Was he justified in shooting?
- Thread starter All Else Failed
- Start date
No he wasn't.
he was wrong...if they were in his house I'd say shoot away but they weren't and he was warned
Not justified at all. It's not his place to enforce the law. If his life was in danger it would be one thing, but that wasn't the case here.
I've been arguing this for days on a different forum, wondered why it hadn't made it here yet.
With that said he was totally in the wrong. He was told repeatedly (13 times) byt the 911 operator not to intervene and that police were on the way. Besides that he didn't say "I'm gonna detain them" he said "I'm gonna kill'em".
Murder plain and simple. No different than if he had tracked them down a day later and shot them.
With that said he was totally in the wrong. He was told repeatedly (13 times) byt the 911 operator not to intervene and that police were on the way. Besides that he didn't say "I'm gonna detain them" he said "I'm gonna kill'em".
Murder plain and simple. No different than if he had tracked them down a day later and shot them.
People actually were in favor of this guy murdering those two on another forum???:wtf:
Is this on you tube or somewhere else at all? I cant seem to play that video link and I would like to see what's going on so I can give my opinion on it here. Thanks!
I'd say at least 10 there were hardcore that he was within his rights and if more people took action like him we'd all be better off.
I don't think it's too hard to decide that stealing stuff is not worth killing anyone over.
I don't think it's too hard to decide that stealing stuff is not worth killing anyone over.
Um, please inform them that murder isn't a right.
You can use deadly force to protect yourself and your property, but you cant run out and engage someone and kill them on someone elses property, theres just no 2 ways about it. I thought it was a no-brainer. Those same people assign no value to the lives taken because the guys were criminals.
But are you allowed to even use deadly force just to protect your property? I thought it was ONLY to protect your life or the life of a family member.
Then they are ignorant.
The Texas Penal Code says 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.
Thats a quote from defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor. I found in an article in the Houston Chronicle.
Heres another pertinent bit from the article:
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."
Thats a quote from defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor. I found in an article in the Houston Chronicle.
Heres another pertinent bit from the article:
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."
Thats why Texas sucks.
Nah not really. The law is supposed to make it OK to use deadly force if necessary to protect yourself, family, and residence (basically). I'm perfectly OK with that and Senator Wentworth himself said the doctrine doesn't apply to the Pasadena case.
Agree'd.
Texas does not suck, but let's not turn this into a Texas debate thread, eh?
Guy was WRONG!! bad wrong!
He should have taken down any information about them, description and everything he could have and then gave all that to the police when they arrived. If the police arrived after they were gone, and he felt THAT strongly, he could have followed them and informed police where they were.
wow.
wow.
He should have curb-stomped those fuckers :rofl2:
No, it wasn't really justified. It wasn't his property, and unless they were threatening his safety, he had no real reason to shoot them. The operator even warned him numerous times.
No, it wasn't really justified. It wasn't his property, and unless they were threatening his safety, he had no real reason to shoot them. The operator even warned him numerous times.