In Pasadena, Tx, a 61 yr old man saw 2 men break into his neighbors house. He called 911 and told them what was going on and stated that he had his rifle out and was ready, willing and able to use it because this is unacceptable. He also said a number of times that if the police didn't show up and the guys tried to leave, he would shoot them. Sure enough the 2 men started to leave the house and on the 911 call you can hear the shot gun go off 3 times. He then calls 911 back to call for assistnace stating that one is down, they were both shot and the other is running down the street. Both men died.
Now the grand jury is deliberating on whether or not protecting your neighbors property falls under the same jurisdiction as your own, thus giving him the right to shoot the intruders.
What's your opinion?
2007-11-19 02:14:53 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
according to the call, the 61 yr old man wasn't sure if they were armed with anything other than a crow bar...
2007-11-19 02:15:45 · update #1
For those who state it's murder, what if it were your house... would you have rather he just let them get away? Couldn't the argument be made that Criminals fear NOTHING because they no no one will do anything?
2007-11-19 02:20:39 · update #2
I think he seemed a little eager to kill them from the way you told this story, but I don't necessarily know that it should be considered murder.
2007-11-19 02:26:56 · answer #1 · answered by Linz VT•AM 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The thing about this case is that Texas has something called a "Castle Law" or something like that. Its states if someone is on your property and it is not authorized to be there the owner can shoot first and ask questions later. If this was his own property, or the owner had given him permission it would have been open and shut case.
Now then we in order to find out what what type of punishment he could face we need to find out what type of murder/killing this was. Was it involuntary? No, IMO. Was it premeditated? He told the officer what he was going to do prior to shooting them. Was it in self defense? Not sure if they were armed. Depending on the wounds, it one could make a case for it. If it was close quarters and in the front he could state that they charged him. If it was from a far range in the back they were fleeing and posed no immediate threat.
With the backlash from the crime wave here in Houston, some due to Katrina evacuees, I feel that there is a lot of sympathy here for this mans plight. Before this case I thought neighborhood watch would do this for me. Finally, do we want to encourage society to do nothing as their neighbors are wronged? Before I give my answer, I'll admit I am biased. My parents not too far away, and have been burglarized 3 times in 3 years. The police has done very little. I would see if I could pardon him under some type of Good Samaritan Law, and if not let him go free with time served, probation and fine. At the most I would give him the minimum sentence that the law requires.
2007-11-19 10:38:10 · answer #2 · answered by Vejay S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm...
He could have shot their legs. A cop would have first told them to get on the ground and put their hands behind their back.
Failing that or if they were reaching for guns then shoot them to incapacitate them, but not to kill.
This is a hard call because you want to protect your neighbor as much as you want them to protect your property. You don't want would be thieves to come in and out knowing that they would be relatively safe.
Now if this guy was being like a sniper and didn't give them a chance to explain themselves or give up, then it would definitely be murder.
-- Edit --
If this were a case in that I was that man those dudes would have had trouble walking if they didn't heed my warning to stop.
But I would have made sure that an ambulance was fast on the way and would have given them something to cover their wound. I would have also used a smaller caliber gun to ensure high probability of survival.
2007-11-19 10:22:05 · answer #3 · answered by The Mad Padishah 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think its called "the make my day" law (seriously)
you CAN protect your property as long as you don't leave your property....
example someones in your house. your in the street, you can't shoot until you stand on "your" lawn. but if they run away down the street and they did damage your property or steal it, you can aim as far as you can and shoot them dead legally.
(at least in texas)
you don't even have to warn the person.
BUT shooting twice is considered an over use of force and can be considered murder.
I think if someone messes with my stuff, they better be prepared to take a bullet in the side of their head, because I WILL shoot and I'm a pretty good shot.
2007-11-19 15:34:10 · answer #4 · answered by Mercury 2010 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've always been told that unless the person is in YOUR house, you can't kill them without going to jail. He could have maybe wounded them, or maybe taken a picture so the cops would have something to go on, taken down any license plate numbers, or even sent his hound dogs after them, (c'mon, they live in Texas, you know they got hound dogs sleepin under the porch LOL) but I wouldn't have shot them because the risk of going to jail for murder would be too great (for me). I totally respect him trying to protect his neighbor's house but he'll probably be in some trouble for killing them.
2007-11-19 10:54:24 · answer #5 · answered by Kiwi 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Murder... he was "defending" property not his own life. And it would be first degree, because he told 911 he intended on shooting them if they attempted to leave and no police were on the scene.
He only has the right to use deadly force if he felt that his life was in danger, which it clearly was not.
2007-11-19 10:48:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is hard to answer as you have to be in that situation to actually understand what he was thinking. He could have been scared.
None the less I think that since he actually shot and killed them he knew how to aim and shoot quite well and could have shot just to hurt and not kill. for example he could have shot them in the leg.
I also dont agree with taking the law into ur own hands unless you or one of your loved ones are the ones getting hurt or if you have a chance of getting hurt.
Since they werent actually inside his home and holding him at gun point or hurting one of his loved ones i think this would be murder.
As always this is only an opinion
2007-11-19 10:25:21 · answer #7 · answered by airam 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm afraid I'd call that murder. He had no evidence that anybody's life was in danger and he should have just gotten good descriptions of the men and left the matter to the police.
2007-11-19 10:19:28 · answer #8 · answered by starcharlieblue 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
By the letter of the law, that is murder. It is not self-defense unless you feel that your life is in immediate danger and you either can't tell if they are armed or know they are.
But... I still think the guy should get the keys to the city and a day named in his honor
2007-11-19 10:19:47 · answer #9 · answered by FooFoo says dis ees boolsheet! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmmmm, I say maybe that is what is wrong with this country, there is much said about helping others, but when someone does try to help, he is arrested and accused of murder???
I would want my neighbors to do that for me, as I would for my neighbors.
He calls 911, he states his intentions, but he will probably be indicted, and then sued by the criminals family...Geesh and we wonder why there is violent crime, because its ok to commit violent crime, but if you use violence to stop violent crime, your in the wrong.
2007-11-19 10:22:31 · answer #10 · answered by mrsrdnewt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋