Texas Man shoots 2 thiefs while on the phone with 911

[AzraeL]

Well, just because they want a TV, doesn't mean they deserve to die. Sure they could do with a beating and maybe someone shoving a foot up their arse while they explain to them just how wrong they were, but death is undeserved I think. And if by stop, you mean kill, then no, I don't think we should kill eveyone who's labelled a criminal.

[BigGunn]

I'm pretty sure the only reason the police were telling him not to go out there was to protect him from the criminals.

Police pretty much assume all criminals are armed. Thus the drawing of weapons, telling them to keep their hands in plain sight (even those of us who have been pulled over can attest to that one) and frisking them.

By telling him not to go out there they were trying to keep the man out of harm's way, not the other way around. As mentioned previously. It is every citizens right (and some such as myself would say duty) to prevent crime when at all possible.

[StruckingFuggle]

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.

What you miss is the distinction the people on the other side are drawing that, while it's not okay to be a criminal, and while it's a good thing to try and stop them in general, it's not right to murder people in cold blood - and you can kill someone in cold blood in the process of stopping a crime, because crimes ending in the death of a criminal aren't. always. legitimately. self. defense - and that is still suspect.

[adciv]

Nor is self defense the only legitimate reason for killing a criminal.

[StruckingFuggle]

True, you can also legitimately do it in defense of another.

But that's not the case, here.

[adciv]

No, but it's not like he decided to go out and kill them willy nilly.

Texas code on Homicide.
Texas Code on Justification Subsection D is the one that applies to this, I believe.

[Deacon]

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

Yes, I'm very confused and more than a little suspicious as to what the purpose of that was.

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.

So what, then, is the definition of vigilante that you're using? No police officer gave him any orders, legal or otherwise on that 911 tape. Are you referring to a transcript when you quote different parts of the tape, or are you quoting from memory only? I would be interested to see a verified transcript.

Afterwards he runs inside and says they were on his lawn and it was his only option.

What if that's true and is born out by the evidence, that they were armed, on his property, and facing him when they were shot?

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.

Here's the thing: regardless of whether you agree with his attitudes or whatever, if he shot those men without them threatening him (meaning the evidence doesn't back up his version of things), then charges should be brought against him. If the evidence does back up his story, then while you may wish he would've just stayed inside so that yet another home invasion goes unsolved and unpunished, his decisions were not legally wrong. And moral judgment seems to be in the eye of the beholder, but I have very little sympathy for felons who die when threatening someone during the commission of their crimes.

[BigGunn]

I agree with Deacon 100% here.

Interesting side question:

Does Texas have the law that if a death occurs during during the commission of a felony, you are automatically charged with murder? If so, the guy that ran and got caught may be in for some troubles.

[StruckingFuggle]

... If you're asking if he gets charged with murder because one of his buddies got shot, good god I'd certainly hope not. o.o

I thought that law only applied to if you were part of the "side" who committed murder, which is bad enough. But if anyone in general dies? That's awful. He shouldn't be charged with murder because he didn't kill anyone, nor did he even participate in any actions that contributed directly to the death of someone (in the sense of shooting them or beating them but not 'landing' the killing blow).

[Deacon]

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 is accurate, but it's important to note that this was a 9-1-1 dispatcher, just someone who calls in the cops or the paramedics or whatever, not a police officer, and not "the authorities" as the surprisingly police-supporting AzraeL said. For reference, I agree with the rest of what Thorsman said in this post.

Considering what he's charged with, I'm fairly sure he wasn't law abiding...

Did you read something more on the matter? He's not charged with anything, unless you've got some fresh information.

Egads! if he was going to get robbed, than I guess murder is justified. ... That sucks, but it still doesn't justify him killing people. ... The only problem I have is that I happen to think that those criminals didn't deserve to die. ... Well, just because they want a TV, doesn't mean they deserve to die. ... death is undeserved I think. And if by stop, you mean kill, then no, I don't think we should kill eveyone who's labelled a criminal.

You seem to be missing something incredibly important, here: if the men had not moved to attack him, then he would be in jail right now as a criminal himself. Nobody has suggested that "wanting a TV" (as incredibly and ridiculously terrible a description of their crime that is) is and should be punishable by instant death. That's not an argument anyone's making, so this repeated insistence to the contrary is confusing and pointless.

while it's not okay to be a criminal, and while it's a good thing to try and stop them in general, it's not right to murder people in cold blood

Who argued that it was? And that assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular case, so why bring it up? It doesn't make any sense.

[AzraeL]

Yes, I'm very confused and more than a little suspicious as to what the purpose of that was.

To tell AlexanderBarca that he didn't need to move the debate into the arguments thread.

So what, then, is the definition of vigilante that you're using? No police officer gave him any orders, legal or otherwise on that 911 tape. Are you referring to a transcript when you quote different parts of the tape, or are you quoting from memory only? I would be interested to see a verified transcript.

By vigilante, I mean someone who takes the law into their own hands. He went out there to shoot them, he said so in the tape. And I was quoting from memory, so the syntax may be out, but it's essentially what he said.

What if that's true and is born out by the evidence, that they were armed, on his property, and facing him when they were shot?

In that case he had every right to shoot him, but I don't think that's what happened, based on what he said before he went outside, what he could see from his window (he describes it) and the pause between him going outside and him speaking/shooting.

And for the final statement of yours, Deacon, I mostly agree. However, don't make me out to be devoid of any sense of justice. It's not like I expect him to just watch TV and ignore it, I think phoning the police is an appropriate level of envolvement.

[Deacon]

Yes, I'm very confused and more than a little suspicious as to what the purpose of that was.

To tell AlexanderBarca that he didn't need to move the debate into the arguments thread.

Haha, no, the original move itself, not your reply

By vigilante, I mean someone who takes the law into their own hands. He went out there to shoot them, he said so in the tape. And I was quoting from memory, so the syntax may be out, but it's essentially what he said.

He said that he was going to stop them, not necessarily to shoot them. And your definition of vigilante is fallaciously broad and vague. Can I assume that a requirement for your "vigilante" is that they operate outside the bounds of the law?

I think phoning the police is an appropriate level of envolvement.

While I don't think anyone would've been outraged at him for having cowered in his home with his phone, whispering his address to the 911 dispatcher and praying that they're not coming into his home next, I'm glad not everyone stops there and is satisfied watching a crime being committed right under their nose.

[BigGunn]

... If you're asking if he gets charged with murder because one of his buddies got shot, good god I'd certainly hope not. o.o

I thought that law only applied to if you were part of the "side" who committed murder, which is bad enough. But if anyone in general dies? That's awful. He shouldn't be charged with murder because he didn't kill anyone, nor did he even participate in any actions that contributed directly to the death of someone (in the sense of shooting them or beating them but not 'landing' the killing blow).

It's happened in states that have that law. Guy robbed a convenience store, clerk had a heart attack and died, guy went to prison for murder.

Edit, I've also heard tell of people getting charged with murder because of a police shootout in which a police officer accidentally killed a civvie with the crossfire.

EDIT 2: Another one, getaway driver charged with murder after his buddy robbing a store gets killed by the clerk with a shotgun.

[StruckingFuggle]

Who argued that it was? And that assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular case, so why bring it up? It doesn't make any sense.

We don't know if it is or not, because we don't know all of the relevant facts of the case, we don't know what was going on or going through his head when he pulled the trigger.

Though in a way you are right, it'd probably be 'hot blood' rather than 'cold blood'.

[adciv]

Edit, I've also heard tell of people getting charged with murder because of a police shootout in which a police officer accidentally killed a civvie with the crossfire.

It's been applied to a bank robber when a cop killed the robber's accomplice.