“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!.

Phantom, you are misconstruing what I said. I'm all in favor of an armed citizenry. In my use of deadly force at 3am scenario, there is no 911 option. That the socialist wimps in Canada have left you and your family in a home invasion scenario as roadkill or subject to charges for using deadly force to protect yourselves is despicable.

But, this old guy's behavior - that he was under no personal threat, left his home to pursue the burglars and pretty much fired to kill and he did understand them to be burglars next door, not rapists - isn't what I'd ever do. He's behavior smacked of vigilantism which isn't a good thing in a free society either.

There have been stories of late of pistol packing old ladies in high crime neighborhoods here, one old darling in a wheelchair, that have shot their assailants, but they were being physically threatened. Sorry, but, this old guy doesn't fit my moral parameters of when to shoot to kill.

Abilene, Texas. High school prom king, co-captain of the football team, gets drunk with a couple of teammates and decides, having been egged on by his pals, to hotwire your car for an end-of-term joyride. From your second floor bedroom, you watch as your neighbor exits his front door, walks across the lawn, and shoots said prom king in the back of the head. His pals scatter. Your neighbor walks back into his house, picks up the phone, and informs the authorities.

For whom here is this scenario entirely reasonable?

So, how many times can a person get off for a crime if they have no record. How do they get a record if no one will lay charges.
I have always maintained that a first offence should get maximum penalty, then there would not be a second offence. And, a first offence is usually the first time they are caught, not the first time they offended.

Kudos to the old fella. Too bad there aren't more guys like him. Not sure why criminals shouldn't fear for their life when they're breaking into someone's house (or when they;re leaving it for that matter). They sure as hell don't fear the justice system. If you are truly appalled by poor criminals getting shot by citizens then maybe you should be championing lengthy prison sentences in real prisons (as opposed to country clubs that charge the taxpayer over $70,000/yr/convict). No reason why we shouldn't be profiting off of these criminals once they are in prison rather than them costing us money. And frankly, I'd be looking at ways to lengthen the stays of these thugs to increase profits to the government and reduce our taxes.

As was stated before these bums likely had lengthy criminal records and only saw a short stint in jail as a worst case scenario. Well guess what...thieves in that neighbourhood will now have to add possible death to their risk/benefit analysis before breaking into homes.

Getting shot & killed = a job hazard of thievery.

Don't like it, get another line of work.

Gunney99

From wikipedia

Canada

Section 494 of the Criminal Code of Canada covers citizen's arrest for Canada. One can arrest a person found in the act of committing an indictable offence. One can also arrest a person being "freshly pursued" (for example, by the police) if one has grounds to believe that person has committed a criminal offence (whether that crime is an indictable offence or a summary conviction offence). A civilian has no authority to detain a wanted person (a person with an outstanding arrest warrant).

Paragraph two of the section permits a property owner, or a person authorized by the owner (e.g. a security guard), to make a citizen's arrest of a person found committing a criminal offence (whether indictable or summary conviction) on or to that property. Thus, you could arrest someone you find vandalizing your house.

If you make a citizen's arrest you must identify yourself, advise the person they are under arrest, take physical control, tell them what they are under arrest for, advise them they have the right to instruct and retain counsel without delay and deliver the arrested person to a peace officer as soon as possible.

The Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the powers of arrest of non-police officers and with the degree of force permitted in a recent case, R. v. Asante-Mensah.

To steal someone's property is to steal part of their life. We work damned hard to acquire properly the right way. If criminals trie to take that away they should be know they are risking the forfeit of part of their life—the remaining part.

Free people should not cower in their houses while theives disposses them. If they calculate that a better outcome is likely by staying quiet and out of sight, may their calculation be the right one. But they should assume the worst and feel free to apply the most effective means of neutralizing the threat.

If anyone comes into my home, potentially threatening my property and the well being of my wife and children, I will feel no compunction at using the greatest degree of force at my disposal.

Abilene, Texas. High school prom king, co-captain of the football team, gets drunk with a couple of teammates and decides, having been egged on by his pals, to hotwire your car for an end-of-term joyride. From your second floor bedroom, you watch as your neighbor exits his front door, walks across the lawn, and shoots said prom king in the back of the head. His pals scatter. Your neighbor walks back into his house, picks up the phone, and informs the authorities.

For whom here is this scenario entirely reasonable?

??????? illegal immigrants???????? do not break into my house. no matter what the law says.

The law Kate refers to - that allows you to kill someone taking your property - apparently was passed into law this year.

Here's what the author of that law - a conservative Republican, Phantom/WL, not some leftbot - has to say about this particular situation:

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.

But the person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings and must suspect that taking less drastic measures could expose themselves or others to serious danger.

A state senator who authored a law passed this year giving Texans stronger rights to defend themselves with deadly force said he did not believe the legislation he spearheaded would apply to the Pasadena case, based on the sketchy facts that have emerged so far.

Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, said the so-called castle doctrine law he wrote doesn't apply to people protecting their neighbors' property.

The measure "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Wentworth said. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

-------------

There is nothing about this situation that is good. Phantom and WL and Idler are making arguments with straw men, with all this crap about shooting to kill and not wound or give warning, or killing for property is the foundation of a free republic: the shooter here was not under threat and was not defending himself; he was not even defending his own property.

What distinguishes us from terrorists and barbarians? What makes us "civilized"? Above all else, it is laws. Making them and abiding by them. Isn't that a hardcore conservative plank? And when even the author of a law that goes further than any other similar law in the US says that this guy went too far, then in taking the law into his own hands and against the clear instructions of the 911 authorities, he went too far by killing. Frankly, you couldn't have a clearer case of murder on your hands.

And, frankly, what kind of conservative says forget that "eye for an eye" crap; I want the whole damn body for a fistful of someone else's dollars. Because the next felon might think twice about grabbing a few dollars in froniter justice land and the end always justifies the means, eh? If you've sinned, forget the courts and forget damnation: I am going to be cop, judge, jury and executioner.

The penalty for theft is not death. When that old man meets his maker, the law of Texas isn't going to save his sorry arse.

One thing I do figure is, criminals aren't going to mess around in that old man's neighborhood in the near future.

The US stats are very telling, areas that have a high number of Concealed Carry permits (CCW) generally have a lower crime rate and homicide rate. Also the percentage of CCW holders who are charged with gun related crimes is less than 1%. FBI stats indicate that over 2.5 million crimes are interrupted/stopped by armed citizens. Regardless of having a CCW each citizen is responsible for their actions and if they shoot at someone who they have no legally authority to do so, they will be charged with manslaughter-murder.
It is also telling that the areas with the strictest gun laws in the US generally have the highest crime rate and Homicide rates. Chicago and Washington DC.

None of the research done indicate that CCW creates an increase in homicides, in fact the opposite seems to be true. Also realize that recent court cases in the US indicate that the 2nd amendment does not give the right to be armed for self-defense, but protects it. The right of self-defense is a natural right and part of common law. Court cases in Canada have recently also confirmed this as a right of Canadians as well. Canada however makes it almost impossible to carry out this right and this may be a volition of the Charter. Canadians can apply for 3 levels of “Authorization To Carry” (ATC) Level 1 is for bush carry of handguns for protection against predators, Level 2 is for armed security guards and level 3 is for personal protection, which seems to be only given to Judges and drug dealers turned informers. Regular Canadians it seems aren’t as important as insured money or people already protected by armed Sheriffs at work.

I really don't think God is going to side with thieves. God has a special place in heaven for those that risk their lives to protect the life and property of others. The old man did the right thing.

If more people would kill thieves there would be less of them around. I think that was a question I had in grade four math. If there were two thieves that broke into a house and an old man killed two of them, how many thieves were left to terrorize the citizenry??

Glenn: Re Citizen's Arrest

To exercise authority over a criminal, one would have to be either a) Big and tough or b) Armed.
Now, in Canada, there are strict laws against the use of weapons to threaten and, specifically with respect to firearms, even against taking a one out of storage for any reason other than hunting, target shooting or transport.

Wouldn't the citizen be risking arrest and prosecution for making the arrest? Any lawyers here?

12 Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. 13 If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. 14 But if someone wilfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution.

23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

------------

Heck, even the monstrous Shar'ia laws doesn't go as far as to justify murdering a thief:

"Theft

Commenting on this verse, Yusuf Ali says that most Islamic jurists believe that "petty thefts are exempt from this punishment" and that "only one hand should be cut off for the first theft."[9] Maududi also agrees that petty theft is exempt, although he admits that jurists disagree as to the exact dividing line.[10] In Shi'a law, the penalty for the first theft is interpreted as the severing of the four fingers of the right hand based on hadith authentic to them,[11] and this penalty will be applied only if the thief is adult, sane, has stolen from a secure place, was not under compulsion or misery, and does not repent before the crime is proved, among other conditions.[12][13]" (http://tinyurl.com/2wvaa4)

-----------------

How ironic that some conservatives here want our laws to be even harsher than Shar'ia.

Exodus 22:2-4: "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood
be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double."

If the thief is struck dead in the nightime, no blame will be put on the person protecting their property, but if it is daytime, if the thief is struck dead, the person protecting their property will be held accountable - blood shed.

Exodus 21:12 "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."

"a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection."
Texas Penal Code

In other words. If'n yor'n gonna be making away with my stuff here, I'm a gonna be making an example outta yor sorry arse. Seems to me it is incumbent upon criminals to be familiar with victims rights before they try to steal from them.

Maybe all the criminals should move here to Canada where we treat them with the respect and dignity they so richly deserve. Those poor souls.

For God so loved to see criminals smoted that he gave regular citizens smoting machines with which to smote them thar criminal types, and he said "Go forth and smote them criminals! I don't like 'em." So sayeth the Lord, Amen.

Wow, Ted and I are on the same page on this case. This is probably a first. But, Ted, since you usually endorse the Canadian socialists' positions, you need to examine the other extreme.

I think what has lit a fuse and ignited a volley of support from my Canadian friends here for our esteemed wimp-free state of Texas is the sheer backlash against Canadian socialists that have gutted as much as they can from the basic human right of self-protection. Colin has spelled out what's been stripped away. Face it, who would I rather victimize if so inclined, a Texan in Amarillo or a Canadian in Toronto at an ATM machine? Criminals aren't stupid.

Hannah, there is another piece to the equation of the real or otherwise thumbnail sketch you've laid out and that is, what happened after that? Was the neighbor prosecuted? If so, what was that outcome? Your story isn't complete.

There will be an inquiry into the old guy's behavior. If he was safe within the law, but, the community feels the state/local law was too broad, it'll get changed which is as it should be. The one thing we won't lose is the Second Amendmant which as it should be.

If the thief is struck dead in the nightime, no blame will be put on the person protecting their property, but if it is daytime, if the thief is struck dead, the person protecting their property will be held accountable - blood shed.

What nonsense. What is the difference between a thief be killed during the daylight or at night?

This is a Hebraism that means if, after the thief gets away, he is hunted down and killed in cold blood, whoever kills him is guilty of criminal homocide. The succeeding verses go on to direct what is to be done after the thief is hunted down. Try to stay within the context.

Ted, with respect, my comments were in response to other comments on the seriousness of property theft and the calculation of threat when someone has entered one's house, so the charge of straw men is incorrect.

Well, In hear the progressives are on to the theft doesn't deserve death chant (Hi Ted) but the fact of it all is that what would have happened if he didn't shoot? Maybe tomorrow the thieves, haveing gotten a good haul would try the house next to the one they robbed. Maybe they confront a surprised owner and next thing you know, one dead home owner.

These comments are full of what ifs" but facts are that there are two less thieves in Texas...

Ted,don't tell me that shar'ia law is more kind because if we had shar'ia law,I would'nt shoot robbers,I would take a picture of the robbers so that the authorities would know whose hands to cut off.

Penny, I didn't misconstrue what you said. I said that deadly force properly extends to protecting property in a free country. You are implying this shouldn't be the case. Yes?

Hannah, shooting an unarmed kid in the back of the head for stealing a car is not what happened here. B&E, old guy, two robbers probably armed, cops not coming. One of these things is not like the other.

Ted, my point is that in a free country, the old guy makes the call and the cops back him up. In a not-free country the old guy can't even decide if he should defend HIMSELF. That's where we live.

Amen to that Texas Canuk

Murder. Let the shooter receive the death penalty.

Texas Canuck: Maybe tomorrow the thieves, haveing gotten a good haul would try the house next to the one they robbed. Maybe they confront a surprised owner and next thing you know, one dead home owner...facts are that there are two less thieves in Texas...

TC, using your line of thinking, what's to stop police officers from shooting on sight as a matter of first resort, without previously attempting to ascertain whether the suspect(s) are armed and dangerous, or subdue the suspect(s) without deadly force? Since you think citizens should be afforded that right, why not the state?

Fuck'em...
Teach'em not to steal

The Phantom: Hannah, shooting an unarmed kid in the back of the head for stealing a car is not what happened here. B&E, old guy, two robbers probably armed, cops not coming. One of these things is not like the other.

But you previously argued that "deadly force properly extends to protecting property in a free country." In my scenario, the shooter does not know (and has no way to determine) that the "kid" is unarmed, or that his motivation is simply to have a joyride. The shooter knows only that someone is trying to steal his neighbour's property, which is your view is an act that compels the immediate use of deadly force.

What is so fundamentally different here? If it helps, assume that in my scenario, the shooter is also in his 70s, and likewise owns a nice car.

If you don't want to accept the risks of being a criminal then leave other peoples stuff alone. Ted and Hannah, along with most progressive socialists, have made it safe for criminals to ply their trade and endanger the rest of us. They are soft on crime socialists. The softer we get the more crime we deal with. (Toronto/Vancouver Gangs) Does someone deserve to die for theft,..probably not, but if you if get yourself shot robbing someone you have only yourself to blame.

How did this old guy know they were thieves? Could they not have been friends of his neighbour that were sent there to collect some belongings? Of course.

This is why he was wrong and it is why he will be convicted. As he should be.

The softer we get the more crime we deal with.

Actually, that is quantifiably false. Crime throughout North America is going down. Whatever you want to argue is the reason for that or that in some jurisdictions it is going down faster than others, that is a quantifiable fact.

Does someone deserve to die for theft,..probably not, but if you if get yourself shot robbing someone you have only yourself to blame.

That's clearly only half the issue. Whether or not you want to feel sorry for two who were executed for stealing a few dollars is up to you.

Whether a private citizen, without any process at all let alone due process, has the right to decide whether you live or die - especially when the punishment society has deemed appropriate for theft is considerably less than meted out here, is another matter altogether.

How did this old guy know they were thieves? Could they not have been friends of his neighbour that were sent there to collect some belongings? Of course.

Heh, friends always, not only break windows to get in, they break more to get out.

I think you've passed your best before date.

Crime throughout North America is going down.

Is it lower than 1960 yet?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

The United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants went from 1,887.2 in 1960 to 5,897.8 in 1991. By 1991 the crime rate was 313% the 1960 crime rate. In 1996 your risk of being a victim of a crime in the United States was 5.079%, and of a violent crime 0.634%.
In 1960 these rates were 1.89% of being a victim of a crime and 0.161% of becoming victim of a violent crime.

Hey, Bazoo, I'm the last person you could call a socialist. I'm a conservative American, a proponent of the Second Amendment. This old guy's actions may have been in compliance with Texas legal statues, but, sorry, it doesn't make it right or moral. Change the burglar's ages on this one to age 15. No way would I kill a 15 year old or anyone for stuff stolen from a neighbor's house.

Between the extreme in socialized Britain where criminals have successfully sued for being roughed up by their victims and this case testing the latitude of Texas law is a world of responsibility in between. If a jury in the US would never give these guys capital punishment for burglary, they wouldn't, what allows this old codger the right to act as judge and jury?

He was in no harm. When you listen to the 911 call, he came across as a jerk.

I've had my car stolen and fantasized about cattle rustling justice, then, remembered what century I was in. I also stood face to face with the little punk in court and that was good enough for me, I didn't need to take his life.

Any anti-gun socialist construing my comments as on their side, please don't. This is a rogue case.

Penny: If my aunts had balls they would be my uncles. The facts are that these were 30 year old men. Not 15 year old kids. Stay with the facts of this case. Ted, crime is not going down in all locations of North America. I do believe the good folks in Tororto/Vancouver would like to question that statement in regards to gun crime and drugs. In areas that crime rates are falling it is because of gentlemen like this man with CCW permits. IMHO. We will have to wait for the whole story of this event to pass judgement on this man.

Ted, crime is going down in many states in the USA, mostly the same places that pass "Castle Doctrine" and "Shall Issue" concealed firearm license laws. Oddly, the number of people who get shot in these states decreases along with the crime rate. People are empowered to protect themselves and their stuff, crime drops.

Conversely, in places like Britain (and Toronto!) where they forbid firearms, deny the right to self defense as a practical matter, and indeed jail people for protecting mere property with force, the crime rate goes ... up. Oddly, the number of people who get shot INCREASES, along with the crime rate.

Amazing eh? Disempower the individual and force them to rely on government bureaucracy, and gee whiz it isn't working any more.

The specifics of this case are unknown at this time. Therefore I can't properly rebut Penny, Hannah and etc. in a meaningful way.

I will venture that IF this old man observed the break in as he said in the 911 call, and IF he gave the two robbers a chance to surrender (unless they jumped him), and IF he didn't shoot the stupid pr1cks in the back while they ran away empty handed (because that would be -vengance-, not defense), then I don't have a problem with it.

Yeh....what The Phanton said.

Yeah, and Robert Dziekanski deserved what he got too, right? I mean, breaking a computer and then turning away from RCMP officers with your hands in the air is CERTAINLY a capital offense.

I'm sure someone here can find scripture to justify it...

Burgler:
A lazy mother@#$%e, not interested in getting up inthe morning, and going to a job like the rest of us.

Prefers to skulk around in the shadows, like a common rat.
Looks for quick EASY opportunities, any amount of work, is not worth his useless ass time.

Best shot when encountered, and left so others of his species may come to different conclusions about their choice, and I do mean CHOICE, of career.

Yeah, I don't like thieves very much. Like em better if they're dead though....

To the first comment @5:35 PM.
Is the crime going down or the reporting of crime?
For some reason, likely found in the stars, somebody broke into my vehicle and stole a set of golf clubs, not a week later somebody broke into my car in altogether differen location and did not steal anything because there was nothing to steal.
The only reason the police wanted to know about it, was for their statistics, never mind they broke the glass twice that is althogether of no concern.
Why would I report anything to the police, only so they can have statistics to support higher pay.
I don't think so.

The article stated that the thieves had stolen a large amount of cash. Was in the possession of one of the dead thieves.

The white bag one the dead men had been carrying contained a large amount of cash that had apparently been taken from the house, Corbett said.
What's to say the old guy was not acting as an agent by request of his neighbour because he had the cash at home? And appears that if the neighbour states that, he'll likely not be charged. It's up to the Grand Jury now.
{Not sure why someone would have a bag of cash lying around at home, but each to his own I guess.}

Mary T, Exactly what I asked. Nice way to skew the stats down IMHO. Of course we have less crime convictions; the criminals are not even being charged.

The Texas penal code allows for killing to defend property if a person has a reasonable belief they have a duty to protect the person's property or they have been asked to do so by the property owner. I just listened to the full tape and the old man clearly said he did not know these property owners.

He is guilty of 2nd degree murder and, contrary to my early post, should spend life in prison.

Also, he said, "I'm going to kill them," before he left the house. There may be a case for premeditated murder. In which case, possibly the death penalty.

But no point in it. The man is too old. Life in prison is effectively the same as the appeals that would be filed in a death penalty case. He is guilty as sin and deserves to be punished.

The murderous old bastard! He should be sued too.

Yeah Hannah, but later on in the call he confronts them from his front lawn, tells them to drop it, threatens to shoot them, even yells "Boom you're dead!" at them, THEN he shoots them.

Then he gets back on the phone and tells the dispacher they came after him onto his lawn.

All this will be verified by the investigation, but if true he's good to go in my books. You can't let people do stuff right in front of you unchallenged and expect to live in peace Hannah. Just doesn't work that way.

While we are on the subject, why is going outside and telling robbers to stop their robbing "voluntarily exposed himself to danger"? I thought the old guy was the problem here, not the robbers. Its ok to be a dangerous robber but it isn't ok to go try to stop one?

I'd think about that a little bit, were I you.

You don't need to prove self defense to shoot burglers, you need to prove burglary. After you do that you get a ticker-tape parade.

"Voluntarily exposed himself to danger", bah. Some people are "peace at any price" types who are content to hide while others protect their sorry hides. Mark those people and never entrust them with anything.

Hannah:

A) Six seconds is a loooong time in a fight. Its like half a century in a gun fight. More than long enough to drop weapons and lie down, also more than long enough for two men to kill one old guy with a crowbar. You'd know that if you studied martial arts.

B) You're listening to a recording from a friggin' telephone. Obviously you aren't hearing everything that went on, just the really loud parts.

C) How is it a bad thing to face down criminals? When did we all decide only police are moral enough to do that and we dumb civilians aren't? Police state mentality Hannah.

Either individual people are good enough, smart enough, moral enough to stand off criminals or the socialists are right and we all need to be controlled by our betters. That's pretty much your choices here.

Hanna: I have no doubt that this guy thought he was legally justified, that he was just protecting his neighbor's property. But just because he thought that, doesn't make it so.

Actually, think maybe this will be his only defense needed, read the accompanying article, apparently all the (robed) neighbour has to say is: Yes I asked him to protect my property. And this is in Texas, not Canada. I'd be very surprised if they lock him away over this. Not entirely sure but think they take a dim view of illegal aliens who only conduct themselves in a criminal manner against US citizens.

Not being snarky, just saying facts in this case as they may apply to Texan law.

You heard?

...yeah.

I shall now consider you a troll and honor Kate's 'no feed droll trolls' guideline.

Bon nuit.