Suspected Burglar Killed
Houston police said the woman spotted a 19-year-old in the parking lot of the Pinemont Forest Apartments in the 5900 block of Pinemont Street at about 9 p.m. Monday.
The woman retrieved a shotgun and fired one time from her second-floor apartment, which was nearby, police said.
The man suffered a gunshot wound to the head and died at the scene. His name was not released.
"It's scary to know that something so close can happen," said Gracie Melendez, a resident. "I don't think I would have the guts to shoot anybody or not even scare them -- shoot up in the air. I don't think I could handle a gun."
The woman was questioned and released without charges.
Police relocated the woman and her family for their safety.

http://www.click2houston.com/n....html

I saw this posted on another car forum, it is similar to the original Joe Horn case in some ways. A lot of people there are saying that the punishment fit the crime and the woman should be released without charges. Texas is a Castle Doctrine state. The controversy is that this was a theft and not a robbery and the woman was in no immediate danger. I personally don't think this fits the criteria for Castle and furthermore that Castle itself is too much freedom to trust every joe-schmo civilian with. What do you guys think?

But I don't know a single state where the penalty for theft is death, and since when can we chose to issue our own punishment when some one is breaking the law?

Law states that on a one lane road any vehicle that is holding up traffic (has more then 3 vehicles piled up behind it) must pull over and let traffic pass. Punishment is likely a small ticket.... But I think I will just run the person off the road. After all, they are effecting me and there is no other way for me to stop them!

"Pomona CA"

I'm not on the theifs side here... but lets look at it like this.
Say you have a daughter, and some one rapes her.

It is still very illegal for you to go out, find the rapist and shoot him with your shot gun.

If you can't even shoot a rapist, why should you be able to shoot a car thief? I would MUCH rather some one steal my car then rape my daughter.

If they know that they can steal and no one can do much to them, whats to stop them from stealing?

OMG EDITED FOR CONTENT.!!

Quote, originally posted by Jesda »

gulatimagic (12:57:15 PM): wow, I have New Kids On The Block on my iTunes library

Quote, originally posted by JimmyMethod »

Obviously I'm gay

This lady committed murder...

Um... the police? You should be allowed to do what is in your power and what is within reason. Using force, deadly force at that, is not reasonable. You are committing one crime against another crime.

When you witness someone in the act of thieving your property (mind you theft, not robbery) you are close to the situation and may act irrationally. That is why you call the police, who are trained and recognized by society as objective to the situation. They will react in the proper manner (whether you trust law enforcement or the govt is an entirely separate matter) and then the criminal will be subjected to a judge and jury.

The Castle law circumvents that and that is my problem with the situation.

We are talking about a simple theft in this case, not a violent crime, not someone 'f***ing around' on your property.

So you have intent to kill and you are just waiting to be able to use Castle Law as an excuse to do it? I'd be worried that you are just as dangerous, if not more so than many thieves.

HEAD SHOT!

I don't feel bad for the guy, shouldn't have been stealing cars.

Quote, originally posted by numbnuts240 »

i WILL NOT be fapping to marge simpson. probably not. ok maybe, depends on the pics

For me it all comes down to one thing. DONT STEAL. The kid wouldn't be dead had he not tried to steal the car. He made his bed, (coffin) and now he must sleep in it. Another person should not try to take what I or anyone else for that matter, have worked so hard for, and I will do everything in my power to make sure they dont get away with it.

I've noticed a complete lack of respect in regard to other peoples property by those in my generation as well as those after. It is unacceptable. I think as incidents like these become more commonplace, its possible that people will begin to think twice before breaking that window, or jimmying that door. Whatever happened to personal accountability? If you dont speed, you wont get a ticket. If you dont hit your wife, you wont get arrested. If you dont try and take my stuff, you wont get the crap sliced out of you with a machete.

Im sick and tired of seeing wanna be gangstas and tough guys running around like the law cant touch them. The problem is, in a lot of instances, it cant.

Im not one of those guys who hates cops, I've actually had very good experiences with them personally, but they can never help when I need them. They are always too busy doing something else.

If you come though my door, you better be ready for a fight. If you rape my wife, you better hope the police find you first. If I catch you in my car, you better hope it starts before I get within arms reach. I do not take this lightly, its time for people to learn some f***ing respect.

PS, whats to say the pregnant lady was just a bad shot. Its possible she was aiming for say, the legs, but missed. Shotguns aren't the most accurate weapons ever created.

Then its manslaughter instead of murder. Edit: Actually, if you own a gun it is your own responsibility to know its capabilities and uses. Couple that with the intent to harm/injure and it can still be construed as homicide.

I think a warning shot probably would've been enough to scare the s*** out of the kid. The only person who knows how it went down is her.
At first reading I thought the article was going to say that she was in her vehicle or near it and shot the guy--which I think would've been understandable and plausible that they'd be shot dead. But from a 2nd floor apartment? Did she have a car alarm and knew someone was trying to break in? Was she waiting for the kid? I know from working with a few pregnant women is that they get instinctively super-protective, lose focus, and get a little 'spacey.'

Exactly. She overreacted, a warning shot should have more than sufficed.

That being said, people MUST be willing to pay the price for their actions.

Red Coupe is correct in this account. The gun comes out when you're prepared to kill someone.

Warning shots, "aiming for the legs" etc are all stupid, stupid stupid.

No serious self-defense expert (Massad Ayoob, etc.) nor would any good lawyer recommend it. Ayoob has written a good bit on what a stupid idea such things are. A major issue is where does that stray round travel?

Warning shots are for movies.

Also, "Castle Doctrine" is a negative connotation cooked up by the Brady Bunch.

You are correct, but that is not the way people tend to think in those situations. Only a small percentage of the people in possession of a firearm are properly trained in how one should be used. Dont even get me started on that argument, its a whole other can of worms.

So you, obviously NOT being properly trained, are in a position to judge other people's use of them?

If you say so. I learned a long time ago arguing with you is like arguing with a 4 year old. Have fun swinging your e dick.

Enjoy your overwhelming ignorance. A 4 year old would be a step up for you.

This particular case has me on the fence. I hate thieves but keep thinking that, while the chances are slim, the guy shot could have been performing a repo (we only know after the fact that he wasn't). Yeah, a stretch, but entirely possible. Being 8 months preggers she should have called the cops. Simply blowing the guy to hell with a shotgun is a bit extreme. On the other hand, he could have had a weapon other than the screwdriver that was still in his hand by the reports. Without knowing, she should have called the cops. If the guy had been breaking into her home with her in it then I would have been fully on her side. Walking out and simply shooting is something else.

Last time I checked stealing cars is a Class A Felony which is pretty effing serious in book. Also I'm fairly certain that the Castle Law in TX says that if a theft or robbery (which are pretty much the same thing) occurs ON your property, you the home owner have the right to stop said act by any means of acceptable force. You have to realize that TX still hangs people for horse theft and the average joe is allowed to walk around town with a six shooter strapped to you hip without a permit (or has this changed in the last few years?). I think the police and DA aren't pressing charges due to 1) she is pregnant and 2) that is one hell of a shot with a single shot shotgun. I'd love to see the scene to get an idea of the distance and angle of the shot.

Personally I agree with the decision, after all if someone was stealing your car and you caught them in the act wouldn't you do the same thing and blow their head off with a shotgun. I know I would. In Delaware and a couple of other states if someone breaks into your house you can only use the amount of force that the thief has (ie if they have a gun you can use a gun, if they have a knife you can only use a knife) but in the event of a fatality you better make damn sure the thief dies IN your house, otherwise it's manslaughter and not self defense. so if they get out the door, drag them back into the house (at least halfway across the the threshhold).

Good for her, but at the same time I hope she has a REALLLLLLLLY good attorney, she'll be tied up in civil suits for the next 10 years due to the thief's family, just like the OJ case.

Philadelphia Police Dept. Application Process
Delayed because Mayor Nutter is a D-Bag

Visit my Operation Flashpoint:Dragon Rising Thread it's got all the latest info. http://forums.nicoclub.com/zer...e-omg

And then you'll be charged with assault, and sued into slavery. Shoot to kill. Dead men tell no tales.

If you're not going to shoot to kill, then don't even pull the weapon out.

Thief or not, a car is not worth a persons life.

Texas has not had legalized open carry of ANY sort since the Civil War. Pennsylvania, on the hand, does.

You Wild West cowboys, you.

The most amazing thing in the world! You have to see it --> www.mostamazingthing.com/holycrap/huge.jpg

That's just begging to get flamed by the female NICO members.

So she's not under duress anymore?

Your ninja edits rack dissaprin!

Maybe she has a history of making mistakes... maybe that's how she got pregnant, too.

I'm sure that's what she said to the police, but I wanted to say what I really meant.

Do you even know what the Castle Doctrine is?

It gives you the right to stand your ground when you are on your property.

Previously you had no option but to attempt to flee from a threat. If you retaliated you could be charged for any injuries, up to and including murder charges, resulting from your self preservation attempts

Freedoms lost are seldom restored.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Cesare Beccaria, 1767 (Later quoted by Thomas Jefferson)

If you are in fear for your life, you should have the right to defend yourself with deadly force.

If someone busts through your front door, you're in your bedroom, what should you be able to do?

So, a citizen that exercises their legal rights is dangerous to you? What does that say for your belief in the legal system?

Castle Doctrine defined via wakopedia:
"Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
* The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
* The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business."

Notice how car is listed as an acceptable reason of use. /thread