Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[ElSapo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I don't get the sense from the tape that he went outside intent on killing someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

He also says "move and your dead" or something to that affect. But you're right, that's not going to sound good to a grand jury.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I don't get the sense from the tape that he went outside intent on killing someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

He also says "move and your dead" or something to that affect. But you're right, that's not going to sound good to a grand jury.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's almost definitely "Boom, you're dead@!"

[James282]

also, wow that the texas law says you can use deadly force to 'protect property'.

James

[hime]

[ QUOTE ]
also, wow that the texas law says you can use deadly force to 'protect property'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hello Castle Doctrine. A person I know is now dead and his death will most likely result in no action because of it.

[ElSapo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I don't get the sense from the tape that he went outside intent on killing someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

He also says "move and your dead" or something to that affect. But you're right, that's not going to sound good to a grand jury.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's almost definitely "Boom, you're dead@!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Newspapers (some at least, I've only read a couple) are reporting it as "Move and your dead" .... I dunno.

I'm curious to hear how more people feel. I just can't get behind the absolute assertion that the guy was wrong. And I really don't think this is a strong case for gun control, or at least, not as strong as some people seem to think.

The guy realy sounds to me like he felt he didn't have a choice - he felt duty-bound to try and stop the thieves. He may well be an idiot, and he may really have been wrong. But I listen to the tape and it's just not so simple for me.

[James282]

I think he did feel duty bound to protect his neighbor's stuff. That's the problem. If they had been coming out of the house dragging a kicking and screaming wife in her night gown, it would be a hell of a lot different.

James

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]


Newspapers (some at least, I've only read a couple) are reporting it as "Move and your dead" .... I dunno.

I'm curious to hear how more people feel. I just can't get behind the absolute assertion that the guy was wrong. And I really don't think this is a strong case for gun control, or at least, not as strong as some people seem to think.

The guy realy sounds to me like he felt he didn't have a choice - he felt duty-bound to try and stop the thieves. He may well be an idiot, and he may really have been wrong. But I listen to the tape and it's just not so simple for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think the neighbor's VCR was worth the lives of two men? This guy did. He thought about it, the 911 operator urged him repeatedly to cool down, and then he decided that yes, he should kill (or run a very high risk of killing) two people to save his neighbor's stuff. That's evil and depraved. Valuing consumer electronics over people's lives is exactly the sort of thing we need to be locking people up for.

[BaldElephant]

I'm confused... Were the robbers armed? Or, did they attack him?

If not, I can't imagine any reasonable defense.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused... Were the robbers armed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Robbers by definition are armed. Otherwise they are burglars.

[ChicagoTroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused... Were the robbers armed?

[/ QUOTE ]
Robbers by definition are armed. Otherwise they are burglars.

[/ QUOTE ]
But newspapers often use the terms interchangeably, or use "theives."