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.
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.