Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars

At what point do you call it premeditation? Do you walk around with a stop watch and when you see a crime being committed immediately start it? If the time goes over 10 seconds its premeditation. Sorry lady, I can't stop that monster from raping you, I waited more than 10 seconds and I put way too much thought into it. This will also be a sad indication of the state of society if an individual can't stop a crime from being committed without becoming a criminal himself.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by discomfit

 

And good on you for getting a gun. Better safe than sorry.

I never got a gun. I was merely saying I wish at the time I would have had a shot gun instead of a stupid knife and some mace.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
I'm still against killing a thief, even if you catch him red handed.

I think most people agree with you. The dilemma becomes this - are you will to run the risk of being killed by a thief if you don't kill them ? Or maybe he won't kill you. Maybe they'll just stab you, or break your nose or whatever.

reply to post by Boondock78


We agree on this...

Come in through my window, and you've taken your life in your hands. Hell, come in through my door uninvited and you've done the same...

I quit being a victim a long, long time ago...don't plan on starting up again anytime soon.

In my not so humble opinion, this man seemed to have reason to fear for his life...and did what he thought he had to do. So let the chips fall where they may...two criminals dead, no tears from me.

reply to post by Kronik98


Thanks for the link... I'd missed that one previously.
The guy certainly did say he was going to kill them. He stated his intention, then got involved in a situation that he easily could have avoided. He went after them. That's clear premeditation premeditated murder in the eyes of the law.

It certainly doesn't help that the guy sounded like a totally ignorant pick on the phone. He was downright eager to go out there and get some "justice" on.

Further coloring my view on this is the upper middle class neighborhood. I'm familiar with the kind of break in these guys were trying to pull. It might seem brazen to go in in broad daylight, but those neighborhoods usually empty out in the daytime. They knew that during the week, the kids would be at school and the parents would be at work, just like a normal upper middle class family is supposed to do. By going in in the daytime, they were attempting to avoid contact with the homeowners. It's worth noting that criminals who pull this kind of break-in often have a "Robin Hood" complex. They see it as stealing from the rich to give to the poor (the poor being themselves, of course) and believe no-one is going to get hurt.

Finally, there's the time between hearing "don't move" and the shots. One warning, very little time for the perps to do anything or even stop what they were currently doing (likely running). Based on what I heard and my understanding of psychology, I would guess that they did not make any threatening moves on the shooter. That's just my analysis, of course. I'm not a judge, nor a forensic scientist.

So yeah, after that vid, I'm really not into calling this guy a hero.

Originally posted by discomfit
I think most people agree with you. The dilemma becomes this - are you will to run the risk of being killed by a thief if you don't kill them ? Or maybe he won't kill you. Maybe they'll just stab you, or break your nose or whatever.

If I'm forced to defend myself, anything goes. If I feel my life is in danger, I'm going to do my best to take my opponent out first.

That isn't the case here.

I would not have stepped into a situation that the police are already on their way to deal with and no-one is at risk.

As I previously mentioned, his actions where not in defense of anything other than a bag of loot.

Check the entry/exit wounds. Was one of the two shot in the back?

Originally posted by Mister J
At what point do you call it premeditation? Do you walk around with a stop watch and when you see a crime being committed immediately start it? If the time goes over 10 seconds its premeditation. Sorry lady, I can't stop that monster from raping you, I waited more than 10 seconds and I put way too much thought into it. This will also be a sad indication of the state of society if an individual can't stop a crime from being committed without becoming a criminal himself.

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges.
If I caught someone in the process of rape or attempted rape and I felt he was a threat to myself and/or the victim, I wouldn't baulk at shooting him.

If I witnessed a murder and was confronted with the choice between letting the murder get away or killing him, he'd be dead. I wouldn't feel bad about it either.

I don't think I could bring myself to pull the trigger on a thief, however. Not with a killing shot anyway. Not if I didn't feel I or someone else was personally at risk. Leg shot, yeah... I could see doing that, but I still wouldn't want to.

"Stuff" isn't worth killing over.
It's can be worth inflicting some "ouch" over, but not killing.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
...this mad dog killer decided to murder two human beings and found the perfect opportunity to do so.

I guess the moral of the story is not to give bloodthirsty killers a "perfect opportunity".
If you know you can be shot for breaking and entering in Texas, and you CHOOSE to go ahead with it, and you get shot, you can not possibly argue that you didn't deserve it.
Where I live, you can go to jail for breaking and entering.
I don't want to go to jail, so I choose not to do it.
It's really that simple.

reply to post by Mister J

This will also be a sad indication of the state of society if an individual can't stop a crime from being committed without becoming a criminal himself.

Society is in a sad state. Thieves come in all shades and from all economic backgrounds. There are white collar thieves in high priced suits living in high priced homes. It is not right irregardless. The question is does it justify murder.

There are several problems with this story and I question the sanity of the shooter. He is one against two thieves and he did not know whether they had weapons or not. His motivation appears to be more than just stopping thieves. What did he think they were stealing that would warrant him confronting them after the dispatcher had said not to do that?

He grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun and called 911, Lambright said.

"Uh, I've got a shotgun," he told the dispatcher. "Uh, do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," the dispatcher responded. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Horn and the dispatcher spoke for several minutes, during which Horn pleaded with the dispatcher to someone to catch the men and vowed not to let them escape. Over and over, the dispatcher told him to stay inside. Horn repeatedly said he couldn't.

When the men crawled back out the window carrying a bag, Horn began to sound increasingly frantic.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said as a shell clicked into the chamber. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

www.examiner.com...



[edit on 2-12-2007 by Siren]

reply to post by Siren


I think a very long prison sentence for the shooter, perhaps in a mental hospital, is certainly in order. He apparently sees himself as God's avenging angel which will kill at the slightest of provocation.

reply to post by BitRaiser


Just a thought, but did it bug you, or anyone else how non-chalant the 911 operator was. You would think that if you were talking with someone who said he was going outside two stop 2 burglars with a loaded and ready shotgun in his hands would try a little inflection in his voice to try and convince him otherwise. Just found it a little odd.

reply to post by Kronik98


I just don't think the operator believed he was really going to do it.

reply to post by Kronik98


Not at all.
He's trained to remain calm. Urgency, even appropriate urgency, in your voice as a 911 operator can cause alarm in the person you are communicating with. That alarm could result in stupid actions being taken by the caller.

In this case, the caller was clearly intent upon taking a stupid action.

The operator did a very good job, IMHO. He tried to empathize with the caller, gave him good instructions, and assumed an authoritative voice when it was needed.

I don't know if I could have remained so cool in that situation.

What happened to the good old, stop, put your hands up and slowly lay on the ground, until the police come.

This guy should only shoot another human being as last resort, this guy is a bad man, theres no denying it.

Despite some of the more mamby pamby and wishy washy here, I think this guy did something good and right. Its certainly easy to sit back in your comfortable chair in your gated community while watching your big screen TV you paid for with with your upper 4 figure a week paycheck and pontificate about how this person is obviously a murderer and wrong and immoral, and so on. Now, out here in the real world where lilly white hands like that get eaten for lunch, theres a certain thing called defense. No, its not called 'stop, or ill be forced to .. say stop.. again" its called 'get on the floor or lose your head the hard way'. Like isn't near as clean as the starched white sheets your mommy put on your bed for you.

its an old joke in texas, but i think the easiest and best explanation here is.. they needed killin'

that, and from the sources I've talked to over the years, the thing they've all said in common (about the only thing) is that if you shoot someone, you shoot to kill. Period, end of story, no what if's ands or buts. dead men raise no lawsuits, and the law is also much more clear, well defined and on your side in this case. as for self defense, that brings up rule #2. don't ever even think of picking up a gun unless you're fully prepared to use it for its intended purpose. There is no such thing as a wounding weapon, just a misapplied killing weapon.

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
Despite some of the more mamby pamby and wishy washy here, I think this guy did something good and right. Its certainly easy to sit back in your comfortable chair in your gated community while watching your big screen TV ...
[and so on]

You are making some very poor assumptions there, chummer.
This particular "mamby pamby and wishy washy" poster has spent a fair amount of time very close to the streets in some very rough and tumble situations. I'm doing better in life now, but I have had very close contact with that subset of society that we all wish didn't have to exist.

It's partly this life experience that has colored my views on this and gives me the ability to see both sides of the fence.

Maybe you need to miss a few meals to understand how desperate life can become for those who suffer some bad luck in life?

that, and from the sources I've talked to over the years, the thing they've all said in common (about the only thing) is that if you shoot someone, you shoot to kill. Period, end of story, no what if's ands or buts. dead men raise no lawsuits, and the law is also much more clear, well defined and on your side in this case.

You have been mis-informed.
I'm aware of the popular red-neck urban myth that it's better to kill someone that to wound them, but it's untrue. Dead men's families can file lawsuites. The charge of murder (or manslaughter, as he will likely be charged) carries much stiffer sentences than shooting to wound.

as for self defense, that brings up rule #2. don't ever even think of picking up a gun unless you're fully prepared to use it for its intended purpose. There is no such thing as a wounding weapon, just a misapplied killing weapon.

Ignorant rednecks that live in gated communities, sit on their overstuffed chairs, growing their beergut in front of their big screen TVs, and believe that death is an acceptable punishment for theft should NEVER pick up a firearm.
EVER.

Please note that while I've been pointing out that I believe this person's actions where not justified, I do not excuse the criminals for what they did. They should have been caught and tried for the crime they were guilty of... but certainly not gunned down on the street like dogs.

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken
I think a very long prison sentence for the shooter, perhaps in a mental hospital, is certainly in order. He apparently sees himself as God's avenging angel which will kill at the slightest of provocation.

If you don't want him over there, send him down here. I will try to arrange for him to rent the house next door to me.
I have worked extremely hard for the small possesions I have. If someone who doesn't work at all thinks that they truely have the right to take my hard earnt property, they should be prepared to risk their lives over it.
Of course, we are expected to buy "insurance" to "protect" our property.
If everyone had a neighbour like him, there would be little need for it...

Anyone familiar on the term 'Eye for an eye'?
I think capital punishment is very excessive. especially in a crime of this nature. That's like going back to the late 19th/early 20th century where you'd cut the hands off a thief stealing. Don't get me wrong, living in England makes you realise how needed capital punisment is, but not in this instance.
Apart from anything else, the criminals were leaving the scene, they'd obviously taken their fill therefore it should've been left to the correct authorities as they most likely were about to flee the scene, and standing arguing or fighting with a neighbour would attract unwanted attention. The courts should've decided this, not a man and his shotgun.

Taking someone's life in the name of the law should be left for those who should deserve it, serial killers. (Since sometimes murder comes under manslaughter/negligence and of course mistaken identity on those few innocents who are convicted wrongly). Rapists (on multiple occasions, again in case of wrongly accused. At least if there are multiple convictions at separate times its easier to convict them as evidence mounts up).

Posessions are replaceable. A life isn't.

I disagree with most of the comments posted here. the guy is no hero, he's a joyful murderer. he enjoyed doing it, i've heard the call. the guy is either a crazy retired cop or some insane war veteran. there is no reason to kill petty thiefs. he should have called the police and put the guns down. we have laws in place for people like that and you shouldn't be shooting people for doing petty crimes. just give them a couple of years in jail and teach them a lesson. it's all about compassion people. I know that's hard to understand, but you can't kill every man and citizen that does wrong things.

reply to post by Longy4eva


At what point do you draw the line on what a possession is. Is a family dog worth killing over, a son, the house... The laws are made in Texas this way to keep lawlessness from happening. This is the way it should be. I would kill a man if I caught him raping a woman. We need harsher penalties. People think they can get away with anything. I suppose the other side is maybe we started valuing human life too much.