Homeowner opens fire on car burglary suspects

[oneshooter]

HOUSTON (KTRK) -- Police say a homeowner shot and killed one of three men he caught breaking into his car on Houston's south side early this morning.
Police said the homeowner saw three suspects stealing from a car outside his house and he repeatedly yelled for them to stop. He said the three men had the car doors and trunk open, and were rummaging through.
The suspects didn't comply, so the homeowner went to get his gun.
The homeowner told police the suspects began to run back to their vehicle, but said he saw one of them reach for a weapon, so he started shooting, striking the driver of the suspects' vehicle.

Video here: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8446051

Case will go to a Grand Jury.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Wonder where this will go.

Mr. Auto Owner is about to find out.

[RSillsbee]

2. In Texas ?

He'll walk

[jpak]

8. Castle Law = legalized murder

yup

[We_Have_A_Problem]

45. Castle Law = justifiable homicide.

Yup...


Murder is a form of homicide, but not all homicides are murders.

You really need to take the time to expand your scope of knowledge. As someone once said, we all have the right to be stupid from time to time, just try not to abuse the privilege...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. you attitude = crap

yup

[rl6214]

82. No one cares what you think

Yup

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. Won't go anywhere.

Grand Jury will not indict. Simple as that.

Wont be surprised if the DA drops the charges quite honestly.

[SteveM]

110. Going for a gun while committing a felony? Don't waste your stores of curiosity.nt

[rfranklin]

3. while it doesn't sound like self defense, it is Texas...

so the other guy they arrested will probably be executed.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. That would make two.

Great place, eh?

[one-eyed fat man]

21. Lamenting the demise of thieves?

It would seem pretty simple in Texas. You don't want to get shot, don't break into other peoples' cars or houses; don't steal other peoples' stuff.

[rhett o rick]

25. Texas is so civilized. If you dont want to get shot in Texas, dont piss someone off.

Rick Perry said as much in the Repubicon debates. I cant imagine a Democrat living in Texas.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. We're quite civilized.

I can only conclude you've never been here.

It has nothing to do with simply pissing someone off. If you don't want to get shot, don't attack others or attempt to steal things.

It is a simple concept. Perhaps you believe that all property is communal and nobody actually owns anything?

[rhett o rick]

52. The penality for breaking into a car is death. nm

[We_Have_A_Problem]

53. No, that isn't a legal penalty

It is a potential outcome if the victim defends himself.

You seem to misunderstand the concepts of "penalty" and "side effect of criminal behavior".

[rhett o rick]

57. Shooting a suspected burgler running away is legal or illegal?

I didnt claim it was a "legal" penalty. It's a socially acceptable penalty in Texas, especially if the suspect is black.

[oneshooter]

59. But they were not black, or did you just make that up? n/t

[rhett o rick]

63. You avoided my question. Is shooting a suspect in the back legal or not? nm

I didnt say they were black. I said it is socially acceptable to shoot suspects in the back, especially if they are black. It's a statement.

[gejohnston]

65. there is no evidence

of race being an issue. That is kind of like those who assume that all gun people are misogynists, and those women who own guns are dupes equivalent to "uncle toms". It is also total bullshit. Race of the shooter, unknown. The thieves shown were white Hispanics.

[rhett o rick]

68. Is shooting a suspect in the back legal or not? nm

[burf]

102. Where is it reported that the suspect was

shot in the back?

[gejohnston]

67. It is not socially acceptable anywhere

we both know that. If that is a cheap shot at Texas, so called progressive California is not much better if not worse. When I was in California in the mid 1990s, it was safer to be a dissident in Iraq than it was to be a brown teenager with a San Francisco cop behind them.

[rhett o rick]

69. Wait just a min. In this thread there are those that side with the shooter.

And they claim that in Texas that's normal to expect to get shot if you are a suspect in a burglary. It appears to be socially acceptable to shot a suspect like in this case.

Either you side with the shooter or not.

[gejohnston]

70. I was objecting to bringing race into it

when there is no race issue. I was not there and don't have access to the police report, so I have no opinion. I will say that if you are in my house uninvited, I am not going to ask if you are just here for the TV.

[oneshooter]

71. Get your shit together........

"in Texas that's normal to expect to get shot if you are a suspect in a burglary."
Only if you are CAUGHT in the process, and refuse to do as ordered by the owner of the property you are trying to steal.

You would make a lousy defense attorney, can't even get the wording right.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rhett o rick]

72. In the OP the suspect that was shot was fleeing. nm

[We_Have_A_Problem]

77. So what?

He just didn't flee fast enough. Maybe he should have considered the risks before taking the action.

[rhett o rick]

79. I certainly dont want my neighbors shooting at suspected car burglers. nm

[We_Have_A_Problem]

81. What you want your neighbors to do is not relevant.

You have no more control over their legal actions than they have over yours. As long as they don't hit you with a bullet fired at a fleeing car thief, your rights have not been affected.

Oh yeah - they're not "suspected" if I catch them in the middle of it. That whole suspect crap only applies to the state, not the individual.

You seem to be completely missing the fact that we don't live in a nation in which people are free to do whatever rhett o rick wants.

[rhett o rick]

99. Good grief. You argue in circles. I knew I shouldnt venture into "guns".

Have a safe life.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

100. Just because your arguments have zero merit...

...does not mean someone else is arguing in circles.

[Hangingon]

105. Should have watched the video.

Bulletholes in the drivers door. Flee does not mean shot in the back. Reading and comprehension problems.

[rl6214]

86. where does anyone make this claim:

"And they claim that in Texas that's normal to expect to get shot if you are a suspect in a burglary."

and

" It appears to be socially acceptable to shot a suspect like in this case."

[Hangingon]

103. Suspects do not get shot

Perps caught in the act tend to get shot.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

104. Apparently to some...

...a criminal caught in the act is still a suspect. Shooting him to protect yourself or your property though makes you a murderer.

[Starboard Tack]

119. To protect yourself is justifiable homicide

To protect your property outside the home where you are under no physical threat is murder, except in Texas, of course.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

120. It isnt murder.

It may be considered manslaughter or similar but likely not murder.

Yes, in Texas (and a couple other states I think) it is perfectly legal - as it should be.

[Starboard Tack]

122. Correct. Texas decided to make voluntary manslaughter legal in defense of property.

I would advise extreme caution trying it outside of Texas.

Deadly Force to Protect Property in Texas

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Protection of the Property of Others

"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."
http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

[We_Have_A_Problem]

131. Not QUITE

It is legal to use deadly force in protection of property. If the criminal dies in the process, too bad for him.

The state did not legalize voluntary manslaughter. It is a fine legal distinction but a very important one.

[Starboard Tack]

134. You and the State of Texas can redefine it as much as you like.

Texas has the right to make it's own laws. Doesn't change the fact that what may be legal in Texas is culpable homicide elsewhere. Why would we expect anything different from a state that has a conveyor belt death machine in Huntsville?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

135. Once again, not true...

If the bad guy acts like he is going for a weapon, there are few states in which you would even be charged, let alone convicted.

Keep telling yourself otherwise, but reality is a bit different than you believe it to be.

[ManiacJoe]

121. Did you miss the part about the driver reaching for a weapon?

[Starboard Tack]

123. No, I saw that the shooter claimed he believed the perp was going for a gun.

So, in most other jurisdictions he would probably be charged with Voluntary Manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. Voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation; however, others have been added in various jurisdictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

And he could try this defense

Imperfect self-defense is a common law doctrine of criminal procedure recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming, as a partial affirmative defense, the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_self-defense

My advice to those considering similar actions in defense of chattel, would be to think of the devastating potential consequences to yourself, your family, your soul, your integrity and society as a whole. It may be criminal to steal a CD player, but to take someone's life for it is beyond the pale.

[rhett o rick]

106. Just as I thought. Apparently you consider perps caught in the act are

not suspects, but guilty? No trial needed. I am glad I wasnt walking by when someone broke into the car. I am glad the bullets fired at the fleeing "perps" (LOL) didnt hit a neighbor child, but then apparently that would just be considered collateral damage. Nothing is more important than killing perps.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

107. You don't get it do you?

If the STATE is capturing and trying them, yes, there is the presumption of innocence. If a private citizen catches them in the act, they are a criminal. No trial needed.

Do you really not understand this?

Similar issues apply with free speech for example. Here on this board, you have no free speech. Skinner can toss ya for any reason he wants - or no reason at all. At work, if you tell your boss to go get fucked, you're probably getting fired. However, the government cannot prevent you from speaking or charge you with a crime under most conditions.

To be a SUSPECT, one must be suspected of having committed the crime. When you catch the fucker in the act, you as the property owner know for an absolute fact he is not a suspect but the actual criminal. Since you have every right in the world to defend yourself and your property, there is nothing morally, ethically or legally wrong with stopping the criminal from escaping. If said criminal dies in the process, too bad for him.

[Hangingon]

116. Perps caught taking property from a residence or vehicle

are not suspects. "Perps" are criminals and are no laughing matter. We discussed collateral damage. Shooting an innocent bystander is a crime. These points have all been discussed at length in this thread. You apparently have a vested interest in repeating refuted charges.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

76. It is legal to shoot a burglar as he is running away.

Has nothing to do with the suspect being black. Has nothing to do with being a socially acceptable penalty.

It is a legal act - simple as that.

[rl6214]

84. "It's a socially acceptable penalty in Texas, especially if the suspect is black."

Now you're really pulling shit out of your ass.

You got anything to back that crap up?

I don't think so.

[SteveM]

112. Oh, but it makes his stereotypes so well-rounded. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. It's evolution at work. n/t

[rl6214]

83. The LBJ ranch is in central Texas, been there a number of times

Also far west Texas (El Paso) is a Democrat stronghold in a state that is otherwise GOP run.

[TheCowsCameHome]

30. Demise, as in being executed?

Of course no one likes a thief.

Let's kill them all. That'll teach them.

[one-eyed fat man]

34. It may not be elegant

but it is true. Nothing puts a screeching halt to recidivism like the coroner putting a toe tag on the malefactor.

[rhett o rick]

58. Yes, seems as if things are kept very simple in Texas. nm

[pipoman]

29. While I doubt he'll be executed

many states would charge him for the homicide, as it should be. In several states an accomplice in a crime which results in death will be charged for the death, even if the accomplice personally didn't pull the trigger.

[Hangingon]

Deadly force to protect property TX penal code Sec. 9.42

Home owner is justified in use of force, even deadly, force to protect property if he reasonable believe that the property cannot be protected or recover by any other means.

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. Property, even something like a parked, unoccupied vehcle?

How fucked up is that.........

[We_Have_A_Problem]

37. Pretty fucked up...

...that people think a parked, unoccupied vehicle can be disturbed and used as a virtual vending machine for criminals.

Was it the dead guy's car? No. Should he have left it alone? Yes. Simple as that.

[TheCowsCameHome]

40. Yeah, killing over a theft means nothing in your world.

Of course stealing is wrong.

Would YOU kill someone over a car break-in?

You talk pretty tough. Could YOU do it?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

42. I never said it meant nothing.

Would I specifically kill someone over a car break in? Probably not, however I would shoot him to stop him or recover my property. If he died in the process, that is his problem, not mine.

It isn't a case of "talking tough". It is a case of protecting myself, my family and my property. I am resolved and prepared to do so. Perhaps you feel this is "talking tough" because you are neither resolved nor prepared to do so and find such conviction threatening? Meh - not my problem.

Do I like the idea? No, of course not. I would much prefer we lived in a world where people respected others and their property. We do not live in that utopia though, so I accept reality as it is and prepare accordingly.

[TheCowsCameHome]

46. Q: Do you think this guy was right killing a retreating burgular?

Sure you do, as long as it wasn't YOU doing the killing.

You aren't fooling anyone.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

47. Thank you so much for making the assumption of what I believe

Do i think he was right? Well according to the information available, he was legally in the right. I do not presume to make judgements of what people are thinking when they react to something. Did he do anything illegal? Does not appear so. Did he do anything morally wrong? Nope, not in my opinion. You don't want to get shot, you keep your grubby mitts of someone else's stuff. Its a simple philosophy even a 5 year old understands.

Do you think the criminal was right to expect to simply get away with it? Do you believe a criminal should be permitted to ply his trade with impunity? Should the law abiding be forced to simply give up their property in the hopes that the already overworked police department will somehow manage to recover both the thief and their stuff?

The man did the right thing legally and morally. He shot only to stop and once the fleeing car stopped, the other criminals were not shot. The fact that one of them died was incidental - not intentional.

[SteveM]

111. He'll be charged with felony murder/man-slaughter. Won't be executed...

But that's why we have the properly-used term:

Warehouse.

[HockeyMom]

5. As far as I know, I didn't flunk law class

In order to use deadly force, you need to be defending your LIFE, not your PROPERTY. Maybe it is different in Texas.

[gejohnston]

6. each state and country varies

I remember one of our Texans mentioning it is the law in Texas.

[jpak]

9. It IS different in Texas - you can kill unarmed suspected burglars in your neighbor's yard

they don't even have to be trying to steal your property

you can kill them - and get away with it

especially if they are Latino

yup

[gejohnston]

11. I don't know where in Texas you have been in but

from what I have seen in West Texas, Latinos are every bit part of the power structure as Anglos.

[one-eyed fat man]

50. You left out something

The shooter was brought before the grand jury and they returned a "no bill."

Twelve upstanding citizens determined no crime was committed. Perhaps, as previously deported "undocumented migrant wealth redistribution workers" with a long criminal histories, caught red-handed with sacks full of loot, it is easy to see why YOU would NEVER think they might really be have been burglars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy#Burglary

Police initially identified the dead men in Horn's yard as 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, 30, both currently resident in Houston and of Afro Latino descent. However, DeJesus was actually an alias of an individual named Hernando Riascos Torres. Torres and Ortiz were carrying a sack with almost $2,000 in cash and jewelry taken from the home. Both were criminals from Colombia who had been convicted on drug trafficking charges. Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz. Torres had three identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, and had been previously sent to prison for dealing cocaine. Torres had been deported in 1999.

[rl6214]

89. There you go, talking out your ass again

"you can kill them - and get away with it

especially if they are Latino"

A great majority of the state are spanish speaking. My wife was born in Mexico as are many of our citizens in the state of Texas so, as usual, You know not what you are talking about.

[Hoyt]

27. What's worrisome is most gun carriers know the laws well -- I guess so they know when OK to kill.

Well, in Texas, I can shoot someone in the back fleeing as long as they stole a piece of gum from my auto. However, in this state the fact they are fleeing might place me in jeopardy. In this state, if you reasonably consider yourself in danger, you can kill someone and a 5 year old who made the mistake of taking a walk with mom.

Heck, that's the kind of training most people get when getting a license to carry guns down streets where lots of innocent people gather.

[Union Scribe]

31. What a bundle of nutty nonsense.

Do you actually choose the words for your posts or is it like those refrigerator magnetic poetry kits?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

109. If we don't know the laws well...

...especially when it is or is not OK to shoot, we'd risk a lot of legal headaches.

Sounds like you have a problem with those who know the law as well as those who don't.

[ManiacJoe]

118. Your opening statement was good.

The rest went downhill really quick....

[We_Have_A_Problem]

38. Yes, it is different in Texas.

Someone posted the exact section of the Texas code. It is absolutely legal to use lethal force to defend or recover your property in Texas.

[tularetom]

7. I won't shed any tears for the scumbag who got shot

but I'm afraid the homowner may have some splainin to do.

Shooting somebody who was running away hardly qualifies as self defense. Seems sorta cowardly to me.

On the other hand it is Texass, so he'll probably get a commendation from the gov.

[Hoyt]

28. I definitely agree with the text portion.

[Hoyt]

10. Sound like police were on time, but the gun wielding neighbor just couldn't resist the opportunity

he's been waiting for -- a chance to shoot a likely unarmed man (will be interesting to see if they find a gun).

You put a gun in the hands of seemingly nice people -- like the neighbor -- and they become judge, jury and exectutioner. It's one thing when one's life is threatened, it's another when you shoot someone in the back.

But, like posters above mentioned -- it's Texas and you don't pass up a chance to shoot someone who is not a real threat.

[formercia]

13. Got to make sure everything works as advertised

just in case he really needs it. Sometimes Ballistic Gelatin isn't enough.

[Hangingon]

14. Wow! Psychological profile of a whole state.

Amazing what some people feel they are capable of. The shooter was the homeowner, not a neighbor. I do not see where it stated that he shot anyone in the back. Are you confusing this with an old incident?

[Hoyt]

16. Doesn't matter, the perps weren't a threat to him. Police could have handled it.

But, our gunner was probably showing off to his girl friend and his cowboy friends.

From article, it says they were fleeing. I guess they might have been running backwards, but I still bet the gunner shot him in the back.

Now, if they had been breaking in his house, my comments would be different.

[Hangingon]

19. It isn't a question of threat under TX law.

It is a question of protection or recovery of stolen property. Shooter has to make a determination that use of force is required to recover property. Film shows bullet holes in driver's door. Hard to see how that is a back shot. It was early in the morning so I doubt he was showing off. Perps should have known that when you select a life of theft

[Hoyt]

20. Just because the law allows it, does not make it right. Shooting an unarmed or fleeing man is wrong.

Does Texas law allow killing people off your property, as in this case? Besides, our shooter ain't judge, jury and executioner and I can think of nothing in that car worth killing someone over. I guess if they'd stolen his horse or cow, it'd be alright.

But, some folks feel differently -- and they shouldn't be allowed to carry guns in public. So to be fair, we should just become like Sweden and Finland with respect to guns. They seem to get along fine, even if criminals are the only ones carrying guns.

[Hangingon]

23. What ever

[We_Have_A_Problem]

39. Does it make it wrong when the law explicitly forbids it?

Stealing shit that doesn't belong to you is wrong. Apparently you seem to think that its OK for people to steal things though.

[DWC]

55. I am one of those people who feels differently

If a person determines to attempt to steal my property, that person has determined by default to face up to deadly force in defense of that property.

Is that touchy-feely enough for you?

Semper Fi,

[rl6214]

92. "Just because the law allows it, does not make it right."

Obviously it is right because the law says it is.

[PavePusher]

124. I know this works when the law is one you agree with....

but I'd suggest treading very carefully on that moral ground, it gets rather less supportive on occasion...

[rhett o rick]

26. It's a matter of manlyness. Got to kill someone to be a man. nm

[Hangingon]

54. I don't know anyone who believes that.

Must be projection.

[rhett o rick]

60. You dont know anyone like that? That have guns and pray that someone will give them an

excuse to use them? Especially some one of color.

[Hangingon]

74. That is correct.

Those folks are not common around here.

[oneshooter]

75. Nobody but you, and maybe Hoyt.

Both of you have some very sick gun related fantasy's.

Perhaps you should seek professional help.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

78. Keep your racism to yourself

I've had enough of your implications that anyone with a gun wants to shoot a minority.

[rl6214]

93. so full of crap

is that the way it is in Seattle?

[PavePusher]

125. Cite evidence for your vile accusation, or retract it. n/t

[oneshooter]

127. is everybody in Seattle as racist as you seem to be? n/t

[Common Sense Party]

73. "Doesn't matter" = "facts don't matter"

[rl6214]

91. More of your bullshit shtick

"But, our gunner was probably showing off to his girl friend and his cowboy friends."

You don't know jack.

[SteveM]

113. So, a "showing off" to a girlfriend, who was "Latino," and shot a "black"

who happened to be a "cowboy" in Texas?

"What a long strange road it's been."

[Union Scribe]

32. So, again, the gun turned a "nice person" into a homicidal maniac.

I know it's tough topping your normally inane posts, but I think you're trying too hard.

[rl6214]

90. Making shit up to fit your anti-gun zealotry

"but the gun wielding neighbor just couldn't resist the opportunity
Posted by Hoyt

he's been waiting for -- a chance to shoot a likely unarmed man"

You know what was in the mind of the shooter, because that is what YOU would do if that chance arose.

[kath]

12. Wow- the author of that article, Sonia Azad, sure can write! Not.

"Harper also told us his gun-wielding neighbor is the father of a five-year-old boy who works as a school teacher and is the son of a police officer."

Jeebus - a five-year-old boy who works as a school teacher - what a child prodigy!!

[petronius]

15. Sounds like one of those grade-school riddles: the man is not a cop, but his child

is the son of a police officer. How can that be? :shrug:

[SteveM]

114. I saw that too. But she did spell "gun-wielding" correctly; practice, perhaps? nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. He didn't wipe out the other two, therefore

No hero award from Austin will be issued.

Sorry.

[Hoyt]

22. He could have with a hi cap mag, assault rifle, and red dot. Might have wiped out neighborhood too.

[rl6214]

94. You still haven't figured out what a red dot is, have you?

Gonna attach that to your sniper rifle?

[SteveM]

115. Well, I don't know, 'probably sees a lot of dots before his eyes. nt

[Logical]

24. I think shooting someone for property is wrong. And should be illegal. It should.....

only be when you feel your life is in danger.

[one-eyed fat man]

33. Depends on the property

Back in the day, we used to pull guard on a nuclear weapons storage site. Orders were shoot to kill. You think when Bäder-Meinhof tried to breach the storage area in Geißen January, 1977 the guards should have played nice?

If they had grabbed a warhead and were escaping they were no longer a threat?

Depending on the jurisdiction, force may be used to prevent a dangerous felon from escaping.

[TheCowsCameHome]

35. Yeah, it's just like breaking into a car.

[Euromutt]

128. As One-eyed Fat Man said, it depends on the property

Thereby clearly making a distinction between the contents of a private motor vehicle on the one hand, and of a secure military facility on the other. But it's all "property."

When I was in the Dutch army, our "violence instruction" for guard duty authorized us to shoot to kill without warning if we had good reason to suspect an intruder was in the process of stealing firearms, ammunition and/or classified material. By contrast, if an intruder was attempting to torch a helicopter (something that had happened at an airbase where I was stationed, albeit a few years previously), lethal force would not be permitted, on the basis that that activity did not present a potential future threat to life and limb (which stealing weapons or classified information would).

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. You're welcome to think and feel that way.

However, in the State of Texas, most people believe quite firmly shooting someone who is trying to take your property is not only right, but a good way to save taxpayer monies.

Really. We don't have a problem with it here.

You don't like it? Don't move to Texas and commit crimes. It really is pretty simple.

[Hangingon]

49. Well stated.

Don't like the Texas laws don't move here.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. Thank you.

I've never been able to understand the mentality which makes the victim out to be a criminal and the criminal to be a victim simply because the victim fought back...

[Logical]

56. I would call you extreme. And killing to save money sounds really lame. But you

are a Texan and I understand how they think down there. Don't Mess with Texas and all.

[hack89]

80. How about killing to protect a livelihood?

what if the thieves were making off with everything I needed to make a living?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

85. Obviously...

you took the comment about saving taxpayer monies seriously. I guess the sarcasm tag really is needed for some people.

Its pretty simple my friend. Here in Texas if you steal something from someone, you should keep in mind that your victim has every legal right and authority to stop you from getting away with his property. If you don't like it, don't steal. It really is that simple.

I don't understand why people have an issue with this. You really think the thief should just get a free pass to take off with your stuff because he is unarmed or trying to get away from you? That's a pretty twisted view in my opinion. It essentially gives criminals free reign.

[rl6214]

95. "But you are a Texan and I understand how they think down there"

I am a Texan and you have no clue how I think.

[PavePusher]

126. This discussion has been had here many times, but I'll post a synopsis again:

My property represents various investments of my time, thus my life. When someone steals my property, they are stealing various portions of my life. I have every right to defend my property from theft. I have no moral obligation to allow a thief to take my property in order to protect the physical well-being of the thief. I have no moral obligation to put my physical well-being at any greater risk I need to to do so. Thus, I will use the most efficient tools and methods available to me at the time to stop the theft, with the least possible risk to myself. If the thief does not wish to be physically harmed, all they have to do is cease the theft.

This is not a difficult moral equation.

[Remmah2]

43. I wonder what would have happened.........

....if the unarmed thieves had been stealing a police car instead???

[We_Have_A_Problem]

44. Probably the same thing...

...but because it would have been a cop doing the shooting, depending upon other factors it would either be police brutality, racism, or applauded as the system working properly.

[Logical]

61. Doesn't seem to help Texas's Motor Vehicle Crime rate per 100,000 so maybe the crooks....

are just stupider down there.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

87. And your point is....?

Didn't have one? Nope - didn't think so.

[rl6214]

96. Most of the vehicle thefts in the state end up in Mexico

At one time my city (El Paso) had the highest vehicle thefts in the nation, well over 100 weekly. Takes just minutes from anywhere in the city to be down in Juarez, Mexico, the violence capital of the world. From my house I can be in Mexico in five minutes.

[Logical]

97. Good point.

[TheCowsCameHome]

Dulicate post , self delete

[TheCowsCameHome]

62. Someone ought to ask the shooter

how his life will be changed from this day forward.

I wonder if he thinks it was worth it.

He broke it, now he's going to pay for it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

88. Probably changed pretty profoundly...

taking a life affects all but the most insane. However, like most people who know they did the right thing, he'll get over it pretty quick.

[RSillsbee]

98. Depnds on your definition of "get over it"

like most people who know they did the right thing, he'll get over it pretty quick.

To a greater or lesser degree he'll carry it for the rest of his life

[We_Have_A_Problem]

108. By "get over it"

I mean, "not be severely affected and incapable of functioning".

If he is a normal human being, he will suffer some effects certainly.

[Paladin]

129. About That "This Is Really Getting Old" Thread You Opened Recently.

You know, the one where you griped about people considering Gun Enthusiasts to be a bunch of blood-thirsty savages, intent on spilling human blood at the earliest opportunity. I just want you to realize that it's threads like this one, regularly appearing over and over and over again in DU's Guns Forum through the years, which create that sort of opinion, and justifiably so. If you people want to establish a better public image---and I don't think most of you give a shit about such things, anymore---try cleaning up your act.....

[oneshooter]

132. "you people " sounds so progressive. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. That has got to be one of the most insincere expressions of "concern" yet seen here.

But you know what? It doesn't matter. "You people" (to use your terminology) will never approve of "us people" in any event, and we
are doing a far better job of convincing the middle ground of our position than you are.

"You people" will soon be negociating with the Prohibition Party and the WCTU to go thirds on meeting rooms at a Holiday Inn to hold your annual conventions...

[chrisa]

101. Sounds justified, imo

You never know what someone is doing in their car - there could have been a whole cache of weapons in there, for all the homeowner knew.

[SteveM]

117. "...saw one of them reach for a weapon..." was in the text...

I probably would not have shot at a fleeing felon, but if the punk goes for a gun, that could be a different matter. At that point I have a duty to save my own life, and to stop violent felons who are no doubt going to continue to operate in the same manner; i.e., with a weapon. Even shooting out the vehicle's windows might aid in tracking down these violent thugs.

[ileus]

130. Another great example of why SD firearms are so important to society.