Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by harmonic, Sep 27, 2008.
Well I guess that settles that debate from the other thread then huh?
That's what happens when you believe everything the Associated Press tells you.
Final ruling is "Stay the hell out of other people's houses in Texas. Period."
Jury took 3 hours.
Stupid high-schoolish reporters! The initial article said the kneeling 13 year old "lunged" at the homeowner, so we were all wracking our brains trying to figure out how you can "lunge" (to the rear while on your knees) in such a way as to threaten someone holding a gun on you.
We couldn't imagine such so we concluded it was an execution.
But the 13 year old didn't "lunge." He started to get up while the homeowner was trying to maintain control over the burglers.
Puts a different perspective on it.
its never a good thing with kids are killed. I agree that if anyone, including kids, takes the risk of breaking into another's home, they should be ready to take the consequences.
I just hate to see this sort of thing.
Fine. Now learn English.
Hmm.........I didnt know speaking English effected shooting or gun ownership in america. Right wrong or indiffrent that comment was really uncalled for.
The real injustice here was the fact that this senior citizen got dragged into court for protecting his property. Texas law is very clear, if a person is taking your property, you have the right to use deadly force. In most areas of the country where the "non-english" speaking populations have settled, drugs, burglaries, rapes, home invasions, etc.... have all risen sharply. That is not being racist, those are the facts. If the adult crime driven "kids" are breaking into peoples homes, then maybe someone should look into their backgrounds, and the backgrounds of their parents. Bet you would find lots of illegal stuff on those records. Most "kids" are a product of their environment. The shooting was tragic, but justified. It probably saved the county hundreds of thousands of dollars in future court and prison costs as this young criminal advanced his carrer in later life. Hopefully the other young criminals involved will take this to heart and change their ways to a more honest way to live out the rest of their lives. The young criminal's family wasted no time making the shallow statements about injustice. Where was the justice for the homeowner who was violated in the first place? Where are his rights? Shame on the DA for pursuing this.
Tragic...in a way,yes...but imagine living in a trailer in a border city. Who knows what the intruders were really intending beyond the alleged food and sodas?
As far as the "English" comment goes,I've been to Laredo. If you don't speak Spanish you're pretty much out of luck.
Language is irrelevant. Everyone understands what a gun is. (Unless you're some sort of isolated native or live in a "Utopian Society")
I agree with Griz44 on all points. I have known some people who have friends in jail, who's parents were felons at one time. I try to not associate with them as much as possible if at all.
Glad every thing worked out for the home owner.
It saddens me that such a young life had to be lost, but that is the message that NEEDS to be sent and hopfully heard loud and clear by all criminals not just the young.
I agree, if in fact he does not know English.
I do not know either way.
if he doesn't .........I will remain High Road.
Since there is no law stating English as the one and only language in the US or Texas for that matter, why should he have to do so?
I personally think we should have a national language and require all paperwork in that one language only, but until that happens, non-English speakers are well within their right to not speak English or be obliged to do so.
Interesting interpretation. I guess when there's nobody else on scene to take it in their hands, somebody has to.
Thanks for sharing.
What different perspective?
If you happen to get a criminal down on the ground at gunpoint and he refuses to obey your orders to stay down it is entirely reasonable to believe that he intends to attack you once he's on his feet.
IMO, the "message for the family" should have been "Your kid is dead because you didn't teach him not to be a criminal."
Its sad that a kid should grow up in such circumstances that he engages in criminal behavior at an age when his biggest hopes should have to do with his favorite sports team and his biggest fears should be his next math test, but that doesn't entitle him to engage in criminal activities without risk.
¡Bravo Señor Jose Luis Gonzalez!
It's a shame when a kid gets shot, but not 13 year old kids are the same. Some look like Opie from Andy Griffith and some look like gangsters that would put the fear of God into you.
The Court is not at fault, the Spanish speaking home owner is not at fault, even the kids are not at fault.
The parents of these kids are at fault. Where were the parents? Why did the kids have to steal soda and snacks?
I think most of us don't really have a problem with that,as long as you are going by the law and not just making up your own rules.
No kidding. Still it's sad to see a young life wasted by extremely poor choices. I wouldn't exactly call this one the shining star of youth though.
Especialy if you are covering three of them. If one starts to say things emboldening the others, then gets up or lunges to attack it is very dangerous.
We were not there and can only speculate as to what exactly happened.
It would be dangerous with just one, but with three even if the homeowner could overpower one, during the struggle it is quite possible the other two would jump in.
Suddenly the elderly man could be stripped of his shotgun in a struggle (and he didn't know they didn't have a gun or other weapon in a pocket either even if he retained it) and is killed.
Then the news story is about how the three teens should be tried for killing the elderly man.
The homeowner is supposed to give a burglar the benefit of the doubt? Anyone, emphasis on anyone, that would break into a house with the owner inside has already proven they can be trusted not to behave in a reasonable manner.
Now, you have four people on the floor of a mobile home. You are scared, wondering when help will come and end the situation and painfully aware that you could be overpowered at any moment. Scalia mentioned something about not being able to expect reasonable thought in the shadow of an upraised knife. The scum lunged while being held at the point of a shotgun. You may call it a shame, personnally, I call it applied Darwin theory.
The article doesn't indicate whether or not he speaks English.
It just says that he speaks the language of America's closest neighbor, which, in my opinion, takes away from the negative stereotype many have about Americans, as opposed to lending to it, as you do.
I think that instead of making them stay there, on the floor, he should've gotten out of the house(escaped.)
I do, however, think it would've been very easy for a group of teenage kids to get carried away, and possibly kill an elderly man.
This is the way it should have been decided. 4 to 1. Something tells me he was justified.
In most places maybe. He is in Texas. A place where he has a legal right to protect his property, which he appearantly does not have very much of.
The issue was not about self defense until it took a turn for the worse. It was about him defending his home and possessions at night from some burglars in the state of Texas. Things that in that state already legaly warrant lethal force.
It then became about self defense while protecting his property (which already legaly allowed use of lethal force) when he felt endangered by one of the burglars.
So do remember Texas in unique in the nation and the criteria of deadly force is not just self defense.
Judging the situation from someplace else is difficult. Holding multiple people at gunpoint, potentialy spread out a bit while wielding a firearm that is is designed for two hands. Even calling the police in such a situation can be difficult. The phone can require one hand and a little attention. It is perhaps around the corner on a counter or wall perhaps on the other side of the criminals in another room, or maybe he relies on a cell phone in some odd spot.
The primary concern is his safety in that situation, but not a distant second to him was his property.
Remember this is Texas, the man could have just gone in and started firing from the start even without feeling he was in any danger. It was at night which triggers the criminal mischief at night, they were involved in a felony, and they had some of his property on them (and he didn't know what belongings of his were in thier pockets.) Legaly (not moraly) he could have even shot them in the back as they tried to run away with his property.
Lethal force outside of self defense was legal on the basis of multiple different Texas statutes.
So always remember Texas is unique.
One has to wonder how many homes that would have won't now get burglarized by the little thug. How many kids won't turn into drug addicts from drugs sold to them by the little thug, how many cars won't get hijacked, businesses burglarized, drive by shootings avoided, taxes saved by not having to house the little thug in a state facility, pay welfare for the kids he'd father and not be around to raise while in prison, medical bills saved not having to treat junkies he would have created?
The gene pool is just a little bit cleaner now and that's a good thing.
Note to Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker:
The jury says otherwise. Your comment is despicable and you might want to consider seeking another line of work.
If I was your supervisor, I would see to it that you did.
Separate names with a comma.