Texas Man shoots 2 thiefs while on the phone with 911

[AlexanderBarca]

Just to add to what Nukinblackimage said...

This guy is not Batman, and he is not a cop. Vigilante justice is not permitted, nor should it be. Unless the life or health of you or someone else is being threatened you have no right, morally or legally to take the life of another.

This man ran out of his house with a loaded and extraordinarily deadly weapon and accosted TWO men, without knowing if either was armed. If the men had been armed, the ensuing gunfight could have brought harm to any number of innocent people in the neighborhood.

But of course, all the people who I would expect to do so are crying out: 'YER! KILL DEM CRIM-NALS'.

We have a police force and a justice system for a REASON people, otherwise all we'll have an anarchistic idea of 'justice' with people taking situations like this into their own hands and putting innocent people in jeopardy.

[Arc Orion]

This guy is not Batman, and he is not a cop.

So it's only cool if he dresses up as a flying mammal, guys.

[Ender]

This man ran out of his house with a loaded and extraordinarily deadly weapon and accosted TWO men, without knowing if either was armed.

Well...yeah...if I was going to try and stop them and I didn't know whether they had weapons I would damn sure bring one in case they did.

[Blaze]

Actually, citizens in most communities are empowered to take action against crimes provided they are present when the crime is occuring.

You speak of Vigilante Justice. Justice is something served after the fact. It would be "justice" if he found out who they were, drove to their house, and shot them dead there. If I encounter someone committing a crime, I'm COMPLETELY entitled to make a citizens arrest, and use whatever legal means necessary to restrain the person. If, in the process of making such an arrest, the person becomes violent, I am then entitled to defend myself and those around me.

[Deacon]

I hope that the old man gets indicted and convicted. He had ZERO reason to go outside. He had ZERO reason to fire upon those men.

We could talk about the broader implications of neighbors shrinking into the fetal position in the corner and looking the other way as their neighborhood is nonchalantly ravaged by crime and the resulting utopia that kind of thinking ushers in, but in a more specific discussion, he had the opportunity to stop a felony and place the men under citizens arrest until the cops eventually showed up, and he was right to do so. He had no reason to fire on the men--until they moved to attack him, at which point he most certainly had cause to fire. He warned them that he had a gun trained on them, and when they moved to attack him, he fired. I don't know what else you wanted him to do. He wasn't sniping at them with a hunting rifle from the roof of his house or something.

he had no right whatsoever to go outside and kill those two men.

We all have every right to go outside. And we also have the right to defend ourselves. If the criminals invading his neighbor's home had stopped and frozen when he warned them, they would be alive right now to hire some lawyer to invent some way to sue him for doing so.

He then proceeded to do the wrong thing, the illegal thing, by stepping outside and killing two men.

You may wish he would stand by as a felony was being committed right in front of him, though I'm not sure I can understand why you'd think that was the best thing to do, but he did nothing illegal.

For those of you who will bash me and say that he isn't a criminal, let me point you to what he did. Homicide.

Homicide is not necessarily a crime, merely an occurrence where one person kills another person. Of course when he pulled the trigger he did so knowing and very likely intending that the targets would die when he did so, but that does not in and of itself judge him instantly guilty of murder, as its the circumstances surrounding the event that determine that.

I'd bold the reckless part, too.

You may think him a fool for risking his own life to stop a crime being committed by armed thugs, but that's not really germane to a charge.

Something about getting the drop on them with a shotgun, giving a warning, and then having to shoot them both - that just doesn't sit right. I'm sure it's easy for some of us to write the thieves off as idiots who 'went hostile', but he snuck up on them and had a loaded shotgun

I'm not sure what about that could possibly not sit right. Everything was done by the book. He snuck up on no one. He went outside and announced himself.

when you're being faced down with a loaded version of one of the meanest close-quarters weapons in the whole world, something most of us have a gut-deep visceral lizard-hindbrain-freezes reaction to, and you make legitimately threatening hostile motions

Actually, no, not according to you. As you've claimed multiple times when talking about a man's right to defend himself, the action on a shotgun is this magical sound that would cause you to freeze, not to instinctively draw your own weapon and aim it at the individual--unless of course you believed he wasn't really serious while you, on the other hand, were deadly serious.

... that he had to shoot, and that he did nothing to knowingly, willingly, or even just negligently exacerbate and escalate the situation to one where violence was either called for or could be passed off as such in the absence of no witnesses - on it's own that doesn't quite seem right, at face value.

You don't say why you think that.

It's like he went in, if not wanting to shoot, then at least planning to, and thinking that it was the only possible and reasonable outcome to an extent that it influenced his actions to a lethal degree.

So you're going to play judge and jury on this man? He didn't say he was going to go outside and shoot them, but to go outside and stop them. But instead of stopping and giving it up, they thought it would be better to attack him. They apparently chose...poorly. If forensic evidence does not back that up, then we may well have some other kind of situation to chew on, but for now he's not being charged with anything.

This guy is not Batman, and he is not a cop. Vigilante justice is not permitted, nor should it be.

Then it should make you feel better that he was not involved in meting out any kind of vigilante justice. He didn't go hunting these men down or something. He simply went out into his own front yard to stop a felony in progress and detain the criminals until such time as the proper authorities could take over. Unfortunately, they decided to attack the man instead, at which point his life and health was being threatened, giving him the right--the duty in fact, both morally and legally to fire upon his attackers.

This man ran out of his house with a loaded and extraordinarily deadly weapon and accosted TWO men, without knowing if either was armed. If the men had been armed, the ensuing gunfight could have brought harm to any number of innocent people in the neighborhood.

Thankfully this was in a nation where it's not only the criminals who are armed, so that no such movie-like scenario ocurred.

But of course, all the people who I would expect to do so are crying out: 'YER! KILL DEM CRIM-NALS'.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what kind of -ist you are. I mean, I don't think it can be called "racist" really. Not even "classist" I don't think. Your particular kind of prejudice, intolerance, and hate, though, has got to have some sort of -ist by which to refer to it.

We have a police force and a justice system for a REASON people, otherwise all we'll have an anarchistic idea of 'justice' with people taking situations like this into their own hands and putting innocent people in jeopardy.

Which innocent people were in jeopardy? And are you somehow under the impression that the police are omnipresent?

Well...yeah...if I was going to try and stop them and I didn't know whether they had weapons I would damn sure bring one in case they did.

That means you're a terrible human being and are bringing this great society down with your...your...your blood-thirsty redneck vigilantism!

EDIT for anti-ninja feature: Blaze is right.

[Ender]

That means you're a terrible human being and are bringing this great society down with your...your...your blood-thirsty redneck vigilantism!

Oh, right, I almost forgot that you're not allowed to stop people from breaking the law anymore. Thanks for reminding me, I might have hurt their feelings

[AlexanderBarca]

I hope that the old man gets indicted and convicted. He had ZERO reason to go outside. He had ZERO reason to fire upon those men.

We could talk about the broader implications of neighbors shrinking into the fetal position in the corner and looking the other way as their neighborhood is nonchalantly ravaged by crime...

This post, as with many others, shows Deacon's 'skill' in setting up strawmen. Note how nobody ever proposed such a situation, and also note how we just so happen to have an emergency phone service set up in part for just this sort of contingency.

'Course, it could be that your mind can only function on the dual level of 'BRING OUT YER GUNS!' or 'Cower in the corner and do nothing'. It's not like there could be a civilized yet productive way to report and stop crime.

This guy is not Batman, and he is not a cop. Vigilante justice is not permitted, nor should it be.

Then it should make you feel better that he was not involved in meting out any kind of vigilante justice. He didn't go hunting these men down or something. He simply went out into his own front yard to stop a felony in progress and detain the criminals until such time as the proper authorities could take over. Unfortunately, they decided to attack the man instead, at which point his life and health was being threatened, giving him the right--the duty in fact, both morally and legally to fire upon his attackers.

Right, you and Blaze both seem to have this notion of a vigilante as someone who goes out and hunts criminals down, instead of the person who take justice into his own hands (which is the obvious usage I was going for here). Like I said. We have police officers for a REASON. People who make citizens arrests on the fly like this, when nobody's life is in danger, only put themselves and others around them at risk. The police are trained to deal with such situations. John Doe with a shotgun is not. If you see a non-violent crime taking place, you take as good a description of the criminals and their vehicle(s) that you can and you tell that to the police. (and yes, Deacon, burglary in a case in which the victim is not home is NOT a violent crime, and to assume it is is to play fancy-free with the definition of violence). You do not pick up a shotgun and try to play John Wayne sheriff.

This man ran out of his house with a loaded and extraordinarily deadly weapon and accosted TWO men, without knowing if either was armed. If the men had been armed, the ensuing gunfight could have brought harm to any number of innocent people in the neighborhood.

Thankfully this was in a nation where it's not only the criminals who are armed, so that no such movie-like scenario ocurred.

What? How does that make any sense? So you're making a case for anybody being able to carry a weapon because it will 'prevent' gunfights?
Don't both sides have to have guns in order for it to be a gunfight? Therefore, won't gunfights like that only occur where 'not only criminals have guns'??
Plus, we seem to be mistaking this for a second amendment issue. It's not. I'm not challenging the right to own the shotgun in this case. I think it shows extremely poor judgment on this man's side, and a way of thinking that really shouldn't be tolerated in a civilized society. This is not the wild west for chrisssake.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what kind of -ist you are. I mean, I don't think it can be called "racist" really. Not even "classist" I don't think. Your particular kind of prejudice, intolerance, and hate, though, has got to have some sort of -ist by which to refer to it.

Well, since the races of the people involved were not revealed and since race has nothing to do with what I said, you would be right about the 'not racist really' bit. And since the problems here really have nothing to do with class (nor is class in any way connected to intelligence or the value of human life), you're right that it's not 'classist' (though the idea of YOU labeling someone else 'classist' is laughable).

I have a few suggestions for you though! How about a stupidity-ist? An idiotist? An 'oh look I have huge balls and am a real man's man because I support an unsustainable, anarchical, and uncivilized form of maintaining law and order and dispensing justice'-ist? Perhaps a 'I cheer at the death of people (that i don't like), despite the fact that my tenant of faith tells me to value all life inherently and to mourn death even when I feel it was completely necessary, rather than gleefully pounding my chest and talking about how I wish it would happen more often'-ist? (then again that would just make me a 'bloody fracking hypocrit'-ist, now wouldn't it?).

Which innocent people were in jeopardy? And are you somehow under the impression that the police are omnipresent?

The innocent people in the neighborhood who might reasonably be considered to be in danger if bullets and shotgun shells are flying around.

As for the police being omnipresent...um...he called 911 and reported a robbery in progress...the police don't necessarily have to be omnipresent to be on the case at this point.

[Deacon]

It's not like there could be a civilized yet productive way to report and stop crime.

There is, and this man did it to a T. He called it in and then risked his own wellbeing for the good of his community to detain two armed criminals. Thankfully he made it out alive.

Right, you and Blaze both seem to have this notion of a vigilante as someone who goes out and hunts criminals down, instead of the person who take justice into his own hands (which is the obvious usage I was going for here). Like I said. We have police officers for a REASON. People who make citizens arrests on the fly like this, when nobody's life is in danger, only put themselves and others around them at risk. The police are trained to deal with such situations. John Doe with a shotgun is not. If you see a non-violent crime taking place, you take as good a description of the criminals and their vehicle(s) that you can and you tell that to the police.

So we disagree. Thankfully the law is not on your side.

Deacon, burglary in a case in which the victim is not home is NOT a violent crime, and to assume it is is to play fancy-free with the definition of violence. You do not pick up a shotgun and try to play John Wayne sheriff.

You do if you're a responsible, law-abiding citizen who's willing to risk his own wellbeing to prevent felonies from being perpetrated right under his nose. If the men had given up rather than moved to attack him, and police eventually did show up to take over, and the two men were sitting in a jail cell right now, would you be making the same kind of tune? Thank god there are still a few people left who would put themselves in harm's way for the sake of a neighbor.

What? How does that make any sense? So you're making a case for anybody being able to carry a weapon because it will 'prevent' gunfights? Don't both sides have to have guns in order for it to be a gunfight? Therefore, won't gunfights like that only occur where 'not only criminals have guns'??

It was one man versus two men, and it was over quickly. The kind of gun fights you see in movies are incredibly rare, and then only with a larger number of people present in much different circumstances.

Plus, we seem to be mistaking this for a second amendment issue. It's not. I'm not challenging the right to own the shotgun in this case. I think it shows extremely poor judgment on this man's side, and a way of thinking that really shouldn't be tolerated in a civilized society. This is not the wild west for chrisssake.

Not everything about the wild west was deplorable and to be cast off in the name of alleged "civilization."

I have a few suggestions for you though! How about a stupidity-ist? An idiotist? An 'oh look I have huge balls and am a real man's man because I support an unsustainable, anarchical, and uncivilized form of maintaining law and order and dispensing justice'-ist? Perhaps a 'I cheer at the death of people (that i don't like), despite the fact that my tenant of faith tells me to value all life inherently and to mourn death even when I feel it was completely necessary, rather than gleefully pounding my chest and talking about how I wish it would happen more often'-ist? (then again that would just make me a 'bloody fracking hypocrit'-ist, now wouldn't it?).

epic lulz u win teh intarwebs w/ur mitey an totily acurit wit

The innocent people in the neighborhood who might reasonably be considered to be in danger if bullets and shotgun shells are flying around.

As for the police being omnipresent...um...he called 911 and reported a robbery in progress...the police don't necessarily have to be omnipresent to be on the case at this point.

I'm pretty sure you have this situation confused with some sort of Rambo movie. And the police weren't there in time to stop the men. Thank god the people weren't home at the time.

You know what I hate? I have to be honest, here, because I'm a little upset. I hate people who have this "mind your own business" attitude, especially toward crime--especially when it's their own neighbors being victimized. "The police will handle it. Don't get involved. Just report it and move on. Don't fight the mugger. Don't resist the rapist. Just lie back and accept people attacking your community." If more people would take a stand against the continually growing tide of especially "non-violent" crime, such crime would drop like a rock. The cost of doing business would be prohibitive. Instead, we have cops refusing to even bother dusting smashed out cars for prints, and everyone ignores car alarms lest they "get involved." Everything this man did was completely legal and, in my opinion, both right and honorable.

I just wonder how many people who are so insistent that nobody help anyone else beyond filing a police report have been victims themselves while neighbors who could step in to help sat back and watched.

[Blaze]

The definitions of "justice" which apply here:

5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.

The man was attempting to stop a crime in progress. He in no way attempted to 'give them what they deserved'. Therefore, he was not administering justice.

The definitioins of "vigilante" which apply here.

2.any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
–adjective
3.done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.

As a noun, he was not a vigilante. He was not avenging anything. Merely tryng to aprehend a criminal for the police is not vigilante.

As an adjective, his actions were vigilante if, and ONLY if, he was in complete control of the situation, and shot them because he felt they deserved it. Unless he is outright lying that they approached him, and instead they did exactly as he said, froze in place and waited, then he was not in control of the situation, and therefore did not act in a vigilante manner.

Next argument?

[Deacon]

Wait a second, did Barca just say something about a tenant of my faith, like mistakenly trying to use religion in a personal slight against me? I just realized that. While he was busy flogging his baby dolphin to the thought of how clever and insightful and enlightened and tolerant he was and greedily inhaling the allegedly glorious bouquet of his own billowing flatus, he was missing out on quite a bit, it appears.

[AlexanderBarca]

Re. Blaze: You are right. The choice of the terms 'vigilante justice' was poor on my part.

As for the rest of the 'discussion' on this thread, I've moved it to the arguments thread.

[AzraeL]

You don't need to move this, as it's in the appropriate discussion thread. S&P was made for arguments.

From what I have heard from the 911 tape, the guy went out there against the police's orders and shot them in relative cold blood. He was angry and decided to take the law into his own hands: he WAS a vigiliante. He said before he went outside: "I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot". This was followed by the officer's orders to not go outside. Numerous times he was told not to go outside and not to get his shotgun. "I ain't going to let them get away with this. They stole something. They got a bag. I'm doing this. I'm gonna kill em. This ain't right". He then proceeds to go outside where he yells "move. you're dead." and shoots twice. Afterwards he runs inside and says they were on his lawn and it was his only option.

I'm think it was pretty clear from the tape that he was pissed off about the crime and he went out there with the expressed intent of shooting them. He was instructed not to go out there, not to grab his gun, but he decided that those two thieves should die for their crimes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

[Thorsman]

He was asked not to, but under Texas law he is still allowed to as was demonstrated earlier in this thread. All the police calltaker could do was ask him not to shoot the burglars. To be fair, the police did arrive a few minutes later to track down the one that got away and the man did put his shotgun away when asked to by the calltaker.

This isn't the case of a vigilante. This is the case of a law-abiding man who saw a crime happening in his neighborhood and did the right thing by dispensing with the criminals as best he could. If it weren't for this man, his neighbor would've been robbed. The police didn't get there until minutes later, by which time the would-be thieves would all have gotten away Scot free.

As mikehendo rightly said, this is a man I'd like to have as a neighbor. Heck, he'd practically be my best friend if that were my house being robbed.

[AzraeL]

This isn't the case of a vigilante. This is the case of a law-abiding man who saw a crime happening in his neighborhood and did the right thing by dispensing with the criminals as best he could.

Considering what he's charged with, I'm fairly sure he wasn't law abiding... Going outside with an intent to shoot people who aren't threatening his life is not really lawful, especially when told by the authorities not to.

If it weren't for this man, his neighbor would've been robbed.

Egads! if he was going to get robbed, than I guess murder is justified.

The police didn't get there until minutes later, by which time the would-be thieves would all have gotten away Scot free.

That sucks, but it still doesn't justify him killing people.

As mikehendo rightly said, this is a man I'd like to have as a neighbor

Definitetly, as he risked his life to do what he thought was right, even though he was under no obligation to do so. The only problem I have is that I happen to think that those criminals didn't deserve to die.

[Ender]

I'm still confused about something. At what point did stopping criminals become a bad thing? Did I say miss the memo saying, "Ok, if you see a crime happening, don't try to stop it even if you are perfectly capable of doing so"? When did it suddenly become ok to be a criminal, because I was still under the impression that it was a bad thing to break the law. Just because it's not happening to you doesn't mean you shouldn't try to stop it.