Gotta Love Those Texas Women.

[NDS]

...In the end, the incident was one of the criminal's making, not the self-defense shooter. If he didn't want to get shot in the back, there was an easy way for him to accomplish that... don't be a criminal that day.

Exactly the point of this exercise. If criminals don't want to be harmed they should find other work. When people are damaged, by personal attack or some form of theft, they become upset. When you upset people they may strike back. Had this woman been a cop, any accomplices would have been charged in this criminals death. That's not something I agree with, but it shows the multi-layer of standards we have built in this nation. This woman is blameless in protecting her property (TEXAS people, she is within the law of her state-- CA and CT please note that some people are more free than others) and any injury / damage the criminal suffers is his fault for initiating the confrontation.

 

[cgnavarro]

BoomBoy007, here here. CathyInBlue, I think your not stating my case in a favorable light. Do I think one needs to be reholstering their gun or cleaning my blood off ytheir knife before I think I'm in danger, no. But, I certainly know that a person who is running away from me with his back turned not brandishing a weapon is of no "immediate" danger to me. NDS, I realize that in Texas you have the right to defend your property by force if necessary (Castle Doctrine, etc.), but this is a policy I must humbly disagree with. Is it not that same policy who vindicated a man who after watching his neighbors house being robbed in the middle of the day called the police and told them he was going to shoot them if they didn't get there in time ignoring the dispatchers urgings to stay inside where he was safer? Then, did he not confront them outside with a shotgun where he proceeded to shoot both of the men in the back with a as they ran away, ignoring his orders to stop? Forgive me, but killing anyone for the defense of any property is simply wrong, because it places the value of human life (criminal or innocent) at the price of what's being stolen. Furthermore, to say that someone is justified in killing a criminal simply becasue he is a criminal is also wrong. We can't decide to kill someone just because he's a criminal and he stole from us. In my belief system, the right to decide who lives and who dies is God's alone. We have the right to defend our lives and the lives of our brothers and sisters against those trying to take our lives, nothing more. This shooting just doesn't pass the sniff test. It just doesn't seem clean. And I think that as responsible gun owners, we shouldn't relish in this criminals (humans) death or glorify the woman who took his life when she was not in danger of losing hers. Might she have felt it was in danger, yes, perhaps. But her words on the stand give me pause.

 

[HK4U]

Everyone has to decide for themselves what to do in a situation like this. Are you willing to let him flee with what belongs to you rather that shoot that person. What if it is your last dime you have and some punk that does not want to work for a living helps himself to it? Another thing to consider. If you let him get away what if tomorrow he kills someone for their money.? How will you feel then?

 

[cgnavarro]

What keeps being fallen back on is that he was a criminal and it serves him right getting shot for stealing a purse, or what if he had gone on to do something worse. If that's the logic here, then let's extend it out past this incident. Let's just shoot everybody on the grounds that they might at some point in their lives fall on hard times and turn to a life of crime. Let's shoot jaywalkers, because as we all know, that's just a gateway crime to mass murder. Let's tell convenience store owners it's alright to shoot anyone regardless of age, race, sex, religion, or creed in the back as they try to run out of their stores with the snickers bar they just pocketed, because after all they were engaged in a cime and deserved it, be it a 40 year old man, or a 15 year old girl who was doing it on a dare. I don't understand how life can be regarded so cheaply not to find it ridiculous to shoot someone over things. Even if it's every penny you have in the world, that gives you the right to take one of God's creatures and erase them from existence? You take life to prevent your own life from being taken from you, why is that so extreme a view? I think what bothers me most is not what happened; because for all I know she honestly felt her life was in danger when she fired (though her statement to the jury tells me otherwise). What really bothers me is how people can view this as anything but a tragedy. How we can applaud what was either a killing as a result of a theft, or a killing as a result of a misjudgement, ir beyond me.

 

[boris]

my .02

What keeps being fallen back on is that he was a criminal and it serves him right getting shot for stealing a purse, or what if he had gone on to do something worse. If that's the logic here, then let's extend it out past this incident. Let's just shoot everybody on the grounds that they might at some point in their lives fall on hard times and turn to a life of crime. Let's shoot jaywalkers, because as we all know, that's just a gateway crime to mass murder. Let's tell convenience store owners it's alright to shoot anyone regardless of age, race, sex, religion, or creed in the back as they try to run out of their stores with the snickers bar they just pocketed, because after all they were engaged in a cime and deserved it, be it a 40 year old man, or a 15 year old girl who was doing it on a dare. I don't understand how life can be regarded so cheaply not to find it ridiculous to shoot someone over things. Even if it's every penny you have in the world, that gives you the right to take one of God's creatures and erase them from existence? You take life to prevent your own life from being taken from you, why is that so extreme a view?

it is generally understood that most gun owners have a little thing called common sense. here in texas, the use of deadly force is authorized if any crime is being committed on your property at night. would i shoot some kid t.p.ing my yard? no. would i shoot the same kid breaking into my house and robbing my family? yes. we do not tolerate dumbbutts inthis state for very long. you commit a crime and you get shot... not my problem. i am sure though that your buddy the socialist and his cronies in congress will find a way to make us out to be the bad guy. will you go along with that? shoot more bad guys, there will be less bad guys to deal with. those who remain will likely wind up as politicians.

 

[cgnavarro]

Boris: My "buddy the socialist and his cronies in congress", I hadn't realized McCain had won the election and switched parties. If you must know, I'm a Democrat who voted for McCain. I think gays should be allowed to marry, and I think that abortion is wrong. I'm a Methodist, and am currently on unemployment. When I was working I paid my taxes to support not only social security for my elders, but welfare for those that need a hand.

And all of that has nothing to do with the fact theft is not a justification for killing someone.

Furhtermore, labeling people accomplishes nothing. If we wan't to protect our 2nd ammendment rights and stop people from taking our guns, it's going to take conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, homosexuals and heterosexuals, Christians, Muslims and Atheists all working together. Devisiveness only makes us weaker. Try to think about that before you post. Be a team player.

Lastly, I support shooting BG's that deserve to be shot, ie. those attempting to take life.

 

[boris]

oh yeah?

Boris: My "buddy the socialist and his cronies in congress", I hadn't realized McCain had won the election and switched parties. If you must know, I'm a Democrat who voted for McCain. I think gays should be allowed to marry, and I think that abortion is wrong. I'm a Methodist, and am currently on unemployment. When I was working I paid my taxes to support not only social security for my elders, but welfare for those that need a hand.

And all of that has nothing to do with the fact theft is not a justification for killing someone.

Furhtermore, labeling people accomplishes nothing. If we wan't to protect our 2nd ammendment rights and stop people from taking our guns, it's going to take conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, homosexuals and heterosexuals, Christians, Muslims and Atheists all working together. Devisiveness only makes us weaker. Try to think about that before you post. Be a team player.

Lastly, I support shooting BG's that deserve to be shot, ie. those attempting to take life.

there is NO ONE who is more of a team player than i. people who know me and have worked with me are well aware of this. but you are from california, and that fact explains a great deal. i have visited your state twice. 'nuff said.

 

[cgnavarro]

Great, then let's argue the issue, and not the geography.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Had this woman been a cop, any accomplices would have been charged in this criminals death.

Actually, I think even in this case where the scumbag was deleted by a non-police officer, the scumbag's cohorts would get charged for the scumbag's death. If there's a cadre of dirtbags robbing a Stop `n' Rob, and the cashier pulls a shotgun and blows the two at the counter away and the wheelman outside floors it and is caught later, that wheelman still gets charged with his accomplices' deaths.

CathyInBlue, I think your[sic] not stating my case in a favorable light.

We're in the arena of public opinion. It is not my responsibility to state your case well. It's my responsibility to state my case well. For your case to be well stated is your responsibility.

But, I certainly know that a person who is running away from me with his back turned not brandishing a weapon is of no "immediate" danger to me.

As long as I am still in the "immediate" aftermath of a criminal attack, the perpetrators are an "immediate" danger to me unless they can demonstrate by positive action to be surrendering, disarming, and offering no more resistance to me.

 

[cgnavarro]

Yes, CathyInBlue, but it is also important not to set up straw men to be easily knocked down, if the debate is to be fair and polite.

 

[Wolfling68]

Right or wrong, legal or illegal, moral or not, it's still funny!!! (and yes, I do laugh at the Darwin awards)

 

[1015811414]

So much for "all life is precious" I guess.

It is plainly obvious that life is NOT precious. If it were then the Link Removed would not have happened. Perhaps we should outlaw motor vehicles?

The point is that this woman had the right to defend herself by whatever means available to her at the time. The gun served to level the playing field. She was not acting as judge, jury, and executioner. She was responding to a crime being committed against her that may have endangered her life. Should we take the time to assess if the situation is life threatening before we draw out firearm. It is only fractions of seconds that this decision needs to be made.

Obviously, this woman should have been more circumspect in what she says to her peers who are attempting to decide her fate. But aside from all that, all we have at this point is an anecdotal report as to what actually happened, and what was actually said.

 

[cgnavarro]

The traffic fatalities you quote are (I would think) vastly accidental and perhaps a smaller number of those are cases where the car is used as a weapon. This is a case where the victim chose to gun down her assailant as he ran from her with her purse. They are not the same.

I make room for the possibility that this shooting was justified even though I personally doubt it based on her flippant statement. What I do not make room for is this story being celebrated.

You ask if we should decide whether our life is in danger before we draw our firearms. Of course we should. As gun owners and carriers, it's our responsibility to do just that. When we get it right, we get it right. When we get it wrong, we should be held accountable. This woman was acquitted becasue, apparently, she acted within the laws of her state. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right.

 

[1015811414]

I am agreeing with you that we should take the time to assess the situation before we draw and fire. My fat fingers and lisdexia got the sentence out with the "Should" before the "we". Did not mean to imply anything else. The second sentence was merely stating that we may have only fractions of seconds to make that decision.

It is obvious by now, having read all the entries in this thread, that you feel very strongly about your position. And you are entitled to your position. I just disagree. That is all.

 

[cgnavarro]

And that is what's cool about America, my friend.

 

[Sheldon]

That was a joke son.....

Just like this is.....

Drinking with a American Girl

A Mexican, an Arab, and a American girl are in the same bar. When the Mexican finishes his beer, he throws his glass in the air, pulls out his pistol, and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, 'In Mexico, our glasses are so
cheap we don't need to drink with the same one twice.'

The Arab, obviously impressed by this, drinks no-alcohol beer (cuz he's a muslim!),
throws it into the air, pulls out his AK-47, and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, 'In the Arab World, we have so much sand to make glasses that we don't need to drink with the same one twice either.'

The American girl, cool as a cucumber, picks up her beer, downs it in one gulp, throws the glass into the air, whips out her 45, and shoots the Mexican and the Arab. Catching her glass, setting it on the bar, and calling for a refill, she says,

'In America we have so many illegal aliens that we don't have to drink with the same ones twice.'

 

[cgnavarro]

Hey! I'm a Mexican Arab, man!

 

[cgnavarro]

Mah, I'm just kiddin.

 

[gdcleanfun]

When is a BG deemed to be no longer a threat?

I'm going to jump in here and address a point upon which I don't think anyone touched.

Where does it say that a perpetrator who is running away from a crime is no longer a threat?

Criminals regularly carry. They carry knives, handguns, rifles, shotguns, lots of things that can be thrown. They spit. They stop running and come back. They throw knives from long distances. They shoot their victims behind them while running away. Their accomplices knock down victims as other perps get going in another direction. So, I ask, how far can someone reasonably throw a knife and inflict harm on someone? How far away must a BG be before their shooting behind them does not harm? Spit can carry for many feet. Spitting on someone is a felony is some states.

If you fear for your life, the lives of someone around you, depending upon the state and the circumstances of the crime, you (you meaning the collective you, or more specifically: we) are probably justified to use deadly force to save your life, and the lives of those around you, and justified to mitigate the threat that someone wishes upon you. We can Monday-morning quarterback all day but we don't know all the facts surrounding what happened. Until then, or until we sit on her jury, we'll never know. She did what she thought best, I'll grant her that. I'd want people to grant that to me.

Yes, life is precious, and my life is just as precious as the BG's life. When it comes down to him or her or me or mine, I have no compunctions about what needs to be done to protect the preciousness of me and mine.

 

[Huklberyhound]

I call it " 100% rehabilitation. He is now ready to be interred into society. " The guy has my address, as far as I'm concerned, he will be visiting my house in the middle of the night. Should I hope that I wake up before he gets to my girls? Innocent life is precious, not all life. This guy chose to be subhuman and he got his reward that he knew ahead of time that might come to him. As far as my teenage son getting shot/arrested for doing something stupid, he knows that I will have no sympathy for him because I gave him all the tools and information he needed to keep him out of that situation.