Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars

reply to post by defcon5


In this instance, he witnessed a breaking and entering, trespassing, and burglary so I would be pretty confident that they committed a felony/felonies. He was within his rights to try to apprehend the perps. I'm still uncertain if he was in any way threatened with loss of life though.

Originally posted by migliavacca
In this instance, he witnessed a breaking and entering, trespassing, and burglary so I would be pretty confident that they committed a felony/felonies. He was within his rights to try to apprehend the perps.

Then he is allowed to go outside and hold them until authorities arrive, not go outside and execute them.

All that it takes is one threaten step towards a person after robbing a house, In which case he has all the right in the world to shoot them.

reply to post by BigJoeNYC


Nope, you have to be in immediate fear of your life, and you have to have no way to escape that situation. He forfeited his rights when he disregarded the officers order to stay inside where it was safe, and went outside putting himself in harms way.

[edit on 12/7/2007 by defcon5]

Not if they stepped on his property. he had all the right in the world. You should think about joing the New Black Panthers.

reply to post by BigJoeNYC


So I have the right to shoot a Jehovah's witness if they knock at my front door?

That's a silly comment.

reply to post by BigJoeNYC


Negative again, here is the definition of self defense:

self-defense
In criminal law, an affirmative defense (e.g., to a murder charge) alleging that the defendant used serious force necessarily for self-protection. The claim of self-defense must normally rely on a reasonable belief that the other party intended to inflict great bodily harm or death and that avoidance by retreating was impossible. See also homicide.

Originally posted by BigJoeNYC
You should think about joing the New Black Panthers.

Why?
Because I am showing you what the law actually says?

A crowbar in the hand of someone who just robbed a house and is walking towards me…Yeah I feel like my life is threatened. You are the most gullible person in the world. I don’t let anyone close to me. In NYC last year 2 guys were going around asking people for the time when the looked at there watch they were getting stabbed from all sides. But than again maybe they just wanted to shake Joe Horns hand for being a good neighbor.

Jehovah's Witnesses? I open the door and kick them in the nuts. It’s a hoot, the kids love it. LOL

reply to post by BigJoeNYC


If you do not understand that those two turkeys with drug convictions are not the same people who permit, sponsor, and engage the trafficking of drugs into our country, then you're not paying close enough attention. If your neighborhood be a bathtub, who is in it? If your resources represent hot water, who's using it, stealing it from you? If those two thieves are scum, who creates the environment whereby they might exist? How come illegal immigrants be here? How can they get deported for crimes and come back? Who allows them to come back, and, why? Are all illegal immigrants here of their own two feet, or are some trafficked into the country in vans, tractor trailers, and shipping cargo containers by air and sea? Who pays for that? Who pays for the people? Why would this be allowed to occur? How come drugs be here? Who allows it, and, why?

All I'm saying is that the more you look the uglier the picture gets. And it's hard to point the finger on any one person being responsible. What's clear is that these things are happening. And if they are happening they are happening for a reason. If you think those two dead birds were the problem and that others like them are the problem, think again. Those two guys partially represent the results of vastly profitable enterprise. They're what's left over. As you say, scum. They are not what creates scum.

reply to post by BigJoeNYC


Ok, since this is not getting anywhere, and since I am guessing you have never been on a jury before, let me explain to you how this trial is going to go…

Since he admitted and was recorded on tape stating that he had a firearm, and was going to go outside to kill them, the fact that he committed the murder is not even going to come into question. He obviously did it, and the bodies and firearm were recovered.

Now see, when your on a jury you cannot sit and argue things like we are here, the judge tells you specific things that meet certain legal criteria and you only get to say “guilty” or “not guilty” to those. The judge is going to instruct that jury on the meaning of self-defense, and the definition of each level of murder.

So since he put himself into harms way against the direct order of a law enforcement officer, self-defense is not going to apply to him, neither is being in fear for his life, nor his inability to escape the situation. So self-defense is out of the park right off the bat because he fails to meet the criteria.
So that leaves the jury with man-slaughter, or one of the degrees of murder.

He may be able to argue voluntary manslaughter on these grounds:

Voluntary Manslaughter is usually committed under one of the two states of mind, which are adequate cause and sudden passion. Adequate cause can be defined as “a cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind of the defendant incapable of objective reflection.”

But I think that him telling the officer in advance that he was going to kill these guys is going to up this to first degree premeditated. This is because his action of telling the officer that he was not going to stay inside and was going to go kill them means he was capable of objective reflection.

Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.
State laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation." In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder. Premeditated murder is usually defined as one of the most serious forms of homicide, and is punished more severely than manslaughter or other types of murder.

He took the time to call the police, he took the time to get and load his weapon, and he told the officer he was going to do what he did in advance, this all applys to premeditation. The jury only has the option to state if what he did fit’s the criteria or not, period.

This will take the jury about an hour to decide this case, and then only if they stop and break for lunch…

If it were up to me I would get rid of it all than. The Illegal's and the democrats will be the downfall of this country.

Oh you wacky conservatives and your deep desire to kill everyone always crack me up.

Originally posted by Mr. Pele Pele

Originally posted by kaferwerks
Well when someone tells you to stop...you better do it then. I would suggest not making any sudden movement towards him either....and if you are only carrying out what you are supposed to then why would you be needing the crowbar ...lol

If your buddy lived in that neighborhood...I bet you that his neighbors know about you and your late night deliveries and pick ups. You yourself know this...so why make a comment like that?

Hey, they were illegals, remember? That means they probably didn't UNDERSTAND what he was saying. If someone yells that in Spanish to you, you probably run because they have a gun and are screaming at you. But when you're dead, too bad, right?

Ok...let me get this straight...You are a criminal and in my country illegaly and you do not speak the language caught committing a crime and you are shot because of it...boo hoo...

My personal belief is these people that enter this country illegaly dont have rights. Not the constitutional rights that you would have as an american. I dont believe they belong here at all. They are criminals in the first place just by walking down the street. But I know there are people here that would disagree. How many other countries in the world would allow such an influx of mexicans and do nothing about it. How many wouls support them as our gvmt does? Not many...but hey we are the land of the free(handout) right?


Defcon 5 says what if they were city officials working on something...Where do you live? Because where I live when the city shows up there is a vehicle that is clearly marked and people wearing reflective vests...at least one person wearing a hardhat...that arguement doesnt fly.

thanx Mr Pele Pele...it was fun doing this today...made a very boring day at work go by pretty fast...I will say people on both sides have made some good points. I tend to be a little less forgiving and believe if I was put in the situation I may have shot them too. dont know for sure because I wasnt there. have a good weekend man

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by BigJoeNYC

 

Ok, since this is not getting anywhere, and since I am guessing you have never been on a jury before, let me explain to you how this trial is going to go…


This will take the jury about an hour to decide this case, and then only if they stop and break for lunch…

OK John Grisham, this guy will be judged by a jury of his peers...who is to say they find him guilty or who is to say that it will not be a hung jury...how long are the courts gonna pursue the deaths of 2 illegal aliens that were criminals in the first place? Who says you dont get to argue like you do here???? I argued my ass off the last time I had jury duty...I wouldn't want 1 red cent of my tax money spent on it....what kind of justice is really going to be served? Does the old man have a history of violence? A criminal record at all? I dont know.... thats why I am asking?

Uh, ahem, ahem.

I just saw news about the case today. Apparently, the men were shot IN THE BACK. Despite initial reports by Pasadena police, the autopsy report shows they were shot in the back.

Fear for his life, huh? I guess unarmed men running from you are life-threatening.



Good news is that this case will go to the grand jury soon.

I`d say the truth is starting to reveal its self.If this has been pointed out already apologies.


On first reading the original headline of this news and thread.......

Just for the reminder here it is again.

This story in the OP here on ATS was 4 days old already.As of today this is ten days old.

A Texas man has provoked a debate about the right to self-defense in America after he shot dead two burglars as they were leaving a neighbour’s house.
www.examiner.com

Bold mine

I`d bet many of us have wondered why would they ( the media) when we first read this,but we`re too busy debating to question?


Then this

The two — killed by a Pasadena man Nov. 14 after he said they were trying to steal his neighbor's property — were in the country illegally, according to Leticia Zamarripa, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Source

Theres the reason for sparking this debate in the first place.


What next?

That now because illegal immigrants shouldn`t be on American soil,one should have the right to shoot them as a thief in your yard or neighbors yard like vermin?

Talk about media manipulation.How long did the original news source know the information thats surfacing now.

But no it still doesn`t give you the right to kill someone,so no sorry to the people that were getting their hopes up about thinking this is about having a right shoot whoever they see fit,you dont,the media/gov are useing you guys to make noise.

I`m not American and dont understand the big illegal immigrant issues over there,though would all this be to scare or slow the flow of illegal immigrants in/out of the US? as a cheaper option than rounding them up?.





[edit on 7-12-2007 by gps777]

reply to post by BigJoeNYC


I should add that by the time the scum are eating lead, that which created the scum has already profited and made a clean getaway.

reply to post by Mr. Pele Pele


I couldn't find anything to support your comments. Do you have a source?

I refreaned from commenting on this story the first day that it came out.

But the things that struck me was the lack of coverage on the burgalars.

By observing the language surrounding the 2 individuals, i thought that they "COULD" be in this country illigealy. I had a massive gut feeling. But i decided to not comment on it, becuase i did not want to cloud the situation, taking the story form one of 'Why did this guy do it, and was he just in it?" To one that is "How/when did these slimebag criminals come into this country(My guess was illigaely)."


The original article was very unclear on the residencie issue of the two decesased criminals. They used such... uh... 'progressive' phraseses such as 'the g/f of one of the men who happens to have a child' and other types of phrases like this.

I knew something was afoul whne they refused to use a phrase like this 'Mrs. X, resident of Passedena'

And you can even overlook the fact that they did not give out the name of the criminals until 70% thru the article. Nor weather they were residents, or of what thier country of orgin was.

SIckening.

Lets just be HAPPY that the first report that came out was SO progresive, and failed to mention the resident status of these slimebags.

I hope that the mother of the children of one of these scumbags and her child are deported.

Anyway here the link.

www.chron.com...

I dont know if the topic of the legality of these individuals on the topic of thier residence has been brought up in these boards. I had not visited this thread since the first day had broke.

So here is my headline of the report.

Two illigal imigrant scumbags are killed by a patriot proctecting his neighbors property.