“Hard cases, it is said, make bad law.”
— John Campbell Argyll
I’m rooting for the shooter.
The legal reasoning sounds similar to the “right of arrest” in Canada. A citizen has the power in the Criminal Code (S-25)to arrest someone he/she witnesses committing a crime against a person or property he/she is responsible for. According to one of our city police constables, a citizen’s right of arrest has as much authority as a that of a Peace Officer.
I wouldn’t want to try using this authority though. The nature of our criminal cozy justice system being as it is.
* this could go very wrong for the shooter.
two things jump out.
one… he wasn’t defending his castle.
two… he pursued, against dispatcher’s advice, these guys.
common sense says… you don’t wanna get killed over a
pile of stuff… you especially don’t wanna get killed over someone elses stuff.
bad call… but that said, these guys were felons and i have
zero sympathy for them. just hope this guy doesn’t go to jail.
*
This is a terrible thing, to shoot and kill people.
The dilemma is, what to do.
The thieves deserved to be punished. The old man was right to stop them, though killing them was extreme for these times, the punishment did not fit the crime as it were.
In the past when justice was justice and justice was harsh, that was acceptable.
One thing is for certain, the thieves will not steal again and likely no thieves will visit the neighborhood if they know where this happened.
It is difficult to feel sorry for the old man, if he aimed to injure and did injure he would probably have more support for his action, though in Texas he may have more support than in other places.
If something like this happened in your neighborhood the thoughts may be very different.
Bolshevik, if he aimed to injure and succeeded, he’d be facing a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
While I do not condone shooting someone for stealing “stuff”, I hardly feel sorry for the felons in this case. This is a cost of business for them. If they chose to try and make a living off of other peoples hard labour I think it only fair that they should be risking their lives. Many times at work I have found myself in risky situations (as most of us who work have)so it could be said I had to risk my life to earn what I have. To ask me to sit idly by while someone walks away with that is wholly unfair I think. Especially when you consider that the punishment these losers would have faced (particularly in Canada) would have been minimal.
In the long run, while I don’t think I could bring myself to kill someone for stealing something from me, part of me applauds this man for sending a message to those that would so easily steal what many of us have worked so hard for.
Coming to a city near you.
Honest law-abiding citizens are thoroughly disgusted with the lack of concern by most police forces in providing adequate and realistic protection from the predators in our society.
A compliant judiciary who feel that it is their duty to give EVERY benefit to the accused’s arguments mean that areas can held under siege by a few thugs.
Eventually people say enough is enough, I believe we are very close to that point. Ever increasing justice and police budgets have only resulted in more lenient policing.
Minchau,
that is the other side of today’s ‘justice’
Meanwhile still in the USA. From Yahoo news
Rare robbery case brings cries of racism
LAKEPORT, Calif. – Three young black men break into a white man’s home in rural Northern California. The homeowner shoots two of them to death — but it’s the surviving black man who is charged with murder
Go to link to read more http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_re_us/break_in_murder
I would like to see some sort of shift in the way we(and the USA) handle some of these situations.
I know innocent till proven guilty and all that but……..I would never start a fight, never engage someone, I would not tresspass nor would I steal.
I think I have 3 or 4 speeding tickets and about the same number of parking violations. And if you want to count the time in grade six I was sent to the principals office for hiding a kids new rodeo belt buckle it still will not show I am a threat to anyone
But….
If someone broke into my home, and my wife and two children are there….
I have a gun. A registered hunting rifle.
I would defend my home and deal with the fallout later.
The only way I would ever do anything is if they came to me.
Here is a good idea, If you do not want to get shot, do not B and E
ha! we need more neighbours like him. I don’t have a gun in my house but if the fu shits…wear it
if the fu sh!ts
Seems to me that he was being a really good neighbour. I the rural part of the country that I live in, it’s not a good idea to go into anyones house if ANY of the neighbours are at home, and that’s a good thing.
Pat
Kinda like the shoot, shovel and shut up thing except that he didn’t need a shovel and didn’t shut up.
Are there really many out there that still think that the police and our justice system are capable of looking out for and protecting us?
With certain types of crime and the ethnics or races involved the Police have a motto FIDO, F—k It, Drive On, sad but true.
Have to sadly agree Cascadian.
Brief story of mine of why I’ll never bear witness to a crime again:
Witnessed a hit and run right in front of my home. I knew the minor aged female passenger in the hit and run vehicle as she bailed out as soon as the vehicles came to a stop. (neighbours kid – drop out and druggie 15 yrs. old, it was her daily supply delivery guy) She’s the only one on the street like this, otherwise it’s a pretty decent neighbourhood.
So I gave my statement about the details. The 15 yr old, claimed she was not in the car and didn’t know the driver, lie, lie lie.
Anyways… the mother of this “princess” comes to my home a few weeks later and tries to assault me at my front door.
I wound up getting the better of her and kicked her sorry ass right off my front steps.
I insisted she be charged with assault when I called the police and they assured me she’d be charged. BUT the prosecutors office decided that the mother, my wanna be attacker should get off without any repercussions what-so-ever since she doesn’t have a criminal record.
Nice eh?
Seem it’s more important to use Jurisprudence against me but in favour for their ‘REAL’ victim – the criminal.
And of course they never got the driver the drove a mother right off the road and totaled her car. She was on her way to pick up her kids from school just a half a block from my house, and since the ‘princess’ won’t say who he is and her attack dog of a mother is obviously not going to make her fess up, both that woman and I are never going to see justice.
Princess has also threatened me with her ‘nigars’. Quotes are the ‘princess’s’. Since she drags them on our street frequently enough, I’m not going to completely dismiss this threat just yet.
Also took over five hours for the police to respond, not that it was a crisis, but still the insult was when they told me my call wasn’t a ‘high enough priority’ and they had ‘more important matter to deal with’.
That sadly is the direct quote.
For the record, mother is a big woman, maybe 200 lbs around 5ft 7 or 8?
I’m a hundred some odd lbs fully dressed and 5’5”, in my late 40’s and wear glasses which was the only thing she managed to hit.
Hubby and I realize that it’s a different world now.
And that’s why we’re legal gun owners. I will never expect justice nor will I expect someone else to protect me ( other than loved ones of course ). I’ll take care of me and mine from now on, thank you very much.
“If something like this happened in your neighborhood the thoughts may be very different.”
If this guy was my neighbor I’d be inviting him over for supper on a regular basis and chipping into his legal fund.
Western Canadian: “With certain types of crime and the ethnics or races involved the Police have a motto FIDO, F—k It, Drive On, sad but true.”
Spot on. I used to golf with a couple of cops in Toronto, and that’s exactly the phrase they used. As one of them put it “You get sick and tired of arresting these guys, and seeing the cases tossed out of court or them getting a slap on the wrists due to the Young Offenders Act. So we spend most of our time hassling white people over minor traffic violations because those stick.” A truly criminal case might force them to sit in a courtroom, bored out of their minds, for two weeks or more, only to see the accused walk out with no real penalty. I agree, sad but true.
Would anyone object if it had been a policeman who had confronted and killed the burglars?
I think not.
So, then why should a respectable Citizen doing his utmost to prevent these felony crimes and apprehend the escaping felons get prosecuted for anything???
I suspect the Houston Police won’t press any charges against this man. IMO, the chances are damn slim of finding a Texas jury willing to convict for any charge a 70+ year old man who killed two burglars next door to his own home,that he caught red-handed.
On the other hand, the chances are excellent that the District Attorney and Houston PD would get a lot of heat from the public for any prosecution of the man. And they’re well aware they wouldn’t be able to sell this to any Texas jury.
Probably the whole neighborhood would chip in for his defense fund, he’d be acquitted and they’d have a congratulatory neighborhood party for the man.
(Secondary point, but I’d bet a fast $20 that the late burglars had previous criminal records, too. Career free-lance Socialists, I bet.)
The fact that there is even any discussion about this disgusts me. Neighbor shotguns two (2) robbers. Proper response = “Good job!” + Citizenship Award.
Lefties want to know why there’s crime in our cities? THIS is why. Way to go Lefties.
Bolshevik, your suggestion that the old guy “shoot to wound” indicates you have no experience with firearms or self defense. There are two self defense modes: Kill ’em or flee. No middle ground. I could explain why, but it would take too long just now.
pissedoff —
One thing is for certain: the homeowner in the California case can’t be charged with murder as he was defending his home. As to whether or not the third, surviving accomplice should be charged with murder… well, that’s a stretch if you ask me. And then there’s the obvious race-baiting of the whole thing (do you honestly believe race would be mentioned if the intruders were white?).
In the case mentioned by Kate, I’m with the shooter. I hope he gets off altogether or at least lightly. And all his neighbours should drop by and shake his hand; he just made their streets the last place burglars will visit for a long time.
Okay, so the warning shots were a little low…
“Bad boys, bad boys, What ya goin’ to do,
What ya goin’ to do when da neighbor ‘s shootin’ at you.” (with appologies to COPS)
pissedoff — “One thing is for certain: the homeowner in the California case can’t be charged with murder as he was defending his home. As to whether or not the third, surviving accomplice should be charged with murder… well, that’s a stretch if you ask me.”
There’s statute law in California called the Felony Murder doctrine. A number of other States have it as well.
If two or more people commit, or attempt to commit, a felony or felonies, they are EACH responsible for all the crimes committed and, if anyone is killed BY ANYONE DURING THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME(S), they are each culpable of murder. That includes killed by the victim or a police officer. The victim or police officer’s justifiable homicide becomes the perpetrators’ homicide.
The doctrine is that one committing a felony or felonies is aware of the grave danger to life and limb inherently involved in the commission of any violent felony. This legally substitutes for premeditation AND malice aforethought. It’s been on the statute books for decades and has been upheld by the California Supreme Court as Constitutional.
Trespassers will be shot.
Survivors will be shot again.
At one time judges were required to be knowledgable on the Law in the OT.
Here is the applicable Law.
Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
In other words, catching someone in the act of burglury and killing them is not premeditated homicide requiring the person committing the homocide to be put to death. (No mention of who the thief is stealing from)
Dave in PA,
It is unfortunate that we don’t have any laws like that (Felony Murder Doctrine) here in Canada. That is a great law!
Bolshevik, re-reading my above comment I should make it clear I’m not lumping you in with the Lefties. That would be untrue and unfair.
However I must reiterate that this “wing him” concept is pure Hollywood. There is no “shoot to wound him”, there is only -shoot him-. Particularly with a shotgun. If he dies he dies.
An armed citizen is not a cop. Cops use escalation of force because they are required to by regulations and laws, not because it is sensible or tactically reasonable.
The armed citizen makes his decision based on survival. There is no warning shot, no shouting “Freeze!”, no Hollywood. You are going to die, so you fire on the bad guy until he stops trying to kill you.
“Going to die” means armed assailant within 20 feet. Armed with a gun or a knife or even a stick, makes no difference. That’s not “no legal difference”, that’s no -practical- difference. A guy with a knife 20 feet away can kill you even after you shoot him. Fire on the target until they stop trying to kill you.
So, two obvious robbers running around the neighborhood, I’m going to assume they are armed, how is it unreasonable that a neighbor shoots these men?
Life, as they say, is hard. The more you study these things the harder life looks, too. You want a nice, safe, peaceful neighborhood, maybe you better be ready to defend it. Personally.
Phantom,
agree with the first sentence, dont’t like it though agree.
It is unfortunate that today, the ‘justice’ is not blind, its eyes are wide open looking for some mega cash.
Was in the army, shooting with Kalashnikov for 2 years and 2 months.
I’m with neo that this is a bad call. The old guy had the cops on the phone, he had to leave his house to fire directly at those two. He was not in any imminent danger posed by them and stealing property wouldn’t get you a death sentence by jury. The cops would have identified themselves and fired a warning shot first. They don’t use deadly force unless they are fired upon.
I can understand using deadly force at 3am if there is a hulking figure at the foot of your bed or roaming your house. The old guy at no time was being physically threatened by those two.
We are all disgusted by crime and punk criminals, but, I don’t find anything heroic in the old guy’s shooting to kill in that scenerio.
Police propagandist on the 911 desk said: ” That’s OK…don’t go outside… property’s not worth killing over”
Wow…you have to have skipped school to believe that zinger. War is all about property ownership. I suppose if what this 911 peacnick is saying is true we can expect Brinks to turn in their guns and the feds to remove the armed guard from fort Knox.
My gawd the degenerate communist ideals of the 60s still corrupt the thinking of officials supposedly in charge of a free republic.
Property is not worth killing over indeed….property is what free republics are founded upon, I can;t think of anything more important than individual property rights worth killing for…except maybe individual liberty.
Was in the army, shooting with Kalashnikov for 2 years and 2 months.
What? for Uncle Fidel? What fantasy world are you living in?
You don’t kill someone for robbing a house especially if they are not armed and there is no one at home.
Getting robbed is a bad thing – and very tramatic – but it’s not worth killing over.
If something like this happened in Ireland – our old friend mr. vengence would come into play – and that old man better be on a fast boat to China – because he’s a walking dead man.
“”When police arrived moments later, they found two dead men in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive. One was across the street, and the other had collapsed two houses down behind a bank of mailboxes in the Village Grove East subdivision.””
I just love happy endings! 😉
WL: agreed 100% The concept that property is “not worth killing over” is in perfect line with “communal property” and how many people were murdered over that concept? Last count was 150 million.
Penny, i think you labour under false assumptions..police never ‘fire a warning shot’..when they make the decision to shoot, they aim for the greater bulk of the body mass.I.e., the torso.The police will also drop you faster than a whores drawers if you are brandishing, and threatening people with a weapon, regardless if you shoot at them or not..
Cconn..you have obviously never seen straw dogs!
Are you seriously suggesting that it behooves the would be victim to not defend life, limb or property, because the baddies might take offense, and send the pack round for more?
That mentality would give the baddies a free pass, because it would cow the average citizen into thinking that nothing is worth protecting,not even his own life.
What if they are breaking in to rob, rape and murder? Not like that has ever happened..!
You can’t know their mindset, or their intent, so you have to take action.
You come into my house unannounced, with intent to harm me, and you are going back out that door as quick with either my fist, a bat or shotgun jammed into your forhead.
This is a bad scene all around.
The would-be thieves deserved incarceration, which in Texas, is no light thing. However, they did not deserve death.
And we should hardly be condoning the shooter’s actions. What we’re talking about here is vigilante justice. Condoning his actions–indeed, celebrating them–would set a very dangerous precedent. As Dave in Pa. notes, owing to the guy’s age and the potentially sympathetic nature of his case, it’s unlikely he’ll be charged, nor should he. But neither should his actions be celebrated.
As I said, this is a bad scene all around.
“You don’t kill someone for robbing a house especially if they are not armed and there is no one at home.”
Who made up that little rule of Thumb?
The Criminal code says you have a right and duty to stop a fleeing felon “by any means neccessary”.
Texas has similar laws and this was a 70 year old man against 2 30 year olds…they had him out numbered and out gunned physically so the shot gun was a reasonable equalizer of force…the story does not asy if they were armed but it’s obvious the home owner;s neighbor had no idea if they were or not…you see a fleeing felon with a bag of cash from your neighbor’s house, assume they’re armed and acting accordingly is reasonable.
I see a clean shoot here…one thing is certain…Liberal apologists are fond of “sending the right message”…well this property owner sent the right message to any potential burglars that his neighbourhood is a lethal liability for criminals….and that’s how it should be.
Penny, I don’t think you’re getting the distinction “free country” here. In a free country, individuals make these kinds of deadly force decisions themselves. The old man acted appropriately for a citizen of a free country.
In a socialist police state (such as ours)individuals are -not allowed- to make decisions like that. They have to call 911 and hide until the cops get there and sort it out. If they ever do. This often results in the “call 911 and die” scenario. The old man’s actions are completely wrong for a citizen of a police state.
By your posting here it seems you prefer the police state. I submit you might want to think about that a bit. See if that’s what you really want, or if you just feel bad some guy got killed.
I guess we shall see which side of the spectrum Texas falls on when the jury gets done here.
Doug,
don’t talk stupid, you have no choice were you are born and have to live with the circumstances you have.
“The would-be thieves deserved incarceration, which in Texas, is no light thing. However, they did not deserve death.”
Please stick to the reality of the situation…they CHOSE death when they disobeyed an armed and legally empowered citizen’s call to stop…that was their opertunity to be taken into custody….the fact remains that this scenario plays out hundereds of times a month with police doing the shooting and no one bats an eye.
When did we all get so squeemish and repressed to think the police have a monopoly on the justified use of deadly force??? What about all the times when police are NOT present to stop a crime?
I applaud this man His loyalty to his neighbour and the rights of free hold property are commendable…if there are any bad guys here it is the thugs who set out to victimize a law abiding citizen…for all we know that cash was his life savings…that can never be recovered…..let’s not get all misty eyed and wrapped up in Stockholm syndrome here.
Didn’t deserve to die over a theft is a moot question.
This happened in Texas, where you are allowed to use deadly force to protect property. The question is whether they’ll decide he had the right to protect his neighbor’s.
I would have no problem having this guy as my neighbor.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Hannah, a vigilante would be some guy running around the city shooting people he thought were criminals.
This is an armed citizen protecting a neighbor’s house during an actual crime. You can see how these two things are not the same.
Not getting the “free country” concept, just like Penny. Its nice to be sad that people were killed, but its wrong to blame this old man for it. They made their decision when they broke into that house. They made it again when the old man confronted them.
Like I said, life is hard.
“…especially if they are not armed …”
and just how do we determine that? Cops always assume weapons until physically proven otherwise. Even then, in Canada the cops get put through the wringer for shooting anyone. Remember the Calgary cop who got sliced up trying to remove a drunk from his families door step? He shot the fellon and there was an immediate cry of racism along with the use of excessive force (using a gun at a knife fight).
Yeah, the 9-1-1 dispatcher was following protocol in telling the guy to stay inside (and therefore theoretically safe). Can you imagine the outcry if the old chap was told to “go and get’em” only to be gunned down?
Bolshevik, you choose a provocative nic “Bolshevik” which is pure fantasy, and then write very generally about “Kalishinikov” which could be one one numerous weapons in reference to some so-called “army” so it begs, WTF are you talking about?
You better clarify yourself if you want to be taken seriously.
Shooting thieves caught in the act?
Well that’s one way discouraging a repeat visit from the scumbags! They rob your neighbour today they come back to rob you tomorrow. And the shotgun wielding guy was risking his life to defend his neighbour …. laying charges in a case like this just shows how warped the liberal mindset has become .
I think I should point out, as per Kate’s comment, these two didn’t “die over a theft”. As in, the old man wasn’t punishing them for stealing.
These men died because they were STUPID. Only a moron would fail to lie down and put their arms over their head when faced with a loaded shotgun.
As Heinlein said, “Stupidity is a capital offense.”
Come on guys, wake up. The crooks made the decision of robbing a house in broad daylight, they could have encountered any number of obstacles. (IE: Attack dog, electric fence, mace, Colt. 45, trigger happy cops, etc. etc.)
Right here in Smalltown Sasaktchewan, we’ve had elderly folks (seniors) beaten to death by intruders. One guy went as far as dousing an elderly lady with gasoline and torching her after he had robbed her. He should have gotten a necktine party, he was most likely set free after 5 years.
What ever happned to our sense of right and wrong? The shooter should get the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a pair of Chrome plated S and W 357 magnums with a lifetime supply of ammo!.
Come on guys, wake up. The crooks made the decision of robbing a house in broad daylight, they could have encountered any number of obstacles. (IE: Attack dog, electric fence, mace, Colt. 45, trigger happy cops, etc. etc.)
Right here in Smalltown Saskatchewan, we’ve had elderly folks (seniors) beaten to death by intruders. One guy went as far as dousing an elderly lady with gasoline and torching her after he had robbed her. He should have gotten a necktine party, he was most likely set free after 5 years.
What ever happned to our sense of right and wrong? The shooter should get the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a pair of Chrome plated S and W 357 magnums with a lifetime supply of ammo!.
“Hard cases, it is said, make bad law.”
— John Campbell Argyll
I’m rooting for the shooter.
The legal reasoning sounds similar to the “right of arrest” in Canada. A citizen has the power in the Criminal Code (S-25)to arrest someone he/she witnesses committing a crime against a person or property he/she is responsible for. According to one of our city police constables, a citizen’s right of arrest has as much authority as a that of a Peace Officer.
I wouldn’t want to try using this authority though. The nature of our criminal cozy justice system being as it is.
*
this could go very wrong for the shooter.
two things jump out.
one… he wasn’t defending his castle.
two… he pursued, against dispatcher’s advice, these guys.
common sense says… you don’t wanna get killed over a
pile of stuff… you especially don’t wanna get killed over
someone elses stuff.
bad call… but that said, these guys were felons and i have
zero sympathy for them.
just hope this guy doesn’t go to jail.
*
This is a terrible thing, to shoot and kill people.
The dilemma is, what to do.
The thieves deserved to be punished. The old man was right to stop them, though killing them was extreme for these times, the punishment did not fit the crime as it were.
In the past when justice was justice and justice was harsh, that was acceptable.
One thing is for certain, the thieves will not steal again and likely no thieves will visit the neighborhood if they know where this happened.
It is difficult to feel sorry for the old man, if he aimed to injure and did injure he would probably have more support for his action, though in Texas he may have more support than in other places.
If something like this happened in your neighborhood the thoughts may be very different.
Bolshevik, if he aimed to injure and succeeded, he’d be facing a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
While I do not condone shooting someone for stealing “stuff”, I hardly feel sorry for the felons in this case. This is a cost of business for them. If they chose to try and make a living off of other peoples hard labour I think it only fair that they should be risking their lives. Many times at work I have found myself in risky situations (as most of us who work have)so it could be said I had to risk my life to earn what I have. To ask me to sit idly by while someone walks away with that is wholly unfair I think. Especially when you consider that the punishment these losers would have faced (particularly in Canada) would have been minimal.
In the long run, while I don’t think I could bring myself to kill someone for stealing something from me, part of me applauds this man for sending a message to those that would so easily steal what many of us have worked so hard for.
Coming to a city near you.
Honest law-abiding citizens are thoroughly disgusted with the lack of concern by most police forces in providing adequate and realistic protection from the predators in our society.
A compliant judiciary who feel that it is their duty to give EVERY benefit to the accused’s arguments mean that areas can held under siege by a few thugs.
Eventually people say enough is enough, I believe we are very close to that point. Ever increasing justice and police budgets have only resulted in more lenient policing.
Minchau,
that is the other side of today’s ‘justice’
Meanwhile still in the USA. From Yahoo news
Rare robbery case brings cries of racism
LAKEPORT, Calif. – Three young black men break into a white man’s home in rural Northern California. The homeowner shoots two of them to death — but it’s the surviving black man who is charged with murder
Go to link to read more
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_re_us/break_in_murder
I would like to see some sort of shift in the way we(and the USA) handle some of these situations.
I know innocent till proven guilty and all that but……..I would never start a fight, never engage someone, I would not tresspass nor would I steal.
I think I have 3 or 4 speeding tickets and about the same number of parking violations. And if you want to count the time in grade six I was sent to the principals office for hiding a kids new rodeo belt buckle it still will not show I am a threat to anyone
But….
If someone broke into my home, and my wife and two children are there….
I have a gun. A registered hunting rifle.
I would defend my home and deal with the fallout later.
The only way I would ever do anything is if they came to me.
Here is a good idea, If you do not want to get shot, do not B and E
ha! we need more neighbours like him. I don’t have a gun in my house but if the fu shits…wear it
if the fu sh!ts
Seems to me that he was being a really good neighbour. I the rural part of the country that I live in, it’s not a good idea to go into anyones house if ANY of the neighbours are at home, and that’s a good thing.
Pat
Kinda like the shoot, shovel and shut up thing except that he didn’t need a shovel and didn’t shut up.
Are there really many out there that still think that the police and our justice system are capable of looking out for and protecting us?
With certain types of crime and the ethnics or races involved the Police have a motto FIDO, F—k It, Drive On, sad but true.
Have to sadly agree Cascadian.
Brief story of mine of why I’ll never bear witness to a crime again:
Witnessed a hit and run right in front of my home. I knew the minor aged female passenger in the hit and run vehicle as she bailed out as soon as the vehicles came to a stop. (neighbours kid – drop out and druggie 15 yrs. old, it was her daily supply delivery guy) She’s the only one on the street like this, otherwise it’s a pretty decent neighbourhood.
So I gave my statement about the details. The 15 yr old, claimed she was not in the car and didn’t know the driver, lie, lie lie.
Anyways… the mother of this “princess” comes to my home a few weeks later and tries to assault me at my front door.
I wound up getting the better of her and kicked her sorry ass right off my front steps.
I insisted she be charged with assault when I called the police and they assured me she’d be charged. BUT the prosecutors office decided that the mother, my wanna be attacker should get off without any repercussions what-so-ever since she doesn’t have a criminal record.
Nice eh?
Seem it’s more important to use Jurisprudence against me but in favour for their ‘REAL’ victim – the criminal.
And of course they never got the driver the drove a mother right off the road and totaled her car. She was on her way to pick up her kids from school just a half a block from my house, and since the ‘princess’ won’t say who he is and her attack dog of a mother is obviously not going to make her fess up, both that woman and I are never going to see justice.
Princess has also threatened me with her ‘nigars’. Quotes are the ‘princess’s’. Since she drags them on our street frequently enough, I’m not going to completely dismiss this threat just yet.
Also took over five hours for the police to respond, not that it was a crisis, but still the insult was when they told me my call wasn’t a ‘high enough priority’ and they had ‘more important matter to deal with’.
That sadly is the direct quote.
For the record, mother is a big woman, maybe 200 lbs around 5ft 7 or 8?
I’m a hundred some odd lbs fully dressed and 5’5”, in my late 40’s and wear glasses which was the only thing she managed to hit.
Hubby and I realize that it’s a different world now.
And that’s why we’re legal gun owners. I will never expect justice nor will I expect someone else to protect me ( other than loved ones of course ). I’ll take care of me and mine from now on, thank you very much.
“If something like this happened in your neighborhood the thoughts may be very different.”
If this guy was my neighbor I’d be inviting him over for supper on a regular basis and chipping into his legal fund.
Western Canadian: “With certain types of crime and the ethnics or races involved the Police have a motto FIDO, F—k It, Drive On, sad but true.”
Spot on. I used to golf with a couple of cops in Toronto, and that’s exactly the phrase they used. As one of them put it “You get sick and tired of arresting these guys, and seeing the cases tossed out of court or them getting a slap on the wrists due to the Young Offenders Act. So we spend most of our time hassling white people over minor traffic violations because those stick.” A truly criminal case might force them to sit in a courtroom, bored out of their minds, for two weeks or more, only to see the accused walk out with no real penalty. I agree, sad but true.
Would anyone object if it had been a policeman who had confronted and killed the burglars?
I think not.
So, then why should a respectable Citizen doing his utmost to prevent these felony crimes and apprehend the escaping felons get prosecuted for anything???
I suspect the Houston Police won’t press any charges against this man. IMO, the chances are damn slim of finding a Texas jury willing to convict for any charge a 70+ year old man who killed two burglars next door to his own home,that he caught red-handed.
On the other hand, the chances are excellent that the District Attorney and Houston PD would get a lot of heat from the public for any prosecution of the man. And they’re well aware they wouldn’t be able to sell this to any Texas jury.
Probably the whole neighborhood would chip in for his defense fund, he’d be acquitted and they’d have a congratulatory neighborhood party for the man.
(Secondary point, but I’d bet a fast $20 that the late burglars had previous criminal records, too. Career free-lance Socialists, I bet.)
The fact that there is even any discussion about this disgusts me. Neighbor shotguns two (2) robbers. Proper response = “Good job!” + Citizenship Award.
Lefties want to know why there’s crime in our cities? THIS is why. Way to go Lefties.
Bolshevik, your suggestion that the old guy “shoot to wound” indicates you have no experience with firearms or self defense. There are two self defense modes: Kill ’em or flee. No middle ground. I could explain why, but it would take too long just now.
pissedoff —
One thing is for certain: the homeowner in the California case can’t be charged with murder as he was defending his home. As to whether or not the third, surviving accomplice should be charged with murder… well, that’s a stretch if you ask me. And then there’s the obvious race-baiting of the whole thing (do you honestly believe race would be mentioned if the intruders were white?).
In the case mentioned by Kate, I’m with the shooter. I hope he gets off altogether or at least lightly. And all his neighbours should drop by and shake his hand; he just made their streets the last place burglars will visit for a long time.
Okay, so the warning shots were a little low…
“Bad boys, bad boys, What ya goin’ to do,
What ya goin’ to do when da neighbor ‘s shootin’ at you.” (with appologies to COPS)
pissedoff —
“One thing is for certain: the homeowner in the California case can’t be charged with murder as he was defending his home. As to whether or not the third, surviving accomplice should be charged with murder… well, that’s a stretch if you ask me.”
There’s statute law in California called the Felony Murder doctrine. A number of other States have it as well.
If two or more people commit, or attempt to commit, a felony or felonies, they are EACH responsible for all the crimes committed and, if anyone is killed BY ANYONE DURING THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME(S), they are each culpable of murder. That includes killed by the victim or a police officer. The victim or police officer’s justifiable homicide becomes the perpetrators’ homicide.
The doctrine is that one committing a felony or felonies is aware of the grave danger to life and limb inherently involved in the commission of any violent felony. This legally substitutes for premeditation AND malice aforethought. It’s been on the statute books for decades and has been upheld by the California Supreme Court as Constitutional.
Trespassers will be shot.
Survivors will be shot again.
At one time judges were required to be knowledgable on the Law in the OT.
Here is the applicable Law.
Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
In other words, catching someone in the act of burglury and killing them is not premeditated homicide requiring the person committing the homocide to be put to death. (No mention of who the thief is stealing from)
Dave in PA,
It is unfortunate that we don’t have any laws like that (Felony Murder Doctrine) here in Canada. That is a great law!
Bolshevik, re-reading my above comment I should make it clear I’m not lumping you in with the Lefties. That would be untrue and unfair.
However I must reiterate that this “wing him” concept is pure Hollywood. There is no “shoot to wound him”, there is only -shoot him-. Particularly with a shotgun. If he dies he dies.
An armed citizen is not a cop. Cops use escalation of force because they are required to by regulations and laws, not because it is sensible or tactically reasonable.
The armed citizen makes his decision based on survival. There is no warning shot, no shouting “Freeze!”, no Hollywood. You are going to die, so you fire on the bad guy until he stops trying to kill you.
“Going to die” means armed assailant within 20 feet. Armed with a gun or a knife or even a stick, makes no difference. That’s not “no legal difference”, that’s no -practical- difference. A guy with a knife 20 feet away can kill you even after you shoot him. Fire on the target until they stop trying to kill you.
So, two obvious robbers running around the neighborhood, I’m going to assume they are armed, how is it unreasonable that a neighbor shoots these men?
Life, as they say, is hard. The more you study these things the harder life looks, too. You want a nice, safe, peaceful neighborhood, maybe you better be ready to defend it. Personally.
Phantom,
agree with the first sentence, dont’t like it though agree.
It is unfortunate that today, the ‘justice’ is not blind, its eyes are wide open looking for some mega cash.
Was in the army, shooting with Kalashnikov for 2 years and 2 months.
I’m with neo that this is a bad call. The old guy had the cops on the phone, he had to leave his house to fire directly at those two. He was not in any imminent danger posed by them and stealing property wouldn’t get you a death sentence by jury. The cops would have identified themselves and fired a warning shot first. They don’t use deadly force unless they are fired upon.
I can understand using deadly force at 3am if there is a hulking figure at the foot of your bed or roaming your house. The old guy at no time was being physically threatened by those two.
We are all disgusted by crime and punk criminals, but, I don’t find anything heroic in the old guy’s shooting to kill in that scenerio.
Police propagandist on the 911 desk said: ” That’s OK…don’t go outside… property’s not worth killing over”
Wow…you have to have skipped school to believe that zinger. War is all about property ownership. I suppose if what this 911 peacnick is saying is true we can expect Brinks to turn in their guns and the feds to remove the armed guard from fort Knox.
My gawd the degenerate communist ideals of the 60s still corrupt the thinking of officials supposedly in charge of a free republic.
Property is not worth killing over indeed….property is what free republics are founded upon, I can;t think of anything more important than individual property rights worth killing for…except maybe individual liberty.
What? for Uncle Fidel? What fantasy world are you living in?
You don’t kill someone for robbing a house especially if they are not armed and there is no one at home.
Getting robbed is a bad thing – and very tramatic – but it’s not worth killing over.
If something like this happened in Ireland – our old friend mr. vengence would come into play – and that old man better be on a fast boat to China – because he’s a walking dead man.
“”When police arrived moments later, they found two dead men in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive. One was across the street, and the other had collapsed two houses down behind a bank of mailboxes in the Village Grove East subdivision.””
I just love happy endings! 😉
WL: agreed 100% The concept that property is “not worth killing over” is in perfect line with “communal property” and how many people were murdered over that concept? Last count was 150 million.
Penny, i think you labour under false assumptions..police never ‘fire a warning shot’..when they make the decision to shoot, they aim for the greater bulk of the body mass.I.e., the torso.The police will also drop you faster than a whores drawers if you are brandishing, and threatening people with a weapon, regardless if you shoot at them or not..
Cconn..you have obviously never seen straw dogs!
Are you seriously suggesting that it behooves the would be victim to not defend life, limb or property, because the baddies might take offense, and send the pack round for more?
That mentality would give the baddies a free pass, because it would cow the average citizen into thinking that nothing is worth protecting,not even his own life.
What if they are breaking in to rob, rape and murder? Not like that has ever happened..!
You can’t know their mindset, or their intent, so you have to take action.
You come into my house unannounced, with intent to harm me, and you are going back out that door as quick with either my fist, a bat or shotgun jammed into your forhead.
This is a bad scene all around.
The would-be thieves deserved incarceration, which in Texas, is no light thing. However, they did not deserve death.
And we should hardly be condoning the shooter’s actions. What we’re talking about here is vigilante justice. Condoning his actions–indeed, celebrating them–would set a very dangerous precedent. As Dave in Pa. notes, owing to the guy’s age and the potentially sympathetic nature of his case, it’s unlikely he’ll be charged, nor should he. But neither should his actions be celebrated.
As I said, this is a bad scene all around.
“You don’t kill someone for robbing a house especially if they are not armed and there is no one at home.”
Who made up that little rule of Thumb?
The Criminal code says you have a right and duty to stop a fleeing felon “by any means neccessary”.
Texas has similar laws and this was a 70 year old man against 2 30 year olds…they had him out numbered and out gunned physically so the shot gun was a reasonable equalizer of force…the story does not asy if they were armed but it’s obvious the home owner;s neighbor had no idea if they were or not…you see a fleeing felon with a bag of cash from your neighbor’s house, assume they’re armed and acting accordingly is reasonable.
I see a clean shoot here…one thing is certain…Liberal apologists are fond of “sending the right message”…well this property owner sent the right message to any potential burglars that his neighbourhood is a lethal liability for criminals….and that’s how it should be.
Penny, I don’t think you’re getting the distinction “free country” here. In a free country, individuals make these kinds of deadly force decisions themselves. The old man acted appropriately for a citizen of a free country.
In a socialist police state (such as ours)individuals are -not allowed- to make decisions like that. They have to call 911 and hide until the cops get there and sort it out. If they ever do. This often results in the “call 911 and die” scenario. The old man’s actions are completely wrong for a citizen of a police state.
By your posting here it seems you prefer the police state. I submit you might want to think about that a bit. See if that’s what you really want, or if you just feel bad some guy got killed.
I guess we shall see which side of the spectrum Texas falls on when the jury gets done here.
Doug,
don’t talk stupid, you have no choice were you are born and have to live with the circumstances you have.
“The would-be thieves deserved incarceration, which in Texas, is no light thing. However, they did not deserve death.”
Please stick to the reality of the situation…they CHOSE death when they disobeyed an armed and legally empowered citizen’s call to stop…that was their opertunity to be taken into custody….the fact remains that this scenario plays out hundereds of times a month with police doing the shooting and no one bats an eye.
When did we all get so squeemish and repressed to think the police have a monopoly on the justified use of deadly force??? What about all the times when police are NOT present to stop a crime?
I applaud this man His loyalty to his neighbour and the rights of free hold property are commendable…if there are any bad guys here it is the thugs who set out to victimize a law abiding citizen…for all we know that cash was his life savings…that can never be recovered…..let’s not get all misty eyed and wrapped up in Stockholm syndrome here.
Didn’t deserve to die over a theft is a moot question.
This happened in Texas, where you are allowed to use deadly force to protect property. The question is whether they’ll decide he had the right to protect his neighbor’s.
I would have no problem having this guy as my neighbor.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Hannah, a vigilante would be some guy running around the city shooting people he thought were criminals.
This is an armed citizen protecting a neighbor’s house during an actual crime. You can see how these two things are not the same.
Not getting the “free country” concept, just like Penny. Its nice to be sad that people were killed, but its wrong to blame this old man for it. They made their decision when they broke into that house. They made it again when the old man confronted them.
Like I said, life is hard.
“…especially if they are not armed …”
and just how do we determine that? Cops always assume weapons until physically proven otherwise. Even then, in Canada the cops get put through the wringer for shooting anyone. Remember the Calgary cop who got sliced up trying to remove a drunk from his families door step? He shot the fellon and there was an immediate cry of racism along with the use of excessive force (using a gun at a knife fight).
Yeah, the 9-1-1 dispatcher was following protocol in telling the guy to stay inside (and therefore theoretically safe). Can you imagine the outcry if the old chap was told to “go and get’em” only to be gunned down?
Bolshevik, you choose a provocative nic “Bolshevik” which is pure fantasy, and then write very generally about “Kalishinikov” which could be one one numerous weapons in reference to some so-called “army” so it begs, WTF are you talking about?
You better clarify yourself if you want to be taken seriously.
Shooting thieves caught in the act?
Well that’s one way discouraging a repeat visit from the scumbags! They rob your neighbour today they come back to rob you tomorrow. And the shotgun wielding guy was risking his life to defend his neighbour …. laying charges in a case like this just shows how warped the liberal mindset has become .
I think I should point out, as per Kate’s comment, these two didn’t “die over a theft”. As in, the old man wasn’t punishing them for stealing.
These men died because they were STUPID. Only a moron would fail to lie down and put their arms over their head when faced with a loaded shotgun.
As Heinlein said, “Stupidity is a capital offense.”
Come on guys, wake up. The crooks made the decision of robbing a house in broad daylight, they could have encountered any number of obstacles. (IE: Attack dog, electric fence, mace, Colt. 45, trigger happy cops, etc. etc.)
Right here in Smalltown Sasaktchewan, we’ve had elderly folks (seniors) beaten to death by intruders. One guy went as far as dousing an elderly lady with gasoline and torching her after he had robbed her. He should have gotten a necktine party, he was most likely set free after 5 years.
What ever happned to our sense of right and wrong? The shooter should get the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a pair of Chrome plated S and W 357 magnums with a lifetime supply of ammo!.
Come on guys, wake up. The crooks made the decision of robbing a house in broad daylight, they could have encountered any number of obstacles. (IE: Attack dog, electric fence, mace, Colt. 45, trigger happy cops, etc. etc.)
Right here in Smalltown Saskatchewan, we’ve had elderly folks (seniors) beaten to death by intruders. One guy went as far as dousing an elderly lady with gasoline and torching her after he had robbed her. He should have gotten a necktine party, he was most likely set free after 5 years.
What ever happned to our sense of right and wrong? The shooter should get the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a pair of Chrome plated S and W 357 magnums with a lifetime supply of ammo!.