This shooting is disturbing - Pasadena man fatally shoots burglary suspects

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5301872.html

Nov. 14, 2007, 8:04PM
Pasadena man fatally shoots burglary suspects

A Pasadena homeowner this afternoon fatally shot two men he believed were burglarizing his neighbor's house, police said. About 2 p.m., the homeowner in the Village Grove East subdivision heard noises he thought sounded like broken glass, said Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett, with the Pasadena Police Department. The man determined the noise was coming from next door.

The man, who police have not identified, knew the owner of the house in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive was not home, and that the noise could possibly be a burglary, Corbett said. The man then called police to inform them he thought his neighbor's house was being burglarized.

The man then saw two men coming through a gate in the backyard of the neighbor's house. "He confronted them with a shotgun," Corbett said, and asked them to stop. They did not and he fired two shots, striking each man once, Corbett said.

One man was found dead about two houses from where the reported burglary occurred. The other was found dead across the street, Corbett said.

...more

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

I agree that a person should protect their home and property from burglars but all I can do is shake my head on this one. Those burglars were getting away with the stuff so he had to shoot them dead. Well, at least his neighbor got his stuff back. The neighbors are calling him a hero...I don't think so.

Flame on.

I'd be amazed if he was even indicted.

He be in a world of trouble.

legal here in Texas. It's the part of it not being his house that is the barb. But if he was charged with protecting his neighbor's property while they were away, he may be on firm legal ground, even if his actions were extreme. It was him against two intruders. Hard call. Of course, actual clarification from an attorney would be practical for this discussion.

Deadly Force to Protect Property

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

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

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe000900.html#pe013.9.41

9.41 and 9.43.1

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

What gives your declaration of "absolutely correct" any weight
beyond it's being the personal opinion of someone who felt
compelled to point out that the suspects were BROWN?

What gives your declaration of "absolutely correct" any weight


Um, current Texas law?

I'm more than willing, as I'm sure everyone else here is, to read whatever you resource you might have to the contrary.


beyond it's being the personal opinion of someone who felt
compelled to point out that the suspects were BROWN?

Do you have access to information that "the suspects were BROWN"?

If so, please share with the rest of us. It wasn't mentioned in the article and hasn't been mentioned in this thread...until by you...twice.

While you're at it, please tell us why we should care that "the suspects were <pick a color>".

and basically, you can reasonably believe that anything is a theft, if you really want to. say you sell something on craigslist, and the guy comes and picks it up, in the evening, I don't see you, so I can reasonably believe he is stealing it. and shoot him. great fucking law.

Read the code again (pertinent sections in bold):




<<snip>>

No part of section 9.41 can apply, because the property he was allegedly protecting did not belong to him, nor was he a custodial guardian of that property (i.e., the neighbor didn't ask him to watch his place while he was gone and there was no understanding between the two that he was to treat the property in question as if it were his own). In fact, he saw this happen from his lawfully possessed property, and the law you pasted does not treat that as the same thing.



There's an important word there that occurs right at the end: "and". What this means is that the requirements set forth under section 9.41 still must be met. Since section 9.41 deals with one's own personal property, and again, unless there was some sort of contract between the neighbors, the property did not belong to him, and thus, those requirements are not met. Since section 9.41 cannot apply to this situation, neither can section 9.42 as the law you quoted is written- because of the word "and".

I could halt there, but I don't have to. The next clause bolsters my point:



I presume you see the colon. The clauses that follow are conditions; a list of possible situations or qualifications. Since these apply to crimes committed at night:



Most of this section of the law appears to only apply to crimes committed at night, but in this situation, it was broad daylight. There's that "and" at the end again, but let's breeze past it and continue on:



He could not have believed that the property (which was not his) couldn't be recovered by any other means, because he called the police prior to confronting the two alleged burglars. This indicates a trust in the police he called to be able to faithfully execute their duties, one of which is the recovery of stolen property.

§ 9.42(3)(B) is the only point in which the situation as stated in the article matches the requirements set forth under this law thus far, and we have no indication that he was in danger of being attacked by these men (recall which party was in overt possession of a firearm), so even that is on very shaky ground.

Moving on:



Let's pick this one apart. This section of the law appears to only apply if one of the other two sections prior to it in your quote also apply; that is, either 9.41 or 9.42. Unless there was an agreement not covered by this law- for example, but not limited to, a private contract between the two for mutual property protection- I just don't see how 9.41 can apply, because the property did not belong to him. That, when this comes to trial, ought to be an undisputed fact.

Section 9.43 requires that the conditions in sections 9.41 or 9.42 be met. As argued above, those conditions are not met, and by its own language, under those circumstances, § 9.43 does not apply, either.

In summary:

§ 9.41 does not apply to this situation because the property did not belong to him. CAVEAT: If the two had an agreement to watch each others' respective property, there may be a possible defense, but it would hinge upon his being unable to trust that the police would be able to recover his stolen property.

§ 9.42 does not apply because § 9.41 does not apply, and

§ 9.43 does not apply because neither § 9.41 nor § 9.42 apply.

IANAL, but this law isn't particularly complicated. No part of this, in my very unprofessional and humble opinion, applies to the situation as outlined in the article. I've no doubt in my mind that there are more details:

- What happened after he called the police, but before he saw them using the gate?
- Did he tell the police he was going out to confront them?
- Did they see he was armed? Did he fire a warning shot?

But those details don't erase the fact that this law doesn't apply to this situation. This man's staring a double murder charge in the face- which will probably be pled to manslaughter or some such. He probably won't spend much time, if anything, in jail, and that's sad, because this didn't have to happen. He'd called the police, then he decided to be a hero, and killed a couple people for burglarizing a home when nobody was there.

Some hero.

I don't have much sympathy for common thieves, but your life is one hell of a price to pay for someone else's sense of glory and self-vindication. He'd called the police, and he knew nobody was home.

This guy made this tragedy happen.

At that point he became a vigilante and not protecting property.

then reported their description, license number, and street address to the police which is what my mother and sister did. Bad guys arrested. Nobody dead. Very nice present from the neighbors.

If they figured no one was home then they probably would have taken their sweet time... Even if he followed them, if they noticed him then he would have no one but himself to blame for getting in that situation... and if he shot them then, he would still be in the same situation he is in now... fucked(me thinks)

He just administered the death penalty on his own to people who wouldn't have gotten it under the law.

I'd like to see someone argue self-defence after they armed themselves, left their house and yard proper and confronted the two men on independant private property.

on if they were after him after he told them to stop and they didn't. Did they rush him? The article does not say.

If they were after him personally, that's another story, if they had guns too and drew them on him.

If from the way I read it they were running and would not stop I would suspect they were shot in the back, IMO cold blooded murder..

Had they broke into his house, and had defended himself and family from aggressive burglars, then that would be a different story..

I'm sure the people next door did not think he would kill off the burglars, just report them to the police.

i wonder if i should go have a chat with each of my neighbors and let them know really, all i expect is a call to the police. their part is done

i had my car stolen from my garage. a couple older teenage males and a girl. drove from texas to calif, found there and returned to me. one of the guys that didnt know it was stolen and wasnt arrested walked a couple miles to my house to apologize for his friend that stole my car. young kid, nice enough. i then gave hima ride home

i would hate to see him shot dead. my car isnt worth it to me.

Call the cops, definitely, but don't go out and confront the thieves. What if they were armed and shot at the neighbor first? Or dropped the stuff and ganged up on him?

People are so quick to fire guns nowadays. :shrug:

This is pretty disturbing. If someone is invading your own house, that is one thing. Although I contend it is good that neighbors watch out for each other, shooting someone you think could be robbing your neighbor is not such a good idea. That smacks of a busy body itching to use his gun on some poor schmuck.

And the 911 operator told him to stay in his home but he was so anxious to shoot off his gun, he either ignored her or put the phone down and didn't hear the operator tell him to keep his ass in the house.

here in Michigan, I would kill in a heartbeat to protect a life, but I wouldn't be willing to pull the trigger for a piece of property. I'd take whatever mental snapshot I could and let the Police deal with burglers of an empty house.

Although some states allow for it, I don't think it's morally defensible to protect personal property with deadly force.

"I don't think it's morally defensible to protect personal property with deadly force."

With all due respect...Not many signs like that in front yards, care to be the first in your neighborhood?

The logic of the law carries that bad guys can (and often do) come back for more (ie: greed), so Texas has deemed it fit for its citizens to cure that problem, lest thieves become emboldened to come back to rape or kill.

You don't like the law? Move to Texas (actually, please don't) and change it. But while you're here, put that sign in the front yard.

Get a grip.

Texas law says what it says,
if you don't like it then I'd advise against you committing burglary in Texas.

And I really don't know whether or not this shooting was justifiable.

when people are in danger, it's a different story. Enter my sphere with that kind of intent, it's a different story. Steal my TV and run away? Not worth a human life, period.

BTW, how many men have you killed, tough guy? Think it's easy? Think it makes you a man? Think it helps you sleep at night?

Want to compare resumes? Your willingness to place that kind of value on your Playstation tells me yours is damn short.

Unfortunate, yes. Wrong, yes. But tragic, no. It isn't really that disturbing to me.

happen.
When is Texas going to enter the twentieth century.

I'd say Texas is well ahead of other parts of the country... including the "civilized" :sarcasm: ones.

It's not a blanket permission to shoot anyone who is stealing stuff or trespassing.

I think the law only applies to your own property.

What this guy did was simply vigilantism.

Please read qdemn7's quote of Texas law further up the page.

You have no goddamn right to shoot and kill someone else's property. If that's the law in Texas, it's fucked up. Of course Texas sucks in many (I live here so I know what a shitty state it is) ways so it wouldn't surprise me if they allowed this kind of vigilante crap.

This guy needs to spend some time in prison. Hopefully he will die there like the piece of vigilante crap he is.

We've already left it. This is the 21st Century. :evilgrin:

I thought it might be a bit much to expect such a huge leap forward.

sigh.

from the police. I agree. It stinks to heaven.

I doubt very seriously the suspects charged at him. Me thinks this protective itchy trigger finger homeowner is in trouble.

Kinda depends on WHO is charged with upholding the rule of law in that area.

Remember "Loyal Bushies" don't prosecute their own.

This is why conservatives support diminished civil rights and draconian laws, they expect the laws to be selectively applied.

Article says the suspects didn't stop, but it doesn't say exactly what they didn't stop doing. If they were threatening the man or coming toward him, the shooting may be justifiable. If they were walking away, probably not.

Now, had they entered his property then that would change the entire situation...

I'm sure the guy was just instinctively reacting though. Had he took the time to seriously think about what he was doing, I doubt he would have done it.

They made a choice, rolled the dice and crapped out.

move along, nothing to see

a felony. That is a big no no. If he had the legal ground to use deadly force to stop a felony depends on the law of the state.

Although what the perps were doing wasn't cool either but they were still two breathing human beings. I've been reading the comments at the Chronicle and a lot of them support what he did calling him a hero. Well, he may love hearing that but I am certain he will have a lot of sleepless nights wondering if he did the right thing.

Possessions = Human Life

Get that through your heads now? Possessions = Human life.

We have devolved into a society from where we can kill someone who may take our life to a society where we can kill someone for taking the microwave oven.

If there were no witnesses, they jury will have only the shooter's word on this.

I suspect that he will be found guilty of 1st Degree Manslaugher & get 8 to 10 year sentence but suspended & probation.

Assuming my overtime pay rate.

My house plus all my belongings is worth decades of my life.

Whether or not he had the right to shoot them is probably gonna depend on exactly how they reacted. It sounds like they attempted to flee and he shot them in the back, which isn't exactly heroic, and might even be illegal (depending on state laws). On the other hand, I have very little sympathy for burglars who get themselves killed while robbing people. If you're going to commit a felony in a country that allows citizens to arm themselves, you better be prepared for the consequences.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5303222.html

>>In the minutes before the fatal shootings, Pasadena police said the man called 911 and reported that he had heard glass breaking next door and saw two men entering the home through a window. Still on the phone with police, the man, believed to be in his 70s, saw the suspects leaving from the back of the home.

"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way. Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."<<

Confronting the thieves may not have been the best tactics. However, two young men vs one old man often qualifies as lethal force against the old man thus allowing for a lethal defense; and the thieves were not shot in the back.

The victims would have had the right to defend themselves, not the guy who exited his house and property with a loaded shotgun to confront two guys who were committing a property crime.

who did the "starting".

From what has been reported so far...The thieves "started" the process with their criminal act. The neighbor then attempted to stop their criminal act and when they insisted in continuing...he stopped their criminal act.

that the dispatcher told him not to, frankly.

But I am not familiar enough with the whole body of applicable Texas state law.

In California or any other state besides Texas I'm quite sure he would be in deep yogurt without a spoon.

Here's some more from that article:


"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."

Police have not found the families of the dead men, who both are in their 30's. One had identification indicating he was from Puerto Rico, the other had paper indicating he may have been from Puerto Rico, Colombia or the Dominican Republic, he said.

I quoted a section of the article the mentioned country of origin, race was not mentioned in the article OR my post...no inuendos, nothing.

Where do they find people like you?

This is/was a good thread, no mention of race until you opened your mouth.

That section of text was not in boldface type
in the article- YOU added that particular emphasis.

Clearly, you felt that sentence held some particular
significance which backed up your contention that the two
men were "pieces of trash". And so you made a point
of drawing our attention to it.

You need to work on that, quit looking for it around every corner. Did it even cross your mind (evidedently not) that the jist of the bold was to emphasize that they carried foreign ID's?

hello?

Again, you keep trying to inject race/color into this. Quit it.

Therefore, I have REMARKED upon them.

shame on ya.

And damn few of us believed it the first time we saw it.

But as much as you keep trying to rewrite it, it sure does sound like you wish you had.

After which, you've attempted to CYA by crying "race baiter"
at everyone who took notice. So far, looks like no one is
buying it.

Maybe you should stop selling it, hmm?

Puerto Ricans are US citizens from birth.

My bad on the P.R., found it odd someone with a Puerto Rican ID walking away from a house with a sack full of money so yeah, a little quick on that.

How about the other, you've probably got an explanation...hmm?

edited: baad speelin'

... because that's simply not relevant to whether the shooting was justified or not. If one of them was an illegal alien, that might make you dislike him more, and maybe you'll want to spit a couple more times on his corpse just for that: whatever. It still doesn't figure into any determination about the shooting itself.


As to how someone might come into possession of various Columbian and Dominican IDs, there are lots of possibilities. The man in question could even be a citizen who was in the habit of robbing illegal aliens -- it happens sometimes.

Did it even cross your mind (evidedently not) that the jist of the bold was to emphasize that they carried foreign ID's?
Why would that cross anyone's mind when you used bold to indicate one was from PR and the other may have been from PR?

Ball's in your court.

Why's it relevant enough to make a point of calling everyone's attention to that detail? In fact, you even cited it in boldface, so clearly you didn't want us to miss those clues to the burglars' possible ethnicity.

Why is that?

Dog forbid the article mentioned their ID's to begin with, much less pointing it out.

Do you always associate origin with race?

You need to wake up.

But thanks for going there first.

Just a random cut-n-paste that he emphasized for NO REASON WHATSOEVER. :eyes:

:shrug:

I wonder why you felt the need to post this particular paragraph that says where the dead suspects are from.

So far, we get accusations of "race baiting" for asking the question,
in lieu of actual answers.

It may prove to be a watershed case in terms of how far use of deadly force can be pushed.

As far as discussing, however, some DUers have attempted to struggle onward.

I though kgfnally's response #112, up near the top, was an excellent
and well-thought-out addition to the discussion, just to name one.

That should send him away for a few years.

The dispatcher told this fool to stay inside his house, undoubtedly for his own safety, if nothing else. But no, he had to be a hero.

It wasn't even at his house!

This man should go to prison!

in some states you can use deadly use to stop commission of a felony. Like breaking and entering, rape, etc. In my state killing a dog is a felony.

Not saying I would pop two people robbing my neighbors house. I would shoot someone for killing my dog, maybe...

But it may not be illegal where he is.

It could have been out of pure malace to shoot any and all "bad guys". It could have been that the thieves decided to resist by taking away the shotgun.

This data is not yet available to us.

He was NOT protecting HIMSELF from harm.

You need to read the article a little more thoroughly, it's pretty much explanatory as to what Texas law reads. One of the more well-written articles as of late (imagine that).

Texas law doesn't just deal with "HIMSELF"...and rightfully so.

Someone is trying to rob/rape/kill you on the street/wherever, I can (and probably will) shoot him/her dead on the spot.

Why? Texas law figures that the sitution can and could elevate into the badguy deciding to rape or kill you instead of just run away with your purse. It also figures that he might come back to commit said crimes, therefore it is open season on the badguy.

Enough cheering for the badguys rights, how about ours?

I'm the badguy and for whatever reason I decide I'm going to take your stuff. Now, we're in Texas (the receptacle for national enemas) and I, the bad guy, know that you can, and probably will, shoot me for taking stuff. I'm just going to blow your head off, in case.

A petty property crime is immediately escalated to homicide because a bunch of yahoo wannabe "tough guys" are "gonna show those motherfucking slimeballs who's got the biggest dick in these parts".

:eyes:

save it for the intellectually impaired and the frightened sheep.

.. as I know, these laws have not changed much recently. So, wherever it "Inevevitably leads", we are already there.

We really don't have a lot of problems with these laws being abused, the current story notwithstanding.

but this insane escalation shit accelerated under Raygun. "Zero tolerance" (as if that were helpful, tolerance being such an evil thing), "get tough on crime", etc.

We are not there quite yet, but well on our way, it is all designed to frighten the sheeple so they will support whatever the next step on the road to totalitarianism is. This story is just the latest in a truly obscene parade presented for their benefit.

Maybe if we lived longer, we wouldn't be so stupid, all the masters have to do is to keep the progression down to a minor step or two every year and a major step every decade or so, and it will pass completely unnoticed.

... while I agree that we are being desensitized and that we are losing America as it was envisioned, I vehemently disagree that the idea that a man has a right to own a weapon and defend his home is part of it.

In fact, the private ownership of weapons might well be the last bulwark against where you think we are heading.

But this has noting to do with that. In fact the odds are that my opinion of the reasons for and defense of second are probably much more extreme than your's.

This yahoo was defending what appears to be a blatant manslaughter, if not murder 2. OTOH, I openly admit that I loathe Texas and everything that comes out of it, so my perspective of anything that goes on there is likely skewed.

Born and raised. I hope to all that's good and proper you live far, far away from me.

self-defense. It wasn't his property.
If it was his property, then he likely would have been justified according to Texas laws. But it wasn't his.

the 12ga shotgun used here is THE weapon of choice for home defense. Had he shot them with a pistol they would probably be alive, and filing a lawsuit. However buckshot is generally fatal in one shot application.

Now if he is legally allowed to shoot them for property crime depends on state law, morals are personal.

If they had american express does it pay double life since they died at work?

(end tacky post)

he went out there to shoot them and -- that's what he did.

just another symptom of sickness called violence in this country.

they do not appreciate people stealing shit, and may shoot you...

I have had my stuff stolen, it sucks.

This guy will not go to jail for shooting burglars in texas. If he were on cape cod, probably, texas no.

On the outer Cape (the part I'm familiar with), you leave your house unlocked. Nothing
ever happens (at least not in the 23 years I've been going there). If it did, it would
so damage the tourist trade that is the Cape's life's blood economically, I'd bet there
would be more applauding such a shooting than there would ever be back home in Texas!

The only difference would be, it's practically impossible to find someone on Cape Cod
who would ever bother to buy a shotgun. It's SO difficult to catch a lobster with one....

On the outer Cape (the part I'm familiar with), you leave your house unlocked. Nothing
ever happens (at least not in the 23 years I've been going there). If it did, it would
so damage the tourist trade that is the Cape's life's blood economically, I'd bet there
would be more applauding such a shooting than there would ever be back home in Texas!

I think you'd bet wrong.

I've lived in New England all my life. What visiting Southerners never seem to understand is that this is a different culture: one that really does tend to believe sincerely in the rule of law. If someone argued with a 911 operator about whether to confront the burglars next door, and then informed the operator that he was going over to his neighbor's house "to kill them!" then we'd treat his actions as a crime. You don't get to shoot people just because they're bad.

Most New Englanders I know (and that's a LOT of them) would have caught
the humor. One of the things I love about New England is that most people
wouldn't even think to acquire a weapon. If I ever move back to the USA on
a permanent basis, it will be to New England, and not back to Texas. My wife,
who is European, doesn't mind visiting Texas, but would never live anywhere
in the USA outside of New England.

... in the country. Second only to Alaska, in fact.


We have the guns: we just don't have a vigilante-tolerating, cockswaggering gun culture to go with them.


I hope you will and your wife will be happy here if you decide to come to stay. It's a nice place to live (except for the climate, which can be harsh).

Besides, after 25 years on station in Central Europe, I hardly know what a Texas winter is anyway!

I was in the Boston area when my wife came over for the "test of fire" (i.e. could we live together)
before moving in together on a permanent basis. She said if we ever ended up in North America
permanently, it was New England, or back to Germany. Fine with me! I've lived in Virginia, Spain,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Texas, France, and Germany. One more change of scene isn't going to
phase me much.

I just heard on the news the 911 tape and the operator is pleading with this man not to leave his house and kill someone because of property. The guy wouldn't listen to him. They went back and forth. Finally, the man saw them come out of the house and he wanted to go and shoot because the cops have not made it there yet. He left the phone and went to shoot those guys. He did not want them to get away with it because he couldn't believe seeing this type of criminality in this neighborhood.

I will try and find the transcript.

edited: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5303222.html (hear 911 tape at link)

He's a flat-out murderer.

I wonder what else would have triggered this sort of behaviour. Vandalism? Other property crimes? It sounds like he was just waiting for the opportunity to do this.

He certainly would be in the 49 other states. If you go looking for a fight, you are not protected by self-defense laws, Castle Doctrine, etc.

if those two were the burglars, they were not taking his property.

But if you're going to do it, doing it armed isn't a bad idea.

The guilt or innocence of the shooter will depend entirely on what the burglars did after being confronted. If they broke and ran and the shooter opened up, then it's murder 2. If they went for a weapon, tried to disarm him, or tried to assault him, one or both may have been justified.

It sounds doubtful this is a legit self-defense shooting. Not that I feel particularly bad that two career burglars died committing crimes, but it's not the preferred way I would like society to operate.

This situation in general is difficult to deal with. Most burglars don't get caught, and burglarize again and again, making a career out of it. Many, perhaps most of them get caught at some point or another, but for every crime they are caught for there are dozens they have gotten away with.

And every single time they burglarize, there is the risk of an assault, a rape, a kidnapping, a hostage situation. Not to mention the fact that it's horribly invasive and violative to the family that resides there.

I mean, a rape is a more serious crime than just an assault. Rape is an assault that also violates a person's body and mind and spirit, so we have harsher punishments for it.

So, what to do? The criminals that burglarize are aware that they are putting their own lives at risk. They know that their lives are forfeit if an angry homeowner with a shotgun finds them in his or her house. They're putting their lives on the line for modest material gain at the expense of an innocent person's or family's money and sanity.

What to do indeed.

Is your screen name a reference to Harry Turtledove's "The Tale of Krispos" series?

It's also a crypt in Turkey. I'm assuming Dr. Turtledove head about the family at college and used it in his books! :-)

I didn't know about the Turkey crypt -- I'll have to look that up.

Speaking from my own moral code here (which, although not a legal document, seems to make pretty good sense to me)...

If they're stealing someone else's property, shoot to wound (I'd think it would be possible even with a shotgun, so long as you aim low enough).

If they're stealing your property and they've already made it out of the house, shoot to wound.

If they're in your house and they have a hand free (i.e, not carrying a TV) that might be used to draw a weapon, then shoot to kill/badly wound. No sense taking chances.

And if they have a weapon out or threaten to kill you, definitely shoot to kill.

This old jerk just wanted to kill someone, make himself feel big.

You always aim for center mass (torso). Less likely to hit innocent bystanders from over penetration off limbs. Anyone worth shootin is worth shootin to the ground.

If someone's stealing property, and you don't fear for your life or someone else's, don't shoot. Whatever they're stealing is worth less than the legal fees and prison time that you face.

If the situation is life-threatening, shoot to stop. Aim for the middle and keep shooting until the individual stops advancing. Once they stop, don't shoot any more. If they stop before you shoot the first round, don't shoot. The danger is over.

We don't get to be the moral judge, jury, and executioner. That's someone else's job. I think the shooter in the OP is morally right, and legally in deep doodoo.

edetted fir speling.

You shoot someone in the legs, you nick a femoral artery, and the person is dead.

Killing two people to protect . . . .stuff? Acting as judge, jury and executioner in order to save. . . stuff. How very sad, really. The thieves were no threat, they were unarmed. So instead of firing a warning shot(which would have brought the cops running), or injuring one of them, this dude decided to kill them. Sadder, he gets the adulation of his friends and neighbors. Gee, I hope that the NRA and rest of the gun lobby is happy, they're well on their way to creating a Mad Max world, where everybody is out for their own self, life is cheap, and bullets even cheaper.

It's not a reflection on society. He'll be prosecuted and convicted.

Sad, but true.

I think his actions are clearly out of line.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1195171937

Now, ask me if I agree with those laws, or if I think what the guy did was moral?

(p.s. No and No).

Just like the 911 operator suggested, even in Texas.

Most people, when facing a loaded shotgun, COMPLY WITH ORDERS.

If they drew guns, I'd fire.
If they fled, I'd try my best to follow/view their path and pass it to police.

Especially if it turned out the burglars had taken less than $2,000 worth of stuff (making their crime only a misdemeanor).

You can use deadly force to stop a felony here, under some circumstances.

Texas Law:
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

He was protecting his neighbor's property. Nothing sad about some dopehead parasites being removed from society.

He should have kept his trigger happy butt in the house as the 911 operator warned him to do.

I live in the houston area and can say that I bet the neighbor gets off. Anyone burglarizing a home should know that consequences come with certain actions. I can tell you it is a lot cheaper for this guy to have shot them then for me to have to pay for them to live in prison for x amount of years. The money that would have been spent housing these prisoners can now be spent on something better, like education. I think if this happened more often, people would think twice before taking someone else's property. Good for the neighbor. Maybe we should start a collection to assist him in paying any legal fees.

That you value stuff, and money more than you do human life. Must suck to be you, living with that void where your humanity, morality, generosity and empathy should be.

Well, now that his adrenaline has gone down, he can think clearly?

Don't allow the rush to run your mouth. Always act contrite, say as little as possible, and what you say should be confined to things like "Please help. I need police and an ambulance. I had to shoot two burglars."

He ignored law enforcement advice and just decided to shoot these two individuals. There was no danger to him or his home. Regardless of whatever knuckle-dragging Texas laws pertain here, you people who are applauding this vigilante's actions are way the hell out of line---particularly those of you who say the burglars got what they deserved and that their deaths are a good thing; try reading the entire Bill of Rights sometime, instead of just the Second Amendment...

And btw, the shooter said that he was sorry for what he did.