Some of us are just sick and tired of watching our justice system conveniently and consistently fail to properly punish criminals. Judges, mostly liberal, are ruining this country by failing to enact harsh penalties for those folk that prey off of the fortunes of others who have earned what they have.

Mostly Conservative you mean. Federal Judges are nominated by the President, who is a conservative and the SCOTUS has 5 Conservatives to a single liberal. Trial judges are either elected by voters or appointed by the Governor. I don't consider Texas to be a very liberal state, so I would wager it be a conservative court.

This man was charged with the protection of his neighbor's assets earned legally. He carried out his duty. Had the two scumbags laid face-first on the ground when confronted with a 12-gauge bore, they'd be alive and released from jail to steal, rape and kill in 3 months.

First of all the Grand Jury indictment is sealed so I don't know how you can make interpretations about what happened when the facts are not released. The police in this case have stated these guys were shot in the back, which indicates they were attempting to flee...

And I'm surprised y'all don't understand the Castle Doctrine as well as you think. To fall under that defense, a crime has to be committed through a burden of proof by an investigation. If Johnny-come-home-late is sneaking into his window and Joe Neighbor puts a boat tail .308 into his chest, Joe Neighbor will be charged and convicted of manslaughter. That's plain and simple.

You are totally wrong. Texas Castle Doctrine law has a specific clause that allows a defendent to extend Castle Doctrine to his neighboors property with the neighboors consent. If Mr Horn had this consent then the shooting under Taxas Castle Doctrine is legal under state law, its just morally rupugnant.

And if this makes Chris Criminal pick up a rusty Jennings .22 or a POS Glock turned sidewise all gangsta style, I say let him - it'll make the case all the better for us trained, well armed homeowners that put two in his chest and one in his head while he's trying to figure out why that sideways aim can't give him a proper sight picture.

So you wish to encourage Criminals to arm themselves? Sorry, that's got to be dumbest idea I have heard in a long time. If gang members were as bad shots as you claim then DC wouldnt have had the 1200 murders last year, which I will promise you most of which were related to gangs/crime. And let me tell you something else, its not going to be as easy as you think, this isnt Hollywood and Boys N the Hood. Thanks to our lax military recruitment policy that no longer screens recruits, we are seeing more and more criminals (and espicially gang members) with US military training. Also many gang members from south America also have military training. So gang members are getting better with their weapons.

This was a good shoot, and two less scumbags are out there raping your mom, stealing your stuff, mooching off the welfare system.

It's time that we Americans stop pandering to the dirtbags. If we had the gonads to take crime into our own hands, there would be no more crime; rather than making the good guys seem like criminals in the courts.

You dont think using deadly force to prevent a robbery on another property where there is no immidiate threat to life is not just a tad excessive? Arn't people entitled to trial by jury? a lawyer? and due process? The US Constitution says they are. There is nothing about the right for a citizen to commit a public execution. You might be sick of crime, but that doesnt give anybody the right to 'adminster' justice.

You know, the Klu Klux Klan made a similar arguement. They argued in the 1950s that if the US Government let Black person "problem" to the Klan, other people wouldnt have to worry about it.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Some of us are just sick and tired of watching our justice system conveniently and consistently fail to properly punish criminals. Judges, mostly liberal, are ruining this country by failing to enact harsh penalties for those folk that prey off of the fortunes of others who have earned what they have.

Mostly Conservative you mean. Federal Judges are nominated by the President, who is a conservative and the SCOTUS has 5 Conservatives to a single liberal. Trial judges are either elected by voters or appointed by the Governor. I don't consider Texas to be a very liberal state, so I would wager it be a conservative court.

Exactly my point, sir. This is a law that has finally been enacted by ONE system of courts in ONE state.

The line between conservative and liberal ends where the politics begin. Finally, for the first time in a long time, a panel of lawmakers sided with us law abiding citizens rather than playing liberal-ACLU touchy-feely and pandering to criminals.

And Bush is no conservative. Have you SEEN what he's enacted (and failed to enact) in his tenure as POTUS? His dossier may read "conservative" under the political classification, but that is in title only. I respect the man, but he's no friend to the conservative party.

This man was charged with the protection of his neighbor's assets earned legally. He carried out his duty. Had the two scumbags laid face-first on the ground when confronted with a 12-gauge bore, they'd be alive and released from jail to steal, rape and kill in 3 months.

First of all the Grand Jury indictment is sealed so I don't know how you can make interpretations about what happened when the facts are not released. The police in this case have stated these guys were shot in the back, which indicates they were attempting to flee...

...Which, according to TX State law, is a presumption of guilt and exonerates the shooter from any responsibility to act within the parameters of the failure to retreat laws in other, more liberal states.

Your letting emotion get the better sense of your judgment. Yes, two lives were ended early. But how many were saved by not allowing these two to run away and arm themselves for their next robbery?

In the end, it is all speculation except for one thing: According to Texas, the neighbor was within his legal rights to shoot and kill both thieves. That's why the case is sealed: it's over - ruled a good shoot.

Perhaps your references to the crime rate in Dallas helped to facilitate the decision? What thou sowest, thou shall certainly reap. I shed no tears for two scumbags bleeding in the dirt where they belong. Criminals take note. Keep playing the justice system, you'll eventually run out of sympathetic ears.

And I'm surprised y'all don't understand the Castle Doctrine as well as you think. To fall under that defense, a crime has to be committed through a burden of proof by an investigation. If Johnny-come-home-late is sneaking into his window and Joe Neighbor puts a boat tail .308 into his chest, Joe Neighbor will be charged and convicted of manslaughter. That's plain and simple.

You are totally wrong. Texas Castle Doctrine law has a specific clause that allows a defendent to extend Castle Doctrine to his neighboors property with the neighboors consent.

Correct. And that Doctrine specifically states that a crime must be occurring - specifically, breaking and entering. If someone walks on the neighbor's lawn and you blast a hole in them, you're going to prison. Which is exactly what I said.

If Mr Horn had this consent then the shooting under Taxas Castle Doctrine is legal under state law, its just morally rupugnant.

What's more morally repugnant than choosing to steal from and possibly maim or kill otherwise innocent people? Don't waste your sympathy on these two, MMarsh... they'd steal from you and put a bullet in your back as you're standing up for them. That's what criminals do. Recidivism statistics speak for themselves. You'd be their next victim the moment you were of no further use to them.

And if this makes Chris Criminal pick up a rusty Jennings .22 or a POS Glock turned sidewise all gangsta style, I say let him - it'll make the case all the better for us trained, well armed homeowners that put two in his chest and one in his head while he's trying to figure out why that sideways aim can't give him a proper sight picture.

So you wish to encourage Criminals to arm themselves?
Sorry, that's got to be dumbest idea I have heard in a long time.
That is NOT what I said. I said that if a criminal is scared of the new Texas laws and decides to arm themselves then us legal gun owners have little to fear. Seriously, do you REALLY think they stand a spoon's chance in salad facing off with a well-trained gun owner with a high quality firearm?

Sorry, that's got to be dumbest idea I have heard in a long time.

Don't hang around with many liberals, then?

If gang members were as bad shots as you claim then DC wouldnt have had the 1200 murders last year, which I will promise you most of which were related to gangs/crime.

Bah. C'mon, hoss, you can do better than this. It doesn't take proficiency with a firearm to spray a house with 5 homies in a drive-by and get a lucky shot. And certainly not when you jab a barrel in someone's ribs. DC is filled with gangs shooting at each other. Just more puddles of blood fertalizing the grass, in my opinion. Let them kill each other.

But you bring up an interesting point: If gun control works, why does DC have so many firearm homicides? Take your time, you can get back with me on that.

And let me tell you something else, its not going to be as easy as you think, this isnt Hollywood and Boys N the Hood.

Just who do you think you're talking to? While I don't release everything about my past here, be assured I am no Rambo-wannabe. I am fully aware of the truth of having a weapon pointed at you and reacting to end the threat.

Thanks to our lax military recruitment policy that no longer screens recruits, we are seeing more and more criminals (and espicially gang members) with US military training. Also many gang members from south America also have military training. So gang members are getting better with their weapons.

As are legal gun owners. It all balances out.

But what do you propose to ebb the flow? Taking guns away from legal owners won't stop criminals from obtaining (and using) them, so that's not a solution, just as history has proven time and time again. Maybe we need harsher penalties for criminals? More stringent requirements for joining the military? Seal our borders so those South American bangers can't get in?

Ah, Marsh, you're thinking more conservative every day, my friend. I knew you'd be turned

This was a good shoot, and two less scumbags are out there raping your mom, stealing your stuff, mooching off the welfare system.

It's time that we Americans stop pandering to the dirtbags. If we had the gonads to take crime into our own hands, there would be no more crime; rather than making the good guys seem like criminals in the courts.

You dont think using deadly force to prevent a robbery on another property where there is no immidiate threat to life is not just a tad excessive?

I suppose that depends on your personal and moral definition of "excessive." I've heard too many stories where a thief was released from jail and immediately went back to stealing - only to eventually come across an occupied home and killing the occupants when they were surprised and decided their "fix" was more important than innocent Human life.

Sure, it's excessive. Crime in this country is excessive. If the politicians can't put an end to it, then someone has to. That is the nature of being a protector.

Know why stealing horses wasn't a very prolific career in 1870-ish America?

Arn't people entitled to trial by jury? a lawyer? and due process?

Did these two dirtbags give the homeowners a trial by jury to see if it was fair that the stuff they worked their lives for would be stolen? This is the "criminals have all the rights" attitude that has turned this country upside down. Think about it.

The US Constitution says they are. There is nothing about the right for a citizen to commit a public execution. You might be sick of crime, but that doesnt give anybody the right to 'adminster' justice.

Legally, no: Gunning someone down in the street is still murder. However, the Castle Doctrine was upheld by SCOTUS, so they obviously disagree with your assessment of Constitutional privileges and rights. Luckily for us, they don't blame the victim.

You know, the Klu Klux Klan made a similar arguement. They argued in the 1950s that if the US Government let Black person "problem" to the Klan, other people wouldnt have to worry about it.

So you're comparing stealing to racism? Not sure I can reach that far, my friend.

Look, bro, I am a Christian and I don't think anyone is above redemption and forgiveness. However, we have to draw a line and make people want help for themselves. Personally, I think a few thousand legally dead criminals at the hands of citizens will send a message to the criminal community that will reach many and convince them to repent of their past and find another way to live.

If a few have to perish to save the many, then so be it. After all, they decided their path, and every action has consequences.

If a few have to perish to save the many, then so be it. After all, they decided their path, and every action has consequences.

Even if it is due to circumstances beyond their control they have been pushed into a life of crime? Would it not be better to capture them and try to rehab them into productive citizens providing them with opportunities, then executing them for burglary. Especially the young ones.

If you grew up in the ghetto and the only way to stay safe and gain the respect of your peers or in the case of some people, survive, was to steal and commit crimes and you see no other way out of your situation. How would you feel if you got executed for trying to make ends meat. I am not saying robbery is ok, its not. However, you have to look at both sides of the spectrum, I have volunteered in troubled youth centers and juvenile centers, a lot of these kids saw robbery as a way of life since birth and your desire to execute them instead of at least TRY to reform them is just unfathomable.

This problem is even further compounded when you take in the fact that many conservatives want to do away with the social welfare programs that keep some of these families afloat.

The problem is that the chances of someone who has grown up around crime all his life changing because of some prison program on making people useful is about as high as sperm fertilizing an egg.
And even if they want to go honest, their criminal record means one thing: they are going to have a REAL hard time getting hired.
Habit's a b1tch. You go down one path and you seem to go down the same path forever. Heck, explains my re-enlistment.

I disagree sir, I am talking about youth here >25 type. I believe that if presented opportunities they really would like to reform. Above that age and you right its a habit, a way of life. Even so, it does not mean they should not be given opportunities and even if they disregard them their crimes do not warrant execution we are not in the 17th century anymore.

There is an opportunity. It's called the Army.

There is an opportunity. It's called the Army.

Being that the success rate is what it is for these rehabilitation programs, the programs themselves are not excellent and the success rate is not sky high, they do work for some though. Maybe putting these people in uniform with a weapon is not the brightest idea.

Originally Posted by Rabs

I disagree sir, I am talking about youth here >25 type. I believe that if presented opportunities they really would like to reform. Above that age and you right its a habit, a way of life. Even so, it does not mean they should not be given opportunities and even if they disregard them their crimes do not warrant execution we are not in the 17th century anymore.

While I am prepared to accept that the shootings were unwarranted I am not going to accept that the justice systems role has anything to do with rehabilitation, its role is to determine guilt or innocence and assign an appropriate punishment. In fact I tend to believe that one of the great failings of the justice system is its continuing soft approach to sentencing.

Especially with child molesters. The liberals seem to rather be in favor of rewarding these types.

I was on a jury that convicted a man for breaking and entering. He told a friend what his plans were and the friend reported him to the police. He fessed up and was prosecuted even though he never broke in. The law states that his intention to break in was enough so we convicted him and put his butt in Hunstville to ruminate for a few years. Private property is sacred in Texas and the penalty is harsh. I can see how someone who used deadly force to protect someone or even their property could easily be no-billed. The law may not seem fair to some but it's up to a jury, not public opinion.

By the way, the building he was planning to break into was a storage building, not a home.