Texas homeowner acquitted of shooting 13 year old.

[Apex29]

Or perhaps you meant to say "we shouldn't feel good about taking a human life.."?

That.

then why are you here on THR?

Until you become a mod, it's really none of your business.

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

If you had bothered to try to read my remarks in their context, you would have read this one:

For the record, I'm assuming the homeowner was justified.

 

[highlander 5]

Having not read all 8 pages of comment you'll excuse me if I repeat anyone's thoughts. we have A 4 teenage boys and B 1 62 year old guy. Don't know about your neck of the woods but the average teenager ain't exactly small that I've seen in my neighborhood. I'm in my late 50's and have to admit my days of rolling on the ground with someone 1/4 my age is not my idea of fun evening. Add to the fact that it's 4 against 1 and had the 4 gotten the upper hand whose to say the 62 yr old wouldn't have ended up badly beaten or dead. If someone is in your home and they weren't invited in they are there to do 1 steal your possessions 2 Do you bodily harm or 3 a combination of both. As mentioned a boy lost his life for what munchies and a soda but the bottom line is still the fact that he and his buddies BROKE INTO SOMEONES HOME. Maybe his buds will remember this and fly the straight and narrow, who knows some good may come of this yet.

 

[BruceRDucer]

/


I'm just making sure that we don't feel justified in taking a human life, regardless.--Apex29

I'm just making sure that we don't feel justified in taking a human life, regardless.----Originally Posted by Apex29 .

Still, Apex 29, this reads mostly like a viewpoint not tending towards endorsement of self-defense.

First: Whether someone feels "justified" or not, is about personal feelings.

Second: One might argue that comments posted here involving personal "feelings" are public feelings; but the corrollary to that, is your proposition is that you are here to "make sure we" don't "feel justified. Actually, we are entitled to any "feelings" we choose, are we not?

(3) It doesn't look like a paying job, and unless you are endorsing political correctness, distinct from rights at law, it doesn't seem to make much sense to write:

I'm just making sure that we don't feel justified in taking a human life, regardless.--Apex29

/

 

[Apex29]

this reads mostly like a viewpoint not tending towards endorsement of self-defense.

Poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to convey is that it's not ok to take a life merely because the perp has broken into our home, as long as the perp is not presenting a threat. What I meant to say was that if the perp is subdued and compliant, turning him over to the authorities is sufficient.

If the perp is in any way, shape, or form presenting a threat, then certainly we must do whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat. But if he's kneeling on the ground, completely compliant, begging for his life and saying how sorry he is, I don't think he warrants being killed. And maybe no one else here does, either.

My question was simply that: a question. viz. do we feel justified in taking his life merely because he's broken into our house (with no other visible threat). You probably say "no." Others might feel differently.

Again, this has nothing to do with the article/case in question. As I said, I feel the man who shot the perp was entirely justified.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to convey is that it's not ok to take a life merely because the perp has broken into our home, as long as the perp is not presenting a threat. What I meant to say was that if the perp is subdued and compliant, turning him over to the authorities is sufficient.

Quite reasonable sitting at your desk in the privacy of your home. In real life 'subdued and compliant' takes on a different meaning. When holding a weapon on four persons that have demostrated they do not have your best interests at heart 'lunging' forward may consist of reaching to your crotch to scratch your privates.

When ordered not to move by an armed presences the reasonable person would assume that any movement would be a bad idea.

Do I feel the shooting was a good thing? No. Do I believe it justified? Yes. Do I approve? No, but I understand. The difference may be slight but it's important. The only pre-conceptions I use is faith that the jury that ruled the shooting justified had far more information than I do.

Selena

 

[TexasRifleman]

What I meant to convey is that it's not ok to take a life merely because the perp has broken into our home, as long as the perp is not presenting a threat.

The problem is that it's very hard NOT to perceive as a threat someone that has just broken into your home, no matter what he's doing.

 

[Zangetsu]

You know, a friend of mine was on a jury for a murder case a little while back. Two teenagers broke into some old guy's house to steal some cash after seeing him use an ATM. They tied and gagged him with his bedsheets before taking the money and going, only they tied/gagged him too hard and he suffocated. Sure, they didn't mean to hurt him, and they were only after a couple hundred bucks, but the result of their actions was that man losing his life, and receiving a conviction of murder 1.

This case isn't that different...the biggest difference is that the man had a gun to protect himself. If he was telling that kid to stay down at gunpoint, and the kid was stupid enough to get up, he deserved it. I can picture the scene, with the freaked out old man cornering 3 equally freaked out kids, when all of a sudden one of them decides that his balls are too big to do what he's told, gets up to mouth off, and catches it. The fact is, things could have gotten really ugly really quickly had he not pulled the trigger. Let's just say that the kid managed to trip him up/disarm him before they all escape, and in that trip he falls and breaks his hip; that's a very serious, traumatic injury that could eventually prove fatal, and that's from something as simple as pushing him over...let's not even get into what could have happened if those three tried to beat him while he was down.

I look at it this way...they screwed up the second they decided it would be a good idea to do a B & E for refreshments. Then after getting caught, they screwed up again by not listening to the man with the shotgun. I don't know what I would have done in his situation, but I know if I felt like my life was in danger, I wouldn't regret doing what I felt had to be done to protect myself, which is something I don't think anyone should have to apologize for.

 

[SCKimberFan]

as long as the perp is not presenting a threat. What I meant to say was that if the perp is subdued and compliant, turning him over to the authorities is sufficient.

When the 'perp' made movement toward the 62 yr old man (as was testified to), he was no longer subdued and compliant, therefore your argument has no merit. The gentlemen didn't trust the punks who broke into his house, he had no idea what the 'perp' had in mind, therefore, he felt threatened. In my mind, based on the information we have, yes he was justified in taking the actions he did.

 

[Jeff White]

Ok folks, 180+ posts and we're in the same circular discuss that we'll never settle because everyone has their own values. This discussion is over till the next time.

Jeff