Man calls 911, Then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911!!!

[05GT]

Please check out each link in the order posted.

#1.http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=5538780

#2.http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=5766455


Here is Texas law :

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property

Ok so cliff notes:

61 year old man calls 911 because he see's to guys robbing his neighbor. 911 call lasts a little over 7 minutes before police show up. The guy walks outside his house and tells the two guys to stop at which point one is on his property now, and then shoots them with his shotgun, killing them, all while on the phone with the 911 dispatcher.

My feelings:

I'm glad the old man did what he did. 2 less douchebags for this world to worry about. Not to mention, the one HAD A PRIOR RECORD. This is obviously not the 1st time these guys have committed a crime.

Who's to say had they have done it again, they wouldn't have killed, raped, or seriously harmed somone, if someone was home at the time of attempted robbery?

So once again, I say good. They got what they deserved. Looks like the won't have the chance to do it again, and possibly serioulsy harm or kill someone.


Ok...please discuss...................

[Signatus230]

From a legal standpoint, he was allowed to do what he did. But isn't Texas law when dealing with most criminals extreme anyway? Death sentence, 5 life terms, etc...

I do not think it was a good thing, nor do I think he should have done that. Stop them yes, but not outright kill them. My opinion anyway.

[05GT]

I understand 230. I think this has potential for a good discussion. If you go to either link, you can listen to the whole 911 call.

Edit- However, it is noted to that in those areas of Texas, there is significantly less crime. Perhaps it's good Texas is like that.

[bl@ckvr4]

I wish New Jersey was like this...

[420sx]

I feel like his actions were justified legally and morally. I personally wouldnt have done what he did, but I dont see any reason to bring him up on charges. I think death is a harsh price to pay for burgulary, but if the idiots hadnt broken into the house in broad daylight, maybe they'd be in a jail cell instead of in a morgue.

2 less off the streets is a good thing, imo.

Regarding the laws in texas- i think its a very good thing. Have any of you ever been to Germany? The way they set up their punishments is basically 'make the punishment so strict, no one will ever break the law.' And it seems to work. I think a speeding ticket is in the area of 600 euro (800 bucks).

No one speeds in Germany, thats for sure. Plus they have the autobahn to go fast.

[zerioustt]

hopefully this is a wakeup call for other criminals...but probably not. turns out if your babys daddy didnt break the law he would be alive, get a job like the rest of us.

[importpower99]

9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property

Wheres section 9.41 and 9.42?
I agree with 230, I could see wounding them, but not killing them, they weren't armed.

[zerioustt]

Originally Posted by importpower99

Wheres section 9.41 and 9.42?
I agree with 230, I could see wounding them, but not killing them, they weren't armed.

like i said if they werent breaking the law they wouldnt of died..moral of the story dont break the law and your chances of getting shot drop dramitcally.

[05GT]

Originally Posted by importpower99

Wheres section 9.41 and 9.42?
I agree with 230, I could see wounding them, but not killing them, they weren't armed.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


I stated 9.43 because it related to a third party's property, where as 9.41 relates to your own.

[420sx]

Just read the second article. Not sure why I originally skipped it.

I cant believe that the wife has the AUDACITY to defend her husband! He was breaking into a house... WHILE HIS BUDDY WAS ON PAROLE! Man if stupid kills...

The only victim here is the baby.

[05GT]

The fact that he did have a baby makes him all the more stupid. Stop commiting ciminal acts, and maybe he'd still be here to watch his kid grow up.
When you know you have a family to provide for, it's all the more reason for someone not to do stupid things.

[ITSTOCK]

I would not have shot a man (or two) that was exiting an empty house after burglarizing it. But that's just me. If someone did decide to, I would thank them whole heartedly for protecting my personal belongings.

HOWEVER, copied from my post on another site....

I fail to see the problem. From the article...

Both men were shot once at a range of less than 15 feet with blasts from a 12-guage shotgun.

The neighbor fired twice. One shot struck one of the suspected burglars in the chest, and the other was struck on the side.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.

The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so

Open shut case.

[Keeper1343]

We need more citizens like this in Philly. Take care of there neighborhoods and get the trash out.

[97TurboDSM]

kudos to that man. i'd have done the same thing. did anyone else hear three shots or was that just me?

[Jeffros Spec V]

We need more people to step up and not be affraid to take actions.

I don't think I would have shot them personally but I think they deserved what they got.

[05GT]

Originally Posted by 97TurboDSM

kudos to that man. i'd have done the same thing. did anyone else hear three shots or was that just me?

You heard correctly. There were 3 shots fired.

[99SL2_Modder]

Glad they're dead. Hope the baby grows up to be something better than scum. Sucks to not have a father, but he wouldn't have been a worthwhile role model anyway. Good riddance.

[teh DIRT]

texas law is right, most others laws aren't. In PA, if you shoot someone and kill them, you WILL be charged with manslaughter and WILL have to defend yourself in court....no matter what the circumstance.

[ITSTOCK]

Originally Posted by teh DIRT

texas law is right, most others laws aren't. In PA, if you shoot someone and kill them, you WILL be charged with manslaughter and WILL have to defend yourself in court....no matter what the circumstance.

It is not true that you WILL be charged with manslaughter and WILL have to defend yourself in court in PA. You MAY be charged, but so long as it was clearly self defense, most often, you will not. Unless you are referring to shooting someone while exiting the premise, in which case, I believe that's murder in PA.

[05GT]

If you guys read closely, although the man exited his house, he did tell the men to stop, and it says that one of them was on his property and started coming towards him, and they did have a crowbar.