Page 1 of 2
Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:19 pm
by seamusTX
Amarillo, January 7 -- A homeowner shot at two men who allegedly broke into his occupied home. One man who was shot ran outside and died. The other fled, leaving a trail of blood.
Police are treating the incident as a justified defensive shooting, pending investigation.
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/010809/new_news2.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Some interesting unanswered questions: Apparently the home had been broken into twice in recent weeks and had also been the scene of an armed robbery that was not reported to police.
- Jim
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:29 pm
by flb_78
Previous break-ins had been reported, but nothing was ever found or anyone ever prosecuted.
Criminal defense attorney Jeff Blackburn was on TV last night saying the castle doctrine is a bone headed piece of legislation that will result in more shootings and was pandering to the gun lobby.
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:38 pm
by seamusTX
I think he has a little to much sympathy for his clientele.
No matter. The majority of the legislature and the governor think differently.
- Jim
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:44 pm
by LabRat
flb_78 wrote:Previous break-ins had been reported, but nothing was ever found or anyone ever prosecuted.
Criminal defense attorney Jeff Blackburn was on TV last night saying the castle doctrine is a bone headed piece of legislation that will result in more shootings and was pandering to the gun lobby.
Of course he's going to whine. No prosecution of the homeowner....no need for a defense attorney.
No BG to defend.....no need for a defense attorney.
Just his wallet talking, IMO.
LabRat
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:28 pm
by Fangs
I can't say this enough, the more BGs get shot, the less BGs will be around. Whether from them making the decision or the lead making it for them.
Who doesn't want to live in a world where BGs are afraid of breaking into ANY house? Where they know they have a 1 in 10, or even 1 in 3 chance of getting pumped full of lead? When robbing people is no longer easier than a real job due to safety hazards, what do you think they'll do? (Hopefully move to New York)
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:45 pm
by Luggo1
I located the video of Blackburn's comments...they are moronic. I know him and am shocked he said it. I'll make a point to ask him the next time we are at the same seminar or something. He enjoys stirring the pot, don't give him the pleasure.
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:29 pm
by seamusTX
Since you know the guy, you might want to ask him what he thinks you're supposed to do when armed robbers are forcibly breaking into your house.
I can see both sides of the argument if you're talking about letting a robber steal your wrist watch or car; but when they break into your house, they are announcing by their actions that they have no compunction about robbing, killing, or raping you and other members of your family.
It has gone down that way many times.
- Jim
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:20 pm
by flb_78
Link to video with Jeff Blackburn. He refers to us as gun freaks.
http://myhighplains.com/media_player.php?media_id=52111" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:22 pm
by atxgun
So, prior to the castle doctrine you should not shoot someone breaking into your house? Or where there more restrictions, like they had to have a gun or something along those lines?
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:47 pm
by boomerang
seamusTX wrote:Since you know the guy, you might want to ask him what he thinks you're supposed to do when armed robbers are forcibly breaking into your house.
Catch and release. For best results they should be released in Blackburn's house at 2am.
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:41 pm
by seamusTX
atxgun wrote:So, prior to the castle doctrine you should not shoot someone breaking into your house? Or where there more restrictions, like they had to have a gun or something along those lines?
It has always been legal in Texas to use deadly force to stop attempted murder, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and rape, along with some other crimes.
Castle doctrine only clarified the situation with respect to vehicles and places of employment:
PC ยง9.32 (b)(1)(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; ...
- Jim
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:40 am
by Henry Dearborn
News Channel Four was fairly even handed in coverage. They quoted one local attorney as saying-"If you are breaking into people's houses and beating people up getting shot should be considered an occupational hazard".
Wonder who that was?
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:51 am
by Morgan
Well, I know who I'd never get for a defense attorney... not because of his politics, but because of his logic. He's an IDIOT.
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:55 am
by Purplehood
That video absolutely freaked me out. That was one of the stupidest comments I have ever come across. Does he do it just for attention?
Re: Amarillo homeowner repels alleged invaders
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:33 am
by LarryH
atxgun wrote:So, prior to the castle doctrine you should not shoot someone breaking into your house? Or where there more restrictions, like they had to have a gun or something along those lines?
Prior to the castle doctrine, the law said that you had a duty to retreat, if that was possible, before defending yourself.