(TX) Man shoots boy he said was stealing his chickens - Page 5

ahenry · April 22, 2001, 11:38 PM

This is the second time I have written on this topic. I decided not to post my previous collection of thoughts on the matter due to the very passionate feelings displayed so far however, I cannot sit by any longer. Why are so many coming down so hard on the homeowner? I obviously can’t speak for somebody else but if I was to hazard a guess I would say it is because of the minor amount property that was stolen (or attempted). Am I right? If this were something more valuable, or rather, something that represented a significant portion of his life’s work I would bet money that while many might say they personally wouldn’t shoot the kid, almost all would probably say something to the affect of “well I can understand why he did it. Seems like it was a bit over-zealous but the (insert valuable object) was irreplaceable.”
There are really two basic philosophies that a person can hold to in regards to this situation. You can either believe that an individual has the Right and further should be allowed to kill in defense of his property, or you can hold that no property is worth another persons life and the only defense you should do, or by extension be allowed to do falls just short of killing the thief. Which basic philosophy you hold to is going to dictate to a large extent how you view this situation. I am going to assume that most of us fall into the first category and believe that at some point a person has the Right to kill another in order to keep his property. If you feel you fall into the second camp then might I suggest a second thread to discuss that point, as it is a rather deep topic that I think finds its roots not only in the Bible but also in the philosophy of our Founding generation.
If you agree with me that taking a life in protection of your property is allowable and at some point laudable then as I stated above this discussion is merely a matter of degrees. The age of the kid, the value of the property, the ability of the property owner to use less than deadly force, etc... I respectfully submit that neither you nor I have much of a foot to stand on when it comes to claiming that “after this degree over here is ok to kill, but up to that point you are an evil devil to shoot the poor defenseless kid who just wanted to have some fun”. The value a certain individual places on an object is his to place and nobody can tell him he is wrong to value it so highly. In the eyes of the law we must take him at his word when he states (expressly or implied by his actions) that this property was valuable enough for him to take a life in defense of it. On a personal level we might have a problem with this man. We might go so far as to be unwilling to associate with him because it appears he places such little value on human life. That is a separate issue from what out public response out to be though. I personally think this man went WAY overboard, but I sure support his ability to do that. And further I think that when people start to question that ability or when they attempt to dictate at what point a person is justifiable in defending property with lethal force they skirt dangerously close to the edge of a very risky mindset, namely an elitist attitude that claims to be able to make a decision for another man better than that man can. That smacks of very liberal ideology...

There is another point that has been brushed on but nobody has really expanded on it so far, that of personal responsibility. I think this is the actual heart of the matter. This kid was committing a crime. There is no doubt about that at this point. He was 14 years old. I don’t know about you but by that age most people consider you to be able to weigh the potential consequences of an action and able to know right from wrong. I find it disturbing that in our society the concept of every action having a consequence either good or bad is virtually non-existent. Why was the first reaction of so many to jump all over the property owner? Why aren’t we “up in arms” (if you will please forgive the admittedly poor pun) over the fact that this kid was out roaming the streets at all hours of the night? Why aren’t we raising cain about how tragic it is when the father figure is removed from a young mans life and his role model is a 20-year-old thug? Instead of reproving a man for protecting what is his, we should be reproving a mother for her lack of parental control over this kid. Instead of accusing a man of being evil for deciding to defend his property with lethal force we should be saddened at the loss of a life that might have turned out to be a very productive one, but nonetheless expectant of such an outcome. The kid was plenty old enough to make his own choice. He made them and unfortunately for him and those that loved him, this time he received the full consequences of those actions. We shouldn’t forget who actually caused the shooting. It wasn’t the homeowner, but the two individuals that decided to break the law.

Dangus · April 23, 2001, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Dangus,

Anybody that lets their kids run around at 3:00 a.m. stealing from other people deserves some jail time themselves.

Do you even have kids? Not all parents can control their kids. Sorry if you can't realize that, but it's the case. We're always talking about personal responsibility and all that crap and then you go and do the same crap the antis do, try to find a scapegoat. You wouldn't be saying all this crap if that were your kid that was shot for taking a chicken. Of course it's really easy for most of you who don't mind he got shot because hey, he was just another Mexican right?

Quote:

I feel for the shooter more than the shot. He is the one to live with this incident. He was the one being victimized, and he did NOT commit murder, but used deadly force against someone who meant him ill.

I think he's a disgusting murderer and if he were within 10 miles of me I'd mean him a lot more than ill. I guess he better drive by my house and shoot at any light and sound he sees right? I mean, since I would kick his ass if possible, he'd better shoot me too right? My neighborhood watch would mobilize and attack him if he fired upon my house, so I guess he better strafe their houses too! Lets just murder everyone that's ever thought anything bad about him while we're at it too. Hell, there's probably been a criminal in your family line somewhere, lets purify the gene pool and shoot you too. Lets just wipe out humanity, that's really what we need. No more theft, violence, anything, life will be perfect

Heaven forbid we only actually kill people who are a physical threat to us! I suppose you still hang horse theives down there too right? Lynching blacks and Mexicans still too? This whole thread reminds me of that Scottish guy who was drunk or high or something and was pissing on this guy's house and so the guy shot at him over 40 times, and on the 911 call you could hear the victim outside pleading for his life but did the guy ever once say "get out of my yard!" no, of course not. In Texas footprints and a bit of urine on your property are capitol offenses. If that's enough to kill over I hate to think what sort of thing you'd do for stealing a car. Wipe out their whole family?

Who needs the Million Mom March, we have Texas

Dennis · April 23, 2001, 07:28 AM

Well, folks, I believe we've made our beliefs known. Now we merely insult each other by exaggerating beliefs to make them appear ridiculous. This thread has deteriorated into name-calling and personal attacks rather than a civil exchange of ideas.

This thread is closed.

Take your insults and low-road language to e-mail.

April 22, 2001, 11:38 PM	#101
ahenry Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 1,764	Are we missing the main issue? This is the second time I have written on this topic. I decided not to post my previous collection of thoughts on the matter due to the very passionate feelings displayed so far however, I cannot sit by any longer. Why are so many coming down so hard on the homeowner? I obviously can’t speak for somebody else but if I was to hazard a guess I would say it is because of the minor amount property that was stolen (or attempted). Am I right? If this were something more valuable, or rather, something that represented a significant portion of his life’s work I would bet money that while many might say they personally wouldn’t shoot the kid, almost all would probably say something to the affect of “well I can understand why he did it. Seems like it was a bit over-zealous but the (insert valuable object) was irreplaceable.” There are really two basic philosophies that a person can hold to in regards to this situation. You can either believe that an individual has the Right and further should be allowed to kill in defense of his property, or you can hold that no property is worth another persons life and the only defense you should do, or by extension be allowed to do falls just short of killing the thief. Which basic philosophy you hold to is going to dictate to a large extent how you view this situation. I am going to assume that most of us fall into the first category and believe that at some point a person has the Right to kill another in order to keep his property. If you feel you fall into the second camp then might I suggest a second thread to discuss that point, as it is a rather deep topic that I think finds its roots not only in the Bible but also in the philosophy of our Founding generation. If you agree with me that taking a life in protection of your property is allowable and at some point laudable then as I stated above this discussion is merely a matter of degrees. The age of the kid, the value of the property, the ability of the property owner to use less than deadly force, etc... I respectfully submit that neither you nor I have much of a foot to stand on when it comes to claiming that “after this degree over here is ok to kill, but up to that point you are an evil devil to shoot the poor defenseless kid who just wanted to have some fun”. The value a certain individual places on an object is his to place and nobody can tell him he is wrong to value it so highly. In the eyes of the law we must take him at his word when he states (expressly or implied by his actions) that this property was valuable enough for him to take a life in defense of it. On a personal level we might have a problem with this man. We might go so far as to be unwilling to associate with him because it appears he places such little value on human life. That is a separate issue from what out public response out to be though. I personally think this man went WAY overboard, but I sure support his ability to do that. And further I think that when people start to question that ability or when they attempt to dictate at what point a person is justifiable in defending property with lethal force they skirt dangerously close to the edge of a very risky mindset, namely an elitist attitude that claims to be able to make a decision for another man better than that man can. That smacks of very liberal ideology... There is another point that has been brushed on but nobody has really expanded on it so far, that of personal responsibility. I think this is the actual heart of the matter. This kid was committing a crime. There is no doubt about that at this point. He was 14 years old. I don’t know about you but by that age most people consider you to be able to weigh the potential consequences of an action and able to know right from wrong. I find it disturbing that in our society the concept of every action having a consequence either good or bad is virtually non-existent. Why was the first reaction of so many to jump all over the property owner? Why aren’t we “up in arms” (if you will please forgive the admittedly poor pun) over the fact that this kid was out roaming the streets at all hours of the night? Why aren’t we raising cain about how tragic it is when the father figure is removed from a young mans life and his role model is a 20-year-old thug? Instead of reproving a man for protecting what is his, we should be reproving a mother for her lack of parental control over this kid. Instead of accusing a man of being evil for deciding to defend his property with lethal force we should be saddened at the loss of a life that might have turned out to be a very productive one, but nonetheless expectant of such an outcome. The kid was plenty old enough to make his own choice. He made them and unfortunately for him and those that loved him, this time he received the full consequences of those actions. We shouldn’t forget who actually caused the shooting. It wasn’t the homeowner, but the two individuals that decided to break the law. __________________ Doing what you've done, gets you what you've got.

April 23, 2001, 07:28 AM	#103
Dennis Staff Emeritus Join Date: November 23, 1998 Location: a small forest in Texas Posts: 7,079	Well, folks, I believe we've made our beliefs known. Now we merely insult each other by exaggerating beliefs to make them appear ridiculous. This thread has deteriorated into name-calling and personal attacks rather than a civil exchange of ideas. This thread is closed. Take your insults and low-road language to e-mail.