you loot, I shoot

[monsterhunter]

CoLawman,

I just can't agree with you on several of your points, but first off, let me just say that the slavery issue is not one of them. But deadly force against a burglar, especially after given the opportunity at gun point to give up. I just don't have a problem with that (personally that is). There once was a time when a person who stopped them would be applauded. I'm all for hanging a horse thief and shooting a fleeing felon. I look back on some of the old laws and wish we were using them today.

I've seen the same criminals victimize the same people over and over again. No matter how much education, opportunity, hugs or whatever they are given, they still just rotate in and out of jail/prison. Even some murderers go free after a period of time. It just doesn't seem right. How many RAP sheets have I seen than run off of the printer and just spill out onto the floor? I can't even recall. Maybe their victims can.

When my house was burglarized, my kids cried a lot. Not so much because of what was taken, but because their safe place was no longer safe in their minds. "Dad, are they coming back? What if you were gone and we were home?" I would have rather have replied by telling them they won't be back because the neighbors took them out.

As a nation, I believe we've taken some great strides in the right direction over the years. I also feel we've lost ground in others. I still abide by the law despite my personal feelings. It's just that IMHO, your arguments are mostly your opinion only, and not necessarily a fact.

[phalanx-warrior]

Thought this may be of some interest, as some of the laws relating to the use of deadly force to protect a person and their property has recently changed.

Protecting Neighbor's Home Self-Defense?
Testing "Castle Doctrine," Grand Jury To Decide If Texas Man Was Right To Kill Burglars

HOUSTON (CBS) ― It will be up to a Texas grand jury to decide whether a man who fatally shot two men he thought were robbing his neighbor's home acted within the state's self-defense laws.

The man, who is in his 70s, shot the two suspected burglars Wednesday afternoon in a quiet subdivision of the Houston suburb of Pasadena. He confronted the men as they were leaving through a gate leading to the front yard of his neighbor's home.

No identities have been released.

Police say that just before the shootings, the man called 911 to say he heard glass breaking and saw two men entering the home through a window.

911: "Pasadena 911. What is your emergency?"

Caller: "Burglars breaking into a house next door."

A police spokesman says the man told the dispatcher that he was going to get his gun and stop the break-in.

Caller: "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"

911: "Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

The dispatcher repeatedly urged the man to stay calm and stay in his own home, reports CBS News correspondent Hari Sreenivasan.

911: "I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."

Caller: "I understand that, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself."

A Texas law strengthening a citizen's right to self-defense, the so-called "castle doctrine," went into effect on Sept. 1. It gives Texans a stronger legal right to use deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.

The telephone line then went dead, but the man called police again and told a dispatcher what he was doing.

Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.

He shot one suspect in the chest and the other in the side.

Wednesday's shooting "clearly is going to stretch the limits of the self-defense law," said a legal expert.

If the absent homeowner tells police that he asked his neighbor to watch over his property, that could play in the shooter's favor, defense attorney Tommy LaFon, who is also a former Harris County prosecutor, told the Houston Chronicle. "That could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role."

The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property.

It "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth told the newspaper. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle

Originally Posted by The Reaper

So in NC, there is no duty to retreat in any part of one's home before employing deadly force, and in other locations only as a reasonable person would deem safe.

Given the inherent rules regarding the use of deadly force, turning one's back to escape a person who has already presented a lethal force threat to oneself or others would seem to be unreasonable, would it not?

Yes.
If the other person is armed with a firearm and has presented a threat, how do you safely retreat?

You can't.
Can we outrun a bullet?

No.

Other weapons, presented within their respective ranges to justify the use of deadly force, are likely unsafe to withdraw from as well, unless the threat disarms himself or withdraws.

I am not maintaining that what the homeowner did in the first post of this story did was prudent, or even legal. If, however, the thieves had been breaking into HIS home, and he had been INside, he could have shot them both as they entered without legal concerns.

I am still waiting for you to prove your statement.

I withdraw my statement.
Most would be defined as 26 states or more, and I am not buying that. We can pretty much write off any retreat requirement in the South, Midwest, or West (minus Kali, who knows whether you can defend yourself at all there). How many states require you to retreat from a deadly threat within your own home? I do not believe that very many require this level of restraint.

You could be right.

TR

This has been instructive.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by phalanx-warrior

Thought this may be of some interest, as some of the laws relating to the use of deadly force to protect a person and their property has recently changed....

I believe that this is the incident that started this thread, if you read it through.

TR

[82ndtrooper]

I agree with CoLawman.

Mr. Horn does nothing to help our cause. That cause being the defense of property and ones self under the current and new Castle Doctrine adopted by most states. In this case Texas. I'm a Right to Keep and Bear Arms supporter, and it's protection under the 2nd Amendment. Like many here I too keep a shotgun at the ready beside my bed and a pistol. If someone comes into my home I am going to still exercise a prudent and reasonable man standard before pulling the trigger just because I can.

In this case it seems the liberals are right. Give a man a gun and permission to shoot and you'll find someone that is itching to exercise his right with his shotgun. In this case Mr. Horn is all too ready to ignore any reasonable man standard and or a direct deadly threat. Yes, the Castle Doctrine allows us to use lethal deadly force in defense of our property and our home, but it's not a "carte blanche" to shoot any human beings just because they are egressing through your back yard. Some of you might disagree.

Had these two men approached his door, tugged on it, possibly broken the glass to gain entry, then I'd be applauding two shots of OO buck to the brain bucket, but not this case.

Mr. Horn is now the poster boy for the Brady Campaign. Thanks Mr. Horn for becoming the stereotypical gun totting hillbilly that the pro gun control advocates want us to be.

[clapdoc]

I made the decision a long time ago that I would never retreat and would rather fight to the death rather than surrender.
Human life has gotten very cheap in the U.S.A. due to the liberals diluting our laws. I never believed I would see people getting killed for a pack of cigarettes, but I have.
The use of lethal force is a personal decision that you will have to live with for the rest of your life.
However, I have seen hesitation get people killed.
Remember this, when you are alive, you can always get a good lawyer, but dead is dead and all of the lawsuits and good intentions will not bring you back.
Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.


clapdoc sends.

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by phalanx-warrior

HOUSTON (CBS) ― ..........

The telephone line then went dead, but the man called police again and told a dispatcher what he was doing.

Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.

This is why it's crucial to always go to the original source aka. the actual recording. After a while, people start to paraphrase the actual transcript loosely following their own agenda.

If you read the starting post or listen to the recording, the phone line did not go dead and his actual words were "move, you're dead"

Either way, he went overboard

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

I draw the line where I individually choose. I don't suggest that I should tell you where to draw the line. Theft is theft.

So if you were King for a day, where would the law draw the line? Under what circumstances is theft punishable by lethal force?

[Pete]

Originally Posted by mdb23

So if you were King for a day, where would the law draw the line? Under what circumstances is theft punishable by lethal force?

It depends on the situation and the people involved.

Get a big dog, they keep the run of the mill riff raff away.

[HOLLiS]

The problem with hind sight is that we know the outcome as things have already unfolded. We don't know how things will end at the beginning of the event. As ClapDoc stated, he has seen people killed for a pack of cigarettes. Once a thug innitiates criminal action against a citizen where will it end and how far it will go in violance is unknown.

It is not the cost of the pack of cigarette that is at stake, it is everything that that the vicitim can loose that is at stake. Personally I would not trust a criminal with my life or any other person's life.

[CoLawman]

Originally Posted by sg1987

I have often pondered this one. How many times do we hear of high speed pursuits that kill or seriously injured innocent bystanders? I would prefer the shotgun blast to the head of a fleeing perp, when it can be executed, than the death of a Mom in a minivan any day of the week. “You fly….you die” would be a great deterrent.

High speed pursuits are a menace to society. Many LE agencies have already tightened the requirements needed to engage in a pursuit. I believe deaths of innocents have been averted due to those changes. Most pursuits are a result of traffic violations rather than a serious criminal offense. The proper way to insure the public safety is curtailing unnecessary pursuits. In my opinion.

[82ndtrooper]

"I'm not going to let them get away with this" This quote taken from the transcripts is damaging to his credibility, especially since he was not in harms way and on the phone with the 911 dispatcher inside of his own residence.

"Burglars breaking into a house next door" Clearly his castle was not being burglarized and he was not faced with a deadly threat to his own personal life.

"I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?" This demonstrates that he is going to use deadly force and has asked for permission from the dispatcher to do so. What other means aside from deadly force did he have in mind ? Citizens arrest ?

"I have a right to protect myself too sir" From what ? Burglars across the street but not at his residence nor inside his residence ?

"An the laws have changed in this country since September 1st, you know it and I know it. I have a right to protect myself" Burglars at this time are supposedly not a direct threat to him, so what was he protecting himself against ? Details here are not clear, but at this point it appears that he is making a critical decision to create the buzz saw not react to being placed into that buzz saw unwillingly.

"Get the law over here quick, I managed to get one of them, he's in the yard over there and the other one is running down the street, I had no choice" What's interesting about his statement to the dispatcher is "he's in the yard over there" Did he fire across the property line ? Did they enter his yard and flee when he said "Dont move or your dead" ? Police officers themselves would have reholstered and began a foot pursuit. Again the details here are not clear, but it's apparent to me that Mr. Horn was perfectly safe, had no need to defend himself from a threat that was not present and used excessive force when it was not necessary. And, he was told to stand down multiple times by the dispatcher.

Mr. Horn is an idiot.

If I witness two men burglarizing the town home across the street I'm not going to grab the Benelli, leave my premisis and jump start the buzz saw to which I could have avoided by simply staying on the phone with the dispatcher, gave detailed descriptions of the perps, possibly license plate numbers, and vehicle description and the direction in which the vehicle fled.

He obviously does not know the law to which he referred to on the phone with the dispatcher. He's not and old man, he's only 61 and that ain't old so the "Poor Boy old man" defense won't cut it.

[CoLawman]

Would you please clarify which "points" you disagree with.

Again your statement is difficult to respond to without clarification. I have stated several historical facts to support my opinion of a single incident. Is it my recounting of historical facts that are wrong? Or is it that you disagree with my opinion on Mr. Horn's actions?

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Pete

It depends on the situation and the people involved.

Unfortunately, that's too vague and lacks the necessary uniformity to be of any legislative value. In all seriousness, we all complain about how "soft" the law is on criminals, so what would you want the law to be?

What would the limitations be? Can a juvenile get shot for stealing a box of condoms? Is there a minimum value on the property, or can you choot a dude for pocketing a pack of chicklets?

Personally, I believe that lethal force should be reserved only for situations when your life, or the life of another is at risk or you (or another) are at risk of serious bodily injury.............. I think any attempt to legislate a lethal force option for theft is impractical, but I am interested in seeing how you guys would work it out.

Originally Posted by mdb23

So if you were King for a day, where would the law draw the line? Under what circumstances is theft punishable by lethal force?

I'm not King, will never be King, and have absolutely no desire to inflict my value system on others.