HOUSTON -- An 80-year-old homeowner shot and killed a suspected burglar in his north Houston house early Tuesday, officials told Local 2. Investigators said a 19-year-old man broke into the home in the 500 block of Turney Drive at the North Freeway at about 1:30 a.m. and went into the homeowner's bedroom, where he was sleeping. The resident asked the intruder to back away, but he did not, according to officials, so the homeowner shot him once in the stomach. LLLoonies Listen Up!!This is how things are done in Texas
"When I shot him, he screamed and knocked the screen door completely out," said the victim, who did not want to be identified. The World War II veteran said he felt like it was "kill or be killed." That just about sums up my thoughts
"I don't feel good about it, but I had no choice. He should have got out. He would have been alive today," the victim told Local 2. The suspected burglar, Robert Hinojosa, died a short time later at Ben Taub Hospital. I heard about Ben Taub, if you died from a gun shot in this hospital, trust me, you were meant to die
The homeowner, who has lived in the subdivision for 57 years, encourages others to protect their property. "Stand up for their rights. That's the most important thing. Don't let nobody get on you just because of your age. Show them you're just as good as a younger man," he said. Cowboy Up!!!
The case will be referred to a Harris County grand jury, but charges are not expected. In other words, HELL NO.
#5
I once got a hilarious monotone rendition from an Army NCO who was pretending to testify as to how he shot a burglar in his house: "...and then, after I had retrieved my handgun from the locked handgun case, and the bullets, separately stored in the locked bullet safe, and removed the trigger lock from my handgun, and loaded my handgun...I went to the top of the staircase, and illuminated my location, and said 'Who is there? Identify yourself immediately, because I am the homeowner, and I am armed with a loaded handgun...And after I had discharged my fifth round, with intent to prevent what I believed to be an armed robber menacing me, I saw him once again raise his arm while holding an unidentified object in his hand in a menacing manner in my direction; and again I loudly shouted: 'Do not move or I will be forced to discharge my handgun at you to prevent you from menacing me with whatever is in your hand!'; and I was still in fear for my life when I discharged my weapon a sixth time with intent to prevent...etc."
#6
I can picture the DA shuttering at the thought of charging that old man. Houston is a VERY liberal place (almost on par with SF), but the DA is an elected office and I donât think he would get much support for charging the man. For those that doubt that Houston is liberal, remember that Shelia Jackass Lee represents this city.
I apologize, but only small inner city Houston is, liberal. I used to travel there. Houston is a VERY large city, distance wise, spread out 20-40 miles across. Downtown Houston is pretty much deserted on the weekends. Sheila Jackass Lee represents a small inner city population. A HUGE majority of the population lives in the suburbs and are almost all, very conservative. The reason there are Democrat mayors, is because citizens in the Houston suburbs are not allowed to vote for the Houston mayor. The current mayor in Houston is a DINO (Democrat in Name Only), he is pro-business and for lowering taxes.
#9
Texas seems to be among the states having a "make my day law". The others that I know of are Colorado, Arizona, and Oklahoma. According to Texas penal code "...a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force...
In Colorado, just make sure the perp has made it all the way into the house before you kill him. Saves the grand jury's time.
#11
California used to be even better about that (15 years ago). Dunno if it still is. I believe the threshold was (is?) "engaged in a felony", which includes mailboxing.
#12
Poison Reverse> Since I'm not a Christian I have no problem with self-defense, but shouldn't a good Christian like yourself see it as a sin if a person chooses to kill his attacker rather than turn the other cheek? Didn't Jesus say "I'm sending you like lambs among wolves"?
The argument of collective defense doesn't seem to apply in this case.
As a sidenote, in the case you don't like my questions, remember that it was you who chose to bait me.
#13
AFAIK - Jesus didn't recommend suicide or allowing your loved ones to be killed.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 20:36 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Ah live in Texas and offer these thoughts:
The man will be no-billed, should the DA even bring the case. Hell, if he were younger, he could run for office and win!
I recall one case where a gas station was robbed and the owner came out and shot the robber as he was running away. DA didn't even take it to the Grand Jury.
Harris County is BY FAR the leader in Texas counties sending men to death row, even when one looks at it from a basis.
SJL covers a black area in Houston and is aligned with Maxine Waters. BTW, she ALWAYS brown-noses W at his SOTU speech. Check out the next time.
#19
Aris, the intruder was asked to back away and he didn't. Maybe it's the two years that I lived in Houston, but I feel like you'd be a fool not to shoot at that point. Limiting it to one shot seems like restraint to me. How do you think that would typically play out in Greece? Can you even have a gun?
Posted by: Tom ||
12/21/2004 21:23 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I see nothing contradictory with being a good christian and sending this scum to his maker for final judgement. Unlawful entrance into an occupied house is assumed for illegal, and probably harmful purposes by most states here. Some are even more in favor of the allowed whacking. Were it me, I'd sleep fine after shooting this punk, knowing I'd stand in judgement later before a higher authority
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I'm a little surprised they're even referring this to the grand jury at all; anyone know why? Most places here in Pennsylvania, the authorities would usually handle something like this by complementing the homeowner's marksmanship and then hauling away the perp's corpse; and that would be that. I wonder what gives here.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/21/2004 21:37 Comments ||
Top||
#22
The resident asked the intruder to back away, but he did not, according to officials, so the homeowner shot him once in the stomach.
#23
Well California is still a "come in here and die state" which will suprize many. In my county you are not going to have a problem at all. You will get sued by the next of kin, count on it, Which is a good reason to kill the intruder dead so he can testalie.
#24
Same in San diego - it's a proven fact that when perps know that the probability's high the homeowner is armed and willing - they move on. I live in the rural eastern county and we have few hotprowls
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Maybe it's the two years that I lived in Houston, but I feel like you'd be a fool not to shoot at that point.
Look this is about theology. About people believing that they've been asked to offer neither resistance nor retribution to violence yielded against them, and to "turn the other cheek instead".
Now in cases of war, or of protecting loved ones, the usual Christian argument is that the "turn the other cheek" thing is a personal commandment to be applied only when one's own life is at a stake. That they therefore have the obligation to protect others and that's why both war and killing to protect your loved ones needn't be a sin.
Okay.
But in the case where you are only protecting your own life and property this argument doesn't seem to apply. So I ask -- what's the argument *now* against applying the "turn the other cheek" rule in this case?
Does 'turn the other cheek' apply *ever* or has modern conservative christianity utterly done away with the concept, and it just pretends to have kept it?
Can you even have a gun?
Yes Tom, we *can* have guns in Greece. I don't know many people who'd be interested in having one, but am pretty sure the situation's different in other parts of the country. For example I've heard that Crete's citizenry has enough weaponry to launch a war all on its own.
#27
Aris - this is what you don't get about Americans. We don't turn the other cheek, and don't belive our religion tells us to, when it comes to self-defense of life, limb, and even *horrors* goods. You really have no concept what it means to be an American, sorry
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 21:49 Comments ||
Top||
#35
cheap shot, but so is questioning the sincerity of somebody who doesn't believe just as you do.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 22:05 Comments ||
Top||
#36
LOL! Ah, once again you bravely turned around and fled, brave Sir Frank!
Sock Puppet of Doom> I never said *you* had any such problems -- my question was first asked to the supposedly good christian Poison Reverse -- and by extension to everyone claiming to believe in the same religion.
#38
I'm comfortable where I am, and I don't care how you judge me.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 22:14 Comments ||
Top||
#39
You have no obligation to respond to the question I posted from the beginning of my participation in this thread.
But in that case I think it'd have been good if you'd let other people answer it, rather than clutter the thread with your games.
I know I am not your judge. But the question I asked remains unanswered, so anyone else willing to make a try at explaining to the unbeliever? Without games?
#40
*sigh* And if he DID turn the other cheek, and got hurt or killed, then what would the young perp have done to his NEXT victim?
It's the equivalent of herd-immunity. By taking out this goblin, the guy projected protection to Only God Knows how many future victims (Indeed, only God himself would know who this man protected, which is why he would do better facing God Himself than mere mortals like YOU).
Really, Aris, what happened to that counter-factual reasoning skill of yours? Quite straightforward, and you miffed it in a vain try to cry hypocrisy on another.
By the way, Christian morality is sticky: when one tries to apply it to another to condemn them in some way, they only succeed in putting themselves under it all the more.
#41
Aris, you really have a talent for starting bogus discussions.
The New Testament is a wonderful text but it doesn't invalidate common sense. Many things preached by Jesus are to be taken in a symbolic, "higher sense" of the word. Jesus was very well aware of the human weakness. A "good" Christian will try his best to "live up to the word" but that won't stop him from having a justice system even if Jesus said that those without guilt should throw the first stone, it will not stop him from fighting a war against mass murdering dictators just because he's supposed to "love his enemy" and he will shoot the burglar turning up at night time in his bedroom and THEN turn the other cheek.
I have a hunting license so I can legally own a gun. Once asked law enforcement what I should do if someone breaks into my home. He said: "Shoot twice, once into the ceiling."
He left me in no doubt about where the first shot should go, but the second shot makes the judge happy who will throw out the case.
I don't mind you questioning me. I didn't so quickly respond because I was doing my evening Bible reading with my family. Now that I am back, let's do this thing. Read the whole thing before you respond.
First, before I start explaining your question concerning turning the other cheek, I just want to say that, here in the U.S, the Christians will NO longer lie down while hateful people like you, want to run over us.
Now, What is the real meaning of turn the other cheek? Let me start off by stating the whole verse.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)
Does it mean that we must allow ourselves to be defenseless victims of every thief or attacker that may come along?
It's very important to realize the context in which Jesus Christ was speaking. In essence, He was telling those gathered there before Him, as well as us today, that Christians are not to respond to religious persecutors as though they were common criminals. He went on to say, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44 RSV).
Jesus Christ was not prohibiting self-defense by Christians in a manner permitted by law. He also said, "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace." (Luke 11:21 RSV). No "turn the other cheek" for burglars or looters, and by extension, every other sort of common criminal.
But why "turn the other cheek" toward religious persecutors? And how should we respond to those who are unfriendly toward us, as Christians, because they don't yet have the "ears to hear"?
Consider this Aris-
"And The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will." (2 Timothy 2:24-26 RSV) A thief knows exactly what he's doing, stealing your property, plain and simple. On the other hand, someone who attacks you because of your Christianity does not know what he's doing (THIS MEANS YOU Aris). His or her time of understanding of God's Truth, and choosing whether or not to obey it, has not yet come. Right now, I have a tremendous intellectual advantage over you. If this does not explain it to you thenâ¦â¦..
#43
Ptah> I think that the problem with your argument (that the attack will hurt someone else *next*) is its *over*applicability. In short it's an entirely reasonable argument that however ends up invalidating the 'turn the other cheek' guideline in its entirety. Turning the other cheek can *always* be seen as being an appeasement towards an aggressor who, if not stopped, will end up hurting other people also.
And Jesus supposedly knew that. So why did he utter it?
TGA> I have no objection to a God that merely advises, whose commandments and rules are merely guidelines, and whose words can be overruled by the application of common sense.
But I am not at all certain that this is a God that's at all consistent with Judeochristian scripture. Or indeed with modern conservative conceptions of God.
On my part, I think that Jesus's teachings are much like Ghandi's. No violence whatsoever, the lambs going willingly to the slaughter.
I *know* that this philosophy doesn't work in the real world. But I can't interpret otherwise Jesus's teachings only because it would be *nice* if they were interpreted differently. Ghandi's words (to bring up another pacifist) meant that millions of Jews would have to willingly walk to their deaths, and I see Jesus' words as meaning that millions of Christians would have to willingly walk to their deaths.
I think that both Jesus and Ghandi were pacifists that were plainly wrong on this matter.
Poison Reverse> "He was telling those gathered there before Him, as well as us today, that Christians are not to respond to religious persecutors as though they were common criminals."
I don't see anything about religious persecution there. I see things about letting the thief have your belongings, and allowing yourself to be beaten up or even kidnapped without resistance.
Arguments that this is symbolic don't explain why I can't see this as plainly literal.
Your Luke 11:21 is irrelevant. The context there is a extended metaphor of either the kingdom of god, or of demonic possessions. What it certainly ISN'T is advice on how to protect your wealth.
Your argument that this teaching applies only to religious prosecution simply doesn't hold.
#44
The requirement to turn the other cheek isn't about self defense.
If you are still an actor, not dead or crippled, after being struck once on the cheek, it was not meant to be a lethal blow. If Jesus can foresee that you will not be killed or crippled by being struck on the cheek, so that you retain the capability of deciding to follow His word and turn the other cheek, then Jesus knew you were not in deadly danger. To reverse the thought, if being struck on the cheek were a matter of an attempt to kill or cripple, being advised to turn the other cheek would be absurd, as you would have no ability to do so, or not.
Being struck on the cheek is being dissed. Put up with being insulted.
Anyway, Aris, what say you to defending someone else by use of deadly force?
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
12/21/2004 23:51 Comments ||
Top||
#45
Turn the other cheek = Don't get into useless arguments.
When Jesus kicked the moneychangers out of the Temple, he really showed his love for the enemy :-)
#46
"Your argument that this teaching applies only to religious prosecution simply doesn't hold.
Of course it doesn't hold, to you, because you don't believe in the Bible. Atheists like you read the Bible as if it was a Stephen King book. Make no doubt about it, the Bible is literal. But, I can't help it if people like Jim Jones or David Koresh abuses the scripture for their own selfish desires. If believers concentrated on acheiveing their own relationship with Jesus instead of blindly following morons like Jim Jones or David Koresh, then their situation would have been different. Since, anything I write to you can't hold, maybe you can hold on to the walls of hell as you slide deeper into it. If you don't believe in hell, then wait, you will find out one day. The only difference is that, by then, it will be too late for you.
A 23-year-old British driver turned himself in to police after finding a severed foot wedged in his bumper of his Volvo. Prosecutors said Peter Dearing drove two miles with the body part of biker Richard Sholl and allegedly called police after he made the grisly find and realized his license plate had been detached, reported the Sun Monday.
Severed foot lodged in bumper - Check!
Licence plate left at accident scene - Check!
I think this is what CSI would call a "slam dunk".
"He could see and hear Mr. Sholl screaming in pain, before he got back into his car and left the scene," said prosecutor Sophie Lorimer. Dearing, who had no license or insurance, admitted in court he failed to stop after an accident.
Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/21/2004 9:33:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
any doubt that if the license weren't left at the scene, he wouldn't have turned himself in?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/21/2004 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
any doubt that if the license weren't left at the scene, he wouldn't have turned himself in?
hmmmm... I'ma wonder if maybe a car that dumps some sort of mechanical dna after a 3 G bump might be in order.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
