I saw the story of a Texas man shooting dead two criminals robbing his neighbors house. He has been charged with murder, which I don't understand. This was a very nice area where two ghetto punks broke into a house and started taking things. This man deserves a medal for standing up for not only his neighbor, but for his environment. What has come of this society where we cannot protect our homes or our families. What if those two criminals had tied up the family that they were robbing and were going to kill them once they finished the job?
2007-11-21 04:16:23 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
He has not been charged with murder. Some misguided "community activist" called him one. Very different story.
"No charges have been filed in the case. Officials said it could take several weeks before the case goes to a grand jury." See: http://www.click2houston.com/news/14643409/detail.html
2007-11-21 04:22:23 · answer #1 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I have been following this case pretty hard. I visit the courttv website alot, and have been following the discussion there.
The issues at hand is the "castle doctrine" which is a law in Texas and something like 13 other states. It states basically that you are allowed to defend yourself(kill someone) that is taking your stuff, or illegally on your property. There mroe to it, but thats a simplified version.
The problem with the above case is that, the man shot someone that was on another persons property, not his own. Also the 911 tape has been released. The operator told the shooter several times that the police were on the way, and to remain inside his house. He was in no danger at all. He told the operator, im going to go out and kill them.
This case is very grey. I want to side with the shooter, since I really really hate thieves and think they got what was coming but according to the law, he may not be justified.
2007-11-21 04:52:19 · answer #2 · answered by Jared D 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He's no hero. He's a vigilante who wasn't even protecting his own home. He was on the phone with the cops and even told them what he was going to do. All he had to do was write down the license plate number of their car and give it to the cops. That's what we pay them for. We don't need senior citizens on the street playing Dirty Harry. Innocent people can get killed. In this case two people were executed for, what, stealing a TV? Since when do robbers get the death penalty?
Do you want another "what if" scenario? What if the neighbor had hired 2 guys to go to his house and move some things? He wouldn't necessarily tell everyone in the neighborhood what he was doing and two guys who did nothing wrong could have been shot.
2007-11-21 04:37:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He was warn13 times by the 911 dispatcher not to go outside. The police was on its way. This was not his house; he should shoot them in the foot or something if he relly wanted to use his gun so bad. Everyoneone knows once you call 911 the police is coming. What if, in his shooting spree, he had killed another innocent that was walking in the street or something? If they were robbing his house, he wouldn't be charged with murder, it would be self-defense. If indeed he get charged and sentenced, I would be surprised, because this were in Texas, and the 2 robbers were Black. I still don't think he should get a heavy sentence, after all they were robbers.
2007-11-21 04:30:50 · answer #4 · answered by Diamond C. 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is something called excessive force. You cannot derail a train to catch a robber for an example. According to the article I've read, the two robbers were shot on their back. Shooting people who are running away from you is not considered as a self-defence act.
Getting a shotgun to chase and having motive to kill who are not even in your property is not same as finding out intruders in your own house and trying to defend yourself.
2007-11-21 06:00:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. He should have called the police and waited for them to take care of the situation.
Deadly force cannot be used to protect property. That's murder.
2007-11-21 04:46:05 · answer #6 · answered by StressedLawStudent 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not necessarily a hero, but not a criminal either.
He was doing something to protect his neighbors and other innocent victims.
I have no sympathy for what happens to criminals when they're committing crimes - they brought it upon themselves.
2007-11-21 04:30:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A hero? Thats going a bit far. He is just a dude that shot two robbers
2007-11-21 04:25:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
OH I EDITED MY ANSWER, IF COPS CANT SHOOT CRIMINALS WHO ARE RUNNING AWAY, WHAT GIVES THE RIGHT FOR A "BYSTANDER" TO...
He still killed them, call it what you wanna call it, itz murder.
Call it manslaugher, murder, agrivated murder...its still murder.
Was he being attacked? Because he had no "legal" means to shoot them dead. Were they armed? If they weren't armed or no harm was done, good chance the charges are sticking.
Probably get lesser time because of the circumstances, but its looking like a 2nd or 3rd degree murder to me. Not much of a manslaughter.
2007-11-21 04:28:09 · answer #9 · answered by Donny Dutch 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Criminal Record Search Database : http://InfoSearchDetective.com
2015-09-13 17:56:42 · answer #10 · answered by Kris 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋