PDA

View Full Version : Two Teens Killed In Home Invasion


HowardW56
09-04-2009, 10:23 AM
SAN MARCOS, Texas -- Police in Texas said a group of teenagers were trying to break into a home when a resident opened fire and killed two of the youths.

San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams said the shootings happened shortly before 2 a.m. Friday. He said two 16-year-olds died and a third teenager was seriously wounded. Another teen was unharmed and arrested in the shootings that were about 30 miles south of Austin.

Authorities declined to release the teenagers' identities but said the two killed were from Luling, about 20 miles from San Marcos.

Williams said police responded to a call of a home invasion and shots fired.

Authorities said the three people who were home at the time were not injured.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/20724799/detail.html

hill billy
09-04-2009, 10:27 AM
A little chlorine in the gene pool on a Friday morning. Good for the HO.

soundwave
09-04-2009, 10:27 AM
Glad to hear the victims are safe and the boneheads were taken care of.

Shotgun Man
09-04-2009, 10:30 AM
A little chlorine in the gene pool on a Friday morning. Good for the HO.

Funny. Yeah, these kids held real promise-- like producing more welfare babies and the cost of imprisonment.

Full Clip
09-04-2009, 10:54 AM
Well, that saved the taxpayers a lot of money.
Congrats to the homeowners for protecting themselves from common jackals.

Glock22Fan
09-04-2009, 11:03 AM
The more this is done, the less it will need to be done.

POLICESTATE
09-04-2009, 11:12 AM
Good thing it wasn't here in CA, everyone in the home would have been hauled off for jail while the media bellyaches over the untimely deaths of these poor youths...

Yeah, who probably knew the house they were breaking into was occupied, I wonder what their intentions were?

Glock22Fan
09-04-2009, 11:16 AM
Yeah, who probably knew the house they were breaking into was occupied, I wonder what their intentions were?

There's more and more of that. When people are home, their alarms are turned off. The chances of a resident being armed (or otherwise having a loaded gun within reach) are far less than the risk of setting off a silent alarm and getting an armed response. That's why I carry at home.

coolusername2007
09-04-2009, 11:17 AM
Gentlemen, I'm not going to revel in the loss of young lives. Surely this is devastating news for their families. I grew up in San Antonio, and know the San Marcos area. And I know the homeowner was well within their rights, but taking lives is always tragic. Further this story is incredibly short on specifis and details. Based on the way the article is written, sure it seems like a good shoot, but we don't know what really happened. All this to say it is my hope home owners who are protecting their families and properties use deadly force as a last resort and not the old adage of shoot first ask questions later.

Cru Jones
09-04-2009, 11:23 AM
I don't revel in the loss of young lives either. I revel in the loss of dirtbags who attempted to or forced their way into another person's home with the intent of doing harm or stealing from them.

Shotgun Man
09-04-2009, 11:24 AM
Gentlemen, I'm not going to revel in the loss of young lives. Surely this is devastating news for their families. I grew up in San Antonio, and know the San Marcos area. And I know the homeowner was well within their rights, but taking lives is always tragic. Further this story is incredibly short on specifis and details. Based on the way the article is written, sure it seems like a good shoot, but we don't know what really happened. All this to say it is my hope home owners who are protecting their families and properties use deadly force as a last resort and not the old adage of shoot first ask questions later.

Personally, I consider it a good thing when violent criminals are killed at a young age rather than reproducing, becoming incarcerated, etc., and becoming a burden to taxpayers.

coolusername2007
09-04-2009, 11:25 AM
I don't revel in the loss of young lives either. I revel in the loss of dirtbags who attempted to or forced their way into another person's home with the intent of doing harm or stealing from them.

I certainly have no problem with that either. Better the bad guys become the victim than the innocent.

Glock22Fan
09-04-2009, 11:28 AM
I don't revel in the loss of young lives. I despair at the necessity for these lives to be lost. However, I see no alternative as prison and the legal system generally is no deterrant, and people who do this sort of thing when young are usually a menace to society when older.

Not sure if shooting them dead is a deterrant, but it sure makes certain that they won't offend again. And it might deter others.

professorhard
09-04-2009, 11:28 AM
I hate when they leave out details of the weapon used by the victim to defend himself!

elSquid
09-04-2009, 11:38 AM
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2009/09/04/san_marcos_police_repor.html

Police Chief Howard Williams said the three residents of the home were awakened by a commotion shortly before 2 a.m. He said one resident opened a bedroom door to find a suspect pointing a weapon at him from the living room. Williams said the resident, who was armed with a pistol, shot three of the suspects, and that a fourth escaped uninjured.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6602869.html

Three of the four male teenagers who tried breaking into the home were armed, one with a handgun and two with pellet guns that looked like handguns, San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams said.

One of the three men who lived at the home opened fire on the teens, killing two 16-year-olds and wounding another suspect. A 17-year-old suspect fled the scene but was captured and arrested after returning to the scene to check on his friends, police said.

-- Michael

kf6tac
09-04-2009, 11:40 AM
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2009/09/04/san_marcos_police_repor.html

Police Chief Howard Williams said the three residents of the home were awakened by a commotion shortly before 2 a.m. He said one resident opened a bedroom door to find a suspect pointing a weapon at him from the living room. Williams said the resident, who was armed with a pistol, shot three of the suspects, and that a fourth escaped uninjured.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6602869.html

Three of the four male teenagers who tried breaking into the home were armed, one with a handgun and two with pellet guns that looked like handguns, San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams said.

One of the three men who lived at the home opened fire on the teens, killing two 16-year-olds and wounding another suspect. A 17-year-old suspect fled the scene but was captured and arrested after returning to the scene to check on his friends, police said.

-- Michael

Sounds like a fully justified defensive shooting to me.

professorhard
09-04-2009, 11:43 AM
Wonder where the lethal rounds impacted.

coolusername2007
09-04-2009, 11:55 AM
Sure does. Seems like they got what they deserved. Talk about making the mistake of their lives. What a waste of their lives. Seems like the residents didn't sustain any injuries, that's good.

bwiese
09-04-2009, 11:56 AM
Both the surviving uninjured teen and the wounded teen may well be charged with felony murder, given they participated in a crime where someone died (it's irrelevant if the dead were victims or perps).

They might get the Big Needle. Fair enough.

professorhard
09-04-2009, 12:01 PM
Both the surviving uninjured teen and the wounded teen may well be charged with felony murder, given they participated in a crime where someone died (it's irrelevant if the dead were victims or perps).

They might get the Big Needle. Fair enough.

I like it.

AggregatVier
09-04-2009, 2:16 PM
I certainly have no problem with that either. Better the bad guys become the victim than the innocent.

The people shot were not "victims". They were criminals. Please never confuse the two again. Thank you.

professorhard
09-04-2009, 2:27 PM
The victims are those that must resort to deadly force to protect their lives. The ones who were shot are the suspects.

Glock22Fan
09-04-2009, 2:31 PM
The victims in this case will be the innocent person (or people) having bad dreams for ages because they were put into the position of having to defend themselves.

Mikeb
09-04-2009, 3:09 PM
And this will add two more to the Brady Bunch list of children killed by gun violence.
Lies ,
Damn lies and statistics
take care
Mike

Nate74
09-04-2009, 3:19 PM
I've only been to Texas a hand full of times, but I have to ask, who in their right mind breaks into a home, in Texas no less, with a pellet gun? Doesn't Texas have one of the highest percentages of gun owners in the US?

TaxAnnihilator
09-04-2009, 3:28 PM
Anyone aware of whether homeowner's insurance would cover the likely wrongful death suit that that families (assuming they give a s***) would bring?

coolusername2007
09-04-2009, 3:38 PM
The people shot were not "victims". They were criminals. Please never confuse the two again. Thank you.

I certainly have no problem with that either. Better the bad guys become the "bullet baskets" than the innocent. Is that better? Geez, tough crowd.

Hogxtz
09-04-2009, 3:39 PM
If the kids chose that path for themselves than so be it. Save the tax payers money. I can speak from experiance. If the general citizens had any clue as to how many revolving door inmates are specific just to one county it would make you wish they all would try a home invasion. We feed them, provide free medical care and dental when so many citizens dont have any, we receive a lot of illegal allieans too driving around the county crashing into people and not having insurance because of the apple orchards and vinyards in my area and I have fingerprinted the same illegal allien 4 times for 4 new arrests in a period of 3.5 months. He was deported and returned 4 times to commit new crimes. I have ZERO sympathey for any of these dirt bags that choose to victimize, cheat, steal and hurt. They come to jail and file greivance forms because the free food is not up to their standards, after they have completley destroyed someones life. The bleeding heart liberal side of society has no idea that criminals are not normal folks, instead they are socio paths with narsasistic(spelling) personality disorders.

As af as youngsters goes, most of the time they are the most dangerous because they have the most to prove to their homies.

I hope Ca will someday have the same laws as Texas for ones defense of self and property, although we all know that will never happen.

hill billy
09-04-2009, 3:40 PM
I've only been to Texas a hand full of times, but I have to ask, who in their right mind breaks into a home, in Texas no less, with a pellet gun? Doesn't Texas have one of the highest percentages of gun owners in the US?

If they were smart, they wouldn't be crooks.

hill billy
09-04-2009, 3:43 PM
The victims in this case will be the innocent person (or people) having bad dreams for ages because they were put into the position of having to defend themselves.
I don't get this sometimes. If I just shot someone who was trying to rob, rape or kill me, I'd like to think I'd shrug my shoulders, consider my self better off and head for bed.

TaxAnnihilator
09-04-2009, 3:56 PM
Actually, not all states apply the same standard if a co-conspirator is killed. Alaska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington employ in their felony murder statutes the phrase “other than one of the participant’s” to prevent the application of felony murder to the death of a co-felon.

In this case, the felony murder rule in Tex. Penal Code §19.02(b)(3):
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

It does not mention a co-conspirator's death and thus would not preclude this charge (armed burg/robbery is the felony). Thoughts?

it's irrelevant if the dead were victims or perps

CowboyShooter
09-04-2009, 4:06 PM
Wonder where the lethal rounds impacted.

apparently in some areas that led to the invaders assuming room temperature.









:43:

Legend_AB
09-04-2009, 4:11 PM
I believe you are correct, TaxAnnihilator. Since Penal Code §19.02(b)(3) doesn't specifically mention the death of a co-conspirator, I don't see why they wouldn't be charged with their deaths.

Shotgun Man
09-04-2009, 4:11 PM
I don't get this sometimes. If I just shot someone who was trying to rob, rape or kill me, I'd like to think I'd shrug my shoulders, consider my self better off and head for bed.

How do you know?

BillCA
09-04-2009, 4:12 PM
Anyone aware of whether homeowner's insurance would cover the likely wrongful death suit that that families (assuming they give a s***) would bring?

Unlikely. Shooting someone in your home is a deliberate act and most insurance companies won't cover it. Just like they won't cover you if you punch a door-to-door salesman in the snoot for suggesting your siding looks like crap and needs his vinyl siding.

I don't get this sometimes. If I just shot someone who was trying to rob, rape or kill me, I'd like to think I'd shrug my shoulders, consider my self better off and head for bed.
Probably not, unless you're a borderline sociopath. You'll lie awake wondering why the person chose you, why he didn't flee or give up at gunpoint. You'll wonder if some DA will twist the situation to prosecute for his political agenda. You'll wonder how his family will react, whether they'll sue or not. You'll wonder if he was put up to it by his "friends" as an initiation. But sleep? Forget it.

We'll not doubt see the media trot out the obligatory weeping relatives crying that "he didn't deserve to die like this" or that "that man killed my son and he's not even in jail!"

It's real simple though. If you don't want your kids to die at a young age, teach them not to do illegal things.

Glock22Fan
09-04-2009, 4:13 PM
I don't get this sometimes. If I just shot someone who was trying to rob, rape or kill me, I'd like to think I'd shrug my shoulders, consider my self better off and head for bed.

Mmm, maybe if you are a combat experienced soldier, have shot someone before and/or are somewhat of a psychopath, that might be true.

I believe that us lesser mortals, killing for the first time, invariably feel some guilt however good the shoot is.

elSquid
09-04-2009, 4:14 PM
Anyone aware of whether homeowner's insurance would cover the likely wrongful death suit that that families (assuming they give a s***) would bring?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/032807dntexcastle.241e482.html

Gov. Rick Perry signed into law Tuesday a bill that gives Texans a stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.

...snip...

The new law will also provide civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill. Police and prosecutors can still press charges if they feel deadly force was illegally used, legislative sponsors said.

-- Michael

TaxAnnihilator
09-04-2009, 4:32 PM
Literally laughed out loud. Thanks!

Unlikely. Shooting someone in your home is a deliberate act and most insurance companies won't cover it. Just like they won't cover you if you punch a door-to-door salesman in the snoot for suggesting your siding looks like crap and needs his vinyl siding.

trautert
09-04-2009, 6:00 PM
"Mmm, maybe if you are a combat experienced soldier, have shot someone before and/or are somewhat of a psychopath, that might be true.

I believe that us lesser mortals, killing for the first time, invariably feel some guilt however good the shoot is."
__________________

Even when you have been there and done that, you should still feel it. It's when you don't that you have problems.
Tom

kf6tac
09-04-2009, 6:26 PM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/032807dntexcastle.241e482.html

Gov. Rick Perry signed into law Tuesday a bill that gives Texans a stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces.

...snip...

The new law will also provide civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill. Police and prosecutors can still press charges if they feel deadly force was illegally used, legislative sponsors said.

-- Michael

Texas is sounding better and better all the time, except that I'd probably go broke buying evil-in-California-but-not-in-Texas guns if I actually lived there.

M. Sage
09-04-2009, 6:30 PM
Both the surviving uninjured teen and the wounded teen may well be charged with felony murder, given they participated in a crime where someone died (it's irrelevant if the dead were victims or perps).

They might get the Big Needle. Fair enough.

It's a pretty cut-and-dried case, too. They might be put into the express lane. :43:

Good riddance. I don't "revel" in the loss of young lives, but to call what these "kids" were leading lives is just wrong. Breaking into a stranger's home armed like this shows evil intent.

The homeowner just carried the bullet in this case.

rabagley
09-04-2009, 7:19 PM
I don't get this sometimes. If I just shot someone who was trying to rob, rape or kill me, I'd like to think I'd shrug my shoulders, consider my self better off and head for bed.

I do believe that you're talking out of your a**. (Apologies to Shawshank Redemption)

Even among soldiers returning fire in firefights, the only ones who sleep well at night after knowingly killing another person are sociopaths or nearly so.

In fact, this attribute may just be why the genes for sociopathy persist. When you need someone to do some killing, they're good at it and they don't lose sleep.

Invisible_Dave
09-04-2009, 7:25 PM
Anyone aware of whether homeowner's insurance would cover the likely wrongful death suit that that families (assuming they give a s***) would bring?

My understanding of castle doctrine states (like Texas) is that law suits are prohibited if the plantiff (either perp or family of) was injured or killed in the commission of the crime.

JustGone
09-04-2009, 7:43 PM
My understanding of castle doctrine states (like Texas) is that law suits are prohibited if the plantiff (either perp or family of) was injured or killed in the commission of the crime.

Castle Doctrine, Texans don't mess around with letting the criminals family sue the victim.

M. Sage
09-04-2009, 8:18 PM
My understanding of castle doctrine states (like Texas) is that law suits are prohibited if the plantiff (either perp or family of) was injured or killed in the commission of the crime.

Pretty much. If it's found to be a justifiable homicide, there can be no civil suit.

Note the changes made in the Civil Practice and Remedies Code:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm

So long as the use of force is justified under Texas Penal Code, there can be no civil liability. None. Zero. Zip.

.... And we can use deadly force in defense of property, even the property of a third party. :43:

tango-52
09-04-2009, 8:43 PM
Any bets on whether the perps were Katrina "refugees"?

TaxAnnihilator
09-04-2009, 11:34 PM
The liability is one thing, the cost of filing the msj is another. Does the law provide fees and costs to the winner? Code section?

battleship
09-04-2009, 11:47 PM
Got them while they are young, now they cannot grow up to be pro criminals.

To some this might seem to extreme an action to take, but i would say that if i had a crystal ball there criminality would progress to worse things. Events could of turned out far worse for the home owners if they had not been armed.

And i agree, who in there right mind even with a low IQ would consider braking in to any house in Texas, seems completely reckless even suicidal to do so.

Gh0sT
09-05-2009, 12:02 AM
Here is the crazy part:

- 4 Male Teen/Adults (I consider being 16 a adult - they know what sex drugs and rock and roll is all about)
- All 4 males were armed in a certain fashion
*3 by CO2 Air guns that look realistic to real weapons (True because I own a few .177 of my own
*1 by a pistol, unknown


There are 4 gents with arms, "appearing to" rob a house. If it was one person, I might feel a little more sorry. But 4 people, that is a small wannabe gang that is causing some trouble. It is kind of hard to feel remorse, but 4 young gentlemen attempt to rob, that isn't just some robbery, that is a little assault team with assurance in numbers.

forgiven
09-05-2009, 12:44 AM
RIP to the victims and prayers for their families.

bernieb90
09-05-2009, 1:06 AM
"Never bring a gun unless you are willing to use it" applies to both good guys, and bad guys. When a criminal uses a gun in the commision of a crime it is pretty safe to assume that they are willing to use that gun. When a criminal enters an occupied home with a firearm it is perfectly clear what their intentions are. When they bring 3 of their buddies with guns as well (the nature of the gun is irrelevant) then we can be pretty sure that the homeowner, and their families are in for a very bad night. If the detals of the shooting are correct then this guy prevented the possible rape, or murder of his family members.

Whether he feels bad about it, and to what degree depends greatly on how much support he has from his family, friends, and community. Judging by the fact that this is Texas his family, and friends are treating him like a hero (as he is one), and he is getting plenty of invites to BBQs from his neighbors.

johnthomas
09-05-2009, 2:10 AM
RIP to the victims and prayers for their families.

What? The victims, (people that lived in the house) lived and their families aren't grieving.

tankerman
09-05-2009, 5:38 AM
Good thing it wasn't here in CA, everyone in the home would have been hauled off for jail while the media bellyaches over the untimely deaths of these poor youths...
you forgot a couple of things...the 'civil rights' groups that would be protesting and expressing their grief over the loss of such good young men and calling the shooter a racist. Then the lawsuits that would follow, suing the sh-t out of the homeowner that was defending himself.

tankerman
09-05-2009, 5:41 AM
Even among soldiers returning fire in firefights, the only ones who sleep well at night after knowingly killing another person are sociopaths or nearly so.

Are you speaking from experience? What exactly are you getting at?

Maestro Pistolero
09-05-2009, 8:04 AM
Here is the crazy part:

- 4 Male Teen/Adults (I consider being 16 a adult - they know what sex drugs and rock and roll is all about)
- All 4 males were armed in a certain fashion
*3 by CO2 Air guns that look realistic to real weapons (True because I own a few .177 of my own
*1 by a pistol, unknown


There are 4 gents with arms, "appearing to" rob a house. If it was one person, I might feel a little more sorry. But 4 people, that is a small wannabe gang that is causing some trouble. It is kind of hard to feel remorse, but 4 young gentlemen attempt to rob, that isn't just some robbery, that is a little assault team with assurance in numbers.

FWIW, I believe three of the four intruders were armed.

JDoe
09-05-2009, 9:00 AM
The victims in this case will be the innocent person (or people) having bad dreams for ages because they were put into the position of having to defend themselves.
I don't get this sometimes. If I just shot someone who was trying to rob, rape or kill me, I'd like to think I'd shrug my shoulders, consider my self better off and head for bed.

hill billy, you can't be blamed for thinking that way if you haven't had the experience or learned from others. The mind is a funny thing that doesn't always work like we think it should.

Glock22Fan is referring to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Anyone can get it. Sometimes it shows up pretty quickly, sometimes it might not show up for decades. Sometimes it goes away quickly and other times it can last for decades and be the most debilitating living hell on earth one can imagine.

Fortunately there is a greater understanding of how to treat PTSD today than ever before. With the assistance of the right people I believe most people who suffer with PTSD can find reasonable or even complete relief.

CALPsidewinder
09-05-2009, 9:03 AM
I do believe that you're talking out of your a**. (Apologies to Shawshank Redemption)

Even among soldiers returning fire in firefights, the only ones who sleep well at night after knowingly killing another person are sociopaths or nearly so.

In fact, this attribute may just be why the genes for sociopathy persist. When you need someone to do some killing, they're good at it and they don't lose sleep.


I don't think it has anything to do with sociopathy. The fact that a thug comes armed and breaks into a person's home shows a complete disregard for the "rights'' of another human, and therefore precludes them from being treated as a sane rational peer with the same rights. The actions of the thug makes him sub-human, and to care even one wit about taking his life shows little regard for one's own life or the lives of the people you would potentially be protecting (ie. family, friends, etc). It is not sociopathy to be emotionless in ending the life of a person/s who holds no value on life. One can wish that the situation were otherwise, that all men cared enough about their own lives to extend that benevolence towards others. But when we are confronted by a violent act, the last thing to do is to care about the attacker, as they have not earned that regard during or after. It is this irrational emotional regard for the criminal element that has ruined our penal system and allowed, child molesters, rapists and murderers back on the streets to do more harm.

Oh and I do speak from experience, and in no way do I profess or promote the idea that others are somehow the scapegoats to my inequities or troubles, and therefore cannot be defined as a sociopath.

Seesm
09-05-2009, 10:19 AM
Gotta get the rotten apples out of the basket or it will spoild the whole lot.

Good on ya "homeowner" Bad on ya 16 yr old kids...

You live in Texas.... "Dont mess with Texas"

M. Sage
09-05-2009, 10:35 AM
The liability is one thing, the cost of filing the msj is another. Does the law provide fees and costs to the winner? Code section?

Here's how it looks now (I can't find the updated amended version online except in the text of the bill as passed...):

(Civil Practice and Remedies Code) Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

I don't think it has anything to do with sociopathy. The fact that a thug comes armed and breaks into a person's home shows a complete disregard for the "rights'' of another human, and therefore precludes them from being treated as a sane rational peer with the same rights. The actions of the thug makes him sub-human, and to care even one wit about taking his life shows little regard for one's own life or the lives of the people you would potentially be protecting (ie. family, friends, etc). It is not sociopathy to be emotionless in ending the life of a person/s who holds no value on life. One can wish that the situation were otherwise, that all men cared enough about their own lives to extend that benevolence towards others. But when we are confronted by a violent act, the last thing to do is to care about the attacker, as they have not earned that regard during or after. It is this irrational emotional regard for the criminal element that has ruined our penal system and allowed, child molesters, rapists and murderers back on the streets to do more harm.

Oh and I do speak from experience, and in no way do I profess or promote the idea that others are somehow the scapegoats to my inequities or troubles, and therefore cannot be defined as a sociopath.

I agree with all that. As soon as they cross a certain line, I can't consider a violent criminal to be "alive" anymore. I think that they're dead and just haven't realized it yet. I also consider anybody who's willing to kick in a door at 2 AM for nefarious purposes to be sub-human. Sure, all this is probably just rationalization in case I ever am put in a life or death situation where someone has kicked my door in, but I'm Ok with that.

I know people who've killed other people, and most of 'em sleep just fine at night by simply knowing that what they did was moral and right.

Shotgun Man
09-05-2009, 10:52 AM
Both the surviving uninjured teen and the wounded teen may well be charged with felony murder, given they participated in a crime where someone died (it's irrelevant if the dead were victims or perps).

They might get the Big Needle. Fair enough.

SCOTUS has ruled that the death penalty for someone who was under 18 at the time of his crime is cruel and unusual punishment under the 8A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

BillCA
09-05-2009, 11:04 AM
SCOTUS has ruled that the death penalty for someone who was under 18 at the time of his crime is cruel and unusual punishment under the 8A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons
Well, too bad for a couple of them.
Instead of getting The Big Needle, they'll live the rest of their lives getting The Big Sausage. :eek:

BillCA
09-05-2009, 11:11 AM
Got them while they are young, now they cannot grow up to be pro criminals.

To some this might seem to extreme an action to take, but I would say that if I had a crystal ball there criminality would progress to worse things. Events could of turned out far worse for the home owners if they had not been armed.

And I agree, who in there right mind even with a low IQ would consider braking in to any house in Texas, seems completely reckless even suicidal to do so.
While you are probably right and I think stats show that punks like these are 80% likely to go on to even worse crimes later on, we don't know that for sure. This may have seemed like a good idea after they smoked that weed ... or it may have been the start of their careers. We have no way (at present) to know for sure.

Breaking into an occupied home anywhere in America is a high risk job and doing it in Texas it becomes a near certainty!

glockwise2000
09-05-2009, 11:14 AM
Gentlemen, I'm not going to revel in the loss of young lives. Surely this is devastating news for their families. I grew up in San Antonio, and know the San Marcos area. And I know the homeowner was well within their rights, but taking lives is always tragic. Further this story is incredibly short on specifis and details. Based on the way the article is written, sure it seems like a good shoot, but we don't know what really happened. All this to say it is my hope home owners who are protecting their families and properties use deadly force as a last resort and not the old adage of shoot first ask questions later.

What do you think those teenagers are doing 20 miles away from their home and on someone else's property forcing their way in?

Offering brand new door locks?

I would have done the same thing. I would rather kill someone first in defense than me being 6 feet under. I am not going to wait for them to push their way in.

I wish Cali was like Texas. Shoot first before asking (when someone forces their way in at my home).

rabagley
09-05-2009, 12:28 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with sociopathy. The fact that a thug comes armed and breaks into a person's home shows a complete disregard for the "rights'' of another human, and therefore precludes them from being treated as a sane rational peer with the same rights. The actions of the thug makes him sub-human, and to care even one wit about taking his life shows little regard for one's own life or the lives of the people you would potentially be protecting (ie. family, friends, etc). It is not sociopathy to be emotionless in ending the life of a person/s who holds no value on life. One can wish that the situation were otherwise, that all men cared enough about their own lives to extend that benevolence towards others. But when we are confronted by a violent act, the last thing to do is to care about the attacker, as they have not earned that regard during or after. It is this irrational emotional regard for the criminal element that has ruined our penal system and allowed, child molesters, rapists and murderers back on the streets to do more harm.

Oh and I do speak from experience, and in no way do I profess or promote the idea that others are somehow the scapegoats to my inequities or troubles, and therefore cannot be defined as a sociopath.

You're making an intellectual and rational argument. What we're talking about here is emotional responses (the ability to sleep well afterward).

Not knowing your circumstances, I've been in a situation where if the other guy hadn't run away I would have had to shoot him. I was ready and willing to do it. And I would have rationalized it by saying that the perp forced me to make a decision between him and someone I love.

But that very rational argument and firm knowledge that I was 100% in the right and that it was a "good shoot" wasn't going to be enough for me (and most of the population) to sleep well for a while afterwards. Hell, I didn't shoot him and I still had trouble sleeping for a week.

You say you're not a sociopath, fine. But your definition is strange and extremely narrow to the point of uselessness. I'm discussing individuals who feel no remorse for their actions, justified or not.

M. Sage
09-05-2009, 1:05 PM
There are folks who don't feel remorse when their actions are justified, though.

Flopper
09-05-2009, 1:32 PM
I wish Cali was like Texas. Shoot first before asking (when someone forces their way in at my home).

This refrain keeps being repeated, so I have to call FUD.

In CA, it is assumed that an uninvited person who forces their way into your home means to cause great bodily harm to it's occupants, and therefore deadly force is allowed.

Of course there are circumstances (there always are) that might complicate this (the person is known to you, etc), but as long as an uninvited person unknown to you has forcibly entered, the shoot should be ruled justifiable, per the PC.

gunsmith
09-05-2009, 1:56 PM
This refrain keeps being repeated, so I have to call FUD.

In CA, it is assumed that an uninvited person who forces their way into your home means to cause great bodily harm to it's occupants, and therefore deadly force is allowed.

Of course there are circumstances (there always are) that might complicate this (the person is known to you, etc), but as long as an uninvited person unknown to you has forcibly entered, the shoot should be ruled justifiable, per the PC.

its true even in SF!

SAN compnerd
09-05-2009, 2:19 PM
This refrain keeps being repeated, so I have to call FUD.

In CA, it is assumed that an uninvited person who forces their way into your home means to cause great bodily harm to it's occupants, and therefore deadly force is allowed.

Of course there are circumstances (there always are) that might complicate this (the person is known to you, etc), but as long as an uninvited person unknown to you has forcibly entered, the shoot should be ruled justifiable, per the PC.

Yes but in this retarded state the home owner who was completely justified under the penal code, would loose his home and perhaps his job and livelyhood due to the civil case that would inevitable be brought against him.

I don't revel in the loss of young lives. I despair at the necessity for these lives to be lost. However, I see no alternative as prison and the legal system generally is no deterrant, and people who do this sort of thing when young are usually a menace to society when older.

Not sure if shooting them dead is a deterrant, but it sure makes certain that they won't offend again. And it might deter others.

If the prision and legal system were a deterrant then they would not have been there and would not be worm food. In fact, the potential to encounter an armed home owner does not seem to be much of a deterrent, even in a state like Texas where the HO has much greater protections under the law and the perps SHOULD be scared s***less to approach someones home. Just another reason why we need less gun law restrictions and better protections for HO's in this state.

hawk81
09-05-2009, 3:40 PM
To bad, so sad.:D

rabagley
09-05-2009, 3:46 PM
There are folks who don't feel remorse when their actions are justified, though.

Yup. And those individuals are fundamentally different from me and people like me. I'm not some sort of expert on what's going on under the covers in a sociopath's brain, but someone who can pull a trigger on another human being, no matter what the circumstances, and not be shaken by the experience, is not "normal" as I know it.

ns209
09-05-2009, 8:29 PM
Someone breaks into my house at 2am their going to get smoked period!

supersonic
09-05-2009, 10:51 PM
I don't get this sometimes. If I just shot someone who was trying to rob, rape or kill me, I'd like to think I'd shrug my shoulders, consider my self better off and head for bed.

And you never will 'get it' unless you have to actually let that hammer go on someone. God forbid, I wouldn't wish it (PTSS or PTSD) on any innocent, law-abiding citizen. No matter how much one trains & prepares for the worst, knowingly cutting a man down right in front of you is just so...............un-natural. That's one of the reasons the aftermath is often much worse than the incident itself. Like a previous post said "But SLEEP?... FORGET IT." Oh, and the appetite goes out the window for quite some time, too. Physical illness sets in, and you just have to 'force -feed' yourself to keep a [relatively] 'even' keel and maintain some semblance of health. Psycotherapy and time are the only 2 roads to salvation.

M. Sage
09-05-2009, 10:53 PM
Someone breaks into my house at 2am their going to get smoked period!

Depends on the situation... If it looks like I have a good drop and I might be able to convince them to get on the floor on their own, I might go for it.

Any money they've got on 'em is mine in either case, though. :43:

supersonic
09-05-2009, 11:15 PM
But that very rational argument and firm knowledge that I was 100% in the right and that it was a "good shoot" wasn't going to be enough for me (and most of the population) to sleep well for a while afterwards. Hell, I didn't shoot him and I still had trouble sleeping for a week.

You say you're not a sociopath, fine. But your definition is strange and extremely narrow to the point of uselessness. I'm discussing individuals who feel no remorse for their actions, justified or not.

+100%:clap:

scrat
09-06-2009, 8:31 AM
Good thing it wasn't here in CA, everyone in the home would have been hauled off for jail while the media bellyaches over the untimely deaths of these poor youths...

Yeah, who probably knew the house they were breaking into was occupied, I wonder what their intentions were?

Your right sad but so true