Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[Ravi]

because of liberals screaming about those who act in self defense, act upon stopping criminal scum, etc... and trying to ensure that those who do these acts get punished like the criminals they stop.. empowering criminals even more by weakening the law abiding public

If you're just going to make shit up I'm not going to speak to you.

 

[Glori.B]

because of liberals screaming about those who act in self defense...

self defense?

what does being liberal have to do with deciding whether or not it was self defense? so i guess conservatives think they are strengthening the law by dispensing their own justice as if they are above the law?

empowering criminals even more by weakening the law abiding public

really, who is being empowered here if we can justify murder for burglary because they were illegal aliens?

 

[BrianH]

You are right my friend but he fits in so well there, don't you agree? You know, "shoot first and ask questions later." Only in his case, "bomb first and find the WMD later."

LOL...fair enough. He does fit in fairly well. Although, he definately does not appear to be nearly as smart as many Texans...

 

[Care4all]

you take a life for a life, a limb for a limb, a tooth for a tooth...

in other words taking a life for theft is IMMORAL IMO, it is NOT in any way, justified....is how i feel about it, unless your own LIFE is threatened, which was NOT the case with this older gentleman.....AND HE ONLY KILLED THEM BECAUSE, he THOUGHT the new law SAID that he could....that's a real shame.

so, because someone is crossing ones lawn, one can KILL THEM? i FIND THIS UNBELIEVABLE, or i am just misunderstanding this law?

care

 

[BrianH]

Texas Penal Code Sections 9.41, 9.42, & 9.43

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.41. Protection Of One's Own Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.43. Protection Of Third Person's Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

THe third sections talks about protection of a third-person's property.

Care4All, here is a link to the Texas Penal Code

 

[Ninja]

in other words taking a life for theft is IMMORAL IMO

So now we can legislate morality?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you take a life for a life, a limb for a limb, a tooth for a tooth...

in other words taking a life for theft is IMMORAL IMO, it is NOT in any way, justified....is how i feel about it, unless your own LIFE is threatened, which was NOT the case with this older gentleman.....AND HE ONLY KILLED THEM BECAUSE, he THOUGHT the new law SAID that he could....that's a real shame.

so, because someone is crossing ones lawn, one can KILL THEM? i FIND THIS UNBELIEVABLE, or i am just misunderstanding this law?

care

Gay sex is Immoral also, shall we start legislating that away again? And no just crossing someones lawn does not equal the right to kill. But to keep making up those ignorant claims. I am afraid these guys did a TAD more than cross someones lawn. They got caught in the act of ransacking someones home. When told to stop they charged the guy with the gun. Gee I wonder how smart one has to be to come at a guy with a weapon?

Further a COP witnessed the event and stated FOR the record no illegal activity was preformed by the shooter. He did not even arrest him. But hey ignore those minor facts since they are inconvenient for you and your position.

 

[Care4all]

Gay sex is Immoral also, shall we start legislating that away again? And no just crossing someones lawn does not equal the right to kill. But to keep making up those ignorant claims. I am afraid these guys did a TAD more than cross someones lawn. They got caught in the act of ransacking someones home. When told to stop they charged the guy with the gun. Gee I wonder how smart one has to be to come at a guy with a weapon?

Further a COP witnessed the event and stated FOR the record no illegal activity was preformed by the shooter. He did not even arrest him. But hey ignore those minor facts since they are inconvenient for you and your position.

But Ret Sgt, if they charged the guy with the gun, and this is why he shot them, then WHY DID HE SHOOT THEM IN THE BACK? Please explain such...

And if this cop was there, why didn;t he show himself or stop the robbers instead of letting this man shoot them in the back?

If he had not shot them in the back, then I would believe you, that he was defending himself from them, thus he shot them, but this WAS NOT the case...

And as far as the cop's story....well, you know how much YOU, YOURSELF trust what Texas cops say...need i remind you of the Texas raid of the supposed raping polygamist compound?

Can you read the three laws that Brian had posted and show me where this guys actions fit in to the laws posted?

Using DEADLY force was not necessary....especially if they were fleeing and not trying to harm him?

I thoroughly understand this man's frustration with the robbery BUT TO KILL THEM because of it is cruel and unusual punishment, for the crime....

You can't even kill a child rapist according to the SC but taking a tv and gadgets is okay to kill someone for it? Doesn't make a bit of sense to me....

not one iota of sense.

Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But Ret Sgt, if they charged the guy with the gun, and this is why he shot them, then WHY DID HE SHOOT THEM IN THE BACK? Please explain such...

And if this cop was there, why didn;t he show himself or stop the robbers instead of letting this man shoot them in the back?

If he had not shot them in the back, then I would believe you, that he was defending himself from them, thus he shot them, but this WAS NOT the case...

And as far as the cop's story....well, you know how much YOU, YOURSELF trust what Texas cops say...need i remind you of the Texas raid of the supposed raping polygamist compound?

Can you read the three laws that Brian had posted and show me where this guys actions fit in to the laws posted?

Using DEADLY force was not necessary....especially if they were fleeing and not trying to harm him?

I thoroughly understand this man's frustration with the robbery BUT TO KILL THEM because of it is cruel and unusual punishment, for the crime....

You can't even kill a child rapist according to the SC but taking a tv and gadgets is okay to kill someone for it? Doesn't make a bit of sense to me....

not one iota of sense.

Care
care

Read the description from the cop. One of the two charged him and then turned away. It is simple if you put a weapon on someone and they come at you, you have no choice but to use it. I would have shot them as well. He did not shoot them until they refused to stop and one came at him. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

 

[Ravi]

Gay sex is Immoral also, shall we start legislating that away again? And no just crossing someones lawn does not equal the right to kill. But to keep making up those ignorant claims. I am afraid these guys did a TAD more than cross someones lawn. They got caught in the act of ransacking someones home. When told to stop they charged the guy with the gun. Gee I wonder how smart one has to be to come at a guy with a weapon?

Further a COP witnessed the event and stated FOR the record no illegal activity was preformed by the shooter. He did not even arrest him. But hey ignore those minor facts since they are inconvenient for you and your position.

Still selectively applying presumption of innocence, I see. You are perhaps the biggest hypocrite on this forum.

 

[Ravi]

But Ret Sgt, if they charged the guy with the gun, and this is why he shot them, then WHY DID HE SHOOT THEM IN THE BACK? Please explain such...

And if this cop was there, why didn;t he show himself or stop the robbers instead of letting this man shoot them in the back?

If he had not shot them in the back, then I would believe you, that he was defending himself from them, thus he shot them, but this WAS NOT the case...

And as far as the cop's story....well, you know how much YOU, YOURSELF trust what Texas cops say...need i remind you of the Texas raid of the supposed raping polygamist compound?

Can you read the three laws that Brian had posted and show me where this guys actions fit in to the laws posted?

Using DEADLY force was not necessary....especially if they were fleeing and not trying to harm him?

I thoroughly understand this man's frustration with the robbery BUT TO KILL THEM because of it is cruel and unusual punishment, for the crime....

You can't even kill a child rapist according to the SC but taking a tv and gadgets is okay to kill someone for it? Doesn't make a bit of sense to me....

not one iota of sense.

Care

They didn't even have weapons. The guy left his home with the intent of killing them because he saw them coming out of his neighbor's home with a bag of loot.

 

[Ninja]

He shot them in the back. What does that tell you? The man is a coward.

The thieves were cowards, and they died cowardly deaths - running, their backs riddled with 00 buckshot

 

[Gunny]

I thought this was interesting, this is a couple of hours from my home and we've been hearing about it for months. This man killed two burglars (illegal immigrants) who were burglarizing his neighbor's home. He called 911 and the dispatcher told him to stay inside, but he felt like they were going to get away. So he went outside with a shotgun and told them not to move or they're dead....they moved and he shot both of them in the back. Fortunately enough for him, at the time the burglars were shot, they were in his yard, so he was protected by the Texas "Castle Law".... Does anyone have any thoughts/opinons on this?

FOXNews.com - Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Suspected Burglars Next Door - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Yeah. Thought: He got away with murder due to overwhelming public approval. They were trying to get away and presented no threat to him. I don't see that any law justifies this.

 

[bornright]

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.

They chose to commit the crime therefore they must share in the blame. It is very foolish to believe everything you read in the newspaper. Again, the grand jury "no billed" him therefore you must believe they recieved more information than the newspaper decided to print.

In my life I have been closely involved with several news stories to which the news media rarely gets it correct. Whether that is intentional or in ignorance is unknown. Many have the view that if there is no story....make one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They chose to commit the crime therefore they must share in the blame. It is very foolish to believe everything you read in the newspaper. Again, the grand jury "no billed" him therefore you must believe they recieved more information than the newspaper decided to print.

In my life I have been closely involved with several news stories to which the news media rarely gets it correct. Whether that is intentional or in ignorance is unknown. Many have the view that if there is no story....make one.

Not to mention the rant you responded to is riddled with ignorance. The man DID order them to stop. He only fired after one of them came at him.

 

[DiamondDave]

self defense?

what does being liberal have to do with deciding whether or not it was self defense? so i guess conservatives think they are strengthening the law by dispensing their own justice as if they are above the law?



really, who is being empowered here if we can justify murder for burglary because they were illegal aliens?

Nice attempt at leaps... unfortunately it was like Homer Simpson trying to jump Springfield Gorge with Bart's skateboard

Self defense is not dispensing justice... it is reaction to an immediate situation

And since when was anything said that this was BECAUSE they were illegal aliens or that murder of illegal aliens is justified??? Nice try.... but use of force against a dangerous criminal in a situation that has unknowns is sometimes the right thing to do....

 

[BrianH]

Yeah. Thought: He got away with murder due to overwhelming public approval. They were trying to get away and presented no threat to him. I don't see that any law justifies this.

I personally, would not have done it. Especially shooting someone in the back.

 

[Ravi]

Not to mention the rant you responded to is riddled with ignorance. The man DID order them to stop. He only fired after one of them came at him.

Then why did he hit them from behind?



Selective presumption of innocence.

Big surprise.

 

[Care4all]

Not to mention the rant you responded to is riddled with ignorance. The man DID order them to stop. He only fired after one of them came at him.

THINK about what you are saying!!!

so, if someone is standing on your lot, with a bunch of crap in their arms, you can hold a shotgun on them and shoot them DEAD because ONE of the men swerved towards you while turning to leave your lot?

BULLSHIT!!!

if one of the men came towards him, why didn't he shoot him then? why wait until he turned his back to him, and was leaving?

How was the burglar a danger to him if his arms WERE FILLED WITH THE LOOT STOLEN from the neighbor?

How was the other burglar a danger to him? why did he shoot him DEAD, in the BACK TOO?

this smells worse than a garbage dump or passing thru Elizabeth new jersey!!!!

HIS NEIGHBOR never asked him to guard his house....which IS SUPPOSE TO BE PART of the neighbor law....

they were NEVER an imminent threat to him nor could be a threat to him with their arms tied up with carrying their loot, which is part of the other two laws...

they did not try to burgle him.

they had no guns, evident or hidden.

based on the limited information that we have been given on this, if these were 2 blonde haired blue eyed boys of 18 that he shot in the back YOU CAN BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR imo, that the result of this grand jury would not be the same....

WHY did this detective just sit there and watch?

care

 

[Care4all]

for allie!!!

Robbery

Robbery is the taking or attempting to take something of value from another person by use of force, threats or intimidation. It is committed in the presence of the victim. Robbery is commonly known as a "holdup" or a "stickup" (i.e. bank robbery or mugging).

Robbery is usually divided into different ‘degrees’. The degrees vary by state and can also depend on whether a weapon or something that appears to be a weapon was present and/or if an accomplice was present. Any degree of robbery is considered a felony by law.

You might also hear the term ‘aggravated robbery’. If a suspect makes a victim believe that he has a deadly weapon by showing a weapon, saying he has a weapon or displaying something that appears to be a weapon, it is aggravated robbery.

Again, the definitions and degrees of robbery vary from state to state. Consider contacting a legal advisor or a police officer in your area if you would like to learn more about the legal definitions in your jurisdiction.




Burglary

Burglary is the unlawful entry of a ‘structure’ to commit a felony or a theft. Burglary is commonly known as a "break in," or, "breaking and entering." A ‘structure’ is usually in reference to physical buildings but not cars. Car break-ins or thefts are considered larcenies.

Burglary does not necessarily translate to damage. It is still considered burglary if someone enters through an unlocked door or window with the intent to commit a felony or theft. This is called ‘non-forcible entry’.

‘Forcible entry’ is when windows and doors are broken or forced; screens, walls or roofs are broken; tools are used; locks are picked, etc. You might also hear about ‘attempted forcible entry,’ which is when a burglar attempts to enter but is frightened off.

Again, the definitions of burglary vary from state to state. Consider contacting a legal advisor or a police officer in your area if you would like to learn more about the legal definitions in your jurisdiction.




Larceny

Larceny is similar to burglary. The major difference between the two is that the perpetrator did not illegally enter a structure by using forcible, non- forcible or attempted forcible entry (with the exception of a motor vehicle.)

All thefts of motor vehicles or from motor vehicles (parts, accessories, personal property) are considered larcenies whether the vehicle was locked or unlocked.

Along with motor vehicle theft, larcenies can include purse snatching, shoplifting, theft of any bicycle, fraud, embezzlement, identity theft, forgery, con games, etc.

You might have heard of ‘grand larceny’. In the U.S., this is usually defined as stealing an amount valued at $200 or more. There is also ‘petit (petty) larceny’, which is a smaller amount stolen.

Again, the definitions and degrees of larceny vary from state to state. Depending on the degree of larceny, the penalties may range from a misdemeanor to a felony. Consider contacting a legal advisor or a police officer in your area if you would like to learn more about the legal definitions in your jurisdiction.

Theft, larceny and loss of personal property may not be covered under certain insurance policies. Be sure to read your policy carefully.




Theft

Legally, theft is often synonymous with larceny. Again, the definitions vary from state to state and jurisdictions. Consider contacting a legal advisor or a police officer in your area if you would like to learn more about the legal definitions in your jurisdiction.

Theft, larceny and loss of personal property may not be covered under certain insurance policies. Be sure to read your policy carefully.




Extortion

Sometimes viewed under the category of theft or larceny, extortion is when a person forces another person to do something against his will (usually give up money) by threat of violence, property damage, extreme financial hardship or damage to the person's reputation. Blackmail is a type of extortion. Racketeering is also often linked to extortion.

In robbery, the offender steals from the victim by immediate threats and force. In extortion, the victim willingly hands over personal property in order to avoid future damage or violence.