I Told Ya So: Texas Man Cleared for Killing Burglars

[Goofball]

And by the way, TSMcG, I have been burgled. Twice from my car and once from my house. And I have not the slightest desire to kill the people who did it.

Are you essentially saying that you prefer being burgled to defending your property and those within it by use of deadly force?

Maybe if you did you could avoid a third time?

I don't have kids and don't live with my girlfriend, so my responses would be different from someone else's. I would risk my life to kill criminals. Call me crazy, but I'm sure my plans would change if there were kids or loved ones in the house.

(bold added by me)

No, that's not what I'm saying. And you have tried to do yet again what the "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" faction has been trying to do this whole thread: make it about a guy defending his life instead of a guy defending his lawn.

If somebody broke into my house when I was there with my family, I would use every means of violence at my disposal, up to and including tactical nukes, to drive them away or kill them if they wouldn't leave, because I would be in fear of my family's safety. But when they were already on the run and the danger had passed, I would call the police, then lock myself in with my family and make sure my kids weren't too freaked out. I wouldn't leave my family cowering in the house while I chased the crooks down the street with guns blazing.

Think about it - if you kill them, you could save the people in the next houses they hit in the case it went bad.

Sure. Makes sense. Know what else makes sense? According to conservatives, pot smoking eventually leads to heroin use. Which invariably leads to burglary to support the heroin habit. So why not also make it legal to gun down high school kids if you happen to see them smoking pot while playing hack in the park?

That would also save good honest homeowners from future burglaries gone bad.

Sure, there's a small chance the kids would have "survived" their brush with canabis to go on and be productive and law abiding citizens, but why take that chance?

By the way, I notice that you completely ignored my question about the soccer mom transporting stolen goods across my lawn.

What's the matter? Couldn't find an answer that supported your "If they're doing something illegal, then they deserve to get blown away" philosophy?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Life, Liberty, and Property are not separate rights, but facets of the same inalienable right.

To defend one's own property IS to defend one's self.

The legalized inability to defend one's property is tyranny.

The criminals involved had their own right to life and property, but not at the expense of another's right. In attempting to contravene another's right to his property, they put their own rights in abeyance. When confronted, had they put down the man's personal property and exited his real property promptly, then the shotgunner would have been wrong to kill them.

The failure to defend one's property, or for the state to abet and condone such defense, is a means to chaos.

[HoreTore]

BTW, where I live people working at a bank are strongly encouraged to simply hand over the money and to only activate the silent alarm - instead of trying to play the hero.

That's the ROE of everyone except army personnel and in a few cases the police in this country. Give the guy with the weapon what he wants as quickly as possible, so that he leaves as soon as possible. Do not risk life or health over material stuff.

I'd hit a boss who told me to put my life at risk to protect a few thousand bucks.

[ICantSpellDawg]

(bold

What's the matter? Couldn't find an answer that supported your "If they're doing something illegal, then they deserve to get blown away" philosophy?

You can try to knock her out.

I once worked at a CD store. A guy stole some dvds and jumped over an old lady to leave the store.

Me and another worker took off after him, punched him in the face and when he got into his car we started choking him and punching him in the face further. He backed the car out as fast as he could and ran me over with his open car door. In the process, his door flipped to the front of his car, totally ruining his car. He screamed and cursed us for destroying his car and threatened to sue as he rode away... I was lying on my stomach in the road.

Needless to say by destroying his car we exacted payment for the stolen videos. That is justice, letting him get away without a pound of flesh (or car) is cowardice. There was no legal action and that giant baby was never heard from again by our store.

Escalation can work out quite well. I figure that I can die in a car accident or from a disease - I may as well die exacting revenge or preventing a crime is all im saying. The judicial system is for cowards and people with families. Let us singles sort out things while we are single. Maximum justice for minimum risk.

That's the ROE of everyone except army personnel and in a few cases the police in this country. Give the guy with the weapon what he wants as quickly as possible, so that he leaves as soon as possible. Do not risk life or health over material stuff.

I'd hit a boss who told me to put my life at risk to protect a few thousand bucks.

Never give a man with a weapon what he wants. What is your life worth? I'm really upset with you guys. Can't you at least pretend not to be cowards? This is a website for craps sake, not even the real deal. ( I don't think you are a coward, goofball)

If the guy kills or critically wounds me he goes to jail for life, If I kill or critically wound him, there is still justice. Its all about turning up the heat and making them regret their decisions.

We live once - die the way you want to.

[Goofball]

Life, Liberty, and Property are not separate rights, but facets of the same inalienable right.

To defend one's own property IS to defend one's self.

The legalized inability to defend one's property is tyranny.

The criminals involved had their own right to life and property, but not at the expense of another's right. In attempting to contravene another's right to his property, they put their own rights in abeyance. When confronted, had they put down the man's personal property and exited his real property promptly, then the shotgunner would have been wrong to kill them.

The failure to defend one's property, or for the state to abet and condone such defense, is a means to chaos.

Chalk one vote up for blowing away the shoplifting soccer mom.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Chalk one vote up for blowing away the shoplifting soccer mom.

Hahaha. I'm sure that hardly anybody would do that. You would have to be dealing with somebody who was totally insane (and awesome) to react so fast that he could not only have known what was going on, gotten a weapon and decided that a middle aged woman who was fleeing with stockings was an imminent threat and a target for deadly justice.

You are comparing 2 immigrant black guys who were breaking into a home in broad daylight and did not respond to a weapon held by a neighbor with a soccer mom mall shoplifter. If you think that comparison is appropriate, I'll disagree.

[Ser Clegane]

If you think that comparison is appropriate, I'll disagree.

Why? Are you a coward who is not willing to sacrifice a soccer mom on the altar of "justice"?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why? Are you a coward who is not willing to sacrifice a soccer mom on the altar of "justice"?

Of course not! Alright, fine - i'd kill her. You've talked me into it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Chalk one vote up for blowing away the shoplifting soccer mom.

You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer.

In your scenario, I certainly wouldn't even consider it. However, if I came across two thieves on my own property and one of them started to run towards me, things may change.

The two opposing extremes examined in this thread are only two of countless situations where one would have to make those decisions.

In other words, trying to claim that anyone who isn't completely opposed to using deadly force would gladly kill a soccor mom in cold blood is... well.. not helpful.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer.

In your scenario, I certainly wouldn't even consider it. However, if I came across two thieves on my own property and one of them started to run towards me, things may change.

The two opposing extremes examined in this thread are only two of countless situations where one would have to make those decisions.

In other words, trying to claim that anyone who isn't completely opposed to using deadly force would gladly kill a soccor mom in cold blood is... well.. not helpful.

Murderer.

[Tribesman]

I was lying on my stomach in the road.

Well boo hoo for you , Its lucky it wasn't some poor old granny run down by this thief simply for being behind the car while you are trying to play the hero for a few dollars worth of crap .

Escalation can work out quite well.

Escalation can work out really bad , thats why the police and bank staff are trained to not bloody escalate the situation

I may as well die exacting revenge or preventing a crime is all im saying.

Build yourself a batcave or take your superhero crap back to the costume shop

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well boo hoo for you , Its lucky it wasn't some poor old granny run down by this thief simply for being behind the car while you are trying to play the hero for a few dollars worth of crap .
Escalation can work out really bad , thats why the police and bank staff are trained to not bloody escalate the situation


Build yourself a batcave or take your superhero crap back to the costume shop

No chance, Euro bed-wetting types. I burst my pimples at you and call your batcave request a silly thing, you tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!

You are just jealous that I am some sort of mini punisher and you are a coward who sprinkles his own pants.

I wave my private parts at your aunties, you cheesy lot of second hand electric donkey-bottom biters.

[HoreTore]

What is your life worth?

A LOT more than what's in a cash register.

[Goofball]

You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer.

In your scenario, I certainly wouldn't even consider it. However, if I came across two thieves on my own property and one of them started to run towards me, things may change.

The two opposing extremes examined in this thread are only two of countless situations where one would have to make those decisions.

In other words, trying to claim that anyone who isn't completely opposed to using deadly force would gladly kill a soccor mom in cold blood is... well.. not helpful.

PJ, sometimes i could just give you a big hug. The first sentence of your post above is exactly what I was trying to get at when I started posting in this thread:

"You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer."

Which is vastly different from the black and white, no room for argument "if they are breaking the law they deserve to be shot and killed" argument that was being made from the outset of the thread.

I would submit that in this case, even by the shooter's own after the fact admission, he made an extremely poor judgement call when dealing with this situation. He got a bad case of something just about every hunter has experienced at one time or another: buck fever. Unfortunately, the consequences in this case were not a gut-shot deer that dragged itself away into the bush to die in agony, but two human beings who died when they shouldn't have.

[Tribesman]

You are just jealous that I am some sort of mini punisher

Well what can I say to that . Have you ever thought of going to Oz Tuff , the scarecrow got sorted , perhaps the wizard can fix you up with one too

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ, sometimes i could just give you a big hug. The first sentence of your post above is exactly what I was trying to get at when I started posting in this thread:

"You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer."

Which is vastly different from the black and white, no room for argument "if they are breaking the law they deserve to be shot and killed" argument that was being made from the outset of the thread.

I would submit that in this case, even by the shooter's own after the fact admission, he made an extremely poor judgement call when dealing with this situation. He got a bad case of something just about every hunter has experienced at one time or another: buck fever. Unfortunately, the consequences in this case were not a gut-shot deer that dragged itself away into the bush to die in agony, but two human beings who died when they shouldn't have.

Since I was one of those who said they deserved it, allow me to clarify a bit. I think there may be some common ground around here somewhere.

In my opinion, the responsibility for these men’s deaths lies directly with them and no one else. Through a series of decisions made of their own volition under no duress, they chose a path that led them into a situation where there was a reasonable expectation of serious bodily harm or even death; much the same as if they had entered a home to an awaiting Doberman with a taste for human flesh.

However, and here’s where we may agree, I don’t think it was a necessary action. I certainly wouldn’t have gone out of my home (don’t care about my neighbor’s crap), and I agree that the man’s emotions got the better of him. Not sure about anyone else on this side of the coin, but killing someone – even justifiably – is not my idea of a good time, and I don’t support vigilante justice.

Regardless, the old man with the shotgun was merely an effect - not the cause. If an individual takes up a life of crime and ends up on the wrong end of a shotgun due to their decision, they deserve to be there - and that was my point.

[Lemur]

No chance, Euro bed-wetting types. I burst my pimples at you and call your batcave request a silly thing, you tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!

You are just jealous that I am some sort of mini punisher and you are a coward who sprinkles his own pants.

I wave my private parts at your aunties, you cheesy lot of second hand electric donkey-bottom biters.

I know, I know, TSM's post bears more than a minor debt to Holy Grail, but still -- this is a brilliant moment. It's writing like this that keeps me coming back to the org long after i have given up every other message board. bravo, good sir, bravo!

[HoreTore]

Not sure about anyone else on this side of the coin, but killing someone – even justifiably – is not my idea of a good time, and I don’t support vigilante justice.

Someone should call Hell and ask for ice; PJ and I agree(at least mostly) in a gun thread!

[PanzerJaeger]

Someone should call Hell and ask for ice; PJ and I agree(at least mostly) in a gun thread!

die commie scum!!!

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know, I know, TSM's post bears more than a minor debt to Holy Grail, but still -- this is a brilliant moment. It's writing like this that keeps me coming back to the org long after i have given up every other message board. bravo, good sir, bravo!

;-)

[KukriKhan]

Yes, but:

Let us not get out-of-hand in the personal insult department, regardless the cleverness of the writing.

-----------------------
Filed under the "I wish" folder:

-I wish the shooter had not shot the guys in the back. That's not 'the cowboy way', and he knows it. "Buck fever", indeed.

-I wish the Grand Jury & Prosecutor had filed charges of at least "public endangerment", so that the good people of Texas could scrutinize the case particulars. They've (Texans) been denied that due process, IMO. If I had pulled the trigger (even if I believed it a righteous shoot), I would expect no less.

[atheotes]

hmm... I can see where the "they were thieves so they deserved it" people are coming from... but somehow i keep wondering if it could have been handled differently... if Mr. Horn just didnt want them to get away couldnt he have just fired a warning shot or tried to shoot them in the legs...

p.s. i have never used a firearm and do not know how much more difficult it is to shoot at the legs of running man... also i am asking this because in India the police are by rule asked to required to fire a warning shot and then try to shoot at the legs unless they are in danger of losing their lives...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

if Mr. Horn just didnt want them to get away couldnt he have just fired a warning shot or tried to shoot them in the legs...

I'm fairly sure he did shout a warning.

p.s. i have never used a firearm and do not know how much more difficult it is to shoot at the legs of running man...

...with a shotgun.

[ICantSpellDawg]

p.s. i have never used a firearm and do not know how much more difficult it is to shoot at the legs of running man... also i am asking this because in India the police are by rule asked to required to fire a warning shot and then try to shoot at the legs unless they are in danger of losing their lives...

Just lead him a little bit more than you would a walking man...

[PanzerJaeger]

p.s. i have never used a firearm and do not know how much more difficult it is to shoot at the legs of running man... also i am asking this because in India the police are by rule asked to required to fire a warning shot and then try to shoot at the legs unless they are in danger of losing their lives...

Really? That is a really strange requirement.

Warning shots are extremely dangerous, as what goes up must come down… somewhere. The results of errant shooting are constantly demonstrated in the arab world. Also, attempting to shoot at someone’s legs with a pistol at anything other than very close range presents the same issues, especially in the chaotic situations that shootings often take place in. It’s a little easier with a shotgun, and the short range usually makes collateral damage unlikely, but the risk is always present. Accurate shooting under pressure is definitely nothing like Hollywood portrays.

I was taught to only draw if I intended to kill, and only to kill if my life was at imminent risk. If you’re firing warning shots and leg shots and all that cowboy crap, you probably shouldn’t be shooting at all – just like dude in the story.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Really? That is a really strange requirement.

The results of errant shooting are constantly demonstrated in the arab world.

I love it when they fire AK-47's inside of the fuselage of an airborne jet. Totally hilarious for an exceedingly short period of time..

[HoreTore]

Really? That is a really strange requirement.

It's the same here, and also what I was told to do in the army.

[PanzerJaeger]

I love it when they fire AK-47's inside of the fuselage of an airborne jet. Totally hilarious for an exceedingly short period of time..

Everytime I see them on TV "celebrating" with their AK's the latest building they blew up or whatever other monkey antics they've got going on, I think to myself: "Abdullah a couple blocks over is about to have a really bad day.. "

[Tribesman]

Yeah well its different over there , the warning shot is puting 50 bullets into a bloke as a warning because ..well because maybe he has a gun .

[atheotes]

Really? That is a really strange requirement.

Warning shots are extremely dangerous, as what goes up must come down… somewhere. The results of errant shooting are constantly demonstrated in the arab world. Also, attempting to shoot at someone’s legs with a pistol at anything other than very close range presents the same issues, especially in the chaotic situations that shootings often take place in. It’s a little easier with a shotgun, and the short range usually makes collateral damage unlikely, but the risk is always present. Accurate shooting under pressure is definitely nothing like Hollywood portrays.

I was taught to only draw if I intended to kill, and only to kill if my life was at imminent risk. If you’re firing warning shots and leg shots and all that cowboy crap, you probably shouldn’t be shooting at all – just like dude in the story.

Thanks for the explanation Panzer... not sure how strange the requirement is...but there is not a lot of shootings in India... and to me it feels right that they should not be killing the running thief/burglar at the first possible instant.