Texas Justice

[JonsZX2SR]

-> Texas Justice (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/30/burglary.shooting.ap/index.html)

[Larka]

The fact that he shot them both in the back after they supposedly threatened him is a little fishy. Seems more like they were running away from the dude with a shotgun...

If that fact wasn't there- I'd be on this guy's side 100% If I knew my neighbors were out of town, and saw people climbing out one of their windows- I'd confront them too. I'd want my neighbors to do the same thing for me. I wouldn't necessarily want them to shot the burglars, but still...

[5spdzx2]

i think its legit

[eskimowife]

It does sound a little fishy. I am not sure what I would do in that kind of situation.

[zxtwou2]

he flat out told the dispatcher he was going to go out and kill them....so that right there is intent and forethought. self defense does not involve planning, or putting yourself in a situation you weren't already in...such as going outside to confront the burglars instead of simply letting the authorities do their job. i think that fat fock shouldn't be cleared...but this is texas we're talking about. i'm pro gun and all..but a lot of those guys down there are straight gun happy.

[xtremecaraudio]

he flat out told the dispatcher he was going to go out and kill them....so that right there is intent and forethought. self defense does not involve planning, or putting yourself in a situation you weren't already in...such as going outside to confront the burglars instead of simply letting the authorities do their job. i think that fat fock shouldn't be cleared...but this is texas we're talking about. i'm pro gun and all..but a lot of those guys down there are straight gun happy.

my thoughts exactly, he showed intent to kill to the dispatcher. Kind of hard to claim self defense after saying your going to kill someone. :shrug:

[LiveWire]

I believe by Texas law, he had the right to shoot them already. So telling the operator he is going to shoot them is only confirming he plans to do something he has a legal right to do.

I believe after a certain time, a homeowner has the right right to shoot first and ask questions later to someone on his property. It seems this also applies to a neighbors property if asked to watch over the property.

[tre2000zx2]

two less criminals.. sounds like a slow start to me.. i dont think it should have ever even made it to trial.. i support him 100% .. they were illegals to boot.. one of whom was already deported once for cocaine charges..

[TSmiley98]

yep, screw criminals, I cant feel sorry for the losers getting blasted.. they could have stopped and been put in jail ALIVE, the fact is that they tried to run away and not pay for getting caught comminting crimes.
They kinda chose to get killed. thats my perspective on it..

[5spdzx2]

two less criminals.. sounds like a slow start to me.. i dont think it should have ever even made it to trial.. i support him 100% .. they were illegals to boot.. one of whom was already deported once for cocaine charges..

exactly why its legit. same goes for tsmileys comment.

[PHeller]

Wasn't self defense. He could've stayed inside, and if they threatened him inside or on his property, he could have shot then.

The fact that he shot them in the back tells me they were running or were not threatening him.

Illegals or not, you don't shoot people who aren't threating a life.

[tre2000zx2]

Wasn't self defense. He could've stayed inside, and if they threatened him inside or on his property, he could have shot then.

The fact that he shot them in the back tells me they were running or were not threatening him.

Illegals or not, you don't shoot people who aren't threating a life.

had they broken the law... YES ...they had entered his neighbors home unlawfully..as such.. they got what they deserved.. if I was in his shoes.. i woulda shot them too... they tried to run .. o well.. obviously not fast enough.. they got shot.. to bad.. o well.. im just glad he had good aim.. if he was able to kill them with a shotgun to the back they were close enough to him to have harmed him or shot him had they turned around and had a gun.. trust me .. its harder to kill from distance with a shotgun than the same distance with a pistol.. a shotguns pellet pattern is larger but with less force than ANY solid round fired.. how can you tell in that instance they WERNT violent criminals.. you cant.. in that situation you have to assume the worst.. a criminal is a criminal... as such.. error on the side of your own safety .. assume the worst..

[zx2racer1990]

This isn't about self defense, the law also states defending a neighbors property. What he did was perfectly legal even if he showed intent to use deadly force. so he gets off

It was however not moral to kill them, aiming low would have had the same effect of elliminating the threat. No person, country or law is perfect but this is the best out there.