RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

JonahsDive -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 12:48:01 PM)

All studies done on the subject show less violent crime where there is more gun ownership. 9 times out of 10 when a gun is present in a 'situation' it doesn't need to be fired to prevent a crime. It's refreshing to see this Texas law, because on the coasts the law is not necessarily on the side of the homeowner--when someone breaks into your house he has more rights than you do there.

As far as Christian ethics, we have a duty to prevent crime, by force when necessary; not to do so is a 'sin of omission.' Killing is of course a serious matter and is only a very last resort. In the ten commandments, however, killing is not the same as ''murder." Murder is a sin punishable by death; killing may be sanctioned by the community esp. in self-defense cases.



raspberry331 -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 12:58:04 PM)

quote:

“A property owner, by Texas law, has the right to prevent the consequences of a burglary by utilizing deadly force if necessary,” Trevino said




Wish this was true here in NJ.



torath -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 1:02:54 PM)

Just a quick comment. The gun discussions are always fun.

If someone breaks into your house, that should be justification to shoot them if you deem it necessary. If you shoot them and they run away, you should shoot them again. If not they will most likely come back for revenge and burn down your house, while you are sleeping, with you in it. Just because someone attacks you then surrenders you are not obligated to give quarter and if you let them run, that just gives them a chance to re-group and come at you again, better armed with bigger numbers.

The problem is shooting first, instead of identifying the person as threat or non-threat. If you have a gun pointed at someone and they are un-armed, you kinda have the upper hand so you can wait a moment to check what is going on, but if they are a threat, I fully agree with defending yourself as you see fit.

But that is just my opinion. I care to protect my wife and unborn daughter more than babying a criminal who is attempting to violate their safety.



blessedinnyc -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 1:08:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: raspberry331

quote:

“A property owner, by Texas law, has the right to prevent the consequences of a burglary by utilizing deadly force if necessary,” Trevino said




Wish this was true here in NJ.

I'm all for concealed carry in NJ, NY, and NYC, but the right to use deadly force against a burglar who is running away is a little ridiculous.



blessedinnyc -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 1:13:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: torath
If someone breaks into your house, that should be justification to shoot them if you deem it necessary. If you shoot them and they run away, you should shoot them again. If not they will most likely come back for revenge and burn down your house, while you are sleeping, with you in it. Just because someone attacks you then surrenders you are not obligated to give quarter and if you let them run, that just gives them a chance to re-group and come at you again, better armed with bigger numbers.

Unless of course they live in TomTurn's state. In which case, they will likely move to another state where the gun laws are weaker.

Most burglars aren't interested in risking life and limb unnecessarily. I doubt they will want revenge. A better alternative to going on a killing spree is calling the police. Chances are a gunshot victim matching that person's description will show up at a hospital, and you won't have to worry about revenge.

quote:

But that is just my opinion. I care to protect my wife and unborn daughter more than babying a criminal who is attempting to violate their safety.

Protecting your family means shooting those who pose an immediate threat to their safety. Someone who is running away doesn't pose an immediate threat.



Zhi -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 4:54:51 PM)

A few things that don't seem to have been mentioned much jumped out at me here.

1. This was the SECOND time in TWO NIGHTS this guy had come into the house trying to burglarize it. No wonder the homeowner was worried, the guy kept coming back... If I knew a criminal was going to keep coming into my house, frankly I'd be tempted to make sure that wouldn't happen also. Especially being a woman, with a baby to worry about.

2. I've had self-defense pistol training. One of the things they tell you is that you NEVER point a gun at someone unless you intend to fire... because pointing a gun and then not firing it is the #1 reason homeowners get killed with their own guns.

3. If the guy was stupid enough to come back and try to burglarize again after getting chased off the previous night, he would probably be stupid enough to try to get revenge for the first shot while he was in the house.

While it's certainly sad that an 18 year old was killed, and it's sad that an 18 year old is breaking into peoples' houses, I understand where the homeowner is coming from, and why he felt he had to protect himself in that manner.

Incidentally, the commandment addresses murder, not killing. If it were addressing killing, then the whole "genocide on the current occupants of the Promised Land" thing would have been kind of problematic.



lightshineon -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 5:05:02 PM)

Ok, I am Texan, somewhat born and raised in Amarillo, Tx. Though an Okie now. It would be tragic to take a young persons life, and you guys know I am far right. If I hit someone with a gun it would be by accident in the first place. I know this because I went to the Bass pro shop, and tried with a rifle accidently shot one fake bird, by accident, aming at the fake grizzly. My husband would shoot a person, he is trained to do that and has lots of guns. I could see in self defense killing someone, but not in the yard. That just seems like this person ( kid) and thier life had no value. Life has value, and wounding him ok. shoot him in the leg, knee cap, but kill him? Kids make mistakes, their brains are not mature, some of our brains are still not. Please no one take offense, I am usually with my conservative friends on issues, but, just not this one.
With that being said, maybe we do not know the whole story either, why e killed him in the yard. Read the above post just now, I still do not know if I coulod kill him. I love kids, people, animals you name it. Though no one knows what they would do in the heat of the moment. I hope I never find out.



blessedinnyc -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 5:48:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

A few things that don't seem to have been mentioned much jumped out at me here.

1. This was the SECOND time in TWO NIGHTS this guy had come into the house trying to burglarize it. No wonder the homeowner was worried, the guy kept coming back... If I knew a criminal was going to keep coming into my house, frankly I'd be tempted to make sure that wouldn't happen also. Especially being a woman, with a baby to worry about.

2. I've had self-defense pistol training. One of the things they tell you is that you NEVER point a gun at someone unless you intend to fire... because pointing a gun and then not firing it is the #1 reason homeowners get killed with their own guns.

3. If the guy was stupid enough to come back and try to burglarize again after getting chased off the previous night, he would probably be stupid enough to try to get revenge for the first shot while he was in the house.

While it's certainly sad that an 18 year old was killed, and it's sad that an 18 year old is breaking into peoples' houses, I understand where the homeowner is coming from, and why he felt he had to protect himself in that manner.

Incidentally, the commandment addresses murder, not killing. If it were addressing killing, then the whole "genocide on the current occupants of the Promised Land" thing would have been kind of problematic.

Actually, it's very possible the kid was just drunk and thought he was in his sister's home. The house has exactly the same paint and trim as his house and sits on the same side of the cul-de-sac. I've had to break into my own house once through a window (this was back in high school when I was let out of school early and the key we leave outside was missing), and maybe he was used to doing this at his home.

I haven't accused the homeowner of murder yet because I don't know all of the facts, but I think that if the kid mistakenly went into the wrong home, the tragedy is more in the fact that he was shot than the fact that he was mistakenly tresspassing.



henny -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 5:53:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Protecting your family means shooting those who pose an immediate threat to their safety. Someone who is running away doesn't pose an immediate threat.


I agree.

I'm all for the constitutional right to bear arms and the right to use guns to defend oneself. I even don't really mind concealed gun laws. But I do think this Texas statute is too lenient and worded so vaguely that it will invite the use of force by untrained citizens when it really isn't necessary. Shooting an unarmed man who stole a case of beer and is running away from you is a bit extreme.



henny -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 5:55:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

A few things that don't seem to have been mentioned much jumped out at me here.

1. This was the SECOND time in TWO NIGHTS this guy had come into the house trying to burglarize it. No wonder the homeowner was worried, the guy kept coming back... If I knew a criminal was going to keep coming into my house, frankly I'd be tempted to make sure that wouldn't happen also. Especially being a woman, with a baby to worry about.

2. I've had self-defense pistol training. One of the things they tell you is that you NEVER point a gun at someone unless you intend to fire... because pointing a gun and then not firing it is the #1 reason homeowners get killed with their own guns.

3. If the guy was stupid enough to come back and try to burglarize again after getting chased off the previous night, he would probably be stupid enough to try to get revenge for the first shot while he was in the house.

While it's certainly sad that an 18 year old was killed, and it's sad that an 18 year old is breaking into peoples' houses, I understand where the homeowner is coming from, and why he felt he had to protect himself in that manner.

Incidentally, the commandment addresses murder, not killing. If it were addressing killing, then the whole "genocide on the current occupants of the Promised Land" thing would have been kind of problematic.

Actually, it's very possible the kid was just drunk and thought he was in his sister's home. The house has exactly the same paint and trim as his house and sits on the same side of the cul-de-sac. I've had to break into my own house once through a window (this was back in high school when I was let out of school early and the key we leave outside was missing), and maybe he was used to doing this at his home.


Zhi can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he/she was referring to the case in the OP, not the case of the drunken College kid.



dbark -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 6:09:27 PM)

quote:

If you shoot them and they run away, you should shoot them again. If not they will most likely come back for revenge and burn down your house, while you are sleeping, with you in it. Just because someone attacks you then surrenders you are not obligated to give quarter and if you let them run, that just gives them a chance to re-group and come at you again


Ah yes, there's the sweet love of Jesus for you!



worthaboverubies -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 6:36:04 PM)

I would have no qualms about shooting someone who broke into my house.

Breaking into my house is violating me. I would not wait to find out what his intentions are.



wendylady -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 6:55:28 PM)

While I'm not sure I would agree with shooting someone who's running away, what was said is this person exited the dwelling, but was ultimately shot in the chest, neck, and arm. Not once did the article say he was shot in the back, nor did it indicate that he was unarmed. If I'm not mistaken, he was originally located in the kitchen, which of course are where knives are located. It's quite possible that he was in possession of something that looked like a weapon at 2:30am.

I think one thing to remember is that LARGE portions of Texas are rural and miles from any law enforcement. In a lot of places, there is no 9-1-1, and the wait for the police could be a half hour. While this may seem an unreasonable statute in places that the police can respond in a couple of minutes, it's not unreasonable for those without that luxury. The state statutes are written for the whole state, not just urban locations. Just for the record, a person being authorized to use deadly force isn't exactly a secret.

As far as this person getting confused, is it reasonable to believe that the homeowner had locked the door, and this person didn't have a key? If the person had never entered the dwelling, I might be more inclined to believe a "mistake" as misidentifying the house. However, he entered the house (most likely locked) without a key, confusion a second time becomes a huge stretch.

The reality is that if a person intends to merely burglarize a home they go when the home is empty, hence the reason a large percentage of burglaries happen when people are at work or on vacation. His presence in a dwelling that was inhabited would cause me to be alarmed and have a reasonable fear for my life.

It's unfortunate that this happened, but unless someone can say the young man said, "Hey Mister, I'm sorry, I was confused. I mean you no harm," I can't exactly fault the man who was defending his home/ family/ self.



SD456 -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 7:58:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tapestry

appauling a person for killing another? I have a hard time with that especially in this story. The kid ran from the house, meaning he was still alive, and then was killed outside, still running away. There is no mention of him pulling a weapon of anykind on the home owner, so how can this be justified as self defence?


That's so sad. A young boy killed and it sounds like he didn't have a weapon. And he was running away. That man should not be allowed to get away with killing someone who was running away.



stellaluna -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 8:24:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wendylady
Just for the record, a person being authorized to use deadly force isn't exactly a secret.

Seriously. Anyone who commits a crime in Texas is really taking their life into their own hands. Not only does a property owner have the right to kill you, we put more people to death than anyone else. Juries are not sympathetic here. [8|]



mapachito13 -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 8:29:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

A few things that don't seem to have been mentioned much jumped out at me here.

1. This was the SECOND time in TWO NIGHTS this guy had come into the house trying to burglarize it. No wonder the homeowner was worried, the guy kept coming back... If I knew a criminal was going to keep coming into my house, frankly I'd be tempted to make sure that wouldn't happen also. Especially being a woman, with a baby to worry about.


I wonder if he locks his door?

quote:

2. I've had self-defense pistol training. One of the things they tell you is that you NEVER point a gun at someone unless you intend to fire... because pointing a gun and then not firing it is the #1 reason homeowners get killed with their own guns.


This actually makes sense. Never thought of it that way but I'd sure like to make sure it wasn't my teenage son or daughter trying to sneak in after curfew.

quote:

3. If the guy was stupid enough to come back and try to burglarize again after getting chased off the previous night, he would probably be stupid enough to try to get revenge for the first shot while he was in the house.


Just hope the guys homies don't go looking for it.



HisFish -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 8:46:35 PM)

quote:

But would you still shoot the intruder in the back if he is unarmed and running away from you?



No i wouldent, and i really should have just commented on the facts of the article ( if they ARE the facts ) instead of laying out a situation in which i would kill. Upon further reflection it seems that killing an unarmed person who is fleeing from you has the flavor of murder to it. I would add as well that i wouldent kill an intruder who was not fleeing from me as long as i could determine from a glance that he was not armed, and would comply with my demand that he hug the floor. However, if he advances towards me i dont care if hes unarmed, i'll unload on him.



lightshineon -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 9:46:02 PM)

Eighteen and drunk? Where did he obtain the alcohol? Is it not legal until 21, everywhere? Law enforcement should look into that, and someone should be held accoutable for the kid being drunk. If this is the case that happened.



blessedinnyc -> RE: 'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting (5/8/2008 10:00:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SD456
That's so sad. A young boy killed and it sounds like he didn't have a weapon. And he was running away. That man should not be allowed to get away with killing someone who was running away.

The thing is that we really don't know all of the facts, here, so it's difficult to judge.

I wonder how this kid's family must feel.

quote:

Seriously. Anyone who commits a crime in Texas is really taking their life into their own hands. Not only does a property owner have the right to kill you, we put more people to death than anyone else. Juries are not sympathetic here.

Hmmm, New York only has the death penalty for killing cops, and New Jersey just became one of the first states in thirty years to eliminate the death penalty.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI