PDA

View Full Version : Armed Citizen: Teen Shot by Homeowner


verti89
June 18, 2009, 04:37 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6485129.html

Local story here in houston. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Unfortunately there have been a rash of violent crimes here in Houston, although sadly most of them have been family related crimes. Also another example that a .22 can in fact be deadly.

Wildalaska
June 18, 2009, 04:44 PM
Hmmm...a poster story for the anti gun folks......

1. Homeowner shouldnt have confronted
2. If he felt the need to confront, he shouldnt have done it armed.

Manslaughter.

WildassumingallthefactsasindicatedinthestoryarecorrectAlaska ™

Tennessee Gentleman
June 18, 2009, 04:54 PM
Ken,
Joe Horn part deaux?

OuTcAsT
June 18, 2009, 04:57 PM
Homeowner shouldn't have confronted

While I agree, he should have called police and remained vigilant inside his home, it appears that he will not be charged. If this is the case he is lucky, indeed.

Manslaughter

Could be, quite easily.

MLeake
June 18, 2009, 05:01 PM
I believe he can legally confront and shoot on his own property. The issue gets murky if the property belongs to somebody else, as in the guy who shot the men who burglarized his neighbor's garage last year. But I'm pretty sure that under Texas law, the homeowner is ok, hence the referral to the grand jury without charges.

Based on the neighbor's statements about the recent rash of burglaries in their neighborhood, I find it unlikely a Texas jury would indict, or a Texas civil jury would find in favor of a plaintiff.

verti89
June 18, 2009, 05:01 PM
From what I understand this was in a neighborhood that was having a lot of trouble with crime. The guy found an apparent crackpipe so he isn't dealing with a Honor Society teen here. The kid was moving towards him. Those 3 things would lead me to believe he had reason to be concerned for his well being. He told the guy to leave at least twice and once with the rifle in hand. If I am holding a weapon and someone can clearly see it and STILL makes a move at me I am going to assume he is armed and prepared to do me harm.

This is all after the actual confrontation has taken place though so I am not real sure where I stand on that. Probably should have called police and stayed inside, but from what I understand that isn't actually required. IMHO I think the guy won't be charged with anything but could potentially face some civil suit.

"Hmmm...a poster story for the anti gun folks......"
I can't agree with that.

pacerdude
June 18, 2009, 05:05 PM
The homeowner is lucky he lives in Texas, where the castle doctrine covers his property as well. I wonder if the kid threatened him, or if the argument just escalated and he shot the kid on accident? Since he shot him in the abdomen, it sounds like he did not mean for it to be a fatal wound.

hogdogs
June 18, 2009, 05:07 PM
I am guessing the more broad texas law will call this a clean/good shoot.
Brent

MLeake
June 18, 2009, 05:12 PM
I would have called the police, if in the homeowner's situation. I'm not thrilled that he shot the crack-smoking 17 year old trespasser (not a kid, to my way of thinking - immature in this case, but I've known plenty of sailors and marines not much older). I wouldn't have wanted to escalate the situation to where I thought it necessary.

At the same time, I am quite happy with TX and GA allowing homeowners to defend their property. Property rights don't have much meaning if you are required to relinquish property to criminals because it's wrong to use force against criminals... and I don't think it's wrong to use force, although deadly force is definitely not the ideal starting point in the force continuum.

I suspect crime rates would be lower if criminals had more fear of homeowners actually using force against them; this appears to be borne out by the general drop in crime rates in states with shall-issue laws, and the relatively higher crime rates in cities like Chicago and DC.

Playboypenguin
June 18, 2009, 05:14 PM
I am not quite sure how I feel about this one yet. I can understand not being willing to hide inside your home with an aggressor on your property. You never know when they will come back if you allow them free reign. I do think calling the police would have been the ideal way to deal with this scenario, but I do understand that the police are often an hour away if you are lucky when stuff like this happens.

If the person who was shot did indeed return and then refuse to leave at gun point (even approaching the home owners at gun point) I will have little sympathy for them. That does not mean I support the idea of shooting him. It just means it is possible that a situation existed where I would support shooting him.

wickedrider
June 18, 2009, 05:17 PM
Realistically, a jury probably wouldn't convict. The homeowner found a crackpipe in the yard. Thus, an argument could be made that the dead young man was high on crack or really needed a crack "fix". Lay people don't know how a crack addict acts when he is high or when he is not and needs another rock.

This being said, it would have been better for the homeowner to have stayed inside his "castle" and call LEO's. This situation fits in the discussion thread of "Legal duty to retreat" v. Moral duty to retreat".

Hank15
June 18, 2009, 05:21 PM
I always feel bad when someone dies, but well delivered justice always neutralizes that feeling.

Can't say I feel bad for the "gangsta" this time though, he pretty much asked for it.

Hope the old man receives a fair trial.

Wildalaska
June 18, 2009, 05:28 PM
Can't say I feel bad for the "gangsta" this time though, he pretty much asked for it.

What makes you conclude he is a "gangsta?"

WildclairvoyanceAlaska ™

cloud8a
June 18, 2009, 05:31 PM
He should have called the cops and then the teen could have stayed in his yard all he wanted until the cops showed up and confiscated the crack pipe.

The story does not tell enough to know what happened. You do not know how the teen was acting, what he was saying, how he was moving. Was he just standing in the shooters front yard smoking crack in the shade. Was he lurking about? What was he doing there? Was he alone? There is not enough context to know what was going on at all. Therefore enormous speculation is happening here.

Tucker 1371
June 18, 2009, 05:45 PM
Well, when you tell someone to leave your property twice while pointing a gun at them and they walk towards you I think it's safe to say that waiting to see what they'll do when they get to you is NOT safe.

Given the rash of bruglaries in the area I think the old man was justified in confronting the kid.

Given the fact that the kid refused to leave, was not phased by having a rifle pointed at him, AND was moving toward the homeowner, he was justified in shooting.

Just calling it how I see it.

Mello2u
June 18, 2009, 05:51 PM
If I remember correctly, Texas may be unique among all of the states in that the law provides that a property owner may use deadly force to protect his/her property. This is, of course, in addition to being able to use deadly force in self-defense.
So the standard in Texas may be the lowest of all of the 50 states to justify the use of deadly force against someone on your property.

Cerick
June 18, 2009, 05:55 PM
Why would the teen walk towards and confront someone with a gun? Bad thinking on his part.

flyguyskt
June 18, 2009, 05:56 PM
i think the old guy should sue the crack monkeys family for post tramatic stress disorder.

i am a firm believer in you reap what you sew.

why shoud we as upstanding citizens cower in our homes while being victimized by thugs!


Cerick: Why would the teen walk towards and confront someone with a gun? Bad thinking on his part.

Answer: CRACK makes you think clearly?

Tucker 1371
June 18, 2009, 05:59 PM
Why would the teen walk towards and confront someone with a gun? Bad thinking on his part.

This why when someone does something stupid and we are trying to be sarcastic we ask them "are you smoking crack?!"... which very well could have been the case here, toxicology report anyone?

Wildalaska
June 18, 2009, 06:04 PM
i think the old guy should sue the crack monkeys family for post tramatic stress disorder.

i am a firm believer in you reap what you sew.

why shoud we as upstanding citizens cower in our homes while being victimized by thugs!


Excellent......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrah! Thump Thump!

:barf:

WildwhatsacrackmonkeybythewayAlaska ™

KLRANGL
June 18, 2009, 06:10 PM
why shoud we as upstanding citizens cower in our homes while being victimized by thugs!
I dont think staying inside while calling the police would be considered cowering inside...
I also dont think (considering the circumstances) that confronting someone trespassing on your property makes you a gung ho, shoot to kill, clean the gene pool, vigilante...
A toughie...

Any idea if it was a .22lr or something along the lines of a .223?

Donn_N
June 18, 2009, 06:17 PM
My question is how has this action benefited the shooter as opposed to staying inside and calling the police?

Vanya
June 18, 2009, 06:57 PM
My question is how has this action benefited the shooter as opposed to staying inside and calling the police?

And a good question it is... it'll probably benefit his attorney some, though. Even if he hasn't been charged at this point, he'd be foolish not to retain one.

rampage841512
June 18, 2009, 07:16 PM
Just reading the article...sounds like a good shoot.

As far as how this benefited the man who shot the guy...well, he doesn't have to worry about that particular alleged crackhead. And there is the added benefit of other criminals in the area knowing that he'll use deadly force if he fears for his life. It's not just an idle threat.

spacemanspiff
June 18, 2009, 07:21 PM
1. Homeowner shouldnt have confronted
2. If he felt the need to confront, he shouldnt have done it armed.
I disagree on at least half of that.
I bet almost everyone has confronted someone on their property, and asked 'What are you doing here? Selling Jesus? Subscriptions? Not interested, get off my property?"
A homeowner has every right to do just that. And if the person does not disperse, then you take it to another level. Start with determining if the person poses a threat, real or percieved? Are they displaying any kind of weapon or making any verbal threats or are they confrontational?
Then move on to your options, if there is no threat, call the police, tell them you have a trespasser who refuses to leave. If there is a threat, can you vacate to safety? If you are armed, can you deploy your own weapon prudently?
Should you go that route, and the person still advances on you while you are ordering them off at gunpoint, would it really be manslaughter if you pulled the trigger?

Come on Ken, do you honestly believe that while you are on your own property, you should not be armed while confronting a trespasser?

Wildalaska
June 18, 2009, 07:31 PM
Come on Ken, do you honestly believe that while you are on your own property, you should not be armed while confronting a trespasser?

Depends on the circumstances. Here the guy had already been told to leave and he came back. At that time, it should have been cover, conceal, cell phone as opposed to confront, conflict and fire........

The guy shouldnt have walked out with a rifle

Let me ask you....what would be the first response of a cop to this scenario......?

Sure as heck isnt going to be lethal force. Why should an untrained citizen be held to a lesser standard......

Why didnt the homeowner retreat...O yes I know, its his "property"....

WEildigotthelardreadyAlaska ™

Brian Pfleuger
June 18, 2009, 07:40 PM
Why should an untrained citizen be held to a lesser standard......

Curiously, I often hear that police should be held to a "higher standard". The implication, of course, being that an "untrained civilian" would indeed be held to a lower standard.

Secondarily, it would seem logical to me that lack of training would seem to imply a lower standard.


Should we otherwise hold everyone to the SAME standard? That would seem unreasonable considering the relatively formidable armament available to a trained police officer, starting with hand-to-hand, pepper spray, a baton, handcuffs, body armor and certainly a gun. A civilian may be excused for stepping up the response level, considering.

MLeake
June 18, 2009, 07:41 PM
First response of a cop would have been a verbal warning, followed by an attempt to use cuffs, followed by non lethal (pepper spray, taser, bean bag depending on equipment) followed by PR24, followed by firearm.

Depending on what the BG did, some of these steps might be skipped.

However, the homeowner in this case was a 69 year old man. I don't know any 69 year old patrol guys, though there are probably some someplace...

Whether it was wise of the homeowner to go outside, he did. It wasn't illegal, and it wasn't immoral for him to go outside. However, once he was out there, he lacked the capability the police have for graduated levels of response. He probably had no level available between verbal and firearm, suitable for dealing with a 17yo.

Donn_N
June 18, 2009, 08:31 PM
I bet almost everyone has confronted someone on their property, and asked 'What are you doing here? Selling Jesus? Subscriptions? Not interested, get off my property?"


Yes, but in this case, the shooter knew the guy was not selling Jesus or subscriptions and knew he was dealing with a drug user. Why risk a confrontation?

My original question stands. How has the shooter benefited by confronting and shooting someone to death as opposed to simply staying inside and calling the police?

easyG
June 18, 2009, 08:36 PM
I think the old guy should have went back inside his home and called the police.
And IF the crack-head tried to enter the home, then would be the time to shoot the crack-head.

Having said that, if I were on the jury I would not convict the old guy of any crime.

Hank15
June 18, 2009, 08:48 PM
Wildalaska,

I use the word "gangsta" pretty broadly, as I do with many other slang. Where I grew up, the term "gangsta" is used to describe any person acting as if he is part of a gang or are into that type of stuff. It's also used to describe people affiliated with activities involving gangs. Like I said, it's used to describe a broad range of people.

But to answer your question, I labeled him a "gangsta" because he is a 17 year old hispanic teenager with a crack pipe living in a less than desirable environment.

It's just a label. But if it bothers you, feel free to PM me and I'll gladly edit or remove it.

Double Naught Spy
June 18, 2009, 09:28 PM
1. Homeowner shouldnt have confronted
2. If he felt the need to confront, he shouldnt have done it armed.

That's funny. Every confrontation I have had with folks in the last 10 years, except my wife, has been armed. I am always armed when dealing with strangers, especially around my home. It has always struck me as silly those people who could carry, but don't, and then end up complaining about being unarmed at the time of an incident.

As for not confronting the crackhead, I see no reason to turtle up every time somebody does something on my property that I don't like. I see no reason to call the cops to handle such matters either when they are simple verbal exchanges...which the initial confrontation was, after which, the crackhead and homeowner apparently went their separate ways.

Let me ask you....what would be the first response of a cop to this scenario......?

Sure as heck isnt going to be lethal force. Why should an untrained citizen be held to a lesser standard......
Uh, because they aren't cops. Because as in this case, they are defending their own property and selves whereas the situation isn't the same for the cops. Because the cops are trained, carry all sorts of weapons, don't usually have to wait the 8-33 minutes (average 10.3 minutes 4 years ago) for a response to a priority 1 emergency call like citizens. When we call 911, the dispatcher decides how to rate the call and what response to send. When an officer calls for assistance (officer needs help), every local officer who isn't otherwise engaged will respond.

Why didnt the homeowner retreat...O yes I know, its his "property"....
There is no reason for the homeowner to have to retreat in Texas, legally or morally. It might be best tactically, however.

Trooper Tyree
June 18, 2009, 09:54 PM
When I read the first story the image painted in my mind was that of a 69 year old "grandfather" sort with "construction equipment" in his shop. So I'm thinking he's a pretty fit guy, I know people his age who are still working family construction companies and are pretty able bodied people.

After a bit of research on the subject however, and a lot of head shaking at the sensationalism that today's "news" feels compelled to use, I found that a 69 year old cancer patient who wheels about an oxygen tank "gunned down a teen". :rolleyes: Apparently 1 shot is considered "gunning someone down" nowadays. :confused:

From what I read, Mr Austgen confronted the young man breaking into his truck, teen left leaving his crack pipe on the truck, teen apparently then came back for his crack pipe, Mr. Austgen once again confronted him, told him to leave, teen approached Mr. Austgen then turned and walked away then turned and came at him again at which point Mr. Austgen fired a single shot into the young man. It's my understanding that Mr. Austgen was actually on his porch when he fired the shot. I do not know if Mr. Austgen's "confrontations" all occurred from the porch or not.

If any of this is correct which unfortunately we don't know because it's source is the news :barf: :rolleyes:
But if Mr. Austgen really is a 69 year old cancer patient on an oxygen tank
And Mr. Austgen really does reside in Texas

Then I'm going to have to say although I think it was a poor choice on Mr. Austgen part if he really is in the shape he is, to confront, I don't see Texas giving him any trouble over this. If he is in the physical shape reported, then I can see him being in legitimate fear of his life from the teen, particularly if he came at him after not responding to multiple orders to leave.

From the information available though, I don't know that it's possible to say good shoot/bad shoot. It's a pity that the news is such unreliable sensationalized lying croup anymore. It's one thing to make mistakes or report out of ignorance, but to deliberately twist and skew things to upset and provoke people is just yellow journalism. :mad:

The rifle shown being handled by the police in one news video was a bolt action .22.

OldMarksman
June 18, 2009, 10:02 PM
If I remember correctly, Texas may be unique among all of the states in that the law provides that a property owner may use deadly force to protect his/her property.

irrelevant here, I think, because the shooting occurred at 10:30 AM and the law that allows the use of deadly force to protect property in Texas applies only at night.

Texas does have a provision in the law that obviates the requirement to retreat in a self defense shooting. I think that is likely what was operative here.

None of us have enough information to really opine.

But--the fact of a current decision to not charge does not mean that he cannot be charged later. Best that the shooter stay mum and not give the authorities additional statements to use against him.

Double Naught Spy
June 18, 2009, 10:07 PM
Houston slow police response times blamed on all sorts of things such as training and manpower...
http://www.click2houston.com/news/7881025/detail.html
http://www.click2houston.com/news/4512431/detail.html
http://www.aframnews.com/html/interspire/articles/534/1/Houston-Police-Departments-New-Budget/Page1.html
http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/02/police-chief-defends-his-immigration-law-stance/ (claimed to be around 5 minutes here in 2008 by the chief)

I find this last citation a bit ironic given that it is claimed here...
http://dailyuw.com/2008/1/9/faster-stronger-smarter-police-force/
that the national average for major cities is 7 minutes and I just don't see Houston beating the national average given all of their previous problems. Even so, the claimed averages are from 5-10.3 minutes with many calls going way beyond that amount for emergency priority 1 calls.

Calling the police is just wishful thinking if you are expecting them to save your life in an immediate crisis. Most such events are over long before the cops ever arrive, not because the cops are doing anything wrong, but because of how the process works. There simply aren't enough well trained personnel to response to each an every priority 1 crisis in the small amount of time to actually effect the outcome of that crisis in a positive manner. Those cops don't exist because tax payers aren't willing to pay to have them and many folks would fear a police presence that powerful. A cop on every corner is almost what is needed only it would be extremely costly and create paranoia of a police state.

skydiver3346
June 18, 2009, 10:10 PM
Hey Hank,
That is exactly the description (Gangsta) I would give some crack head dirt bag like that (if they came at me in my own yard). I don't have a problem with calling it like it is. In fact, I might even think of harsher words than that.

You know what, with the way the economy is going down the tubes, layoffs, terminations, unemployment going through the roof, etc. I believe that we are going to start seeing a lot more of these type instances in the news. Peolple are getting sick of being screwed with, robbed, threatened, etc. and they are going to react to the situations. Maybe more forcefully than they normally would. Watch out. Its getting to be a really dangerous world out there for all of us....

Donn_N
June 18, 2009, 10:23 PM
Calling the police is just wishful thinking if you are expecting them to save your life in an immediate crisis. Most such events are over long before the cops ever arrive, not because the cops are doing anything wrong, but because of how the process works.


The shooter was not in an immediate crisis, so time was not the issue here. The shooter was secure in his home and decided to leave the security of his home and confront the BG.

If the shooting went down the way we think it did, I'm not saying the shooting was not justified, I'm simply saying that it was very poor judgment to confront someone that you know is a drug user who might be high and dangerous.

So now the shooter is worrying about whether or not he will be charged, he may be concerned about retaliation from the BG's buddies, he may be traumatized by having taken a life (I know that is a foreign concept to some, but it happens frequently) and God knows what else. Somehow I just keep missing the up side for this guy.

supergas452M
June 18, 2009, 10:34 PM
Insufficient evidence for me to make a meaningful judgement. If it went down the way Trooper Tyree described then its a justifiable shoot and I have no tears to cry for the 17 year old crackhead.

I can tell you this, If I find someone in my driveway breaking into my car, they will be confronted and I will be armed. Depending on the circumstances, I or my wife may have already or may be currently calling 911. If the BG decides to run away he will not be shot. I have no desire to hold a BG at gunpoint as I wait for police.

I can also tell you that if the criminal makes a move towards me while being confronted, he will be shot.

If the BG comes back to my house looking for his crack pipe and makes a move toward me he will be shot.

There are many different scenarios of how this confrontation could play out, those are for a different thread perhaps but one thing I'm not going to do is hide in my house while someone is breaking into my property.

Wild, I always see you lecturing others about use of their guns and in this instance your opinion is that this gentleman should be charged with manslaughter. You are wrong. Way wrong.

OH, give me a break here

Wildalaska
June 18, 2009, 10:40 PM
Another sticks and stones interchange

Carne Frio
June 18, 2009, 10:53 PM
Remember, this happened Texas. :D

Zilmo
June 18, 2009, 10:54 PM
Some of these "tough guy" responses remind me a lot of the young tuffy in that Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven. And then he puked his guts out.

supergas452M
June 18, 2009, 11:01 PM
Inappropriate personal noise - Nuked

GEM

Wildalaska
June 18, 2009, 11:09 PM
Response to noise

KLRANGL
June 18, 2009, 11:22 PM
I'm one of the good guys making my way through life in a F'ed up world You want to live the life of a coward, running and hiding, that's your choice. I choose to protect me and mine. No amount of chiding on your part is gonna change that. While you run for cover, I will attack. Maybe the life I save will be yours by some weird quirk of fate.
I fail to see how anything Wild said even implied what I quoted above...
Wild is smart, he plays the odds. Running outside and confronting a crack head increases the chances of an escalated situation. An escalated situation increases the chances of you being hurt or killed. Forget the legality, forget the morality, forget the bravado... Staying inside is just the smart call...

Unfortunately I cannot vouch that I'd follow my own advice, but I'd like to think that I would...

Donn_N
June 18, 2009, 11:34 PM
You want to live the life of a coward, running and hiding, that's your choice. I choose to protect me and mine. No amount of chiding on your part is gonna change that. While you run for cover, I will attack. Maybe the life I save will be yours by some weird quirk of fate.

Yes, or maybe the life you lose will be your own. Where will you and yours be then?

supergas452M
June 18, 2009, 11:44 PM
If I lose my life protecting me and mine, I'll be dead. My family knows my make up. They love me as I am. I'll take a death of bravery over a life of cowardice.

I don't look for trouble but if it finds me, I'm prepared to face it. I'm not Chuck Norris but I like his attitude.:cool:

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 12:08 AM
If I lose my life protecting me and mine, I'll be dead. My family knows my make up. They love me as I am. I'll take a death of bravery over a life of cowardice.


Explain the up side to you and your family if you die in a confrontation that could have been avoided.

supergas452M
June 19, 2009, 12:20 AM
Maybe you are confused? I'm not discussing upsides. The scenario we were discussing before we got off topic was this man that was protecting his home against a criminal and a druggie. The criminal not only refused to leave, he made a move on the homeowner. A fatal mistake. I fail to comprehend where the homeowner was at fault.

The "do not escalate" folks were not there and it was not their house and home. Maybe the old man was just tired?

Southern Rebel
June 19, 2009, 12:59 AM
To each his own. What is "morally right" to some may be repugnant to others. It is enough of a challenge to figure out what is "legally right". I look upon life as I would upon wine - quantity will never override quality and both life and wine are not infinite and will eventually be gone.

"A coward suffers many deaths - a brave man only one."

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Yeah, I am still bitterly clinging to my religion and my gunnypoo - whatever the heck that is supposed to be?????????

cloud8a
June 19, 2009, 01:06 AM
This is for WILDALASKA (His name ID said in that thriller movie trailer voice).

Philosophically I think most responsible gun owners agree with your opinions on SD situations. I have read some of your posts and do not see much fault in them.

BUT! why do you have to add ridicule and smack talk to what would normally be a decent philosophy? That seems to be a form of chest thumping as well. And is actually counter productive to the forum. If you take a good philosophy and smear it with poop no one is going to want to hear it. Everyone loses.

There is not enough information in the story to form a good opinion. In fact there is such little information this could be a scenario.

Hank15
June 19, 2009, 01:18 AM
A good guy killed a bad guy.

Why can't we just leave it at that?

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 01:18 AM
Maybe you are confused? I'm not discussing upsides. The scenario we were discussing before we got off topic was this man that was protecting his home against a criminal and a druggie. The criminal not only refused to leave, he made a move on the homeowner. A fatal mistake. I fail to comprehend where the homeowner was at fault.

I'm not confused. You clearly stated you would rather enter into a confrontation where you could be killed rather than appear to be a coward. I ask again, what is the upside to going into a confrontation and getting killed rather than avoiding that confrontation. I didn't really expect an answer and I wasn't disappointed.

If you cannot comprehend that it is better for an ill 69 year old man to avoid a confrontation with a known drug user by staying in his home and calling the police as opposed to voluntarily entering into a confrontation where he was forced to kill, I can't explain it to you. But I will ask this - what benefit did the shooter get from confronting and killing the BG?

cloud8a
June 19, 2009, 01:25 AM
WA seems to be war bickering. He jumps in with statements that immediately put people on the defensive before they can even think critically about the subject. This is not helpful.

I see him time and time again jump in and post THUMP THUMP THUMP.

Why should anyone listen to WA about being responsible gun owners if he cannot take responsibility for his aggressive posts?

this needs to be addressed. I do not disagree with his opinion on a lot of things but WA needs to bring it down a little. I am tired of a difference of opinion turning into tense conversation because WA busted onto the scene.

Sixer
June 19, 2009, 01:26 AM
Seriously Ken, what's your definition of a "good shoot"? You sit there and defend the tweeker while calling foul on the homeowner who was defending his property.

You are playing Monday morning quarterback. This fella had every reason to feel his life was in danger. He gave the kid fair warning... Should he have waited? Waited for the crack head to make another move? Would it have been ok to fire then?

This guy was well within his rights according to the law. I seriously doubt he WANTED to take a life and I seriously doubt that he was thumping his chest afterwards. The cracked out kid made the mistake, not the other way around. One less criminal to "rehabilitate"

Hondo11
June 19, 2009, 01:41 AM
There is no reason for the homeowner to have to retreat in Texas, legally or morally. It might be best tactically, however.

It really is that simple.

Wildalaska
June 19, 2009, 01:59 AM
this needs to be addressed. I do not disagree with his opinion on a lot of things but WA needs to bring it down a little. I am tired of a difference of opinion turning into tense conversation because WA busted onto the scene.

Thats what the report post button is for. I wont respond to the rest of your childishness, except as to note that if you cant stand the heat in the kitchen, don't plug in the waffle iron

Seriously Ken, what's your definition of a "good shoot"? You sit there and defend the tweeker while calling foul on the homeowner who was defending his property.

For the record, where I have I defended the decedant.......and calling him a tweaker based on the shooters allegation that he "found" a crack pipe is a bit much at this point....

Now...Defending his property? Where do you see that? He had a confrontation with a teenager and when the teenager came back, he CHOSE to escalate the situation by introducing a gun and coming out to confront the kid, when he could have called 911...he had no biz going out with a gun on a trespass!

This fella had every reason to feel his life was in danger.

really? Got some facts to support that?

This guy was well within his rights according to the law.

was he? Got some facts to support that?

I seriously doubt he WANTED to take a life and I seriously doubt that he was thumping his chest afterwards.

Now really...really:rolleyes:...got some facts to support that? On the other hand, can we infer that by coming out with a gun against (as we understand it) an unarmed teenager he wanted to do a bit more than stroke the kids hair...read the article (FWIW) carefully by the way as to the psychosocial circumstances in that neighborhood

One less criminal to "rehabilitate"

Thumpthumpthump...you were doing Ok until you pulled off the mask...

Sorry sport, I don't consider good shoots to be looking to go out and start confrontations while armed and then gunning down unarmed folks.......you have a gun, you are the one who is responsible for its use...thats an awesome responsibility that demands circumspection, maturity and being man enough to back down..

Thas right boys and girls...REAL MEN have enough confidence in themselves and enough honour to back down, to turn the other cheek if necessary...

Some of y'all need to stop staring so hard into the abyss.....

Lots of lives at stake, including your own...life aint white hats, black hats and high noon

WildandifimpissingyouoffowellatleastyouarethinkingaboutitAlaska TM

PS I hope that some of you never have to experience the heartbreak of your little Johnny playing teenage mailbox busting and having some codger blow him away over it...never mind, mailbox busters are criminals, evil and deserve to die....especially in Texas:rolleyes:

cloud8a
June 19, 2009, 02:21 AM
Well noted on the report button. As for my other CHILDISHNESS of course you wont respond because you do not know how to respond to the truth.

QUIT TALKING SMACK! give your opinion and leave it at that. No need for the sport and the other crap. QUIT IT WITH THE TRASH TALK!

teeroux
June 19, 2009, 03:28 AM
when he could have called 911...he had no biz going out with a gun on a trespass!

I think a person has every bizness going out the door to thier property with a gun especially on a tresspass above most other things. Also when you call the cops they sure don't show up with rubber chickens they pack heat. Even though in most instances the officer will never have to draw his weapon his presence with the weapon is mostly what threatens a person into submission.

Going out to your own property armed for a tresspasser isn't bloodlust chest pounding its a rightful threat of force.

This guy had a threat of deadly force and advanced on the owner anyways. The owner has to assume any conflict will be over his weapon and will be deadly.

The guy who was shot called bluff and he was wrong.

bamafan4life
June 19, 2009, 03:45 AM
Theres one more thug off the streets. thats all that matters id congratulate him but the rest of america has sissy'd up instead of cowboy'd up. i mean seriously a little thug is killed by a hard working american for treaspassing and threatining the guy? so the old man is the villian instead of the hero? get over your self's would you won't that kid walking the same streets with you and your family?

BillCA
June 19, 2009, 06:06 AM
Let's see here... we have 2 versions of the same story.

The OP described what appeared to be a simple tresspass with the teen leaving behind a crack pipe. Trooper's version says the teen was trying to B&E the homeowner's vehicle when he was confronted.

Fact: Homeowner is 69 years old.
IMO, whether he's on oxygen or reasonably fit and able bodied, he's still 69 years old. The body does not recover from trauma as easily, bones are more brittle and the body does not recover from organ damage very well.

Fact: The trespasser/attempted-thief is 17 years old.
Even if he is a habitual crack user, he is likely in much better physical shape than the homeowner. It is typically true that a 17 year old will be faster, more agile and think faster than the senior citizen too.

Fact: The neighborhood has had a rash of thefts and burglaries in recent weeks. This may have sensitized the area residents to the presence of strangers.

Fact: In one confrontation in the recent period a neighbor armed with a shotgun had a difficult time scaring away a burglar. This indicates that some of the criminal element is not easily dissuaded by armed confrontation.

Whether the initial confrontation was "wise" or "prudent", the fact remains that you're legally within your rights to tell a trespasser (or someone fiddling with your vehicle) to get off your property.¹ Trespass is a low-priority crime in most communities. Once the police are called, expect your call to be handled only when no other serious crimes are on the call-list for your area and surrounding beats where your beat officer might have to back-up another officer. That means response times between 15 minutes and 3 hours, if at all.

The teen was told to leave during the initial confrontation and the teen did leave. According to reports, after the confrontation, the elder man found a crack-pipe left behind by the trespasser. Now, whether in the yard or car, he found it on his property and is within his rights to hold or dispose of it.

The teen returned a second time. We do not have the exact sequence of events that unfolded. At some point, the senior armed himself with a .22 rifle. This may have been prudent -- we do not know the size of either man. An argument ensued² and the senior citizen ordered the teen to leave yet again. During this period, after being ordered to leave the propery, the teen started towards the senior citizen who had a rifle. We do not know if the senior citizen could have easily retreated in complete safety.

According to Trooper's report, the elder man used an oxygen tank to assist his breathing. This puts him at a serious physical disadvantage for obvious reasons.

We do not know the demeanor of the teen when he returned. However, having dealt with a few crack users myself and listening to local PD, it is less than likely that the teen returned and said "Golly, mister, I'm sorry to be annoying you once again, but I left a personal item behind that I would like to retrieve." It is likely the confrontation was tense and angry.

Given a 69 year old man with an oxygen tank to assist his breathing, he does not have a lot of easy mobility. Running any minor distance is probably very difficult. He's facing a teenager who is 4 times younger than he is. If the teen is of large stature, this furthers the disparity between the two.

Fact: The teen returned and apparenty initiated the 2nd confrontation³. He initially started to "walk away" but then, turned and "approached" the Senior from an unstated distance.

Thoughts:
Regardless of the prudence of either confrontation, the senior citizen was within his rights to tell the teen to leave. Telephoning the police would have been one way to handle the situation. But a low priority call for county sheriffs usually means a relatively long response time.

The largest gap here is the tone of the 2nd confrontation and the sequence of events. For instance, was the elder man inside his home talking through a loose screen door? Or on the front porch, rifle in hand?

The teen does not have to be physically imposing to be a serious threat to a 69 y/o on oxygen. But a "criminal-minded" teenager returning to trespass AND instigating a heated confrontation, THEN approaching a senior citizen holding a rifle, IMO, is a serious threat.

The teen is hostile, argumentative and undaunted by the presence of a firearm and he's decided to approach the elder man. That's not rational - most people would want to increase the distance between them an a gun wielding man. So he's hostile, argumentative AND irrational. Plus the senior is at a physical disadvantage in movement and physical stress.

I'm inclined to give the senior the benefit of the doubt here.

It seems to me that some (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/member.php?u=17974) of us (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/member.php?u=75449) are quick to question the wisdom of the elder man's choice to confront the teen and/or confront him whilst armed. Yet, there is no criticism of the youth's wisdom in confronting, arguing and then approaching an armed man on his own property. Nor of the teen's alleged possession of a crack-pipe. Or critical thinking of the disparity of force between the two men. There are several discussion threads about the dangers posed by an opponent who is up to 21 feet away being able to rush you before you can defend yourself. Yet, this danger is not even discussed, though it is relevant.

If threats were made by the teen during the initial trespass confrontation, then arming himself with the rifle may have been prudent for the senior citizen. The possession of the rifle, in theory, is to protect himself against attack, not to enforce his demands for the teen to leave. In this case, he believed the teens approach was a serious danger and used the rifle to stop that danger.†



¹ In fact, in some areas, police will not even respond to a trespass call until after you have told the person to leave.
²According to news reports.
 According to the original news article.
 I say criminal-minded in reference to Trooper's account of the teen attempting to B&E the vehicle.
† The evidence thus presented indicates as much. He fired only when the teen approached him. As opposed to taking a shot to "scare" the teen into leaving, or using multiple shots to kill the teen.

tmd11111
June 19, 2009, 06:47 AM
I may not have originated from Texas but Texas will be my home till I die.

Michael Anthony
June 19, 2009, 07:36 AM
Wild I'm usually with you, and I am on this one as well. We've seen too many situations develop into "self defense" scenarios when I would like to see what would have happened if the "victim" just called the police and kept watching TV. I would expect and respect him telling the guy to get lost the first time, but when its clear he isn't listening, why not call for help and finish your dinner?

Most harassment, repeated trespassing, and verbal threat related incidents stem from BOTH parties engaging in general obnoxiousness. If the guy had never gone outside, the kid never would have gotten killed. End of story.

If he still isn't charged by the end it would definitely go into the "moral vs. legal duty to retreat" bin. It becomes a classic case of a homeowner waiting for an opportunity to shoot someone.

I will throw one monkey-wrench into our viewpoint though (and BillCA did throw a few good ones as well). Police officers in many areas are trained to expect guns when they see drugs. This could extend to paraphernalia. Applying this logic could become part of defense to the actual shooting.

Elvishead
June 19, 2009, 07:44 AM
verti89


"Local story here in houston."

"although sadly most of them have been family related crimes."

Enough said!

Is this new?

BillCA
June 19, 2009, 07:51 AM
We've seen too many situations develop into "self defense" scenarios when I would like to see what would have happened if the "victim" just called the police and kept watching TV. I would expect and respect him telling the guy to get lost the first time, but when its clear he isn't listening, why not call for help and finish your dinner?
Do you have much experience with crack users or meth users? Unpredictable bunch. I would never, as you said, "just called the police and kept watching TV" or finishing my dinner.

Perhaps your "gist" was to just dial 911 and wait for the infantry to arrive. The problem is that when some of these folks feel "wronged", they can go to great lengths to get even. Including throwing things through your windows or setting fire to your house. I suspect it's likely he accused the older man of "stealing" his crack pipe and made threats about getting it back, but that is only supposition.

TailGator
June 19, 2009, 08:01 AM
I am not in favor of executions or vigilantism, but if you read between the lines of the story, there are some things in the homeowner's favor.

First, his reason for confronting the trespasser - there was a history of recent thefts in the neighborhood ("burglars have taken all-terrain vehicles, tools, bicycles, and navigation and stereo equipment") and the homeowner had a shop or shed at his home where he stored "construction equipment." It isn't clear whether he is talking about backhoes or circular saws, but he certainly had an interest in protecting the equipment that he used to make a living, and it is understandable that he might exercise that interest by confronting a trespasser and potential thief.

Secondly, as has been brought out by a couple of previous posts, the teen responded to being ordered off the property by an armed homeowner by advancing on the property owner. That would seem to be a clear escalation and threat.

Certainly things could have been done better; most especially he should have called 911 at the beginning rather than at the end of the episode. But I just read another thread in which the police responded to a report of a thief brazenly stealing car parts in the driveway of a man's car with the owner standing there watching by promising to be there in thirty minutes. And I personally recently waited an hour and forty minutes for a response to a car accident after being rear-ended at a railroad crossing.

I know our LE agencies are overworked and undermanned and underfunded, and I don't blame them, but the inevitable result of slow response when people's lives, homes, and livelihoods are threatened are that they will act to protect their interests. If, as a society, we are going to abrogate the government's role in protecting its citizens, we must accept that they will protect themselves. In a certain way, we seem to be going backward to the situation that caused our founding fathers to call for citizens to arm themselves and participate in their own protection.

Double Naught Spy
June 19, 2009, 08:10 AM
A good guy killed a bad guy.

Why can't we just leave it at that?

Because it isn't ever that simple.

If the shoot wasn't legal, this it is not a matter of a good guy shooting a bad guy, but a bad guy shooting a bad guy.

If the shoot was legal, good for the homeowner.

Some are arguing that this shoot was at worst illegal and at best immoral and that regardless of the legalities, the homeowner was wrong.

Personally, other people's morals are for other people. They often like to inflict them on others in claiming moral high ground as justification and throwing out insults or mockery as a way of trying to bolster the appearance of the position being right, but such tactics don't actually make the position any more right and are actually rhetoric/argument fallacy of ad hominem.

The position being taken is that if you take the perspective of the homeowner being in the right, you are a chest thumper - which is in the connotation of being a negative attribute. You are a chest thumper not because the home owner's decision to act was necessarily illegal, but because certain people feel he acted wrongly as per their standards and hence anyone who doesn't agree gets the negative entitlement.

skydiver3346
June 19, 2009, 08:12 AM
Sort of gotta agree with cloud8a on his comments. I respect you Wild and usually agree with you. But you did poop on the guy pretty badly. Let's all be nice....

Double Naught Spy
June 19, 2009, 08:17 AM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6487500.html
Neighborhood fears flare up
Tension over race and crime rise to surface after teen’s killing
By MOISES MENDOZA
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
June 18, 2009, 10:28P

Meannine Orr moved to a street called Susanna Lane in north Harris County to get away from it all nine years ago.
But in the last few months, the 76-year-old has been too afraid to leave her home in this place people call Heidi’s Crossing, a leafy neighborhood with tidy mobile homes.
“It’s those people over there,” Orr said Thursday gesturing a street over toward Jimbo Lane. “They need to leave our neighborhood.”
A shooting a few houses down from Orr Wednesday morning created a frenzy of fear here, pitting neighbor against neighbor and leaving residents afraid to leave their houses.
Police say 69-year-old Dwayne Austgen shot Vidal Herrera after the 17-year-old confronted Austgen at his house in the 5500 block of Susanna Lane.
The case will likely be presented to a grand jury once authorities are done investigating, but Austgen has not been charged with a crime.
Herrera lived within walking distance on Jimbo Lane — known among some in the area as the “Hispanic street.” Austgen lives on a mostly Anglo street.
On Susanna Lane, many say Austgen was just protecting himself from a bad apple who wanted to rob him.
On Jimbo Lane, some believe the shooting has roots in racial tension.
• • • •
One thing most agree on: It was a matter of time before something went wrong here.
Over the last few months, burglars have hit a raft of cars and houses on Susanna Lane.
Many neighbors point to Herrera. They say he had a bad heart and stole things with friends.
Janie Witcher, for instance, suspects the boy took her sons’ bikes.
A neighbor once pulled a gun to scare him away, but Herrera just laughed, she said.
Said Heather Koenig, 24, who moved here about two years ago: “When I moved here they told me it should be called ‘The Devil’s Crossing,’ not Heidi’s Crossing.”
One day, Koenig said, she found her two dogs had been poisoned and killed but she’s not sure who did it.
Herrera had been bugging Austgen lately, despite the fact that the man is feeble and sometimes needs oxygen to breathe, neighbors said.
So with her street’s history in mind, Witcher believes Austgen was defending himself Wednesday.
“I mean we were all terrified of those kids, even my husband is terrified,” said Witcher, who lives with her four children, a grandchild and her husband.
A woman who identified herself as Austgen’s wife at his home said the shooting was a “tragedy and we’re sorry it had to happen.” She said her husband didn’t want to speak to the media.
• • • •
On Jimbo Lane, Herrera’s family put on black ribbons Thursday as the boy’s mother, Evelia Herrera, sobbed on the front porch and tried to plan a weekend funeral.
Her son — her only son — was a good boy, she said.
He cooked food for her and dreamt of being a mechanic.
Herrera was in the ninth grade but he wasn’t involved in drugs and he never stole things, family members said.
“It’s not right, it’s not right,” said his sister, Marisa Peralta, 20. “I don’t know why my brother was over there, but I know for sure he wasn’t bad. He was probably just defending himself.”
There’s been tension in this neighborhood between the whites and Hispanics for a long time, said Peralta.
“They say we’re bad people but it’s not true,” Peralta said. “The people over there always tell us bad things and call us names.”
Names like “wetback” said Angel Hernandez, a 12-year-old who lives on Jimbo Lane.
Once, the boy said, he got in a fight with people here because they called him names.
Most people on Jimbo Lane long ago learned it’s best to stick to themselves. That’s what Valentin Ramos does.
“We don’t really go out, we just stay in our house. There’s always extremists of every race, and I don’t have a problem with anyone here,” said Ramos, a preacher who’s lived here for about five years.
A sergeant in the Sheriff’s Office district which oversees the neighborhood said he didn’t think the neighborhood had unusual problems. He referred further comment to a detective investigating the shooting who did not return messages.
• • • •
Witcher said the race issue is a red herring. What matters, she said, is the fear her neighborhood has been under for months.
“It doesn’t matter if he was black, white or purple, everyone knew what this kid was doing,” she said.
This weekend Witcher plans to send her children away from the neighborhood. Orr said she’ll lock herself in her house, like she does every day.
“I don’t go out, I don’t talk to them over there,” she said. “I’m afraid.”

So we get the usual argument of the dead person being a good kid, never involved in anything bad, etc. and also that he is a 17 year old 9th grader. If correct, that makes him a very OLD 9th grader. Something isn't right.

His picture is at the link above. He isn't a small, withered crackhead by any stretch. He looks to be in good shape.

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 08:27 AM
Perhaps your "gist" was to just dial 911 and wait for the infantry to arrive. The problem is that when some of these folks feel "wronged", they can go to great lengths to get even. Including throwing things through your windows or setting fire to your house. I suspect it's likely he accused the older man of "stealing" his crack pipe and made threats about getting it back, but that is only supposition.


It almost sounds as if you're advocating shooting someone for what they might do in the future.

The simple fact is that the shooter was safe in his home. Whether it took the police 3 minutes or 3 hours to arrive, he was not in any danger until he decided to leave the safety of his home and confront someone much younger who was likely high on crack.

Now someone is dead. The shooter may be charged with a crime. The BG may have friends who want to get even and the police probably have the shooter's gun. The homeowner may be suffering psychologically from having taken a life. For the life of me, I'm still not seeing any benefit for the shooter.

tmd11111
June 19, 2009, 08:30 AM
The lesson learned here should be..
Crack Kills

OldMarksman
June 19, 2009, 08:32 AM
I can also tell you that if the criminal makes a move towards me while being confronted, he will be shot.


How would you articulate that your action had been immediately necessary?

KingEdward
June 19, 2009, 08:37 AM
if I read the story right...

person trespassed onto homeowner's property with illegal drug device

person was asked to leave and he did leave.

person left his illegal drug device.

person came back angry wanting his illegal drug device

person was told to leave and chose to confront the homeowner.

The homeowner feared the drug user as he came towards him so the homeowner protected himself.

Can't criticize him.

Well, except for those who say they would have stayed inside and called police.

That was an option but I think the homeonwner was consistent and
the trespassing drug user is the aggressor here.

verti89
June 19, 2009, 08:41 AM
Well after reading all the comments and doing some more searching around. There still is not a whole lot of details that I can find. BUT I did read that another neighbor claims they confronted this same kid with a gun and he laughed at them. The neighborhood had had a varying degree of crime including dogs being poisoned etc. There also seems to be a good deal of racial tension in the area, and of course the family claims their boy was an angel. The sister said something like I dont know what he was doing over there but he was probably just defending himself. What? well even if he was defending himself, he wouldn't have had to if he hadn't been trespassing.

After some time thinking about it I still find myself about where I was yesterday when I first read it. If I see anyone I do not recognize on my property (a average house in a quiet neighborhood), and who is not obviously a cable guy type, I am going to make sure I have my pistol in hand and, without displaying the pistol, ask them what they are doing. If I catch the person already engaged in some sort of mischief, breaking into my car or garage, I am calling the cops first, then probably yelling out that the cops have been called and watching from inside. HOPEFULLY the guy runs off without taking anything. How I react if I see him taking something depends on what it is he is taking and honestly I don't know how I would react. I think the best thing would be to just let him have whatever it is he is taking and then go from there, and really anything outside my home isn't worth getting into a confrontation with someone over.

HOWEVER, one I am a 25 year old in reasonable condition not a 70 year old oxygen tank toting gramps. Two I am not a frustrated citizen who has been taking it from the BGs for some time. That DOES change things. On one hand the guy is 69 and should have the sense to not confront a 17 year old. On the other I can understand an older man being tired of being disrespected and going out to yell at the young man. Once that decision was made a second time it would have been foolish NOT to go out with some sort of weapon. (Im not saying this was the right decision, just saying confronting someone, especially for a second time, unarmed is an even worse decision)

It would appear at this point that we know the young man was unarmed, but there is no way the shooter would have known this. AND if you suspect a guy is a crackhead AND he has returned after being told to leave AND he decides to come back at you after seeing your gun, I think it would be downright foolish NOT to assume he was armed.

I feel for the young mans family, but I also don't begrudge the old man for anything. Would I have probably stayed inside, yes, would it have been better if he stay in side, probably. But the way I look at this, he didn't shoot the young man for trespassing or even stealing. He confronted him verbally for these things, and shot the young man only when the young man started walking towards him while he was clearly armed, thereby giving him reason to fear for his own safety.

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 08:51 AM
He confronted him verbally for these things, and shot the young man only when the young man started walking towards him while he was clearly armed, thereby giving him reason to fear for his own safety.


If that's the way it happened. I'm not claiming it didn't. I'm just saying there don't appear to be any witnesses and no security cameras to contradict the story.

skydiver3346
June 19, 2009, 08:53 AM
Its starting to get to me a little when I read about all these shootings lately. In most every single case, the bad guy who gets shot ends up being the "victim" for some reason. In not one of these incidences did I see or read where the good guys started ANYTHING. They were minding their own business (either working or at home) and the thugs either came in brandishing a weapon and making threats or came on the personal property of the "real victim" and somehow threatend them, etc.

Sure, maybe the good guys sometimes over reacted but none of us where there and in "their shoes" at the time. Also, who is to say that they really over reacted anyway. We know what we read in the paper or see on some video that is not 100% totally convincing. Sometimes just calling the police (as a lot of you have suggested) is not always the best solution. Especially if law enforecement is a long ways off at the time or location.

Bottom line: If you start something and/or engage in a criminal activity against law abiding citizens, "then you will have to face the consequences for your actions and decisions", Period!

hogdogs
June 19, 2009, 09:05 AM
got some facts to support that
GEEZ!!!
I seriously doubt he WANTED to take a life and I seriously doubt that he was thumping his chest afterwards.
Now really...really...got some facts to support that? On the other hand, can we infer that by coming out with a gun against (as we understand it) an unarmed teenager he wanted to do a bit more than stroke the kids hair...read the article (FWIW) carefully by the way as to the psychosocial circumstances in that neighborhood
Come da heck on! Even the most liberal jewish kid from New York city wouldn't say this and also own a gun shop!
we go out of our safe spot with a gun because we do not know if we need it or not! We do not grab the gun thinkin' "I GITS TO KILLZ ME SOME IDIOT" I have never fired on a person knockin on my door but better than a hundred have seen my weapon as I decided it best to be prepared than unarmed!
Brent

Zilmo
June 19, 2009, 09:06 AM
I shoot at everybody that comes in my yard.

verti89
June 19, 2009, 09:13 AM
Why does this one guy keep talking about how did the shooter benefit from the situation? Since when do good guys shoot bad guy for some sort of benefit? Again you have to look at this situation as two seperate incidents. The young man was trespassing and potentially stealing from him, so by confronting him he stood to 'benefit' by not having his crap stolen. Then the young man caused him to fear for his life so he fired. I suppose you could say he benefitted by not getting potentially beat to death.

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 10:11 AM
Why does this one guy keep talking about how did the shooter benefit from the situation? Since when do good guys shoot bad guy for some sort of benefit?


I keep talking about it, because it is relevant. If there is no benefit to confronting and shooting the BG and there are definite drawbacks, why would you do it?

I mean think about your usual day. How many times during the day do you intentionally act in such a way that the most likely outcome will be to your detriment? Rarely, if ever. Why should this situation be any different?

I don't understand the mindset that says, I must go out and confront this crackhead when the predictable negative results will far outweigh any positive results.


The young man was trespassing and potentially stealing from him, so by confronting him he stood to 'benefit' by not having his crap stolen. Then the young man caused him to fear for his life so he fired. I suppose you could say he benefitted by not getting potentially beat to death.


But do the "benefits" outweigh the drawbacks?

verti89
June 19, 2009, 10:21 AM
That is a matter of opinion, and as I stated before none of us can say exactly what we would do in a similar situation unless we have been in it already. Nor can we even then say what we would have done in his exact same position. When he confronted him initially the benefit did outweigh the potential downside because at that time the only assumed downside was losing whatever the perp took. When he confronted him the second time the benefit did not outweight the reasonable outcome, BUT how do we know the perp would not have escalated the situation on his own, obviously there is a gap between not waiting long enough and waiting too long. But when the decision was made to fire, it was because the perp was approaching him. At THAT point the benefit of living DOES outweigh the cost of potentially killing the perp.

cloud8a
June 19, 2009, 10:36 AM
Sounds to me this kid was turning into a little Ken McElroy. Anyone remember who he was and what happened to him?

I still would have called the cops and maybe then went outside just to keep him talking garbage in my yard. He would be there when the cops pulled up and then placed in jail. After that though there would probably be retaliation to deal with from the teen and his buddies. Who knows when it would come.

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2009, 10:54 AM
After that though there would probably be retaliation to deal with from the teen and his buddies. Who knows when it would come.

Exactly ! This is why the homeowner did the right thing, instead of cowering "safely" inside his home, and waiting on police like a coward, he charged outside and protected his property!

And now those thugs Know that this guy means business. I'll bet they will think twice before trying any retaliatory strike on this old oxygen-deprived patriot.

:rolleyes:

verti89
June 19, 2009, 11:01 AM
I just have to say I don't think staying inside and waiting for the police should be automatically classified as cowering and being a coward. I mean going Clint Eastwood with your vintage garand is not always the best decision.

Shadi Khalil
June 19, 2009, 11:10 AM
A few years back a friend of mine was leaving my house after a skins game and got jumped by three teenagers. He ran back to the house and my roommates some other friends and I came out and confronted the assailants. They stood in our yard cursing and yelling, there were shoves and punches thrown but once one of the girls let the dog out they left. A few hours later, my GF and I were smoking on the front porch when two of them showed back up in our lawn, cursing and threating us. Then one of them pulled out a knife and began waving it around. I shoved my GF in the door, locked it and my roommates called the police.

Now when this happened I was armed and the one waving the knife was about 20 feet away from me. I never once thought of pulling my gun or even sweeping my shirt over to be ready. My first thought was to get the girl through that door and to lock it. If I had remained outside allowing the situation to escalate and the knife wielder was shot as a result, I would have been fully responsible for that boys life.

From the facts we have, the old man was already safe inside his house. He was obviously armed and able to defend himself. He had access to a phone and from what I read its a high crime neighborhood so chances are a unit was near by. Age is not a factor here since HE confronted the boy the second time.

Also, I'm not buying the whole crack pipe story. I'm just basing that on my gut.

verti89
June 19, 2009, 11:20 AM
Yea I agree that the pipe should be pretty easy to produce and would help his story. The fact that there hasn't been much of an official statement yet is somewhat shady. Also from what I have read a neighbor tried to stop the bleeding, so did that neighbor witness and immediately run over, or just hear the shot (who goes outside after hearing a gunshot??). Maybe more details will come out but it sounds like most of us can agree that the older man probably SHOULD have stayed in side the disagreement is coming in whether he committed a crime or not. I personally do not think he did legally. Morally, well I can't judge another mans actions based on my morals, that is up to the man upstairs.

john in jax
June 19, 2009, 11:50 AM
The Castle Doctrine is a wonderful bit of legislation.

2 men argued - - one man decided to escalate by advancing - - he died. The dead could have chosen to leave, diffusing the situation. He could have simple sat on the ground in an un-threatening manor. He could have made any number of decision, but he made the conscious choice to advance on what appeared to be a frail old man and got shot for it - - I've got no problem with the shooting - a moron made a idiotic decision to advance on a guy with a gun and got himself removed from the gene pool, that outcome is preferable to me than the old man becoming a victim.

I'm not advocating that you go around armed and confronting people, but if you are acting legally (and apparently he was) and are threatened by an individual (as reported) then I believe you should be able take any and all steps you feel you need to in order to defend yourself.

Shadi Khalil
June 19, 2009, 11:58 AM
I swear if I here the words "good/bad guy" again.....:barf:

he charged outside and protected his property!

So a truck is more valuable to you then human life? That's too bad.

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 12:28 PM
I'm not advocating that you go around armed and confronting people,
but if you are acting legally (and apparently he was)


So it is okay to go around armed and confronting people as long as it legal, regardless of the potential outcome.


and are threatened by an individual (as reported) then I believe you should be able take any and all steps you feel you need to in order to defend yourself.


Excluding, apparently, just staying inside which would have been the best way to defend himself.

Just because you are acting legally, doesn't mean you are acting prudently or reasonably.

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2009, 12:28 PM
I just have to say I don't think staying inside and waiting for the police should be automatically classified as cowering and being a coward.

Nor do I, Did you see the little smiley guy on my post?

he charged outside and protected his property!
So a truck is more valuable to you then human life? That's too bad.

Again I reference the little smiley guy rolling his eyes. :rolleyes:


The old man was wrong to go outside his home and confront the second time around. Stay inside, call 911, and protect your life from inside, while he likely will be legally OK, His decision is the reason this escalated to a shooting.

Wildalaska
June 19, 2009, 12:34 PM
Sounds to me this kid was turning into a little Ken McElroy. Anyone remember who he was and what happened to him?


:rolleyes:

Why wait till they are teens...lets start executing bullies in 2nd grade:rolleyes:

The bloodthirstyness I see among gun owners is scary.

WildmaybeitscuzimolderAlaska ™

Shadi Khalil
June 19, 2009, 12:42 PM
Again I reference the little smiley guy rolling his eyes.

Missed that the first time, sorry.

;)

verti89
June 19, 2009, 12:42 PM
"So a truck is more valuable to you then human life? That's too bad."

Again he didn't shoot him for trying to steal his truck, he shot him for coming at him.

Shadi Khalil
June 19, 2009, 12:49 PM
The bloodthirstyness I see among gun owners is scary.


I think allot of it is fear based. It comes off as chest thumping bravado, all this talk of "defending me and mine", but anyone who would shoot a boy for being on their property is a very frightened individual. When it comes down to it, thats what it was. It was not an armed person, not a gang of home invaders, nope, just one boy and an alleged crack pipe. How that warrants a death sentence and how people come to that conclusion is beyond me.

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 12:58 PM
Again he didn't shoot him for trying to steal his truck, he shot him for coming at him.


But he went outside while displaying a weapon to confront the teen why? Not for coming at him since he was in no danger until he left the safety of his home to confront the teen and escalate the situation.

So let's take a look at the pros of going outside:
Possibly will prevent some type of theft.

Now the cons:
Possible injury or death to self
Possible escalation to the point of having to kill someone
Possible criminal charges up to and including murder
Possible retaliation either by the teen (if he hadn't been killed) or his buddies
Possible civil suit
Possible bankruptcy defending criminal and/or civil case
Possible psychological trauma brought on by killing or maiming someone
Possible confiscation of gun by police
Possible escalation of tension and bad blood in an already tense neighborhood

I'm sure I missed some, but you get the idea. Now tell me again why going outside was such a grand idea. I'm still not seeing it.

verti89
June 19, 2009, 01:01 PM
I never said it was a great idea, in fact said it was a bad idea, but it wasn't a crime.

Also a 17 year old is much closer to a man than a boy. He was definitely more physically capable than the old man. Let's not label this kid a child killer just yet.

I am not saying the guy was making the bst decisions in what he did, or even justified. But I don't think he should be condemned either.

Playboypenguin
June 19, 2009, 01:10 PM
No one on here can accuse me of being bloodthirsty. I am far from a raging loon looking for trouble. However, I would not sit in my home and allow a tweeker to damage or destroy my property. I work very hard to have the things I have and I am not going to lose them because some people think I should take the high road when confronted by someone with no regard for me or the things I own.

I would never walk out with an exposed firearm but I would confront the perp immediately after calling police if he was actively engaging in the act of destroying my property (if he is just standing in the street or yard yelling I can ignore that). At that time I would then only use whatever force was appropriate to the situation. If that only included standing between him/her and my personal property or maybe saying "get the hell out of here before I kick your a**" that is where it would stop. if the perp then decided to escalate events to the point here he was a threat to my life I would then respond accordingly.

Rich Miranda
June 19, 2009, 01:10 PM
Someone who won't leave your property is a trespasser, especially if they aren't armed. Trespassing equals a fine and maybe a few days in jail, not the death penalty.

Also, why weren't the police called after the first incident?

The homeowner may benefit from his reputation as a grandfatherly-type, however.

Finally, who's to say that the teen made any move whatsoever toward the homeowner? We only have one side of the story. Maybe gramps got tired of arguing and offed the kid.

Brian Pfleuger
June 19, 2009, 01:14 PM
I work very hard to have the things I have and I am not going to lose them because some people think I should take the high road when confronted by someone with no regard for me or the things I own.

While I understand and agree with that sentiment, that's why I have insurance. I wouldn't "lose" anything, in fact in some ways the thug would be doing me a favor, since my insurance is full replacement cost I'd be getting newer, better stuff for "free".

Playboypenguin
June 19, 2009, 01:16 PM
While I understand and agree with that sentiment, that's why I have insurance. I wouldn't "lose" anything, in fact in some ways the thug would be doing me a favor, since my insurance is full replacement cost I'd be getting newer, better stuff for "free"
I hate to break this to you, but insurance isn't free and rates go up and coverage is lost when you actually file a claim. If I let someone trash my car, I might just have to pay a deductible right now but I will be paying for it for a long time to come. That money comes out of my pocket. Why should I just allow someone to take money out of my pocket without any resistance?

Shadi Khalil
June 19, 2009, 01:17 PM
I work very hard to have the things I have and I am not going to lose them because some people think I should take the high road when confronted by someone with no regard for me or the things I own.

I just think its allot easier to just call the cops and let them know you are doing so. I would never get between a tweaker and anything.

Playboypenguin
June 19, 2009, 01:20 PM
I just think its allot easier to just call the cops and let them know you are doing so. I would never get between a tweaker and anything.
I guess that is where we differ.

Just the other night I had to chase off a local street person who slipped into our building at 11:30pm and tried to walk out with a bunch of tools. Should I have just stepped out of his way and called the police as he walked off with thousands of dollars worth of tools?

cloud8a
June 19, 2009, 01:40 PM
WILDALASKA
"The bloodthirstyness I see among gun owners is scary."

THUMP THUMP WA is talking smack again. Has done nothing for this thread. War Bickering. Can't make his point.

TRASH TALKING AGAIN!

KLRANGL
June 19, 2009, 01:42 PM
Just the other night I had to chase off a local street person who slipped into our building at 11:30pm and tried to walk out with a bunch of tools. Should I have just stepped out of his way and called the police as he walked off with thousands of dollars worth of tools?
It probably would have been the smart play (especially if they werent your tools), as you are guaranteed that the situation wouldn't escalate.
But I cant fault you in the least, as I would have probably done the same thing. Life is full of risks.

Playboypenguin
June 19, 2009, 01:46 PM
THUMP THUMP WA is talking smack again. Has done nothing for this thread. War Bickering. Can't make his point.
No, he has made a point. The notion that people can go guns blazing over property is a pretty sad one. It sickens me a little to hear it come out of the mouths of supposedly responsible gun owners. I never fail to be amazed at the number of bloodthirsty attitudes among civilized people. IMHO the "if you mess with me I will blow you away" attitude is just cause to remove a persons guns from them in itself.

Where my opinion differs is that I do not believe I am precluded from lower levels of defense of my personal property simply because the possibility of escalation is present. Escalation will be up the the aggressor. I would not place my self in a situation of being the aggressor. I would simply respond to the immediate threat with appropriate measures.

If I was in a public place where the only stake I had in the encounter was my person and my pride I would simply take both of those and retreat if possible...but on my own property, were I cannot remove the threat of loss from the equation simply by leaving the scene, things are different. I will not accept that I am required to lay down and take some loss simply because of risk of greater loss if I do not acquiesce to the will and actions of an outside aggressor.

Brian Pfleuger
June 19, 2009, 01:46 PM
I hate to break this to you, but insurance isn't free and rates go up and coverage is lost when you actually file a claim.

I know, and I would have tried to stop the kid but I wouldn't have shot him absent an obvious deadly threat. My insurance is of the renters variety and, as such, is miniscule in cost. Regardless, I would not kill over property. In NY state it would be entirely legal to use lesser degrees of force to stop and/or apprehend the thug, and I would do so. There aren't many 17 year old kids that I'd be very worried about in a fist fight, for example. If I was worried, I have more than one neighbor that would be happy to help me even the odds.

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 01:48 PM
That money comes out of my pocket. Why should I just allow someone to take money out of my pocket without any resistance?


Shall I list the pros versus cons again? They may not all apply to you given the different neighborhood, but most of them will.

The relatively small increase that might accompany a claim is worth your life or the life of someone else? So now we can kill someone because not doing so might increase our insurance costs? I guess I should put that into the the pros column: shooting someone will keep insurance costs down.

Playboypenguin
June 19, 2009, 01:53 PM
I know, and I would have tried to stop the kid but I wouldn't have shot him absent an obvious deadly threat.
Neither would I...but I would have stood between him and my property until police arrived. Whether it went further than that would be up to him.
Shall I list the pros versus cons again? They may not all apply to you given the different neighborhood, but most of them will.
Simple pros and cons are not applicable in such situations. You have to also weigh percentages. If someone is going to beat me up I can say if I just take the beating I will probably not die, but if I fight back I might cause him to pull a gun and shoot me...or I can look at it the proper way and say the odds of him pulling a gun are small, but the odds of me receiving a beating are 100% if I do not protect myself.

As long as a person understands their rights, acts accordingly to the threat presented, and does not needlessly escalate a situation beyond the threat actually presented there is nothing wrong with defending yourself.

Zilmo
June 19, 2009, 01:59 PM
The willingness of so many people to enter into an armed conflict over trivial matters scares the **** out of me. Answering the door with a gun in your hand? Maybe at 3:00 in the morning, but geez. Looking to shoot someone who twitches? Give me a break.

I simply can't imagine living in the perceived fear that some people here demonstrate. My god, how can life be any fun at all if you are always jumping at shadows? Is there a bad guy under every bush? Does the pizza delivery man scare you into getting your guns out?

Texas Rifleman
June 19, 2009, 02:00 PM
I from Texas and my family has been in the state for four generations. You have to understand the cultural difference. In many other states people feel they're obligated to just raise their hands and give up. In some states it is required. In Texas, you have the right to stop someone who is trying to kill you, stealing your property, or even stealing your neighbors property with deadly force. The culture here is merciless towards criminals. Love it, or hate it. Many criminals expect you to give up. The justice system is so broken. Even if (quoting someone elses example) a man stole some tools and you let him go and he was later arrested for it he most likely would not even go to jail for it. These people have been arrested, in some cases, 100s of times. In the case we're talking about the man should have left the kid alone and called the police. It's hard to say unless you were in his shoes. We all need to use our heads when making life and death decisions even though it is sometimes hard. If he honestly felt like his life was in danger then he did the right thing. Tough call.

cloud8a
June 19, 2009, 02:05 PM
Personal noise

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2009, 02:10 PM
Shall I list the pros versus cons again?

Sadly, it will do no good. There are many here who simply cannot fathom that there is a difference between shooting to defend yourself, and shooting to prevent someone from taking your possessions. Equally sad is that these same folks place more regard on their car, tools, stereo, etc. than any human life.

In their world material objects can somehow be translated to a "portion of their lives" And justifies using deadly force to protect. (or the ever popular "I will not shoot someone over possessions, but I will stand in his way, and if he threatens me I will shoot to "defend myself") batch of excrement that is simply saying "I will shoot someone over my stuff"

Self-defense somehow becomes simply "defense of whatever I choose".

And anyone who can truly see the difference is somehow a coward, a sheep, or some such, the usual argument that is commonly bandied about is along the lines of "I work hard for blah blah blah, as if the rest of us somehow do not.
And explaining the use of such things as insurance only brings a reply of, "yeah, well I shouldn't have to , that's why I have a gun"

Their circular logic is as frustrating as it is exasperating.

Playboypenguin
June 19, 2009, 02:13 PM
In their world material objects can somehow be translated to a "portion of their lives" And justifies using deadly force to protect.
Only a few people are suggesting that. Some people, like myself, are suggesting that someone is not limited to deadly force as a response simply because they are capable of it. Being capable of deadly force also does not mean that someone has to lay down and take no action of a lesser degree when confronted with situations that do not require it.

A person should not be forced to be a victim simply because they risk greater danger by taking action. If that was the case, criminals could act with near impunity as long as they never threatened physical violence.

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 02:18 PM
Simple pros and cons are not applicable in such situations. You have to also weigh percentages.


Okay. So what percentage chance of you having to shoot someone or getting shot during a confrontation is acceptable to prevent your insurance rates from going up? 1% 10%, 50%?

Personally, even if there is a 1% chance that the confrontation is going to end up with me or the other guy dead or seriously injured, I'm not going to take that chance just to save a couple of bucks a month on my homeowners insurance.


As long as a person understands their rights, acts accordingly to the threat presented, and does not needlessly escalate a situation beyond the threat actually presented there is nothing wrong with defending yourself.


You're right. And the best way of defending yourself is to avoid situations where death or serious injury are possible - such as an armed confrontation with someone stealing the radio out of your car. No amount of property or insurance premium increases are worth my life or the life of someone else.

Ask yourself this question, as well. Would I be as willing to confront the thief if I wasn't armed?

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 02:22 PM
Only a few people are suggesting that.


And you are among them. Willingly going into an armed conflict to stop a theft is showing a willingness to shoot someone over property. If you don't think that such an outcome is possible, leave the gun in the house. If you do think such an outcome is possible, don't go in the first place.

Playboypenguin
June 19, 2009, 02:23 PM
Okay. So what percentage chance of you having to shoot someone or getting shot during a confrontation is acceptable to prevent your insurance rates from going up? 1% 10%, 50%?

Personally, even if there is a 1% chance that the confrontation is going to end up with me or the other guy dead or seriously injured, I'm not going to take that chance just to save a couple of bucks a month on my homeowners insurance.

That is your choice and you are welcome to make it. Unfortunately men like yourself might live to fight another day (or actually to not fight another day) but no real progress is really made by such actions. Rationalizing why it is better to be a victim is not a very progressive mindset. Many people would say that the level or moral decay that exists today does so because of similar attitudes.

Also, you cannot base your argument on the idea that one must go out guns blazing to defend themselves. There are different levels of conflict and response and to ignore that simple based on a "worst case" scenario completely negates your argument.

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2009, 02:27 PM
Only a few people are suggesting that

And those are the people that the statement reflects, unless you count yourself among them then why the angst?

Some people, like myself, are suggesting that someone is not limited to deadly force as a response simply because they are capable of it. Being capable of deadly force also does not mean that someone has to lay down and take no action of a lesser degree when confronted with situations that do not require it.

Agreed, I do not see how that relates to the story of this particular event, (unless it doesn't) but you are correct IMO

A person should not be forced to be a victim simply because they risk greater danger by taking action.

Of course not, but the same person should not needlessly escalate a situation simply because he has a gun as a backup plan, when other options are available.

Wildalaska
June 19, 2009, 02:28 PM
Does the pizza delivery man scare you into getting your guns out?

You ever see an Alaskan Pizza delivery guy with no teeth, white guy unwashed dreads, zits and an sauce splattered T Shirt logoed with an Arrow pointing down and the words "Dinner is Served"? Dude, thats why the M4 is by the door :)

Would I be as willing to confront the thief if I wasn't armed?

Thats to me is the essense of the responsible gun owner...the maturity and experience to ask himself/herself that question when confronted with a situation..."how would I handle this while unarmed"...and act in accord with the answer

WildofcouirsethatsthecowardlyviewAlaska ™

Texas Rifleman
June 19, 2009, 02:32 PM
As long as a person understands their rights, acts accordingly to the threat presented, and does not needlessly escalate a situation beyond the threat actually presented there is nothing wrong with defending yourself.

I agree.

As far as thiefs go, listen to me. It's my stuff. Mine. I worked for it, they didn't. They're stealing. Stealing is wrong. If their life was precious they should have guarded it better and treated it with the respect needed and done something better with it. That's not my problem. If someone is stealing my stuff I'm going to stop them...period. I'm not totally a bastard, though. If it's a kid I wouldn't. They're still young and trying to figure things out. On the other side if the kid is trying to shoot me I would stop them in a heartbeat. Protecting youself is number one. Protecting your property is something that is up to the individual to decide. It's not about the property being apart of you, that's selfish. It's about stopping a criminal who is committing a crime right there and right then and keeping them from doing it to someone else. You may even stop that person from doing something even worse like stealing your daughters innocence by raping her. The lesson is don't committ crimes. You're not protected here.

Texas Rifleman
June 19, 2009, 02:34 PM
Sorry for the rant! I should have stayed on subject. I still don't know enough about the story to be the judge and jury on this guy. It's not my place.

cloud8a
June 19, 2009, 02:35 PM
"Would I be as willing to confront the thief if I wasn't armed?"

WA
"Thats to me is the essense of the responsible gun owner...the maturity and experience to ask himself/herself that question when confronted with a situation..."how would I handle this while unarmed"...and act in accord with the answer"

Excuse me but if you expect anyone to believe that you would confront a burglar the same without a gun as you would with one, you sir are not being honest. And no one in a SD situation is going to stop and ask themselves "How would I handle this situation unarmed".

WA I want you to characterize the teen.

Wildalaska
June 19, 2009, 02:36 PM
It's about stopping a criminal who is committing a crime right there and right then and keeping them from doing it to someone else.

So private deterrance is the answer? Death as the ultimate deterrance? How about making it state sanctioned then...execute all felons...is that the type of society we want?

WildthatneedsathreadtooAlaska ™

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2009, 02:37 PM
Would I be as willing to confront the thief if I wasn't armed?
Thats to me is the essense of the responsible gun owner...the maturity and experience to ask himself/herself that question when confronted with a situation..."how would I handle this while unarmed"...and act in accord with the answer


And there it is, the most sensible logic yet espoused, an un-ambiguous truth. Thank You !

spacemanspiff
June 19, 2009, 02:41 PM
I never fail to be amazed at the number of bloodthirsty attitudes among civilized people. IMHO the "if you mess with me I will blow you away" attitude is just cause to remove a persons guns from them in itself.
Sometimes I wonder if those who are most vocal about things like that, are all bark no bite.

Texas Rifleman
June 19, 2009, 02:42 PM
In regards to WildAlaska -

No. But our own system has failed us. In Texas these are our rights. Maybe not elsewhere, but here they are. every situation is up to the individual. I'll be honest, if someone is stealing something I will confront them (with a concealed weapon they cannot see) in hopes they will stop and run because most of them will. But if they don't...well. In Houston we have a WAY worse crime problem than in Alaska. On Mason Rd. a white kid was shot several times at a red light as part of a gang initiation. This happens a lot and this happened not to long ago near my house. Ruthless. Good area too. These criminals have NO regard for human life. If I have to choose between them and me it will always be me. I also don't consider myself a paranoid person. If I had these views and was super paranoid I would scare myself!

cloud8a
June 19, 2009, 02:45 PM
Characterize the teen WA. So the old man was bloodthirsty? Characterize the Teen.

markj
June 19, 2009, 02:46 PM
Another "Kill em all" type of thread.

The weapon is for personal protection when all else fails and it is the last resort. Never is it to be the first thing we go to.

The weapon is a powerful tool, it can change everything in the blink of an eye. I would have done it differently, of this I am sure.

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2009, 02:47 PM
Rationalizing why it is better to be a victim is not a very progressive mindset.

Yet trying to rationalize shooting someone over property is..."Progressive"?

PBP, C'mon, you are an educated man, with a keen intellect, can you honestly not see this type of logic orbiting the bowl ?

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 02:47 PM
That is your choice and you are welcome to make it. Unfortunately men like yourself might live to fight another day (or actually to not fight another day) but no real progress is really made by such actions. Rationalizing why it is better to be a victim is not a very progressive mindset. Many people would say that the level or moral decay that exists today does so because of similar attitudes.


I will live to fight another day when there is something worth fighting for - like my life or my family, not a car radio.

If your morals allows you kill someone for stealing your car radio then okay. Mine do not. No car radio is worth a human life - mine or the thief's.

I think blaming moral decay on people not being willing to kill someone because their car radio is being stolen is stretching things a bit.

And thank God I don't have a progressive mindset. "Progressive" is what liberals are calling themselves these days.

Zilmo
June 19, 2009, 02:48 PM
Another "Kill em all" type of thread.

Hey, those pizza guys can be pretty creepy.:eek:

Texas Rifleman
June 19, 2009, 02:51 PM
The weapon is for personal protection when all else fails and it is the last resort. Never is it to be the first thing we go to.

The weapon is a powerful tool, it can change everything in the blink of an eye. I would have done it differently, of this I am sure.

I agree and to a degree I understand your last statement. We often question our actions. You have to weigh in less than a second, "Am I going to die? They're trying to kill me. can this be avoided? Should I do something!? I'm scared! Can't think straight. Is that a gun? They're shooting at me! Etc." and it's not even fair because you have to think about all these things in less time than it takes to read them! And in the end the decision you make will affect you the rest of your life, if you live. Firearm useage must be responsible and necessary.

Re4mer
June 19, 2009, 02:58 PM
I think we should all give the gun owner the benefit of the doubt on this one. We all know how the media likes to spin things and frankly had this poor man not had his gun the kid probably would have beat him senseless. Also I don't think he was necessarily wrong to confront the kid it was his property and the guy was arguing about getting a crack pipe back for crying out loud!

Texas Rifleman
June 19, 2009, 03:01 PM
I think we should all give the gun owner the benefit of the doubt on this one. We all know how the media likes to spin things and frankly had this poor man not had his gun the kid probably would have beat him senseless. Also I don't he was necessarily wrong to confront the kid it was his property and the guy was arguing about getting a crack pipe back for crying out loud!

Finally someone who makes sense and sees the reality of the situation! Congratulations on not being brainwashed sir.

Re4mer
June 19, 2009, 03:07 PM
Finally someone who makes sense and sees the reality of the situation! Congratulations on not being brainwashed sir.


Thanks for the support. I live near Detroit and every now and then we had to deal with one of these nutty drug people at a gas station or something. Trust me they are plenty threatening especially to an older person.

doh_312
June 19, 2009, 03:13 PM
I'm in agreement with the shooter here. Totally justified in my view. If your on someone elses property and they have a rifle trained on you, I suggest you leave. If you do not, and especially if you advance on the rifle weilding property owner, then you are choosing to get shot at.

nstoolman1
June 19, 2009, 03:19 PM
I read the article. Going strictly on the presented information I don't feel it was a shooting over property but one of a perceived danger to the homeowner. I feel it should not matter whether you are outside your house or on the property. Why should a person who is fortunate enough to CCW have more rights to defend themselves while off of their property and the homeowner in order to have a "justified reason" to shoot has to run inside the house. Dying outside is just as bad as dying inside. I don't think a bad guy is going to wait for you to get in the house before they start shooting. Someone is going to get one in the back. I firmly believe that the more the bad guys know that there is an armed society not afraid to defend themselves the fewer would try. Years ago when the Night Stalker hit Southern Calif. gun sales skyrocketed and house crimes dropped like a rock. Would you break in to a home you suspected that a gun was waiting on the other side? This is just my opinion. Thanks for reading.

Dwight55
June 19, 2009, 03:44 PM
Yes, . . . it was a waste of a young life, . . .

But when a dang fool crackhead kid is stupid enough to take on an old geezer with a rifle, . . . reminds me of the one about taking a knife to a gunfight.

Being darned near a geezer myself, . . . yeah, . . . I can easily see where it was a justified shoot.

May God bless,
Dwight

TailGator
June 19, 2009, 03:46 PM
There have been a series of posts portraying the gun owner as having left his house with a gun to protect his stuff. I'm not entirely sure that is accurate, even though an earlier post of mine asked us all to consider whether there may have been some justification in the man trying to keep his tools and equipment - his means of making a living - from being stolen in a neighborhood where theft of similar items had already been known to occur.

Rather, it seems to me that he left his house hoping that his presence and witness would deter the theft, and took his rifle with him in case the situation escalated to a deadly threat.

Is this not why some of us get concealed weapons permits and carry on a daily basis? Not to seek out trouble, but to be prepared for escalation of the mundane everyday threads into a deadly situation? Do we condemn the man for being prepared for the escalation that actually occurred in the substance of the teen advancing on him? That seems to me to be pragmatism, of the same source that most or all of us hereon practice, rather than blood lust.

Playboypenguin
June 19, 2009, 03:57 PM
Yet trying to rationalize shooting someone over property is..."Progressive"?

PBP, C'mon, you are an educated man, with a keen intellect, can you honestly not see this type of logic orbiting the bowl ?
I would never shoot someone over property...but I would shoot someone if they threatened me with potentially deadly violence while I was preventing them access to my property. I have no problem with people condemning those that would do so...just with people pretending it is an all or nothing situation with no other alternatives than to just take it.
Of course not, but the same person should not needlessly escalate a situation simply because he has a gun as a backup plan, when other options are available.
But when is it needless? Is it needless for a person who cannot afford to replace their car they rely on for work to confront someone that is going to steal or damage it? Should they just let someone take or destroy it, causing great financial and other harm to themselves, just because they "might" have to escalate the situation if the thief then decides to go from common thief to assailant?
I will live to fight another day when there is something worth fighting for - like my life or my family, not a car radio.
Why are you assuming anyone's life was taken over a car radio? That is not the situation as presented at all. A life was taken because a perp decided to present a physical threat to another person. I do not agree with presenting a weapon as a deterrent to theft, but if while using appropriate force to deter theft the criminal decides to escalate the threat they pose you can respond accordingly and you should not have to lie down and accept the lower level of loss just because it "might" get worse if you do not. Like I said before, to base your decision on a "worst case" scenario is a weak argument. Anything can be rationalized with such a mindset.

To condemn some people for the "shoot'em all attitude" is appropriate, but to try and pretend the non-involvement route is somehow the only civilized course of action is ridiculous. Appropriate force can be used to meet non-lethal situations. If the unlikely occurs and the situation then becomes potentially lethal to the person protecting their interests it is a very backwards way of thinking to "blame the victim" for not running away. That is like blaming a rape victim because they wore a short skirt.

TEDDY
June 19, 2009, 04:32 PM
I have had three confrontations involving my gun,and screw you "oh a life is precious,let him take your property.you have no idea what a invader is going to do,and to wait to long may be your last wait.read the rifle man and the cases where showing a gun does not stop the invasion.texas is not the only state.unknown to most Mass has a castle bill "you have a right to eject unwanted persons from your home with all force necesary including lethal force" an example was made and settled in shooters favor.
here in SC it is assumed that persons on your property are up to no good and you can assume they mean to harm you.couple cases have been an example.and you can defend your self in any place you are legally entitled to be.
as to where the perp was shot does not mean any thing,police often shoot a person all over.Winsockett RI cops shot 50 time and hit perp 3 times.
try being confronted by a perp some time and your attitude will change
there is a reason "a conservative is a liberal thats been mugged":rolleyes:

Brian Pfleuger
June 19, 2009, 05:00 PM
I agree with the idea that one should ask themselves "What would I do if I didn't have a gun?"

I also suggest that a person has no duty to NOT do what they would do if they didn't have a gun just because they DO have a gun.

Confronting someone who is trespassing on your property is a basic right. If the situation is escalated BY THEM to one that requires force, fine. It's their choice.

The homeowner did not start with force. He would have been better off with a concealed weapon IMO, that could be revealed as needed, possibly even in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, which is specifically allowed by law in many places.

Once the firearm is present and the BG presses forward, well, justification of the use of force, including deadly force, would be highly dependent on the typical rules. ie, disparity of force, fear for life, etc.

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2009, 05:09 PM
I would never shoot someone over property...I would never shoot someone over property...

OK, Got it.

but I would shoot someone if they threatened me with potentially deadly violence while I was preventing them access to my property.

OK, that brings us to this:

But when is it needless?

Lets see if we can complete the circle, and answer your question at the same time.

Your car is parked in your driveway, or your lawnmower is sitting in your front lawn, or, you have left your gold brick lying about on the picnic table in the back yard, makes no difference which, they are all property
(now stay with me here)

Someone comes into your yard, and attempts to take your property, You see this about to happen, yell out the door for him to stop and leave, at this point you have some pivotal decisions to make;

A. Call 911, give a description of the thief, your property, and the situation, and keep feeding information as available until he leaves (with or without your property)
or until the police arrive.

B. Cover your concealed weapon, go outside, confront the thief, and tell him you are not just going to stand Idly by while he steals your property.

The decision you make from either A. or B. is going to have consequences.

Choice A. Your property may or may not get taken, if not all is well, if it does, you are able to give police a description of the thief and the property stolen, call your insurance agent, and either get back your property, or a replacement, and you are still safe.

Choice B. Your property may or may not get taken, but that is going to depend on several variables, thief may get scared and leave, good!
thief may want to get physical, and will either be settled by a scuffle, you are beaten or killed, or you will feel threatened enough to shoot him.

Choice A. You are still alive, you still have property, you have not taken a life.

Choice B. You may be still alive, you may still have property, or, you have injured or taken a life.


If you have chosen B. and have had to kill someone, guess what? You just broke your own word; How? You killed someone over property.


You may choose to say, "no I killed him because he threatened me while I was protecting my property"


There is NO difference. You had a choice, A. or B. when you chose B. you put yourself in the position of being threatened. Needlessly.

And in the position to kill someone over property, and justify it with self defense.


I would never shoot someone over property...but I would shoot someone if they threatened me with potentially deadly violence while I was preventing them access to my property.
^^ See the "circle" ? ^^

Understand the term "needless" ?

Should they just let someone take or destroy it, causing great financial and other harm to themselves,

That is what property insurance is for. If you own a gun, it is Life insurance, not property insurance.

Zilmo
June 19, 2009, 05:14 PM
I also suggest that a person has no duty to NOT do what they would do if they didn't have a gun just because they DO have a gun.

I'm sorry, but I don't have enough bread crumbs to find my way back from that.:confused:

Brian Pfleuger
June 19, 2009, 05:26 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't have enough bread crumbs to find my way back from that.

Simple. If you would confront the person if you didn't have the gun then you have every right to confront that person when you do have a gun. You have the right to boot someone off your property. You have the right to have a gun present to defend yourself if the person becomes violent. That use of force depends on the same rules as if you were out on the street, such as disparity of force, reasonable belief, etc.

KLRANGL
June 19, 2009, 05:35 PM
Outcast, sorry I don't buy your argument. Not fully anyway. You can confront someone without having forced them into attacking you. If they do attack you, it isn't because you made them. Sure going outside increases the risk of them attacking you, but it doesn't cause it. Girls that wear short skirts in public don't cause guys to rape them...

The risk should be accounted for when you are making the decision on what to do. Me personally, I'd probably just stay inside because to me its not worth the risk. But I wouldn't fault someone for going out.

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2009, 05:45 PM
You can confront someone without having forced them into attacking you.

Yes, you can, I will concede part of that.
But how is a confrontation going to go? The guy will either leave, or the situation is going to escalate. this is, at best, a 50/50 bet, and you can either play those odds, or choose to not bet.

And I never said "Don't confront" My point is, if you are gonna confront someone over a property issue, and the situation escalates, you may end up on the legal high ground by claiming "self defense" was the reason for the shooting, but the honest truth is, it was over property, if it were not, you would have no reason to confront.

KLRANGL
June 19, 2009, 06:42 PM
But how is a confrontation going to go? The guy will either leave, or the situation is going to escalate. this is, at best, a 50/50 bet, and you can either play those odds, or choose to not bet.
I wouldn't quite put it at 50/50, depending on the situation. But yeah, I agree you either play the odds or you dont. I just cant agree that if it does escalate, it means you just defended property with lethal force. I advise against confrontation from a tactical standpoint, not from a legal or moral standpoint.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I care about my own life, and don't care the least for the guy stealing from me... I never bought into the whole "every life is sacred" theory. (Dangit, now I got the Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" song stuck in my head :p)
But if someone is stealing something, you go out and tell them to leave, they attack you and you kill them... well to me it doesn't make sense that it is your fault in the least. I dunno. I guess I don't really have to worry, cuz I don't plan on confronting someone anytime soon. Maybe its the bit of french blood in me :rolleyes:

Playboypenguin
June 19, 2009, 06:59 PM
Your car is parked in your driveway, or your lawnmower is sitting in your front lawn, or, you have left your gold brick lying about on the picnic table in the back yard, makes no difference which, they are all property
You scenario falls apart from the very first sentence. There is a great deal of difference between types of property. If you rely on a car or a lawn mower for your living and they are destroyed or stolen you have not just lost a material item. You have also lost a means of supporting yourself and your family...and insurance only covers so much and often nothing at all. You also go on to present odds that make no sense. If someone is in the act of destroying or stealing my property the odds are 100% that I am going to suffer an immediate loss. Then there is also the odds of said thief returning to the easy prey later. In such a situation you have to consider the odds of successfully defending your property against the odds of things going wrong. You also have to understand that as long as you do not escalate the issue you are not in the wrong if the criminal chooses to do some themselves.

People are severely misusing the term "escalate" in regards to someone meeting a threat with appropriate force. If you are simply responding justifiably to a threat and not using more force than necessary you are not escalating the event. If the person on the other end alters their tactics to override your appropriately gauged defensive measures they are the ones escalating the event.
But how is a confrontation going to go? The guy will either leave, or the situation is going to escalate. this is, at best, a 50/50 bet, and you can either play those odds, or choose to not bet.
I can go downtown and feel relatively certain I will not be attacked, but I cannot know that for sure since it does happen every day. If I follow your line of thinking I am invoking an attack by going downtown since I cannot be certain it will not go horribly wrong and should therefore just stay home. I definitely should never go downtown with a concealed weapon because there is a thousand different ways that could go wrong.

I know we all want to be PC and present a good face for the pro-gun movement but that does not entail becoming sheep...or worse yet perpetual victims. There is no need to try and classify someone as barbaric because they will defend their home (keep in mind "defending their home" can range anywhere from a verbal warning to a helping hand off the property). There is no reason to try and assign blame to them if doing so causes another free willed person to decide to harm them for daring to defend themselves.

Hank15
June 19, 2009, 07:17 PM
Guys, don't look at everything from a legal perspective.

If this was your old stubborn grandfather, I am sure you'd support him rather than give him all the legal BS.

Wildalaska
June 19, 2009, 07:22 PM
Guys, don't look at everything from a legal perspective.

If this was your old stubborn grandfather, I am sure you'd support him rather than give him all the legal BS.

And if the decedent was your son?

How come no one responded to my mailbox soundbite, infra, somewhere?:D

WildsomebodyisomebodyelsesfamilyAlaska TM

Hank15
June 19, 2009, 08:24 PM
What's the mailbox soundbite infra thing about? I don't think I read it.

And to answer your question, if I have a son in the future, I don't see him pulling off any stunts like that, not if I raise him right.

WildAlaska, I told people to think of the old man as their grandfather with your response in mind.

I don't see myself correcting my 82 year old grandfather, but I do see myself raising my son correctly so that he doesn't do the stuff mentioned in the article.

That's why I only told people to imagine that the old man was their grandfather, but mentioned nothing about the decedent.

OuTcAsT
June 19, 2009, 09:09 PM
Deleted, due to weariness of trying to persuade closed minds.

Beentown71
June 19, 2009, 09:49 PM
The perps choices are not my responsibility. If someone is trying to take my property on my property (just an I.E.) I will confront him (probably yell at them) while or after calling 911. I will then try and secure my property. If he chooses to escalate the situation that is his bad choice. The only instance where my weapon would be drawn is if I felt myself or loved ones life was in danger.

Life is full of many risks. It is not in me to LET someone do my family harm (finances or bodily). I am not looking for a confrontation at all. All they have to do is make the correct secondary choice and leave.

Beentown

Donn_N
June 19, 2009, 10:21 PM
Sorry, but if you voluntarily go into a confrontation with a thief carrying a weapon, you are demonstrating the willingness to kill or get killed over property.
That you could get killed is the dirty little fact that no one likes to address. There is no guarantee the good guy (you, presumably) will prevail. The assumption is always, "If he makes a threatening move, I'll just plug 'em." Yeah, well, it doesn't always work out so neatly. So by entering into the confrontation, you not only express a willingness to kill to protect property, but also the willingness to die for it, which is even worse.

Whether or not the the property is used to make a living is immaterial. That's what insurance is for. If you don't have insurance on valuable items that enable you to make a living and feed your family, you're a fool.

easyG
June 19, 2009, 10:49 PM
I'm rather surprised that so many here claim that they would never shoot someone over mere "property".

In the right circumstances, I certainly would.

Texas Rifleman
June 19, 2009, 11:00 PM
“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Don't be a pacifist. Standing for your life and freedoms are never free. What if our boys in WWII said, "Well gee. We should just avoid Germany because we could get killed if we went over there and tried to stop them."

supergas452M
June 19, 2009, 11:35 PM
This good man is not going to do nothing.

What's this criminal gonna do? Tell his lawyer "I was minding my own business, taking this guys stereo out of his car, not harming anyone, and the owner walks up tells me to get out of the car and leave. I laughed at him and said "yeah right!". "Next thing I know the owner pulls his .45 and caps me in the knee cap!"

"I wanna sue."

I'm sure there are some no account lawyers out there that will take his case, if his family has money.

I have to shake my head at people that are so scared of being sued that they will lay down and take it from the dredge of the earth. I will risk being tried by 12 or 6 to fight wrong. The perp is the one that makes the call when he decides to commit a crime.

Bobby Knight, I believe is the moron that was quoted as saying...

"If rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it."

If not he, than my apologies to him.

If you want to accept rape and choose to enjoy it, fine. Just, please, don't try to sway me to your way of thinking.

You people that think that killing to protect property from those that would take it criminally is reprehensible, are reprehensible to me.

I will now back out of this one, my opinion is on record.

Feel free to flame away, starting with you WildAlaska, even though your comments will be wasted upon me, as I have chosen to ignore your incessant drivel.

Wildalaska
June 19, 2009, 11:46 PM
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”



Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

WildbattelofthequotesAlaska TM

Wildalaska
June 19, 2009, 11:55 PM
Feel free to flame away, starting with you WildAlaska, even though your comments will be wasted upon me, as I have chosen to ignore your incessant drivel.

Cool. Then I can say thumpthump without fear of hateful verbal retaliation that makes me sob brokenly:rolleyes:.

What an easy world some folks live in.... as someone who reveled in violence once said....Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.

WildoldiosipdhzugashvilismostfamousquoteAlaska TM

Capt Charlie
June 20, 2009, 12:32 AM
Ya know, I've pondered about reasons to close this, but hell, I can't find one to keep it open, and quite frankly, I'm tempted to flip the selector switch on my ban button to full auto. :mad:.

Closed.