This guy doesn't fit my idea of a good samaritan. When your telling a 911 operator that your going to shoot the guys and then you go do just that, then there's something wrong here. He can have all the remorse in the world for all I care. He certainly had none of that when he decided to take the law into his own hands. This guy does not fit the definition of a responsible gun owner. This guy abused that responsibility. The gun empowered this guy to do something he wouldn't have done otherwise. If I'm the neighbor who was robbed, then I'm certainly not going to be thanking this guy for shooting two people on my front lawn...which I will be reminded of every time I step out front. Thanks...but no thanks. I'm sure the robbed neighbor is looking to move now. I would be. This is why we have insurance. Items can be replaced...lives cannot. This guy is a murderer in my book...regardless of what the law says. He had, with the gun, the ability to take peoples' lives and he did just that. He got caught up in his own gung ho Commando-esque style of vigilante justice. There was no self-defense going on here. I certainly hope this guy gets rid of all his guns going forward because he's proven he isn't up to the intellectual capacity and responsibility of being a gun owner. He deserves to do time in my opinion. If the law lets him off the hook, then the law needs to be changed. His efforts should have stopped with the 911 phone call. It's up to the police after that. He was not acting as a reasonable person would in those circumstances. He can't justify this one after the fact. For whatever reason, he snapped and there is a price to be paid for it...if not by law then by the fact that he has to live with it for the rest of his life. Good luck sleeping at night with that in your head...mr. "good" samaritan.
I am on the fence here. If you break it down, the guys who were robbing the place are the instigators, if they never chose to rob or steal none of this would have happened. As for the guy, I am not sure I could convict him, at least not of major charges. DD
Well whatever things have happened in your life to leave you with that attitude, I hope they get better.
Everyone involved was an "instigator". The thiefs were because they committed a (non-violent) crime. The neighbor instigated violence by taking it to a whole new level and shooting two unarmed men to death. You'd have trouble convicting him? With all the Minutemen types running around nowadays, I'd hate to see what happens when courts establish the precedent that it's ok to kill people to stop them from getting away with nonviolent crimes.
lol. if you choose to prey on folks understand the hazards. i lose no sleep worrying about thieves losing their lives while ripping off folks homes. fewer thieves enriches the quality of all our lives ... give the guy a medal already!
Again I don't understand Texas law but it makes no sense to me that most police cannot use deadly force on a fleeing suspect yet a civillian can. Also the warning he issued is undermined by the fact that he had told the operator he was going to kill them. That indicates his intention was to kill and his warning was hollow since his intention was established already. I agree it will come down to a judge and jury but as someone who teaches self-defense we are guided by an appropriate response standard. What that means is that deadly force can only be used in response to the threat of deadly force the fact that he shot them while they were fleeing including one in the back, tells me that there was no threat of deadly force. While Texas law might be different in this regard if the standard for the use of deadly force is so loose this could lead to many situations of mistaken shootings. Those are several "what ifs" that may be true but nothing about this situation indicates those are the case. If any of those were the case then they should be considered in the trial but at the moment those seem speculative and this is a matter of a shooting over property rather than the defense of life. Again that is speculative but given they robbed it in broad daylight its likely they had some knowledge about the home to predict when the homeowner wasn't there. It doesn't sound like they were looking for a confrontation and there is no information whether they were armed. Further complicating this is that the neighbor came out with the intent to kill them as that is what he had told the 911 operator. That shows a premeditation on his part rather than a response out of fear of his own safety. Agreed this will be decided by a judge and jury but there are three things about this case that I find very troubling: The first is the moral argument. While there might potentially be an issue that the property stolen was actually necessary to preserve the life of the homeowner nothing I've seen indicates that to be the case or if the neighbor knew that to be the case either. Taking the known facts this is very much a situation of taking life to protect property. While it is certainly wrong to steal someone's property the response to it seems totally dispraportionate to the crime committed. At the same time such an attitude diminishes the value of human life were life can be considered less than property. The second is that he shot the people while they were fleeing. As I've said I don't understand Texas law but everything that I've heard is that even police cannot shoot a fleeing suspect, except where they deem the suspect to be so dangerous as to be an ongoing threat to life. Nothing about this case seems to indicate that the neighbor had the knowledge to make that judgement and the neighbors own words indicate he fully had the intention to shoot them warning or not. I find this very troubling as it greatly reduces the standard by which deadly force can be used and could lead to a lot of situations where things are misinterpreted and someone is shot. Finally leaving aside moral questions and legal questions this sets a very dangerous precedent that could get a lot of people who think they are helping hurt. One of the most important things we emphasize in self-defense is not putting yourself in a position of threat. While it turned out that the robbers weren't armed, at least enough to counter the neighbor, the neighbor might not have known that. Its possible that in another situation like this the neighbor is the one who gets killed. Police are trained to evaluate a situation like this and respond in a way that minimizes the danger to themselves. Most civillians are not and I highly doubt this man was. While it is understandable and commendable he felt he needed to act in his neighbor's interest would it have been worth it if he had been killed or grieviously injured? I have a hard time accepting that his neighbor would've felt good about him dying just to protect the neighbor's property.
With as agitated as the guy was...I probably would have had to. All of this being said...you never shoot a guy in the back.
Burglers get killed, how is that a bad thing? It may seem excessive, but if those guys never burglarized the home they would still be alive. I guess when they decided to steal and rob they misjudged the consequences. Again, I would not convict the guy of any major charges. DD
i haven't read through this thread, and I'm not going to give my opinion on the issue of shooting someone over property, but I have to ask, what is the difference between killing a buglar stealing your property or your neighbors. seems the law is inconsistent.
this thread will never die... theres really nothing left to discuss. its up to the prosecutor. and if the prosecutor does decide to bring this to trial, then its up to the judge and jury... the people who think the neighbor did the right thing arent going to change their mind... the people who think the neighbor commited murder arent going to change their mind... we should agree to disagree...
The problem I see with this is that its too much along the lines of Meowgi's karma argument. Every action has consequences but its not like you can say that the neighbor was acting as the agent of karma he still made a conscious, and premeditated decision to kill. In the end he is responsible for killing those people.
After listening to his follow up 911 call it sounds like they were coming into his yard and he shot em.... I guess the guys that tried to steal should have realized that getting shot might happen. DD
need to know more about the actual encounter, which led to the shooting, before one can say what he did was right or wrong.
I just listened to the tape and the problem is that from the beginning he says he's not goign to let them get away with it and clearly headed out with the intention of shooting them and establishes premeditation. Without being at the scene I can't establish if they were running at him when he shot them but consider he shot one in the back that establishes at least that one of them was not. While the robbers should've realized they ran a risk of something bad happening to them that still doesn't excuse him from taking the action. Its like me saying if I see some guy flirting with my girlfriend and I go and beat him up that I'm not responsible though for beating that guy up since he should know better than to flirt with someone's girlfriend. In the end the shooter still has to be accountable to his own actions.
A question to those saying that what this man did was justified and the robbers are the ones who are responsible for their own death. Would you support the death penalty for robbery?
No. They weren't being punished. They were being stopped. If they police are not there to arrest them, I can accept that they can be taken out by an armed citizen.
I agree. Speeders are a danger to society too because they might cause a wreck. I think anytime we see anyone speeding, citizens should shoot to kill if there are no cops around. Gotta stop them at any cost.
