Texas homeowner acquitted of shooting 13 year old.

[Zoogster]

if someone breaks into your home and you succeed in subduing him, do you feel justified in killing him just for the heck of it?

No of course not.

If someone breaks into my home while I am home and they are subdued then everything is working out great for them. It is either daylight or the lights are on, allowing me to see thier hands are not filled with a lethal weapon. They made no aggressive motions and complied 100%, and they are not making me feel threatened.
It is my home, and I don't care what the odds are of me prevailing in a struggle. Whether they are 80%/20% in my favor or 50/50. I did not sign up to gamble with my life by participating in that struggle. I am not obligated to play the odds even if they favor me.
I am doing my best to keep it 100%/0% if it comes to it, and if that means they get shot at the first sign of making a move that could put me at risk then that is unfortunate.

If that move is getting up when I am right next to them, especialy if they have accomplices that could jump in to support them, then I will do what I feel is necessary to keep control of the situation. It is not a give and take negotiation. It is they will pose no threat while in the home one way or another, period. Whether that requires a bullet is up to thier actions and my discretion.

Keep in mind, if you lose control of the situation, lose control of your weapon it can effect not just your life but your family's as well when the criminals gain control. You may be willing to gamble with your life if the odds favor you, but your family too?
Will they then execute you? Your family? Rape some of them and then burn them alive like the poor family in CT?
Even a little punk you could prevail against without a doubt one on one can get lucky, you can fall back and hit your head knocking you out etc
They can pull a weapon in a sudden fast move.
If they have others that can jump up and support them if the opportunity presents itself it is especialy dangerous.
Even if just one charges you or grabs your weapon it can be all the others need to jump up and join in to overpower you.



So I do not wish to kill someone that breaks in, but I am not going to take any gamble with my safety.
They likely would never even be taken into custody if I can't see thier empty hands when I first run into them. Whether that is because it is too dark, or because of thier actions. They get a brief moment to comply IF I feel safely in control of the situation.
If they are likely or may be armed and in a group I am using the element of surprise. This is not the movies, if 2+ people have firearms and you ask them to freeze and they both shoot at you you are very likely to be shot before you can end the threat.
You better be shooting one that does not see it coming, and already firing on the others before they can react and open fire.
You are not acting as a police officer, you did not sign up to take people into custody and assume some risk. If they wish to safely be taken into custody they better pose no threat.
You are defending your life and the life of anyone else in your castle.

In the days before firearms I would not even have been that generous. Back then you couldn't decisively end the threat if they posed a sudden threat and were better off just using lethal force from the start. So firearms actualy give the option to even refrain from lethal force.

 

[macadore]

My question has to do with the mentality of many posters here. Many seem to think that if someone breaks into your home, and even if you succeed in subduing the burgler, that it is still acceptable to take his life. After all, he's breaking the law.

So that's my question. To the Rambos on this thread, if someone breaks into your home and you succeed in subduing him, do you feel justified in killing him just for the heck of it?

There are some very young people on the Internet who make rash foolish statements. People’s brains do not physically mature until they are around 21. Even after that, some people never mature. At one time, the adults told the kids they were acting silly. If you try that on an Internet forum the thread gets locked, your posts get deleted, and you get banned.

 

[Zoogster]

Imagine you have 4 people spread out in a random pattern, because they got down where you found them. While approaching one and having the shotgun near thier back they start saying things like "what are you going to do old man, shoot me in the back?" They start to get up, and the rest of the group is gaining confidence from his defiance, and in a split second it could erupt into a struggle over your weapon, or one of the others pulling a weapon from a waistband or pocket with 4 young men against you. You need to keep control of the situation and stay safe. You need to be able to monitor everyone and thier hands and actions.
One defiant individual is keeping you from doing that requiring all of your attention and things could be very ugly for you any second.

You don't know what happened, and I am not going to second guess a home owner facing 4 criminals.

 

[BruceRDucer]

they got down where you found them. While approaching one and having the shotgun near thier back they start saying things like "what are you going to do old man, shoot me in the back?" They start to get up, and the rest of the group is gaining confidence from his defiance, and in a split second it could erupt into a struggle over your weapon,...etc ----Zoogster

That's a fair and reasonable possibility, Zoogster.

 

[camxrr]

Would it have made a difference if this punk kid was a 35yr old? Would we feel less sorry? Forget age, there are many 13yr olds that can and have killed.

I think this CRIMINAL recieved the consequences of his actions. Why is it ok for him to commit a crime but a homeowner not be able to defend himself and his family against it?

I have a wife and 3 daughters of various ages, if someone breaks into my home the last thing I'm thinking is how old you are and what your intentions are. I automatically think worse case senario and will not wait around to find out if you and your buddies are REALLY here just to steal snacks. If you are lucky enough for me to find you in a non-threatening manner then it just wasn't your time to go; hold at bay and call LE. If you moved and disobeyed my commands to be still, your luck just went bye bye.

I didn't come to your home, you came to mine.

Out of all the bad things, the worse is that the homeowner now has to now worry about retaliation. Truly the biggest crime.

 

[SCKimberFan]

To the Rambos on this thread, if someone breaks into your home and you succeed in subduing him, do you feel justified in killing him just for the heck of it?

Did anyone post something like this?

Why would you ask such a thing?

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi TexasRifleman,

I get the feeling this is the same persons that trolls other gun boards as well. His thing is to post the most outlandish tripe then claim victory when regulars answer in kind.

At best this is a troll, at worse a fool. And I'm sure someone as wise as you appear to be has heard about arguing with a fool.

Selena

 

[Officers'Wife]

My question has to do with the mentality of many posters here. Many seem to think that if someone breaks into your home, and even if you succeed in subduing the burgler, that it is still acceptable to take his life. After all, he's breaking the law.

I have not seen that mentality displayed. Perhaps it is your imagination based on your own bigotry?

 

[TexasRifleman]

At best this is a troll, at worse a fool. And I'm sure someone as wise as you appear to be has heard about arguing with a fool.

Oh, I know he's a troll but I don't often get to tell someone they sound like they got hit by the short bus

I'll take it when I can get it. Somehow it makes me feel better

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi TexasRifleman,

Your campaign sir.

Selena

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

I'm sure most would agree that this situation didn't turn out well. I would NEVER advocate using deadly force if I were in a similar situation. This entire thread is merely speculation of how the homeowner handled the situation and how we ourselves may address it given the same circumstances.

It is unfortunate that the young man had to die for his foolish actions. I'll wager the home owner feels some remorse for his actions as well.

Let's not judge the man based on assumptions.

 

[Old Guy]

Who saw what?

We should only deal in facts, 4 teens, a fact, broke and entered, a felony, and also a fact.

The kids said we just broke in for snacks? If true, that is a reason to believe 4 teens in your dwelling at night, is OK? No problem they are just after snacks!

The kids you can not believe, not one word.

The home owner? He thinks he knows what happened, when that 12 gage went off? he would be just about deaf, screams and blood, his statement not even remotely believable. He has not a clue what happened.

And it does not matter what is said by any one, 4 broke in, one got shot, period. Jury acquitted, period.

What we speculate on here? Not important.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

the old man had enough of a clue to call his son.

 

[TCUGLOCKER]

Justice served across the board. Death is always a tragedy, but as most Texans know a 13-year-old burglar without a gun becomes a 14-year-old burglar with a gun.

 

[Blackbeard]

Slight correction to your title. He wasn't acquitted of shooting the teen. He obviously shot the teen. He was acquitted of murdering the teen.

 

[3KillerBs]

if someone breaks into your home and you succeed in subduing him, do you feel justified in killing him just for the heck of it?

If he does anything other than lie flat on his face the way I told him to he is a threat. Period.

Maybe you're 6'6", eat barbells for breakfast, and run marathons every weekend as a warmup before winning UFC matches but I'm female, 5'3", asthmatic, double my ideal weight, have a permanent pinched nerve in one shoulder, a damaged knee from back in college, and intermittent sciatica. The average 14yo boy could beat me up with one hand in his pocket.

You might be able to take the risk of letting a home invader get back up and confront you again but I cannot. Nor can any other person who is not in 100% peak physical condition -- the elderly, the small, the disabled, the just plain weak, the pregnant, the overweight, the heart patients, the asthmatics, ... .

As I said before, for all practical purposes NC law gives criminals the right to take anything they want from anyone they can overpower. IMO, Texas law is more moral in giving the advantage to the innocent victim rather than to the criminal.

And I ask again, ...

Anyone want to take a stab at convincing me that NC law is morally correct in requiring me to passively accept being victimized if I happen to come across someone who is "only" stealing my valuables and my means of making a living?

 

[ants]

Let's describe the same story, but switch ages.

What if four intruders are 35 years old and break into your house 'looking for snacks'. Your 13 year old child arrives home and they confront him. You taught your child well, and he gets the home defense shotgun, holding the 4 intruders. His first call isn't to 911, his first call is to you. During the 30 minutes it takes the police to arrive, you jump in the car and head over. While you're on the way, your child does his best to keep control. He even has to hit one of them in the head with the gun. Finally one of the intruders jumps at your child's legs to take him down, and your child pulls the trigger.

Now how do you feel about the justification for shooting?

Hell, yes. You now feel it's justified, don't you? And you don't want anyone to second guess your child after the fact.

 

[georgeky]

"What really took place here was a case of vigilantism"

Not as I see it. I am the supreme law in my home or anywhere on my farm. If thugs show up here with the intent of robbing me of my snacks, just how do I know where it will end. Most of these kids are after certain things. Drugs, guns, and things they can sell for drugs and guns.

I don't buy that snack and soda business one iota. If you come to my place and are hungry or thirsty just ask and I will feed you good. If you take from me I won't be so cordial. If you break into my house the same fate awaits you as this misguided teen got. We also have Castle Doctrine here in KY so be careful when out looting. It also allows for deadly force when the offender is comitting a felonious act. Could be your last job in this world.

I pray this never happens, but rest assured if an intruder comes into my home I will envoke the Castle Doctrine first and ask questions later. I keep a 12 gauge very handy myself. It is going to get worse too folks so stay on your toes and defend yourselves and your families.

 

[BruceRDucer]

It's probably time for some to go read Jeff White's post in Strategies.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205304

I read this.

I understand it to be the general policy that the forum prefers to never take the subject of "lethal force" lightly.

It is a good policy.

It is also fair to point out that the defendent in this case was cleared of charges in a lawful court in the sovereign state of Texas.

So, the situation becomes one in which we are obligated not to take the subject of Lethal Force "lightly".

So my question is, are we also to understand, that it is a policy to take the decision of a court of law...."lightly".

Because that is precisely what seems to be happening when people ignore the decision of a lawful court and a trial by jury, and manufacture and fabricate non-factual propositions which consist of personal OPINIONS, and are not the established facts of the case?

That is, by definition, treating the facts, the court decision, and the legal process "lightly" and arguing that other extraneous propositions are facts, and other outcomes are valid, but claiming that the court decision is inherently, not valid.

Somewhere along the line, somebody needs to screw the logic on straight.

Simply because certain forum members propose that the facts of the court are valid, and that the decision of the court is valid, and that the right to self defense is valid, cannot logically be construed into some construction which is equivalent to treating Lethal Force, "lightly".

It is worthwhile to suggest, that out of sheer frustration, members are entitled to a degree of frustration, when facts of the case are denied, and some people presume to conduct something of a Kangaroo Court, with no legal bearing whatsoever.

The case has already been decided. If people support such a decision, by any means, including exuberant expressions, it is more of a tribute to confidence in the Rule of Law.

Nobody can have it both ways. If the decision of the court is "lightly" regarded, then somebody is not holding to a common standard.

/

/

 

[Apex29]

You might be able to take the risk of letting a home invader get back up and confront you again

That's not what I said. I said that, IMO, the homeowner might have been/probably was/was justified in using lethal force because the intruder made a movement that made the homeowner feel threatened. (For the record, I'm assuming the homeowner was justified.)

I'm just making sure that we don't feel justified in taking a human life, regardless. The old man felt threatened and killed the perp. That's not the same thing as an old man killing a subdued prisoner just because the old man is mad.

Sometimes these threads muddle the distinction.

And one of our resident sages accused me of bigotry? Toward whom? That's got to be about the dumbest accusation so far.

 

[Kindrox]

It sounds to me like some folks here don't like the outcome of the man's actions and then of course arn't going to like the outcome of the court action.

Too bad. I doubt the man like doing what had to be done to protect himself, but what he did was legally justified and reasonable. He goes free, punks get a message, and life goes on.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I said that, IMO, the homeowner might have been/probably was/was justified in using lethal force

In the opinion of the jury the homeowner was justified. Said jury was supplied with far more facts on the matter than you or I. Your opinion either has a basis in question of fact not presented or out of emotion. Had said opinion been formed by the former you had a moral and legal duty to file such facts juris amicus, the latter would be bigotry.

 

[MinnMooney]

I guess we'll never know what really happened inside that mobile home. it's a case of "he said"/"they said" and unless there was an imparcial witness to the event, we'll never know.

You take your life in your hands when you illegally enter someone else's home.

 

[Werewolf]

I'm just making sure that we don't feel justified in taking a human life, regardless.

Which reads a lot like "taking a human life is never justified". Is that indeed what you are implying/saying? Or perhaps you meant to say "we shouldn't feel good about taking a human life.."?

If you actually meant "justified" then why are you here on THR?

If not then when, in your opinion, is taking a human life justified.

If you meant to say "feel good" instead of "justified" - well - no one here has stated, to the best of my knowledge, that they felt good about the kid getting blown away. Some like me feel the world is a better place because he's not an actor in it any more but that's a far cry from feeling good about his death.

 

[Griz44]

You take your life in your hands when you illegally enter someone else's home.

Minn,
Please allow me to slightly re-word your statement:

You put your life in someone else's hands when you illegally enter someone else's home.

Any way you look at this, the man had the right to defend his life and property. He extended the teens a generous courtesy by not shooting first and asking questions later. One of them did not accept that courtesy, and paid a very high price for his decision. The jury agreed with his decision.