Police say 69-year-old Dwayne Austgen shot Vidal Herrera after the 17-year-old confronted Austgen at his house in the 5500 block of Susanna Lane.
The case will likely be presented to a grand jury once authorities are done investigating, but Austgen has not been charged with a crime.
Herrera lived within walking distance on Jimbo Lane — known among some in the area as the “Hispanic street.” Austgen lives on a mostly Anglo street.
The other day when we discussed this, one of our commenters suggested I was playing the "race card." Beyond pointing out the obvious, I don't know what he thinks I was doing. This article in the Houston Chronicle is dedicated to that idea. One doesn't need to live near Mexican immigrants in Houston to know that racial tensions run deeply whether you're in the deep South or in Newark NJ.
The entire article seems like an attempt at justifying the shooting. The neighborhood had gone to hell, the young Hispanics were up to no good, especially Herrera, pet dogs had been killed, Mr. Austgen was about to be robbed.
The attitude of the Houston Chronicle is clear, and perfectly expressed by Mrs. Austgen.
A woman who identified herself as Austgen’s wife at his home said the shooting was a “tragedy and we’re sorry it had to happen.” She said her husband didn’t want to speak to the media.
What's your opinion? Is this another justified shooting, another DGU? Or is this a type of pre-emptive vigilantism? Is "walking towards him" to be considered lethal threat? What do you think about that apology from the wife, "sorry it had to happen?"
Supposedly there were lots of burglaries in and around this neighborhood. Why would that be? I thought when the thieves know the residents are armed they stay away. I thought the high percentage of guns in the home in Houston is supposed to prevent this.
My idea is that guns don't prevent anything. The fact that there are break-ins in neighborhoods like this means that guns are being stolen and transferred into criminal hands. Other than the occasional vigilante killing, "gun flow" is the main result of all those weapons.
What do you think?
Guns by themselves don't deter burglaries. Homeowners at home with guns is what deters burglaries. Compare the UK "hot" break in rate (someone is home) to the US "hot" break in rate. There is no comparison, criminals in US prison have even stated that they take their time to case out a place because they don't want someone home who may be armed. In the UK, there is no such fear in criminals.
ReplyDeleteVigilantism would be if the man had "hunted" the young punk down. He didn't. He was on his property and told him to leave. The kid refused and started advancing towards him. How about you ask another question, why didn't the kid just leave and call the cops to get his stuff? Could it be that it was drugs and other drug paraphenalia (that was in the story I read about this incident). Based on the facts that I read in this case, it is a DGU.
"My idea is that guns don't prevent anything."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you admitted that a gun prevented a crime earlier.
"Thank god she had a gun" were your words.
And yes, w/o any evidence to support your hypothesis, you automatically implied racism to the situation.
"The other day when we discussed this, one of our commenters suggested I was playing the 'race card.' "
ReplyDeleteOne of your commenters also called me a racist bigot. I'm not quite sure what he was referring to. I guess in the liberal play book if you run out of arguments, you just yell "racist!"
"What's your opinion? Is this another justified shooting, another DGU? Or is this a type of pre-emptive vigilantism? Is "walking towards him" to be considered lethal threat? What do you think about that apology from the wife, "sorry it had to happen?"
We really don't know that much about the incident. Maybe he was doing more than "walking towards him". I don't know. As far as the wife, I am sure she is sorry it had to happen. She would probably had rather the kid left them alone to begin with.
"gun flow" is the main result of all those weapons"
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you don't feel the authorities should be held accountable when their weapons are stolen. Then it's 'obvious' that it's the fault of the criminals.
Mike we have the potential for a 69/70 year old man, and maybe his wife, getting assaulted by a 16/17 year old boy. You have someone coming into the physical prime of his life versus one who is well past his physical prime.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying this is or is not a "righteous killing," but what I am saying is this if that kid had it in his mind to hurt that old man, a gun would be the only defense available, and only two maybe three people know what really happened.
FWM said, "One of your commenters also called me a racist bigot. I'm not quite sure what he was referring to. I guess in the liberal play book if you run out of arguments, you just yell "racist!""
ReplyDeleteYou reminded me of something. I'm often talking about the pro-gun guys who can't argue their point without resorting to name-calling and insults (you, FatWhiteMan are an exception to that). But, I realize some of my liberal friends do the same thing.
I'm trying my best to keep it civil around here, first by not resorting to that kind of thing myself and second, by rejecting only the most grievous comments.
Thirdpower said, first quoting me, ""My idea is that guns don't prevent anything."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you admitted that a gun prevented a crime earlier."
You're right. When I said that I was exaggerating. It was hyperbole. I realize, of course, that guns do save the day in certain cases. But my contention is they do more harm than good. On balance, we're losing the war in order to win some isolated battles. That's my idea.
"You reminded me of something. I'm often talking about the pro-gun guys who can't argue their point without resorting to name-calling and insults..."
ReplyDeleteWell, I do not doubt that at all. The liberal favorite go-to just seems to be "racist". My favorite term for gun banners is usually "dirty little commie" :)
Here is a roundup of other legitimate uses of a firearm for defense just for this past week.
"But my contention is they do more harm than good."
ReplyDeleteWhy is your 'contention'? We show you evidence to the contrary and you either ignore it or claim it's been deliberately misrepresented (like the FBI UCR) but then take other data as infallible.
Why? Do you not WANT to learn the facts?
Thirdpower, Maybe I can say the same to you. After all I've written, why do you still not get it? Is your mind closed? Are you a bigot against liberals or anti-gun folks?
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, I take all stats with a grain of salt, even the ones that support my side.
Maybe you're the one doing exactly what you accuse me of.
Here's an idea. Stop with the unsolicited judgments of my position and the way I arrive at it. Stick to your own argument and make it. Stop putting words in my mouth like saying I "claim it's been deliberately misrepresented" or that I "take other data as infallible." Both these statements are false.
"Are you a bigot against liberals or anti-gun folks? "
ReplyDeleteSorry Mike, but you are the bigot. We seek to retain our freedoms, not deny people their rights. You and your ilk are, by definition, bigots.
"why do you still not get it?"
ReplyDeleteGet 'what' MikeB? That the only sources you seem to believe are the ones out to ban guns? That you feel I should be held accountable for the actions of criminals yet deny your own culpability? That you NEVER question any stats that show support for gun control yet dismissed the FBI stats out of hand?
Is THAT what you want me to 'get' because that's your argument in a nutshell.