He Got Away With It!!!!!! (Texas Shooting)

[Hotwire]

Texas justice...'Don't Mess With Texas'.

Yehaw.

They do kill more than most other countries.

 

[rizzo51]

This world needs more 62 year old Frank Castles

 

[jaguarr]

Good. I'm glad he was cleared and there are 2 less POS's in the world.

Amen. I have zero sympathy for people who get killed while committing criminal acts. Pretty simple, really; don't commit criminal acts where there is a risk someone with a gun might catch you and shoot you dead. Makes abiding by the law kind of attractive.

jag

 

[EdRyder]

Doesnt Texas have a law where if you even approach someones car while they're inside they can shoot you?

 

[Spider-Nerd]

Amen. I have zero sympathy for people who get killed while committing criminal acts. Pretty simple, really; don't commit criminal acts where there is a risk someone with a gun might catch you and shoot you dead. Makes abiding by the law kind of attractive.

jag

Jag, I don't think it's so much about us having sympathy for people commiting crimes, but the decision in this case sets a rather dangerous precedent (though the level of court it was in was rather low so I personally see the rule being overturned down the line or being restricted to within TX itself). No one is challenging his right to defend himself or his property from threat, but I think the key here was that 2 people were robbing his neighbor and he decided to take the law into his own hands.

I think it sets a very dangerous rule in place by completely clearing joe of his actions. i'm not saying he should have been thrown in prison or anything but vigilante justice has always been frowned upon if for no other reason that it puts more people in danger than necessary. To play devil's advocate, joe was very lucky that he just killed the two criminals and nothing further occured. If for argument's sake he had shot something flammable by accident, or worse another person by accident, or even destroyed proper by accident perhaps that end result would not have happened had he left it to the proper authorities.

In addition those "buglers" were not criminals, they were suspects. In the United States, tortious and criminal acts are not immediately placed upon suspects, rather we require a court to prove either, "beyond a reasonable doubt"(criminal) or "by a preponderance of evidence"(civil) that the defendant is guilty. I'm not saying they weren't in fact guilty, but they do have a right to have claim their innocence in a court of law.

 

[Obi-Ron]

being 62 probably went in his favour, old people usually get treated differently

He probably bought his shotgun shells with a senior citizen discount.

 

[The Squirrel]

Doesnt Texas have a law where if you even approach someones car while they're inside they can shoot you?

Yes, I think that was recently passed. But it's not like you can just shoot anyone who walks by your car.

 

[jaguarr]

Jag, I don't think it's so much about us having sympathy for people commiting crimes, but the decision in this case sets a rather dangerous precedent (though the level of court it was in was rather low so I personally see the rule being overturned down the line or being restricted to within TX itself). No one is challenging his right to defend himself or his property from threat, but I think the key here was that 2 people were robbing his neighbor and he decided to take the law into his own hands.

I think it sets a very dangerous rule in place by completely clearing joe of his actions. i'm not saying he should have been thrown in prison or anything but vigilante justice has always been frowned upon if for no other reason that it puts more people in danger than necessary. To play devil's advocate, joe was very lucky that he just killed the two criminals and nothing further occured. If for argument's sake he had shot something flammable by accident, or worse another person by accident, or even destroyed proper by accident perhaps that end result would not have happened had he left it to the proper authorities.

In addition those "buglers" were not criminals, they were suspects. In the United States, tortious and criminal acts are not immediately placed upon suspects, rather we require a court to prove either, "beyond a reasonable doubt"(criminal) or "by a preponderance of evidence"(civil) that the defendant is guilty. I'm not saying they weren't in fact guilty, but they do have a right to have claim their innocence in a court of law.

The court decision does not align with your views, though. I have to think that there are intricacies and details related to the case that were covered in court from a legal perspective that simply weren't ever captured in any newspaper article giving a brief overview of the proceedings and decision. People can play armchair lawyer all day long over this, but the reality is they're doing so with very, very, very, very little detail about the case or the specific statutes or laws in play.

jag

 

[jaguarr]

Double post.

jag

 

[pyromaniac]

Damn philosophical arguments. Never ends well. It's always complicated.

I don't know why some of you are saying he was a vigilante when he was acting in line with Texan law.

Laws don't exist in a vacuum. Scenarios like this - and in the past - are what pass certain laws, they cover the generalities, but never the specific extenuating circumstances. This is where law can tend to fail and when human logic/judgment enters into these considerations.

 

[Nathan Petrelli]

He did the right thing.

 

[bullets]

This man had the option to not act on it , what he did was murder . It was reckless and stupid . I'd like to say I agree with the man but it is a case of him being "out for blood" . The entire 911 conversation shows this.

 

[Nathan Petrelli]

This man had the option to not act on it , what he did was murder . It was reckless and stupid . I'd like to say I agree with the man but it is a case of him being "out for blood" . The entire 911 conversation shows this.

So what? What is better: He kills an innocent, or he fills his blood lust on people who are breaking the law and are illegal to the country?

 

[chaseter]

Who cares if a couple of scumbags are gone from this planet? The sad thing is...if you shoot and don't kill, they can sue your @ss for everything you have...even if they are on your property. The cops shoot to kill now (they have tazers and other non lethal force) because of suing.

 

[Nathan Petrelli]

Where is Clark Kent when we need his "I'm so offended over this thread" input. It just doesn't feel the same.

 

[Hotwire]

So it would seem that a few of you would like to adopt this kill the criminals when you see the crime being committed, and just do away with the whole justice system. Just curious though, since when, even in Texas, did burglary warrant the death penalty??

 

[Mr. Socko]

Again, he shot them when they crossed into HIS yard.

For god's sake you can still hear him on the phone when he shot them. Unless he can hold a phone a cock and shoot a shotgun there is no way he walked next door and shot the dudes.

Bluetooth.

 

[Darthphere]

Bluetooth.

Have you seen the dude? I'm surprised he can dial a 3 digit phone number let alone know how to operate a bluetooth headset.

 

[Nathan Petrelli]

So it would seem that a few of you would like to adopt this kill the criminals when you see the crime being committed, and just do away with the whole justice system. Just curious though, since when, even in Texas, did burglary warrant the death penalty??

Ever had someone break into your house? Or have you ever seen someone break into somebodies house?

 

[Darthphere]

So it would seem that a few of you would like to adopt this kill the criminals when you see the crime being committed, and just do away with the whole justice system. Just curious though, since when, even in Texas, did burglary warrant the death penalty??

You're asking the wrong question here, this has nothing to do with the death penalty.

 

[Gilpesh]

So it would seem that a few of you would like to adopt this kill the criminals when you see the crime being committed, and just do away with the whole justice system. Just curious though, since when, even in Texas, did burglary warrant the death penalty??

Where is this whole, kill all criminals and doing away with the justice system?

That one guy, in that one case, is not guilty of murder. Because of a law that protects him and the laws that those criminals broke.

 

[The Squirrel]

Edit: nevermind.

 

[Hotwire]

Ever had someone break into your house? Or have you ever seen someone break into somebodies house?

No & no. But I can say, if someone broke into MY house, keyword here being MY house, I would defend it with lethal force. But, if I witnessed someone breaking into someone else's house, I'd call the cops, and look after my family. As well as keep an eye out to see if they try to come to my house. But I would not, nor do I feel that anyone else should, get a gun, and leave my house with full intention of killing the burglers.

 

[Darthphere]

No & no. But I can say, if someone broke into MY house, keyword here being MY house, I would defend it with lethal force. But, if I witnessed someone breaking into someone else's house, I'd call the cops, and look after my family. As well as keep an eye out to see if they try to come to my house. But I would not, nor do I feel that anyone else should, get a gun, and leave my house with full intention of killing the burglers.

For the last frakkin' time. He didn't leave his house, he shot them when they crossed over onto his yard. Jesus, are you dense?

 

[Hotwire]

Where is this whole, kill all criminals and doing away with the justice system?
He was on the phone with the 911 operator, telling her that he was going to go over to his neighbors house and kill the two guys breaking into it.
That one guy, in that one case, is not guilty of murder. Because of a law that protects him and the laws that those criminals broke.

That help?