• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Self-Defense? You be the judge.

Status
Not open for further replies.
CrushDance said:
Uh I think anyone with half a brain knows someones property=/=yours. Who needs to learn that lesson?
Click to expand...

Our less than half-brained perpetrators, apparently. Unfortunately for them, they picked the wrong state to do it in.
 
WOW, I'm speechless, that can't be self defense, he was wanting to shoot someone. If this guy goes free that's ridiculous.
 
A Link to the Snitch said:
Sorry, I didn't read it all.

I just thought he had a slip and said September 1st instead of 9-11.

Whatever though, still not self-defense.
Click to expand...

he's trigger-happy, not delusional :P
 
BREAKING: we've just received a photo of the defendant

BoomerTime--screenshot_large.jpg
 
It was murder, murder most foul!

The other night I was putting garbage in the trashcan and heard a voice, it sounded like an older black man. My neighbor is an older black man. He was saying, "No, dog, don't do it. Help. Help me, dog." I'd earlier seen someone walking their pit bull and my immediate thought was a dog attack. But the tone of voice was oddly calm. And now it was hard to tell where the voice was coming from. Maybe it was across the street, or in the yard of the vacant house next door? So I listened some more. "No, Dawg, it ain't like that. Don't hit me, Dawg. I ain't gon' do you wrong. Don't do it, Dawg, don't. Listen to me, Dawg."

I went back inside, locked my doors and called 911. I told the dispatcher there was some kind of fight outside and she said they'd send a squad car. My daughter came out of her room and asked me what was the matter with that man's dog. I never heard the other side of the conversation and I don't think it was my neighbor. What it was, was none of my business and not worth getting killed/killing over.
 
So...are we sure this is robbery? Perhaps the neighbor asked friends/family to come over and help "Insert Blank"?


x = help him move out?
 
A Link to the Snitch said:
Sorry, I didn't read it all.

I just thought he had a slip and said September 1st instead of 9-11.

Whatever though, still not self-defense.
Click to expand...

He DID say September 1st. That is when the law was passed. It had nothing (at least directly) to do with September 11th.
 
I read that the shotgun wielding neighbor is 70 years old, so maybe the courts will go easy on him.

But what he did was clearly not self defense and he will be convicted of serious felonies

And the castle law clearly doesn't apply here, since his property was not in the equation.
 
grandjedi6 said:
Burglery should be punished by the death now?
Click to expand...

Everything should be punished by death. Including talking on a cell phone while driving and ignoring your screaming kid in a supermarket.
 
that was not self defense and we will most likely be seeing these kinda stories out of texas now that this stupid law has passed.
 
My eyes are tired, but can someone point out to me where Castle Doctrine extends to protecting a neighbor's property?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

The "boom you're dead!" was both hilarious and chilling. It's just surreal to hear someone actually feel that way about killing another human being, but funny on the surface of that surrealness.
 
BobFromPikeCreek said:
Boom. You're dead?
Throw this moron in jail. He was just itching to shoot someone with his fancy boomstick.
Click to expand...
Definitely. If we didn't have the 911 call to go on, it'd be more muddled, but this guy just straight up wanted to go shoot them.
 
smurfx said:
that was not self defense and we will most likely be seeing these kinda stories out of texas now that this stupid law has passed.
Click to expand...

The law is not stupid.

Some old fart somewhere in his 70s misinterpreting it to go all Punisher on some thieves is not indicative of anything.
 
smurfx said:
that was not self defense and we will most likely be seeing these kinda stories out of texas now that this stupid law has passed.
Click to expand...

The law you're referring to is certainly not "stupid." This situation, however, does not fall under that law, and is more vigilante justice than anything else. Unless I missed something. I admittedly didn't read the story too carefully, but I did watch the news story.
 
Dali said:
:lol

No shit. You could tell by the 911 call it was all he could do to hold himself back. He probably thought his neighbor was a lucky bastard, but since he wasn't home he wasn't about to let such a great opportunity pass by.
Click to expand...


i was thinking the same thing.. throw this guy in jail.. he even said 'oh, they are leaving' right before he went after them.
 
Wow... sounds like he was spending his entire days dreaming about someone stepping on his property (or close enough in this case) so he could shoot them.

Murderer unless his neighbor specifically asked him to check on his property.

However, I'm glad that these robbers are dead. Adult thieves deserve nothing less.
 
True American hero.

AFAIK judging by coverage I have seen here in Texas, the new laws allow him to protect a neighbors property from someone who forcibly entered the house and committed a felony. We know they broke in with a crowbar and exited with a bag of stuff. Furthermore, what if the neighbors had been home? Maybe these idiots would have broken in and killed them. And this 70 year old shotgun surgeon would have had no idea the neighbors were dead when he saw the intruders outside and shot them and suddenly no one would care that he shot them.

And you also have the fact that he says they were coming towards him. Who knows? Was it in day light? Lastly, people are overreacting to the "you're dead" comments. The dude was rushing out side with a shotgun against 2 burglars. God only knows what I would tell myself to keep myself calm while I was shooting.
 
Andokuky said:
True American hero.

AFAIK judging by coverage I have seen here in Texas, the new laws allow him to protect a neighbors property from someone who forcibly entered the house and committed a felony. We know they broke in with a crowbar and exited with a bag of stuff. Furthermore, what if the neighbors had been home? Maybe these idiots would have broken in and killed them. And this 70 year old shotgun surgeon would have had no idea the neighbors were dead when he saw the intruders outside and shot them and suddenly no one would care that he shot them.

And you also have the fact that he says they were coming towards him. Who knows? Was it in day light? Lastly, people are overreacting to the "you're dead" comments. The dude was rushing out side with a shotgun against 2 burglars. God only knows what I would tell myself to keep myself calm while I was shooting.
Click to expand...
From everything we know, he shot dead two people who weren't threatening him. And he sure seemed eager to do it.

He's a murderer.
 
demon said:
From everything we know, he shot dead two people who weren't threatening him. And he sure seemed eager to do it.

He's a murderer.
Click to expand...

We know they weren't threatening him? He said they were coming towards him. And what does it matter that he seemed eager? He is 70 years old, he is old school. Plus you know, you have the Texas law that allows you to defend a neighbors property.
 
The guy shot two scumbags, if more people were like him the world would be a better place. I'm going to watch some DEATH WISH in his honor. BRONSON LIVES
 
aod26.gif


This is my boomstick.

seriously. It seems to me like this guy was really wanting to shoot someone. He was right on it from the beginning. He didn't seem scared or anything. Just some old Texan with an itchy trigger finger.
 
Second degree murder.

Going in and shooting some guys running away in their backs... that had no quarrel with you... that's just murder old man.

There ain't no property worth killing over is correct.
 
Caller: "Boom. You're dead." (Sounds of gunshots) "Get the law over here quick. I've managed to get one of them, he's in the front yard over there. He's down, the other one is running down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice.
Click to expand...

If this we're testimony on pheonix wright you would say "Hold It!" at this statement

They came in the front yard with me, man.
Click to expand...

If you were carrying a shotgun and they were really burglars, why would they approach the neighbour of the house they just robbed who was carrying a shotgun. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!
 
xaosslug said:
that's not exactly 'self-defence' but I'm sure any lawyer worth his or her salt should be able to get the gunman off, considering he was preventing a couple of burglars from breaking an' entering.
Click to expand...

It's not any kind of self-defense. He was told not to leave his home as police were en route. At that point, his civic duty ended. What he did was cross the line between civilian and vigilante. We can't have people patrolling their neighborhoods with guns like a fucking lawless country ready to shoot anything or anyone that looks suspicious. Actually, is there anywhere one this planet where that wouldn't be considered murder? I say give him some years.
 
This would probably work out better for him if he had never called 911 at all. Just go out there, shoot them, then go back and dial 911 after the fact.

As it stands, he was instructed to stay inside, he wasn't in any danger, but he seemed itching to kill someone. The fact that he said he had a shotgun, and quoted the recently passed law, and the operator kept trying to calm him down - it's almost premeditated murder at this point.

It's not his job to defend his neighbor's property to the death. It was incredibly stupid for him to put himself in that situation to begin with. Call the police and let them deal with it; stay inside and keep out of danger. If the burglers were to then come on his property and try to break into his house - then he could assume the worst and start filling 'em full of lead.
 
Andokuky said:
Plus you know, you have the Texas law that allows you to defend a neighbors property.
Click to expand...

It allows you to defend your own property, on account of the fact that you are in your property and anyone violating the sanctity of your home may have every intention of doing harm to you or your family. He may not, but it isn't like, your civic duty or whatever to play detective and investigate why the asshole is in your home and determine if he has a weapon or not before you start firing. Fuck him - he's in your home, he shouldn't be, you have a right to be there, he doesn't, and the law should enable you to assume the worst and defend yourself, your family, and your property.

ALL THAT SAID... it doesn't extend to your presumably out of town neighbors. I'm looking for the fine text of the Texas version of the legislation, but I do believe you are allowed to legally shoot someone, say, if they walk into a restaurant and start opening fire on the patrons. Now, of course you'd be allowed to do so if you WERE one of the patrons, but I'm saying if you saw it happening and were outside.

But let's look at the text of the bill, shall we? Because I hate blathering about fine details when none of us actually know what they are.

If this is inaccurate, sorry, but I Google'd for a reasonable amount of time and was only able to find the full text on someone's blog.

Today SB 378 was read for the third time in the House and was voted upon by the members of the Texas State House and passed. The voted passed with 133 yeas and 13 Nays. One member stated on the public record that he intended to vote Nay, so the vote would have been 132 Yeas and 14 Nays.

All that is left is for Governor Perry to sign the dotted line, and Texas will have a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law. This law will go into effect on September 1st.

Here is the text of the bill.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT


relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.



SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.



SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.



SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.



SECTION 5.

(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.



SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
Click to expand...

Section 3.a.1.B is interesting, but ultimately the full text is pretty clear - you can't go shooting robbers on your neighbor's lawn unless they're like, obviously killing your neighbors.

Your lawn? Go nuts. It's informally called "Castle Doctrine" not after Frank Castle, but after the old saying "my home is my castle."

Which is to say MY home, not any home.
 
On top of the fact that burglary shouldn't be met with "Boom! You're dead" (unless they take it to the next level), it's not like this guy is a marksman (I assume). So it goes to say that he could've done more damage than shooting a couple of bad guys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

"Advertisers" and Self-Censorship of the Internet
14
585
GloveSlap replied
  • Poll
Do you think the Sequel Trilogy should be decanonized?
2 3 4 5
213
1K
Major Insano replied
Judge Frank Caprio has passed
5
364
DreamcastSkies replied
  • Poll
How effective is boxing for self-defense?
3 4 5 6 7
320
21K
EviLore replied
If the OOT of Star Wars were re-released as the offical version what scene(s) do you think would be important to keep?
45
547
BlackTron replied
Top Bottom