Texas is a cancerous mole on satan's taint

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Traianvs
And more importantly: there is a reason why advanced civilizations have such a comprehensive judiciary system. Taking the law in your own hands ensures a treatment à la tête du client. A 13 year old Texan stealing Twinkies is being shot in the back by a shotgun. A 62 year old Texan is responsible for the gruesome death of many thousands of innocent Iraqi people, enriches himself tremendously in only 8 years and evades international indictments in Belgium by intimidating the government of that country.

Ain't that an ideal and righteous world
I'm sure Jesus would approve of this.

Taking law in your own hands is a symptom of anarchy; breakdown of civilized law and order to be more specific.

It's a disturbing and scary symptom, but what it fundamentally means is that some of the people who are supporting the law are still resisting criminals. The story is very sad but the ending in happy: The good guy survived, the bad guy died.

Ideally speaking, Traianvs, Vesayen and che would be living in the same community with the 13-year old and Slowwhand would be living in the same community with the 62-year old. I sure as hell would want to live in the latter place

Texas

[SlowwHand]

Thanks. It's nice to know some people understand.
If the situation was as Che says, it was definitely wrong; but Texas juries, in spite of Che's thoughts, really aren't stupid. There has to have been mitigating circumstances, or the 62 year old would be on Death Row, but he's not.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
but Texas juries, in spite of Che's thoughts, really aren't stupid.

Do you have a source to back this up?

[Deity Dude]

The old guy may have been wrong here or he may have been right. But the story just smelled of being one-sided and agenda oriented.

ALL SIDES AGREED ON THE FACTS. Right there a light went off in my head.

The moral of this story is, aside from the typical gratuitous cheap shot at Texas that everyone seems to relish in around here, that if a news story absolutely doesn't make sense more times than not there is probably something wrong with the report. The stories are written by humans, who are flawed and quite often using their position to promote an agenda

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Right there a light went off in my head.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by VJ

Taking law in your own hands is a symptom of anarchy; breakdown of civilized law and order to be more specific.

It's a disturbing and scary symptom, but what it fundamentally means is that some of the people who are supporting the law are still resisting criminals. The story is very sad but the ending in happy: The good guy survived, the bad guy died.

Since when is being a vigilante "supporting" the law, given that it is illegal? Also, many people both support the law and resist criminals without shotgunning everyone who pisses them off.

Now turning to the other extreme:

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
So if it was a face off, how did he shoot them from behind and above? The guy's a murderer and a lying sack of ****.

There is no "them" he shot, only one kid was shot, though admittedly, you aren't the only poster to make that mistake. Also, nowhere in either article does it say "behind and above." Behind, yes, above, no. From the text of the articles, (which is all we have to go on,) the accidental shooting in a struggle seems plausible. Bear in mind, I think the first article is misleading. When it says both sides agree he forced the kids to their knees, I believe it means "tried" to force to their knees. I see where you could read it as communicating that he was successful, but given the rest of the info, and the result of the trial, I think the former reading is correct. Don't get me wrong, I think this guy murdered this kid. But I don't think so beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence in the articles.

That said, those who are proud of this douchebag for blowing away a 13-year old need to take those guns they love so much, fellate the barrel, and pull the trigger. Let that penis replacement you love so much shoot its lead *** into you! You owe it to what you love so much.

Disclaimer: The proceeding was for those who use guns and willingness to kill people as a test of worth. You can certainly be an avid gun fan, but not confuse shooting everything that moves with being an actual decent human being. So, it was not an attack on gun owners in general, just a sub-set of them.

[SlowwHand]

I would take the opportunity to point out that I dont hunt, and I would hope merely chambering a round would suffice in scaring away an intruder. Then, I would call 911.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Seedle

There is no "them" he shot, only one kid was shot, though admittedly, you aren't the only poster to make that mistake. Also, nowhere in either article does it say "behind and above." Behind, yes, above, no. From the text of the articles, (which is all we have to go on,) the accidental shooting in a struggle seems plausible.

Two kids were shot, one was killed, according to the original article. Also, if they were on their knees, then they must have been shot from above.

I find it difficult to believe that they would attempt to grab the gun while on their knees and facing away from the shooter.

[Lancer]

I like Texas. You know that if a tenant doesn't pay his rent, in Texas you can take their door off the hinges and cart it away? If they had that law in Oregon I'd still be providing people with a place to live.

Texas

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


Two kids were shot, one was killed, according to the original article. Also, if they were on their knees, then they must have been shot from above.

I find it difficult to believe that they would attempt to grab the gun while on their knees and facing away from the shooter.

Thank you once again for proving my point. Since you have a pre-disposed opinion you choose the article you want to believe.

I believe that was the same article that said "both sides agreed on the facts". If you look through the entire thread you will see where I posted another article presenting the defense's case. Regardless of who you believe, BOTH SIDES DID NOT AGREE ON THE FACTS. That assertion was a total fabrication by the author.

The other article presented the defense's case. (I'm not going to repeat the entire article again but believe me, both sides did not agree on the facts and the jury believed the defense's story)

You chose to believe the story of the prosecution based on the story of the 3 teenage thieves, without question.

I pointed out that there were 2 stories. One was the teenage thieve's story, the other was the elderly B&E victim's story.

You state things as fact that, if true, would be horrible. The only problem is that what you state as fact is only an accusation by the teenage thieves and subsequently the prosecution. They are not fact.

I pointed out that:

a) the homeowner under law is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

b) as a matter of common sense the innocent victim of a crime's story should be considered more credible than the story of the teenage perpetrators of the crime.

c) a jury heard the entire story, BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY and even though the prosecution has everything stacked in their favor (assumed legitimacy, respect for authority, unlimited resources) 12 people unanimously agreed that the victim of the B&E was not guilty. It wasn't even a hung jury.

I am not saying which side is right. Nobody knows that except for the survivors of the situation. I am just pointing out the facts that the original article left out.

But as far as this forum goes, I will say that the "Texas sucks" crowd:

a) cherry picked a story to fit their agenda

b) did no research whatsoever to see if there was an alternative point of view

c) assumed and acted as if the story were a proven fact

d) then exaggerated the already one-sided story

e) then condemned an entire state for the actions of one elderly victim as portrayed in the one-sided story that they chose to believe, then exaggerate.

And these are the same people who usually accuse others of being, close-minded, bigoted etc. etc.etc.

Two more points and perhaps the 2 most important.

1) If the homeowner just wanted "execute" the burglars and had them on their knees, as we have been told; Why did he only shoot one of them? Why not shoot all four and have no witnesses? Even the Sheriff said that if he had shot all four the state would have never brought the case to trial. It was only the story of the three surviving thieves that required a grand jury investigation.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY

2) If these 4 teenagers hadn't decided to burglarize this old man's house we wouldn't be discussing this at all.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Lancer
I like Texas. You know that if a tenant doesn't pay his rent, in Texas you can take their door off the hinges and cart it away?

Out of curiosity where did you hear this? I know Texas is one of the few states where you can extrajudicially change the locks of delinquent tenants, but removing the door is far more extreme by exposing both tenants and personal property to crime. I can't find any cases allowing this.

[SlowwHand]

Believe it.

DD, learn from a Texan. We long ago learned that people have predispositions. We decided we don't care.
People use it against us, but guess what? Since we don't care, we don't care. People in Texas are no different from people anywhere. If people in Michingan were pre-judged, I'd bet they would come to the conclusion, that they don't care. They can think what they want, and respond in ignorance, ignorantly. We don't care, any more. All it does is strengthen our Texas vs. The World way of thinking.
I think you can understand why.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Darius871


Out of curiosity where did you hear this? I know Texas is one of the few states where you can extrajudicially change the locks of delinquent tenants, but removing the door is far more extreme by exposing both tenants and personal property to crime. I can't find any cases allowing this.

I heard it once on the radio some years back. Stuck with me because I was a landlord at the time and I'd heard of the nightmares, wasted months and thousands of dollars others had to spend to get bums out here in Oregon. Here, the bum has the right to rip you off. Landlords have actually paid bums to leave. So, I'm not a landlord anymore.

So its not true about the front door?

[Darius871]

I'm not saying it's not true, just that a database search of all Texas case law doesn't bring up anything about removed front doors. But since it does bring up the rule that Texan landlords can lock tenants out of their homes for nonpayment, I guess rendering their homes unsecure isn't all that different. At least until somebody has their flatscreen stolen or gets raped because of it; then the landlord would usually be in deep ****.

[SlowwHand]

It has to get extreme before they even lock someone out, much less take down a door.