TexasCHLforum.com

I still don't see the basic facts being reported any differently in this article than in the first article. He still fired on a fleeing automobile. He still says he was afraid for his life, but he still doesn't say why. All we have so far, including from people quoted in the article, is pure speculation as to his reason for shooting.

The shooter's attorney says:

"I think he had a good idea that they had something they were reaching for down in that car," said Wheat of the shooting incident, which put one man into the hospital."

{snip}

"Nobody really wanted for this guy to end up this way. Not the shooter, not anyone on the street, apparently not the people in the car, but they made a choice to go and steal stuff from a neighbor's house," said Wheat.

The attorney speculates without offering any proof or even a statement from his client that he suspected the BGs were reaching for a weapon. Has a weapon been found? Not so far. The "justification" the attorney makes for the shooting isn't that his client was threatened with a weapon, or even that his client saw a furtive movement, but rather that his client was justified in shooting because the perps made the choice to commit a robbery on his neighbor.

Still think the shooting stinks.

It may not be the popular opinion, but I think this shooting stinks. I agree that there exist people who "need killin," but I don't want to be the executioner unless there is no other recourse and I or someone else are being directly threatened with violence. I am not a paladin, and nobody has appointed me to the role of society's "punisher." In an exchange of PMs with another member who rightly cautioned me about being too zealous regarding property if it places my own life in danger with an unknown or unquantifiable amount of risk, I concluded that one must be careful to be aware of that point where one's blind pride intersects with one's desire to do the right thing.

I believe that God has no problem with me defending my home and its contents with lethal force from an intruder if I am inside. I also believe that God has no problem with me defending my person or the person of another outside of my home with lethal force from someone who intends to carry out violence. I don't think that, in God's economy, He smiles on my shooting a man in the back who is absconding with my neighbor's television. Back shooting is morally problematic for me.

I don't think the thief should get away with it, but I don't think he should die for it. I believe that real justice allows for measured responses according to the crime, and to the circumstances surrounding the crime. If the shooter had the time to get his gun and then exit his house to confront the thieves, then he also had the time to write down their license plate number and descriptions - from a safe distance - and report the information to the police. Odds are, they would have been apprehended fairly quickly and property recovered. There is no mention of whether or not the thieves were armed, and while they certainly didn't seem worried about being confronted by an armed neighbor, there is no indication in the article of whether or not they actually threatened the shooter, or just ignored his commands to stand down. At what point did his blind pride intersect with his desire to do the right thing? I've very leery of this one.

boomerang wrote:If criminals move to NY or DC or LA or Mexico or Canada because they don't want to get shot by Texans then that also makes Texas a better place to live.

If Criminals move to NY or DC or LA or Mexico or Canada... ...they can get elected to office!