comment: >
  
  He’s sleeping like a baby too because he doesn’t think he did anything wrong. His trashy family almost certainly is treating him like a hero.
context: Aren't burglars in your house? Who just shoots random outside people through the window? >
  
  People who shouldn't have guns. >
  
  And still they have them, otherwise people would cry about their rights. To me it sounds just as an excuse. People are so fanatic that it seems they're just waiting for the slightest chance to pull out a gun and go full Rambo without repercussions. They don't want the right to own firearms, they want the right to shoot someone whenever they feel like it, which means they should be as far away as possible from any gun. >
  
  Exactly. They are looking for reasons to use them. >
  
  When I lived back in Texas, I attended our neighborhood's HOA meeting- there were two people who overtly threatened to shoot the homeless people using the river next to the neighborhood trail if they tried to steal anything from their backyards. >
  
  Wow!  Record that!  Texas law allows shooting people on your property based on ghe Castle Doctrine... based on you have the right to assume  tresspasser is going to harm you.  Which has awful repercussions.  More data like this is good.
  I agree with above, there's a lot of people buying guns who really want to legally shoot at people/kill people. >
  
  I’ve seen so many times where people seem excited to use their gun to possibly murder someone. It’s pathetic. They want have murder fantasies where they can get away with shooting and killing someone. >
  
  I used to deal with him in a previous profession. Cesar was professional, down-to-earth, kind, hard-working, and an overall pleasure to work with in an industry full of unsavory people.
  This sucks, the guy worked hard to take care of his residents. We talked once about how people would be crazy sometimes and that guns in the hands of 'the crazies' were a real hazard. >
  
  My brother-in-law manages and does repairs at a small complex not too far from Buffalo. At the height of the blizzard two apartments lost their heat, and he left the safety of his own house to drive there with electric heaters for them, while he tried to get their heat on. I really hope this doesn’t get spun as a “tragic accident.” No sane person would think a burglary would be happening under those conditions and turn their balcony into a shooting range. The shooter should be in custody. He killed an innocent man and destroyed a family. >
  
  Doesn't your life have to be in immediate danger to use lethal force while protecting property? You can't just go shooting even real robbers if they are running away from you. So why is it okay to shoot randomly before any perceived threat. >
  
  I’m sure I will be corrected if I’m wrong but I believe in Texas you can use deadly force to protect your property. >
  
  Edit: see u/Phaedryn ‘s correction below. As someone who carries a concealed handgun daily, I know my local laws well. I was confusing best-practices when carrying a handgun with law. One of those practices being that if you’re carrying a handgun, avoid confrontation at all costs and immediately leave an escalating situation.
  In most (all?) states, you have a duty to retreat when you’re in public - meaning that if you can avoid an altercation you have a duty to avoid it, and can only meet a threat with deadly force to protect life - not property. Most courts will take circumstance into account. For instance, if I can retreat from a gas station being robbed at gunpoint but instead choose to engage and protect the life of the clerk who’s being held at gunpoint, I will likely not be charged with homicide. 
  Castle doctrine states that you have no duty to retreat from your own home and may engage a threat with deadly force with far fewer restrictions than engaging a deadly threat in public. This also has limits. I can’t shoot someone who stepped onto my property to pick up their dog’s poop. I can’t shoot a delivery driver. You still have to demonstrate that your life or the life of someone in your duty of care was in danger. 
  Whether or not the courts always apply these principals justly is another question entirely… >
  
  Texas has a stand your ground law in public. So you can protect your property even in public. It's one of like 10 states that has it. >
  
  That seems like it could be so easily exploited.
  So if someone steals a bag of your chips and doesn't give it back, you can kill them? What about a single chip?
  Is there a dollar amount where you can start shooting people over taking your property? >
  
  Have you seen the video? It’s fucking horrible. >
  
  This wouldn't be justified even if he was a burglar. You can't just smoke someone in a multi-tenant dwelling. >
  
  Exactly.
  That's what so damn many of these folks with their "...and then I'll get my gun!" home invasions fantasies want to do. They want to shoot someone and they want to know when they can get away with it.
  They put basically all their thoughts into why they think they'd be justified (or legally protected) to shoot someone and next to nothing into but what if, in this hasty decision, I'm wrong? As someone said below, it's shoot first and then ask questions later. >
  
  Most of these deranged fucks that own guns are just waiting for the day to murder someone and get away with it. >
  
  No. Millions of people who own firearms have no desire to shoot or kill another human being. >
  
  
  No. Millions of people who own firearms have no desire to shoot or kill another human being.
  
  squak millions of  good apples squak >
  
  What an intelligent comment. Wow. Much impressed. >
  
  Why thank you, kind stranger. I actually appreciate that, you made my day a little brighter, seriously. Here I assumed you were just spouting out talking points and you return with compliments, that's just magnanimous of you. Bless your heart ❤️ >
  
  Go forth and spread your wings, fly little birdie, I believe in you. ❤ >
  
  His poor family. Five sons and a wife of 29 years. I can’t imagine what Christmas will be like for them in the future. >
  
  if i was one of the sons that guy would be getting it, no question. >
  
  And then the family would have to mourn another family member: the son who got a long prison sentence... >
  
  Murder. Straight-up murder.
  ​
  "Montelongo leaves behind 5 sons and a wife. Christmas was set to be his 29th wedding anniversary."
  Fuck that murdering bastard. Lowest kind of scum. >
  
  I hate to break it to you, but in Texas this guy isn’t even gonna get arrested >
  
  Unless there are enough national news reports.
  This one is juicy enough to grab hold of. Those five kids without a daddy on Christmas are excellent headline fodder. >
  
  Why would the local PD care what people out of their jurisdiction think? Even if there is enough local pressure, no jury in Texas would ever convict this guy. >
  
  Not everyone in Texas is inbred. Plenty of folks would vote to fry the shooter. >
  
  Sometimes I think we're a nation of cowards. I get being startled. But having your first instinct to fucking shoot someone? >
  
  We absolutely are. The idea that someone has to first put you in reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury first is basically a dead letter. Republicans are so scared of their own shadow that anything can be a pretext to that fear. Even throwing popcorn or allegedly a phone (that left no mark of any kind) as in the case of that theater shooter. They want to pretend these days that they're the "tough" and "manly" crowd but the type of conflict that would've been solved with a simple fistfight between men in the past will almost surely lead one of the combatants to draw a gun and kill the other instead these days. >
  
  It sounds like he was murdered >
  
  "No arrests have been made at this time".
  They didn't even release the name of the guy who shot him.  That guy gets to spend Christmas with his family.