Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[Boris]

diablo - yes

[kurosh]

He waited until the robbers were fleeing to step in, so it's not like he was blood thirsty. His intentions seem pretty clear. He wanted to protect his neighbor's property and not let criminals get away. His life is > their lives and they could be armed, so he is a little trigger happy.

There's almost 0% chance the robbers were pranksters or anything else of the sort. I'm sure Texans in upscale neighborhoods are that close to two low income black guys??

The guy probably saved a few lives by doing this. If the criminals tried to rob the house when someone was home unexpectedly, what are the chances of them shooting the home owner? What are the chances these guys commit another crime when they get away with this? What are the chances they kill someone next time? What about all the other criminals or would-be criminals that hear about this and think again?

[PITTM]

To be honest I have no problem with what the guy did. I think that shooting people robbing houses isnt a real bad thing for society to have. Things like calling the guy a hero are what is completely baffling to me.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
To be honest I have no problem with what the guy did. I think that shooting people robbing houses isnt a real bad thing for society to have. Things like calling the guy a hero are what is completely baffling to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well not to be a nit but they were burglarizing an empty house, burglary<robbery. That's an important distinction. Protecting your own house with deadly force is completely fine with me, but going around taking the law into your own hands over a "bag of loot" is going way too far. The two thieves were probably scum bags, but people don't have the right to just go around greasing those they determine to be scum bags.

[Ditch Digger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest I have no problem with what the guy did. I think that shooting people robbing houses isnt a real bad thing for society to have. Things like calling the guy a hero are what is completely baffling to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well not to be a nit but they were burglarizing an empty house, burglary<robbery. That's an important distinction. Protecting your own house with deadly force is completely fine with me, but going around taking the law into your own hands over a "bag of loot" is going way too far. The two thieves were probably scum bags, but people don't have the right to just go around greasing those they determine to be scum bags.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen any mention of the guys being unarmed. Were they?

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest I have no problem with what the guy did. I think that shooting people robbing houses isnt a real bad thing for society to have. Things like calling the guy a hero are what is completely baffling to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well not to be a nit but they were burglarizing an empty house, burglary<robbery. That's an important distinction. Protecting your own house with deadly force is completely fine with me, but going around taking the law into your own hands over a "bag of loot" is going way too far. The two thieves were probably scum bags, but people don't have the right to just go around greasing those they determine to be scum bags.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen any mention of the guys being unarmed. Were they?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not too sure, even if they were the man had the ultimate decision whether or not to stay inside. He created the threat. If they were clearly armed an officer would be justified in opening fire thanks to the ruling in Tennessee Vs. Garner (the police have the right to fire at a fleeing violent felon). The same does not apply to civilians

[MuresanForMVP]

Tennessee vs. Garner for anyone who's interested

[sharkscopeaholic]

They made the choice to go into someones house. They made the choice to steal from someones house. They made the choice to run away despite someone yelling to stop running while holding a gun. What did they expect? The civilian didn't create the threat, the robbers did when they decided to break into someones home.

[burningyen]

I'm not a Texas lawyer, so this is not legal advice, etc. Here are what I believe are the applicable statutes, including the law that went into effect in September (the protection of property defenses don't apply because they only justify the use of deadly force at night):

§ 19.02. MURDER.
...
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits
an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an
individual; ...

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
...
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; [and]
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used;
...
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
...
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force,
...
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, [and] who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, ... is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
...
(c) 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 as described by this
section.
...

[El Diablo]

Fly,

"This thread is an embarrassment to EDF, fwiw."

How so?