Thunderhawk88
Moderator
On that particular day....what are the chances they would return again for somebody else's house and assualt or hurt them?
Crystal ball is fuzzy on that one! Sure glad we don't execute people for future actions!
On that particular day....what are the chances they would return again for somebody else's house and assualt or hurt them?
This guy was raring to go out there with his shotgun. He even said he was pissed off and was going to kill these guys. (He also said that he didn't know these particular neighbors so I doubt there's a chance that he was "asked" to protect their property.)
As someone said before, it's people like this who negatively affect the cause of gun ownership.
Listen to the entire 911 call (all three parts) that Pax linked to. Assuming the evidence backs up what 911 tape seems to indicate, I doubt this man will even be charged. Not knowing what the DA's in the Houston area are like, if he is, I am confident that he would be no-billed. There is no jury of his peers anywhere in Texas that would convict this man (again, assuming the evidence tells the same story as the 911 tape). It's a pretty cut and dried case of using deadly force to prevent the loss of property.
Like it or not, that is legal in Texas.
EDIT: Note that I'm not saying he was outside these, just that it's not as clear to me as it is to you that he was definitely inside them.
I get what you're saying. Can you tell me which part of the statute gives you pause and why?
There are also rumors going around that these men are illegal aliens. Well BY GOD, when they commit a crime of this caliber, it is nothing more than an illegal occupation by a military force and armed defense of our country is MOST CERTAINLY in order!
They had Latino names. However, I remember reading that at least one seemed to be Puerto Rican (and thus a citizen) and if that's the case it'd be unsurprising if the other was as well.
So I'm not so sure a discussion of illegal immigration has any place here.
Actually there's one important word missing from that paraphrase. The actual criteria is not just "belief" but "reasonable belief".But it only allows it if he believes the land/property cannot be protected/recovered by any other means.
Perhaps it has a place on this particular subforum, but it's irrelevant on this particular thread.I don't know if they are. But, if they are, a discussion about it CERTAINLY does have a place here.
I don't know if they are. But, if they are, a discussion about it CERTAINLY does have a place here.
Actually there's one important word missing from that paraphrase. The actual criteria is not just "belief" but "reasonable belief".
My understanding is that "reasonable belief" means that a reasonable person in his position would have thought as he did. So, the question is, would a reasonable person in his position think: "My neighbors certainly have insurance for that, I'm gonna let those guys run off with their stuff." or "The police will certainly catch those guys and recover all the stolen property so I'll just stand here and be a witness."?
Well, only the jury can really decide that question, but I figure that most people consider stolen property to be lost. Even when stolen property IS recovered, it's rarely ALL recovered and it's often damaged. Insurance coverage is part of the question, but I tend to think that most people don't think "insurance" when someone's running out the door with a bag full of their property. Remember, the statutes allow the defender to place himself in the actual property owner's position to make his determination.I'd say between the odds that the police would catch the guys and the odds that the neighbors had insurance, the more reasonable assumption (at least if we're talking about killing people) is that the property, or at least its value, could be recovered.
You want to start an illegal immigration thread, there's a button at the top of the thread list. Use it. It's has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Good points, all. Even with insurance, there's almost always going to be a deductible involved...so not total recovery.Well, only the jury can really decide that question, but I figure that most people consider stolen property to be lost. Even when stolen property IS recovered, it's rarely ALL recovered and it's often damaged. Insurance coverage is part of the question, but I tend to think that most people don't think "insurance" when someone's running out the door with a bag full of their property. Remember, the statutes allow the defender to place himself in the actual property owner's position to make his determination.I'd say between the odds that the police would catch the guys and the odds that the neighbors had insurance, the more reasonable assumption (at least if we're talking about killing people) is that the property, or at least its value, could be recovered.
It will be interesting to see this play out. I think they'll try HARD to get him to plead to a lesser offense to avoid trial and the possibility of setting what the DA would consider an undesirable precedent.
Interesting postscript I just read on another forum. The law specifically states "recovered", not "replaced". That might take insurance out of the picture. Just something else to consider.
If they are illegal and the cops/govt had done their job at securing our country, this story would not be a story...it would not have happened.
I've seen that same reasoning used to argue who is at fault in a car accident in some foreign countries. The foreigner is always at fault since if he'd stayed in his home country the accident wouldn't have happened.If they are illegal and the cops/govt had done their job at securing our country, this story would not be a story...it would not have happened.
1. Breaking and Entering
2. Criminal Tresspass
3. Criminal Mischief
3. Robbery
4. Evasion
5. Leaving the scene of a crime
None of these are punishable with death.
What if, and this is just a what if... The 'looters' knew the house owners and where picking up some personal property, or some property they were given permission to get.
Let's say the men did not know english, and this man shot them over nothing, over his WANT to kill.