I Told Ya So: Texas Man Cleared for Killing Burglars

[Lemur]

Sometimes I just have to whip my hairy little lemur hands in the air and scream, "I told you so! (http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=5283784)"


A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglars while he was talking to a 911 dispatcher won't be going to trial. A grand jury on Monday declined to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in Pasadena, Texas, just outside Houston. [...]

Joe Horn: "I've got a shotgun; you want me to stop him?"

Dispatcher: "Nope. Don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Joe Horn: "Hurry up, man, catch these guys, will you? Because I ain't gonna let them go. I'm gonna kill him."

Dispatcher: "OK, stay in the house."

Joe Horn: "They're getting away!"

Dispatcher: "That's alright."

Joe Horn: (Shouts to suspects) "Move, you're dead."

Three gunshots can be heard on the tape. Both suspects were shot in the back and were pronounced dead at the scene.

Now who was it that was declaring that this man would be convicted of murder, no question? Stand up and be counted, so's I can score petty points of "I'm so right."

-edit-

Since this thread has gotten longish, here's the audio of the full 911 call (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhtRr4vwo6Q), which got posted somewhere on page 3 or 4.

[InsaneApache]

Barbaric.

[Fragony]

LOL that is a bit much, catidel law? :laugh4:

[Devastatin Dave]

Good for him. I want to move next door to this guy. Now I will sit back and watch all the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the fate if the criminals in this case....

[Lemur]

LOL that is a bit much, catidel law? :laugh4:
Are you referring to the "castle doctrine"? 'Cause that doesn't apply in this case, although many people thought it did. Here's the relevant bit (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/5865045.html) of Texas code:


According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

[Devastatin Dave]

Looks like the grand jury disagrees with you Lemur, my old friend. I tell you thought, if I was your neighbor and saw a couple of fellas stealing your Che t-shirts and collection of pickled aborted fetuses, I'd shoot them for ya. :2thumbsup:

[InsaneApache]

Good for him. I want to move next door to this guy. Now I will sit back and watch all the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the fate if the criminals in this case....

So you believe it to be a good thing to value a TV set over a human life?

[Fragony]

Good for him. I want to move next door to this guy. Now I will sit back and watch all the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the fate if the criminals in this case....

Would you shoot someone in the back if he ran of with your flatscreen? Not really feeling particulary sorry for the criminals but there is such a thing as losing yourselve, shooting someone over something you can easily replace no way. I don't think your laws were meant for this and this really should go to court to see where and how the law applies.

Lemur, meant taking castle law a bit to far, total war lingo, catidel>castle.

[Reverend Joe]

Seriously, this man's life wasn't even remotely in danger. And couldn't he have at least fired off a warning shot first? I mean, even if he only had a double-barrel shotgun, it was dark and they might not be able to tell he only had one shot left (and who wants to be the one to get nailed over a TV, anyway?)

Look, until the day that the Worldwide Aryan Conspiracy comes to fruition, and the cops really turn on the people, there's no reason for the people to take the law into their own hands, unless they have absolutely no other option.

:jester:

[InsaneApache]

This thread has got it's trainers on....

[Oleander Ardens]

A sad day. Guess it is hard for some to see the difference between shooting somebody in his own house in selfdefense and gunning down running thiefs posing no thread to life at all in you neighbours lawn. Coldblooded murder. A crime comitted against helpless men with a clear mind and precise intention against the direct and good advice of an authority.

[Devastatin Dave]

So you believe it to be a good thing to value a TV set over a human life?

You mean the "human lives" of these two ciminals (illegal aliens that should not have been here in the first place) http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html
(WOW, mugshots,hmmmm)

Yes, my 5 inch, black and white TV with no screen and smokes when plugged in is worth more than their lives.

[Reverend Joe]

This thread has got it's trainers on....

~:confused:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You mean the "human lives" of these two ciminals (illegal aliens that should not have been in this) http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html
(WOW, mugshots,hmmmm)

Yes, my 5 inch, black and white TV with no screen and smokes when plugged in is worth more than their lives.

Right on. They should've tried to make an honest living. I mean, you break into a house in Texas, what do you expect?

[InsaneApache]

You mean the "human lives" of these two ciminals (illegal aliens that should not have been here in the first place) http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html
(WOW, mugshots,hmmmm)

Yes, my 5 inch, black and white TV with no screen and smokes when plugged in is worth more than their lives.

In that case I feel sorry for you. Illegal aliens or not is not the point. In my world I would not kill anyone for pinching a telly, after all you can buy 'em in Wal-Mart from about $70. $70 for a human life is cheap. Very cheap.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

$70 for a human life is cheap. Very cheap.

So if we're talking a flatscreen, or maybe a DVD player (built into an Aston Martin), then it's more acceptable to you?

[Fragony]

You mean the "human lives" of these two ciminals (illegal aliens that should not have been here in the first place) http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002599.html
(WOW, mugshots,hmmmm)

Yes, my 5 inch, black and white TV with no screen and smokes when plugged in is worth more than their lives.

You can't be serious. If not they really shouldn't have been there indeed. Protecting private property is one thing but I really wouldn't want to be the type of person that shoots someone for a tv. And that isn't for the mugshotboy's sake.

[CrossLOPER]

I guess I shouldn't look suspicious in Texas. Someone might shoot me and say I was a burglar.

[InsaneApache]

So if we're talking a flatscreen, or maybe a DVD player (built into an Aston Martin), then it's more acceptable to you?

If any scrote laid his mucky mits on my DB9 I'd ring Dave up pronto.

[Devastatin Dave]

I guess I shouldn't look suspicious in Texas. Someone might shoot me and say I was a burglar.

I got an idea, don't commit crime, then you'll just have to worry about the criminals killing you.:beam:

[PanzerJaeger]

And the moral of the story is: Don't steal other people's crap. Justice prevailed.

[Reverend Joe]

No, Panzer. Just... no. :no:

[Tribesman]

Good for him. I want to move next door to this guy.
Why is that Dave, do you have some fetish about living next to someone who says they made a mistake and if they had the chance again they wouldn't have done what they did ?



So you have this old fella who thinks he knows the law but doesn't , who goes out and executes two criminals after the police have already turned up .


Seriously, this man's life wasn't even remotely in danger.
It was , and that is what the ruling is about , he was in danger once he went out with a gun and started a confrontation .
A great verdict , people are now allowed to shoot in self defense if they instigate an action where they can feel threatened .
But look on the bright , side he was lucky .... lucky the police didn't shoot him when he walked into the street with a gun when they were on the scene looking for dangerous criminals:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[JAG]

So you believe it to be a good thing to value a TV set over a human life?

:bow:

Now that is the real question.

[Lemur]

Looks like the grand jury disagrees with you Lemur, my old friend.
Darling Dave, what the hell are you talking about? I was the one saying no jury would convict him, or even bring charges. I was right. That's the entire point of this thread. Lemur = Right. Sheesh, can't you understand that?

[PanzerJaeger]

No, Panzer. Just... no.

Those men made a conscious decision to commit to criminal activity and all the inherent risks associated with such an endeavor.

[FactionHeir]

So you believe it to be a good thing to value a TV set over a human life?

Easy to say as an observer. Still, what would you do if someone broke into your home and you had a weapon? Let them get away with it because life is so precious?

[Devastatin Dave]

Darling Dave, what the hell are you talking about? I was the one saying no jury would convict him, or even bring charges. I was right. That's the entire point of this thread. Lemur = Right. Sheesh, can't you understand that?

My little Pussy Willow, I was commenting on your other post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
LOL that is a bit much, catidel law?

Are you referring to the "castle doctrine"? 'Cause that doesn't apply in this case, although many people thought it did. Here's the relevant bit of Texas code:

According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

Kisses...

[Lemur]

My little Pussy Willow, I was commenting on your other post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
LOL that is a bit much, catidel law?

Are you referring to the "castle doctrine"? [quotes on texas law re: property and defense]
Dashing, Daring Dave, and this supports your post how? I was quoting the relevant bit of Texas law in support of what the guy did. So how does this justify your "too bad the jury disagrees with you, Lemur" comment?

Look, I love getting love-bites from you, but please read what I write before nibbling on me, okay?

Let's get back to more important matters, like how very right I was. I predicted he wouldn't even be charged. Several Orgahs pooh-poohed me at the time. You know who you are! I want all of those Orgahs who said I was wrong to now go to their User Profile and write "Lemur was right" a hundred times.

-edit-

Wait a minute, I think I see where the misunderstanding happened. It's all my fault. I said that the "castle doctrine" didn't apply in this case, which is correct. Then I quoted a bit of a different statute, the part that does apply. But I phrased it in such a way that you could read it and think I was quoting the castle doctrine.

Ugh. My bad! Once again:

Castle doctrine does not apply in this case.

However, there is a relevant Texas law which does, and which covers exactly the circumstances which occurred. Here are excerpts from that law:


According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

Hope that goes some small way to clearing up teh confusion. And I'm still right.

[Adrian II]

Darling Dave, what the hell are you talking about? I was the one saying no jury would convict him, or even bring charges. I was right. That's the entire point of this thread. Lemur = Right. Sheesh, can't you understand that?ROFL!!

No. He doesn't!!!

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!

Next thing, Crazed Rabbit will start posting here asking why Lemur wants to ban hand guns!!

Teh deaf. Teh blind. Oh, teh dialogue. :wall::laugh4:

[Devastatin Dave]

Why is that Dave, do you have some fetish about living next to someone who says they made a mistake and if they had the chance again they wouldn't have done what they did ?

:

Not a fetish, just an understanding that the law enforcement in this country is slow to react, court systems are filled with weak justice against criminals, and happy that these two wastes of human skin will never commit a crime again.:yes:

[Fragony]

Those men made a conscious decision to commit to criminal activity and all the inherent risks associated with such an endeavor.

Just like there is work and play there is using the law an living the law, or at least there should be. If we were robots we wouldn't need laws, but we aren't, this sounds like living the law gone wrong.

[Ser Clegane]

Easy to say as an observer. Still, what would you do if someone broke into your home and you had a weapon? Let them get away with it because life is so precious?

Sooo ... death penalty for burglars and thieves? And I thought cutting off hands was already pretty harsh punishment...

And to answer your question (although you did not ask me) - when someone stole something from me, my first thought was definitely not "Gosh - if I had a gun now I would so kill this guy".


Those men made a conscious decision to commit to criminal activity and all the inherent risks associated with such an endeavor.

Based on that I would suggest that people also should be shot on the spot for e.g. speeding or drunk driving (even more so as these people are a direct threat to the safety and lives of other people)

[Xiahou]

If a grand jury failed to indict him, it must've been pretty clear cut. Ever hear the saying "A DA could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwhich?" Basically, the grand jury said there wasn't even enough evidence of a crime to even warrant a trial.

[Lemur]

Thank you, Xiahou, for explaining what a Grand Jury does. If any Orgahs are curious to read more about this, please note that Wikipedia has a helpful article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury). If you believe that Wikipedia is a tool of the liberal elite latte-sipping commies, Conservapedia has an article here (http://www.conservapedia.com/Grand_jury).

[Tribesman]

Not a fetish, just an understanding that the law enforcement in this country is slow to react

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Pehaps you had better choose another case to rave about then as the police were on the scene while this old fella was still on the phone being told to stay in his house .


Sooo ... death penalty for burglars and thieves? And I thought cutting off hands was already pretty harsh punishment...

:2thumbsup:

Based on that I would suggest that people also should be shot on the spot for e.g. speeding or drunk driving (even more so as these people are a direct threat to the safety and lives of other people)
thats completely nailed em on that arguement:2thumbsup:

[PanzerJaeger]

The thugs themselves are responsible for their own deaths, and no one else. Focusing the discussion on a terrified old man, the victim, completely misses the cause in order to scrutinize the effect.

[FactionHeir]

Sooo ... death penalty for burglars and thieves? And I thought cutting off hands was already pretty harsh punishment...

And to answer your question (although you did not ask me) - when someone stole something from me, my first thought was definitely not "Gosh - if I had a gun now I would so kill this guy".


Not exactly what I said.
I said If you had a weapon and someone was robbing your home, what would you do? rather than what you would be thinking if someone were to rob your home.
So you already have a weapon, would you use it at all or just let him steal everything right in front of you? How would this be modified if he were to break into the kids' room (with intention of stealing only, but you can't know this)?

I don't think they should get a death penalty in court, but I think the person being robbed should be able to defend themselves with deadly force without being jailed themselves rather than stand idly by.

[PanzerJaeger]

Based on that I would suggest that people also should be shot on the spot for e.g. speeding or drunk driving (even more so as these people are a direct threat to the safety and lives of other people)

I completely agree. If I ever caught someone speeding or drunk driving on my property, I'd chase them off guns a' blazing as it would be very dangerous on such a small lot.

[Tribesman]

Focusing the discussion on a terrified old man, the victim, completely misses the cause in order to scrutinize the effect.

How was he a victim ?
Or given that he chose to leave his home and confront two people despite the advice of the dispatcher how was he terrified ?
He is only a victim in that he thought he knew the law but didn't so he was a victim of his own ignorance , and he was ony terrified in that choosing to take the action in ignorance of the law meant he got scared about a possible prosecution .

[Adrian II]

Thank you, Xiahou, for explaining what a Grand Jury does. If any Orgahs are curious to read more about this, please note that Wikipedia has a helpful article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury). If you believe that Wikipedia is a tool of the liberal elite latte-sipping commies, Conservapedia has an article here (http://www.conservapedia.com/Grand_jury).https://img399.imageshack.us/img399/4831/rofldr0.gif (https://imageshack.us)

Lemur, your belief in human reason is truly touching. But don't you see it? They're off already on the usual rants, as if nothing happened.

[Ser Clegane]

So you already have a weapon, would you use it at all or just let him steal everything right in front of you? How would this be modified if he were to break into the kids' room (with intention of stealing only, but you can't know this)?
If somebody like in the original case stole something from me (or a person I know) and was already running away (and this has happened to me) - I can only repeat that I did not feel like killing him.
Sure ... I was upset and angry - but killing? Sorry, I do not like my stuff that much that I would kill for it. The breaking into the kids' room is an entirely different situation and chances are that if I had any kind of weapon I would use it in such a situation - but as I said - completely different scenario.

[Lemur]

He is only a victim in that he thought he knew the law but didn't so he was a victim of his own ignorance , and he was ony terrified in that choosing to take the action in ignorance of the law meant he got scared about a possible prosecution .
Another one who isn't reading what I posted. There is a law in Texas that covers this situation, and it's clearly on his side.

Details can be found here (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/5865045.html).

[Ser Clegane]

I completely agree. If I ever caught someone speeding or drunk driving on my property, I'd chase them off guns a' blazing as it would be very dangerous on such a small lot.

:juggle2:

[Devastatin Dave]

Dashing, Daring Dave, and this supports your post how? I was quoting the relevant bit of Texas law in support of what the guy did. So how does this justify your "too bad the jury disagrees with you, Lemur" comment?

Look, I love getting love-bites from you, but please read what I write before nibbling on me, okay?

Let's get back to more important matters, like how very right I was. I predicted he wouldn't even be charged. Several Orgahs pooh-poohed me at the time. You know who you are! I want all of those Orgahs who said I was wrong to now go to their User Profile and write "Lemur was right" a hundred times.

-edit-

Wait a minute, I think I see where the misunderstanding happened. It's all my fault. I said that the "castle doctrine" didn't apply in this case, which is correct. Then I quoted a bit of a different statute, the part that does apply. But I phrased it in such a way that you could read it and think I was quoting the castle doctrine.

Ugh. My bad! Once again:

Castle doctrine does not apply in this case.

However, there is a relevant Texas law which does, and which covers exactly the circumstances which occurred. Here are excerpts from that law:


According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

Hope that goes some small way to clearing up teh confusion. And I'm still right.

My misunderstanding, allow me to say...
Lemur was right!!! Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!Lemur was right!!!

Oh, Lemur was right BTW...:yes:

[PanzerJaeger]

How was he a victim ?

:laugh4:

How were the two men any more victims?

[Lemur]

I don't think it's physically possible for me to get tired of that.

[Adrian II]

I don't think it's physically possible for me to get tired of that.Good Lord, DevDave actually went and did it ... :stunned:

That makes three of us who are, properly speaking, in and of this thread.

[FactionHeir]

If somebody like in the original case stole something from me (or a person I know) and was already running away (and this has happened to me) - I can only repeat that I did not feel like killing him.
Sure ... I was upset and angry - but killing? Sorry, I do not like my stuff that much that I would kill for it. The breaking into the kids' room is an entirely different situation and chances are that if I had any kind of weapon I would use it in such a situation - but as I said - completely different scenario.

Sorry someone stole from you, hope you got it back ~:)

But the case here was that he witnessed them in the process of removing goods (they were crawling out of a window) and then running out with things rather than seeing them as they were already running away. Also, he went out and told them to stop, but instead of running with or without the things, they actually came up to him (entering his property) and threatened him.

[InsaneApache]

In response to the question aimed at me, it's proportional action. If you advocate the death penalty for murder, that I could understand. At one point in my life I felt the same. As SC eloquently put it, killing a bloke for nicking your record player [I'm an old fogey :wink:] is a bit OTT.

Hey, I just had a thought.......they wern't atheist homos as well were they? :juggle2:

[Tribesman]

Another one who isn't reading what I posted. There is a law in Texas that covers this situation, and it's clearly on his side.

Yes but he was ignorant of that law wasn't he

[Devastatin Dave]

Not exactly what I said.
I said If you had a weapon and someone was robbing your home, what would you do? rather than what you would be thinking if someone were to rob your home.
So you already have a weapon, would you use it at all or just let him steal everything right in front of you? How would this be modified if he were to break into the kids' room (with intention of stealing only, but you can't know this)?

I don't think they should get a death penalty in court, but I think the person being robbed should be able to defend themselves with deadly force without being jailed themselves rather than stand idly by.

Well of course Ser would invite them to sit down and have a calm discussion on the reasons why these criminals (law deprived individuals for the PC crowed out there) were put into this position by the evil capitalists and how they should join and overthrow their oppressive governments. Then they would join hands and skip down the road in solidarity and love and all crime would cease. Global warming would end, George Bush would be hung, and no one would ever be hungry or cold again. Universal healthcare for everyone...

[Reverend Joe]

Allow me to try to resolve this issue. And I'm gonna put it in big, bold letters so nobody can miss it.

They were running away.

Had the two men been killed inside his house, it would have been justified, because the man could argue that his life was in danger.

But his life was not in danger. They were running away. And it wasn't even his house being robbed. He had no reason to follow them outside and place himself, the two robbers, AND POSSIBLY INNOCENT BYSTANDERS in jeporady.

To continue this further, I might also add that, had the robbers been unarmed, and had the man followed them outside with a baseball bat and disabled them, without killing them, there still would be no problem. The two men could be arrested and prosecuted, and the guy would get his precious damn TV back.

But killing them is vigilante justice, and our society has agreed that, outside of your home, the only people allowed to use lethal force in the pursuit of justice are the authorities.*

*Well, up until now, anyway. :shame:

[Xiahou]

Another one who isn't reading what I posted. There is a law in Texas that covers this situation, and it's clearly on his side.

Details can be found here (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/5865045.html).

I was just about to link that article, it gives detail that other coverage seems to lack. One salient piece of information is that the burglars were indeed on Horn's property at the time they were shot. More and more, it sounds to me like Horn was well within the law in his actions. That doesn't make him a hero, but it certainly doesn't make him a criminal either.

What I'd really like to read, if someone can find it, is the full transcript of the 911 call. I've read several different "versions" of it already and I'm wondering how much creative editing the papers are doing to make it better fit their stories.

[Lemur]

You can listen to what appears to be an unedited version here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhtRr4vwo6Q)

[FactionHeir]

Allow me to try to resolve this issue. And I'm gonna put it in big, bold letters so nobody can miss it.

They were running away.

Had the two men been killed inside his house, it would have been justified, because the man could argue that his life was in danger.

But his life was not in danger. They were running away. And it wasn't even his house being robbed. He had no reason to follow them outside and place himself, the two robbers, AND POSSIBLY INNOCENT BYSTANDERS in jeporady.

To continue this further, I might also add that, had the robbers been unarmed, and had the man followed them outside with a baseball bat and disabled them, without killing them, there still would be no problem. The two men could be arrested and prosecuted, and the guy would get his precious damn TV back.

But killing them is vigilante justice, and our society has agreed that, outside of your home, the only people allowed to use lethal force in the pursuit of justice are the authorities.*

*Well, up until now, anyway. :shame:

Well, let's see.
1. They were in the process of stealing when he noticed them and called 911.
2. He only went outside when they ran with the goods and crossed his property
3. He told them to stop but they didn't.
4. He shot, but we don't know if the intended to kill with those shots.
5. You expect a 61 year old man to keep up with two young men and manage to beat them with a baseball bat?

[Xiahou]

You can listen to what appears to be an unedited version here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhtRr4vwo6Q)

Excellent, thank you. :bow:

[Fragony]

I was just about to link that article, it gives detail that other coverage seems to lack. One salient piece of information is that the burglars were indeed on Horn's property at the time they were shot. More and more, it sounds to me like Horn was well within the law in his actions. That doesn't make him a hero, but it certainly doesn't make him a criminal either.

But this sure is a precedent nonetheless, from now on the machine will refer to a case where... well this does take it a bit far no?

[Ser Clegane]

Well of course Ser would invite them to sit down and have a calm discussion

Actually, being the nice guy that I am, I would help them carrying the heavy stuff to their van like a good boyscout. :sweatdrop:

[CrossLOPER]

Death for everything by on-site civilian court!


octosquid

[Reverend Joe]

Well, let's see.
1. They were in the process of stealing when he noticed them and called 911.
2. He only went outside when they ran with the goods and crossed his property
3. He told them to stop but they didn't.
4. He shot, but we don't know if the intended to kill with those shots.
5. You expect a 61 year old man to keep up with two young men and manage to beat them with a baseball bat?

How the hell come didn't the neighbor do something? And why did he bother to go outside to begin with? They weren't his goods and he was only putting himself in danger. They were his neighbor's responsibility, not his. And by shooting he was putting people in danger, regardless of if he intended to kill.

And for that matter, what if he had missed them both and hit someone's kid? What if he had hit someone's kid in the process of firing a warning shot?

Oh, and for the record, my 62 year old father could easily catch up to any two burglars and beat the living :daisy: out of them with a bat. He even has a giant Louisville slugger to do the trick.

[FactionHeir]

Actually after listening to the tape just now, he saw them break in, take stuff and then come out again. He waited about 6:40 minutes on the line telling the dispatcher about the burglary before going out to warn/shoot them because they entered his frontlawn.

His neighbors weren't in at the time of the burglary btw and there are no other people nearby mentioned.

[Tribesman]

You can listen to what appears to be an unedited version here.
And it appears Horn was a bloody idiot intent on nothing but killing .
He isn't going to go outside because to do so will be too dangerous then he goes outside .

Wasn't he lucky the police outside didn't shoot him .

[Reverend Joe]

Still wasn't his business, even if they were on his lawn. It wasn't his house being robbed. And the rest of my points stand.

And for that matter, it should be illegal to shoot someone on your lawn to begin with. Unless they come inside the house, there's just not enough justification to use lethal force.

[Ser Clegane]

He waited about 6:40 minutes on the line telling the dispatcher about the burglary before going out to warn/shoot them because they entered his frontlawn.

If I understood the tape correctly, he decided to go outside when he saw them carrying "loot" - when he actaully went outside he said that he did not see where they were going. He only mentioned that they were on his frontlawn when he went back in.
It does not seem that he went outside because they entered his property.

[Xiahou]

And for that matter, it should be illegal to shoot someone on your lawn to begin with. Unless they come inside the house, there's just not enough justification to use lethal force.
It's not though. The emotional/moral arguments are separate from the legal one.


If I understood the tape correctly, he decided to go outside when he saw them carrying "loot" - when he actaully went outside he said that he did not see where they were going. He only mentioned that they were on his frontlawn when he went back in.
It does not seem that he went outside because they entered his property. That doesn't really matter though. There was no law prohibiting him from going on his own front porch. If he then saw two known burglars on his property and felt at all threatened by their actions (the only other witness, a plain clothes officer who had arrived on the scene said at least one of them initially appeared to run at Horn), he was within the law to shoot.

[Ser Clegane]

That doesn't really matter though. There was no law prohibiting him from going on his own front porch. If he then saw two known burglars on his property and felt at all threatened by their actions (the only other witness, a plain clothes officer who had arrived on the scene said at least one of them initially appeared to run at Horn), he was within the law to shoot.

I am not questioning that what he did ultimately was within the law - based on the information I can see in this thread I simply have my doubts that his actions were justified (and I certainly disagree with some general views in this thread with regard to what is justified and what not)

[Redleg]

Lemur was indeed correct.

Its obvious to me that even if the old man was cleared by the grand jury because he was within the technical aspect of the law, that he did not meet the intent of the castle defense law. The law was intended to allow people to defend their home and property against theft and invasion by those who they believed "intended" to harm them. When he placed himself into the deadly situation against the advice of the 911 operator, I believe he removed the reasonable aspect of the law.

[Don Corleone]

Well, Lemur, YOU WERE RIGHT. But this 2nd ammendment supporter wishes you weren't. This guy sounds like Charlie freaking Bronson out there. Shooting people in the back as they're running away from you... reasonable fear for one's life.... :dizzy2:

I don't argue that the police are woefully inadequate, and they themselves would tell you that it is their job to maintain civil order first, investegate crimes that have occurred second, and then if time allows, prevent crime third.

And that's why there's things like the Castle Domain precedent. But this guy antagonized them, and from what I can tell, they were non-confrontational.

When I went for my concealed-carry permit, the rule on 'fear for your life' was that there was no other option, you could not avoid the situation. That's clearly not the case here. This guy should have stayed in his house. Dialing 9-11 was the right thing to do.

Has anybody thought of the possibility that the neighbor was actually home and asked these two guys to take the television out through the window for him? I know that wasn't actually the case here, but there's no way Mr. Horn could have possibly known that when he shot the 2 of them.

I wonder Wayne LaPierre will publish this in the next Rifleman.

[Reverend Joe]

It's not though. The emotional/moral arguments are separate from the legal one.

No, it's not... if laws are immoral, they are wrong. If this man was fully within his rights, then the laws need to be reformed.

[Xiahou]

Has anybody thought of the possibility that the neighbor was actually home and asked these two guys to take the television out through the window for him? I know that wasn't actually the case here, but there's no way Mr. Horn could have possibly known that when he shot the 2 of them. He saw them smash the window in with a crowbar before crawling thru broken window to gain entry to the house. Minutes later, he saw them leave thru the same window carrying a sack of "loot". I think he was fairly safe in assuming they weren't helping his neighbor move.

Furthermore, if I was helping my friend move via a broken window and then while crossing thru the neighbor's yard, the neighbor pointed a shotgun at me and said "move and you're dead", I would probably stop... :idea2:

[FactionHeir]

Has anybody thought of the possibility that the neighbor was actually home and asked these two guys to take the television out through the window for him? I know that wasn't actually the case here, but there's no way Mr. Horn could have possibly known that when he shot the 2 of them.


He told the dispatcher that he saw them break in with a crowbar...

[Reverend Joe]

Furthermore, if I was helping my friend move via a broken window and then while crossing thru the neighbor's yard, the neighbor pointed a shotgun at me and said "move and you're dead", I would probably stop... :idea2:

If you were an illegal immigrant who had just robbed a house and you saw an old white guy with a shotgun aimed at you, would you really care what he was saying? ~:eek:

[Xiahou]

I am not questioning that what he did ultimately was within the law - based on the information I can see in this thread I simply have my doubts that his actions were justified (and I certainly disagree with some general views in this thread with regard to what is justified and what not)I think even Horn now says he regrets having gone out on his porch. I think the whole situation was unfortunate- but the easiest way for it all to have been avoided would've been for the burglars not to rob some strangers house....

If you were an illegal immigrant who had just robbed a house and you saw an old white guy with a shotgun aimed at you, would you really care what he was saying? ~:eek:I would be supremely interested in what he was saying. :yes:

[Reverend Joe]

Nobody's arguing the robbery wasn't wrong.* What we're arguing was wrong was the whole shooting thing.

*Of course, I can't speak for all my liberal hippie friends here... i'm sure there's at least one nut out there who thinks the robbers should have gotten away with it because they were illegal immigrants. But no sane person is arguing that the robbery wasn't wrong.

Edit: seriously, Xiahou, you do know what a redneck vigilante is, right?

Okay, put it this way: if you were in a back alley in Harlem I know you wouldn't be, but for argument's sake, it's basically an equivalent situation for these guys) and a giant black guy came out of a door with a handgun and said, "Freeze, sucka!" don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?

[CrossLOPER]

Okay, put it this way: if you were in a back alley in Harlem I know you wouldn't be, but for argument's sake, it's basically an equivalent situation for these guys) and a giant black guy came out of a door with a handgun and said, "Freeze, sucka!" don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?
I lol'd.

[Spino]

So is a TV worth a human life? Gosh, I don't know. Undoubtedly the price of a pound of flesh has fluctuated wildly over the last few hundred years.

However what we don't know is...

1) The economic situation of the person whose house was broken into. Were they well off? Were they 'comfortable'? Were they in debt? Did they own the house lock, stock & barrel or did they have a mortgage? Were they barely able to make their mortgage payments or were they behind? Was the owner, a woman (per the 911 recording), insured against theft? If she was what if the items that were stolen were not covered by insurance or were undervalued by the assessors? What if she was barely making ends meet and this theft would have pushed her irrevocably into the red? Was she young or old? Employed or unemployed? Did she have a medical condition that required considerable personal expenditures to treat? Etc., etc., etc.

2) The value of the loot. What would these robbers have made off with had they been allowed to escape? A nice pile of cash taken from the mattress? Antiques? Jewelry and/or irreplacable family heirlooms?

3) The respective criminal records of the thieves. Were these first time thieves or experienced pros? How many lives did they violate prior to this incident? It turns out that both of these thieves were illegal immigrants from Columbia. Did they have a criminal record in Columbia? Did they have difficulty securing low skilled labor jobs with local contractors & businesses or did they simply refuse to pursue a life of hard work and opted for the risky but profitable career of burglary?

It's one thing to say no life is worth taking over a color TV but we rarely consider how the actions of thieves affect those whose rights and property they violate.

Obviously my position on this matter goes without saying. Personally I believe if you're dumb, desperate and contemptuous enough to rely on criminal acts to make ends meet then you deserve what miserable end the Fates spin for you.

[Marshal Murat]

don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?
I would definitely think of panicking and running. He might like throwing lollipops in refrigerators and exclaiming his ability to do so. I don't know. But if someone told me to freeze in a commanding tone that implied ability to act with deadly force, I'd stop breathing to satisfy those requirements. A shotgun click would confirm my fears.

I think that he was within his rights to shoot the two offending criminals. I have no problem with someone like that living next door. If he eagerly pursued them with a shotgun, then I would question his legality, but if my neighbor's house was being broken into, I would call 9-1-1 first, then the cop who lives a couple houses down. The police are great, but I doubt they'll get back in time.

If someone was taking my television, VCR and all, I'd call emergency first, then try to get my stuff back. It's my stuff! While you all may speak platitudes about 'material things being immaterial' or something like that, I'd be hitching up with a baseball bat/golf club/vehicle and chasing after the thief. I care about my stuff, and it makes a conversation piece.

I don't like vigilantes on the most part, but if the authorities cannot or are unable to act I would take force into my own hands, be-darn the consequences.

[Xiahou]

So is a TV worth a human life? Gosh, I don't know. Undoubtedly the price of a pound of flesh has fluctuated wildly over the last few hundred years.

However what we don't know is...I can shed some light on 2) and 3):

2)From what I've read, the value of the stolen "loot" was approximately $2000. That'd be a lot of money for me to lose, but it could be downright crippling for some.

3)At least one of the burglars had a criminal record and had been previously deported on drug charges.



Obviously my position on this matter goes without saying. Personally I believe if you're dumb, desperate and contemptuous enough to rely on criminal acts to make ends meet then you deserve what miserable end the Fates spin for you.I think this is more or less where my opinion is settling. If, instead of being killed by a law-abiding suburban home owner, they had been killed during a drug deal gone bad- would we even be talking about this? Either way, crime is a dangerous career choice.

[Devastatin Dave]

If you were an illegal immigrant who had just robbed a house and you saw an old white guy with a shotgun aimed at you, would you really care what he was saying? ~:eek:

Guess they should have learned the language of the country in which they are ILLEGALLY within...:laugh4:
Bang!!!

[Reverend Joe]

Please, for the love of God, at least try to address what the other side is arguing about before beating up your "crime doesn't pay" straw man any more.

It doesn't matter of the criminals were in the wrong; of course they were. What matters is whether or not the shotgun-wielder was wrong, legally or (as per my argument) morally.

It doesn't matter who the men he shot were. His actions were in the wrong. One wrong never justifies another.

@Dave: that was painfully hysterical. I'm pissing my pants with laughter as we speak. You should be a comedian.

[Ser Clegane]

If, instead of being killed by a law-abiding suburban home owner, they had been killed during a drug deal gone bad- would we even be talking about this?

Probably not - but I guess the thought of your friendly elderly neighbour being somewhat trigger happy and apparently pretty eager to actively seek the confrontation and kill people for things has a more frightening touch for some of us as it is much closer to your "normal" life than drug dealers killing each other.

[FactionHeir]

Okay, put it this way: if you were in a back alley in Harlem I know you wouldn't be, but for argument's sake, it's basically an equivalent situation for these guys) and a giant black guy came out of a door with a handgun and said, "Freeze, sucka!" don't you think there is even the remotest possibility you might panic and run?

Well, if you did no wrong, why not? Those guys were told to stop after they robbed a house and had loot in their hands.

[LittleGrizzly]

Did anyone hear ?..... Lemur was right!!

what a guy....

from just a quick read through of the thread (short on time) i would call his actions wrong, i wouldn't say he would deserve much of a punishment, it seems similiar to the case with the farmer in Britian a few years back (david something or martin something... name escapes me....) shooting someone in the back as they run away is quite a harsh thing to do even if they have some of your property or your nieghbours property, i wouldn't shoot someone for a material possesion even if i am a poor person....

[Tribesman]

Furthermore, if I was helping my friend move via a broken window and then while crossing thru the neighbor's yard, the neighbor pointed a shotgun at me and said "move and you're dead", I would probably stop...
How fast are your reactions ?
That tape seems pretty much stop bang
If it was a police officer who said stop and shot straight away would you be screaming police murder ?
Come to think of it doesn't this count as an extrajudicial killing, you know getting rid of criminals without all the legal crap of trials and such .
Isn't that one of the measures the State department uses to measure how screwed up other countries are .

[Redleg]

It doesn't matter of the criminals were in the wrong; of course they were. What matters is whether or not the shotgun-wielder was wrong, legally or (as per my argument) morally.

As stated before by Lemur's post - the man was found to be technically within the law for his actions.




It doesn't matter who the men he shot were. His actions were in the wrong. One wrong never justifies another.

Again legally it has been determined that he his action was not wrong. Now what you are speaking of is not a legal issue, but one of ethics. I to find his action ethically wrong but the man was within the law according to the Grand Jury refusal to bring criminal charges against him.

[JR-]

Joe Horn: "I've got a shotgun; you want me to stop him?"

Dispatcher: "Nope. Don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Joe Horn: "Hurry up, man, catch these guys, will you? Because I ain't gonna let them go. I'm gonna kill him."

Dispatcher: "OK, stay in the house."

Joe Horn: "They're getting away!"

Dispatcher: "That's alright."

Joe Horn: (Shouts to suspects) "Move, you're dead."

Three gunshots can be heard on the tape. Both suspects were shot in the back and were pronounced dead at the scene.[/indent]



oooh, that's a shame.

[Lemur]

Did anyone hear ?..... Lemur was right!!

what a guy....
Finally, someone puts this thread back on track. Thank you good sir -- thank you.

[CrossLOPER]

Lemur WAS right. You guys have to focus some of your attention on that. :smartass:

[GoreBag]

No, it's not... if laws are immoral, they are wrong. If this man was fully within his rights, then the laws need to be reformed.

Are your moral values the standard to which the law needs reforming?

It's a tough call. If I were to break into someone's house to steal stuff, I would expect to be threatened if I were caught, but I'm not sure if I'd threaten my neighbours' burglars. I have no faith in the police, however. To clarify, were they already on the scene by the time this old bastard blew the robbers away, or were they just on the phone with him?

[Adrian II]

As stated before by Lemur's post [..]As in: the Lemur who was right after all?

[Tribesman]

To clarify, were they already on the scene by the time this old bastard blew the robbers away, or were they just on the phone with him?

Listen to the audio or read about the police eyewitness to the actual shooting and it might answer your question:idea2:

[Reverend Joe]

As stated before by Lemur's post - the man was found to be technically within the law for his actions.

And as I was saying... sometimes the law is wrong, and needs to be reformed.


Are your moral values the standard to which the law needs reforming?

Not in an absolute sense, but America is supposed to be a democracy, and in a democracy one must make one's opinion heard. Since my moral standards stand completely against such a law, I must make my voice heard. If the marketplace of ideas states I am wrong, so be it; but it still does not strip me of my right to speak dissent, and dissent is (supposedly) the founding ideal of the United States of America.

[Sarmatian]

So he killed them some 5-10 seconds before the police appeared? He went out and shot them, after the dispatcher guy specifically told him several times not to do this? They would have been arrested anyway, the police was practically on the scene when it happened. The guy doesn't deserve any sympathy, he should be tried for what he did. And what kind of 61-year old computer technician have a shotgun in his house.

And that crap about neighbours helping each other out - that means you can borrow some coffee from your neighbour when your out of, or ask them to water the plants in front of your house when you're on holiday. It doesn't mean go on a killing spree with a shotgun in front of my house where my children might play. Especially since the guy was 61 years old. Not exactly in his primes. How was he so sure that his aim was good? Personally, I'd rather have stuff from my home stolen than have an elderly, trigger-happy computer technician with a shotgun on the loose in my neighbourhood...

[Lemur]

So he killed them some 5-10 seconds before the police appeared?
My guess is that one officer was already present when he shot the robbers. The officer was probably waiting for backup before he tried to apprehend the robbers


And what kind of 61-year old computer technician have a shotgun in his house.
A Texan.

[Ice]

To clarify, were they already on the scene by the time this old bastard blew the robbers away, or were they just on the phone with him?

From the reading, it looks like they were simply on the phone.

[Tribesman]

From the reading, it looks like they were simply on the phone.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:unbelievable:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4:
Go on Kush say it again give us a good laugh .
Its a miracle the robbers were seen running by the police after they were shot dead , I suppose they have super video phones in Texas nowadays eh :dizzy2:

[Redleg]

And as I was saying... sometimes the law is wrong, and needs to be reformed.

Didnt say the law was right or wrong. Personally the law should be clarified since the intent is to insure that an individual has the right to protect his life and property from immediate threat, This is something I support. Do I find shooting individuals who are fleeing the scene in the back is completely justified - nope. However if an individual comes into my home to rob me, I expect the government to allow me to protect my property and my life. Any law that does not allow for an individual to protect his life and property is an unjust and untenable law.




Not in an absolute sense, but America is supposed to be a democracy, and in a democracy one must make one's opinion heard. Since my moral standards stand completely against such a law, I must make my voice heard. If the marketplace of ideas states I am wrong, so be it; but it still does not strip me of my right to speak dissent, and dissent is (supposedly) the founding ideal of the United States of America.

Good thing that most americans still believe that the right to defend one's life is still a fundmental right to existance. I can not support any arguement that prevents an individual from protecting his life and his property. Now you can argue that when its outside the home the immediate and reasonable fear of one's life is in danger is not there, and I would support that arguement, but when the criminal is inside the house - well a reasonable man should and does currently have the right to defend his life and property.

Like I said earlier the shooting does not seem ethically justified to me, but the law was not violated by the Texas man. Nor does it really demonstrate that the law should be reformed in such a way from that prevents an indivdual from being able to use deadly force to protect his life and property.

[Redleg]

Especially since the guy was 61 years old. Not exactly in his primes. How was he so sure that his aim was good? Personally, I'd rather have stuff from my home stolen than have an elderly, trigger-happy computer technician with a shotgun on the loose in my neighbourhood...

Given that he killed both of them - chances are his aim was good enough with the shotgun.

Now I guess you dont think a computer technician can not be an individual who has a shotgun for hunting? My 65 year old father has several shotguns he uses for hunting different game birds, should I tell him that since he is over 60 he shouldn't have any weapons?

Such a postion is just laughable. Seems someone has a problem with anyone old. Being over 60 does not mean the individual is infirmed and has poor vision.

[Sarmatian]

My guess is that one officer was already present when he shot the robbers. The officer was probably waiting for backup before he tried to apprehend the robbers


Yeah, after listening to it again, it seems so. So, not only that the guy killed two people, he also endangered the lives of other civilians and possibly policemen, too. And the fact that they were illegal immigrants makes no difference - he didn't know that when he shot. And even if he did, it's not his job to deal with immigrants. illegal or not. I can't believe that they didn't put him on trial. The info on the tape was enough to make it the shortest trial in the history of US.

"People vs Joe Horn, honourable judge X presiding"
"We'll start by listening to the tape"
(7 minutes and 34 seconds pass)
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached the verdict?"
"Yes we have, the defendant is guilty of murder and negligence, of being a homicidal maniac and an idiot in general"

He should be sentenced to life in front of a firing squad, with his back turned to the firing squad of course.


Given that he killed both of them - chances are his aim was good enough with the shotgun.

Now I guess you dont think a computer technician can not be an individual who has a shotgun for hunting? My 65 year old father has several shotguns he uses for hunting different game birds, should I tell him that since he is over 60 he shouldn't have any weapons?

Such a postion is just laughable. Seems someone has a problem with anyone old. Being over 60 does not mean the individual is infirmed and has poor vision.

You don't say? I somehow think it's different shooting birds and small game in the hunting ground and shooting people in populated areas when there could be other people, police officers and even children, but that could be just me...

Just tell me, at what age are police officers usually taken of the streets in the US? Are they still on the streets when they are 61? Do police send 61 year old men to deal with situations like this one? I'd say no. Why do you think is that? And if I'm not mistaken, he fired 3 shots.

My father is 68 and if he was the type to go out for occasional hunting, I'd advise him not to. He's still sharp, but his reflexes, his eyesight, his hand-eye coordination etc... is far cry from what it was 20 years ago. And if it's not life or death situation, I'd prefer not to see men his age carrying and using lethal weapons "for fun". Gardening is just as useful as a hobby...

[Devastatin Dave]

@Dave: that was painfully hysterical. I'm pissing my pants with laughter as we speak. You should be a comedian.

Pissing in your pants ain't looked to kindly 'round these parts...
Bang!!!

[Xiahou]

My guess is that one officer was already present when he shot the robbers. The officer was probably waiting for backup before he tried to apprehend the robbers
Can't find which story it was yet, but I was under the impression he had just arrived on the scene- ie: Horn was already out on his porch. Bet yet again, the specifics are scarce. :shrug:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Lemur Was Right.

Now on to the trivial points others have made...

I believe people have a right to defend their property with deadly force. Goods just don't plop down in your house, you have to work - spend part of your life - earning them.

Defending other's property is just being neighborly. As to getting shot in the back - that doesn't prove as much as where, geographically wise, they were shot. It takes a split second to turn. And the police officer at the scene said one appeared to be running at the old man for a moment.

That same officer, which tribesy is mentioning just to boost his ego correcting some people who have read a brief article, was a plainclothes officer who did not intervene (perhaps wisely). That's the only 'police' who were "on the scene", and obviously couldn't be easily identified if they didn't ID themselves.

And Horn was in the right by the law. Now to all the whiners, there's one simple lesson. The robbers started this - they instigated it. But, plainly, you simply shouldn't rob people in Texas.

And the BBC wonders why America is such a tranquil place.

CR

[KukriKhan]

Wow. Nine and a half hours, and over 100 posts. I think that's a record, exceeded only by the 9-11 thread back in 2001.

Bravo Lemur. :2thumbsup:

sotto voce: And you were right. :)

Moral of the Story: don't steal stuff. Folks don't like it. Whether it's $2K worth or :2cents: worth.

And, of course, I have to address the '61 year old' thing: I'm 57, and am willing to match my shotgun marksmanship against any and all takers here. :)

Guy watches a crime being committed against a neighbor. Calls it in. Waits. Cops are a no-show (except a plainclothes, unidentified, dude). Bad guys are getting away. Does he take some photos of the perps, or brandish, then use, a shotgun? In Texas, the firearm rules, and the courts support it. A good camera might have been preferable.

If I went to Columbia, couldn't find work, and so reverted to a life of burglery - would I be surprised to find myself at the business end of a firearm while pursuing my 'trade'? I don't think so.

Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't cheat.

Just like Sister Lucia said in 3rd Grade. It gets you nowhere, and maybe hurt, or killed too soon.

[LittleGrizzly]

And, of course, I have to address the '61 year old' thing: I'm 57, and am willing to match my shotgun marksmanship against any and all takers here. :)

This thread is full of ageism, the guys age should not be the question here, whether he's a 61 year old in a wheelchair or a special forces guy in the prime of his life it shouldn't be different in the eyes of the law, his actions are what matters.

Is this readable kurki or would you like the text a little bigger ?:laugh4: :laugh4:

[Whacker]

Came for the Texas + Guns story, stayed for the Dave and Lemur Show.

:balloon2:

[GoreBag]

Listen to the audio or read about the police eyewitness to the actual shooting and it might answer your question:idea2:

Or you could just tell me in the same amount of time that it takes for you to try to be glib.


Not in an absolute sense, but America is supposed to be a democracy, and in a democracy one must make one's opinion heard. Since my moral standards stand completely against such a law, I must make my voice heard. If the marketplace of ideas states I am wrong, so be it; but it still does not strip me of my right to speak dissent, and dissent is (supposedly) the founding ideal of the United States of America.

That seems a bit circular, but fair enough.

[Lemur]

To clarify, were they already on the scene by the time this old bastard blew the robbers away, or were they just on the phone with him?
Hard to say with certainty. A plainclothes officer witnessed the final moments, and the dispatcher knew that he had "officers who aren't wearing uniforms" in the area. Personally, I suspect that the plainclothes was waiting for backup before he moved on the scene.

[Reverend Joe]

If I hear one more I-love-guns idiot bitch about how these guys deserved it, I'm gonna find his address, politely knock on his front door (unarmed, of course) and, when he comes to the door, I will flatten his nose across his face.

THE POINT IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT THE ROBBERS DESERVED IT. AS THE SAYING GOES, TWO RIGHTS DO NOT EQUAL A WRONG. THIS MAN DID SOMETHING WRONG, WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS, AND HE SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR IT. AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS SHOWS* THAT THE LAWS SHOULD BE REFORMED.

*In my HUMBLE goddamn opinion. Happy, Neongod? :wall:

edit: reformed for proper size. I should have never unleashed the text size demon.

[GoreBag]

Nah, dude, I'm not. He didn't do anything 'wrong'. I don't believe in wrong and it doesn't bother me that he wasted two guys who were, in all likelihood, very, very desperate people trying to scrape together enough cash to get on with their lives. My own Nihilism aside, there are other people here who think he was in the right, hence my comment about the circular logic - your opinion has been pretty loud, but you admit that it doesn't matter once you're outnumbered. That's a different matter entirely, however. Get back on IRC and we can internet-yell at each other until one of us passes out from intoxicants, if you like.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Get back on IRC and we can internet-yell at each other until one of us passes out from intoxicants, if you like.

Been celebrating Canada Day as well, GoreBag? ~;)

[GoreBag]

Been celebrating Canada Day as well, GoreBag? ~;)

Man könnte's sagen.

[Tribesman]

And the BBC wonders why America is such a tranquil place.
How many shootings and violent robberies are reported to have taken place just in Houston this past week Rabbit .

[Ja'chyra]

My tuppence worth, as if anyone cares.

If someone was breaking into my house and stealing my stuff damn right I'd shoot them, it's my stuff, I worked for it and as for the burglars you pay your maney and make your choices. Crime is a risky business and if you choose to do it you need to live by the consequences, one of which is the possibility of getting shot. So, do I value a life more than a TV, depends on whose life and whose TV, if it was my TV and someone druggy burglar that I didn't even know then the TV comes out on top.

As for this example, shooting them in the back when they weren't even stealing your stuff? I don't think I'd go that far.

For the people arguing the moral side, yours or mine?

[Whacker]

Meh, I've got a slightly different take. If someone breaks into my house and steals my crap, that bothers me, but I wouldn't kill for it.

If someone breaks into my house while I and/or my family are in it, then I'd make it clear through noise that someone is here, while calling the cops and loading my gun. If a burglar hears someone at home and flees, then fine, that means they were only after stuff and not us, let the cops deal with it. If they hear someone and stay, or worse try to come find us, then that tells me they're extremely dangerous and I'm going into kill mode, no questions asked or further warnings given. They had their warning and chance to get out, fight or flight style. Staying is equivalent to fighting, and I'm going to kill them any way I can because I would be in fear for my family's and my life.

As to the Texan yay-hoo as the subject of this thread, perhaps I am dense (ok, so I am) but I'm having a bit of a difficult time getting the exact 'facts' on what happened, therefore I reserve judgment. Shooting someone in the back is always questionable in my mind, but again it depends on the circumstances if I'd view that as murder or self-defense. And I definitely don't feel the least bit bad for the thieves, especially given they have prior histories. Stopping short of saying they got what they deserved, as Kukri said, a life of crime is always dangerous and these are the risks, I'm sure those two knew very well what those were and this time they failed their saving throws. heh.

[PanzerJaeger]

If I hear one more I-love-guns idiot bitch about how these guys deserved it, I'm gonna find his address, politely knock on his front door (unarmed, of course) and, when he comes to the door, I will flatten his nose across his face.

They totally deserved it. :yes:

Don't you believe in personal responsibility?

[Husar]

Some day I will move to Texas, that will finally allow me to vshoot those pesky 3 year-old girls who come onto my lawn to steal flowers.

Apart from that I would like to discuss how shooting someone who is running away with your big flatscreen TV in front of his chest is going to save your TV? If the bullet is not going to penetrate your precious TV in the first place, the guy will fall right on top of it and crush it. :dizzy2:
If you value your TV that much, your first concern should be to keep the guy carrying it healthy upright until he has carefully put the TV onto the ground, everything else is contradictory bollox.

[PanzerJaeger]

Some day I will move to Texas, that will finally allow me to vshoot those pesky 3 year-old girls who come onto my lawn to steal flowers.

Apart from that I would like to discuss how shooting someone who is running away with your big flatscreen TV in front of his chest is going to save your TV? If the bullet is not going to penetrate your precious TV in the first place, the guy will fall right on top of it and crush it. :dizzy2:
If you value your TV that much, your first concern should be to keep the guy carrying it healthy upright until he has carefully put the TV onto the ground, everything else is contradictory bollox.

No, no, no. If you shoot him at an angle he will spin around, clutching the TV and fall on his back - making a perfect cushion for the flatscreen. Then all that has to be done is to pry it from his cold, dead fingers and resume your normally scheduled programming. ~:doh:

[Geoffrey S]

Curious implication, that the potentially dangerous situation which the chap himself created allowed him to fire his weapon without legal consequences. Probably the letter of the law, probably not the spirit.

Anyway, I'm having trouble caring less about what happened to those two or Horn. I don't think the guy should have shot the robbers, but the fact remains he wouldn't have even thought about doing so if they hadn't been there in the first place. If slow police response time isn't going to prevent that kind of robbery or the chap taking justice into his own hands, I think there are some other issues to be bothered about here. Still, the legal precedent is curious.

Edit: oh yeah. Lemur was right!

[Fragony]

They totally deserved it. :yes:

Won't shed any tears over them but it's still odd that this doesn't make it to court. This law seems a bit old-fashioned, can't shake the feeling that was meant for a situation where someone runs off with your cattle, have a nice starvation. It's a bit of a missed opertunity, plenty debate here I think this law needs some re-evaluation.

[Pannonian]

Maybe it's just me, but in my circles if someone found out their house had been burgled, even if they caught sight of the burglars, their primary thought would be to think of ways of bigging up their losses so as to claim more from the insurers than the stolen property's worth.

[Ice]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:unbelievable:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4:
Go on Kush say it again give us a good laugh .
Its a miracle the robbers were seen running by the police after they were shot dead , I suppose they have super video phones in Texas nowadays eh :dizzy2:

Have you been drinking or something?

I read the article and didn't see any mention of police presence when he shot the man. I didn't see your other condescending post either, so my mistake.

[Redleg]

You don't say? I somehow think it's different shooting birds and small game in the hunting ground and shooting people in populated areas when there could be other people, police officers and even children, but that could be just me...

Birds are harder to hit because they are smaller....(just to be a smart***)

Now if one is questioning his judgement I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, I find his judgement in the shooting questionable.



Just tell me, at what age are police officers usually taken of the streets in the US? Are they still on the streets when they are 61? Do police send 61 year old men to deal with situations like this one? I'd say no. Why do you think is that? And if I'm not mistaken, he fired 3 shots.

My father in law was a police officer until his retirement at 65. So yep older gentlemen have the ability to reason and even handle stressful situations. I find your inablity to understand that when an individual reaches the age of adulthood, age rarely has the effect on judgement that people think. If you can prove he was mentally impaired because of senility or other mental incapaticiting age related conditions - I might see your point, but nothing demonstrates he suffered from such a condition.



My father is 68 and if he was the type to go out for occasional hunting, I'd advise him not to. He's still sharp, but his reflexes, his eyesight, his hand-eye coordination etc... is far cry from what it was 20 years ago. And if it's not life or death situation, I'd prefer not to see men his age carrying and using lethal weapons "for fun". Gardening is just as useful as a hobby...

If the man can physical handle the weapon and the conditions one faces while hunting - then let them hunt. Nothing prevents him from doing that - expect your own age prejuidice. My 65 year old father still works construction, running heavy equipment and welding. He is in far better shape then many 20 year olds. So get off the age bashing unless you can prove the man had a physcial or mental age related condition.

[LittleGrizzly]

No, no, no. If you shoot him at an angle he will spin around, clutching the TV and fall on his back - making a perfect cushion for the flatscreen. Then all that has to be done is to pry it from his cold, dead fingers and resume your normally scheduled programming.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Out of interest does anyone know what happened to the goods the thiefs were carrying ?

[Adrian II]

Sometimes this forum is just amazing.

A white grand jury dismisses the case against a white guy who shot two Latinos in the back over someone else's tv. And we're discussing the legality of it.

D'uh!

I think the police should have shot everyone involved: the burglars, Joe Horn, the :daisy: neighbor, everyone.

Why should the taxpayer be burdened with the cost of investigating other peoples' business? I mean, what's a couple of lives to any of us? Come on, my Granddad could have killed all of you when he was 61.

https://img389.imageshack.us/img389/6140/funyfarmjw0.png (https://imageshack.us)

[Fragony]

Sometimes this forum is just amazing.

A white grand jury dismisses the case against a white guy who shot two Latinos in the back over someone else's tv. And we're discussing the legality of it.

Well yeah were discussing the legality, what are you getting at

[Adrian II]

Musical score (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ1x5sJn9Mw)

https://img370.imageshack.us/img370/9139/hack1bq7.gif (https://imageshack.us)

The streets were dark with something more than a bad setting in my video options panel. I sat in my car with the window turned down listening to the little lady on $10 heels making me propositions while my cup o’ coffee went stale.

https://img107.imageshack.us/img107/6315/gallery128ap5.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

The sleepy night cop passed by on his daily round. The clock struck twelve. That’s when I knew ‘Popeye’ was dead. At my age you know people. And you know death.

Panzerjäger had been his real name. I knew I liked him the moment he walked in that joint where I had my weekly appointment with a bottle of gin. A big, loveable hulk of a guy, Popeye had more heart than brains, but he had enough of both to give him ideas for the rest of his life. That’s how we got talking.

He said he was with the cranky crowd, and that’s where he was alright. He walked with the black shirts. But he didn’t belong to them. He wanted to belong to America on his own terms, not America’s, and that made him more of an American than he would ever realise.

You couldn’t trust Popeye with your vote, but you could trust him with your wife, your wallet, or even your car. Know what I mean?And I knew that, for all his bragging and feigned indifference, if I ever needed him to pull me out of trouble he would be there. That’s why I called him that night. He promised to meet me at midnight. I knew he would. Unless they got to him first.

They probably did.

What’s it to me? I don’t know. In my business, you have to look after number one. That’s what I told myself while I hit the gas and cast a last look in my rear mirror at the hot number with her lopsided grin.

Three days later someone dropped the police report on my doormat. In my line of work someone always does. ‘The deceased, a Mr P., was accidentally shot while trying to protect an unarmed individual from being mugged. Police mistook him for the robber. The victim of the attempted robbery, a 31-year-old jobless man with no fixed abode who claimed to be a professional guitar player, denied having any personal association with the deceased.’

Shot while protecting a hippie, of all people.

[Fragony]

OK this just screams for a talk-noir contest. Andres GARCON

[Adrian II]

OK this just screams for a talk-noir contest. Andres GARCONWrong thread. Whatever. Cornell Woolrich.

[Fragony]

Cornell Woolrich.`

Ah I see. So how long have you two been dating?

[Adrian II]

Ah I see. So how long have you two been dating?Forget it, pal, unless you show me the color of your money first.

Adrian II is having a noir period. And it fits him like a glove.

[PanzerJaeger]

:laugh4:

Im not sure what, if anything, that had to do with me but I liked it.





:inquisitive:

Wait, did you imply that I date hippies?

[Pannonian]

Forget it, pal, unless you show me the color of your money first.

Adrian II is having a noir period. And it fits him like a glove.
You might like this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89205).

[Sarmatian]

Birds are harder to hit because they are smaller....(just to be a smart***)

Now if one is questioning his judgement I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, I find his judgement in the shooting questionable.

Just to make it clear - I wasn't saying that the shooting would have been justified if he was younger, only that there is a decent chance of eyesight, hand-eye coordination and therefore his aim being bad since he is 61 years old.


My father in law was a police officer until his retirement at 65. So yep older gentlemen have the ability to reason and even handle stressful situations. I find your inablity to understand that when an individual reaches the age of adulthood, age rarely has the effect on judgement that people think. If you can prove he was mentally impaired because of senility or other mental incapaticiting age related conditions - I might see your point, but nothing demonstrates he suffered from such a condition.


Again, I didn't say that people can't work in the police when they're 61 or older, just that you'll rarely see them on the streets, making arrests. Older people will usually be involved in administrative duties within the department.


If the man can physical handle the weapon and the conditions one faces while hunting - then let them hunt. Nothing prevents him from doing that - expect your own age prejuidice. My 65 year old father still works construction, running heavy equipment and welding. He is in far better shape then many 20 year olds. So get off the age bashing unless you can prove the man had a physcial or mental age related condition.

I'm not age bashing! For the love of God people, stop looking for "isms" whenever someone criticize something. I already said that I believe it was wrong. Moral and legal implications would be the same if Mr. Horn was 20 years old. I was saying that I would rather have 2000$ worth of my property stolen then to live next door to an elderly trigger happy person. To quote myself:

Personally, I'd rather have stuff from my home stolen than have an elderly, trigger-happy computer technician with a shotgun on the loose in my neighbourhood... Not that I would be okay with living next door to a 20 year old trigger happy idiot, but at least the chance that his eyesight, reflexes or anything else is not the best is much smaller.

Let me give you similar example, like when you're driving in a car with someone in his thirties or with someone in his seventies. Not that I haven't seen people aged 70+ drive safer then some much younger people or that I think it's impossible for elderly people to drive safely, but, everything else the same, I'd feel safer with a younger guy, especially if I don't know the person well. Get my point? Now, I'm even more touchy when it comes to guns.

Disclaimer: I love elderly people. My parents are elderly people. Ma grandparents aren't alive anymore unfortunately, but if they were, they would be elderly people. I have a lot of elderly people in my family and I love them very much. When I was younger I used to offer my seat in the bus to elderly people if none other was free, I used to help (and I still do) elderly people across the street and with their groceries or their bags. So please don't accuse me of ageism or age bashing... And anyway, it was a minor point in my post :yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

How many shootings and violent robberies are reported to have taken place just in Houston this past week Rabbit .

Are you unaware of what I'm referring to? Why don't you go look it up?


If I hear one more I-love-guns idiot bitch about how these guys deserved it, I'm gonna find his address, politely knock on his front door (unarmed, of course) and, when he comes to the door, I will flatten his nose across his face.

Some people answer their doors with guns on their hips, you know.

Oh, and the robbers deserved it.

And that is kind of the point. One can intervene with deadly force to protect a third party's life - why not then to protect their property, as one can protect one's own property?

I can not fault Joe Horn for walking outside and confronting the burglars - for fighting that cruel indifference hoisted on us by certain parts of society - the voice that says to shrink from confrontation instead of sticking up for what is right.

And I can fault no person for shooting known criminals if they know you have a gun and yet run at you. That is what the undercover cop said one criminal did - ran at Joe Horn for a moment. He gambled, having lost one gamble already.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

I think Joe should just count himself very lucky that they weren't armed, how many times do homeowners try to protect themselves with weapons only to find the criminals better equipped, more skilled with a gun or more prepared to pull the trigger.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I think Joe should just count himself very lucky that they weren't armed, how many times do homeowners try to protect themselves with weapons only to find the criminals better equipped, more skilled with a gun or more prepared to pull the trigger.

That's why you make sure that, as the homeowner, you shoot them first?

[LittleGrizzly]

That's why you make sure that, as the homeowner, you shoot them first?

Thats why you stay the hell out of the way, call the police and barricade yourself in a room until they go, though if it comes to it and your face to face guns in hand, yes.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Thats why you stay the hell out of the way, call the police and barricade yourself in a room until they go, though if it comes to it and your face to face guns in hand, yes.

So the police come late and never catch them, meaning they're not much of a help in the first place? Yeah, sounds wonderful.

[Redleg]

Just to make it clear - I wasn't saying that the shooting would have been justified if he was younger, only that there is a decent chance of eyesight, hand-eye coordination and therefore his aim being bad since he is 61 years old.

To bad that isn't what you initially stated. In fact you would still have to prove this impaired his ability to reason for the action to be wrong. So in other words it truely has no bearing on the issue at hand.




Again, I didn't say that people can't work in the police when they're 61 or older, just that you'll rarely see them on the streets, making arrests. Older people will usually be involved in administrative duties within the department.

Well since my father-in-law was a cop, and was involved in arrests and yes even a shooting of an individual who broke into someone's home and threaten them harm - that yes even when police are in their 60's they do perform such duties.




I'm not age bashing! For the love of God people, stop looking for "isms" whenever someone criticize something. I already said that I believe it was wrong. Moral and legal implications would be the same if Mr. Horn was 20 years old. I was saying that I would rather have 2000$ worth of my property stolen then to live next door to an elderly trigger happy person. To quote myself:
Not that I would be okay with living next door to a 20 year old trigger happy idiot, but at least the chance that his eyesight, reflexes or anything else is not the best is much smaller.

So if I was a young trigger happy person it would make you feel better about yourself? Did you know that a 20 year old is more likely not to take aim, just fire randomly at the target because they watch all those movies and see how gang bangers shoot their weapons? So yes your indeed age bashing wether you wish to acknowledge it or not.



Let me give you similar example, like when you're driving in a car with someone in his thirties or with someone in his seventies. Not that I haven't seen people aged 70+ drive safer then some much younger people or that I think it's impossible for elderly people to drive safely, but, everything else the same, I'd feel safer with a younger guy, especially if I don't know the person well. Get my point? Now, I'm even more touchy when it comes to guns.

compare accident rates between the individuals in their 30's versus individuals in their 70's. Your stuck on criticizing people for being old and functioning on their own. I know more irresponsible 30 year old drivers then I know 70 year old irresponsible drivers.



Disclaimer: I love elderly people. My parents are elderly people. Ma grandparents aren't alive anymore unfortunately, but if they were, they would be elderly people. I have a lot of elderly people in my family and I love them very much. When I was younger I used to offer my seat in the bus to elderly people if none other was free, I used to help (and I still do) elderly people across the street and with their groceries or their bags. So please don't accuse me of ageism or age bashing... And anyway, it was a minor point in my post :yes:

- notice how you claim you aren't but claim you feel safer with a younger driver. .... Spend much time along the nile.......


So back to subject - the man exhibited poor judgement in his actions - just like the poor judgement of the younger men to committ a criminal act in robbing the house. Poor judgement effects those of all ages.

[Redleg]

Sometimes this forum is just amazing.

A white grand jury dismisses the case against a white guy who shot two Latinos in the back over someone else's tv. And we're discussing the legality of it.

Yep - I was rather amused that this wasn't brought up earlier by someone. I strongly suspect one of the reasons that no criminal charges were brought forth by the grand jury is because of the illegal immigrant status of the two dead men.




I think the police should have shot everyone involved: the burglars, Joe Horn, the :daisy: neighbor, everyone.

Actually I wonder why the plain clothes officer didn't indentify himself to none of the parties involved?



Why should the taxpayer be burdened with the cost of investigating other peoples' business? I mean, what's a couple of lives to any of us? Come on, my Granddad could have killed all of you when he was 61.

Well I can one-up you on that, my great-grandfather who lived to be 101, could of killed everyone when he was 98.....

[LittleGrizzly]

So the police come late and never catch them, meaning they're not much of a help in the first place? Yeah, sounds wonderful.

well everyone lives!

I suppose this comes down to how much you value a criminals life, I value all life highly and if were talking someone like a petty criminal i wouldn't really value thier life any less than the normal person, i could only take a life in extreme circumstances (or unintentionally)

speaking of age has anyone else noticed adrains avatar age dramatically ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

well everyone lives!

Breaking into my house, stealing my goods, and directly or indirectly threatening myself or whatever family or guests I have at the time is already enough to warrant a bullet, at least from my point of view. I don't support the death penalty, but if I catch someone doing these things in my house...let the courts decide whether I am right or wrong.

[LittleGrizzly]

Well in this thread at least it was someone else's property that was taken, and from the sounds of it they where shot in the back, i don't find turned backs to threatening...

I can understand going for someone you discover in your house or even trying to give chase to recover property but i couldn't and wouldn't shoot them in the back as they run away

[ICantSpellDawg]

I support this guys use of deadly force. This sends an appropriate message that I wish was sent more often.

The act was just, the law agrees and so do a number of people on this forum.

[LittleGrizzly]

The reason it isn't sent more often is homeowners out trying to take on a criminal in a gun often lose....

[ICantSpellDawg]

The reason it isn't sent more often is homeowners out trying to take on a criminal in a gun often lose....

Show me a statistical source for your claim, please.

[LittleGrizzly]

Show me a statistical source for your claim, please.

Damn you people and your like of evidence.... ill search it up tomorrow im heading off to bed now, this isn't actually a statistic i have heard or read but i think its a fairly obvious one. The criminals are almost always better armed and more skilled with thier weapons... I know if i was a criminal with a gun going into households that are potentially armed i am going to be packing some pretty mean weaponary and im going to make sure i can use it properly, add to this the fact the homeowners aren't prepared and the criminals are..... you have a recipe for a fight that is going to go in favour of the criminals much more often....

[ICantSpellDawg]

Show me a statistical source for your claim, please.

Damn you people and your like of evidence.... ill search it up tomorrow im heading off to bed now, this isn't actually a statistic i have heard or read but i think its a fairly obvious one. The criminals are almost always better armed and more skilled with thier weapons... I know if i was a criminal with a gun going into households that are potentially armed i am going to be packing some pretty mean weaponary and im going to make sure i can use it properly, add to this the fact the homeowners aren't prepared and the criminals are..... you have a recipe for a fight that is going to go in favour of the criminals much more often....

so... pure conjecture? I appreciate that you will look for the numbers. If a criminal really thought he would meet heavy enough resistance in a private residence while stealing jewelry and a television, maybe he would just rob a store or bank instead of bringing an M1A1 with depleted uranium to the suburbs, no?

lets find the statistics and argue in the morning, k?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The criminals are almost always better armed and more skilled with thier weapons...

I beg to differ. An illegal immigrant who bought/stole a pistol versus a forty-year old average, gun-owning, American male?

No contest.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Grizzly, you're from the UK, right?

Over here, people with guns tend to know how to use them. The homeowner almost always comes out on top in gunfights, if the crooks are dumb enough to stay for a gunfight and not run off.

I must admit I'm a little tired of anti-gunners completely making up stuff to support their positions.


well everyone lives!

So what? Need I bust out that John Stuart Mills quote?

CR

[Ironside]

And that is kind of the point. One can intervene with deadly force to protect a third party's life - why not then to protect their property, as one can protect one's own property?


Shooting with a shotgun on people carrying property will most likely make the property filled with bullet holes. Not a good way of protecting that property I would say.



According to the statute, deadly force is justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" it's immediately necessary to stop the burglars from escaping with the stolen property. It's also justified if the shooter "reasonably believes" that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

Personally I find that pretty loose, basically it's death penalty on burglary, (home invasions I can understand).

But seriously, freed after:
"Hurry up guys, I'm not gonna let them go, I'm not gonna let them get away with this :daisy:"
"I can't take the chance of getting killed over this I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot"
"I don't want to, but if I go out what choise do I have"
"I have the right to protect myself and you understand that, the laws have been changed in this country since september the first"
"I'm gonna go out and find out"
"Here it goes buddy (click), you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going. (click)"
Some sounds that doesn't sound like shouting, then 10 seconds after the last click "Boom you're dead" (calm voice)
2 shots, then 7 seconds later one more shot.
(More stressy voice) "I had not choice, the came in the frontyard with me man, I had no choice"

Taken from Lemur's link.

IMO clear cut case of someone considering killing robbers and then claim self defense.

[Sarmatian]

To bad that isn't what you initially stated. In fact you would still have to prove this impaired his ability to reason for the action to be wrong. So in other words it truely has no bearing on the issue at hand.

That's what I initially stated.

Especially since the guy was 61 years old. Not exactly in his primes.

So I made a point and then I further stressed it by saying that the guy isn't in his primes and there was a decent chance that his eyesight isn't the best.

It doesn't matter, it was a minor point. And I really don't feel like explaining why there is a decent chance that someone over 60 could have bad eyesight.


So if I was a young trigger happy person it would make you feel better about yourself? Did you know that a 20 year old is more likely not to take aim, just fire randomly at the target because they watch all those movies and see how gang bangers shoot their weapons? So yes your indeed age bashing wether you wish to acknowledge it or not.


No, read what I said. But, using your style, here I can say that I know a lot of young men who take aim and in general take guns very seriously and tell you to stop bashing young people.

This is getting boring. Believe what you want. If it makes you happy, yes, I was bashing old people. In fact, I hate old people. If I had the power, I'd kill them all. Burn them at the stake, like inquisition. Anyone over 40. To stop polluting beautiful planet Earth with their wrinkles.

[Redleg]

That's what I initially stated.


So I made a point and then I further stressed it by saying that the guy isn't in his primes and there was a decent chance that his eyesight isn't the best.

you focused on his age, not his actions. Care to guess the percentage of over 60 that actually still have good eyesight and reactions? But then I am just being a smart***




It doesn't matter, it was a minor point. And I really don't feel like explaining why there is a decent chance that someone over 60 could have bad eyesight.


the excuse of someone you realizes their arguement was weak in the first place. Why point out age in the arguement about a poor individual judgement, other then to bash the abilities of people of a certain age group.



No, read what I said. But, using your style, here I can say that I know a lot of young men who take aim and in general take guns very seriously and tell you to stop bashing young people.

Again nice try but work a little harder - because you just argued yourself into my point. Don't make claims that your not willing to provide evidence and proof that its valid each and every time. You made a generalization about a specific individual without knowning if its actually valid or not. Discuss the man's general poor judgement in taking this action, and wether or not you feel the current law is valid or not. Age was not the issue for this man's actions in the first place.



This is getting boring. Believe what you want. If it makes you happy, yes, I was bashing old people. In fact, I hate old people. If I had the power, I'd kill them all. Burn them at the stake, like inquisition. Anyone over 40. To stop polluting beautiful planet Earth with their wrinkles.


Oh I believe you think you know that because someone ages that they must necessarily have decreased abilities, as a general rule this would be correct when discussing the general population. However when speaking of individuals be very wary of making that generalization, because as we have seen there are always individuals that prove the generalization wrong. When discussing individual cases its best to stick to the individual facts. The man made a poor judgement on the situtation, it had nothing to do with his age and his ability to fire the weapon. The poor judgement was purely on his firing the weapon at the two criminals. A forty year old individual could make the same poor decision, just like a 20 year old, or any other age group for that matter.

[InsaneApache]

Talking of ageism, I make better informed poor decisions these days.:shame:

[Fragony]

Talking of ageism, I make better informed poor decisions these days.:shame:

classic :2thumbsup:

[Sarmatian]

you focused on his age, not his actions. Care to guess the percentage of over 60 that actually still have good eyesight and reactions? But then I am just being a smart***

Oh, my God, you really don't know when to quit, do you? I don't know the actual percentage but I'd guess it's a fair share.


the excuse of someone you realizes their arguement was weak in the first place. Why point out age in the arguement about a poor individual judgement, other then to bash the abilities of people of a certain age group.


No. But if you want to decide for me what I said or meant, feel free. I'm not going to argue that.


Again nice try but work a little harder - because you just argued yourself into my point. Don't make claims that your not willing to provide evidence and proof that its valid each and every time. You made a generalization about a specific individual without knowning if its actually valid or not. Discuss the man's general poor judgement in taking this action, and wether or not you feel the current law is valid or not. Age was not the issue for this man's actions in the first place.


I never said it's valid each and every time, just often enough for it to be taken into consideration. Don't argue points I'd never made, it doesn't make sense. I see you're having problems so let me try to explain in more simple terms. Let's say I make a statement "In Russia people are poor" and you are trying to refute my claim by saying "It's not true, Roman Abramovich has 50-60 billions". I know that Roman Abramovich has loads of money, and that there are millions of rich Russian citizens but that doesn't change the fact that generally standard of living in Russia is low. Do you understand? Or I can say "Chemotherapy helps people suffering from tumors". You can think of millions of examples where it didn't help but that doesn't mean that it doesn't help at all. I can make a claim that is generally true, or is true in most cases. It doesn't have to be true in 100% of cases.

My point was based on a simple logical premise:

A big portion of people over 60 have problems with their eyesight, with hand-eye coordination etc...

Mr. X is over 60

Therefore there is a decent chance that Mr. X could have problems with his eyesight.

Understand? Comprende? Verstehen Sie?

No, it doesn't mean that in 100% of cases people don't aim properly when they're over 60, I never said that, so lay off unless you can prove that peoples eyesight usually doesn't deteriorate in that age, because that was my point. And when there are other peoples lives at stake, even 10% is enough for me to make a case. I don't want to think about whether my kid is going to be close when tenth trigger happy idiot refuse to listen to the police and goes on a killing spree. As I said in my first post, they should lock him up and throw away the key.

[Redleg]

Oh, my God, you really don't know when to quit, do you? I don't know the actual percentage but I'd guess it's a fair share.

Naw I know when to quit - after the individual admits that he initially spoke bullocks, taking a saying from tribes.




No. But if you want to decide for me what I said or meant, feel free. I'm not going to argue that.


LOL - you know that perception of what you say is just as important as what you think you said.




I never said it's valid each and every time, just often enough for it to be taken into consideration. Don't argue points I'd never made, it doesn't make sense. I see you're having problems so let me try to explain in more simple terms. Let's say I make a statement "In Russia people are poor" and you are trying to refute my claim by saying "It's not true, Roman Abramovich has 50-60 billions". I know that Roman Abramovich has loads of money, and that there are millions of rich Russian citizens but that doesn't change the fact that generally standard of living in Russia is low. Do you understand? Or I can say "Chemotherapy helps people suffering from tumors". You can think of millions of examples where it didn't help but that doesn't mean that it doesn't help at all. I can make a claim that is generally true, or is true in most cases. It doesn't have to be true in 100% of cases.


Someone is having difficultly following - one can not make a generalization about an individual. It is easily disproven especially when one speaks without knowledge of the situation. You have done so and you continue to dig yourself deeper into your untenable positon.




My point was based on a simple logical premise:

A big portion of people over 60 have problems with their eyesight, with hand-eye coordination etc...

Mr. X is over 60

Therefore there is a decent chance that Mr. X could have problems with his eyesight.

Understand? Comprende? Verstehen Sie?


As stated before making generalizations about individuals happen to be a poor arguement and easily defeated. Oh I understood your premise completely the first time, however the actions demonstrate that his eyesight wasn't bad, just that he exercised bad judgement. Your stuck on defending a generalization that you spoke of without thinking through the fact that the event involves an individual.




No, it doesn't mean that in 100% of cases people don't aim properly when they're over 60, I never said that, so lay off unless you can prove that peoples eyesight usually doesn't deteriorate in that age, because that was my point. And when there are other peoples lives at stake, even 10% is enough for me to make a case. I don't want to think about whether my kid is going to be close when tenth trigger happy idiot refuse to listen to the police and goes on a killing spree. As I said in my first post, they should lock him up and throw away the key.

LOL your stuck on the wrong arguement once again. Rather amusing dicussing poor eyesight of a man who happen to shoot 3 times and kill two men. Again eyesight has nothing to do with the situation - poor judgement is what caused the situation. So you want someone to lay off your tangent maybe you should think about withdrawing the tangent arguement in the first place.

[Goofball]

And the moral of the story is: Don't steal other people's crap. Justice prevailed.

I'm not going to bother replying to DevDave's nonsense, because he's just doing his usual trolling. But PJ, I ask you honestly if you really believe this was justice. That it's okay to murder people who are stealing from you, even if they clearly pose no thread of harm to you. And if you answer is still "yes," then my next question is how far do you take it?

If this scenario had been the same (i.e. criminals fleeing from the scene with stolen goods), but instead of a good old boy from Texas doing the shooting, it was a Korean grocery store owner in LA, and intstead of a couple of illegal Mexicans doing the running, it was a couple of middle class 12 year old kids who were shoplifting some candy for the thrill of it, would you still say justice had been done?

[Goofball]

Well, let's see.
1. They were in the process of stealing when he noticed them and called 911.
2. He only went outside when they ran with the goods and crossed his property
3. He told them to stop but they didn't.
4. He shot, but we don't know if the intended to kill with those shots.
5. You expect a 61 year old man to keep up with two young men and manage to beat them with a baseball bat?

Sorry, but point 4 just made me laugh so hard I almost busted a gut. Let me be perfectly clear:

If you aim a shotgun at somebody and pull the trigger, you either:

1) Intend to kill them,

or

2) should not be allowed to own a shotgun (ar any type of firearm) because you are so woefully ignorant of the properties of a shotgun that you thought you could execute a surgeon-like wounding shot with your shotgun.

[Adrian II]

Im not sure what, if anything, that had to do with me but I liked it.I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the gist of that story. Anyway, PJ, the main point of it is that you have a fine sense of right and wrong, but not the faintest idea of what justice is about. I often share your gut feeling about a subject, but the social and political concepts which you derive from that gut feeling must never, ever become reality.

[InsaneApache]

Unfortunatley they did, once upon a time.

[Devastatin Dave]

That's why you make sure that, as the homeowner, you shoot them first?

Thats why you stay the hell out of the way, call the police and barricade yourself in a room until they go, though if it comes to it and your face to face guns in hand, yes.

Do they castrate the men in the UK after they procreate or are all the new Brits born from test tubes?
Man-up...

[Devastatin Dave]

Do they castrate the men in the UK after they procreate or are all the new Brits born from test tubes?
Man-up...

Oh and LG, my Father goes to the range 2 to 3 times a week. He practices with pistols, shotguns, and assault riffels. He also does competition combat shooting. I would want to :daisy: with my 63 year old Pops. Believe me, the armed citizen in the States knows how to use their weapon.

Yo Goofy, I love you anyway.:yes:

damn quoted the worng post...

[Whacker]

2) should not be allowed to own a shotgun (ar any type of firearm) because you are so woefully ignorant of the properties of a shotgun that you thought you could execute a surgeon-like wounding shot with your shotgun.

Gimme a break Goofwad. Everyone who's played Soldier of Fortune 1 and 2 knows that you can perform deft amputation surgery on people using a shotgun. :smash:

:balloon2:

[Sarmatian]

Naw I know when to quit - after the individual admits that he initially spoke bullocks, taking a saying from tribes.


Is that what it takes? I initially spoke bollox. There you go. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, that would be all for tonight.

[Goofball]

And the moral of the story is: Don't steal other people's crap. Justice prevailed.I'm not going to bother replying to DevDave's nonsense, because he's just doing his usual trolling. But PJ, I ask you honestly if you really believe this was justice. That it's okay to murder people who are stealing from you, even if they clearly pose no thread of harm to you. And if you answer is still "yes," then my next question is how far do you take it?

If this scenario had been the same (i.e. criminals fleeing from the scene with stolen goods), but instead of a good old boy from Texas doing the shooting, it was a Korean grocery store owner in LA, and intstead of a couple of illegal Mexicans doing the running, it was a couple of middle class 12 year old kids who were shoplifting some candy for the thrill of it, would you still say justice had been done?

Your silence is telling...

:yes:

[Goofball]

Oh and LG, my Father goes to the range 2 to 3 times a week. He practices with pistols, shotguns, and assault riffels. He also does competition combat shooting. I would want to :daisy: with my 63 year old Pops. Believe me, the armed citizen in the States knows how to use their weapon.

Yo Goofy, I love you anyway.:yes:

damn quoted the worng post...

~;p

[Crazed Rabbit]

Your silence is telling...

:yes:

Goofball, that's a very different situation. Here we had two adult career criminals, robbing to enrich themselves. A far cry from two kids robbing candy for the thrill of it.

Even then, though, I wouldn't be too sad if people were shot while looting.

CR

[Duke John]

Goofball, that's a very different situation. Here we had two adult career criminals, robbing to enrich themselves. A far cry from two kids robbing candy for the thrill of it.
So robbers need to show their ID to determine wether you can shoot them in the back or not?

[Tribesman]

So robbers need to show their ID to determine wether you can shoot them in the back or not?
No , there is no requirement for ID , if it is OK to shoot a thief it is OK to shoot a thief .
Little acorns and all that , exterminate them .
There is no point in allowing people to have guns and the right to shoot thieves if you attempt to deny them the right to use their guns to shoot thieves .
I reckon this law should be expanded , next time someone cuts you off on a road shoot the bugger , his actions have threatened both you and your property so its only right , after all driving like an idiot is breaking the law isn't it so no one will complain the removal of another criminal from the gene pool , an obvious result of this will be more courteous drivers which has to be a good thing for the whole nation and it will make the roads safer for children .... please think of the little children , well apart from them little jay-walking scum who cause people to brake hard threatening both the safety of drivers and the loss of valuable tire tread , they should be shot too .
I would suggest that they were just run over but some of them buggers are quite sturdy and can damage the bodywork , so it has to be shooting , its only right .

[HoreTore]

Goofball, that's a very different situation. Here we had two adult career criminals, robbing to enrich themselves.

So you support the death penalty for petty theft...?

[Dâriûsh]

Maybe he was hoping to avoid something like this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/04/knifecrime.ukcrime3).

[Duke John]

Joe Horn: "Hurry up, man, catch these guys, will you? Because I ain't gonna let them go. I'm gonna kill him."
Dispatcher: "OK, stay in the house."
Joe Horn: "They're getting away!"
Dispatcher: "That's alright."
Joe Horn: (Shouts to suspects) "Move, you're dead."
He was not afraid of his life. He was afraid they would get away.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you support the death penalty for petty theft...?

No. There is a difference, though, in shooting someone who is in the act of robbing you and someone who has been caught and convicted of burglary. As Dâriûsh pointed out, burglaries can turn out very bad for the victims in ways quite beyond loss of possessions.



He was not afraid of his life. He was afraid they would get away.

Yup, and he was within the law to stop them with force.

CR

[HoreTore]

No. There is a difference, though, in shooting someone who is in the act of robbing you and someone who has been caught and convicted of burglary. As Dâriûsh pointed out, burglaries can turn out very bad for the victims in ways quite beyond loss of possessions.

Not in this case. The only thing at risk here was a TV-set. The man was in absolutely no danger at all.

These guys were executed for the spot for committing burglary, they were not killed because they posed a threat. To support this and not support the death penalty on the same crime is hypocrisy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So you support the death penalty for petty theft...?

I don't support the death penalty at all except in wartime, and yet I still believe a person has the right to shoot to kill a home invader. It's not the death penalty, and it's not murder. It's defence of your personal property and possessions. Police are allowed to shoot to kill in countries that don't have an official death penalty.

[HoreTore]

I don't support the death penalty at all except in wartime, and yet I still believe a person has the right to shoot to kill a home invader. It's not the death penalty, and it's not murder. It's defence of your personal property and possessions. Police are allowed to shoot to kill in countries that don't have an official death penalty.

Shoot and kill a home invader? That's nbot what this is about. This is about shooting down two burglars who posed absolutely no threat to prevent them from getting away with their loot. This is an execution, plain and simple. Not even close to self-defence.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Shoot and kill a home invader? That's nbot what this is about. This is about shooting down two burglars who posed absolutely no threat to prevent them from getting away with their loot. This is an execution, plain and simple. Not even close to self-defence.

They were on his property with stolen goods.

[Sarmatian]

They were on his property with stolen goods.

No, they were on the street after looting house across the street.

[Xiahou]

No, they were on the street after looting house across the street.No, they were on his property. Read up.


Not in this case. The only thing at risk here was a TV-set. The man was in absolutely no danger at all.Also read up. There was no TV.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Everyone here defending thieves should feel what it is like to be burgled. If enough goodytwoshoes are robbed and killed by these scum, maybe people will wake up to the fact that thieves may kill you and your family on a whim when they promised to only steal some junk. Who would have thought that they are degenerate, oppurtunistic, desperate liars?

Shoot first, ask questions later is the name of the game when the criminals are not in the custody of the authorities. This isn't a death penalty issue, the death penalty is questionable when criminals are out of society already. When they are committing violent crimes it is sensible to put them down as soon as possible - it is not a "penalty" then, rather an issue of safety. Utterly absurd. I had no idea how utterly absurd, restrictive and dangerous the opinions of the limp-wristed majority had become. Truly the most dangerous foe lies within civil society, not outside of it.

[Ironside]

Everyone here defending thieves should feel what it is like to be burgled. If enough goodytwoshoes are robbed and killed by these scum, maybe people will wake up to the fact that thieves may kill you and your family on a whim when they promised to only steal some junk. Who would have thought that they are degenerate, oppurtunistic, desperate liars?

Luckily that doesn't apply to this case, more than that he probably was pissed off enough to absolutly not letting the thives getting away to kill them and cold enough to calculate that he had the law on his side. You can hear it on the tape.


Shoot first, ask questions later is the name of the game when the criminals are not in the custody of the authorities. This isn't a death penalty issue, the death penalty is questionable when criminals are out of society already. When they are committing violent crimes it is sensible to put them down as soon as possible - it is not a "penalty" then, rather an issue of safety. Utterly absurd. I had no idea how utterly absurd, restrictive and dangerous the opinions of the limp-wristed majority had become. Truly the most dangerous foe lies within civil society, not outside of it.

And the person in question was only unsafe when he went out of his house and confronted the criminals. He was also aware that the ending of this situation would most likely be the death of the criminals.

May I suggest that you make it legal for the police to provoke a situation were it's legal to kill the criminals? That would cheapen your prison costs considerably. :juggle:

[Duke John]

TuffStuffMcGruff, do you buy lottery tickets in the hope of becoming a millionaire?

[HoreTore]

No, they were on his property. Read up.

Read up yourself, they were posing absolutely no threat at all, so there was absolutely no reason to shoot them other than to prevent them from getting away. And that means a death penalty on burglary.


Also read up. There was no TV.

I didn't mean a TV specifically, I said "tv-set" meaning they had some random loot. Exactly what it is doesn't matter in the slightest.

[KukriKhan]

Looking at these statistics (http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/norway-crime-trend-1993-2006-robbery-burglary/) for Norway burglaries, that poor country has a net deficit. We need to help our scandanavian friends get back up to par. So:

Don't shoot your friendly, neighborhood burglar anymore. Merely hog-tie him/them, slap $25 postage on their foreheads, and address them: "HoreTore, Norway"; our communist connection there will no doubt set them up to pursue a more-lucrative (and much less dangerous) career as journeymen burglars there.

:laugh4:Sometimes, I crack me up . :shame:

[HoreTore]

Nah no need for that... We have the russian mafia next door remember, all you need to do is make them come over here :smash:

[Adrian II]

Looking at these statistics (http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/norway-crime-trend-1993-2006-robbery-burglary/) for Norway burglaries, that poor country has a net deficit.That's 175 burglaries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005 in Norway, against 750 for the same year in the United States (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_16.html).

Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?

* Your Country Sucks

[HoreTore]

Well I can tell you for sure that it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the police force, as the police here usually don't bother with theft...

[KukriKhan]

That's 175 burglaries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005 in Norway, against 750 for the same year in the United States (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_16.html).

Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?

* Your Country Sucks

Uhm, nope. But it might indirectly explain why citizens think it might be OK to shoot burglars, and some jurisdictions might look the other way, when it happens.

[Tribesman]

Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?

Its the deterrant value , most burglars in Norway know that they might face some crazed loon who thinks just walking on his lawn is a justification for shooting you so they don't do burglaries anymore .

[Sarmatian]

No, they were on his property. Read up.



No. First sentence in the audio (Horn): "Burglars in the house next door". Next one (dispatcher): "What's the address?" Horn: "(tells the address) It's not my house but the house next door". (roughly these words, before some wiseguy points out that these are not the exact words and tells me that therefore I have missed the point completely)

Not the house across the street but the house next door, sorry about that. But still not his house. No need to read up when you can listen to the original audio, link provided in the first post of this thread.

[Redleg]

No. First sentence in the audio (Horn): "Burglars in the house next door". Next one (dispatcher): "What's the address?" Horn: "(tells the address) It's not my house but the house next door". (roughly these words, before some wiseguy points out that these are not the exact words and tells me that therefore I have missed the point completely) no need for that - you only get my response when you attempt an unfair baised accusation based upon bad information and your own baised views especially when the generalization is proven false by the individual in question.

I happen to think Horn made a very bad judgement on this issue, and in the papers it seems Horn agrees with that sentiment.



Not the house across the street but the house next door, sorry about that. But still not his house. No need to read up when you can listen to the original audio, link provided in the first post of this thread.

Which still falls within the statue in the state of Texas for the Castle defense law.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No. First sentence in the audio (Horn): "Burglars in the house next door". Next one (dispatcher): "What's the address?" Horn: "(tells the address) It's not my house but the house next door". (roughly these words, before some wiseguy points out that these are not the exact words and tells me that therefore I have missed the point completely)

Not the house across the street but the house next door, sorry about that. But still not his house. No need to read up when you can listen to the original audio, link provided in the first post of this thread.

And then, when they come out, they come across his lawn. That isn't in the phone call, hence the 'read up'.

Oh - and to everyone whining about an 'execution' - it certainly was not. He did not go out there and shoot immediately - he confronted them and they wouldn't stop.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No, they were on the street after looting house across the street.

They were on his front lawn.

[Sarmatian]

Whatever. I'm losing patience with people presenting the fact whether one or both of them accidentally stepped on his lawn when they were running away as a valid reason to blow up someone with a shotgun. One of the first things he said to the dispatcher was "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them" and then several time repeated that he isn't going to let them go. He went out even though the 911 dispatcher told him not to.

I don't know. If there is a law permitting this it should be changed. And somehow I'm under impression that if the two guys in question weren't illegal immigrants and, dare I say it, black, entire thing would have got much more complicated...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Whatever. I'm losing patience with people presenting the fact whether one or both of them accidentally stepped on his lawn when they were running away as a valid reason to blow up someone with a shotgun. One of the first things he said to the dispatcher was "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them" and then several time repeated that he isn't going to let them go. He went out even though the 911 dispatcher told him not to.

I don't know. If there is a law permitting this it should be changed. And somehow I'm under impression that if the two guys in question weren't illegal immigrants and, dare I say it, black, entire thing would have got much more complicated...

The valid reason for blowing them away was when they started breaking into his neighbors home. The police department is a new idea and it should compliment natural defenses, not neutralize them.

[CrossLOPER]

The valid reason for blowing them away was when they started breaking into his neighbors home.
NEIGHBORHOOD SUPERHERO!

[Goofball]

Everyone here defending thieves should feel what it is like to be burgled. If enough goodytwoshoes are robbed and killed by these scum, maybe people will wake up to the fact that thieves may kill you and your family on a whim when they promised to only steal some junk. Who would have thought that they are degenerate, oppurtunistic, desperate liars?

Shoot first, ask questions later is the name of the game when the criminals are not in the custody of the authorities. This isn't a death penalty issue, the death penalty is questionable when criminals are out of society already. When they are committing violent crimes it is sensible to put them down as soon as possible - it is not a "penalty" then, rather an issue of safety. Utterly absurd. I had no idea how utterly absurd, restrictive and dangerous the opinions of the limp-wristed majority had become. Truly the most dangerous foe lies within civil society, not outside of it.

I couldn't agree more. The individuals who made up the grand jury that refused to indict this murderer showed themselves to be so completely lacking in moral perspective that I fear for the justice system as a whole in Texas.

Since most of you dodged my original question, then one of you came out with "Oh, that's different," let me ask you this:

Let's say I live next door to a shopping mall, and I happen to be sitting on my front porch, drinking some iced tea and lovingly fondling my shotgun, then I hear "Stop thief!" from a mall rent-a-cop yelling at a 40 year old housewife who has just shoplifted 5 pairs of panty-hose from Target. Unfortunately for this thief, she doesn't realize just what a moral, upstanding, gun-toting citizen I am, and tries to make her getaway by running across my front lawn. At which point, I yell "Stop or I'll blow your head off!" When she fails to comply, I open up with both barrels, and am rewarded by seeing her head turn into crimson mist and flying bone chips.

Still think that we can chalk that up as one for the good-guys?

And by the way, TSMcG, I have been burgled. Twice from my car and once from my house. And I have not the slightest desire to kill the people who did it.

[Spino]

That's 175 burglaries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005 in Norway, against 750 for the same year in the United States (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_16.html).

Why is that? Can anyone explain this without YCS* bias?

* Your Country Sucks

1) Consider that Norway is overwhelmingly Norwegian. I believe there's something to the argument that homogenous societies are more stable than heterogenous ones. However one should not factor in ethnicity without factoring in...

2) Culture. Consider that Norway's culture is vastly different from the US'. To reference Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' take note of the segment where he contrasted Canada's gun related crimes to those of America's. The difference was like night and day. Culture clearly has an effect on crime rates (as does ethnic diversity, an issue which Moore really didn't delve into with any kind of detail).

3) Consider illegal immigration. Norway's influx of immigrants (both legal & illegal), even when adjusting for population size, is tiny compared to the US. Norway's problems with illegal immigrants committing crimes pales in comparison to the US where such crimes are increasing at an alarming rate.

4) Consider intelligence. Typically people with lower IQ's are more likely to engage in petty & violent crimes. America's IQ has been in decline for a few decades, the last I heard/read about it was somewhere around 95. The more SPPM (stupid people per million) you have the more likely you are to have a higher crime rate. I'd be interested in knowing what the mean IQ for both countries is. I'd also like to know which country has a higher percentage of people with IQ of 85 or less.

5) Consider higher crime rates as one of the by-products of meritocracy on a diverse population. (see points #1, #2 & #4). Smart & hard working people advance and make more money than those who are dumb and lazy. Socioeconomic mobility is quite limited for those lacking the talent, skill & ambition to break out of their tax bracket. The growing socioeconomic disparity between the rich/intelligent and the poor/unintelligent creates a greater demand in the lower classes to break through the glass ceiling by any means necessary.

6) Consider the fact that I refuse to delve into unpleasant side of the nature/nuture argument in this thread. As far as the internet is concerned I'm done trying to defend the concept of genetic inequity as related to intelligence, ethnicity, etc. Sorry if that posture rubs you the wrong way but the effort isn't worth the agita that follows. Feel free to take my list and feed it to the dog or whatever you like.

7) Oh, by the way... Your Country Sucks!


Just kidding.... :hide:

[ICantSpellDawg]

And by the way, TSMcG, I have been burgled. Twice from my car and once from my house. And I have not the slightest desire to kill the people who did it.

Are you essentially saying that you prefer being burgled to defending your property and those within it by use of deadly force?

Maybe if you did you could avoid a third time?

I don't have kids and don't live with my girlfriend, so my responses would be different from someone else's. I would risk my life to kill criminals. Call me crazy, but I'm sure my plans would change if there were kids or loved ones in the house.

Think about it - if you kill them, you could save the people in the next houses they hit in the case it went bad.

[HoreTore]

You do realize that there are other ways of preventing crime than shooting all of them?

There are even ways that will benefit society beyond a lower crime rate...

[Tribesman]

I couldn't agree more. The individuals who made up the grand jury that refused to indict this murderer showed themselves to be so completely lacking in moral perspective that I fear for the justice system as a whole in Texas.

Well said Goof , it was the same over here with the Nally case , it was without the slightest shadow of a doubt cold blooded murder , but he is walking free .Though he can no longer own a gun as he has shown himself to be an irresponsible gun owner, which kinda negates Tuffs last nonsense as if someone tries to burgle him now he hasn't got a gun to shoot them with .

[ICantSpellDawg]

You do realize that there are other ways of preventing crime than shooting all of them?

There are even ways that will benefit society beyond a lower crime rate...

But will they be as fun or memorable? I know it'is nonsense until it happens.

If society was more like a minefield with crazy jerks in unknown houses, bad people might avoid those places. The less resistance there is to home invasion the less safe everyone is.

You guys believe that if someone enters your home to steal or whatever else, you should be charged with murder and imprisoned in the event of their violent death? You are nuts and unethical. You are the oppressive tyranny that everyone is afraid of. I know this is different because it took place outside, but you don't know about his relationship with those neighbors.

Again - The only virtue left is the defense of vice. You guys make me sick.

[HoreTore]

If society was more like a minefield with crazy jerks in unknown houses, bad people might avoid those places.

*looks at US crime statistics*

You might want to reconsider that opinion ~;)


Again - The only virtue left is the defense of vice. You guys make me sick.

Yes, in a functioning court system, even the most evil villain gets a chance to defend himself, and most certainly small-time burglars. Not sure why that sickens you though...

[Adrian II]

If society was more like a minefield with crazy jerks in unknown houses, bad people might avoid those places.Who wants to live in a country full of crazy jerks in unknown houses?

You have dug a hole for yourself that is now big enough to fall into. No wonder it makes you sick. It is no use blaming Tribesman and others for the fact that you are so confused on this issue.

[ICantSpellDawg]

*looks at US crime statistics*

You might want to reconsider that opinion ~;)

Blame crime on low median income and opportunity. Also throw in the general Hispanic and African American demographic. That is the reality.

If I'm confused, when do we use the firearms which we keep for protection? Who is it meant to protect.

If you are carrying a weapon and a bank is being robbed - should you use it if you get a clear shot? It isn't your home.

[Adrian II]

https://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9707/shootoutatlokhandwalasm4.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

[PanzerJaeger]

Also throw in the general Hispanic and African American demographic. That is the reality.



:quiet:

You'll scare the elephant.

[Ser Clegane]

If you are carrying a weapon and a bank is being robbed - should you use it if you get a clear shot? It isn't your home.

A bank robbery tends to be an armed robbery, i.e. victims are usually threatened with a gun - which is very different from a situation where burglars/thieves are in the process of leaving the scene with loot.
Apart from that the idea that you get a "clear shot" during a bank robbery (i.e. you can make absolutely sure that the robber is incapacitated and has no chance to harm bystanders before and after you make your shot) seems very hypothetical.

BTW, where I live people working at a bank are strongly encouraged to simply hand over the money and to only activate the silent alarm - instead of trying to play the hero.

[Goofball]

And by the way, TSMcG, I have been burgled. Twice from my car and once from my house. And I have not the slightest desire to kill the people who did it.Are you essentially saying that you prefer being burgled to defending your property and those within it by use of deadly force?

Maybe if you did you could avoid a third time?

I don't have kids and don't live with my girlfriend, so my responses would be different from someone else's. I would risk my life to kill criminals. Call me crazy, but I'm sure my plans would change if there were kids or loved ones in the house.

(bold added by me)

No, that's not what I'm saying. And you have tried to do yet again what the "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" faction has been trying to do this whole thread: make it about a guy defending his life instead of a guy defending his lawn.

If somebody broke into my house when I was there with my family, I would use every means of violence at my disposal, up to and including tactical nukes, to drive them away or kill them if they wouldn't leave, because I would be in fear of my family's safety. But when they were already on the run and the danger had passed, I would call the police, then lock myself in with my family and make sure my kids weren't too freaked out. I wouldn't leave my family cowering in the house while I chased the crooks down the street with guns blazing.


Think about it - if you kill them, you could save the people in the next houses they hit in the case it went bad.

Sure. Makes sense. Know what else makes sense? According to conservatives, pot smoking eventually leads to heroin use. Which invariably leads to burglary to support the heroin habit. So why not also make it legal to gun down high school kids if you happen to see them smoking pot while playing hack in the park?

That would also save good honest homeowners from future burglaries gone bad.

Sure, there's a small chance the kids would have "survived" their brush with canabis to go on and be productive and law abiding citizens, but why take that chance?

By the way, I notice that you completely ignored my question about the soccer mom transporting stolen goods across my lawn.

What's the matter? Couldn't find an answer that supported your "If they're doing something illegal, then they deserve to get blown away" philosophy?

:idea2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Life, Liberty, and Property are not separate rights, but facets of the same inalienable right.

To defend one's own property IS to defend one's self.

The legalized inability to defend one's property is tyranny.

The criminals involved had their own right to life and property, but not at the expense of another's right. In attempting to contravene another's right to his property, they put their own rights in abeyance. When confronted, had they put down the man's personal property and exited his real property promptly, then the shotgunner would have been wrong to kill them.

The failure to defend one's property, or for the state to abet and condone such defense, is a means to chaos.

[HoreTore]

BTW, where I live people working at a bank are strongly encouraged to simply hand over the money and to only activate the silent alarm - instead of trying to play the hero.

That's the ROE of everyone except army personnel and in a few cases the police in this country. Give the guy with the weapon what he wants as quickly as possible, so that he leaves as soon as possible. Do not risk life or health over material stuff.

I'd hit a boss who told me to put my life at risk to protect a few thousand bucks.

[ICantSpellDawg]

(bold

What's the matter? Couldn't find an answer that supported your "If they're doing something illegal, then they deserve to get blown away" philosophy?

:idea2:

You can try to knock her out.

I once worked at a CD store. A guy stole some dvds and jumped over an old lady to leave the store.

Me and another worker took off after him, punched him in the face and when he got into his car we started choking him and punching him in the face further. He backed the car out as fast as he could and ran me over with his open car door. In the process, his door flipped to the front of his car, totally ruining his car. He screamed and cursed us for destroying his car and threatened to sue as he rode away... I was lying on my stomach in the road.

Needless to say by destroying his car we exacted payment for the stolen videos. That is justice, letting him get away without a pound of flesh (or car) is cowardice. There was no legal action and that giant baby was never heard from again by our store.

Escalation can work out quite well. I figure that I can die in a car accident or from a disease - I may as well die exacting revenge or preventing a crime is all im saying. The judicial system is for cowards and people with families. Let us singles sort out things while we are single. Maximum justice for minimum risk.


That's the ROE of everyone except army personnel and in a few cases the police in this country. Give the guy with the weapon what he wants as quickly as possible, so that he leaves as soon as possible. Do not risk life or health over material stuff.

I'd hit a boss who told me to put my life at risk to protect a few thousand bucks.



Never give a man with a weapon what he wants. What is your life worth? I'm really upset with you guys. Can't you at least pretend not to be cowards? This is a website for craps sake, not even the real deal. ( I don't think you are a coward, goofball)

If the guy kills or critically wounds me he goes to jail for life, If I kill or critically wound him, there is still justice. Its all about turning up the heat and making them regret their decisions.

We live once - die the way you want to.

[Goofball]

Life, Liberty, and Property are not separate rights, but facets of the same inalienable right.

To defend one's own property IS to defend one's self.

The legalized inability to defend one's property is tyranny.

The criminals involved had their own right to life and property, but not at the expense of another's right. In attempting to contravene another's right to his property, they put their own rights in abeyance. When confronted, had they put down the man's personal property and exited his real property promptly, then the shotgunner would have been wrong to kill them.

The failure to defend one's property, or for the state to abet and condone such defense, is a means to chaos.

Chalk one vote up for blowing away the shoplifting soccer mom.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Chalk one vote up for blowing away the shoplifting soccer mom.

Hahaha. I'm sure that hardly anybody would do that. You would have to be dealing with somebody who was totally insane (and awesome) to react so fast that he could not only have known what was going on, gotten a weapon and decided that a middle aged woman who was fleeing with stockings was an imminent threat and a target for deadly justice.

You are comparing 2 immigrant black guys who were breaking into a home in broad daylight and did not respond to a weapon held by a neighbor with a soccer mom mall shoplifter. If you think that comparison is appropriate, I'll disagree.

[Ser Clegane]

If you think that comparison is appropriate, I'll disagree.

Why? Are you a coward who is not willing to sacrifice a soccer mom on the altar of "justice"? ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why? Are you a coward who is not willing to sacrifice a soccer mom on the altar of "justice"? ~;)

Of course not! Alright, fine - i'd kill her. You've talked me into it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Chalk one vote up for blowing away the shoplifting soccer mom.

You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer.

In your scenario, I certainly wouldn't even consider it. However, if I came across two thieves on my own property and one of them started to run towards me, things may change.

The two opposing extremes examined in this thread are only two of countless situations where one would have to make those decisions.

In other words, trying to claim that anyone who isn't completely opposed to using deadly force would gladly kill a soccor mom in cold blood is... well.. not helpful.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer.

In your scenario, I certainly wouldn't even consider it. However, if I came across two thieves on my own property and one of them started to run towards me, things may change.

The two opposing extremes examined in this thread are only two of countless situations where one would have to make those decisions.

In other words, trying to claim that anyone who isn't completely opposed to using deadly force would gladly kill a soccor mom in cold blood is... well.. not helpful.

Murderer.

[Tribesman]

I was lying on my stomach in the road.

Well boo hoo for you , Its lucky it wasn't some poor old granny run down by this thief simply for being behind the car while you are trying to play the hero for a few dollars worth of crap .

Escalation can work out quite well.Escalation can work out really bad , thats why the police and bank staff are trained to not bloody escalate the situation:dizzy2:


I may as well die exacting revenge or preventing a crime is all im saying.
Build yourself a batcave or take your superhero crap back to the costume shop

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well boo hoo for you , Its lucky it wasn't some poor old granny run down by this thief simply for being behind the car while you are trying to play the hero for a few dollars worth of crap .
Escalation can work out really bad , thats why the police and bank staff are trained to not bloody escalate the situation:dizzy2:


Build yourself a batcave or take your superhero crap back to the costume shop

No chance, Euro bed-wetting types. I burst my pimples at you and call your batcave request a silly thing, you tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!

You are just jealous that I am some sort of mini punisher and you are a coward who sprinkles his own pants.

I wave my private parts at your aunties, you cheesy lot of second hand electric donkey-bottom biters.

[HoreTore]

What is your life worth?

A LOT more than what's in a cash register.

[Goofball]

You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer.

In your scenario, I certainly wouldn't even consider it. However, if I came across two thieves on my own property and one of them started to run towards me, things may change.

The two opposing extremes examined in this thread are only two of countless situations where one would have to make those decisions.

In other words, trying to claim that anyone who isn't completely opposed to using deadly force would gladly kill a soccor mom in cold blood is... well.. not helpful.

PJ, sometimes i could just give you a big hug. The first sentence of your post above is exactly what I was trying to get at when I started posting in this thread:

"You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer."

Which is vastly different from the black and white, no room for argument "if they are breaking the law they deserve to be shot and killed" argument that was being made from the outset of the thread.

I would submit that in this case, even by the shooter's own after the fact admission, he made an extremely poor judgement call when dealing with this situation. He got a bad case of something just about every hunter has experienced at one time or another: buck fever. Unfortunately, the consequences in this case were not a gut-shot deer that dragged itself away into the bush to die in agony, but two human beings who died when they shouldn't have.

[Tribesman]

You are just jealous that I am some sort of mini punisher :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Well what can I say to that . Have you ever thought of going to Oz Tuff , the scarecrow got sorted , perhaps the wizard can fix you up with one too:yes:

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ, sometimes i could just give you a big hug. The first sentence of your post above is exactly what I was trying to get at when I started posting in this thread:

"You have to deal with each situation separately, of course. There's no absolute answer."

Which is vastly different from the black and white, no room for argument "if they are breaking the law they deserve to be shot and killed" argument that was being made from the outset of the thread.

I would submit that in this case, even by the shooter's own after the fact admission, he made an extremely poor judgement call when dealing with this situation. He got a bad case of something just about every hunter has experienced at one time or another: buck fever. Unfortunately, the consequences in this case were not a gut-shot deer that dragged itself away into the bush to die in agony, but two human beings who died when they shouldn't have.


:knuddel:

Since I was one of those who said they deserved it, allow me to clarify a bit. I think there may be some common ground around here somewhere.

In my opinion, the responsibility for these men’s deaths lies directly with them and no one else. Through a series of decisions made of their own volition under no duress, they chose a path that led them into a situation where there was a reasonable expectation of serious bodily harm or even death; much the same as if they had entered a home to an awaiting Doberman with a taste for human flesh.

However, and here’s where we may agree, I don’t think it was a necessary action. I certainly wouldn’t have gone out of my home (don’t care about my neighbor’s crap), and I agree that the man’s emotions got the better of him. Not sure about anyone else on this side of the coin, but killing someone – even justifiably – is not my idea of a good time, and I don’t support vigilante justice.

Regardless, the old man with the shotgun was merely an effect - not the cause. If an individual takes up a life of crime and ends up on the wrong end of a shotgun due to their decision, they deserve to be there - and that was my point.

[Lemur]

No chance, Euro bed-wetting types. I burst my pimples at you and call your batcave request a silly thing, you tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!

You are just jealous that I am some sort of mini punisher and you are a coward who sprinkles his own pants.

I wave my private parts at your aunties, you cheesy lot of second hand electric donkey-bottom biters.
I know, I know, TSM's post bears more than a minor debt to Holy Grail, but still -- this is a brilliant moment. It's writing like this that keeps me coming back to the org long after i have given up every other message board. bravo, good sir, bravo!

[HoreTore]

Not sure about anyone else on this side of the coin, but killing someone – even justifiably – is not my idea of a good time, and I don’t support vigilante justice.

Someone should call Hell and ask for ice; PJ and I agree(at least mostly) in a gun thread!

[PanzerJaeger]

Someone should call Hell and ask for ice; PJ and I agree(at least mostly) in a gun thread!

die commie scum!!! :hmg:




~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know, I know, TSM's post bears more than a minor debt to Holy Grail, but still -- this is a brilliant moment. It's writing like this that keeps me coming back to the org long after i have given up every other message board. bravo, good sir, bravo!

;-)

[KukriKhan]

Yes, but:

Let us not get out-of-hand in the personal insult department, regardless the cleverness of the writing.

-----------------------
Filed under the "I wish" folder:

-I wish the shooter had not shot the guys in the back. That's not 'the cowboy way', and he knows it. "Buck fever", indeed.

-I wish the Grand Jury & Prosecutor had filed charges of at least "public endangerment", so that the good people of Texas could scrutinize the case particulars. They've (Texans) been denied that due process, IMO. If I had pulled the trigger (even if I believed it a righteous shoot), I would expect no less.

[atheotes]

hmm... I can see where the "they were thieves so they deserved it" people are coming from... but somehow i keep wondering if it could have been handled differently... if Mr. Horn just didnt want them to get away couldnt he have just fired a warning shot or tried to shoot them in the legs...

p.s. i have never used a firearm and do not know how much more difficult it is to shoot at the legs of running man... also i am asking this because in India the police are by rule asked to required to fire a warning shot and then try to shoot at the legs unless they are in danger of losing their lives...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

if Mr. Horn just didnt want them to get away couldnt he have just fired a warning shot or tried to shoot them in the legs...

I'm fairly sure he did shout a warning.


p.s. i have never used a firearm and do not know how much more difficult it is to shoot at the legs of running man...

...with a shotgun. ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

p.s. i have never used a firearm and do not know how much more difficult it is to shoot at the legs of running man... also i am asking this because in India the police are by rule asked to required to fire a warning shot and then try to shoot at the legs unless they are in danger of losing their lives...

Just lead him a little bit more than you would a walking man...

[PanzerJaeger]

p.s. i have never used a firearm and do not know how much more difficult it is to shoot at the legs of running man... also i am asking this because in India the police are by rule asked to required to fire a warning shot and then try to shoot at the legs unless they are in danger of losing their lives...

Really? That is a really strange requirement.

Warning shots are extremely dangerous, as what goes up must come down… somewhere. The results of errant shooting are constantly demonstrated in the arab world. Also, attempting to shoot at someone’s legs with a pistol at anything other than very close range presents the same issues, especially in the chaotic situations that shootings often take place in. It’s a little easier with a shotgun, and the short range usually makes collateral damage unlikely, but the risk is always present. Accurate shooting under pressure is definitely nothing like Hollywood portrays.

I was taught to only draw if I intended to kill, and only to kill if my life was at imminent risk. If you’re firing warning shots and leg shots and all that cowboy crap, you probably shouldn’t be shooting at all – just like dude in the story.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Really? That is a really strange requirement.

The results of errant shooting are constantly demonstrated in the arab world.



I love it when they fire AK-47's inside of the fuselage of an airborne jet. Totally hilarious for an exceedingly short period of time..

[HoreTore]

Really? That is a really strange requirement.

It's the same here, and also what I was told to do in the army.

[PanzerJaeger]

I love it when they fire AK-47's inside of the fuselage of an airborne jet. Totally hilarious for an exceedingly short period of time..

:laugh4:

Everytime I see them on TV "celebrating" with their AK's the latest building they blew up or whatever other monkey antics they've got going on, I think to myself: "Abdullah a couple blocks over is about to have a really bad day.. "

[Tribesman]

Yeah well its different over there , the warning shot is puting 50 bullets into a bloke as a warning because ..well because maybe he has a gun .

[atheotes]

Really? That is a really strange requirement.

Warning shots are extremely dangerous, as what goes up must come down… somewhere. The results of errant shooting are constantly demonstrated in the arab world. Also, attempting to shoot at someone’s legs with a pistol at anything other than very close range presents the same issues, especially in the chaotic situations that shootings often take place in. It’s a little easier with a shotgun, and the short range usually makes collateral damage unlikely, but the risk is always present. Accurate shooting under pressure is definitely nothing like Hollywood portrays.

I was taught to only draw if I intended to kill, and only to kill if my life was at imminent risk. If you’re firing warning shots and leg shots and all that cowboy crap, you probably shouldn’t be shooting at all – just like dude in the story.

Thanks for the explanation Panzer... not sure how strange the requirement is...but there is not a lot of shootings in India... and to me it feels right that they should not be killing the running thief/burglar at the first possible instant.

[PanzerJaeger]

It's the same here, and also what I was told to do in the army.

:dizzy2:

Do the authorities not realize how far a bullet can fly and still be lethal.

[Lemur]

I was taught to only draw if I intended to kill, and only to kill if my life was at imminent risk. If you’re firing warning shots and leg shots and all that cowboy crap, you probably shouldn’t be shooting at all – just like dude in the story.
Police are trained differently from your average civilian self-defense course. Their function is different, so their training is different. This is a basic problem when people think, for example, that soldiers and police are interchangeable.

If a civilian draws a gun, he'd better be ready to use it. I can think of a number of situations in which a cop would draw a gun with only a marginal possibility of firing it. Heck, I've seen a couple of those situations.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that it's perfectly understandable for a police officer to give some sort of warning before firing on a suspect. Not sure that a "warning shot" is the best possible solution, but it's not completely absurd, either.

[PanzerJaeger]

Police are trained differently from your average civilian self-defense course. Their function is different, so their training is different. This is a basic problem when people think, for example, that soldiers and police are interchangeable.

If a civilian draws a gun, he'd better be ready to use it. I can think of a number of situations in which a cop would draw a gun with only a marginal possibility of firing it. Heck, I've seen a couple of those situations.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that it's perfectly understandable for a police officer to give some sort of warning before firing on a suspect. Not sure that a "warning shot" is the best possible solution, but it's not completely absurd, either.

Very true. Drawing is far different than shooting, though. Police definitely draw their weapons quite a bit, but it would be interesting to see if warning shots are SOP in some of these larger urban areas. I know here in Memphis the cops are trained not to do that.

[HoreTore]

Do the authorities not realize how far a bullet can fly and still be lethal.

I'd say about..... 5 metres?

Warning shots aren't fired up in the air, you know.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'd say about..... 5 metres?

Warning shots aren't fired up in the air, you know.

Physics must work differently up there. In any event, I'd hate to be in front of someone firing a warning shot onto a city street.

[HoreTore]

Physics must work differently up there. In any event, I'd hate to be in front of someone firing a warning shot onto a city street.

Well where I was standing guard there was a mud road, so they should be safe enough....

And remember that cops aren't allowed to carry firearms in this country.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well where I was standing guard there was a mud road, so they should be safe enough....

And remember that cops aren't allowed to carry firearms in this country.

Oh, ok. I didn't know that. :oops:

[Sarmatian]

Well where I was standing guard there was a mud road, so they should be safe enough....

And remember that cops aren't allowed to carry firearms in this country.

They throw their baton in the air instead :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Shooting downwards is not always as safe as you might think (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/20/national/a185930D55.DTL&hw=shooting&sn=023&sc=592).


A 25-year-old man pleaded not guilty to reckless endangerment after shooting into a lake in the direction of a campground, not realizing his bullets were bouncing off the water and forcing campers to seek cover, authorities said.

CR

[KukriKhan]

Shooting downwards is not always as safe as you might think (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/20/national/a185930D55.DTL&hw=shooting&sn=023&sc=592).

Shooting into the ground is still SOP here in San Diego County with the PD's, after a couple of errant air-shots of warning in the early 80's (I'm told).

On "Interior Guard" at Ft Knox, '72 (non-combat zone), the Army called for an air-shot of warning with your sidearm, a three-second count, then engage the target, center-of-mass, with your main firearm (shotgun, M14 or M16, depending on what you were guarding) while yelling for the Commander of Relief. I wonder if that has changed.

Note: I never had opportunity to employ that SOP; my guard duty there was remarkably unremarkable.