# Texas! Yep, I like it here ...



## pgsmith (Jan 16, 2013)

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 (Jan 16, 2013)

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 (Jan 16, 2013)

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 (Jan 16, 2013)

geezer said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

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 (Jan 16, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

geezer said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

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 (Jan 16, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2013)

pgsmith said:


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



wow.  you really feel that way?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 16, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> 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.



and how you define an "undesireable trait".  I'm sure we all have some of them.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> 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



or course this is based on limited information.  and I'm not making any conclusions for myself, I'm stating what I think some people would say, based on 1) that story as relayed in the OP, and 2) two statements that you made, intended to be CYA statements.  When people make a CYA statement, that tends to indicated they've got something to hide.  Otherwise they don't need to make a CYA statement.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 16, 2013)

There is no moral ambivalence here, Mike.  Right from wrong is pretty clear - stealing a loaf of bread because your baby is starving is one thing, stealing a car because you fancy some easy cash is another.

Just to note, there is a reason why I say that I should never be given any power .  I am Liberal and understanding of mistakes and errors of judgement right up to the point where someone proves they refuse to play by the rules.  That's why, if you jump the queue at the car park, I will be the fellow knocking on your window asking you what you think you are doing :lol:.

As I've said before (and it used to be a joke before BillC decided that Nazi's were not Right Wing Extremists), I'm a Liberal Fascist - society is open and free for you to do as you wish, until what you do (by intent) harms someone else, then you have forfeited your place in that society.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 16, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> There is no moral ambivalence here, Mike.



there is a lot of moral ambiguity here.  If nobody's life was ever in danger, shooting someone is wrong.  That is why we have laws and a criminal justice system: because we as a society believe that A) a person deserves a fair trial and B) if there is punishment to be handed out, it is for the State to carry that out.  The only time that is trumped is when there is a real and immediate danger to someones life.  Based on the description of the story (and I know we don't know all the details) that doesnt' sound like the case here.

Otherwise, it becomes really really easy for me to make up all kinds of things about people, to justify my killing any of them. 

oh, and did they ever find a gun on the guy who was shot in the SUV, the one the homeowner claimed he thought he saw had a gun?


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


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


I couldn't disagree more.  There are people who are irredeemable , but I've known several productive adults who were caught as kids nicking cars.  Getting caught by the police, in every case, was the best thing that happened to them.  They deserved to get into trouble, but I don't know of any place where stealing a car is a capital offense. 

I am absolutely in favor of a person being legally able to protect themselves and their property.  But this doesn't sound like that.


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> As I've said before (and it used to be a joke before BillC decided that Nazi's were not Right Wing Extremists), I'm a Liberal Fascist - society is open and free for you to do as you wish, until what you do (by intent) harms someone else, then you have forfeited your place in that society.


The punishment must also be in proportion to the crime.  I'm for accountability, but death for stealing a car is out of whack.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> or course this is based on limited information.  and I'm not making any conclusions for myself, I'm stating what I think some people would say, based on 1) that story as relayed in the OP, and 2) two statements that you made, intended to be CYA statements.  When people make a CYA statement, that tends to indicated they've got something to hide.  Otherwise they don't need to make a CYA statement.


But in this country you better CYA no matter what.  You need to always loom out for number 1 when it comes to the criminal justice system.  When I shot someone I knew I was justified and had nothing to hide but I still refused to make any statements ans requested a lawyer immediately.  I was instructed to simply say " I was in fear for my life so I fired". Truth is it happened so fast I didn't have time to be scared of anything I saw a gun he pointed it at me I reacted and shot.  I didn't think at all.  So its people that jump to conclusions with out the entire story that force the CYA statements


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> But in this country you better CYA no matter what. You need to always loom out for number 1 when it comes to the criminal justice system. When I shot someone I knew I was justified and had nothing to hide but I still refused to make any statements ans requested a lawyer immediately. I was instructed to simply say " I was in fear for my life so I fired". Truth is it happened so fast I didn't have time to be scared of anything I saw a gun he pointed it at me I reacted and shot. I didn't think at all. So its people that jump to conclusions with out the entire story that force the CYA statements



sure, I understand all that.  But the way you said, "it's a CYA statement" honestly, that looked to me like it came with a wink wink nudge nudge.  Might help if the full story was posted or linked to.  

I still say, this story does not help the gun rights advocates' cause.


----------



## DennisBreene (Jan 16, 2013)

I knew there was going to be blowback. (slinking away quietly while whistling softly)


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> The punishment must also be in proportion to the crime.  I'm for accountability, but death for stealing a car is out of whack.



I assume that I was clear that the punishment does not work if it is not 'out of whack'?  My heart agrees with you and Mike - experience on the broad scale suggests otherwise (and I'd love to see some hard numbers on rehabilitation that were not exceptions).


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 16, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I assume that I was clear that the punishment does not work if it is not 'out of whack'? My heart agrees with you and Mike - experience on the broad scale suggests otherwise (and I'd love to see some hard numbers on rehabilitation that were not exceptions).



Yes, but when you yourself become Judge Jury and Executioner, there is nothing preventing someone else from being the same to you, even on a perceived infraction.  As I said, our society, at least here in the US, believes in the right to a fair trial, and punishment dished out by the State.  Not by the individual.  Those are the rules that you are refusing to play by, when you choose to execute someone who refuses to "play by the rules".  And that then puts you at risk of the same results that you are choosing to dish out.  As justified as you may feel about it, it doesn't work on a societal level.

and I do not believe there is any data supporting a reduction in capital crimes, even with capital punishment in place.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> sure, I understand all that.  But the way you said, "it's a CYA statement" honestly, that looked to me like it came with a wink wink nudge nudge.  Might help if the full story was posted or linked to.
> 
> I still say, this story does not help the gun rights advocates' cause.



No wink wink statement just a fact you better look out for yourself no matter how nice the police detective is and no matter how much you think he's on your side.  

And it has nothing to do with gun rights.  If the guy walked out and just started shooting people then its already a crime and he should be charged with manslaughter or 2nd deg murder.  That's not a gun rights issue.  The gun rights issue would be if he wasn't allowed to have guns and these guys broke in and killed him.  That's a gun rights issue.  Otherwise murder is already illegal


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No wink wink statement just a fact you better look out for yourself no matter how nice the police detective is and no matter how much you think he's on your side.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with gun rights. If the guy walked out and just started shooting people then its already a crime and he should be charged with manslaughter or 2nd deg murder. That's not a gun rights issue. The gun rights issue would be if he wasn't allowed to have guns and these guys broke in and killed him. That's a gun rights issue. Otherwise murder is already illegal



well it has a lot to do with the gun control issue given how hot that issue is right now, because it's how the event is perceived by others. 

And I'll reiterate that we don't have all the facts here, yet the discussion continues anyway. Maybe the full story should have been posted, but here we are.

The Homeowner claimed that he thought one perp had a gun, but I've not seen it established that there ever was a gun. The homeowner might have simply been mistaken, or he might have deliberately invented a CYA statement in an attempt to justify an (potentially) unjustifiable shooting.

We've got a second perp who was driving away when he was shot. The second perp was killed. While retreating.

We've got a statement that so far at least, the Homeowner is not being charged with anything.

And we've got a discussion here on MT with some people expressing the notion that this played out exactly as it should.

It comes across as a bunch of people gloating over two dead people, who may not have been a real threat to anybody.

Any gun control advocate who looks at this situation is going to say, well those Texas gun nuts are just a bunch of knuckle-dragging savages, they clearly are not reasonable-minded people and should not have any guns. Let's take away their guns.

I'm just pointing out what this looks like, from an outsider's point of view. Whether or not you feel the homeowner was justified, this situation adds fuel to the fire and I'm just pointing that out.

Do with it what you will.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2013)

One of the questions that is presenting itself in the debate regarding self defense and property defense is whether the Individual or the State is more capable of protecting either.  We all know that the police aren't going to arrive on time, assuming you even have time to call the police, if your life is in danger.  The State can't protect your life and the State probably isn't going to provide your family with justice either.  The national average for unsolved murder cases is 65%.  In some cities, it rises as high as 90%.  With those kinds of odds and when you add in response time for police, it seems pretty clear that self-defense of one's life is completely the responsibility of the individual, no matter what the State says.

Now, much do you think this principle applies to property?  I've had several things stolen from me in my life and not once have the police solved the crime.  The average clearance rate for crimes in Honolulu is 91%.  95% of these crimes are property offenses.  Chances are you are never getting your **** back and no one will EVER catch the criminal.  The statistics are overwhelming.  The State cannot protect your property.  It's up to the individual.  The State will also not be able to provide justice to the majority of those who break it's laws.

Taking that into account, you've got two men, possibly armed, and they are stealing your $30,000 truck.  If they try to harm you, there is no one to call.  If they steal your truck, that might cost you a years income and most likely you will never see the truck again and most likely the two are going to get away with it.  If this individual doesn't stand up to these guys, no one will.  More controversially, if the individual doesn't deal out justice himself, _there most like will be no justice at all_.  It's just something to think about.  We want the State to protect us and provide justice, but it clearly cannot.   

That said, I don't think I would shoot someone for stealing my car, but who knows what the situation was.  If I surprised two men in the process of stealing my car and I was armed and felt in danger, waiting might let them get the drop on me.  Then I'd be dead and my family is probably never going get any justice.  

Don't know if I would shoot a fleeing person though...but who knows again.  Maybe he's armed and maybe he's going to run you down.  There is an overwhelming chance that he's going to get away with your truck and not be caught though.  

And he may be pissed at you for blowing away his buddy.  Mercy in this case is going to come at the cost of some anxiety for sure.  

The bottom line for me is that the STATE cannot provide you with protection or justice.  YOU are responsible for protection...and justice...well to say it's rare is an understatement.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 16, 2013)

Hmm ... I follow your internal logic and, as I've said before, my heart agrees.  However, you either accept that innocents are going to suffer for a 'higher purpose' or you eliminate those that would so harm.  It's a horrible choice, no-one pretends otherwise - and if you want to come and tell me I am 'gloating' to my face I'll give you what for (if it's not clear, I am insulted that you dare say such a thing).

EDIT:  Realised that "what for" might not mean much to a non-English person .  It means, in this context, a 'telling off' or 'recounting of grievances in blunt fashion' .


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> well it has a lot to do with the gun control issue given how hot that issue is right now, because it's how it is perceived by others.


That's the problem with most of this discussion people perceive what they want to fit their beliefs.



> And I'll reiterate that we don't have all the facts here, yet the discussion continues anyway. Maybe the full story should have been posted, but here we are.


And even a full news report won't have all the details needed kinda like the funny edit job on the 911 tape from the Florida where Zimmerman says he's suspicious he's black on the "news" story when in real life its not even close to what he said.


> The Homeowner claimed that he thought one perp had a gun, but I've not seen it established that there ever was a gun. The homeowner might have simply been mistaken, or he might have deliberately invented a CYA statement in an attempt to justify an (potentially) unjustifiable shooting.


I know officers that have shot thinking they saw a gun only to be wrong it does not make the shooting less justified.  The blame still falls on the guy breaking into the car.  You don't break into a car you don't risk being confronted by the armed owner of that car.


> We've got a second perp who was driving away when he was shot. The second perp was killed. While retreating.


To me a windshield is the front of the car.  For me to shoot you thru the windshild you must be driving towards me.  So there for in my mind trying to run me down.


> We've got a statement that so far at least, the Homeowner is not being charged with anything.


 Right and after its investigated that may change.



> And we've got a discussion here on MT with some people expressing the notion that this played out exactly as it should.


From the little I read it seems OK to me but I don't know enough to conclude anything.  If the story is as its written guy hear people breaking into his car.  He walks out and sees two guys one he fears is going to shoot him so he shoots him and then somehow ends up in front of a moving car and shoots again then I'm OK with it.  If it turns out he made it up walked and and just shot them for no reason then I'm not OK with it.


> It comes across as a bunch of people gloating over two dead people, who may not have been a real threat to anybody.


He claims he was in fear how can you doubt him and take the side of the criminal with out any other knowledge then what was provided.  Unless you think anyone that owns a gun for protection is just a gun nut looking for his chance to cap off rounds 



> Any gun control advocate who looks at this situation is going to say, well those Texas gun nuts are just a bunch of knuckle-dragging savages, they clearly are not reasonable-minded people and should not have any guns. Let's take away their guns.


Has nothing ti do with guns.  This has more to do with property rights are you allowed tobdefend your car with force.  If he used an ax not a gun would it then be about ax rights?  No its about property.  In my state yoyr not allowed to defend your property.  We have no self defense laws here.  Its up to the prosecutor to decide if they want to seek charges or not.  We dont have a castle doctrine like other states.


> I'm just pointing out what this looks like, from an outsider's point of view. Whether or not you feel the homeowner was justified, this situation adds fuel to the fire and I'm just pointing that out.


So now we need to worry about what gun control people will think before we defend ourselves just so we dont add fule to the fire.  If this adds fuel then the woman in the attic that shot the intruder in GA should have put the fire out last week.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 16, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Hmm ... I follow your internal logic and, as I've said before, my heart agrees. However, you either accept that innocents are going to suffer for a 'higher purpose' or you eliminate those that would so harm. It's a horrible choice, no-one pretends otherwise - and if you want to come and tell me I am 'gloating' to my face I'll give you what for (if it's not clear, I am insulted that you dare say such a thing).



I'm not saying you are gloating because I know you. But I can see a lot of people getting that impression from the overall discussion.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> That's the problem with most of this discussion people perceive what they want to fit their beliefs.



and in the end, that's all that matters.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> One of the questions that is presenting itself in the debate regarding self defense and property defense is whether the Individual or the State is more capable of protecting either.  We all know that the police aren't going to arrive on time, assuming you even have time to call the police, if your life is in danger.  The State can't protect your life and the State probably isn't going to provide your family with justice either.  The national average for unsolved murder cases is 65%.  In some cities, it rises as high as 90%.  With those kinds of odds and when you add in response time for police, it seems pretty clear that self-defense of one's life is completely the responsibility of the individual, no matter what the State says.
> 
> Now, much do you think this principle applies to property?  I've had several things stolen from me in my life and not once have the police solved the crime.  The average clearance rate for crimes in Honolulu is 91%.  95% of these crimes are property offenses.  Chances are you are never getting your **** back and no one will EVER catch the criminal.  The statistics are overwhelming.  The State cannot protect your property.  It's up to the individual.  The State will also not be able to provide justice to the majority of those who break it's laws.
> 
> ...



States been saying that for years were not obligated to protect anyone.  We would like to be we know we can't.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> States been saying that for years were not obligated to protect anyone.  We would like to be we know we can't.



I know LEOs want nothing more than to get the real bad guys who hurt people and commit property crimes, but the statistics are really staggering. The amount of unsolved crimes is shocking. I know with more resources these numbers get better, but not a heck of a lot. What this tells me is that the individual needs to be far more prepared to protect their life and property. The police can possibly help in some situations, but the stats show that most criminals simply get away with it. 

This isn't a dig at LEOs either. When you think about it, if we put all of the responsibility for protection of life and property on their shoulders, they're going to get overwhelmed. It only makes logical sense since there are so many more of us compared to the numbers of police. If the individual isn't prepared, you're going to be a victim. If the criminal gets away, you're not going to see your property again and the criminal is most likely going to get away.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2013)

Police cant do anything by ourselves.  We need help.  Do you know how many theft reports I take from people who 1 leave there doors unlocked 2 don't know the make model or serial numbers of the item stolen 3 wait a week or more to finally get around to calling us.  Its hard to solve a case when all you have to go on is someone stole my iPad last week from my car and no in don't know my serial number.  Or you go to a murder scene in the summer in a well populated apartment complex and you know 150 people were outside and they all saw what happened but won't tell you anything.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 16, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, but when you yourself become Judge Jury and Executioner, there is nothing preventing someone else from being the same to you, even on a perceived infraction.


 
Aye that is why it is problematic.



Flying Crane said:


> As I said, our society, at least here in the US, believes in the right to a fair trial, and punishment dished out by the State.  Not by the individual.  Those are the rules that you are refusing to play by, when you choose to execute someone who refuses to "play by the rules".  And that then puts you at risk of the same results that you are choosing to dish out.  As justified as you may feel about it, it doesn't work on a societal level.



I would not care to deem it execution if I took someone's life in defence of myself, my family or my property - that's what the justice system aims to do but it cannot do it properly because it cannot act immediately.



Flying Crane said:


> and I do not believe there is any data supporting a reduction in capital crimes, even with capital punishment in place.



I concur - what are now capital crimes are those that are also termed, in the main, 'crimes of passion', where the perpetrator had no thought of consequences at the time of their action.  What I was talking about was the Rehabilitation-vs-retribution 'schools' when it comes to maintaining law and order.  All the evidence suggests that rehabilitation is a rare thing indeed and that most of criminal intent stay that way on an escalating scale until either death or some other force stops them (e.g. getting too old to execute their 'evil').  Only when punishment is disproportionate to the crime (I call it the 'Death for parking offences' axiom) does it deter.


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No wink wink statement just a fact you better look out for yourself no matter how nice the police detective is and no matter how much you think he's on your side.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with gun rights.  If the guy walked out and just started shooting people then its already a crime and he should be charged with manslaughter or 2nd deg murder.  That's not a gun rights issue.  The gun rights issue would be if he wasn't allowed to have guns and these guys broke in and killed him.  That's a gun rights issue.  Otherwise murder is already illegal



My reaction is essentially that there is a fine distinction between murder and shooting a person who is fleeing a crime scene.  That's the gun rights issue here that I see.  Not so much gun ownership, but responsibility and accountability.

The legality of the situation seems out of sync with what happened.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> My reaction is essentially that there is a fine distinction between murder and shooting a person who is fleeing a crime scene.  That's the gun rights issue here that I see.  Not so much gun ownership, but responsibility and accountability.
> 
> The legality of the situation seems out of sync with what happened.
> 
> ...



Again I don't think its a gun issue.  We don't know enough about what happened but if he shot thru the windshield hewas in front of the car so it was moving at hI'm.  You can debate why he was in front of the car did he get in front to stop the guy from running and put himself in danger or did the driver try to run him love by aiming the car at him.  We dont know.  
This is more a self defense issue castle doctrine  not a gun ownership issue there has been nothing presented to show this guy shouldn't have had a gun.  
I choose to blame the criminals not the victims until more info comes out to change the story.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 16, 2013)

If the owner called the police first and the officer showed up and the exact same thing happened only the officer was the shooter would it still be a gun control issue?  If not why?  What's the difference if a police officer is the shooter or a home owner?


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Again I don't think its a gun issue.  We don't know enough about what happened but if he shot thru the windshield hewas in front of the car so it was moving at hI'm.  You can debate why he was in front of the car did he get in front to stop the guy from running and put himself in danger or did the driver try to run him love by aiming the car at him.  We dont know.
> This is more a self defense issue castle doctrine  not a gun ownership issue there has been nothing presented to show this guy shouldn't have had a gun.
> I choose to blame the criminals not the victims until more info comes out to change the story.



As you say, we will see what happens, but its possible that they are both criminals and also both victims.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## DennisBreene (Jan 17, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> One of the questions that is presenting itself in the debate regarding self defense and property defense is whether the Individual or the State is more capable of protecting either.  We all know that the police aren't going to arrive on time, assuming you even have time to call the police, if your life is in danger.  The State can't protect your life and the State probably isn't going to provide your family with justice either.  The national average for unsolved murder cases is 65%.  In some cities, it rises as high as 90%.  With those kinds of odds and when you add in response time for police, it seems pretty clear that self-defense of one's life is completely the responsibility of the individual, no matter what the State says.
> 
> Now, much do you think this principle applies to property?  I've had several things stolen from me in my life and not once have the police solved the crime.  The average clearance rate for crimes in Honolulu is 91%.  95% of these crimes are property offenses.  Chances are you are never getting your **** back and no one will EVER catch the criminal.  The statistics are overwhelming.  The State cannot protect your property.  It's up to the individual.  The State will also not be able to provide justice to the majority of those who break it's laws.
> 
> ...


I've seen it posted on this site that you should expect to spend $50,000 in legal fees to defend yourself in the courts after you defend yourself on the street.  So the tab is now $80,000 assuming that's the end of it.

The minute someone walks on to your property you are potentially a victim. You are certainly a victim when someone starts to break into your property.  At that point, the decision becomes "What kind of victim will I be?", though probably not conciously.  I don't think I want to be a victim with someone's death on my concience unless I am certain that more was at stake than my property. I acknowledge that "certainty" is a slippery slope and I am also disinclined to pass judgement on another who more aggressively defends their property until I have much more information than is available in this incident.  Still, in all, not being overly constrained by the facts does allow more lively theoretical debate and I think that serves to broaden one's perspective.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


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




I can see where you are coming from and while I won't make excuses for criminals I also can't take deaths lightly, we lost another soldier from here yesterday and while a criminals life may not seem worth much, most here who steal cars are young and stupid and can go on to actually turn their lives around many by joining the army and fighting for their country. You'd be surprised how many do. 
We have three types of car thief here, the professionals who steal the high end cars or a 'getaway' car who frankly you won't see to shoot, the terrorist type which is thankfully rareish these days and the joy riders. In Northern Ireland for a long time the joyriders were a problem, youths would steal cars to ride through roadblocks as a dare, the chances of them being shot were high (do you remember the Lee Clegg affair?) These are the same young people who have been rioting there for the past six weeks (over 50 police officers have been injured there btw).
There is a vast difference between defending yourself and your family and becoming judge and executioner. We are horrified when in other countries people are shot, beheaded and stoned for crimes wothout the befit of a fair trial, we cannot then do the same ourselves. We as a society have to find a solution to youth crime that happens because there isn't anything else for the youths to do other than spend their time criminally. Simply shooting them isn't a solution for one thing they aren't who you think they are, no family is immune to having a youth out of control but who could be turned round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Stalker


----------



## DennisBreene (Jan 17, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I can see where you are coming from and while I won't make excuses for criminals I also can't take deaths lightly, we lost another soldier from here yesterday and while a criminals life may not seem worth much, most here who steal cars are young and stupid and can go on to actually turn their lives around many by joining the army and fighting for their country. You'd be surprised how many do.
> We have three types of car thief here, the professionals who steal the high end cars or a 'getaway' car who frankly you won't see to shoot, the terrorist type which is thankfully rareish these days and the joy riders. In Northern Ireland for a long time the joyriders were a problem, youths would steal cars to ride through roadblocks as a dare, the chances of them being shot were high (do you remember the Lee Clegg affair?) These are the same young people who have been rioting there for the past six weeks (over 50 police officers have been injured there btw).
> There is a vast difference between defending yourself and your family and becoming judge and executioner. We are horrified when in other countries people are shot, beheaded and stoned for crimes wothout the befit of a fair trial, we cannot then do the same ourselves. We as a society have to find a solution to youth crime that happens because there isn't anything else for the youths to do other than spend their time criminally. Simply shooting them isn't a solution for one thing they aren't who you think they are, no family is immune to having a youth out of control but who could be turned round.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Stalker



I always love your insight. And I agree.  I also find it horrifying that people are executed in other countries, by reprehensible methods, and it is within the bounds of that countries justice system.  Does that constitute a cultural bias, or is it a reaction to what truly goes beyond the pale as it relates to human rights? Probably best left for another time and another thread.  My point may reflect a Pollyannish nievity, but I believe our legal system is meant to provide a societal form of justice that supercedes individual vigilanteism.  At least in the ideal...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2013)

Killing humans isn't such an easy process as many think. On the television and films the characters shrug it off but even when killing someone in self defence it leaves a mark on you. You can know you were right to do it, you can know it was justified but the knowledge you have taken a life even of a scumbag can haunt you in a way you wouldn't have thought it could. It's part of the crime committed that it leaves the victim with scars even if they are small ones. You don't feel guilty but the knowledge you have killed is still a lingering thought that can be troubling.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Killing humans isn't such an easy process as many think. On the television and films the characters shrug it off but even when killing someone in self defence it leaves a mark on you. You can know you were right to do it, you can know it was justified but the knowledge you have taken a life even of a scumbag can haunt you in a way you wouldn't have thought it could. It's part of the crime committed that it leaves the victim with scars even if they are small ones. You don't feel guilty but the knowledge you have killed is still a lingering thought that can be troubling.



Very true.  I killed someone almost 7 years ago now and I still think about it.  I still get moody and agitated for no reason.  I've been to docs over the years to help with sleeping problems, weight issues.  Before I shot him I was 220 pounds worked out and ran every day was on the SWAT team.  Since then I blew up to over 310 pounds at one point I've lost a lot of it but I'm still not back where I was.  I get frustrated with my kids and wife for no reason snap at them for no reason.  I've put my family thru hell sometimes.  Thankfully I didn't turn to alcohol or other substances to cope and I'm doing better now then I have been in a long time but when march 29 rolls around It will bother me again for a week or so.  I've second guessed my actions from years thinking what if


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 17, 2013)

I know it is no comfort,* Ballen*, and you probably wish sometimes that you did not have such emotions, you are a better man to have those feelings than the man you would be if you did not :sensei rei:.

Despite my strongly worded stance on this issue earlier in this thread, taking a life is something that no-one (sane) would ever wish to do and I hope against all hopes that it is not something I shall ever be called upon to face.  With my upbringing having trained me from an early age to be non-violent, I am not sure that I could bring myself to kill, even in self-defence, unless, perhaps, it was to protect my wife or my family.  

Of course we can never know how we will act until such moments are upon us.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 17, 2013)

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...one-Oak-man-thwarts-4195158.php#photo-4033381

This reports differs a bit from the original post.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 17, 2013)

Blindside said:


> http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...one-Oak-man-thwarts-4195158.php#photo-4033381
> 
> This reports differs a bit from the original post.



Sounds like he was with in the laws of Texas but I think the laws my be a little too loose with the use of deadly force in my opinion.


----------



## Zero (Mar 11, 2013)

I have no issue (theoreticaly) with taking a life in defence of oneself or others, or regarding property where such property is a requirement to one's survival/life. To be honest, at times I have not placed that high a value on human life but that said I would rather pay the insurance premium on my car and let the bum drive away in it (and have the insurance company get me a new one) rather than killing someone and taking a life over an expensive piece of tin and rubber. 

 If the dude really thought his life was in danger from the fleeing perp in the get-away car, then that's different. 

 Really would have sucked bigtime if you had just pulled over on the curb for a rest and had nothing to do with the guy breaking into the SUV, wake up to some gunshots, reved up to speed off out of danger, shot dead like a dog a longs way from home...


----------

