So we should first and ask questions later? In college once I saw a guy climbing into the window of a friend's apartment. I asked him what he was doing and it turns out he was a good friend of my friend from their hometown and my friend was expecting him but had gotten their while he was still at class. Anyway apparently these guys knew each other well enough that it was no big deal for one of them to climb through the others window. Now I wasn't carrying a gun but at the risk of sounding like an internet tough guy I could've seriously injured him, especially if I rushed him without warning while he was climbing through the window. My point is that we don't always know the situation and for our own and others safety its best to not jump to worst conclusions. For this case in particular I have a hard time condoning what the neighbor did. It was a good thing for him to take stand but this is a situation that a lot of things could go wrong and his example could end up causing a lot of other problems if many were to follow it. This is the first time that I've read the Texas law but this seems like a law that could lead to accidental killing due to confusion and misinterpretation on the part of the party doing the shooting. I can understand the desire to want to help your neighbors but given the potential dangers of getting hurt yourself or mistakenly killing someone from misreading the situation its just not worth it just to protect property.
Except the thieves weren't breaking into his house and from reading the article it sounds like he shot them while they were fleeing the scene and not while they were inside the house. I don't see a self-defense angle. I see it as protection of property but the shooter wasn't defending himself nor the lives of the homeowner.
The problem with your analysis is completely laying this on the agency of Karma. While I believe in karma and yes the shooter will have to face his own karma, their is still human will in this case. While the robbers very well might be suffering their own karmic fate that doesn't excuse the actions of the person who undertook it. Your argument though seems to be placing the responsibility totally on Karma. Karma very well might be impersonal and the agency of the universe that doesn't mean though as humans we are totally excused from our own actions and as humans we can still judge those actions as being right or wrong rather than leave it all up to the universe.
Well...good points. I never said just walk in blasting away like something out of a B rate action flick. I am not personally inclined to physically get involved. However... Right after I got out of law school, I was living in an apartment. Down the hall there was banging on a door, followed by screaming. It turns out that it was a jealous ex trying to get in. I called 911, but knew there was not enough time. I went out and confronted the guy. The entire time, I had my 9mm in my hand behind my back. Different situation with the physical threat to the woman...but the same caution can apply to defending property.
Right because unless he specifically threatned her and didn;t just say let me in or I'm coming in you would have been in the wrong. BUT!!! if you went out and just said dude this is noisy get the hell outta here then he threatened you with a knife or hit you in the throat, spine or head then he is a goner.
What I don't understand is if he gave the guys a warning and they fled he still shot them apparently one in the back. What is the point of a warning if you shoot them anyway? I don't fully understand Texas law but my understanding of most law enforcement is that even they cannot use deadly force on a fleeing suspect from a nonviolent crime.
im not a judge nor a jury... but if i were on that jury, id let the neighbor walk bc i think he was being a good samaritan. its tragic that 2 people died but they were commiting a crime. they knew the risks involved in what they were doing and they were even held at gunpoint. but they still tried to flee... if someone had me at gunpoint, i wouldnt try to run. someone posted an article about citizens arrest. i totally agree. calling 911 is being a responsible citizen but sometimes that just isnt enough. sometimes citizens need to be more involved.
well if according to the law he is guilty, then he is guilty... but if i were on the jury, id ask the judge to explicitly explain the laws pertaining to the application of deadly force.
What was his warning? "Stop robbing that house!" or "Stay here and wait for the police!" My guess is his warning was for them to stop robbing the house and they did. While they are making off with some of his neighbor's property he has prevented any further theft. The problem is now he has compounded it with a potentially greater crime if he is convicted of murder.
??? the burglars were coming out of the house. they had a bag of cash. in my opinion, just because they are out of the house, does not mean that they stopped committing a crime. they committed burglary and were in the process of escaping with their loot. they were stopped by the neighbor. he probably said stop. the burglars were probably caught off guard and decided to run instead of putting their hands up. so he shot them. the only question here is whether or not deadly force can be applied. ive heard that since it was not "night time" deadly force cant be applied. but if you look at the way i break down the law pertaining to the application of deadly force, i think the neighbor is in the clear. so as far as the law is concerned, itll come down to the judge and jury. was it moral? you say no but i say yes. is physical property worth more than a life? in some instances i believe so. what if the money was to pay for a life saving surgery and they had no insurance. what if the money was to go to charity to help someone in a life/death situation. what if it were to pay for an expense in which the homeowner would lose their home..... you really cant recover a bag of cash unless the burglars are really really really incompetent. this situation is further complicated bc the news article doesnt state whether the burglars were armed. i think they must have had some type of weapon. would a burglar go into a situation where he knows he can be attacked by a dog/home owner w/o some type of weapon? seeing as how they tried to flee they must have had a knife/bat/brick. they knew they couldnt over power the neighbor so they ran. even though its pretty obvious you cant outrun a bullet. there is a lot of gray here and which ever way the law is interpreted, the other side will still have a valid point... this is a circular argument so ill just leave the decision to the judge and jury and trust theyll make a just decision.
Not to mention that if I threw a faith-based concept out there and said we should shape law around it, there'd be weeping and gnashing of teeth in this place.
But would you shoot the guy if he had busted into his ex's apartment? I can't fault the neighbor for being a good samaritan, but shooting at them while they're fleeing the scene is a bit too extreme.
