Texas Man shoots 2 thiefs while on the phone with 911

[StruckingFuggle]

Assuming he's telling the truth about #2.

Which seems kinda really fishy on its own, if he had a loaded shotgun pointed at them.

Three blasts? How quick? Did he even try to fire a warning shot to show he meant business? How much distance was there between them when he gave his first warning?

[Nukinblackmage]

Question about point 2: Are we sure they advanced on him? For all we know, they might have turned tail and ran as soon as they saw the old man with the shotgun who was yelling at them. If he'd shot them in the back as they ran, he'd be in trouble. If he shot them cause they were coming at him, he has a reasonable case for self defense.

[Deacon]

It's not enough to FEEL threatened. Were the burglars armed? Were they approaching him?

When it comes to criminal actively engaged in criminal activity, I think the burden of proving threat ought to be awfully low.

Did he call out to them or fire a warning shot?

The former is murky but the latter is possibly the worst idea ever.

But it's quite possible he just fucking shot two unarmed men out of nowhere. What kind of hero is that? Even a thief deserves more of a chance than that.

While we may disagree on the "chance" is "deserved" by someone perpetrating a home invasion, it's incredibly unlikely that the men were unarmed, and it's also likely that they could be in possession of a number items that could be used as weapons, even among the wares they were stealing.

One thing I'm sick of is people saying that home invasions and such are minor/victimless, non-violent crimes. Home invasions are a startle away from aggravated assault, murder, rape, and whatever else, and not all home invasions are just to rob someone of what they've worked for. You do know they used to hang horse thieves, right?

[StruckingFuggle]

You do know they used to hang horse thieves, right?

Used to. Past tense. Thank godzilla we've grown more civilized since then.


Edit: I did indeed mean "thank".

[Deacon]

Three blasts? How quick?

Listen to the tape.

Did he even try to fire a warning shot to show he meant business?

WHY would you ask this?? Could you possibly be expecting that, thinking it's a good idea??

For all we know, they might have turned tail and ran as soon as they saw the old man with the shotgun who was yelling at them. If he'd shot them in the back as they ran, he'd be in trouble.

You think the entire police force is too stupid to recognize the difference between an entry and exit wound? I'm fairly certain that if he'd shot them in the back, he'd be in trouble.

That god we've grown more civilized since then.

I assume you meant "thanks," but I disagree with the sentiment regardless, including the assertion of your own personal idea of what it means to be civilized.

[StruckingFuggle]

Did he even try to fire a warning shot to show he meant business?

WHY would you ask this?? Could you possibly be expecting that, thinking it's a good idea??

Well that would depend on the situation, which we're not really privy to.

[Deacon]

The answer is no, regardless of that to which you're privy.

[StruckingFuggle]

The reason being...?

[BigGunn]

The risk of injury to non-participants for one thing.

Even fired at the ground, you're looking at the possibility for ricochets, hitting gas lines, etc.

[Deacon]

There is nothing to be gained and only ridiculous risk in doing so. Have you taken any basic firearms safety course? Or ever been hunting for that matter? I could've sworn you had. You don't shoot a firearm unless you have a particular target to hit...for so many reasons.

[Shyknight]

While we may disagree on the "chance" is "deserved" by someone perpetrating a home invasion, it's incredibly unlikely that the men were unarmed, and it's also likely that they could be in possession of a number of items that could be used as weapons, even among the wares they were stealing.

Yeah, I suppose if you've got the balls to be a burglar, it's likely you've got a gun also. But that isn't always the case. For example, the latest string of burglaries committed in my home town was by a couple of idiot college kids who would go around checking for unlocked apartment doors. Would you have shot them dead, Deacon?

Most police in modern times are required to adhere to certain moral standards. These include not firing a gun at a person, even a criminal, until it's clear they are preparing to fire/strike at you. I'm not suggesting an old man is expected or able to adhere to those same moral guidelines, just throwing that out there.

I defend my position that shooting burglars dead just because they are burglars is cruel. I guess I just like people too much.

One thing I'm sick of is people saying that home invasions and such are minor/victimless, non-violent crimes. Home invasions are a startle away from aggravated assault, murder, rape, and whatever else, and not all home invasions are just to rob someone of what they've worked for. You do know they used to hang horse thieves, right?

I've got no problems with shooting murderers and rapists. Burglary is still pretty despicable, but less so. I just think the burglars should live to regret it.

[Deacon]

For example, the latest string of burglaries committed in my home town was by a couple of idiot college kids who would go around checking for unlocked apartment doors. Would you have shot them dead, Deacon?

If they invaded my home? Yes. Without a doubt. Wouldn't you?

I've got no problems with shooting murderers and rapists. Burglary is still pretty despicable, but less so. I just think the burglars should live to regret it.

What guarantee do you have that those perpetrating a home invasion are not going to harm you and your family? All I know is that someone is invading my home, and that's all I need to know. I don't have to first quiz them on their original intentions, the level of armaments they're brandishing, etc.

[StruckingFuggle]

There is nothing to be gained and only ridiculous risk in doing so. Have you taken any basic firearms safety course? Or ever been hunting for that matter? I could've sworn you had. You don't shoot a firearm unless you have a particular target to hit...for so many reasons.

First: /me flashes his Concealed Handgun License.
I'd say ... yes. I have.

Second: Reasons, of course, that you can't apparently be bothered to enumerate, or even provide a sample of, eh?
Third: "that patch of ground between us" is a particular and specific target no less than "that coke bottle on a fence" or "that pigeon in the air"... /shrug

Even fired at the ground, you're looking at the possibility for ricochets, hitting gas lines, etc.

With a shotgun? Hm.



And Shyknight, I don't think you're gonna make any progress. Deacon's bloodthirsty and vengancial. He'd just love to teach them a lesson they'd never live to learn.

[Deacon]

First: /me flashes his Concealed Handgun License.
I'd say ... yes. I have.

SLDkfgjdslkfghsdl;kfha sd;lfhasdkjl hasdlkfgj asdf

And they told you that you should be firing warning shots around the neighborhood??! I don't believe you. Not even for a second. You're under no moral or legal obligation to do so, and doing so incurs only risks, no rewards, and is far more likely to justify them shooting you in their own defense.

With a shotgun? Hm.

Yes! Holy shit!

And Shyknight, I don't think you're gonna make any progress. Deacon's bloodthirsty and vengancial. He'd just love to teach them a lesson they'd never live to learn.

I would suggest that you go fornicate yourself with the barrel of your firearm, but I'm not sure you'd think it as unpleasant as I would first assume.

[Shyknight]

What guarantee do you have that those perpetrating a home invasion are not going to harm you and your family?

Honestly? I just assume they won't.

God, I'm such a dumbass.

I think it might be the videogames. A favorite of mine used to be SWAT 4. In that game, you got more points for capturing criminals than for shooting them in the head. The only way to get a perfect score was to handcuff all the terrorists. It was hilarious.