Remember the Texan that murdered his neighbor's intruders?

Asking Pitt's name is juvenile. I see why you asked, wanting to use his pending refusal to discredit his argument, but it's just immature and damages your side of this argument much more than his.

I, like any semi-intelligent CAG, would never give my full name here (or on any forum) even if we were just talking about Mario Galaxy or whatever. His refusal (and he better refuse) means nothing.
 
[quote name='joshythegreat18']After reading the first few pages of this thread and then skimming through the next few, I figured I'd post.

Personally, I'm not sure how anybody can defend what this man did. You see two individuals robbing your neighbor's house. If it's clear that they're unarmed, and you don't have any reason to believe that you're in any danger, then you don't shoot them in the back. You call 911 (which this man did), and hope the police do their job. Maybe you take out your gun, get your ass outside, and wait for them. If they're smart, they'll drop when they see a crazy, gun-toting SOB pointing the death instrument at them. When it comes to neighbor's property, unless you believe the people are in danger, then you don't go on some crazy killing spree.

Now, if it were MY property, that's an entirely different story. If you think you have the right to break into my house, take the things that I've worked hard to buy, and care so little about the emotional impact that being in a house with (potentially) armed individuals will have on my family and/or myself (whether they're actually there or not), you better be a fast SOB. Once you cross my doorstep, your rights under US law are gone, and my law begins. You WILL die. You WILL take responsibility for your actions (which US law claims to have you do, yet fails miserably). And you WILL NOT continue to live off of my tax money. End of story.

Point? Don't shoot people on your neighbor's property unless you have have sufficient reason (e.g. You feel that your neighbors are in immediate danger, you feel you are in immediate danger, etc.). If your neighbors are home and kill the SOB's? Good for them. Honestly, they'll get what they deserve, from who they deserve. But as it is not your house or your family, you should not be delivering justice. If it's your property, then go for it. As far as I'm concerned, if somebody is stupid/selfish enough to enter another person's home, take their things, and/or cause distress that person and their family, they deserve what they get. But it's only acceptable if they're getting it from whoever deserves to be giving it.

And yes, I'm sure someone will rant about how my logic is flawed. Or how I'm a douchebag. Or how I'm just trying to find a way to justify going above US law. Here's my response: I don't care. Think what you'd like. Just don't be offended when I break into your house, scare the shit out of you and your family, and take your stuff ;).[/quote]

I think your position is... interesting.

It's basically the opposite of the "Good Samaritan".

Many here are looking to take more power from citizens and give it to the government. No longer can we keep our friends and neighbors safe, no longer can we protect their property, we can only protect ourselves and our personal property.
 
[quote name='mervlouch']i have to pull the race card here. not for the asses that tried to rob the house but for the fact that if this john horn was a black man defending his neighbor they would of found him guilty[/quote]

:bs:

By way of example, OJ got away with murdering a man who was having an affair with his wife. Having an affair is not even a crime.
 
[quote name='camoor']:bs:

By way of example, OJ got away with murdering a man who was having an affair with his wife. Having an affair is not even a crime.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but OJ was protecting his property.
 
I can't say I have a problem with this. If someone broke into my house or if I see someone in the neighborhood breaking into houses, I'd grab the shotty too. Problem is I'm in NY state and they'd lock me up for 20 years to life for such a thing.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']
CC, when an officer of the law is ordering you not to do something, doing it is unlawful. Therefore, Horn's shooting those two men was unlawful.
Click to expand...

What officer of the law? The only officer of the law was the police officer who sat in his car and witnessed the incident.
[/quote]

CC and me discussed this earlier. The dispatcher isn't a police officer. Even if the dispatcher was, there isn't a law in Texas that requires you to obey orders from a law enforcement officer. Other states, yes. Texas, no.

EDIT: Finally got it right.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Many here are looking to take more power from citizens and give it to the government. No longer can we keep our friends and neighbors safe, no longer can we protect their property, we can only protect ourselves and our personal property.[/QUOTE]

That's a bit of an over-reaction to people saying that use of lethal force in the form of shooting fleeing burglars in the back shouldn't be legal, much less considered reasonable by so many people.

You'd see a lot less complaining if he'd shot them in the process of breaking into their house, of if he'd fired a warning shot and told them to not move until the cops got there etc.

People can protect their neighbors, but there should be limits on the use of force. Again, even the police can't shoot fleeing felons in the back unless they can make a damn strong case that not doing so will lead to someone else being in grave danger. Tough case to make unless the person clearly had a gun out etc. The standard for citizens should be at least as high as that.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
You'd see a lot less complaining if he'd shot them in the process of breaking into their house, of if he'd fired a warning shot and told them to not move until the cops got there etc.
[/QUOTE]

I am curious about something:

Going by all you've said so far, wouldn't you say firing in the air and yelling "don't move" to criminals running from you, always have to be a bluff?
 
Why's it a bluff? It's a warning. They'll either stop or keep running. If they keep running at least you have more cause to shoot them--though I personally still couldn't support it in this case as people don't deserve to die from running away from a burglary scene. I can't justify ever shooting someone unless there's clear, risk of physical danger (a weapon is clearly present, they're advancing toward you, someone is breaking into (or broke into) your home and you can't take the chance on what they intend to do etc.

Again, cops couldn't have shot those guys in the back legally (Tennessee vs. Garner, 1985) since there wasn't probably cause that the posed immediate danger to others. So I certainly can't accept a citizen doing so. It takes a very specific situation where there is clear danger to others if the person get's away to ever justify someone getting shot in the back when trying to flee.

Really, we just have to agree to disagree as I'm made it clear that this is an issue where I have zero respect for those on the opposite side of the fence here.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Why's it a bluff? It's a warning. They'll either stop or keep running. If they keep running at least you have more cause to shoot them--though I personally still couldn't support it in this case as people don't deserve to die from running away from a burglary scene. I can't justify ever shooting someone unless there's clear, risk of physical danger (a weapon is clearly present, they're advancing toward you, someone is breaking into (or broke into) your home and you can't take the chance on what they intend to do etc.[/quote]

I just find it odd that you keep bringing that up as a better option Joe could have taken, when you essentially make it clear you would still feel the same way about these deaths had he fired a warning shot and they kept running.

In other words, to you, warning shots REALLY don't matter when it comes to unarmed non life threatening criminal behavior. If they don't justify later shooting them, then you only believe they should be used as bluffs. So why even bring it up?

Really, we just have to agree to disagree as I'm made it clear that this is an issue where I have zero respect for those on the opposite side of the fence here.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Please understand I'm not trying to antagonize you at all. And I DO respect you, even if I don't fully agree with you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']I just find it odd that you keep bringing that up as a better option Joe could have taken, when you essentially make it clear you would still feel the same way about these deaths had he fired a warning shot and they kept running.

In other words, to you, warning shots REALLY don't matter when it comes to unarmed non life threatening criminal behavior. If they don't justify later shooting them, then you only believe they should be used as bluffs. So why even bring it up?
[/QUOTE]

Well I did say above that I'd have at least a little less disgust over it than just outright shooting them in the backs. And maybe it would get them to stop and keep them there until the cops grab them. So the "bluff" could be effective.

But you're right, I'd prefer people (including cops who are bound by law not to) to not use a gun in any capacity in trying to stop fleeing suspects who are non-threatening. Especially when the authorities are on the scene. It's not citizen's jobs to play cop, much less to play judge, jury and executioner--particularly for crimes that aren't eligible for the death penalty!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top