Texas! Yep, I like it here ...

[pgsmith]

SAN ANTONIO -- A homeowner shot two men, killing one, when he heard someone breaking into his SUV.

It happened on Lightstone Drive near Stone Oak and Hardy Oak Boulevard shortly before 2 a.m. Police say the owner of a parked SUV heard someone attempting to break into it. That's when, according to police, he went outside and spotted someone inside his vehicle.

As he approached the vehicle the owner thought he spotted a gun. The SUV owner then fired at the suspect, hitting him one time in the upper torso. Police say the getaway driver then sped off. The SUV owner fired through the windshield killing the driver.

As of now, the owner is said to not be facing any charges because he was defending his property. The second suspect was taken to SAMM-C in critical condition.

 

[Sukerkin]

I know that it's a legal set-up that is open to being abused but I would prefer a system that allows me to defend myself or my property than one that leaves me either helpless or in trouble with the law myself :nods:.

 

[geezer]

According to your account, the man thought the first guy he shot had a gun. I got that. But then he shot a fleeing suspect? Poor choice in my opinion. I mean why not let the police catch him? After all, I assume the car was insured. Even in Texas that's a bit harsh. On the other hand, I guess you could say the man defending his property got them car-thieves and larned 'em good. It will be interesting to see how the media handle this.

BTW I love Texas too. Prolly get back out to Austin this Spring.

 

[Xue Sheng]

According to your account, the man thought the first guy he shot had a gun. I got that. But then he shot a fleeing suspect? Poor choice in my opinion. I mean why not let the police catch him? After all, I assume the car was insured. Even in Texas that's a bit harsh. On the other hand, I guess you could say the man defending his property got them car-thieves and larned 'em good. It will be interesting to see how the media handle this.

BTW I love Texas too. Prolly get back out to Austin this Spring.

Or, wha if the "Getaway driver" was just some guy sitting in his car not paying attention or taking a nap, until he heard shots and decided to get out of there

 

[Xue Sheng]

I know that it's a legal set-up that is open to being abused but I would prefer a system that allows me to defend myself or my property than one that leaves me either helpless or in trouble with the law myself :nods:.

You will find this in Alaska too, but then just about everyone in Alaska has a gun.

Two men broke into a guy’s 4x4s over 2 miles outside of Fairbanks and he came out, saw them and shot and killed both. No charges were pressed and the Alaska State Police took the bodies away. But it was winter and he was two miles outside of Fairbanks at a point past where they stop plowing so the Police view was if they took his truck he would have died so he was justified

But that was many years ago things could be different now

 

[rlobrecht]

I live in Texas. I've taken a number of classes relating to the personal use of firearms. It's perfectly legal to use deadly force to protect your property, or even your neighbors property, but in general its not recommended. It can cost a pretty penny proving to the court that your shooting was justified.

 

[Tez3]

I know that it's a legal set-up that is open to being abused but I would prefer a system that allows me to defend myself or my property than one that leaves me either helpless or in trouble with the law myself :nods:.

We have that right in this country including using a weapon even a gun. What people here don't like is the fact that the police have to investigate the incident. The media makes a big fuss when the police don't take the householder's version at face value, they can't unfortunately. To be honest I'm sure it's the same in America, the police turn up and have to sift the facts and see if everything's as the householder said. You cannot take at face value what someone has stated because people aren't always truthful. Look at the case of the woman who said her boyfriend was stabbed in a road rage incident by a random motorist and it turned out she'd killed him or how many missing children are killed by their parents/family. We simply cannot turn up at an incident like this and assume everyone is telling the truth, when the incident is investigated and the householder is seen to be in the right they aren't prosecuted, yes it may well have been an ordeal but it's important the truth is sought.

 

[Tames D]

According to your account, the man thought the first guy he shot had a gun. I got that. But then he shot a fleeing suspect? Poor choice in my opinion. I mean why not let the police catch him? After all, I assume the car was insured. Even in Texas that's a bit harsh. On the other hand, I guess you could say the man defending his property got them car-thieves and larned 'em good. It will be interesting to see how the media handle this.

BTW I love Texas too. Prolly get back out to Austin this Spring.

Dadburnit, I hear everythang is bigger in Texas. Dang them thar Texans.

 

[DennisBreene]

We have that right in this country including using a weapon even a gun. What people here don't like is the fact that the police have to investigate the incident. The media makes a big fuss when the police don't take the householder's version at face value, they can't unfortunately. To be honest I'm sure it's the same in America, the police turn up and have to sift the facts and see if everything's as the householder said. You cannot take at face value what someone has stated because people aren't always truthful. Look at the case of the woman who said her boyfriend was stabbed in a road rage incident by a random motorist and it turned out she'd killed him or how many missing children are killed by their parents/family. We simply cannot turn up at an incident like this and assume everyone is telling the truth, when the incident is investigated and the householder is seen to be in the right they aren't prosecuted, yes it may well have been an ordeal but it's important the truth is sought.

I don't see how you could justify not investigating and I suspect that you won't find it ignored in either country. That's an appropriate check and balance to the freedom to defend oneself. Protecting one's property while on one's property seems to be a fairly constant justification for deadly force in the US. However, (and I'm cringing and ducking while I write this in anticipation of the blowback) when you see your car being broken into and there is no one near that you must protect, is letting them take the car and calling the police irrational?

 

[Tez3]

I don't see how you could justify not investigating and I suspect that you won't find it ignored in either country. That's an appropriate check and balance to the freedom to defend oneself. Protecting one's property while on one's property seems to be a fairly constant justification for deadly force in the US. However, (and I'm cringing and ducking while I write this in anticipation of the blowback) when you see your car being broken into and there is no one near that you must protect, is letting them take the car and calling the police irrational?

Here shooting someone for taking your car would be deemed 'overkill', it's theft (twoc'ing here... taking without owners consent) not a life threatening event. You would be expected to call the police, it's only a car, the insurance will cover it however much you like your car it's not or at least shouldn't be a member or your family.

 

[ballen0351]

I don't see how you could justify not investigating and I suspect that you won't find it ignored in either country. That's an appropriate check and balance to the freedom to defend oneself. Protecting one's property while on one's property seems to be a fairly constant justification for deadly force in the US. However, (and I'm cringing and ducking while I write this in anticipation of the blowback) when you see your car being broken into and there is no one near that you must protect, is letting them take the car and calling the police irrational?

That's why he claims he thought the guy had a gun. Its the CYA statement i was in fear for my life

 

[Flying Crane]

That's why he claims he thought the guy had a gun. Its the CYA statement i was in fear for my life

and the other guy who was driving away?

 

[ballen0351]

and the other guy who was driving away?

If he shot him thru the windshild like it say in the story then ". The driver tried to run me over I had no choice but to shoot"

 

[Flying Crane]

If he shot him thru the windshild like it say in the story then ". The driver tried to run me over I had no choice but to shoot"

so...this guy probably manufactured some statements to justify killing two people.

according to the OP the story says: he sped away, and the homeowner shot him thru the windshield. Unless he meant the back window, those are kinda conflicting descriptions and would require some clarification to know exactly what happened.

I gotta be honest, this just adds fuel to the fire and is an example in support of more gun control. Advocates of stricter gun controls are gonna look at this kind of thing and say, this guy didn't need to use his gun, his life was never in danger, and gun nuts like this manufacture reasons to kill people because thats what they want to have guns for, 'cause they wanna kill people. This does not help the arguement that we don't need more gun control.

 

[Sukerkin]

Here shooting someone for taking your car would be deemed 'overkill', it's theft (twoc'ing here... taking without owners consent) not a life threatening event. You would be expected to call the police, it's only a car, the insurance will cover it however much you like your car it's not or at least shouldn't be a member or your family.

Can't say I agree, Tez. Kill more of them, less of them to breed.

 

[Flying Crane]

Can't say I agree, Tez. Kill more of them, less of them to breed.

the problem with that attitude is, there's probabaly someone out there who thinks that way about you.

 

[pgsmith]

the problem with that attitude is, there's probabaly someone out there who thinks that way about you.

And if I was stealing their car, then they should go ahead and kill me too.

 

[Sukerkin]

Exactly - as with any undesirable trait, there is only one way to filter it out of the gene pool. How you achieve that depends on your view of moral and merciful behaviour.

You want a screwed up and dis-functional society, keep on pandering to the 'rights' of those whose only way of functioning in a modern society is to prey on their fellows.

I am fully in agreement that the system of justice needs to be in place and adhered to - but I also think if someone is stealing from me I have the right to make sure they never do it again to either me or anyone else. The only way that punishment is a deterrent is if it is vastly disproportionate to the offence.

 

[ballen0351]

so...this guy probably manufactured some statements to justify killing two people.

according to the OP the story says: he sped away, and the homeowner shot him thru the windshield. Unless he meant the back window, those are kinda conflicting descriptions and would require some clarification to know exactly what happened.

I gotta be honest, this just adds fuel to the fire and is an example in support of more gun control. Advocates of stricter gun controls are gonna look at this kind of thing and say, this guy didn't need to use his gun, his life was never in danger, and gun nuts like this manufacture reasons to kill people because thats what they want to have guns for, 'cause they wanna kill people. This does not help the arguement that we don't need more gun control.

Except your making your conclusion of more gun control by reading a small 3 paragraph blurb and then jumping to conclusions and filling in the details. You have not seen the official statements or the investigation

 

[Flying Crane]

And if I was stealing their car, then they should go ahead and kill me too.

wow. you really feel that way?