Ft. Worth, Texas, Three burglars shot, two killed in two incidents.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Intruders-shot-at-Fort-Worth-landscaping-firm-1-dead-130019268.html
FORT WORTH — Fort Worth police said the owner of a business shot two suspected burglars early Saturday morning, killing one of them.

The owners of Hermann Landscape Company, in the 1100 block of South Hughes Avenue, told investigators that the business had experienced several burglaries over the past few days, so they decided to remain on the property Friday night.

Three people were observed trying to break in at around 2 a.m. Saturday.

The owner, whose name was not given, said one of the individuals had a "shiny object" in his hand, and fired a shotgun in self-defense.

MORE AT LINK

The wounded one fled but turned up later at a hospital.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Armed-Keller-Firefighter-Kills-Intruder-130192033.html
Authorities say a Keller firefighter who fatally shot a man who broke into his North Texas home has been placed on administrative leave.

Saginaw police spokesman Damon Ing says David Wilson told police he walked in on a burglar in his home about 10 miles north of Fort Worth on Monday afternoon.

This type of thing is why we carry guns on us. When trouble happens you don't have time to go get a gun. He had his on him. From another article http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09/21/3385220/burglar-slain-by-off-duty-keller.html we learn that the firefighter was armed and shot the burglar multiple times. The burglar was 21. His criminal career ended early while his list of victims was still modest.

[gravity556]

1. You'd think word would get around...

Texas is a fucking bad place to be a shitbag criminal! :)

[spin]

3. Yup. If I was a criminal I would move in Illinois...

that state offers a much better work environment.

[oneshooter]

4. Or possible even Canada. n/t

[ileus]

11. Way too cold...

[oneshooter]

21. They will welcome you into their homes, and serve you tea while

you take your choice of their belongings.

After all Canada is not a violent country.

[ileus]

24. But they'd make me pay taxes on all my new stuff when I crossed back over.

[oneshooter]

25. Yes, but you are a thief, get sneaky! n/t

[RSillsbee]

2. (Your vote: +1)

Fucking rude toters how dare they shoot a criminal

[DanTex]

5. I'd have though that the wingnuts over at FR would be the ones celebrating this stuff...

...and I'd be right!

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2780975/posts

Here's a little sampling of the kind of glorification of violence that you find among NRA-loving wingnuts.

To: Larry - Moe and Curly
I love the smell of gun powder in the early afternoon after one “interrupts” a burglary at their residence.


2 posted on Tue Sep 20 2011 07:56:27 GMT-0500 (CDT) by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
-----------------------------------
To: Larry - Moe and Curly
I love a story with a happy ending


4 posted on Tue Sep 20 2011 07:59:02 GMT-0500 (CDT) by Hodar ( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
-----------------------------------
To: pietraynor
Good shooting, Citizen. Civilization thanks you.

9 posted on Tue Sep 20 2011 08:31:40 GMT-0500 (CDT) by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)

[oneshooter]

10. The "wingnuts" here seem to support the criminal. n/t

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Won't be any lawsuits. Texas has Castle Doctrine with Civil Immunity.

Being a dirbag crook in Texas is a very high risk occupation. He should not have kicked in the door. What makes you think that the criminal had a right to do that? The person staying there was completely within their rights to be there and to resist violent attack.

Paying for an overnight guard is expensive. And what will the guard do when the criminal kicks the door in?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

12. Ouch...that's gotta hurt.

[sofa king]

13. Uh, that first incident was a deadfall ambush.

The owners laid in wait for someone to come along, with shotguns even Texans don't just carry around, and as soon as the circumstances shifted legal liability, they attempted to murder the intruders, and partially succeeded.

In combat, that's called a "deadfall," an "ambuscade," or an "ambush." It's a combat tactic that's totally outside of any moral defensibility in non-combat circumstances. It may be legal, but if it is, it's a sad example of how the Second Amendment is being perverted to justify first-degree murder.

[SteveM]

14. A legitimate concern...

The laws governing violent self-defense may be more bright-lined than sensitive to the situation. What bothers people on both sides of the debate over self-defense (that is really what "castle doctrine" is about) is proportionality, or the reasonableness about actions taken. Before castle laws, the person acting in self-defense had the additional burden of explaining, often at considerable expense, that he/she did the correct thing in his actions, or face retribution from the legal system. This is not a good thing. Castle laws take the burden of explaining proportionality off those acting in self-defense, and provide a presumption that the citizen attacked was within the law.

Is this a sloppy way to change laws regarding self-defense? Are such castle laws subject to abuse? Yes to both questions. But the greater abuse is to place an onerous burden on those defending themselves, and that such a burden may not only come back to unjustly penalize the victim of attack, but worse to prevent the victim from acting at all when threatened.

Given what I know about this instance, I don't think I would shoot without some kind of warning. But I don't know for sure: A true HyperPunk (one who desires above all the thrill of violent confrontation) may immediately start attacking, thus endangering me unnecessarily. But I would NOT want the law penalizing/jailing me because I was in MY place when BREAK-IN criminals were UNLAWFULLY inside. In such a situation, the criminals must rely on my sense of proportionality, and prey like hell that it holds up.

Thanks for your post.

[PavePusher]

15. So, he should have just waited for the police....

the same police who were unable to stop multiple previous crimes...?

Defense of self, property and community are exactly what the Second Amendment is about.

By the way, that's a very short, low-information article. My best guess is that there is more to the incident than was reported so far.

Edit: They way you state it, any person who stays alert to defend her property, or who hires a guard to do so, would be guilty of an ambush. And that's so full of wrong I can't pick enough words to describe it.

[sofa king]

16. Uh, no.

The way I state it is that any person who waits in ambush to murder another person is a murderer. From the facts presented, the conclusion that the owners laid in wait with murder aforethought is obvious. If it's legal, I'm saying it shouldn't be.

And by the way, I'm all for the Second Amendment because it's easy to predict what would happen if 100 million guns were suddenly outlawed in this country. Guns are never going to go away here, so we'd better by God have a legal system that allows for their ownership... and does not allow for incidents like this.

[PavePusher]

18. "...the conclusion that the owners laid in wait with murder aforethought is obvious."

No, it isn't actually.

[X_Digger]

20. "waits in ambush to murder" ---???

Where the fuck do you see that from this article?



Do you do kids' parties, too?

[slackmaster]

22. As long as they were on their own property the whole time, I don't see a problem with it

I'd do the same thing at (inside of) my house if I had experienced repeated break-ins.

[MicaelS]

27. So explain to me the difference between the business owner

"who waits in ambush to murder" as you term it, and an ARMED security guard he hires to guard his premises because he has been burglarized multiples time? Is the armed security guard waiting in ambush to murder?

What about the if the police have armed robberies occurring in certain area, and they deploy armed units INSIDE the businesses that might be robbed. Are they waiting in ambush to murder?

Because if your answer to both is yes, I would love to see you try to sell that to a grand jury.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. IOW, they guarded their own property.

Just exactly what do you think and armed guard does? He stays at his position, and if suddenly confronted he has to defend himself. The thug could have avoided his end by not breaking in. You seem to want a safe working environment for violent criminals.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. It was not an ambush

They were protecting their property. They had every reason to believe they may be robbed again, and they took the effort to protect the business.

The one at fault is NOT the burglary victim, but rather the vermin who decided to steal. He got himself killed for his trouble. Tough shit.

It isn't first degree murder by any definition.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Ahahahahaaaaa

[slackmaster]

23. Tragic waste of human life

Burglary is not a wise career choice.