• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Burglar sues men who captured him, claims rough citizens arrest

I follow the law too. The law states that if some asshole crosses my threshold, with the intent to steal my property, or harm my family, I'm well within my rights to kill that ********er.

You keep following the law, my friend, because that's exactly what the criminal scumbags want you to do.

Nope. The law you reference, which is called the "Make my Day" law; is no longer completely intact. You may kill to protect yourself or your family; however, you MAY NOT kill to protect property.
 
Nope. The law you reference, which is called the "Make my Day" law; is no longer completely intact. You may kill to protect yourself or your family; however, you MAY NOT kill to protect property.

a true statement of the law. However, if someone breaks into an occupied home it is presumed they intend to do the occupants bodily harm. if they are coming in-kill them. If they are running away with your property you best not
 
Nope. The law you reference, which is called the "Make my Day" law; is no longer completely intact. You may kill to protect yourself or your family; however, you MAY NOT kill to protect property.

Well, here in Louisiana, it's called the, "Shoot the Burgler Bill", and yes, I can waste his ass, as long as he's inside the door of my home.

Not only can I blow a mother****er away when he enters my home, I can blow his as away when he tries to force his way into my vehicle.

In these parts, I have the law on my side and firearms at the ready. Unlike sucky-ass-Libbo land, burglers 'round here know that there is a better than average chance of getting a cap busted in their ass, so they don't pull stupid **** like that.
 
Well, here in Louisiana, it's called the, "Shoot the Burgler Bill", and yes, I can waste his ass, as long as he's inside the door of my home.

Not only can I blow a mother****er away when he enters my home, I can blow his as away when he tries to force his way into my vehicle.

In these parts, I have the law on my side and firearms at the ready. Unlike sucky-ass-Libbo land, burglers 'round here know that there is a better than average chance of getting a cap busted in their ass, so they don't pull stupid **** like that.

Is that another name for the "Castle Law?" I think so. I have lots of family in Kentucky. Shotguns at the front and back doors 'cause they live in the boonies...QUITE isolated, actually. They travel with their guns on the front seat of their cars. It's a different world. But never have I heard one of them embrace their right to shoot someone with your obvious emotional zeal. And never have they implied that I, by virtue of NOT having guns at MY door, am somehow wimpy.

You're probably one of those people that have been victimized your whole life, because you didn't have the nerve to do anything about it. It's people like you that do more to encourage criminals than to discourage them.

Why the concept of protecting your property and your family, no matter what, is so hard to understand is beyond me.

Most states have specific ways/means that one can make a citizen's arrest....which, remember, is what this thread is about. Protecting property is a far different thing than protecting ones' self or family, right? In most states, citizens cannot make an arrest unless a felony is committed. In some, a citizen's arrest can only be made if the thief is "in a store trying to steal merchandise."

Also, In the United States, people making citizen arrests are subject to "strict liability" -- a legal doctrine in which someone is held personally responsible for the damages or injuries caused by their actions, regardless of their intentions or personal fault. (The link to substantiate this is posted by me earlier in this thread.) You cannot beat the livin' crap out of someone unless you are defending yourself. You can't just blow somebody away because they're stealing your bicycle. Well, you can, but...

In regards this thread, this guy is in trouble no matter what. Reason being that, unless the case is summarily dismissed by the judge, he will have to mount a defense. That spells $5K or even more. So, win or lose, he loses. Should he have to mount a defense?? As long as we live in the USA, the answer is, "Yes, unless the judge finds right out of the box that the suit is groundless." Just because a guy steals a bike and breaks a car window doesn't mean he can suffer permanent injury with no recourse...especially when the injury is done by a private citizen. (Whether he did suffer permanent injury or not will be his responsibility to prove.) This guy is acting as his own attorney. Judges are going to be extremely lenient with him. It's the due process on which our country was founded.

Further, I'd also say that anyone who accosts a guy who's naked in the street over a freakin' bicycle is nutz. 'Cause so is the guy who's naked. That's why phones have 911 on them.
 
Wow, the ****er was subdued in a shoulder hold. oh my holy hell, how abused he was. :roll:

Maybe he shouldn't have broken windows out of a car and stolen a ****ing bike.

A judge with any goddamn sense will toss this out.
 
Wow, the ****er was subdued in a shoulder hold. oh my holy hell, how abused he was. :roll:

Maybe he shouldn't have broken windows out of a car and stolen a ****ing bike.

A judge with any goddamn sense will toss this out.

If that's what happened, I'm sure the judge WILL toss it out. I hope so, for the guy's sake. I'd hate to be paying an attorney $250 an hour to go to trial.
 
Is that another name for the "Castle Law?" I think so. I have lots of family in Kentucky. Shotguns at the front and back doors 'cause they live in the boonies...QUITE isolated, actually. They travel with their guns on the front seat of their cars. It's a different world. But never have I heard one of them embrace their right to shoot someone with your obvious emotional zeal. And never have they implied that I, by virtue of NOT having guns at MY door, am somehow wimpy.

I only opine in such a passionate manner, because for some reason, a couple of posters suggest I'm some sort of a criminal, simply because I choose to excercise my right to use deadly force to protect my family and my property. You did read those posts. Yes?

If you choose not to protect your family and property in the same manner, then that's your business and I'm not going to insult you for making that decision. However, someone shouldn't insult me and accuse me of criminal activity for doing the opposite.

If you expect me to lose any sleep because this goof-ball thinks he got ruffed up a little too much; it ain't gonna happen. He broke the law, he got caught, he got his ass kicked a little. I'm not having a problem with him getting his ass kicked. IMO, it needs to happen more often. In a just world, a judge would laugh this asshole right out of the courtroom.
 
Last edited:
I only opine in such a passionate manner, because for some reason, a couple of posters suggest I'm some sort of a criminal, simply because I choose to excercise my right to use deadly force to protect my family and my property. You did read those posts. Yes?

If you choose not to protect your family and property in the same manner, then that's your business and I'm not going to insult you for making that decision. However, someone shouldn't insult me and accuse me of criminal activity for doing the opposite.

If you expect me to lose any sleep because this goof-ball thinks he got ruffed up a little too much; it ain't gonna happen. He broke the law, he got caught, he got his ass kicked a little. I'm not having a problem with him getting his ass kicked. IMO, it needs to happen more often. In a just world, a judge would laugh this asshole right out of the courtroom.

I pretty much agree with your post, Apdst. I just think it's important that people realize that making a citizen's arrest isn't a cakewalk. It can have, shall we say, unintended consequences.
 
I pretty much agree with your post, Apdst. I just think it's important that people realize that making a citizen's arrest isn't a cakewalk. It can have, shall we say, unintended consequences.

That's why I believe that Joe Horn approach to a citizen's arrest of the way to go.
 
a true statement of the law. However, if someone breaks into an occupied home it is presumed they intend to do the occupants bodily harm. if they are coming in-kill them. If they are running away with your property you best not

Agreed. :)
 
I only opine in such a passionate manner, because for some reason, a couple of posters suggest I'm some sort of a criminal, simply because I choose to excercise my right to use deadly force to protect my family and my property. You did read those posts. Yes?

If you choose not to protect your family and property in the same manner, then that's your business and I'm not going to insult you for making that decision. However, someone shouldn't insult me and accuse me of criminal activity for doing the opposite.

If you expect me to lose any sleep because this goof-ball thinks he got ruffed up a little too much; it ain't gonna happen. He broke the law, he got caught, he got his ass kicked a little. I'm not having a problem with him getting his ass kicked. IMO, it needs to happen more often. In a just world, a judge would laugh this asshole right out of the courtroom.

You DO NOT have the right to use deadly force to protect your property. That is what you do not seem to grasp. If you do, you WILL be a criminal and you WILL serve prison time.
 
You DO NOT have the right to use deadly force to protect your property. That is what you do not seem to grasp. If you do, you WILL be a criminal and you WILL serve prison time.

Correct; however, you may have the right if someone has, as was pointed out, entered your home.

It's all a matter of reasonableness based on the situation.

If you shoot some guy in the back or someone who has thrown up his hands and surrendered, then you've gone too far obviously.
 
Correct; however, you may have the right if someone has, as was pointed out, entered your home.

It's all a matter of reasonableness based on the situation.

If you shoot some guy in the back or someone who has thrown up his hands and surrendered, then you've gone too far obviously.

Depends on the state involved, the police who respond to the incident, and the D.A Here's one for the books: (Apbst posted the guy's name yesterday.)

The Joe Horn shooting controversy refers to the events of November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two men burgling his neighbor's home. Publicized recordings of Horn's exchange with emergency dispatch indicate that he was asked repeatedly not to interfere with the burglary because the police would soon be on hand. The shootings have resulted in debate regarding self-defense, Castle Doctrine laws, and Texas laws relating to use of (deadly) force to prevent or stop property crimes. The illegal alien status of the burglars has been highlighted because of the U.S. border controversy. On June 30, 2008, Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in the Pasadena shootings.

Joe Horn, 61, spotted two burglars breaking into his next-door neighbor's home in Pasadena, Texas. He called 911 to call police to the scene. While on the phone with emergency dispatch, Horn stated that he had the right to use deadly force to defend property, referring to a law (Texas Penal Code § 9.41., § 9.42., and § 9.43.) which justified the use of deadly force to protect property. He stated that he was going to go outside and confront the burglars with his shotgun. As the burglars were exiting his neighbor's home, and reportedly approaching Horn's home, Horn exited his home with his shotgun, while the 911 operator tried to dissuade him from that action. On the 911 tape, he is heard confronting the suspects, saying, "Move, and you're dead",[3] immediately followed by the sound of a shotgun blast, followed by two more. Following the shootings Mr. Horn told the 911 operator, "They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice!"

Police initially identified the dead men in Horn's yard as 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston of Afro Latino descent. However, DeJesus was actually an alias of Hernando Riascos Torres, 38. They were carrying a sack with more than $2,000 cash and jewelry taken from the home. Both were convicted criminals from Colombia who had entered the country illegally, and were members of an organized burglary ring in Houston. Police found a Puerto Rican identification card on Ortiz while Torres had three identification cards from Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, and had been previously sent to prison for dealing cocaine and was deported in 1999.

A plain clothes police detective responding to the 911 call had arrived at the scene before the shooting and witnessed the escalation and shootings, while remaining in his car. His report on the incident indicated that the men who were killed "received gunfire from the rear". Police Capt. A.H. Corbett stated the two men ignored Mr. Horn's order to freeze and one of the suspects ran towards Joe Horn before he angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back. Note: The medical examiner's report did not specify they were shot in the back, although that has been widely misquoted. Pasadena police confirmed that the two men were shot after they ventured into his front yard. The detective did not arrest Horn.
Joe Horn shooting controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm amazed.
 
This to me is not self-defense or even a citizen's arrest. It does make me wonder why that cop just stayed in his car rather than intervening.

Safety concerns. He was alone with no backup, and not in uniform.

#1 job of a police officer is to go the **** home at the end of their shift.
 
Safety concerns. He was alone with no backup, and not in uniform.

#1 job of a police officer is to go the **** home at the end of their shift.

I figured it was something like that.
 
You DO NOT have the right to use deadly force to protect your property. That is what you do not seem to grasp. If you do, you WILL be a criminal and you WILL serve prison time.

Here in Louisiana, we do.

If you want to be a victim, then that's certainly your right. I choose not to be a victim.

I guess it's good for me that there are folks like you that are willing to be lambs to the slaughter. That means the criminals will pick on your waaaaay before they come around my crib ****ing around.
 
If you shoot some guy in the back or someone who has thrown up his hands and surrendered, then you've gone too far obviously.

Speaking of shooting people in the back...

My partner and I respond to a domestic/crackhouse dispute (june 2003) and just before, I round the corner where, I can see the front of the crackjoint, boom! I come around and find, the asshole standing over his dead mama, smoking gun hanging to his side pointed to the ground. The perp pretty much ignores me and slowly turns around and starts to walk down a narrow alley on the side of the house where he can get, the **** away. He ignores all orders to stop, drop the weapon, etc and keeps walkin. We both center punched the mofo when he started to walk away.
 
Speaking of shooting people in the back...

My partner and I respond to a domestic/crackhouse dispute (june 2003) and just before, I round the corner where, I can see the front of the crackjoint, boom! I come around and find, the asshole standing over his dead mama, smoking gun hanging to his side pointed to the ground. The perp pretty much ignores me and slowly turns around and starts to walk down a narrow alley on the side of the house where he can get, the **** away. He ignores all orders to stop, drop the weapon, etc and keeps walkin. We both center punched the mofo when he started to walk away.

Because he may have endanged someone else?
 
Because he may have endanged someone else?

I don't know why some people seem appalled. The notion that it's the wild, wild west and shooting someone in the back is just plain wrong.

Someone can point a pistol over his shoulder and shoot at you just the same. Not to mention the serial rapist, robber or murder suspect who will get away unless you take him down with a shot.

It's a last resort, but has to be done
 
I don't know why some people seem appalled. The notion that it's the wild, wild west and shooting someone in the back is just plain wrong.

Someone can point a pistol over his shoulder and shoot at you just the same. Not to mention the serial rapist, robber or murder suspect who will get away unless you take him down with a shot.

It's a last resort, but has to be done

Who's appalled?
 
I don't know why some people seem appalled. The notion that it's the wild, wild west and shooting someone in the back is just plain wrong.

Someone can point a pistol over his shoulder and shoot at you just the same. Not to mention the serial rapist, robber or murder suspect who will get away unless you take him down with a shot.

It's a last resort, but has to be done

Just to note I wouldn't take anyone who's in a full run attempting to shoot over their shoulder at me as any risk to myself. I'd be far more concerned with whoever or whatever else he might hit because there's no way anyone is going to hit what they are "aiming" at, ie me, while shooting like that.
 
Back
Top Bottom