Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

[E.J.Armstrong]

Leaving out white-collar crimes, yes, death should be considered by the criminal as a possibility. If you wake me in the commission, unless you have a gun in my face as you do, it is a near certainty (I might miss - though I wait for a clear shot if possible and I won't miss with that) No, I would not shoot in the back - unless you have harmed my wife (you are dead - the only question is exactly how long it will take) or me - or have a weapon and start to turn.

You reserve the right to be judge, jury and executioner and to apply the death penalty when you see fit.

What a miserably sick world that is.

 

[JoeEllison]

Interesting. I had thought that there would be little disagreement as to whether or not shooting an unarmed, retreating teenager, who poses no threat to you, would be wrong.

Evidently, I have once again overestimated the human race. Thanks, Casebro and Farmall, for once again demonstrating that, just when you thought you'd seen the lowest homo sapiens can offer, someone new can come along and challenge your cherished beliefs.

And, no surprise, one of them identified himself as a right-wing extremist, which seems to go hand in hand with a sociopathic disregard for human life.

 

[GreyICE]

I recognize, respect, and support people's rights to defend themselves and their home. Trespassers rarely bother to identify themselves (Oh, I'm just here to steal stuff quietly versus oh, I'm just here to kill you and take all your stuff). They are rarely nice people. Given that they are engaging in an illegal activity, they are probably armed.

Guns should only be used in self defense though. You have to feel your life (edit: Or someone else's life) is in danger if you do not take the shot. That's what everyone is taught. You take a shot when you don't think your life is in danger, it was a bad shot.

 

[JoeEllison]

He's hopefully going to jail for a long, long, LONG time.

 

[JoeEllison]

I recognize, respect, and support people's rights to defend themselves and their home. Trespassers rarely bother to identify themselves (Oh, I'm just here to steal stuff quietly versus oh, I'm just here to kill you and take all your stuff). They are rarely nice people. Given that they are engaging in an illegal activity, they are probably armed.

Guns should only be used in self defense though. You have to feel your life (edit: Or someone else's life) is in danger if you do not take the shot. That's what everyone is taught. You take a shot when you don't think your life is in danger, it was a bad shot.

The problem here, and the likely reason for the indictment, is that he was sleeping in a shed OUTSIDE OF his trailer. The laws about defending your "castle"(and you can tell by the language that the law is part of an immature impulse) say that you don't have to retreat. Nothing in the law says that you can go on the offensive and run towards the possible danger. The point of the law is the assumption that when you're cornered in your house, you can shoot first and ask questions later. You can't go into the house, and then claim you were cornered and had no choice but to shoot.

 

[Cainkane1]

nah you can't shoot a person running away from you. The old jerk should have just ate the loss of his snacks and drinks and called the police.

 

[ServiceSoon]

In Texas you have a legal right to use deadly force to protect your property.

 

[madurobob]

In Texas you have a legal right to use deadly force to protect your property.

<sigh> Read the thread. Especially the post that links to the specific wording of the Texas statute.

Educate yourself, son. You'll find that your statement is rather meaningless at this point. Hell, the DA appears to disagree with you.

 

[fuelair]

You reserve the right to be judge, jury and executioner and to apply the death penalty when you see fit.

What a miserably sick world that is.

Life is hard, ain't it.

 

[Bikewer]

Just as another interjection, note that prior to the early 70s, it was quite legal for police officers generally to shoot at "fleeing felons". The nature of the felony was not important; a fellow running from the scene could (and often were) be fired at by police officers arriving at the scene.
The SCOTUS ruled somewhere in there (I don't recall the specific case law) that arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, without due process, and without any specific danger being shown to the community, was not justified.
Police departments all over the country changed their shooting policies. I recall the great deal of moaning and wailing among my colleagues at the time. "How will we be able to do our job?" "All the suspects will just run!"
Well, we coped.

A number of states have recently adopted the so-called "castle" defense doctrine, which essentially removes the responsibility of the homeowner to flee rather than confront criminals. This was never a very practical idea to begin with; many people are entirely incapable of fleeing.

 

[Tricky]

In Texas you have a legal right to use deadly force to protect your property.

If some of the details of the case prove true, the property owner had gone long past defending his property and on to judging and executing. You don't have the right to do that, even in Texas, though it is certainly not an open-and-shut case.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have no problem with the use of force in order to defend oneself in a situation whereby someone has illegally entered your home. However, I do not agree that deadly force should be used in any case if it is intended as being so (although this can be tricky to prove, anyone who shoots/stabs someone multiple times is unlikely to be aiming to wound) and that in this specific case, as far as I can tell by reading what's been presented this guy deliberately waited for and then proceeded to murder the intruder. Yes, the intruder should not have been in the house, but at the same time, noone should have the right to commit premeditated murder and get off on the grouds thatthe other person was committing a lesser crime.

 

[Autolite]

The old jerk should have just ate the loss of his snacks and drinks and called the police.

In any case, I assumed from the get-go that the "stealing snacks" scenario was a fabrication. I find it extremely hard to believe that even a young teenager, (unless there is some sort of mental impairment), would be stupid enough to take such risks to steal soda pop and snacks. Am I the only one here calling BS on this???

 

[bigred]

I have no problem with the use of force in order to defend oneself in a situation whereby someone has illegally entered your home. However, I do not agree that deadly force should be used in any case if it is intended as being so (although this can be tricky to prove, anyone who shoots/stabs someone multiple times is unlikely to be aiming to wound) and that in this specific case, as far as I can tell by reading what's been presented this guy deliberately waited for and then proceeded to murder the intruder. Yes, the intruder should not have been in the house, but at the same time, noone should have the right to commit premeditated murder and get off on the grouds thatthe other person was committing a lesser crime.

Agreed on all counts...

In any case, I assumed from the get-go that the "stealing snacks" scenario was a fabrication. I find it extremely hard to believe that even a young teenager, (unless there is some sort of mental impairment), would be stupid enough to take such risks to steal soda pop and snacks. Am I the only one here calling BS on this???

Nope, you've got company. I thought from the start that was a way for the "fry em" camp to work some apologist nonsense for the intruders. eg why would you say "snacks" vs simply "food?" They make it sound like it was Opie n pals just horsing around and they should have just gotten a wrist slap and sent on their merry way to the fishin hole.

 

[bigred]

Some of you may remember Bernie Goetz, the NYC "Subway Vigilante" from the 1980s. He shot four young men who tried to rob him. He ended up serving time, but his case wasn't helped by his fleeing the scene or saying to one of his victims, "You don't look too bad, here's another" and trying to shoot him again.

Recall it, although not the details. Again I'm all for self-defense and if that's all it was (it sounds like not, couldn't say), he shouldn't have served a single damned minute in jail. I also recall he got a lot of public support, and IMO rightfully so.

 

[Tricky]

In any case, I assumed from the get-go that the "stealing snacks" scenario was a fabrication. I find it extremely hard to believe that even a young teenager, (unless there is some sort of mental impairment), would be stupid enough to take such risks to steal soda pop and snacks. Am I the only one here calling BS on this???

That will certainly be easy to ascertain. It has been established (and admitted) that the boys had broken in before. If so, the property owner must have filed a crime report, and in that report would be a list of the things taken and the damage done. What I haven't seen is any claims by the property owner that the "stealing snacks" scenario is incorrect. So hold off on the BS call.

 

[Ranb]

The problem here, and the likely reason for the indictment, is that he was sleeping in a shed OUTSIDE OF his trailer. The laws about defending your "castle"(and you can tell by the language that the law is part of an immature impulse) say that you don't have to retreat. Nothing in the law says that you can go on the offensive and run towards the possible danger. The point of the law is the assumption that when you're cornered in your house, you can shoot first and ask questions later. You can't go into the house, and then claim you were cornered and had no choice but to shoot.

Did you read the law? It says in part "A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force."

It does not say the homeowner is forbidden enter his home to protect it. The law places limits on what the state can do to a person protecting his life or property under certain conditions. If the law does not prohibit an action, then it is legal.

Ranb

 

[volatile]

I'm with you there. I've been going back and forth on which Kimber 1911 to get and finally realized I couldn't talk myself into liking a shiny one. So it's either going to be a Raptor or Gold Match because the Team Match only comes in a shiny version (plus that USA logo on the grip is just ugly).

And yes, the frame is silver stainless on the Raptor but it's SOOOO pretty.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/grand_raptor.jpg

Only you could turn a thread about the brutal murder of a minor into a fun-fest. You think this kind of smarmy, smiley-ridden post is appropriate?

I worry about your sanity sometimes, Drudge.

 

[Beerina]

As far as I know, the death penalty is not the correct punishment for break and entry. The child was running away so self defense is not an issue here. He should not have even been pointing the gun at the child. If the gun was faulty and owned by the shooter then having a faulty gun is no excuse.

I think he should be facing a murder charge.

One pulls out a gun, the other guy starts running away. You don't know they aren't going to go around the corner, pull out a gun, and start to shoot back at you.

I don't think it's proper to demand that someone under attack not shoot someone running away just in case the guy is actually running away, as opposed to getting themselves safe so they can turn around and attack.

How unbelievably arrogant for people sitting safely in an ivory tower to demand people in danger choose the former as the possibility, putting themselves, the innocent party, at risk, just so the ivory towerite can assuage their guilt and fantasize perfection in rulemaking.

 

[Tricky]

Yeah, better safe than sorry. I recommend you shoot anybody who is running away. Just in case.