Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[Glori.B]

Don't bother with the facts...there has been a grave injustice done to our illegal alien criminal brothers! They had every right to burglarize American citizens, and nobody had the right to take that right away from them!

Now they'll miss out on a lifetime of victimizing Americans, while remaining invisible. For shame!

those men did not get shot because they were illegal aliens, did they?

did the shooter know they were illegal aliens before he shot them?

are american citizens entitled to shoot illegal aliens dead?


i agree with what you said before, regarding the severity of the crime and the inherent risks involved, but i think we need to be careful what we justify.

 

[Taomon]

You know what? In a dangerous situation you take advantage where you can. YOu don't know anything about hte situation. You don't take 10 paces, turn and fire like a duel for God's sakes when somebody is committing a crime a few feet away.

The cops saw him and thought it was justified. So did the grand jury.

It's a done deal.

And I am shocked that someone who claims to be a Christian is readily condoning a burgler getting shot in the back. Is it because they were brown?

 

[AllieBaba]

It says murder.
And you don't know if the guy perceived a threat or not. The cops seem to think he was justified.

But maybe all you people who weren't there, who don't have all the information, know better than they do.

 

[DiamondDave]

He was not protecting himself, his family, or his property.

Because letting it happen to a neighbor is SO honorable

Again... you guys certainly love to give the criminals a benefit of the doubt.... while condemning a person stopping the criminals, even going as far as to ASSume racial motivation etc....

 

[DiamondDave]

The 10 Commandments say Thou shalt not kill. Period. Do you really think God will be sorting whether or not the killing was legally justified?

Do you want to put words in God's mouth?

Don't get me wrong, I will kill to protect my family. But if my family is not in danger, I will not kill to protect material possessions. Nor would I shoot someone in the back.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG....


Try and read the translation again

 

[Ravi]

Hmmm... if I remember it is "Thou shalt not MURDER".... self defense, self protection, self preservation, etc is not murder

also remember a little something about home defense in Exodus 22:2. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"

He was inside his house. The dispatcher told him to stay inside his house. He insisted that the law was in his favor and he went outside and shot them. He was in no danger. He murdered them. But it's legal in Texas.

He's a coward and a piece of shit but what he did was legal.

Stupid. Just plain stupid to enable psychopaths.

 

[Ravi]

You know what? In a dangerous situation you take advantage where you can. YOu don't know anything about hte situation. You don't take 10 paces, turn and fire like a duel for God's sakes when somebody is committing a crime a few feet away.

The cops saw him and thought it was justified. So did the grand jury.

It's a done deal.

Please provide a quote where anyone said it was justified. They said it was within the law. There is a difference.

Moral vacuum there, AllieBaba. God loves you.

 

[Larkinn]

Because letting it happen to a neighbor is SO honorable

Again... you guys certainly love to give the criminals a benefit of the doubt.... while condemning a person stopping the criminals, even going as far as to ASSume racial motivation etc....

Who is giving them the benefit of the doubt? Nobody has given the criminals the benefit of the doubt at all. Nor have we objected to stopping criminals. We object to MURDERING someone because life > property. Further vigilante justice is no justice at all.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not murder, or he'd be in jail methinks.

 

[Larkinn]

It's not murder, or he'd be in jail methinks.

He would have gone to jail because of a grand jury indictment? Interesting theory that.

I'm curious also to the assumption that the justice system is always right.

 

[politicsezine]

Do they not have court procedure and trials in Canada or do they just allow the newspaper to determine innocence or guilt?

We have all that. We also have somewhat different gun control laws in Canada.

The primary difference is that in Canada the courts aren't going to be swayed by a bullshit story, flawed morals and the NRA preaching the right to protect your home and your neighbour's home.

Even in the Old West shooting a person in the back would still be murder. For a Texan he should know better.

Even Angel Eyes (from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) never shot anyone in the back. For a villain he still a code of honour that demanded the enemy draw their guns first.

Joe Horn is nothing but a despicable trigger-happy murderer. If he had drawn his gun and told them to freeze, put their hands up against the wall and held them at gun point until the cops came then that would have been the reasonable thing to do. Instead he just shot them in the back because he was on a power trip.

This idea of "shooting burglars is okay" is lame. Whats next? Shooting vandals is okay? How about shooting graffiti artists? Shooting kids who trespass?

Lets change the situation a bit. Imagine it was two 14 year old kids who broke into the house and were sneaking outside with the stereo.

Would shooting two teenagers still be okay? Murder is still murder.

 

[Anguille]

Actually, he DID prevent a robbery, and cops testified in his defense. Cops WITNESSED the shooting and testified in his defense.

He didn't even know his neighbors, I'm saying his motivation was to kill two people because he knew he could. Preventing a burglary was a pretext. He didn't need to shoot to kill and he didn't need to kill twice.
So the cops were there? Why didn't he let the cops deal with it?

 

[BrianH]

I understand; the law is wrong and the man is no hero.

First, I never said he was a hero. I simply stated that he is IN accordance with Texas Law.

 

[BrianH]

You are confusing my opinion of your retarded analogy, and my opinion of the case.

I don't think so bud. You took my deliberate statement as an anology and used it to say that I was essentially saying it's ok to shoot cops. Which is certainly not even close to what I was saying. Don't back up too fast, you'll run back over your trail of horse shit.

 

[AllieBaba]

So why would the cops testify for him if he was just killing for fun?

 

[Anguille]

Don't bother with the facts...there has been a grave injustice done to our illegal alien criminal brothers! They had every right to burglarize American citizens, and nobody had the right to take that right away from them!

Now they'll miss out on a lifetime of victimizing Americans, while remaining invisible. For shame!

Hey Pistol Packin' Mamma, what does Jesus Christ and your Bible say about killing people for material possessions?

 

[Steerpike]

First, I never said he was a hero. I simply stated that he is IN accordance with Texas Law.

I don't think so. It doesn't fit any of the categories of Texas law Castle Doctrine you posted (nor the common law version, which is where it originated).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hey Pistol Packin' Mamma, what does Jesus Christ and your Bible say about killing people for material possessions?

You are a waste of space. Your ignorant rant on guns gets dumber and dumber the more you spew the garbage.

 

[Larkinn]

I don't think so bud. You took my deliberate statement as an anology and used it to say that I was essentially saying it's ok to shoot cops. Which is certainly not even close to what I was saying. Don't back up too fast, you'll run back over your trail of horse shit.

Wow, you are simple. Your statement justifying why it was ok to shoot the burglars ALSO can apply to cops. Which is why its retarded.

 

[Larkinn]

So why would the cops testify for him if he was just killing for fun?

Perhaps because they had an agenda?

By the way...why exactly was he shooting at these people if the cops were there?