Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[Shogun]

I remember that 911 audio now, it actually sounded like the guy was pissing his pants with happiness at the chance to shoot someone in the back. Now he's Shog's hero. TFF!

Oh so NOW you have read his mind and discovered that it was glee at killing, istead of relief of not BEING KILLED, that motivated him, eh?


Say, when are you going to talk Larkin into forming that Superforce we all need to protect us? With your claravoiance and HIS masturbatory speedy gonzolez right arm you guys should have crime down to a minimal frequency ASAP.

 

[Ravi]

yea, i know.. people who believe that burglars don't have free access to personal property and who won't assume that thieves have an apple pie instead of a lethal weapon SURE ARE the batshit crazy ones..




Indeed, it sure would be THE PUSSY that is ready to confront assailants and defend life and property. YUP. you know, cause RAVI says so.





Can you see to type with all those tears flowing, Rav?

Listen, I don't want to diss your hero the coward for shooting fleeing brown people in the back as they were running away anymore.

Maybe he's got a sister for you.

 

[dilloduck]

Let the cops catch criminals. Unless you are in direct danger, you shouldn't be involving yourself if it involves hurting them.

Apparently you are not understanding the situation in many areas of the country. The cops DON'T and WON'T catch criminals and the judicial system WON'T prosecute them. If being killed for swiping a TV is too big of a punishment DON'T STEAL THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Glori.B]

Thanks for your opinon.


now go stand in line at the dipshit buffet.

it's the rational opinion to have.

i understand your stance, but it is not as black and white as your macho man attitude would have you believe...it is not rational or justifiable to SHOOT people dead if you are not in imminent danger...many brilliant legal minds, who are incidently not "dipshits", disagree with you...

perhaps you could argue about what it means to be in imminent danger, rather than call rational people nasty names.

btw, do you go the buffet often?

 

[AllieBaba]

I do feel sorry for them but more to the point I think you and Shog are not much more than a moral vacuum willing to give up someone else's rights so you don't have to wear Depends.

Quite ironic, really.

Honey, criminals in the act of committing a crime forfeit their "rights". Not that these even had "rights" anyway, being ILLEGAL aliens to begin with.

The thing about "morality" is there have to be consequences for unacceptable behavior. So I guess that makes those of us who believe in consequnces more moral than someone like yourself, who thinks criminals have the "right" to violate others' rights.

 

[Steerpike]

i understand your stance, but it is not as black and white as your macho man attitude would have you believe...it is not rational or justifiable to SHOOT people dead if you are not in imminent danger...many brilliant legal minds, who are incidently not "dipshits", disagree with you...

Actually you have to look at the subjective, reasonable belief of the shooter. Did he reasonably believe he was in imminent danger? I don't think any of us know the answer to that question.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, we don't.
And the people who had access to all the facts thought he was reasonable and did not behave criminally.

And that should be where it ends, but people will insist on self-righteously proclaiming the man a murderer and a coward based on their own bias, and knowing nothing of the facts.

 

[Glori.B]

Actually you have to look at the subjective, reasonable belief of the shooter. Did he reasonably believe he was in imminent danger? I don't think any of us know the answer to that question.

you're right...from what i heard on the 911 audio, it did not seem that he was in imminent danger, but i am admittedly ignorant of all of the rest of the facts involved in this particular case. my understanding, from the news reports that i heard, is that he got off because of the castle law technicality that applies in texas.

 

[Steerpike]

ymy understanding, from the news reports that i heard, is that he got off because of the castle law technicality that applies in texas.

That's probably speculation, because the grand jury doesn't have to provide reasons.

And he didn't technically "get off" because if it was only before a grand jury then he was never even indicted and there was nothing to get off from. All the grand jury does is decide if there is enough evidence to even bring charges against the guy in the first place. They said no. That should be fairly telling because usually a grand jury is dog and pony show for the prosecution, and as one of my law professors used to say, a decent prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

 

[AllieBaba]

But hey, we need to be there for the criminals and illegals in this country.

Screw the people who suffer at their hands.

 

[Shogun]

Listen, I don't want to diss your hero the coward for shooting fleeing brown people in the back as they were running away anymore.

Maybe he's got a sister for you.

HA!

Look at Ravi.. talking about HONOR and COWARDS while defending two people who were busy ROBBING a fucking house.

I'll take Joe as a neighbor before you any day. I mean, i'd hate to have to remind you that you live in America after one of your illegal driveway laborers decided to go christmas shopping in my house.

 

[Larkinn]

Honey, criminals in the act of committing a crime forfeit their "rights". Not that these even had "rights" anyway, being ILLEGAL aliens to begin with.

Umm, no. You are incorrect.

The thing about "morality" is there have to be consequences for unacceptable behavior. So I guess that makes those of us who believe in consequnces more moral than someone like yourself, who thinks criminals have the "right" to violate others' rights.

Its called jail. Merely because we disagree with murdering people for theft, doesn't mean that we think there should be no consequences.

 

[Shogun]

it's the rational opinion to have.

i understand your stance, but it is not as black and white as your macho man attitude would have you believe...it is not rational or justifiable to SHOOT people dead if you are not in imminent danger...many brilliant legal minds, who are incidently not "dipshits", disagree with you...

perhaps you could argue about what it means to be in imminent danger, rather than call rational people nasty names.

btw, do you go the buffet often?

THE RATIONAL, eh? Looks like the law disagreed with you. Yes, it IS rational because you can't predict the intentions of motherfuckers avoiding the law for the sake of criminal activity. You can't just EXPECT a burglar not to be armed or ASSUME that you will be safe if you lock yourself in the bathroom.

Many brilliant minds, eh? You mean like the ones that let Joe off the hook? THOSE who disagree with YOU?


Perhaps you can post how many crimes are deterred when victims hide in the basement instead of pretending that Joe is off the hook.. One thing, I guarentfuckingtee Joe's neighborhood will be crime free for a worthwhile period of time.


and, not at all.. You see, IM on the side that let Joe off the hook. Reality sucks, doesn't it?

 

[Glori.B]

HA!

Look at Ravi.. talking about HONOR and COWARDS while defending two people who were busy ROBBING a fucking house.

I'll take Joe as a neighbor before you any day. I mean, i'd hate to have to remind you that you live in America after one of your illegal driveway laborers decided to go christmas shopping in my house.

c'mon...i know you're not this dumb. ravi isn't just defending those two individuals, she's defending innocent people who might get shot by those who have a mindset to dispense their own justice.

except if it's you crawling through the neighbor's window, then i believe she said she'd laugh when you got shot...

 

[Shogun]

c'mon...i know you're not this dumb. ravi isn't just defending those two individuals, she's defending innocent people who might get shot by those who have a mindset to dispense their own justice.

except if it's you crawling through the neighbor's window, then i believe she said she'd laugh when you got shot...

You see, thats just it.. I don't have a habit of robbing motherfuckers or breaking into houses. Show me an incident where two innocent individuals were busy breaking into a house and robbing the place and you might have a point. As it is, the criminal activity presumes a valid threat.


for real, Im glad I don't live next to you crazy bastards who would just sit there while you neighbor gets robbed. Has it ever occured to you that Joe's example is EXACTLY the kind of thing that actually lowers crime rates? Law abiding citizens should not have to cower away from protecting themselves just because some fuckstick thinks that criminals partaking in criminal activity should be assumed innocent and totally harmless.

 

[Glori.B]

You see, thats just it.. I don't have a habit of robbing motherfuckers or breaking into houses. Show me an incident where two innocent individuals were busy breaking into a house and robbing the place and you might have a point. As it is, the criminal activity presumes a valid threat.


for real, Im glad I don't live next to you crazy bastards who would just sit there while you neighbor gets robbed. Has it ever occured to you that Joe's example is EXACTLY the kind of thing that actually lowers crime rates? Law abiding citizens should not have to cower away from protecting themselves just because some fuckstick thinks that criminals partaking in criminal activity should be assumed innocent and totally harmless.

LOL i'm glad you don't have a habit of burglary. evidently, they were guilty of burglary, which last time i checked, didn't carry a death sentence penalty in ANY state. i agree citizens should not be left to cower from protecting THEMSELVES... but protecting their neighbors gold jewelry...? c'mon.

 

[jillian]

Honey, criminals in the act of committing a crime forfeit their "rights". Not that these even had "rights" anyway, being ILLEGAL aliens to begin with.

Really? Can you show where such legislation exists?

Near as I can tell, the death penalty is not imposed for petty burglary.

The thing about "morality" is there have to be consequences for unacceptable behavior. So I guess that makes those of us who believe in consequnces more moral than someone like yourself, who thinks criminals have the "right" to violate others' rights.

And, of course, such consequences shouldn't be in proportion to the acts committed.

Jail and deportation sounds about right.

 

[BrianH]

I think the law is wrong. If my kid forgets his keys one night and crawls in the window of my house, that means my neighbor can shoot him dead with no consequences.

How stupid can it get?

No No No, you cannot shoot anyone breaking into your neighbor's house unless your neighbor has given you strict permission to "watch over" their house while they are gone. Unless permission is given, then you cannot do it. I think what saved this man was that they happened to be in his yard when he shot them.

 

[Shogun]

LOL i'm glad you don't have a habit of burglary. evidently, they were guilty of burglary, which last time i checked, didn't carry a death sentence penalty in ANY state. i agree citizens should not be left to cower from protecting THEMSELVES... but protecting their neighbors gold jewelry...? c'mon.

Again, if only MORE neighbors didn't pull down the shades while their neighbor gets jacked we might see a decline in this kind of crime. Regardless, you cannot assume that the ONLY crime being acted upon is burglary. Should Joe have waited to be shot first before pulling his trigger? Further, who would have died AT ALL if these criminals had not decided to break into a house?


uh, forgive me but WHAT specific piece of peacemaking equipment brought law to the west again?

 

[Ninja]

All of this talk about morality has left me confused, because I was always taught that morality couldn't be legislated