Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

Boris · #1 11-28-2007, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

He could just have stayed in his house and he would've avoided this situation, therefor his action was completely unnecessary .

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it then not be murder if the old man went outside unarmed and the thugs shanked him and killed him?

gumpzilla · #2 11-28-2007, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He could just have stayed in his house and he would've avoided this situation, therefor his action was completely unnecessary .

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it then not be murder if the old man went outside unarmed and the thugs shanked him and killed him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you trolling this thread so hard?

Boris · #3 11-28-2007, 05:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Why are you trolling this thread so hard?

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about? There were several clowns who said the guy never should have put himself in the dangerous situation. This implies that if the old man was the one who ended up getting hurt, it would have been the old man's fault.

gumpzilla · #4 11-28-2007, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why are you trolling this thread so hard?

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about? There were several clowns who said the guy never should have put himself in the dangerous situation. This implies that if the old man was the one who ended up getting hurt, it would have been the old man's fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

It implies no such thing. Obviously the guys who kill him in that spot are morally responsible; equally obviously, putting oneself in that situation unnecessarily is retarded, risky, and likely to lead to outcomes such as this. For that reason the old man should not have done it.

As I said earlier in the thread, if I come to your house with a gun to kill you, and you pull a gun on me, I do not get to claim that I only responded in self-defense when I shot you. I think it is very plain from the 911 call that the guy was looking to administer justice, and the bits about protecting himself are ad hoc rationalizations after the fact. "They were in my lawn, I didn't know what was going to happen." Well, you'd already made it clear you were planning on going outside several minutes ago, and that the only thing holding you up was that you didn't know that neighbor that well ("if it was my other neighbor I would have acted already, I know him pretty well.") His self-defense justification is complete [censored].

manbearpig · #5 11-28-2007, 06:01 PM

Thread in Politics on this a week or two ago. But here are my .02 cents.

1) Old guy witnesses a robbery.
2) Calls cops.
3) Robbers leaving house before cops get there, presumably going to get away.
4) Old guy thinks he is within his rights to protect his neighbors property with force.
5) Goes outside, warns them, then shoots them.

Seems simple enough to me. The writer on the law says it was not to be interpreted to cover something like this but I think it is arguable at least.

Those of you in the "it was only a VCR camp:" Where do you draw the line? Any amount of property?

Or what if it was your own house? And the robber did not know you were there and you knew for a fact they were unarmed? Is force justified then?

The bottom line is that if somebody considering robbing a house thought there was a good chance they would get shot if caught they might think long and hard before stealing a couple hundred bucks worth of stuff.

El Diablo · #6 11-28-2007, 06:02 PM

Boris,

Did you listen to the whole 911 call?

ElSapo · #7 11-28-2007, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Boris,

Did you listen to the whole 911 call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I listed to the whole thing also, and I can't help but think that while a transcript of the call would probably help in charging him with murder, the actual audio will probably get him off.

27offsuit · #8 11-29-2007, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All,

'He actually says "I'm going to kill them."'

From the call:

"You're gonna get yourself shot if you go outside of the house with a gun."

"You wanna bet? I'm gonna kill them"

That operator did a phenomenal job imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

ElDiablo, I completely do not agree with this. While listening to the call, this exact interaction made me say 'WTF, why are you instigating this guy?'. The operator was doing great before and after, but he seemed to actually get him a little fired up here.

In my opinion, he'll definitely walk. Texas and that law that passed Sept. 1st being the only two reasons.

I'm not sure where I stand on it. The rape comparison, while kind of apples to oranges, actually made me think 'where do you draw a line?' It's not so much a bag of loot, it's your damn neighborhood.

My take so far is:
He got progressively pissed watching it.
He knew that law had recently changed.
He knew his way around a shotgun.
That all being said, he opened that door and no more than two seconds later he goes "Boom! Your dead!" *BOOM* *click-click* *BOOM* *click-click* *BOOM*, one guy must have literally looked up to a shotgun blast and the other turned to run and caught another one.

I still think he'll walk, though.

ohead · #9 11-28-2007, 05:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He could just have stayed in his house and he would've avoided this situation, therefor his action was completely unnecessary .

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it then not be murder if the old man went outside unarmed and the thugs shanked him and killed him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it would be murder, what does this have to do with anything? He put himself in eventual dangers way.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ohead - How do you know the man wasn't threatened in some manner by the criminals? You seem kind of prejudiced.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhm he went out there with the intention to kill the burglars, thats what I call premeditated murder.
People planning to commit murder generally don't call the police first. Maybe he was leveling 911.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
He could just have stayed in his house and he would've avoided this situation, therefor his action was completely unnecessary [ QUOTE ]

LOL crimeaments. For you, what is the threshold for stopping the criminals? What do they have to be doing in order for you to confront them? Put yourself in this guy's shoes where you have a gun and the police aren't going to get there in time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy apparently didn't have all his marbles since he says clearly that he's gonna kill them first to the 911 guy.

And the threshold is if there is people in the house who are in danger.

PartyGirlUK · #10 11-28-2007, 05:45 PM

Boris, which parts of 'Wanna make a bet? I'm gonna kill 'em' and 'Bang you're dead' makes you think he wasn't intending to kill these guys?

What part of his constant 'I can't get them get away with this', 'They have a bag of loot.....this is ridiculous' etc makes you believe he wasn't trying to confront them for vigilante reasons?

Believing that he has the right to take out burglars is a legit point of view. I don't agree with it, but it's legit. But listening to that phone call and coming away with the belief that he went outside solely because his property was under serious threat, took every possible precaution to avoid injuring these guys, and fired only because he was threatened and there was no other to protect himself, is extraordinary.