Hero or Murderer?

[H8tank]

Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code allows "third party" protection, by use of force, of someone elses property as long as the actor felt he had a legal duty to do so, or, if the owner requested it.

Lets recap: Two guys BREAK INTO a neighbors house. Man calls police. Police lag in arrival. Man sees burglars getting away. Man goes outside, finds the perpetrators on HIS property, and yells "Halt". Two seconds later, BANG, cha-chink, BANG, cha-chink, BANG. Two burglars dead.

 

The dispatcher did not effectively communicate with his officers - he was too busy trying to get Horn to "lay down" and "Hide". If he had communicated to responding officers that the situation needed code 1 response from the start, this very likely would have turned out differently.

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...17205504AA7rsG1

 

Yahoo agrees with me.

[Caveman_Nick]

I once killed a man just to watch him die.

 

Pfft. I taught Jack Bauer how to kill, just so I could watch something decent on TV.

[yo mama]

Absolutely, he's not getting away with my Johnny Cash box set. If you step foot into my house uninvited, and I don't know you, you are dead. More than likely you would get shot at least twice, once from my 12ga, and once from my wife's 20ga. Hell you might get shot three times, if my 9 year old is near my gun closet at the time, and give her her 410.

Good bless Texas. And Johnny Cash.

[Caveman_Nick]

So, to clarify: You hear someone in your house. You grab your gun. You quietly walk down the hallway and see dude going for your stereo. You shoot him on the spot?

 

In Detlef's world, are you supposed to wait until you find out if he is mean first, ie. endanger your own safety and the safety of your family?

[detlef]

Fact is, criminals will continue to rob/steal consistently escalating their crimes, see skippys example, or the guys who raped and murdered that family in hughs post. They will not stop.

 

If they got out scott free, they'd be back. Next time someone might have been home... it is a good thing they are dead IMSMO.

 

wildkitty69, how many guns do you own? When is the last time you killed something?

What you and everyone who advocates your position continue to avoid is explaining where the line should be and how much liberty should we allow citizens to go around and enforce this line.

 

I mean, it's pretty easy to hide behind the, "nobody is going to miss two more criminals" theory but that doesn't magically change the fact that allowing this sort of action sets a really dangerous precedent.

 

This inspired the whole thread about what other crimes not currently tied to the death penalty should random citizens be allowed to take upon themselves to enforce by immediate execution. Again, I'm still looking for a consensus ruling on taking out a guy you think might be driving drunk. I don't think it's too much to ask where the line is. Many of us likely speed, for instance. Do I need to worry about doing that in the presence of any of you?

 

Here's an interesting wrinkle. I would imagine many of the same people who see this guy as a hero share a demographic with those that look at Sean Taylor as "a thug who reaped what he sewed". Of course, one thing we know Taylor is guilty of is going after some dudes who took his stuff. Sounds a whole lot like what you guys tend to advocate. So, when some old white dude takes out two robbers he's being a hero. But when some black guys from the streets go after the same, it's thuggery. Me? I see them both the same. Two guys who should have let the cops do their jobs rather than play John Wayne. One of those guys just happened to end up paying the ultimate price.

[yo mama]

Okay, you can use lethal force to defend someone else's property in LIMITED circumstances:

 

Texas Penal Code § 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

A the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

B he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

C the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

 

Thus, we get punted back into this statute:

 

Texas Penal Code § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

A to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the

nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

B to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

A the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

B the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

The shooter likely fails subsection 3.

Edited November 29, 2007 by yo mama

[detlef]

In Detlef's world, are you supposed to wait until you find out if he is mean first, ie. endanger your own safety and the safety of your family?

You obviously haven't been reading most of what I wrote. Once again, that question was neither rhetorical or intended to imply that any answer was right or wrong. I was truly asking people what they would do and to what extent they would avoid the conflict if possible.

 

That said, I would like to think that, when possible, most would at least proceed the shooting of a guy engaged with grabbing your stereo with, "Move and you're dead." That hardly qualifies as sitting down for a cup of tea and discussing intentions or any of the other rather inane things I've been alleged to advocate in that situation.

Edited November 29, 2007 by detlef

[Hugh 0ne]

I don't look at him as a hero. I don't have enough information to make a judgement on Sean Taylor. If someone enters my house and there is a chance that he can/will harm my family (Furd's post defines the possible scenarios very thoroughly a few pages back), I will shoot him.

[detlef]

I don't look at him as a hero. I don't have enough information to make a judgement on Sean Taylor. If someone enters my house and there is a chance that he can/will harm my family (Furd's post defines the possible scenarios very thoroughly a few pages back), I will shoot him.

FWIW (and I'm sure that varies wildly depending on many of you), your summation of how you'd handle this type of thing is pretty much what I was hoping to hear from those who chose to protect themselves with guns.

[Hugh 0ne]

FWIW (and I'm sure that varies wildly depending on many of you), your summation of how you'd handle this type of thing is pretty much what I was hoping to hear from those who chose to protect themselves with guns.

 

I forgot to add, if your dog poops on my lawn, I will come outside and beat the crap out of you because you're a disrespectful c*cksucker, but I won't shoot you.

[Caveman_Nick]

You obviously haven't been reading most of what I wrote. Once again, that question was neither rhetorical or intended to imply that any answer was right or wrong. I was truly asking people what they would do and to what extent they would avoid the conflict if possible.

 

That said, I would like to think that most would at least proceed the shooting of a guy engaged with grabbing your stereo with, "Move and you're dead." That hardly qualifies as sitting down for a cup of tea and discussing intentions or any of the other rather inane things I've been alleged to advocate in that situation.

 

No, I read what you wrote. I am asking a legitimate question. Someone is in your house. You and he are about to have a confrontation. I am trying to find out from you how much effort you put into finding out this thug's intentions before he eats lead.

 

For my part, unless he beats feet like a track star, his intentions are to eat that lead. That's it.

 

EDIT: Did you bother to read the post of yours that I quoted, or did you just react to my verbage?

Edited November 29, 2007 by Caveman_Nick

[Caveman_Nick]

I don't look at him as a hero. I don't have enough information to make a judgement on Sean Taylor. If someone enters my house and there is a chance that he can/will harm my family (Furd's post defines the possible scenarios very thoroughly a few pages back), I will shoot him.

 

+1

[bushwacked]

I don't look at him as a hero. I don't have enough information to make a judgement on Sean Taylor. If someone enters my house and there is a chance that he can/will harm my family (Furd's post defines the possible scenarios very thoroughly a few pages back), I will shoot him.

 

I agree with Dmarctards new favorite liberal.

[Hugh 0ne]

I agree with Dmarctards new favorite liberal.

 

:curtsey:

[detlef]

No, I read what you wrote. I am asking a legitimate question. Someone is in your house. You and he are about to have a confrontation. I am trying to find out from you how much effort you put into finding out this thug's intentions before he eats lead.

 

For my part, unless he beats feet like a track star, his intentions are to eat that lead. That's it.

At no point did I ever suggest that one "find out his intentions". If he's running off with your loot, then they're pretty clear. I think you can assume the worst, protect yourself and family and not shoot the first thing you see unless the first thing you see is a guy who looks to be coming at you.

 

If you're in position to take the guy out. You are likely in position to tell him to freeze or you will, n'est pas?

 

Honestly, I'm not sure. I've never owned a gun, never taken any classes on managing one or disarming someone with one.

 

Basically, I would treat the situation about the same as Hugh would. If I can protect my family without having to get in a gun fight, that's what I'm doing.

Edited November 29, 2007 by detlef

[dmarc117]

I agree with Dmarctards new favorite liberal.

 

 

:curtsey:

 

 

shocking....the pu$$y twins agree.

Edited November 29, 2007 by dmarc117

[Caveman_Nick]

At no point did I ever suggest that one "find out his intentions". If he's running off with your loot, then they're pretty clear. I think you can assume the worst, protect yourself and family and not shoot the first thing you see unless the first thing you see is a guy who looks to be coming at you.

 

If you're in position to take the guy out. You are likely in position to tell him to freeze or you will, n'est pas?

 

Honestly, I'm not sure. I've never owned a gun, never taken any classes on managing one or disarming someone with one.

 

 

Okay....here is the part that matters.

 

You are in your house with your family. IMO, if there is even a whisper of a question regarding their safety, you stop the threat to them. Once you start talking, you are immediately creating an opening where you or someone else can be shot.

 

- there could be a second thug in the house you are unaware of. This points to the theory of not creeping down the hall as you described, but we also shouldn't forget that if the thug wants to fire in your direction, there is no "safe room"

- once you have opened up your yap, the any element of and advantage that could be gained from surprise is gone

- lastly, you open up the circumstances for a turn and fire. And if you are directly between the thug and your family, try to remember that the chances of him hitting you are slim. The chances of the bullet sailing past you and entering the area where your family is 'safe' is much greater.

 

There is no class on disarming someone with a gun. If someone is in your home with a gun, you are in danger as is everyone else in your home. You want to train your gun on someone and tell them to leave or get shot, that's your prerogative. You are taking risk with your life and the lives of others by taking that course of action IMO. You should never have to worry about the consequences of defending yourself and your family because you didn't take the time to find out if the criminal in your home was armed appropriately enough to deserve being stopped. You aren't trying to harm or kill anyone, you are trying to stop someone from hurting you or your family.

 

I hope none here ever gets into that scenario. I can only say that my family is lucky to be alive, as a violent, armed perp entered our home when I was a child, shot my dad in the leg, and kidnapped the whole family. This guy's motivation was personal, because my dad had fired him from his job, but that is neither here nor there because you can never guess at the intentions of a criminal that has invaded your home! He was in the house armed. My parents tried to get us into a "safe" location, and that didn't work out too well, at least not in the immediate future of the incident.

 

Take no risks with your safety and the safety of your family. JMO.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Caveman_Nick

[H8tank]

but that doesn't magically change the fact that allowing this sort of action sets a really dangerous precedent.

 

Sorta like ghey marriage huh tornmanondog?

 

Of course, one thing we know Taylor is guilty of is going after some dudes who took his stuff.

 

You don't know that, you don't know anything about him unless you are one of his homies. I don't think you get gang land shot for trying to get a big wheel back.

 

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

 

(3) he reasonably believes that:

A the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;

 

I am glad Texas is my neighbor.

[godtomsatan]

This home invasion thing is pretty cut and dry. You never know how a particular individual will react when their space is invaded, and there are way to many variables to determine "moral" or "immoral" behavior in that circumstance.

 

This is not this issue with the numbnut 911 caller.

[Caveman_Nick]

This home invasion thing is pretty cut and dry. You never know how a particular individual will react when their space is invaded, and there are way to many variables to determine "moral" or "immoral" behavior in that circumstance.

 

This is not this issue with the numbnut 911 caller.

 

 

Absolutely. I voted murderer. Dude went out of his house to shoot someone coming out of another house after telling the 911 operator he intended to do so. cut and dried.

[godtomsatan]

I don't think you get gang land shot for trying to get a big wheel back.

 

I don't think two shots, one to the leg and one in the wall, qualify as gangland style.

[Hugh 0ne]

agreed on all counts. I have a hard time believing all these badasses we evidently have here at the Huddle are so ready to shoot and kill someone.

 

I'm not ready to kill anyone. That being said, if someone is going to harm my family, I will try and protect them. The protection I have chosen is a 12 gauge shotgun. Between the adrenaline, and the fear, and the situation, I don't know what will happen. Also, if I am succesful, I don't how it will affect me psychologically, but I'd rather deal with that then letting someone harm my family.

 

Give me an effing break. Trained ploice officers have a difficult time EVEN DRAWING, let alone firing their weapon on someone- yet, everyone here is so ready and able to cap someone.

 

Trained police officers are not in the comfort of their own home. I'm not planning on capping anyone, I'm going to rack my 12 guage with the buckshot that won't go through the walls and injure anyone in another room and fire off as many shots as necessary. Will it work? Don't know, but it's the best plan I could come up with to help my success rate.

 

You guys are outta yer minds, and the reality is, when 99% of you draw your weapon on a criminal - something bad is gonna go down- and it will probably be to someone you are trying to protect or to yourselves.

 

Is that scientific data? If the option is sit there and watch my family get harmed or try and protect myself and my family, I'll chose option B.

 

JSMHO's.

[wildcat2334]

I'm not ready to kill anyone. That being said, if someone is going to harm my family, I will try and protect them. The protection I have chosen is a 12 gauge shotgun. Between the adrenaline, and the fear, and the situation, I don't know what will happen. Also, if I am succesful, I don't how it will affect me psychologically, but I'd rather deal with that then letting someone harm my family.

Trained police officers are not in the comfort of their own home. I'm not planning on capping anyone, I'm going to rack my 12 guage with the buckshot that won't go through the walls and injure anyone in another room and fire off as many shots as necessary. Will it work? Don't know, but it's the best plan I could come up with to help my success rate.

Is that scientific data? If the option is sit there and watch my family get harmed or try and protect myself and my family, I'll chose option B.

 

JSMHO's.

 

 

I agree 100% - yer a rational dude- many like the wack job on the tape, are not. Having an intruder in the home, family in danger, I would do whatever is necessary also.

 

My point was more in line with 35% who voted him a hero. Many responsible gun owners like yerself, I just have a problem with the wacko's like the fat guy with the shotgun who a) think they can deliver justice or are obviously looking for an excuse to pop someone.

 

Where I grew up - there were MANY accidents with hangun owners in the home, and a couple cases of Joe Blow unolstering his glock in public when chit was goin down- and getting shot and f*cked up because of it.

[Perchoutofwater]

Here's an interesting wrinkle. I would imagine many of the same people who see this guy as a hero share a demographic with those that look at Sean Taylor as "a thug who reaped what he sewed". Of course, one thing we know Taylor is guilty of is going after some dudes who took his stuff. Sounds a whole lot like what you guys tend to advocate. So, when some old white dude takes out two robbers he's being a hero. But when some black guys from the streets go after the same, it's thuggery. Me? I see them both the same. Two guys who should have let the cops do their jobs rather than play John Wayne. One of those guys just happened to end up paying the ultimate price.

 

I think many view Taylor as a thug as much for his on the field discretions as they do for pulling a gun on those people. Also didn't he go across town to put a gun in someones face? This guy shot someone in his yard who was carrying his neighbors stolen property. Again, I don't think the guy is a hero, I just don't think the guy should be convicted for protecting his neighbors property, and shooting two criminals on his property. Both Horn and Taylor showed lack of judgment.

[Perchoutofwater]

My point was more in line with 35% who voted him a hero. Many responsible gun owners like yerself, I just have a problem with the wacko's like the fat guy with the shotgun who a) think they can deliver justice or are obviously looking for an excuse to pop someone.

 

It was a bad poll. There should have been a third option of neither. He probably shouldn't have done what he did, but it hard for me to call someone who protects his neighbors property from two thieves a murderer, so in the poll I voted hero, not because I think the guy is a hero, but because of the two choices given, it was the best one IMO.

 

Had it been Chuck Norris instead of Horn, and he gone out there an beat the hell out of them would he be a hero, or should he be charged with assault? We would be talking about how cool Chuck is and calling him a hero. We wouldn't be saying he should be jailed for assault. Well Horn is a overweight AARP member, so I doubt his roundhouse is all that good, so he did what he could. Again, I think he probably should have kept his ass in his house and described the guys to the cops when they got there 30 minutes later, but I'm not willing to call the guy a murderer.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Perchoutofwater