Man kills 2 People While 911 Is Telling Him Not To

[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

[Cornell Fiji]

[ QUOTE ]
Tennessee vs. Garner for anyone who's interested

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting case but am I right in thinking that it has no bearing in terms of precedent or anything else because it is state court and not federal, correct?

As far as this case goes I agree that no life is worth property. I don't care how much is being stolen. I was raised that if someone wants to steal your car you just hand it over because 'its just a car and items can be replaced.' Killing somoene so that they can not escape from a burglary boggles my mind as do the posters (other than boris who is obviously trolling) who defend the neighbor's actions

[PITTM]

meh i would prefer people not have to replace their car. Also less people would have to replace their car if carjacker is lying on the ground dead imo.

[Runkmud]

I'm a gun rights proponent and I have a concealed weapons permit, that said, this guy talked himself into what he thought was justifiable homicide. If evidence is presented that the men were armed, or attempted to attack the shooter, then and only then will I change my view.

I'm saddened that this man was doing what he thought was the honorable thing and misunderstood his rights within the law. We tend to think of our neighborhoods as part of our home, but the law states differently.

When he exited the house and gave what was an insufficient amount of reaction time to presumably unarmed men, and then shot them, if this is indeed the way it happened, he commited murder.

[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.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]




You listened to the call right? This guy is guilty as hell. On what grounds should he be acquitted? It doesn't sound like the castle doctrine or make my day exception apply here at all. This was a case of vigilante justice gone wrong.

Of course they had the choice to not break into a house and take a VCR, but luckily that has no bearing on the decision. The ultimate decision rested upon the man, and it was his decision that resulted in two men getting murdered. Individual citizens do not have the right to use deadly force against someone fleeing from a burglary (from another's home). No matter how you slice it, they just don't unless THEY force a threat upon the person or their family. I have to go but there have been instances where someone was burgling a house, a citizen intervened and fired upon the thief, who then fired back, killing the man. The thief was not charged with murder.

[ChicagoTroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You listened to the call right? This guy is guilty as hell. On what grounds should he be acquitted?

[/ QUOTE ]
He called the police who did not arrive. He went out to detain the thieves, and they ran at him. Frightened for his safety, he shot them. In Texas? I'm pretty sure he walks. I think he walks in San Francisco.
[ QUOTE ]
This was a case of vigilante justice gone wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
What would have been gone right? IMO, going out there and holding them at gunpoint would have been ideal, but the knucklhead robbers have something to say about that, however briefly.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course they had the choice to not break into a house and take a VCR, but luckily that has no bearing on the decision. The ultimate decision rested upon the man, and it was his decision that resulted in two men getting murdered.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe someone would actually write this. People breaking into the house had EVERYTHING to do with the decision. This guy wasn't holding up randoms on the street, he went out to stop two criminals victimizing his community.
[ QUOTE ]
Individual citizens do not have the right to use deadly force against someone fleeing from a burglary (from another's home). No matter how you slice it, they just don't unless THEY force a threat upon the person or their family.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether somebody is being threatened or not can be extremely subjective when he is frightened. The thief does not say, "I am not threatening you with violence" as he runs towards him. The guy gets back on the phone in a very agitated state saying they ran at him. Sounded believable to me.

[waarior]

[ QUOTE ]
The guy gets back on the phone in a very agitated state saying they ran at him. Sounded believable to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took the man's state to be very calm initially. "Get the law over here quick. I managed to get one of them in the front yard over there.....etc around the 7:10 of youtube video).

He then quickly states I had no choice they charged me, then states they were in his front yard. Things that he would say to legally justify his shooting. All immediately said when he picked up the phone.

I found it to be very rational and interpreted his statements as calculated.