Texan kills two robbers last year, waived of any legal aspect.

[Wagner]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/01/...tin/index.html

Now I found this interesting on a few levels.

Points -

1) You're witnessing, what you believe, to be a crime.
2) You've called 911, and they are dispatching police.
3) You tell the 911 operator you're going to kill the "robbers" who are in your neighbors yard.
4) You shoot both in the back, killing them.
5) Neither had a weapon or made an attempt on your life.



So with these facts......


I actually, disagree and think this guy should have been arrested and charged with double homicide. I say this because:

1 - he didn't KNOW these people were robbers, sure he was 99.5% sure but not 100% as they were not in his house.

2 - he was NEVER in danger.

3 - he was told by the 911 operator to stay put, and that authorities were coming.

4 - he shot them IN THE BACK, meaning they posed no immediate threat to him.


From this I wonder, just wonder, say you had two of your buddies coming by your place while you were away to get some stuff they left in your basement. You told them "hey I forgot to give you a key, just go in through the back slider, it should be unlocked". So you friends go in, grab their stuff and head out the same way they came in. Joe Neighbor sees all this going on, knows you're away and believes these are robbers. He calls the cops. Then goes out side and shoots both your friends to death. Would the case have been different then??

----------

Just curious what others think.

[Krimson X]

This is why most states have the "Castle" doctrine or the "Wall" doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

But from what I understand, Texas has a law where the use of deadly force is justified to protect the property of a third person.


For this guy, based on my listening of the 911 call, it was hunting season on those two.

[Meiac09]

I remember hearing the call on the news at the gym. Kind of amazing. This guy must have REALLY wanted to shoot someone.

[JGQ]

I find myself conflicted on this one. I agree with most of the sentiments that he should be punished since he went out of his way to shoot these robbers which resulted in thier death. But at the same time, if he did nothing, they would be doing the same thing to someone else.

In a perfect world he would have wounded them and they got arrested. But unfortunately we don't live in one and I don't think there will ever be justice in situations like this!

Puting him in jail to rott for murder is not justice nor is letting him walk free!!

[primetime]

Under the Law...the use of deadly force was justified. Robbers will think twice after hearing this story...

[PersonaNonGrata]

I do not agree with the perception that residential burglaries are just thieves "stealing some stuff". Anyone who enters my house with the intent of stealing from me, or doing harm to me or my family, is subject to whatever form of defense I have. A homeowner does not and cannot know whether the intruder is there to steal or rape or kill. There are no second chances on that. You have to assume they are there to do you harm. In fact, California has a legal presumption of that.

Having said that, I would not shoot a fleeing burglar even if he's clutching my precious MacBook or camera. I believe that one must be in fear for his life or his family, or in fear that great bodily injury will befall him before deadly force can be used. A fleeing felon is not one of those circumstances. Waking up to find a stranger in your house in the middle of the night is different, you must assume your life is in danger and all reasonable means to defend yourself should be available.

This guy in Texas crossed the line. I do not mourn the death of the two burglars but I am very glad it wasn't a scenario as presented above where it was two friends of the homeowner. The line that is very telling is where he stated his intention that he was going to kill the burglars. The overall circumstances do not justify his actions.