read that?  I didn't see it in the sauce superchunk linked us to.

 

they mentioned it on the news earlier.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
steven787 said:
I've heard the phone call on the radio, the guy is nuts. He should be locked up for psychological reasons. Still, the act itself was not wrong. he was protecting his neighbors property when he shot the two people who were carrying things out.

911 dispatchers and police officers are not lawyers, judges, or jurors. They provide a valuable service but judging, punishing, advising, counseling, and interpreting laws and norms are not part of their jobs.

He gave warning (not even a requirement). The police still hadn't been there after 8 minutes from the time the call originated. Where were the police? How long after he hung did the police show up?

You shouldn't be outraged over the crazy guy, you should be outraged that the wealthiest nation in the world can't provide adequate police service, that all the wealth of its people is being blown on wars, weapons, and aide abroad instead of providing services for the taxpayers.

Interfering was not wrong.  Shooting them 3 times in the back with a shotgun while they were posing no threat was murder.  He had no reason to shoot 3 times.  He had no reason to shoot to kill.  He had good reason to try to stop them, but he could have shot their legs.  He wanted to kill them, just like he told the cops before he even went outside.  He is a psycho and a murderer.

I'm outraged over both!

MrBubbles said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
MrBubbles said:
did anyone else find it funny he was getting death threats from the people who thought he was wrong to shoot them?

Where'd you read that?  I didn't see it in the sauce superchunk linked us to.

they mentioned it on the news earlier.

Oh word.  Haha.  What fucking idiots.  That's just classic gold lulz.



The Ghost of RubangB said:
steven787 said:
I've heard the phone call on the radio, the guy is nuts. He should be locked up for psychological reasons. Still, the act itself was not wrong. he was protecting his neighbors property when he shot the two people who were carrying things out.

911 dispatchers and police officers are not lawyers, judges, or jurors. They provide a valuable service but judging, punishing, advising, counseling, and interpreting laws and norms are not part of their jobs.

He gave warning (not even a requirement). The police still hadn't been there after 8 minutes from the time the call originated. Where were the police? How long after he hung did the police show up?

You shouldn't be outraged over the crazy guy, you should be outraged that the wealthiest nation in the world can't provide adequate police service, that all the wealth of its people is being blown on wars, weapons, and aide abroad instead of providing services for the taxpayers.

Interfering was not wrong.  Shooting them 3 times in the back with a shotgun while they were posing no threat was murder.  He had no reason to shoot 3 times.  He had no reason to shoot to kill.  He had good reason to try to stop them, but he could have shot their legs.  He wanted to kill them, just like he told the cops before he even went outside.  He is a psycho and a murderer.

I'm outraged over both!

 

Like I said, he should be locked up, but for different reasons.  Just trying to think about it legally, (I am going to law school in 13 months after all).



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Interfering was not wrong. Shooting them 3 times in the back with a shotgun while they were posing no threat was murder. He had no reason to shoot 3 times. He had no reason to shoot to kill. He had good reason to try to stop them, but he could have shot their legs. He wanted to kill them, just like he told the cops before he even went outside. He is a psycho and a murderer.


If it happened like it sounds (and they didn't have weapons etc.) then QFT



Kyros said:
Interfering was not wrong. Shooting them 3 times in the back with a shotgun while they were posing no threat was murder. He had no reason to shoot 3 times. He had no reason to shoot to kill. He had good reason to try to stop them, but he could have shot their legs. He wanted to kill them, just like he told the cops before he even went outside. He is a psycho and a murderer.


If it happened like it sounds (and they didn't have weapons etc.) then QFT

 

How is he supposed to know he didn't have a gun.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Or the law should be changed because it is quite frankly ridiculous.

Bah I'm not entirely happy with New Zealand law at all points (our abortion and gay marriage laws aren't perfect for example) but I'm sure glad we at least got our laws right as far as self defense and guns go.

Edit: @Steven. Shooting somebody because it is theoretically possible that they have a gun, despite the fact that they are indeed running in the opposite direction to you, is still murder and not self-defense.