I Told Ya So: Texas Man Cleared for Killing Burglars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Unfortunatley they did, once upon a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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...?

Maybe he was hoping to avoid something like this.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

They were on his property with stolen goods.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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

---

No, they were on his property. Read up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Looking at these statistics 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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Looking at these statistics 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.

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

* Your Country Sucks

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That's 175 burglaries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005 in Norway, against 750 for the same year in the United States.

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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

---

They were on his front lawn.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

NEIGHBORHOOD SUPERHERO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That's 175 burglaries per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005 in Norway, against 750 for the same year in the United States.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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...

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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 ~;)

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

*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.

https://img329.imageshack.us/img329/...andwalasm4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

:quiet:

You'll scare the elephant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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"? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What is your life worth?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

---

die commie scum!!! :hmg:




~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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!

---

;-)

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atheotes

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.

Quote:

---

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. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atheotes

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atheotes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Really? That is a really strange requirement.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.. "

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.