Houston robbery goes bad… for the bad guy.

[SmashMouth]

9 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

This case might get the sympathy vote from people who are tired of  crime.

Although they do not directly say it, almost anything is acceptable, regardless of the law, if the bad guy is put away either in prison or by death.  To that I mean that many people will overlook what maybe a violation of the law as long as the person that they support wins. I have seen numerous comments of people that have no idea what the law says but are willing to send money for this guy‘s defense.

There was a case in the news maybe 8 to 10 years ago. A guy had his home broken into maybe once or twice or something like that. Maybe it was just a neighbor’s home, I don’t really remember. He set up cameras in his home to catch who may be breaking into homes. Sure enough, a teenage boy and girl broke into, I think his basement. He waited for them to come inside and I think the boy came first. The homeowner shot him and I think the kid fell on the steps walking up to the house from the basement. This kid did not make any threats and was unarmed. Shooting him during a burglary might have been lawful at the moment. I think the homeowner’s cameras was running and he recorded himself taunting the the teenage felon and then shot him in the head and killed him. He waited for a few minutes to see if anyone else entered  and the girl came inside through the window to see what was happening. Again the homeowner shot her and then started making fun of her and shot and killed her also.

The point being that using deadly force to stop, a burglary, might have been lawful in his state. The problem is that once they were down, he finished them off as it was clear by his own recording that that is what he did. They were clearly no longer a threat. If I remember correctly, I think the guy was convicted of murder on both counts.

I know people are making the issue in this situation that you can’t really tell by the camera. Let’s assume for the sake of argument, that there was a different camera with a completely different angle and it clearly showed that the robber had dropped the gun and was not moving. Under any rational thought, he was clearly no longer a threat.

Assuming that was true, how many people would vote to let the guy go in what would be murder because the other guy was committing a felony?

How many people think the guy that killed the two teenagers breaking into his home was justified, even though they were clearly no longer a threat?

In other words, do you get to empty your magazine and kill them, even when the incident is over, because they were committing a felony?

That's very thought-provoking. I have wrestled with some of those scenarios (in my head only, lol). I'm all in for protecting what's mine, but at some point the line crosses into vigilante justice. The kids that broke into the guys were murdered per your details, in my opinion. 

[baddog]

There are too many scenarios to ever come to a conclusion on what was justifiable homicide or borderline murder. On the outside looking in, we can hold people accountable whereas, had that been us facing a life/death situation, our feelings could change dramatically, and we could then see how minds react when faced with being murdered, even for a wallet.

This guy got what he deserved. He knew the consequences of his actions and threatened people’s lives for money…..a terrible gamble.