This will spur some "passionate" discussion. Keep it clean.
 

What are your opinions on this? I have my own set opinion, but I'm curious what other people think. If you're house was being robbed, would you want your neighbor to be able to protect it?

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=5278638&page=1

I'm all for it. If it weren't for him, those idiots woulda probably robbed his house next, and probably he'd be the one to be dead.

I agree.

To bad NJ can't be easy on gun laws :( But I think he did the right thing. Much better than sitting back and watching and doing nothing...

Tough call. There is some morality playing into it. But I know if it was my place I would have wanted his ass killed.

Wow, thats a pretty crazy story.

O and did anyone else notice the 2 burglars were illegal? :lol:

my neighbors dont know the layout of my house, dont know who could be home at what time or where they would be if home.......so no i dont want neighbors sticking their noses in......if they see that someone is breaking in, and arent in danger themselves, i want them to stay in their own house, get lisence plate numbers and call 911

What are the laws in NJ to this? Like if someone was breaking and entering your house and you "defended" yourself?

My neighbors got robbed a few years ago, My sister heard someone break in and she told my mom but my mom didn't believe my sister.. My neighbors are great people and I know for a fact that 2 out of 6 houses around me have guns in the house(LEO/hunters) So that being said, i would want them to call 911 then get their gun, and just confront them and get them to surrender. If that doesn't work, SHOOT BOTH KNEES OUT :)

i agree. if my house was on fire, i would want my neighbor to try and put it out. the 911 operator has no authority over the man so he had the right to confront them, flat out shoot them in the back is kinda weak, but so is taking what isn't yours. top it off with the illegal status, and you got yourself one happy texan.

I have to agree with mike here I dont want a trigger happy neighbor shooting a friend by accident nor do i want my neighbor to confront them and get shot over some jewlery etc. But at the same time if they break into my house when im home i completely agree that you should be allowed to shoot no questions asked and shoot to kill at that.

If this happened in NJ, I have no doubt that he would be found guilty and sent to jail. Period. Guys like Joe Horn are the reason we have gun control laws. I don't know how many other people have heard the 9-1-1 tape, but if you look past its entertainment value, it's absolutely horrifying. The dispatcher pleads with him not to go outside. He's doing everything he can. And "Move or you're dead!" sounded a lot more like, "Hey! You're dead!"

Of course, I wasn't there, so I can't say what definitely happened. However, if it happened the way he alleged, why were both men shot in the back while fleeing? Moreover, this isn't his property in jeopardy, it's his neighbors. I do greatly appreciate his enthusiasm in protecting a neighbor's property, but he did his duty by doing what he did in the first place: He called 9-1-1. He took it upon himself to go outside and face two men, apparently unarmed, and gun them down. While I don't consider myself a huge liberal, I don't see the need for taking a life over property. The one thing you can take from someone and never give back is life. It looks way too much like an overly enthused "good ole boy" with a prejudice towards illegal aliens.

Just my two pennies. Fire away (Figuratively speaking, of course).

I think that is pretty dumb, I would never expect a neighbor or family member to rush into my house to put out a fire unless it was a minor kitchen fire. When my car set on fire i made sure my friend(also a neighbor) was far away before I went back in to put it out.

houses,cars and jewelry can be replaced, people cant, thats why i said shoot both knees out. They wont die, and wont be able to run. :lol:

I"m torn on this. I remember when this first happened with the 911 tape being released. He was repeatedly told not to go outside. What if the cops showed up as he walked outside with a shotgun? I bet he'd be dead, the crooks get away, and everyone gets pissed at the cops for shooting the "good guy."

If it was his own home, I think this wouldn't be an issue. And if he did go outside to confront the men, and was charged, threatened, or whathaveyou, then he'd be justified. But I don't think they even knew he was there. In this case, I think calling 911 was enough, keeping the cops updated on what he sees/hears, and if they did flee, which direction, what they might have looked like (even approximates would have helped). But at the same time, no one knows if they would have tried to hit his house next, especially if they had any idea he was watching...I dunno, I'm torn. Overall, I'd say he went too far...but should he be sent to prison for it? I dunno.

What I do love, though, is one of the crook's fiance saying "This man took the law into his own hands. He shot two individuals in the back after having been told over and over to stay inside. It was his choice to go outside and his choice to take two lives." So it's ok for her fiance to steal to pay for their wedding, but when he gets caught in the act by someone who happened to have a gun, it's the other person's fault?

i said it in relation to this situation. if no one is home, i would hope a neighbor would try and do something. i sure would. im not a pussy. im not talking about a huge fire either, like this situation, there wasn't a bunch of robbers taking hostages, just a simple B&E

You took the words right out of my mouth. I should be able to defend my house but my neighbor's house is pushing the limits.

I didnt read any one elses post but IF the burglars had guns or tried to attack the old guy then this situation would be completely just. He shot the men in the back as they were running off thats taking the situation into your own hands and its total BS! if they tried to rob HIS house or tried to attack HIM then fine kill them they deserve it you know. They didnt bother him nor did they attack him, the other owner could have called up insurance and the cops and the two guys probally would have gotten caught.

how do you know no one is home? thats the point, if you are coming into a situation from the side, or late, then you dont know enough factors to properly assess that situation

Texas is Texas.

No 2 bits about it...

But on the same note....if they didn't understand 'ENGLISH'....then who's fault is that ? Not Joe's....he TOLD them to stop. Why should he have to tell them in 'spanish ?

While we weren't there and there's no one but Joe to tell the story now (hmmm, in his favor too :twisted:)....all we can say is that they were 2 illegals doing something against the law.

So they get sent back to Mexico. Then come back and do it again. Then what ? One of them kills some kid and then he gets sent back to Mexico again....

Plenty of chance to become citizens if they wanna come here....but coming over and helping themselves ON TOP OF the 'FREEBIES' they get by having kids here....nope.....

Way ta go Joe !!!

i don't think thats the point, but i did assume it. if no cars are at my house, no one is home. i know my neighbors and my friends neighbors well enough to asses a situation and handle it accordingly. everyone is different though

In this context, the old man that killed the two men didnt know his neigbors well enough, and that is said by the old guy in the 911 calls.
I belive that the old men knew that neighbors were away, and if you listen to the 911 he yells at the guys robbing the house.
Do I think he should have shot them? No, but if he could somehow detain them, or shoot them in the leg to stop them from going anywere, that would have been a better idea.

I belive 220% in home defense, and in Texas the Castle rule not only applies to your house, but your neighbors house.
In the 20/20 or Dateline thing they had on TV, they had a guy who woke up to a man breaking into his infant sons room. So the man grabbed his pistol, and put 3 rounds in him, killing him.
NJ's laws is more of a hide and self defense, but even still there can be legal ramifcations if you do decide to discharge your wepon. If the person shot is not killed, but perhaps does some damage to him, the person could turn around and sue him. That kind of reverse bs needs to be reversed.
Like in "Liar Liar" where the guy is robbing the house, he falls through a glass sky light, and cuts his leg open on a kitchen knife sitting on the table below, the man sued the owner of the house, and won. While that is a fictional story, Im sure there is some basis for that.
If while performing an illegal act, you are injured, you should not be allowed to or file any counter suit.
Texas's Castle law is a bit extreme while NJ law lacks a lot.

I agree completely. If someone thinks something is going on they should simply call 911 & let the police & the insurance co. do their jobs in this case.

Don't risk shooting someone innocent or injuring yourself, its a great thought to go take the law into your own hands but think about it...stealing vs. killing...big difference. Christ I would've been dead several times over for the candy bars I stole as a kid :lol:

Theres never been an occasion where you've dropped your car off at a shop and got a ride home? I know I've done that many times.

yeah theres plenty of times, there are people in my house when no cars are here, or cars here when no people are here......thats the point i was trying to make, if you have NO CLUE whats going on inside the house, you shouldnt fire a weapon in that direction,

if the people are running down the street like they aparently were in this case, its even worse, what if 20 feet in front of the FLEEING burgular is a mom with a stroller, or a kid on a bike......

its just not smart

A part of me wants to say its Murder in the first degree. The act of shooting them was clearly premeditated, proved by him saying "I'm gonna shoot! I'm gonna shoot!" Self defense cannot be considered because they were shot in the back, so they weren't threatening the guys life.
Link to Texas Castle Law
Now, according Section 2.A.3, anyone can stop someone from committing robbery. Section 2.E can be interpreted to mean that if someone has a right to be where they are, they are allowed to act.

So, according to the Texas law, the man is innocent and the grand jury made the right decision in dropping the charges.
Morally, I believe the mans beliefs are justified, but the execution (no pun intended) of said beliefs are wrong.