Amazing, guy kills two burglar's *Full 911 Call w/him killing the two ON THE PHONE*

[nicklk]

http://smiliesftw.com/x/bowrofl.gifhttp://smiliesftw.com/x/bowrofl.gifhttp://smiliesftw.com/x/bowrofl.gifhttp://smiliesftw.com/x/bowrofl.gif

http://www.khou.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=193240

All the good shit happens at 5:26 and beyond.



Get this man a beer.

[cybergreencivic]

that is nuts!!!

[ntgtyper]

good get them mother fuckers i dont blame him at all, DIE THIEVES!!!!!!!!

[Martian]

7+ min. before the law shows up. Brilliant.

[Kwando]

the racking of the shotgun gave me chills... i need to get a pump shotgun or find a short barrel for my 11-87.

[honda1982]

I hope he don't face Criminal Charge for shooting 2 Dumbass Thieve. He's a good man watching out for his Neighbor.

[M@]

Sweet. I wonder what's gonna happen with him?

[Mark_H]

Holy shit, if thats legit that is some crazy ass shit. He sounds like a "good 'ol boy" and a good man but he just murdered two unarmed people. He could have stayed in the house and the cops would have caught the guys.
And yes, the cops took too long. They had plenty of time to to catch the guys in the act.
Shoot, I had a minor minor, non important altercation with a neighbor and I had a cop here in 2 or 3 minutes.

[Brandon]

7+ min. before the law shows up. Brilliant.

And yes, the cops took too long. They had plenty of time to to catch the guys in the act.

A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.

[chrisbarnett01]

A gun in hand is better than a cop on the phone.

yeah that guy saved the tax payers money, no need for a trial!

[B20civic]

serves them burglars right

[Conrad]

Sadly I am thinking that guy is going to jail unless that was texas.

[Brandon]

I would say he's probably going to jail too but I don't think it's sad. He shouldn't have taken the law into his own hands and gone outside. Just like the dispatcher said, it isn't worth killing for something that can be replaced.

[ntgtyper]

I would say he's probably going to jail too but I don't think it's sad. He shouldn't have taken the law into his own hands and gone outside. Just like the dispatcher said, it isn't worth killing for something that can be replaced.

but if it was your shit getting jacked then it be ok to shoot him

[Conrad]

If my new 08 mugen si was being jacked like that other thread.... shit.... "you gonna die boy" BANG!!!

/me puts knife in thiefs hand and cuts finger on knife....

[Brandon]

but if it was your shit getting jacked then it be ok to shoot him

Hell ya, I would blast the MFer. < /tough guy>

< reality>

I'm not sure what you are saying. If it was my shit getting jacked then I could lawfully threaten deadly force. However, unless someone was in danger by the said thief, I would call the authorities and let them handle it.

I'm not going to kill someone over something that my insurance will pay me for. That would be retarded, just like the guy on the audio clip.

< /reality>

[Mario]

Someone should update this thread once they know if he's going to jail or not, and for how long.

I think it's great what he did, but then again, I've had many arguments in the gun forum here about just how "useful" having a gun really is.

[B20civic]

Sadly I am thinking that guy is going to jail unless that was texas.

i think it was, pasadena,tx

[Dave_L]

I have my street sweeper shotgun loaded and next to my bed. If someone breaks into my house, they are going to get shot. Get the fuck out of my house. Then again, I have a sticker on my front door that says "If you're not selling cookies, this will be the next thing you see. If you're selling, I'm not buying" and it has a picture of a revolver. :D I'd imagine that might make some thieves think twice.

[john]

I've tried a few times to view/listen, but the media never loads on the webpage.

[Mario]

I've tried a few times to view/listen, but the media never loads on the webpage.

I had the same problem and had to use Internet Exploder.

[john]

I tried both firefox and exploder, no love.

[Brandon]

Even if he is found innocent of murder or attempted murder there will surely be civil lawsuits against him from the victims or victims family (assuming the victims are dead). It's not far fetched to say he will spend $50k in court fighting civil lawsuits.

No matter what, he's dicked and for what? His neighbors belongings? Sounds worth it to me! I sure hope there was something of great value in that bag when they came out of the house.

[Jackrabbit]

It's called "principle". As in "You won't get away with that shit on my watch."

Fucking crybabies. "It's murder! Whaaaaa!"
It's called justice. With more people around like that, maybe some dickheads would think twice about stealing your car next time.

"It's not worth taking a life for someone's property!"
How about: "Is stealing that property worth risking your life scumbag?"

I applaud this man and his actions.

[Jackrabbit]

Even if he is found innocent of murder or attempted murder there will surely be civil lawsuits against him from the victims or victims family (assuming the victims are dead).


Victims? They were the criminals. His neighbor's were the victims. Christ, it's thinking like that that keeps the bad guys from getting justice served upon them.

[ntgtyper]

Hell ya, I would blast the MFer. < /tough guy>

< reality>

I'm not sure what you are saying. If it was my shit getting jacked then I could lawfully threaten deadly force. However, unless someone was in danger by the said thief, I would call the authorities and let them handle it.

I'm not going to kill someone over something that my insurance will pay me for. That would be retarded, just like the guy on the audio clip.

< /reality>

but it is just like having your car jacked and you get it back you dont want it cause its tainted unless they're dead then its ok, and it is two less thieves that the world has to worry about good ridden

[Nick_S]

I think he is a dumb fuck for killing them. That guy is a murderer, I hope he goes to jail for not being able to listen. They told that stupid hillbilly to stay inside but he is so stupid he has to go kill some dudes. just because it ain't right what they are doing. I don't care how much you want to kill someone you don't kill them for something that is replaceable. For all we know that guy was just a racist who wanted to kill some blacks. I could have sworn I herd him say something N*****s.

[Slava]

I can guaranty that before robbing a house people will think twice now. I can't say that killing them was a great thing to but this will definatly make people think twice before stealing.

[nxbrennan]

All I saw was a silent 7 minute video of some houses and sky??

[Jackrabbit]

Semi-related awesomeness:

--------------------------------------------
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_7476406

Resident kills 2 burglars; 3rd charged with murder
The homeowner is white, the robbers black. The charge falls under a rarely used law.
By Juliana Barbassa
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 11/16/2007 01:18:41 AM MST


LAKEPORT, CALIF. — Three young black men break into a white man's home in rural northern California. The homeowner shoots two of them to death - but it's the surviving black man who is charged with murder.

In a case that has brought cries of racism from civil rights groups, Renato Hughes Jr., 22, was charged by prosecutors in this overwhelmingly white county under a rarely invoked legal doctrine that could make him responsible for the bloodshed. He is scheduled to go on trial Nov. 27.

"It was pandemonium" inside the house that night, District Attorney Jon Hopkins said. Hughes was responsible for "setting the whole thing in motion by his actions and the actions of his accomplices."

Prosecutors said homeowner Shannon Edmonds opened fire Dec. 7 after three young men rampaged through the Clearlake house demanding marijuana and brutally beating his stepson. Rashad Williams, 21, and Christian Foster, 22, were shot in the back. Hughes fled.

Hughes was charged with first-degree murder under California's Provocative Act doctrine, versions of which have been on the books in many states for generations.

The Provocative Act doctrine does not require prosecutors to prove the accused intended to kill. Instead, "they have to show that it was reasonably foreseeable that the criminal enterprise could trigger a fatal response from the homeowner," said Brian Getz, a San Francisco defense attorney unconnected to the case.

The NAACP complained that prosecutors came down too hard on Hughes, who also faces robbery, burglary and assault charges.

Prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty.

The Rev. Amos Brown, head of the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP and pastor at Hughes' church, said the case demonstrates the legal system is racist in Lake County, aspiring wine country 100 miles north of San Francisco. The county of 13,000 people is 91 percent white and 2 percent black.

Brown and other NAACP officials are asking why the homeowner is walking free. Tests showed Edmonds had marijuana and prescription medication in his system the night of the shooting. Edmonds had a prescription for both the pot and the medication to treat depression.

"This man had no business killing these boys," Brown said."They were shot in the back. They had fled."

The district attorney said that race played no part in the charges against Hughes and that the homeowner was spared prosecution because of evidence he was defending himself and his family, who were asleep when the assailants barged in at 4 a.m.

Edmonds' stepson suffered brain damage from the baseball bat beating he took during the melee. The 19-year-old lives in a rehabilitation center and can no longer feed himself.

"I didn't do anything wrong. All I did was defend my family and my children's lives," said Edmonds, 33. "I'm sad the kids are dead, I didn't mean to kill them."

---------------------------------------

Now that's what I'm talking about!

[stu]

Great article.

The old guy should have fired a warning shot when he saw the guys breaking into the home. They would have fled, known to think twice about breaking and entering, and told their friends. That probably would have been the best outcome for all parties.

Now, I don't mind this guy killing these two guys, and I personally would not like to see any judgement come to this guy. For future reference though, that's what the guy should have done. You have to protect yourself, even if it is only from legal fees and possible jail time.

[Brandon]

but it is just like having your car jacked and you get it back you dont want it cause its tainted unless they're dead then its ok, and it is two less thieves that the world has to worry about good ridden


This is not applicable to me because I don't own a honda. Next question?

[Brandon]

It's called "principle". As in "You won't get away with that shit on my watch."

Fucking crybabies. "It's murder! Whaaaaa!"
It's called justice. With more people around like that, maybe some dickheads would think twice about stealing your car next time.

"It's not worth taking a life for someone's property!"
How about: "Is stealing that property worth risking your life scumbag?"

I applaud this man and his actions.

So at what point is it ok to kill someone because what they're doing isn't right (in your opinion)? stealing? swearing? name calling? I would then ask who decides where that line is drawn but it's clear that you have decided it should be you as opposed to the law.

I'm not arguing that the robbers weren't pieces of shit that deserved to be in jail. Most of what I'm saying is that the guy on the phone is a stupid fuck that broke the law. He should be in jail just as much as the robbers.

Victims? They were the criminals. His neighbor's were the victims. Christ, it's thinking like that that keeps the bad guys from getting justice served upon them.

Who's justice? I guess I missed the memo that made us all just a bunch of gun toting vigilantes. Fuck the judicial system, anarchy FTW! Next time someone cuts me off I should shoot them, they're assholes and they deserve it, right?

More like, it's attitudes like that of taking the law into your own hands that give us law-abiding gun owners a bad image.

[Brandon]

Great article.

The old guy should have fired a warning shot when he saw the guys breaking into the home. They would have fled, known to think twice about breaking and entering, and told their friends. That probably would have been the best outcome for all parties.

Now, I don't mind this guy killing these two guys, and I personally would not like to see any judgement come to this guy. For future reference though, that's what the guy should have done. You have to protect yourself, even if it is only from legal fees and possible jail time..

A warning shot isn't legal. The best thing to do would've been to wait for the cops. They were there within seconds of shooting the robbers so there's a chance they would've been caught...alive.
He was never in any danger to have a justification to protect himself-if he would've stayed in his house.

[Brandon]

Semi-related awesomeness:

--------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------

Now that's what I'm talking about!


This is totally different and I applaud this homeowner. He should walk free.

[Jackrabbit]

So at what point is it ok to kill someone because what they're doing isn't right (in your opinion)? stealing? swearing? name calling? I would then ask who decides where that line is drawn but it's clear that you have decided it should be you as opposed to the law.

I'm not arguing that the robbers weren't pieces of shit that deserved to be in jail. Most of what I'm saying is that the guy on the phone is a stupid fuck that broke the law. He should be in jail just as much as the robbers.



Who's justice? I guess I missed the memo that made us all just a bunch of gun toting vigilantes. Fuck the judicial system, anarchy FTW! Next time someone cuts me off I should shoot them, they're assholes and they deserve it, right?

More like, it's attitudes like that of taking the law into your own hands that give us law-abiding gun owners a bad image.


Funny I don't remember swearing being a criminal act.
Breaking and entering is a serious crime and carries serious consequences... perhaps even your life. If you break into my home I will shoot first and ask questions later. As the old saying goes: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

And furthermore:

Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.


Now this guy isn't in CO so he may be allowed a broader/narrower use of firearms. He also isn't protecting his own property, and would probably get his ass handed to him unless he can say he felt he was in danger when (as he said in the 911 call) "They came right at me, I had no choice".

So from your statements I guess you'd rather have the burglars as yopu neighbars, rather than the guy who's pissed off that they are stealing your shit?
I know who I'd rather have keeping an eye on my neighborhood.

[Brandon]

Breaking and entering is a serious crime and carries serious consequences... perhaps even your life. If you break into my home I will shoot first and ask questions later. As the old saying goes: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

2 different topics here....
We are in complete agreement about shooting someone that breaks into OUR houses.
We are also in agreement about judged by 12 carried by 6 yada yada yada. However, that implies that this guy needed to defend himself which he didn't. He (stupidly) put himself in danger.



So from your statements I guess you'd rather have the burglars as yopu neighbars, rather than the guy who's pissed off that they are stealing your shit?
I know who I'd rather have keeping an eye on my neighborhood.

I'd rather have the burglars as my neighbors? What?

If someone was breaking into my house and taking stuff out I would expect someone to call the police if they saw it. I would not expect or want them to intervene.

[Ashton]

the racking of the shotgun gave me chills... i need to get a pump shotgun or find a short barrel for my 11-87.

My Mossberg is still for sale =) I put up picture in the firearms section and it's a good price.

[Jackrabbit]

I don't care who's house it is they are breaking into. That's a serious criminal act. It's not spitting on the sidewalk. Your house may be next, or they may surprise the old lady across the street and kill her.
Maybe the burglars ran at him when he confronted them. Only he knows if he felt his life was in danger and I imagine a jury will have to decide that.

Surely you'd rather live next to a thief than a "murderer". It only stands to reason from your statements.

If this same situation happened in my neighborhood, would I shoot them? Depends on how they reacted. If they rushed me, I imagine I'd shoot them. If they laid down on the ground with their hands on their heads, then I'd just wait for the cops to show up. Honestly I'd probably try to scare them off 1st by yelling something along the lines of: "WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING!?" But I'd also be armed before I did that, just in case they decide to do something crazy.

[-=[Juztin]=-]

From Texas Penal Code:


§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[chrisbarnett01]

.

A warning shot isn't legal. The best thing to do would've been to wait for the cops. They were there within seconds of shooting the robbers so there's a chance they would've been caught...alive.
He was never in any danger to have a justification to protect himself-if he would've stayed in his house.

Actually a warning shot is legal in some jurisdictions, if fired into the ground.

In other jurisdictions you can fire a warning shot into the vicinity of someone as long as you don't hit them.

Oh, and most importantly, this happened in Texas. The shooter will not spend a minute in jail. You are allowed to use deadly force in Texas.

[Ashton]

werd.

=-;789495']From Texas Penal Code:


§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[Ashton]

.

A warning shot isn't legal. The best thing to do would've been to wait for the cops. They were there within seconds of shooting the robbers so there's a chance they would've been caught...alive.
He was never in any danger to have a justification to protect himself-if he would've stayed in his house.

Perhaps if they wanted to be caught alive they shouldn't have been robbing someones house. +1 for vigilante justice.