Bluefront: Texas man shoots intruder after parrot's warning

Post by **Ralf Hutter** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:17 am

Too cool:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=6879

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:53 am

I heard that story on the Paul Harvey radio show yesterday. Doesn't surprise me at all. Birds after all are usually the prey animal....and wake up from sleeping at the slightest noise. My Amazon will usually say "hello" from her covered cage at night, when I pass by on the way to the bathroom.

Let's see "Parrot initiates capital punishment to common burglar". How unfair...we should pass a new law.

Davinator · Post by **Davinator** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:22 am

Oh, that's even better than the bird dancing to Backstreet Boys! Hopefully, the guy gave that bird a special treat that day!

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:22 am

Iâ€™m surprised that American parrots donâ€™t have their own guns! If it had spent the extra on a silencer it could have killed the intruder without waking the house owner and been inline with the SilentPC ethos. Then it could have been awarded an SPCR silent Ninja award.

lm · Post by lm » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:20 pm

Perhaps it's a bad idea to even suggest that even burglars should not be shot at just like that.

walle · Post by **walle** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:31 pm

Instead of telephoning the police he decided to shoot the burglar " I had no choice" when viewing the burglar on the surveillance camera, which would suggest ample room of time to telephone the police. Would have been different had he or his family been threatened.

To each his own I suppose.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:50 pm

Don't forget this happened in Texas......one of the last places criminals receive just punishment.

Flandry · Post by **Flandry** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:04 pm

The clip cuts off before the end of the coverage. Will the man be charged with anything?

Tommy Jefferson · Post by **Tommy Jefferson** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:18 am

Flandry wrote:The clip cuts off before the end of the coverage. Will the man be charged with anything?

No. In Texas a person may legally use deadly force to protect property and/or loved ones. A person has no legal obligation to run away from a criminal.

Defense of your property is a basic human right.

In many places this human right is not respected or encouraged by the law. In Texas it is.

autoboy · Post by **autoboy** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:51 am

God Bless Texas. The only thing you can't do is leave traps like a hole with spikes covered by leaves.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:09 am

When did Texans need a reason to shoot somebody?

You drive down the road and if they get pissed at somebody they waive their gun permit at the other driver.

pipperoni · Post by **pipperoni** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:40 pm

aristide1 wrote:When did Texans need a reason to shoot somebody?

You drive down the road and if they get pissed at somebody they waive their gun permit at the other driver.

What?? You need a gun permit in Texas???

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:12 pm

This whole thing is funny. My parrot never caught a burglar, or anyone else...but neither did I. Even with all sorts of burglar alarms, cameras, infra-red beams, sensors, etc......most I ever caught was a big white cat sneaking across the back yard. That cat was responsible for many false warnings/alarms.

I got rid of him with a tape player with a barking dog on an endless loop. It would turn on whenever the cat got into the yard and set off a light, which also turned on the tape player. It sounded so real my neighbors thought I got a dog. I put up a dog house with a food bowl in front of it.

No burglars since......

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:13 pm

Interesting article here:

Guns take pride of place in US family values

"An average of almost eight people aged under 19 are shot dead in America every day. In 2005 there were more than 14,000 gun murders in the US - with 400 of the victims children. There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year. Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century."

autoboy · Post by **autoboy** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:09 pm

Makes you wonder about the casualties in the Iraq war too. We have 50K casualties a year as a result of automobile accidents. That almost makes Iraq safe by comparison.

floffe · Post by **floffe** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:28 pm

Tommy Jefferson wrote:Defense of your property is a basic human right.

In many places this human right is not respected or encouraged by the law. In Texas it is.

In many places human life, be it of a criminal or not, is valued higher than property. Or would you argue that the right to life is not the most basic right there can be?

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:28 pm

You put your life at risk when you commit a felony, and particularly when you invade a home. That's the way it is....and should be.

dragmor · Post by **dragmor** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:29 pm

walle wrote:Instead of telephoning the police he decided to shoot the burglar " I had no choice" when viewing the burglar on the surveillance camera, which would suggest ample room of time to telephone the police. Would have been different had he or his family been threatened.

To each his own I suppose.

eh, its the USA.

I'm more interested in who has a surveillance system setup around and inside their house with the monitoring equipment close buy to view the robber. Did this guy move into an old bank, abandoned military base or something? If you need to defend your house like fort knots perhaps there is something wrong with the community you live in.

Das_Saunamies · Post by **Das_Saunamies** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:08 pm

Killing a burglar in your garage is going overboard. But then again, who knows what would've happened if it was a crack junkie. You yell for them to stop and they stab you in their fume rage. Same thing if you wound them, next thing you know they're out on bail and your garage is on fire.

Criminals don't belong in society. They willingly go against it, its laws and customs. I'm not shedding a single tear or wasting afterthought on a dead perp - not after my car was broken into twice by junkies on parole, who were going to use it for joyriding, possibly killing a pedestrian or two in the process.

Prisons are full. It feels like most criminals never stop committing crime. They become indifferent towards the justice system, which makes them arrogant and dangerous after a few successful crimes. If I could do more than just cower in the corner while the police came from 20km away(that is the closest station, average response time has been 30 minutes), I would. So far all I've been able to do is answer the door at 6 AM and pick up the pieces of the part of my life those crooks tore apart.

Tommy Jefferson · Post by **Tommy Jefferson** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:38 am

floffe wrote:In many places human life, be it of a criminal or not, is valued higher than property. Or would you argue that the right to life is not the most basic right there can be?

The right to own property is the most basic right there is. It's an ancient and well-established part of Western Civilization and culture. All other human rights flow from it (voting, free speech, etc.)

The most valuable piece of property you own is your body (life).

Criminals know that they forfiet their right to life when they chose to rob another person. It's their choice. They are not being deprived of their life involuntarily.

As with any entrepreneur, criminals respond rationally to increased costs of doing business. They avoid them.

This is why in Texas we have a much lower incidence of home invasion robberies, muggings, and car jackings than other places with the similar levels of poverty and cultural diversity, but with lower standards of respect for human rights.

I am a classic liberal in the tradition of the Austrian school. We believe that respect for non-aggression and human rights are the sacred basis of civilization.

When governments deprive individuals of their right to protect their property from aggression, they are basically enslaving people.

Don't be a slave. Promote freedom.

autoboy · Post by **autoboy** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:20 am

Criminals are knowingly putting themselves in danger and ignore the basic human rights of protection of oneself and his property. Punishments for repeat criminals with very solid proof should be much much much stricter than they are now. Just a few months ago a man attacked my neighbors with a machete and slashed several people before attacking the Police right in front of my house. Cops shot him 4 times. There was blood everywhere but he survived. I wish they had shot once more. I shed no tears for those who choose to break the law in a violent way.

qviri · Post by **qviri** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:25 pm

autoboy wrote:Criminals are knowingly putting themselves in danger and ignore the basic human rights of protection of oneself and his property. Punishments for repeat criminals with very solid proof should be much much much stricter than they are now. Just a few months ago a man attacked my neighbors with a machete and slashed several people before attacking the Police right in front of my house. Cops shot him 4 times. There was blood everywhere but he survived. I wish they had shot once more. I shed no tears for those who choose to break the law in a violent way.

I can see two kinds of people that would attack others with machetes, one being cold-blooded criminals whose intent is to terrorize the victims (let's face it, someone attacking you with a machete is pretty damn scary), and the other being people who don't have control over themselves at the time, either temporarily or permanently. One kind does make that knowing decision; the other one does not. How do you tell who you're dealing with? Sure it's easy to shoot and let God sort 'em out, but then why bother with a justice system at all?

On a somewhat related note, have you heard about the unhappy Comcast customer? What do you think would be the appropriate reaction for the police? What if it was a man instead of a woman?

Das_Saunamies · Post by **Das_Saunamies** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:04 pm

Tommy put my thoughts into words. People with guns who defend their homes and loved ones are responding to aggression, not promoting it. I prefer living in a peaceful society, and certainly show good will towards my fellow man - but that is only because I feel my rights, person and property are safe(and when they are not, paranoia). From safety comes trust, from trust friendships, from friendships a community.

To answer qviri's first question: if a person has no control over themselves, temporarily or permanently, and that results in them charging people with a blade, I want them taken away from sane and productive people. Their actions have results just as bad as those that have been committed willingly.

The justice system will investigate the shooter just as much as the shot. It is there to make sure what happened was justified, an independent adjudicator. It is up to the justice system to keep things orderly so that this sort of thing wasn't necessary, but it can't be expected to guard everyone around the clock. Only police states can do that.

Regarding this incident with the hammer, just silly. Incompetent installations happen, and the thing with the manager is just bad customer service. The civilised thing to do is complain, maybe talk it out with someone you can reach, even change operators. Not seethe about it in you own home and then take a blunt instrument over.

Regarding the police, they would've probably treated an 85-year-old male who had banged inanimate objects with a hammer just as nicely. If the perp poses no threat to people but just property, there is no reason to kill them for it - but if there is credible or unknown threat to people, draw a gun. Death or lifelong injury is what's worth responding to.

lm · Post by lm » Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:14 am

In Finland, I believe we prevent crimes by keeping people happy.

On the other hand, in USA, it works because people are trigger happy.

But in the end, I would feel less safe near all those trigger happy, less happy? people. I think it's more likely that some of them would shoot me (a law abiding citizen) by accident than I would actually get into a situation where I needed a gun for defending myself.

Link somewhat related:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7091904.stm

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:54 am

lm......you've got to look at this from the view of an American. We've always been able to own guns.....2nd amendment to our Constitution. There are literally a billion guns out there, owned by everybody.

There's only one real defense against somebody with a gun.....a gun of your own, with enough guts to defend yourself using deadly force. Where I live people are murdered by guns about 200x more frequently than an accidental shooting. Frequently enough, someone saves his own life using a gun. This is reality in the USA.

gforcefan · Post by **gforcefan** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:09 pm

In America, including the Texas, the law is pretty universal.

If you are outside your home, you cannot use deadly force if you can avoid - even to protect property. You can use deadly force to protect yourself or someone if the threat is grave (murder, rape, etc.).

However, if you are IN your own home, you may use deadly force to repel the intruder, even if it was possible to just run out the front door. This has always been the tradition in this country and I believe was brought from the common law of England. You have an absolute right to protect your own home.

lm, the Finns are quite famous for the Winter War. Some called it the first modern guerilla warfare. I say they successfully and properly protected themselves from the Russians. These used guns to repel an invader (the Russians). They could have waited for the police (Russian was condemned internationally after all) or fled North and let Russia have the south (run out the front door). You may say it is different because the Russians were a large scale invading army, but I think the core concept is the same.

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:48 pm

lm wrote:In Finland, I believe we prevent crimes by keeping people happy.

and by having the 3rd most guns per person of any country in the world? (yes it's true, 0.51 guns per person (man, woman, child), just after jemen and the united shoots... er states).

I suppose the nazi school shooter this week was also kept happy?

qviri · Post by **qviri** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:03 pm

klankymen wrote: I suppose the nazi school shooter this week was also kept happy?

Sir, could you point me to a society made up entirely of happy people?

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:31 pm

that's what I'm trying to say. there's crime everywhere, since someone is always unhappy with his situation, just keeping people happy alone isn't enough to fight crimes.

djkest · Post by **djkest** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:37 pm

I am a staunch 2nd amendment supporter, ex-military, I've got lots of firearms training. I keep a .45 close to my bed where I sleep at night.

That being said, if someone did break into my house, I would not shoot them unless I needed to. IE, if they come at me, they are gonna get it.

HOWEVER, I am not a cold blooded killer, and despite what people may think about soldiers, I am not out to take a life. I'd rather arrest him until the police arrive, or even perhaps scare him away.

I'm not so sure you should kill someone just because you can. However, I do understand the need for legal clarity when you are faced with a dangerous situation of someone invading your home. It's also harder to make good decisions under extremely stressful situations.

It's very easy to 2nd guess someone else, if you aren't in their shoes.

I've shot literally thousands of rounds, more than most people will in their lifetime. I have never ever had a single accident, and I have never killed a living creature as a result (I'm not a hunter). Guns are not dangerous, people are.

I'm sure many of you folks living outside of the US see us as a nation that is enamored with guns. In actuality I'm sure you could see gun ownership declining in the US steadily. 40 years ago if the US was invaded our own citizens could have probably done a decent job defending ourselves. Any more, I have my doubts. Given the shifting public opinion, it is only a matter of time before strict gun control is put in place here, I'm afraid.