Forbidden Donut

Where'd you find this? I'd really be interested to learn more of what happened.

If they were leaving the premises and were in no way "threatning" this mans life, he was not justified. Shooting them for trying to get away with merchandise is not a justification for shooting them. However, if they were to pull a gun on him, or run at him with a knife, where he felt threatened, then his shooting would be justified a self defense.

more and more i find myself feeling like burglars and the like deserve whatever comes to them when they're in the process of breaking the law.

before i pass judgement on anyone i wanna know all the facts but i do not feel any sympathy for the burglars, dead or not, shot or not.

when you step onto someone's property without permission and with intent to take something from them, you are basically signing your life away to them, imho.

this is a misconception and is the incorrect way to think. While in college, we discussed this, and according for it to be self defense, you have to feel threatened and be able to prove it (ie. they pulled a gun on you, or tried to harm you). If you shoot a burglar and can't prove self defense, you can be held responsible and believe it or not, the burglar can/will sue you at the request of their lawyer.

As gachi basically said it depends on whether he fired into the robbers back while fleeing the property or if the crook presented immediate physical threat to someone. Usually as far as the courts are concerned its murder unless you are defending yourself or someone else from physical harm.
In my mind thats not serving justice. My guess is the burglar still had a life, friends and family, and as far as they are concerned his life is worth a lot more than the stolen items (if he was even fleeing with any?). Im sure the dead man would agree. Likewise times are different these days. Self defense laws where drafted in the days when individuals were more independent. If i was a pioneer of the west and a bandit wanted my rations or my firearms damn well I would shoot him. These days are obviously over though as far as our country is concerned. Insurance and lawsuites replace the gun in every individuals hand and the rest is left to law enforcement.
Either way, if the man knew as little as it seems the killshot was unjustified. As seen all over the news all the time, these situations are tricky even for law enforcement who are allegedly up to par psychologically and physically for such a situation (not all are).


My way to handle would be verbal warning, warning shot (almost always makes them stop), then depending on the circumstances pursue (still armed of course), or if necessary go for a temp disabling shot (necessary as in: only in the event that I KNEW he had inflicted death/serious harm to my neihgbors)



It would suck to drop some hooded figure with a load of buckshot, roll him over and its some 16 year old kid just breakin in on a dare. Not that this was the case, its just something to keep in mind when the adrenaline starts pumping and the fingers on the trigger.

haha. i never claimed my opinion to be correct or lawful. i'm aware you're not allowed to kill people just for stepping onto your property or for anything short of trying to harm you or your family. i was just stating my feelings on the subject.

as far as i'm concerned, those guys pulled the trigger themselves when they made the decision to break into the neighbors house.

i don't care if they have family's or whatever, i mean i feel bad for anyone losing a loved one, no matter how much of an asshole the loved one is, but i have NO SYMPATHY for the men involved. the police can take a visit to the families and explain to them that their dads/brothers/uncles committed suicide by breaking into a stranger's house and trying to take things.

I feel no sympathy for the burglar. Some laws aren't that serious. Going onto someone's property and stealing their belongings that they had to work for, I believe there is something in the constitution about that being wrong. So it isn't so much that what they are stealing is worth less than their lives, but the fact that they are willing to commit a crime like that warrants any action, other than something along the lines of cruel and unusual punishment. What this man did was display good citizenship and being a good neighbor. The fact that the burglar would be able to sue this man by law is disgusting. There is no real reason why someone would have to break into someone's house and steal their belongings. I don't believe in the whole "you don't know what they might be going through" crap. If the current justice system doesn't suffice to protect the people, then I have no problem with the people taking justice into their own hands. Especially not in this case. If the burglar was given fair warning, then I feel no sympathy for the man doing what he needed to do to stop the crime from happening.

thats the point is that it has already happened, and the man decided to intervene in the "pursuit" stage. No one gets the death penalty for breaking and entering, even if you add theft. The court keeps this in mind if you have just shot a fleeing suspect. There are prisons instead of firing squads for those specific criminals. If you REALLY want to stop a man, and you are going to use a firearm, you need to know that if you place the bead in between his shoulder blades, even with bird shot, that man is dead almost for sure. Then you need to be able to decide in about .5 seconds whether or not the police apprehend him, take a less than lethal shot at the extremities or shoulder or ass ending the scenario and allowing the justice system to dish out a jail sentence, OR shoot him in the spine- death for sure. If you shoot him in the spine and go before a jury, the prosecution will ask the jury to take into consideration that you HAD those options, and that you chose the last. murder.
Unfortunately the justice system cannot protect you against a man running in and out of your house, that is up to you. As far as serving justice at the level of taking someones life, the law these days says its NOT up to you, whether you like it or not. Beyond that its your individual capacity for understanding in reasoning. This robber may not be a BAD man and may not deserve to die. He may be mislead, uneducated, born of a crackhead mother but non the less a human. If its the latter he needs jail time, not necessarily death. You have to think... in todays society you arent really serving justice by killing that man, your only serving justice by stopping him. Too you, if theres no difference between a kill shot and simply stopping the man you don't need to be holding that firearm in the first place.

That's some crazy stuff. Are there any other links to read an article or something solid ?

I also believe the man did what he had to but in this world even worst people are protected from anything and I find it outragous. The man is probably going to jail for what he did but he only did what he had to in my opinion.

And thats the irony of mans imperfectness =/ The freedoms provided by our laws are the best method of protection for the most vile criminals unfortunately. Specifically "terrorist" or those who wish to get a message across through mass violence/attacks on "innocent" civilians. What better way to get closer to the enemy than sit in his front yard? none, go for it if you can use his own laws for your protection (rights to privacy). Same principle applies if you want to rob a man, why not if he can't shoot you on the run? thats the mentality, and it adapts as the laws changes. Good and evil baby, always going to be here.

definitely deserved i think. if you mess with someone else's shit you run the risk of getting your day fucked up. Maybe try to shoot him in the leg instead of to kill. i know it's hard with adrenaline and other situational intangibles, but some responsibility must be attributed to the holder of the gun. It's a gray area, and either way your balls are in a blender

Did he just self incriminate himself by saying all that stuff? I mean he obviously shouldn't have gone outside and killed a person over property.

The law doesn't make it right. A law is not a reasonable boundary to right and wrong anymore... This much in my opinion, and in I'm sure the opinion of at least a few other people, is true. Yeah, law and order is important. But if someone breaks into my apartment, I'll stab his ass. It's that simple... By entering my home uninvited he is threatening me, given at leat he had to break through a doorknob, if not a deadlock, plus a chain, depending on who was the last to go to bed. You're willing to to through that for me shit, you're willing to go through me, and you're willing to get stabbed and hogtied while my roomate calls the police.

I don't really care what the law is, you fuck with me, or my home, I'll fuck with you until I see fit. And fuck everyone who thinks the law is right regardless, wait till some dumb fucker points a gun at you for $10, or tries to take all your shit.

But that's not the case in here. The point you make is self defense which is perfectly legal. You can defend yourself if you think a burglar is in your house and he might harm you / your family. In the above case, this man had nothing else to do with this case rather than just being a neighbor. He could have obviously STAYED OUT of the situation. He wasn't dragged into it for self defense or any other reason that allows us to harm another person.

The fact of the matter is that the person went out purposely (as heard on the phone call) to shoot those guys. That's what the cops are for. So this is one of the several cases where some might believe cops came very late, so what? That does not give you the right to do whatever you want to them. I'm pretty sure the cops would have stopped them. They were apparently there 20 seconds after the shooting? If they were getting away on foot, how far could they go? If they were getting away in a car, he could have let them get in and shot the tires or something? There are other ways of stopping people without shooting/killing them.

And I think he's retarded for saying all those things on the Phone. Oh, I'm going to go out now. Sir, plz dont. No, you hear the shotgun clicking...

How far could they go? A man can run 10 meters from a standing start in less than 2 seconds. Probably more. They can get pretty fucking far. As for shooting out the tires, that's doesn't immobilize the vehicle. Hell, it doesn't even come close. Any other "ways" you have in mind? In fact, the cops even agree with the sentiment. Citizen arrest laws are in place for a reason, which he attempted to do (albeit in an untrained manner). Guy trespassing and breaking the law? Give him warning and try to stop him without force. If they ignore it, use that force; to put it in layman's terms. The people who were shot in this case could get back at the man through their families, but they'd have a pretty shitty case.

10 meters in 2 seconds. that means 100 meters in 20 seconds. Taking the assumption that they can run at a constant speed and sprint a 100 meters without running out of breath. (have to take into consideration that they have some sort of bag which hinders their running capability). 100 meters is not that far, that a cop can't run after in his car.

The law is only for SELF DEFENSE. This guy was not defending himself, that was pretty clear from the phone conversation. The State has a pretty strong case against him for 2nd degree or 3rd degree murder. He purposely put himself out there, which is not self defense. That's what im trying to say. If in any other case, the burglars were in his house, or were trying to harm him, then Self Defense applies. But in this case, he just came out of nowhere. He wasn't involved in any of the actions going on and except for "oh my neighbor is getting robbed" he had nothing to do with the case. Therefor, the theory of Self Defense can clearly be taken out of consideration.

He said so on the phone, I'm going out there when the cop told him not to. That was just foolish.

If you want to be badass and take the law into your hands, you can chase the guys on foot (take your gun with you). Its a little lazy and a bit hasty to drop them with a kill shot without even pursuing. The police would pursue first also, if they did what they are trained to do. I'm sorry old man lived his life off of hamburgers and fries couldnt chase the guy down till he had him pointblank. the fool isn't running then. If he tries to, melee with the buttstock inbetween the shoulderblades, he will go down very quickly. Then you don't have to deal with the bullshit of whoever represents him trying to sue you.

Again, if you cannot handle the situation properly, don't handle it at all. If theres no other way to handle THAT situation than with a killshot from a firearm, you don't have the experience to deal with the situation safely.
NOW, if you were the neighbors, your in your bed with your wife and the shadowy figure busts through your bedroom door go ahead and fire if you want, you will get away with it most likely.

http://joehornformyneighbor.com/

There is a support site for this man. Apparently, many people are supporting him, because they'd like to have neighbors that would act the way Mr. Horn did.

I'm a bit surprised that there is such an out reach for him, but I know I shouldn't be (because there is a support group for anything now-a-days).

QFT!

I didn't say shit about his self-defense so that entire part of your argument is a moot fucking point. Yes, it's probably going to end up harming him for intervening in a crime and using deadly force, but I think it was bloody well justified.

Now, for the running. 100 meters, at the very, absolute least. I took their load into consideration; a bare, average man can get 15 in 1.5 seconds. I was being very moderate there.

Moreover, the police have to arrive at the scene first, and then proceed after getting information about the current situation. Then they could pursue. They could be long fucking gone by then. Yes it was foolish for him to do go outside despite warning, but I also think it admirable.

Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code allows "third party" protection, by use of force, of someone elses property as long as the actor felt he had a legal duty to do so, or, if the owner requested it.

I heard that when the men left the nieghbor's house they came onto his lawn. That will have bearing on the case. The Castle law has been changed and you no longer have to retreat but can defend your life and property. I do not know this case, but he may not be convicted.

I think I've heard about Texas having different laws regarding shooting someone who breaks into your home or is on your property. Not 100% on this though.

Calm down there buddy.

Even if they run 15 meters in 1.5 seconds (which is not true unless your an athlete. 15 meters is like.. 30 something feet. ) The current record is 10 seconds for 100 meters ( looked it up). That's the speed you mentioned above. So the whole 15 meters in 1.5 seconds is out of the question.

So police do have to come to the scene, they dispatcher should have already told them what to look for (the guy does describe the clothing). therefor if a patrol car is coming down the block and sees a guy with that cloth description carrying something in his bag, the most obvious thing to do would be to stop him.

I'm not sure if this is Texas law, but there's a law called "make my day" (i guess it's nicknamed that) where your allowed to shoot people for your property itself (no self defense needed). If he had done that to protect himself, I can understand, maybe even his property. But they were just on his lawn and im pretty sure they had their back on him. They were trying to leave. Self defense can't really (or shouldn't be rather) applied here.

But then again, Texas laws concerning guns are different from NY Laws.

Remember, this is Texas. We like to shoot people.

lawful or not

justified or not

meh.....i dont five two fucks about either because IN MY OPINION the man did what he thought was right with the thought of his neighbor in mind. THAT to me is respectable, and i applaud the man for his decision to take action on behalf of his fellow man. there arent too many people out there these days willing to do that. now whether you agree, or disagree with what he did, you cant downplay the simple fact that he was doing for someone, what he would want done for him...if you look down on him for that....fuck you.

Quoted for fucking emphasis.

To kill a man for property (even if it's happening to you) is looked down upon by me.

Now I will go fuck myself as stated in your post. /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

well i hope you enjoy being a defenseless target for anyone who wants your shit for the rest of your life.

you missed the entire point of what i had said. free your mind from initial judgement of this man, and look at WHY he did what he did. i look up to him in that respect, he took action on behalf of his neighbor, he stood there and faced two criminals who did nothing to him, but was looking out for someone other than himself. he stood there talking to the cops, waiting for them to get there....they werent there before the crooks started to leave and this man took action.....all for someone else. i cant see how anyone with an IQ greater than a handball can look down on him for doing that. HOW he acted, whether right or wrong....is up for debate, but his intention was nothing but good.

I understand the fact that the way he acted was in good intentions, but not all good intentions have an en result. As for what he did, I just think he could have thought of something better without killing the man. That's all I'm saying.

You know what? If you're dumb/smart enough to have to resort to crime, and you get caught... Well, you get what's coming to you.

out of curiosity...has anyone heard what they actually stole/tried to steal?

I think we have brought it up before, but I thought almost universally, if anyone breaks into your house or garage, as long as they are still in the house or garage you can shoot to kill. This is usually upheld in court because you are in danger, and Bill put it very nicely, if somebody is willing to get thru two or three locks/chains, they will not have a problem harming you as well.

Its interesting to see the American perspectives on this, both tactical and legal. Clearly I am not an American, so I will not be able to comment as to your laws. However, in Canada this would have played out very poorly for this man.

I feel incredibly sorry for this guy. Joe did what he thought was right; however, I believe he did practically everything wrong:

My number one issue with this entire clip is that Joe was given an order by a police dispatcher which he outright refused to follow. The police dispatcher is trained, and knows that you as a civilian are not. I would have to say that this dispatcher was TOP of the line, and did an amazing job. His priorities were bang on, and the guy should get a raise. We do not know what sort of training Joe has with his weapons, and we do not know what sort of experience he has with crime. Going from the audio clip, I would unfortunately have to assume that he has had little of both. Discharging a shotgun in a neighborhood is a stupid thing to do unless you have no other choice (life or death). Joe cannot believe this is happening in "this neighborhood", leading me to believe it is a middle to up class area.

Now, a shotgun will most likely be loaded with either shot or slugs. With slugs you have a very nasty problem, in that if you miss, the slug can easily penetrate house siding, cars, and practically anything else. I will give Joe some credit here and assume he was not stupid enough to go after this guy loaded with slugs. Making the assumption that Joe was going after this guy with 12 gauge buck has its own issues. What sort of choke does he have on his weapon? How far from the individual was he when he fired? If you listen to the clip, he clearly fires his weapon 3 times... remember folks, there were two bad guys and Joe only downed one of them. This means two loads of 12 gauge buck were emptied into that neighborhood. Bullets (or shot in this case) don't just disappear when they miss something! Joe's lucky as hell that he didn't hit someone else with his rounds. Coming from a different perspective on the same note: If Joe's two missed rounds hit property of any sort, he's likely caused more value in damage then the idiot thieves even had in their possession.

Let's look at a new problem here. What if Joe had Joe for a neighbor? Joe2 looks outside at the sound of shots and sees Joe1 has shot a man with a shotgun, and is shooting more rounds at a fleeing man. Neither man you can see has weapons. Joe1 does not seem threatened in any way. This is an outrage! Joe2 can't believe this would happen in this neighborhood! Joe2 immediately grabs a phone, calls 911, and goes out to confront the shoot before he gets away, shotgun at the ready. Okayyy... suddenly this is a little bit more of a problem.

Here's yet another problem. Lets look at it from the arriving officer's perspective this time:

Cop is responding to a reported "break and enter with theft" in progress. According to Cop's trusty laptop, the civilian who called it in is armed with a shotgun and agitated. Great. Does this make Cop's job easier, or more difficult? When Cop arrives on the scene, is he going to be focused on the fact that someone may (or may not!) have broken into the house next door, or is he going to be focused on the fact that the guy who called is some jumpy motherfucker with a shotgun? But as if that's not bad enough, 1:30 seconds (almost exactly) away from the call, your laptop is updated. The complaintant has pursued the supposed suspects of the crime, and has been heard to be firing his shotgun. Response codes are immediately increased, and extra officers are diverted. Cop is about to turn onto the street when his laptop beeps again, telling him that a man has been shot by the complaintant... is this situation ideal? Does anyone else see a problem with this? Lets ignore for the moment the realtively minor fact that thief2 is practically guaranteed to get away now. Remember... worst case scenario had Joe NOT taken action would be that both bad guys get away. Lets not forget about the police factor here... many units and resources will have to be directed away from LEGITIMATE emergencies to deal with Joe's actions in this regard. EMS, patrol units, detectives, etc all diverted from their original tasks to deal with this new problem. At worst, this could mean the death of innocent civilians. At best this means a delay in: EMS response, Patrol response, and detective case closures.

So what did Joe accomplish... at the expense of all that I have listed above, he stopped one petty thief from getting away, and pretty much guaranteed the escape of the other (especially if thief1 dies). He's lucky the criminals didn't have weapons of their own, or Joe could have been killed or injured, and would that be worth it?

The last thing I am going to bring up is best and worse case scenarios for Joe acting and Joe not acting (direct impact only):

Joe acts:

Best case: Both thieves apprehended without incident or violence, and the valuables are recovered.

Worst case: Innocent civilian(s) die(s)/Joe Dies/Cop dies

Joe does not act:

Best case: Both thieves apprehended without incident or violence, and the valuables are recovered.

Worst case: Both thieves get away with the valuables and are never apprehended for their crimes.

Weighing the best and worst outcomes, did Joe make the right choice?

I say no.. definitely not.

So there you have my Canadian perspective on things.

P.S: Monk, I'm incredibly disappointed in all the talk about disabling shots and getting into CC with this guy. Center mass, from as safe a distance as possible, always. If you don't think a center mass shot is appropriate, shooting is not appropriate. Use of force framework 101 =p

valuable take on things...but my statement still stands.

Brian has a very valuable point about about the consequences of the mans actions. I agree that the situation was nowhere near ideal. The man in the heat of the moment made some critical bad decisions, because, basically, he wasn't able to think quickly enough, and based his actions more on instinct or reaction than thought. So personally, in this situation, I think that what he did was a mistake. But in a more hypothetical situation, I respect and appreciate what he did, and that he had the balls to actually do something. If someone could act more professionally (warning shot, and a weapon more along the lines of a semi auto 22) I would have no problem with someone intervening like this man did, with no sympathy for the potential death(s) of the robbers.

could have picked a better weapon yes, personally....when im out serving justice, i prefer the AK-47.

yeah i agree that brian brought up awesome points and i appreciate the extensive knowledge he brought to our discussion.

to be honest i would rather the guy had been defending his own property. i don't want people running around their neighborhoods vigilante style. that is dangerous and what the guy did was risky. if he gets charged with something like endangering people or blah blah blah, that's fine. i don't think he should get jail time for trying to stop a crime though. hefty fines, community service, mandatory gun safety training, etc etc. are all in order i think, or some variation of those things. i just don't believe he should receive any punishment relating to what he did to the burglars.

Nice points Brian.

I have never agreed with that, never will. There ARE situations, recognized by official law enforcement training standards or not, that dictate the use of a firearm to disable and not a kill shot. As for that specific situation I advised to pursue not to shoot the fleeing suspect /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> The option of shooting a non center of mass comes in where he is 1. civilian, can act outside of law enforcement protocol 2. Extreme situation: man is on his driveway, looks at his neighbors and sees through the window someone has trashed their home and two bodies laying on the floor, a perpetrator actively skinning them with a knife. That grotesque detail in a court of law would act in your favor if during the situation it became clear the assailant was getting away NOW, and police were only just dispatched, and you decided to act then. If I was in that situation, no I would not take a killshot. If theres a problem with where I hit him, just say I had bad aim. I would rather that person sit in jail the rest of his life than have the peace of 3 second washed out death from a shot to the spine.