WTF? Texas homeowner kills 2 who asked about roosters

[cali]

Investigators say a South Texas homeowner has shot and killed two people who asked about buying roosters then drew guns on the resident.

Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Trevino on Monday said no charges were immediately filed over the shootings near Donna.

Deputies on Sunday night received 911 calls about gunfire, then found one man dead on a road and a second person deceased at a residence.

Trevino said preliminary information indicates two people drove to the home, inquired about buying some roosters - then flashed guns. The sheriff said the homeowner retrieved his own weapon and shots both individuals. All three guns have been recovered.

<snip>

http://www.ktxs.com/news/texas-homeowner-kills-2-who-asked-about-roosters/-/14769632/22670632/-/src0yo/-/index.html

[onehandle]

1. Moar guns. nt

[Ranchemp.]

3. More like a legitimate self defense shooting.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Says the person who did the killing.

[Ranchemp.]

9. Says the peliminary info. so far.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Dead men tell no tales. n/t

[Ranchemp.]

12. Forensic and physical evidence does though.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. And what was the conclusion of the forensic pathologist and the detectives?

[Ranchemp.]

22. No idea, the investigation has just begun.

He wasn't arrested on the spot so there must be some evidence of the truthfulness of his statement.
In Texas, all shootings, whether or not they're self defense, go before a Grand Jury for review on whether or not to indict.

[cali]

31. lol. more nonsense. lots of people aren't arrested right away who are guilty

it's hardly unheard of nor is his not having been arrested evidence of his being truthful. It's not evidence of anything.

You're assuming he's innocent. I maintain that there are questions. One is a reasonable position. The other is not.

[Ranchemp.]

34. Of course I'm assuming he's innocent,

you know, that thing about our criminal justice system, innocent until proven guilty.

One position is just as reasonable as the other in this instance.

[Blue_Tires]

104. FWIW, it took weeks of national media pressure before Zimmerman's arrest...

and it took 2+ weeks for the redneck cops to even pretend to investigate...

[EOTE]

43. Ranchemp defending another murderer? Color me shocked.

Let me guess, you've looked at the autopsy report and have concluded it was self defense? Or perhaps your Marshal buddies gave you the inside scoop. You're nothing if not consistent.

[Ranchemp.]

47. EOTE declaring someone a murderer before the investigation is complete? Color me shocked.

Give it a rest.

[EOTE]

56. You've said that preliminary (that's how you spell it, btw) information suggests he's innocent.

When the only preliminary information is of the guy who killed two people. Funny how you automatically take the side of the killer in these cases and go out of your way to talk about your faith in the person who is an admitted killer. You even go as far as to make up evidence to exonerate killers and then try to claim authority. What a joke. If you need to make up bullshit to bolster your case, you never had a case to begin with. It doesn't matter how many stories you make up about life and death situations you've been in, everyone here knows a keyboard commando and murderer apologist when they see one.

[eqfan592]

60. Thank you for continuing to prove my point made in post 52. nt.

[EOTE]

64. I'm afraid you haven't come close to making a point as of yet.

But you're welcome to keep trying.

[Ranchemp.]

61. Wow, so much fail is so little time.

Have a great day.

[EOTE]

62. Yeah, you must be so busy with your law enforcement work.

I can only imagine how exhausting it must be running around your folks basement, pointing your finger at things and yelling "Pew pew!"

[Ranchemp.]

67. Ooooh, now the insults.

Have a great day.

[EOTE]

68. Yeah, the insults.

I'll take that over making up shit and pretending to be an authority in order to excuse murderers. But that's just me.

[Ranchemp.]

70. Ok.

[eqfan592]

52. When upholding the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" equates with...

..."defending a murderer" in your mind, then you've clearly gone beyond the capacity for rational thought and discussion on the topic.

[EOTE]

59. Uhhh, you do know that internet posters are not a court of law?

So your silly little comment about "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing in this regard, right? I wouldn't think that such a basic lesson on law would need to be given to an adult, but there we are. And you do know that this isn't the first time he's defended murderers, right? The past time he made up forensic evidence to try and bolster support for the cop who murdered the 13 year old kid. Not everyone here is so daft as to not see the obvious motive of right wing authoritarians.

[eqfan592]

66. I didn't realize basic ethical principles were only valid or necessary in a court of law.

You continue to prove my point over and over.

[EOTE]

74. The presumption of innocence is a legal term.

You still seem to be confused in that regard. It is meaningless outside of the legal system. The fact that you still don't know this is making you look like a fool. When a person immediately jumps to the defense of an admitted killer based SOLELY upon the killers version of events, that person is a rightwing authoritarian. When this person has a proven track record of doing this time after time, it's pretty clear what that person's motivations are. I suppose you think that people who think that O.J. Simpson is a murderer are also ignoring the rule of law, but that is utter idiocy. A person who has such a simple and ludicrous view of our legal system really can't be capable of producing much rational thought.

[eqfan592]

85. So because he isn't willing to call him guilty, then he is a right wing authoritarian...

....yeah, and I'm the one making a fool of my self? Please, the only one sounding like an authoritarian here is you. What a joke..

[EOTE]

86. No, because he's willing to say it's self defense while knowing nothing of the case.

Other than the fact that the killer says it was self defense. Yes, consistently defending killers in such a manner is without a doubt authoritarian. If that's not might makes right bullshit, I don't know what is.

[eqfan592]

88. He's saying until further evidence is provided, he is innocent until proven guilty in his book

You seem convinced that because it is a legal principle that it has no place outside of the court room. I would disagree, and would say that your brand of assumption of guilt is extremely damaging to society.

[EOTE]

89. Really? You're a mind reader or something? Or perhaps part of the crew?

Because to me saying "More like a legitimate self defense shooting." sure as fuck sounds like he's trying to say the guy was justified in his killing while knowing extremely little about the case. But go on, explain to me how saying "More like a legitimate self defense shooting." means that we should wait until further evidence is provided.

[eqfan592]

91. Try reading the VERY NEXT POST HE MADE.

He's clearly saying that his conclusion is based only on the preliminary information. Such a statement implies that he's allowing for further information to surface. No mind reading necessary.

[EOTE]

94. The preliminary information provided by the killer?

In that HE said he was justified in killing the two people he just killed? You'll also note that before he attempted to justify his utterly irrational murder apology, he stated his quite clear position of "More like a legitimate self defense shooting." Even taking back that little gem, everything coming from that one would be utter idiocy. How the fuck does this look like a legitimate self-defense shooting, Deputy Fife?

[eqfan592]

97. Two people flashing guns at somebody isn't justifiable to you?

I'm officially tired of dealing with yet another authoritarian with no capability for rational thought on the issue of firearms. Your tea bagger like devotion to your cause is staggering. Enjoy life on my ignore list.

[EOTE]

98. Again, we're solely talking about the killer's words here.

You and your buddy don't think twice about exonerating a killer so long as he SAYS he had a reason to kill who he did. I'll just add that to the myriad other instances of idiocy bandied about by you two. Ignored by YOU? Whatever will I do?

[Ranchemp.]

90. That's exactly what I'm saying,

but that member seems to have some sort of vendetta against me.
That's ok, I've dealt with far tougher people that him.
I'm just not going to engage this person any longer, not worth my time or electrons.

[cali]

10. say what? what the heck does "flashed" guns even mean?

were there any witnesses beyond the killer? why was one body found in the road off the property?

Lots of questions.

[Ranchemp.]

15. Flashing guns usually means that the weapon was deployed

As far as witnesses? No mention of any, and it's not unusual for someone to run away after being shot only to succumb later to the wound.

[cali]

24. bullshit. make crap up much?

according to whom does "flashing" a gun mean that the weapon was deployed. Link to that claim or just admit you're just pulling shit out of your.... hat.

[Ranchemp.]

28. It's a common LEO term.

Flashing a gun means either pulling it or revealing it.
No need to be nasty.

[cali]

33. you provide no links. sorry your word doesn't cut it.

I don't care for the gun rights over all perspective and that's what I see in your posts.

[Ranchemp.]

36. As I said, it's a common LEO term,

and I probably know better than you what flashing a gun means.

I don't care what you think my perspectives are, I answered a question you asked and you immediately got defensive and insulting.
Have a good day.

[maxsolomon]

35. I always thought it just meant revealing it

lifting your shirt, opening your jacket, etc.

pulling it out is "brandishing".

[Ranchemp.]

37. Not always,

it's common among LEO to say that flashing a gun is also pulling it out, brandishing is the legal term for it.

[maxsolomon]

39. LEOs need to get it together

and stop talking in code!

[mikeysnot]

44. So two guys flash guns

and give the homeowner time to go get his gun and come back and shoot them? Without one of the brandishers time to shoot back?


Something stinks here...

[Ranchemp.]

53. See post #30.

[mikeysnot]

55. me bets the guy

will not walk free on this one...

[Vashta Nerada]

92. It's quite obvious that a killer will always claim self defense.

[Ranchemp.]

95. Of course,

now it's up to the investigators to determine what really happened and present their findings to the Grand Jury.
But he is innocent until proven guilty, which is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system.

[Ranchemp.]

2. The headline makes it sound like the homeowner shot the 2 because

they inquired about roosters, but further reading says different.
For now, it sounds like a legitimate self defense shooting.

[davepc]

4. The story and the headline don't quite match up.

So they used the pretext of buying poultry to attempt a robbery or something?

[cali]

13. what does "flashed" guns mean? witnesses? why were the bodies found where they were

if this was legitimate self-defense?

How did the killer manage to kill both men if they did have their guns out?

jaysus. sounds hinky as hell.

[hack89]

20. Not sure what the location of the bodies has to do with whether or not it was self defense

bullet wounds don't always kill immediately.

One scenario is that they showed their guns and said "give me your money." He said "ok, let me go get it" and came back firing.

[cali]

25. ludicrous scenario. yeah, sure two gunmen intent on robbery are going to let

the guy they're holding up, wander off.

[hack89]

27. Prisons are full of stupid criminals

you seem certain it was not self defense - do you think he deliberately murdered them? Or was it a falling out among friends? Drunken stupidity???

[LanternWaste]

82. No more and no less than life outside of prison is filled with stupid innocent people.

No more and no less than life outside of prison is filled with stupid innocent people.

Just as valid, just as (ir)relevant...

(insert distinction without a difference here)

[hack89]

84. So there are plenty of stupid people doing stupid things in the world

so my scenario is not so far fetched after all.

Thanks.

[mikeysnot]

46. Don't wast your time with this one.

He will be arguing in circles real quickly.

[eqfan592]

73. yes, because criminals doing something stupid NEVER happens. nt

[The Straight Story]

5. Well, all I got to say about Texas is

[Ishoutandscream2]

96. Right back at ya.

[maxsolomon]

6. we're here "about some roosters"

oh, sure, let me go "retrieve" mah "roosters" for you.

i smell cockfighting. and BS.

[joeybee12]

8. Yup...they "flashed" guns...

Me thinks there's some history between all 3 and knew each other from cockfighting...

[Ranchemp.]

17. Could be,

investigators should be able to sort this all out.

[cali]

14. now that makes sense.

[hack89]

16. There is big money in cockfighting

certainly a motive for a robbery.

[petronius]

19. That was my first thought too, and it seems reasonable, except that

it's the homeowner who says they came about roosters. If he's involved in cockfighting, and he's the only one who gets to tell a story, it seems a bit foolish to call attention to the bird aspect. (Although on the other hand the sheriff probably possesses the senses of sight, smell, hearing, and common - if there are a bunch of fighting roosters around, he might notice...)

[Go Vols]

76. "Trevino says the roosters were apparently fighting cocks."

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/10/28/texas-homeowner-kills-2-who-asked-about-roosters/

[unblock]

23. roosters have utility beyond cockfighting, and they're quite common in texas.

i smell bs, cockfighting is possible, but the stench of bs is stronger.

[unblock]

21. uhh.. he had time to retrieve his own weapon and get the drop on two people with drawn guns?

and we're supposed to think this was self-defense?

methinks the dead guys might have had a slightly different version of events, and "flashed" guns might be a clue.

they were probably openly carrying, which is pretty much the norm in south texas, and that's about it.

maybe they threatened, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that.

[Lurker Deluxe]

26. huh?

Open carry is the norm in south Texas??

Since when?

"Open carry is not legal in Texas, but you may open carry on your own property, in the commission of a sporting activity (competition, shooting ranges, etc.), and while engaged in hunting."

http://www.texasgunlaws.org/

Not saying anything about this case in particular, but your statement about open carry in Texas is a blatant falsehood.

[unblock]

57. sorry i didn't mean to include the local wal-mart

i meant on private property. gun ownership is very high, gun acceptance is very high, and it's quite normal to bring your guns with you when going to another person's house, and to show them openly, certainly at least if you know the person you're visiting, or have reason to expect them to be fine with you being armed. and i meant that to be the prevailing assumption unless you know otherwise.

[Lurker Deluxe]

72. horsehockey

I live in South Texas.

It is not "quite normal to bring your guns with you when going to another person's house". Most concealed carry weapons live in the car, there are some who carry all the time but it is nowhere near the majority. I have a place in the country (Cut & Shoot) and all of times I have invited friends up there I can think of two, over 20+ years, who have showed up with a gun out of the blue, and they were immediately told to put them away 'cause, "we're drinkin' fool".

So, tell me where it is in Texas that all of your friends show up armed?

First you say they were open carrying, now it's "prevailing assumption".

Just admit you misspoke and be done with it.

[unblock]

83. i lived in austin for 7 years, spent a lot of time in san marcos with family,

and have hung out with many friends and co-workers either from rural areas further south, or who own property further south.

clearly you hang out with different people. for instance, my experience is that the "we're drinking fool" comment would have been met with "damn straight we are!" i commend you on your gun safety, certainly guns and alcohol are not a good combination, but mixing them is very common in my experience. people hunt and drink, people hang out armed and drink, etc. that's certainly a south texas thing but hardly exclusively such; hunting and drinking happens all over. stupid as hell, but happens all over, just like drinking and driving, because people think they can handle it.

where my brother-in-law lives in san marcos, his is literally the only house in a mile or two that doesn't have a gun. it's a unincorporated part of san marcos, middle of nowhere really. people take guns with them when they go for a stroll. i've seen it. perhaps the fact that it's nowhere near any kind of law enforcement patrol has something to do with it.

guns are not really an austin thing (people generally call that central texas anyway) and certainly there's no open carry in the city, although get outside the city limits and you can see a lot of them.

[Lurker Deluxe]

87. LMAO!!

San Marcos is where the the river starts, which flows through TSU, and then joins the Guadalupe. The whole area is one of the most known spots in the state and what is also known is that local LE is a bitch. Getting caught carrying an unlicensed weapon in that area will land you in the pokey faster than if you were caught with it in downtown Houston.

Not only that ... again with the backpeddle. San Marcos is never called south texas, never. I've certainly spent many a weekend up in Austin on 6th drinkin' and chasin' skirt and most of the times we drag the RV up there and either stay along the river with no power or drop in at a friends place over in Wimberly. The lack of guns in that area is common knowledge, common. Take a trip to the river, lake Canyon, Hippie Hollow on Travis, tubing on the Guadalupe ... You will see no guns.

San Marcos, and the area that stretches from New Braunfels to Austin is one of the biggest recreational spots in Texas coming in behind prolly Galveston, Corpus' beaches, San Antonio's river walk and maybe Big Ben. There is a distinct lack of guns in those areas.

Heh, have you ever even been there??? Nowhere near any kind of LE??? ROFL.

[unblock]

93. i don't know who you're arguing with, but it isn't me.

guns at hippie hollow. derrrr. downtown austin. derrrr. of course there are places that have more guns and places that have fewer guns.

i gather from your last sentence that you're rather unfamiliar with the rural parts of the area, and that may be why we're talking past each other.

[Lurker Deluxe]

100. Yea

The more rural parts of a town of 40k ....

No, what I tire of is everytime Texas is mentioned people talk about how backwoods it is and the crazy gun culture, which is exactly what you did ... And I called you on it.

I guess it your friends and family who are gun nuts ... Mine damn sure aren't. If you are around people who are drinking and walking around with guns and you aren't calling them to task that is part of the problem!

I've been all over that area and never ran into what you speak of, and I have lived in Texas since 1976.

[unblock]

101. not my family, no

my family in texas is very anti-gun, but their neighborhood is certainly very much into guns.

i do have another brother-in-law in georgia who has several guns but he's the only gun owner in the family and that's another story.

i love texas and austin is still high on the list of retirement options. i went to ut, met my wife there, had a great job there, still have friends there, love the warmth, the food, the music, lots of great memories. we've pretty much made the drive down there an annual vacation (yes, all the way from connecticut!) many great things about it. and again, yes, few guns in the city, really only police and the occasional concealed carrier (one of my employees was a constable on nights and weekends and sometimes we'd go out for lunch and he would point out a few, i would never have known).

but just about any time i was away from a town big enough to merit a dot on the map, i saw guns. i would not call texas "backwoods" at all, and i agree, the south in general and texas in particular gets unfairly bashed.

but as for guns -- whatever your opinion is about gun ownership or regulation, you can't deny that guns are hugely popular there.


as for taking to task people who are armed and drinking -- what?? i'd need more than just the 7 years of texas in me before i had gonads big enough for that!!

[Ian David]

29. What if these two rooster-buyers were good guys with guns just exercising their 2nd Ad. rights?

And the article says the home owner "retrieved his own weapon."

What is THAT?

Did he say, "Wait right here, I'll be right back..." go back in the house, unlock the gun safe, and come back with a rifle and shoot them?

[Ranchemp.]

30. Retrieved could also mean that he retrieved it from his holster/pocket/.....

Doesn't always mean going to a different location to get something.

[maxsolomon]

38. it's probably cop speak

the reporter should have said "drew his own weapon" if that's what he did.

this guy is not going to be the poster boy for self-defense.

[Ranchemp.]

40. You're probably correct,

he probably used the cops term for pulling his own gun.

[mikeysnot]

58. Tying yourself into knots you are.

[Ranchemp.]

63. If you say so.

[mikeysnot]

65. Yes, I just did.

[Ranchemp.]

69. Ok.

[mikeysnot]

75. You're welcome!

[Ranchemp.]

78. Ok.

[mikeysnot]

80. ok

[Rex]

32. Guns make us safe!

[Jenoch]

42. The gun the homeowner had seems to have helped him out.

I am fascinated by the debate on this thread thus far. There are almost zero details in the linked news article. What's the point of the debate?

[Rex]

45. What debate?

What are you talking about exactly?

[Jenoch]

48. Didn't you notice the people bickering back and forth?

[Rex]

50. No I didn't look really just posted how safe guns make people.

Of course the owner needed a gun, wouldn't have if the other 2 didn't have guns but yay...we are safe again with our guns.

[Jenoch]

54. I have lived with guns my entire life. I feel quite safe with them.

[eqfan592]

71. Yes, because banning drugs completely got rid of all drugs...

...so a ban on guns would be equally effective, right?

[Rex]

79. Woah, slow down there...you are the one bringing up banning guns.

Don't get worked up yet.

[cali]

49. there are quite a few details

[Capt. Obvious]

41. "Show me your cock"

*BLAM*

[Mr Dixon]

51. SMH

They are killing people over chickens now?

[seabeyond]

77. poor title to the story. bullshit. nt

[bullwinkle428]

81. There are a SHIT LOAD of blanks that need to be filled in here.

No pun intended, of course.

[d_r]

99. two words

[Iggo]

102. Gun-fuckers, yeah!

YEEEE-Haaaaaaw!!!

[Blue_Tires]

103. this story doesn't begin to add up

unless the *real* conversation that took place had nothing to do with roosters...

[arely staircase]

105. classic DU thread

Full of posters willing to convict or aquit some guy they just read about in a vague incomplete acount of some event in a far away place.

[DontTreadOnMe]

106. yeah, but it happened in Texas... that's all we need to know!

self-explanatory

[ronnie624]

107. On a political discussion board,

which isn't a court of law, people are free to speculate and such. Most of the people here, would doubtless take their jury service seriously.