Texas man acquitted of blatant homicide

[Cops]

They were shot in the back. He left his home to confront them. But no big deal, just some dead Mexicans.

who the fucks gonna build our deck now, you fucking prick.

[Galleleo]

That's exactly the problem. Sigh. You always do this. You always speak so matter of factly about America when you have no idea about the landscape.

How did I do that? First of all, it was a question, not something stated as a fact. And Money was the one throwing out the statistical number.

[Squeezer]

They were shot in the back. He left his home to confront them. But no big deal, just some dead Mexicans.

No, these particular Mexicans were trespassing. Do I like this situation? No. But were they breaking the law? Yes. I could give fuck less about their ethnicity. The fact of the matter is they were doing something they knew they weren't supposed to and it turned out tragically this time.

But a 70+ year old man has no power over two youths trying to rob him. His only means of protection to level the playing field is to use a gun or similar weapon. This brings up questions of senior competence behind the trigger of a firearm (or wheel of a car), but that's a different story.

What I can say is this: crime is very prevalent and endemic in this country. You have to give people a way to defend themselves, it has come to this point. We are a country of equal agressors who like to push each other around.

It's sad, but you have to be scared, to a certain degree, of the people in this country.

[Cops]

How did I do that? First of all, it was a question, not something stated as a fact. And Money was the one throwing out the statistical number.

Taking away American's guns isn't really ever going to happen, as much as you or I think banning hand guns and creating strict laws work for us, it does not mean that it will work in America nor do I believe it will ever happen.

When you get down to it, you'd own a gun too if you lived in America, and so would I for that matter. You can look down on these people but they're only trying to protect themselves and their property.

You have to give people a way to defend themselves, it has come to this point.

It's sad, but you have to be scared, to a certain degree, of the people in this country.

this hit the nail on the head.

[Kolar]

No, these particular Mexicans were trespassing. Do I like this situation? No. But were they breaking the law? Yes. I could give fuck less about their ethnicity. The fact of the matter is they were doing something they knew they weren't supposed to and it turned out tragically this time.

But a 70+ year old man has no power over two youths trying to rob him. His only means of protection to level the playing field is to use a gun or similar weapon. This brings up questions of senior competence behind the trigger of a firearm (or wheel of a car), but that's a different story.

What I can say is this: crime is very prevalent and endemic in this country. You have to give people a way to defend themselves, it has come to this point. We are a country of equal agressors who like to push each other around.

It's sad, but you have to be scared, to a certain degree, of the people in this country.

He left the safety of his house to confront them and shot both of them in the back. If either attempted to come onto his property unprovoked then using force might have been necessary. I don't think this is so much an issue of gun control but an issue of reasonable use of force. I don't necessarily agree that he shouldn't have had access to a firearm. I believe he should answer for making an extremely bad decision, leaving his home with the intention to kill these men. Regardless of their crimes or what they would have done if he was unarmed, coupable criminal activity is the combination of two factors: mens rea and actus reus. He had the intention and will, and acted on it.

I don't care for the race issue either, I think it disgusting that the Black Panthers would see the man dead and equally as disgusting the *** would defend his actions to the death, I was only making a point on comments Money has made about such races.

[DankNuggets]

the problem i see with guns is that

1- kids get ahold of them WAYYY to easily. kids are not mature enough to use or understand the consequences of using a gun.

2- ease of getting ammunition. I have been carded for buying cigars more often than bullets, and 100 bullets only cost me $7, granted they were 22s, but the 9mm isn't outrageously expensive. Pistol ammuniton should be at a premium, or not sold at all. yes, some pistols use rifle ammunition, but it's a matter of retooling future guns to comply.

3- gun shows. period. you can walk into a gun show with no background check, and buy a gun that may or may not be legal that day. hell, you could probably get one that's illegal, without being id'd, whilst being a felon. I'm all for collectors and hunters who want specific guns, but it's way to easy for criminals to abuse the system.

[Squeezer]

He left the safety of his house to confront them and shot both of them in the back. If either attempted to come onto his property unprovoked then using force might have been necessary. I don't think this is so much an issue of gun control but an issue of reasonable use of force. I don't necessarily agree that he shouldn't have had access to a firearm. I believe he should answer for making an extremely bad decision, leaving his home with the intention to kill these men. Regardless of their crimes or what they would have done if he was unarmed, coupable criminal activity is the combination of two factors: mens rea and actus reus. He had the intention and will, and acted on it.

I don't care for the race issue either, I think it disgusting that the Black Panthers would see the man dead and equally as disgusting the *** would defend his actions to the death, I was only making a point on comments Money has made about such races.

Yeah, that kind of stuck me as odd in this situation. They never actually entered his house. The man has a right to defend himself, but at what point does he step outside of these bounds? At what point do we decree that he was sorta looking for trouble?

The point still stands however that these young men were trespassing and not exactly innocent themselves. Glad I'm not the judge to make a ruling on this.

[Cops]

Yeah, that kind of stuck me as odd in this situation. They never actually entered his house. The man has a right to defend himself, but at what point does he step outside of these bounds? At what point do we decree that he was sorta looking for trouble?

The point still stands however that these young men were trespassing and not exactly innocent themselves. Glad I'm not the judge to make a ruling on this.

it's pretty simple, it's vigilantly justice. The murders were pre-meditated. He wasn't defending himself or his property. He might have been in the right to help out his neighbor but as the law sees it he had no right to fire on these two men. Do I think he deserves to do a full sentence, no, but he shouldn't have been acquitted. This shit sets a standard that this type of behavior is acceptable.

They should have cut a deal, he does 5 and only serves 2-3, with current time served. He does less than two years and the community feels justice is more served than just having this man walk free.

[Jerome Scuggs]

in terms of property rights, you're theoretically free to use any force you deem necessary to remove invaders of your property.

i'm not saying murder is the appropriate force: the families of the victim have the right to sue for damages, and if a third party (in this case the u.s. legal system) finds the action was excessive, then damages can be awarded.

the mitigating factor here is the fact that it was his neighbors' property, and the force he used was pretty excessive. this is why i think laws get in the way of actual justice.

edit: Cops you bring up a good point - the murders were pre-meditated. That should be a clean case, right there. /edit

another instance of the amazing u.s. legal system: when i was in the 5th grade, there was a convenience store/gas station right next to my elementary school. one night, some guy tried to rob the place by breaking in through the roof. he fell off and broke his leg. the guy then sued... and won. a burgler trespassed, attempted to break in, injured himself, and sued the place out of business.

convoluted legal codes really don't provide any more clarity or justice than laws based off of the notion of property and ownership.

[HateTheFake]

it's pretty simple, it's vigilantly justice. The murders were pre-meditated. He wasn't defending himself or his property. He might have been in the right to help out his neighbor but as the law sees it he had no right to fire on these two men. Do I think he deserves to do a full sentence, no, but he shouldn't have been acquitted. This shit sets a standard that this type of behavior is acceptable.

They should have cut a deal, he does 5 and only serves 2-3, with current time served. He does less than two years and the community feels justice is more served than just having this man walk free.

guys like 70 odds are he might die tomorrow why waste the time and money needed to put him in jail.

[Cops]

guys like 70 odds are he might die tomorrow why waste the time and money needed to put him in jail.

it's the principal of the matter, not just the crime. Like I said regardless of the fact that I don't think he deserves 20 years for this I do however believe he deserves some punishment.

You have to set standards in your society, just because your old doesn't mean you're not bound by the law. He'd be out of jail within two years. I'm talking about a minimum security prison here, this is a very pleasant way to do your time. I don't think that is too big of a punishment for someone who shot two people in the back.

edit: Cops you bring up a good point - the murders were pre-meditated. That should be a clean case, right there. /edit

That's the nature of the beast, he planned on shooting these two. I think by not setting a standard you've basically opened the flood gates for people who think they can shoot anyone wherever they want. This also makes racial tension more tense.

Like I said on paper it says he does 5 but in all reality he does less than 2. It's a great way to ensure people know that this is wrong and that you can't get away with this type of behavior, as well as stopping a 71 year old man to spend the remaining years of his life inside a prison cell.

[HateTheFake]

it's the principal of the matter, not just the crime. Like I said regardless of the fact that I don't think he deserves 20 years for this I do however believe he deserves some punishment.

You have to set standards in your society, just because your old doesn't mean you're not bound by the law. He'd be out of jail within two years. I'm talking about a minimum security prison here, this is a very pleasant way to do your time. I don't think that is too big of a punishment for someone who shot two people in the back.

for someone who shot 2 illegal immigrants who were robbing his neighbors, they shouldnt have been here in the first place, let alone robbing someone. They already started their life of crime, and who knows if they werent killed, they could have been one to do the killing on innocent lives. I think this 70 year old man did us and his country a civic duty.

[Cops]

for someone who shot 2 illegal immigrants who were robbing his neighbors, they shouldnt have been here in the first place, let alone robbing someone. They already started their life of crime, and who knows if they werent killed, they could have been one to do the killing on innocent lives. I think this 70 year old man did us and his country a civic duty.

Number one; murder is a crime. Once you justify death it's hard to stop justifying it.

In America people go to jail for life for this type of crime, don't forget it is a crime. Regardless if you or I or anyone else thinks this was right, it's vigilantly justice. There are laws and rules that all citizens must adhere to, you can't over-step the law just because you think it's flawed.

People serve life sentences for this crime, how is asking this man to serve to 2 years of his life unreasonable? I think this issue is bigger than just two illegals being shot down, it's about racism taking control of the courts and the atitudes of the people. You can't tell me that if he shot down two white people, regardless if they were illegal or not that he would get acquitted.

[DankNuggets]

Number one; murder is a crime. Once you justify death it's hard to stop justifying it.

In America people go to jail for life for this type of crime, don't forget it is a crime. Regardless if you or I or anyone else thinks this was right, it's vigilantly justice. There are laws and rules that all citizens must adhere to, you can't over-step the law just because you think it's flawed.

People serve life sentences for this crime, how is asking this man to serve to 2 years of his life unreasonable? I think this issue is bigger than just two illegals being shot down, it's about racism taking control of the courts and the atitudes of the people. You can't tell me that if he shot down two white people, regardless if they were illegal or not that he would get acquitted.

cops i don't have the texas legal code in front of me, but i'm pretty sure since he went to trial and was aquitted, and that the people from texas aren't arguing the letter of the law here, HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY BREAK THE LAW

maybe he broke a law in 40/50 states, but if it's legal in texas, that's where it matters.

it would seem that it is well within your rights to intentially shoot and kill someone who is robbing you OR your neighbors.

i'd back this up, as people are routinely shot at while hunting for shrooms around here by farmers. also a guy killed an intruder by impailing him with a sword; the intruder was un armed. The guy was considered a hero for protecting himself.

[Squeezer]

Number one; murder is a crime. Once you justify death it's hard to stop justifying it.

In America people go to jail for life for this type of crime, don't forget it is a crime. Regardless if you or I or anyone else thinks this was right, it's vigilantly justice. There are laws and rules that all citizens must adhere to, you can't over-step the law just because you think it's flawed.

People serve life sentences for this crime, how is asking this man to serve to 2 years of his life unreasonable? I think this issue is bigger than just two illegals being shot down, it's about racism taking control of the courts and the atitudes of the people. You can't tell me that if he shot down two white people, regardless if they were illegal or not that he would get acquitted.

I get what you're saying, but be careful. Let the people of Texas determine his punishment.