Gun owner kills intruder, faces prison

[volatile]

Yeah I hate all this "depends on the circumstances" and "shades of gray" stuff. We all know that everyone at heart is either a rampaging cold-blooded murderer or a bleeding-heart wimp.

It's seems that in this thread, all the shades of grey are reasons TO shoot, not to refrain from shooting. It's all been "It'd be bad to shoot him if he was running away", "if he was kneeling down", "if he was unarmed", as if the burden is on the damn kid to explain why he shouldn't be shot dead. That's what I meant.

It strikes me that the default assumption amongst the gun-toting here is "Shoot", and only to refrain from doing so unless the guy happens to be Ghandi or something. That's entirely the wrong way up. Shooting someone should always be the last resort, if it is a resort at all.

Fine, no problem. But it's a highly subjective thing. Some of us disagree. That doesn't make us psychopaths or nazis FYI.

I think wanting to kill people for stealing your stuff or in case they might hurt you is pretty psychopathic. Is that an outlandish opinion in your world?

It doesn't make you a Nazi, though. We agree on that point.

Disregarding the "he's only a kid" silliness,

Do you understand why the age of criminal responsibility exists? Do you understand why it is perfectly reasonable to take someone's age into account when deciding appropriate punishments? Do you understand that recklessness and youth go hand in hand, and that maybe the appropriate punishment for adolescent misdemeanours should not be instant death without trial?

the stealing thing has been addressed at great length, ie again the circumstances kinda matter. For starters, it is typically difficult to tell whether someone who breaks into your home intends you and/or your family serious hurt or not.

Of all hot burglaries, how many compliant homeowners were seriously wounded or killed? I don't know, you tell me. I suspect it's a very, very small number. I also suspect the number of hot burglaries itself is rare enough in itself.

If you want to be some noble enlightened pacifist and take a chance by just letting them decide, go for it. Some people would rather not. That hardly makes them a bad person or wrong in defending themselves.

Have we not moved on a society in the past two centuries? Do you not see that this type of behaviour, as I explained to FuelAir, breeds an angry, violent, paranoid, cowed society. Imagine if everyone shot first and asked questions later when the potential for them to undergo some harm occurred. It would be anarchic.

Please try and reasonably imagine a society where everyone behaved as FuelAir, Ranb and Drudgewire have advocated in gun threads on these forums. Imagine a world where everyone was "rather safe than sorry" in the face of possible (even only marginally possible) harm. Imagine a world where property and personal crime was subject to instant vigilante death penalties. That's where your line of thinking leads. It's horrific.

1 - Even if we assume that number is accurate, it can largely be attributed to people casing a home to make sure nobody is home when they steal, which is what most burglars' aim is (for obvious reasons). Small wonder the # of injuries/deaths are low.

Exactly. So why the need to have a dangerous weapon 'just in case'?

2 - You can make statistics say pretty much anything you want.

Do you disagree that the chances of you getting burgled are low, the chances of you being burgled whilst at home are even lower, and the chances of you suffering serious injury whilst being burgled at home are so vanishingly small as to not even be worth worrying about?

3 - Even if that stat was true, I have a hunch you would change your tune if someone you loved was in that "mere" .1%

If someone I loved was injured during a hot burglary, I'd change my tune on the sanctioning of instant, vigilante-administered death penalty for property crimes. I doubt that.

In fact, you only have to look at the reactions of the British in general after the Tony Martin case (which Rofle has already mentioned) to realise that we, as a nation, do not generally see the benefit in combating violence by escalating the lethal potential of our population.

And as for condemning others for "protecting" themselves - you're damn right I'll condemn those who are content to see our society crippled by division, fear and violence, and who revel in, laugh at and even celebrate the brutal murder of a child. You're damn right I'll condemn those who think that they can take the law into their own hands. You're damn right I'll condemn those who think that an arms race is the best way to deal with criminality, that criminals do no deserve their lives or that society would be better off if we were all "better safe than sorry".

What you want is war. I hope you never get it.

 

[Mick Houlahan]

From the Laredo Times article:
One of the teenagers, however, told a different version days after the incident.

The survivor, whose name is not being published because he is a minor, said Gonzalez forced the intruders to kneel and began to beat them with the gun.

Seems to me more than one of the surviving teens might have recalled this small detail, and sooner than "days after the incident."

That said, I still think they should throw the book at the guy. Asleep in a "shed?" Not buying that, sorry. My guess is he was waiting for the kids with the intention of taking a few shots at them. My other guess is that getting a Texas jury to convict this dirtbag will be harder than trying to shove a stick of butter up a wild dog's @$$ with a red-hot poker.

 

[Ranb]

Note, for the sake of argument, the phrases "who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used" and "not required to retreat before using deadly force." If you are outside of the home and KNOW someone is inside, entering the home could be seen as "provocation" on account of the fact that it isn't self-defense to willfully force a confrontation. Further, while you are not required to retreat, nothing in the law says that you can go chasing after someone in order to deliver deadly force. If you have to go looking for the person in order to shoot them, it isn't self defense.

My legal education is not worth even a dime.

Anyway, I would not say that a homeowner entering their home to confront a trespasser should be provocation enough to allow the trespasser to take any action except flight. If a home really is a person's castle, then the actions of a trespasser should never inhibit the actions of the homeowner. Unless the homeowner is advertising his or her intent to slay the trespasser, one should just assume they are merely entering their residence to identify or detain the intruder. There is nothing wrong with arming yourself in case the intruder decides to escalate the situation further than he already has.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I was just struck by the disconnect between "Better safe than sorry" and your sudden distaste for bloody murder.

In other words, when is it not better to be safe than sorry? This is kinda my whole point...

Sudden distaste for bloody murder? It sounds as if you are implying that I did not have any distaste for murder in the past. Aren’t you the same jerk who claimed I was in favor of capital punishment for drug abusers when I said I had no sympathy for those who willingly made themselves addicts?

Your hyperbole is deceitful. You should go post on the loose change forum or other places where this kind of crap is acceptable.

I think your whole point is that you are taking the time to post insults instead of making an effort to write something worthwhile.

Ranb

 

[volatile]

Sudden distaste for bloody murder? It sounds as if you are implying that I did not have any distaste for murder in the past.

Well, one minute you're claiming you'd rather be safe than sorry, and the next you're going against this by claiming that you wouldn't shoot someone you had already cowed.

There are plenty of plausible (by your usual measure of plausible) what ifs in that situation that I don;t really understand where you draw the line between "Better safe than sorry" and "better sorry than safe". From your quote that you wouldn't shoot an intruder on his knees, it seems that you wouldn't rather be safe than sorry at all, and do actually realise that shooting someone just because of something they might do is a little beyond the pale.

Which is a good thing, of course. I just wish you'd realise the inconsistency of your thinking and extend that simmering core of human decency to the broad spectrum of your ideology. You know shooting people who are just after property is a bad thing, deep down. So why not admit it?

Aren’t you the same jerk who claimed I was in favor of capital punishment for drug abusers when I said I had no sympathy for those who willingly made themselves addicts?

Yup, that was me.

You said you'd shoot dead drug addicts who were robbing your house, if I recall correctly. If finding that a little distasteful makes me a jerk, then yeah, I'm a jerk.

Your hyperbole is deceitful. You should go post on the loose change forum or other places where this kind of crap is acceptable.

I think your whole point is that you are taking the time to post insults instead of making an effort to write something worthwhile.

My hyperbole? You're the one who sees every petty thief as a potential psychopathic, murdering gang-rapist, and who who shoot first and ask questions later because it's "better to be safe than sorry".

If you have an issue with my "hyperbole", then address it directly. I'd be glad to defend my position - though not with deadly weapons, of course.

 

[Ranb]

Well, one minute you're claiming you'd rather be safe than sorry, and the next you're going against this by claiming that you wouldn't shoot someone you had already cowed.

You said you'd shoot dead drug addicts who were robbing your house, if I recall correctly. If finding that a little distasteful makes me a jerk, then yeah, I'm a jerk.

If you have an issue with my "hyperbole", then address it directly. I'd be glad to defend my position - though not with deadly weapons, of course.

I was not referring to myself when I said “Better safe than sorry and not break into people's homes….” I was obviously referring to the burglars when I said this. There is no way you should have assumed I was referring to myself.

Here, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75467&highlight=ranb&page=10 I said I would stop a thief, I never said anything that should have led you to believe I would kill one as a first resort. I never said I would murder drug addicts. I tired to tell you this on that thread but you refused to acknowledge it. This forum is easy to search, yet you cling to your claim that I said I would murder a drug addict robbing me. This makes you a liar.

This is the third time I have tried to explain this to you that I would not murder an intruder. Addressing these problems to you directly is a waste of time. Your prejudice is warping your outlook on life.

Ranb

 

[ServiceSoon]

These sorts of laws give the benefit of the doubt to the person who isn't commiting a crime. Sometimes said protected persons takes advantage of that privilege.

Are we arguning that using lethal force to protect property is moral/immoral or are we arguing the use of force in this situation with facts we have from the media was moral/immoral?

<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.

The statute that you are talking about refers to self defense, which is different than the statute that refers to protection of personal property. Maybe I added something to the conversation afterall. Cases aren't decided by DA's.

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.

Too much hearsay at this point.

 

[Rolfe]

[....]

Why are the lives of criminals not worth anything to you? Do you really support the death penalty (and, if I follow your logic, the immediate, extra-judicial death penalty) for all crimes? All property crimes? All violent crimes?

The kind of world you want to inhabit, and the kind of world you and Drudge seem so content to flippantly giggle about, is terrifying. It's a world that celebrates violence; glorifies death; salutes impulsiveness; praises cowardice; demeans human life to beneath that of material goods and fosters paranoia, aggression, fear, suspicion and hate. It's a world that wants to unpick every civil, civilising and humane action of the past 200 years. It wants to undermine the rule of law. It wants to do away with due process. It wants to take society back to the Wild West. It believes might is right, and it believes that the wants of the individual should over-ride the good of the collective.

It is base and backwards. It is juvenile and animalistic. It's not funny. It's not sexy. It's not exciting. It doesn't warrant smilies, or glib remarks, or t-shirts. It doesn't warrant sound-bites, slogans, ifs, buts or maybes. Think about the kind of world you're advocating - one in which each individual's sovereign right is to murder those who wrong him, and in which each individual's property is now quantifiable by the amount of blood he is willing to spill to defend it.

If that thought doesn't turn your stomach one little bit, then maybe you need to keep on thinking.

Nominated. Not just because you said everything I was thinking far better than I could have said it, but because you said it so elegantly. And for exemplary use of the semicolon - Lynn Truss would be so proud of you.

Rolfe.

 

[Tricky]

The whole thing about the "better safe than sorry" attitude is that it is very much a judgment call as to what is "safe". Admittedly, in the heat of the situation, it is easy to get emotional and do something based on an exaggerated idea of the danger to you. You can imagine that they have a gang waiting out in the woods that will charge you if he gets back to give the alarm. You can posit all sorts of scenarios.

So there's a great big fuzzy area as to when you are safe, but "erring on the side of caution" is not necessarily the right choice if it means killing a person for a minor crime. Especially if the person is a minor. Courts have to make a decision as to whether you really were in danger, and they tend to lean toward the side of the property owners, at least in Texas. But there are scenarios when you go too far in protecting yourself from imagined danger. This may be one of them.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I fail to understand the insane paranoia that seems to have gripped a number of people in this thread.

What is with the assumption that the vast majority of people who break into your house want to do you harm? If you assume that this is true, what kind of society do you people LIVE in? My god, if this is true how DARE you attack anywhere for being backward or uncivilised? How DARE you claim the USA is superior?

If it isn't true what the hell happened to you? Do you know someone who was attacked or something? I can't think of anything else that would explain such rampant insane dangerous paranoia.

 

[bigred]

What you want is war. I hope you never get it.

What you need is reading comprehension. I hope you do get it, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

 

[JoeEllison]

My legal education is not worth even a dime.

Anyway, I would not say that a homeowner entering their home to confront a trespasser should be provocation enough to allow the trespasser to take any action except flight. If a home really is a person's castle, then the actions of a trespasser should never inhibit the actions of the homeowner. Unless the homeowner is advertising his or her intent to slay the trespasser, one should just assume they are merely entering their residence to identify or detain the intruder. There is nothing wrong with arming yourself in case the intruder decides to escalate the situation further than he already has.

Ranb

That's a ridiculous and sociopathic view of the law. Homeowners aren't police officers. It is not their place to detain ANYBODY. It isn't a homeowner's job to go towards danger in order to justify murdering someone. I don't really know what century you think this is, or how much fear and paranoia grips your mind and conscience, but your attitude is a hell of a lot more dangerous to society than someone swiping a TV from someone else's trailer.

 

[bigred]

I fail to understand the insane paranoia that seems to have gripped a number of people in this thread.

What is with the assumption that the vast majority of people who break into your house want to do you harm? If you assume that this is true, what kind of society do you people LIVE in? My god, if this is true how DARE you attack anywhere for being backward or uncivilised? How DARE you claim the USA is superior?

If it isn't true what the hell happened to you? Do you know someone who was attacked or something? I can't think of anything else that would explain such rampant insane dangerous paranoia.

Ironic, ie you seem quite paranoid about paranoia. Offhand I don't recall anyone saying ANY of the things you state above.

One last time and I'm done w/this thread: being prepared to defend one's self and/or home and family is hardly "rampant insane dangerous paranoia," to put it very mildly. Based on that logic, you shouldn't bother w/your seat belt because the odds of being in a serious accident are small and you shouldn't care about fatty foods because the odds of a heart attack are well in your favor. And what's up w/all this health and home insurance BS?

You have no way of knowing how a criminal will react if they discover you are home - or worse, can now possibly identify them. Some will simply run (in fact the vast majority, I suspect) - but some will not; they will turn. Some people have this kooky idea they should be prepared if that happens, even though the odds are small. Given what's at stake, it's a reasonable concept and denying that doesn't change that, nor does it make such people war mongers, militia wannabes, or any other similar idiotic claims.

 

[Autolite]

I don't really know what century you think this is, or how much fear and paranoia grips your mind and conscience, but your attitude is a hell of a lot more dangerous to society than someone swiping a TV from someone else's trailer.

I have to agree with JoeEllison here. I'm not paranoid at all. In fact, it doesn't bother me in the least if there were a bunch of crooks going around "swiping TVs from someone else's trailer"...

 

[JoeEllison]

I fail to understand the insane paranoia that seems to have gripped a number of people in this thread.

What is with the assumption that the vast majority of people who break into your house want to do you harm? If you assume that this is true, what kind of society do you people LIVE in? My god, if this is true how DARE you attack anywhere for being backward or uncivilised? How DARE you claim the USA is superior?

If it isn't true what the hell happened to you? Do you know someone who was attacked or something? I can't think of anything else that would explain such rampant insane dangerous paranoia.

They watch a lot of television news and bad 1980's vigilante movies. In those movies, there's never just a guy who breaks into your house while you're at work and swipes your TV, like in real life. No, it is always a multi-ethnic gang in matching jackets like a varsity Breaking and Entering squad, who carry switchblades and have an Uzi in the backseat of their black Cadillac. They don't want your TV, they want to hold you down and make you watch them shove your wife back and forth between them. Then the black leader tries to kiss your wife, she smacks him, and he stabs her with his switchblade before punching you and breaking all of your stuff and pretty much not stealing anything.

Hey, if a few unarmed children have to be shot in the back to make sure some black dude doesn't kiss a white lady, then so be it!

 

[JoeEllison]

I have to agree with JoeEllison here. I'm not paranoid at all. In fact, it doesn't bother me in the least if there were a bunch of crooks going around "swiping TVs from someone else's trailer"...

You've not agreeing with me, you're lying about my position. Your complete and rather pathetic lack of ethics is expected, of course, but still disappointing.

 

[RandFan]

Hey, if a few unarmed children have to be shot in the back to make sure some black dude doesn't kiss a white lady, then so be it!

Hey Joe, I've mostly been lurking and I guess I missed something. Who is advocating killing children to keep black people from kissing white women? I want to give them hell but I can't find the posts.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[volatile]

I was not referring to myself when I said “Better safe than sorry and not break into people's homes….” I was obviously referring to the burglars when I said this. There is no way you should have assumed I was referring to myself.

Your response was to Tricky's sarcastic paraphrase, and whilst your direct use did refer to the home-breakers, it did seem to endorse his quote. My apologies if you really don't think "better safe than sorry" , but you have said in other threads that have lead me to conclude that you consider shooting first and asking questions later to be an appropriate course of action.

Here, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75467&highlight=ranb&page=10 I said I would stop a thief, I never said anything that should have led you to believe I would kill one as a first resort. I never said I would murder drug addicts.

Funny how you think that page testifies in your defense.

You said:

My life is worth more than any thief who might object to me interferring with his/her choies of occupation. In other words, it is priceless. There are no poor crackheads. There are only dumbs--t crackheads who decided to wreck their lives and drag anyone else down that they can in the process of supporting their habits by any means they see fit.

That seems to me to stand quite starkly as a statement that killing 'crackheads' in the process of property theft is entirely defensible. That's a sociopathic position.

Noone, not even crackheads, deserves to die at the hands of a gun. Even if they are robbing your house. Even if they're raping your wife. The last 200 years of human civilisation has come to understand this - that we're better off without endorsing violence or sanctioning murder. The sooner you catch up with the rest of us, the better.

 

[fishbob]

Leaving out white-collar crimes, yes, death should be considered by the criminal as a possibility. . . .

Do not leave out white-collar criminals.

 

[Darat]

Do not leave out white-collar criminals.

I am curious as to why "white collar" crime should be exempted from this type of view.