[POLL] Burglar shot, killed by neighbors watching home

But if someone is able to witness the burglary to go in and shoot the burglar, they are also able to witness the burglary to the point where they could provide leads, identification, possibly license plate numbers of any vehicles used, etc.

 

Exactly. A good witness is a great thing to have. I wish we had more good witnesses to go on. But a dead burglar is also a good thing. Most burglars are career burglars, and dead ones don't reoffend.

When someone crosses the line of stealing property vs. breaking into your home, there's a line they've crossed that just got more serious that "just property."

 

Maybe, but most people I know who were in the military and dealt with actual death were never the same again. I would rather a civilian risk their own lives, the lives of other civilians, or anyone else's over possessions. I'd rather let the police do their job, and stay out of the way.

If you can get close enough to shoot and kill the burglar, you can be a good witness. One of those ways doesn't leave you scarred for life.

 

Would you support the death penalty for this crime?

 

1) There's no guarantee of a "cautious" burglar all the time. And if the burglar was "cautious" enough, then he would've noticed the neighbors were awake.

2) If a burglar broke into your home, you wouldn't play the odds and assume that they wouldn't be dangerous.

So the hypothetical of informational blindness (without hindsight and reason from a distanced perspective) still exists given that there were a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood (fear element), and one was in progress where neighbors were aware of what was happening (confirmation).

 

What happened 50 years ago was violation of human and civil rights and not justice... But that's a different topic...

I'm one to believe that no justice system is perfect but what they all have in common is that justice is blind. And there are some situations when it shouldn't be blind and some situations when it should... It's a thin line to decipher and depending on your beliefs you can fall on either side. And in this case I do not see how the two individuals who shot the intruder will receive any legal ramifications for their act.

 

How far does this extend, though? How much are citizens allowed to escalate a nonviolent situation into one that requires deadly force?

Let's say you're driving down the street and see someone speeding. You determine they are a danger to other cars (ie, someone else's property). When the opportunity arises (say, a stop light), you confront them for their illegal action. They react badly and you fear for your safety. Is lethal force acceptable? Did that person forfeit their right to live because they were speeding? If not, where is the line drawn as to what is acceptable escalation by a 3rd party?

 

Confronting and telling a person in public to not speed is not a crime.

Said person getting angry and pulling out a knife to attack you would be a crime.

You shooting that person in self defense because you have a conceal license is also not a crime.

 

Feel free to depend on the donut crew for your safety and protection all you like... Even with solid leads the police can still be clueless when it comes to solving a crime... This isn't TV.

And it's fine for you to have your opinion and I don't knock you for it but there are some situations if a citizen is prepared and able to intervene and still preserve themselves _ I have no problem if they do so.

And in this situation I believe I read the house alarm was going off which means that security company should have notified the police, so it wasn't necessary for the neighbors to do so. I wonder how much time the neighbors had to get up and get their guns, meet up outside, go over to the house and enter the house, and shoot the intruder...??? Maybe if the cops had faster response time the intruder would still be alive... Or would have got away and been free to invade other homes.

A man's home is his castle...

This is kind of like the argument if you pay the men's college basketball and football players you would have to pay the women's soccer team players as well...

But the one thing cops are good at _ is in forcing traffic violations. A repeat traffic offender is more likely to get pulled over (and or get in a wreck) than a repeat home invader is subject to get caught. The two "crimes" don't match up.

 

If they had permission to be in the home to keep it safe, then they stand in the same position as any homeowner would if the burglary would have happened on their property.

Given the facts presented, this is a pretty clear instance of a justified use of deadly force. You can disagree with gun rights or the Castle doctrine, but there's little doubt that a grand jury is going to no-bill this case in Harris County. The facts are a bit strange, but come on. The law is clear: don't break into people's houses at night to commit theft in Texas unless you are prepared to die doing it.

 

Except common sense tells us that there is a giant difference between someone breaking into your home, a situation that you are thrust into without choice or a chance to consider the options, and you deliberately leaving your home to enter someone else's home (even with the homeowner's advanced consent) to confront a suspected burglar. In one case you go into survival mode. In the other you do not because you are not in danger until you chose to put yourself there.

I have little doubt these two dipsh!ts will walk away with no repercussions for their idiocy but the fact remains that they were trigger-happy idiots looking to confront and shoot someone.

 

Why is the person getting angry and pulling a knife on you a crime? You are approaching his vehicle and could be reasonably considered a threat - you are confronting him and he doesn't know your intent. Does he not have the right to self defense?

 

So your right to inject yourself an escalate a non-dangerous situation is based on the level of the crime? Fair enough. What crimes merit you creating a dangerous situation vs which aren't?

 

It is exactly the same subject. The point is that juries aren't particularly interested in the mechanics of the law, and engage in jury nulification all the time. The whole "civil rights" thing that the Justice Department used was an expansion of the law that they pretty much invented to stick their neck into it. The outcome was good, but it was a sketchy tactic to counter mass sketchiness in the way the South twisted the law. The Justice Department and Congress had to create a whole new external mechanism to prevent mass injustice, because the injustice was popular with the people of the South.

Mostly (not always) judges who have spent decades studying the process of the law are more willing to rule in favor of the unpopular but correct solution because they have greater appreciation of the process of the law.

Juries who "like" and feel similar to defendants have a history of choosing the people they like over the law.

White suburbian homeowners tend to bend the law for other white suburban homeowners, in ways that they wouldn't for Satanic gay black crackheads.

 

It is for the same reason that Trayvon Martin did not have the right to physically assault George Zimmerman, but Zimmerman had the right to shoot Martin. Approaching someone, in and of itself, does not create a reasonable fear of imminent deadly harm or great bodily injury.

 

This. What this couple did is 100% legally justifiable.

They had authorization from the neighbors to enter their home, they did so legally.
They confront burglar - legal.

Burglar pulls a knife, escalating the situation and creating "fear of imminent deadly harm or great bodily injury" to the couple. - Illegal

They shoot said burglar in fear of their life - legal.

IMO this case is pretty clear cut and dry in terms of legality of their actions...

 

Because approaching someone empty handed and not shouting threats is not a ****ing crime?

 

Of course not, I was referring to in the moment. Just like you don't deserve the death penalty for assault, or arson, or rape. In any of those situations though, in the moment, you forfeit your right to life during that crime. Someone kills you to prevent the crime, it's on you not them.

 

I think in this case that is exactly the point. The neighbors chose to put themselves into harms way and they escalated the situation into a violent one.

It seems like it would be legal in Texas, but to me it isn't justified.

 

It seems you're making this a black and white issue... In this particular situation I believe it's a citizens vs criminal issue. With that said, it isn't necessarily the justice system that hurts the minority people _ it's the lack of education in poor communities and not paying attention to the policies that politicians make (which is something all Americans should do) because the justice system reacts to the laws that are passed.

But, I'd rather have 12 white jury members than one white judge. No way would I want Judge Judy in total control. That would be just jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire IMO...