As in: the Lemur who was right after all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Printable View
As in: the Lemur who was right after all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Listen to the audio or read about the police eyewitness to the actual shooting and it might answer your question:idea2:Quote:
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?
And as I was saying... sometimes the law is wrong, and needs to be reformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
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...
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 robbersQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
A Texan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
From the reading, it looks like they were simply on the phone.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:unbelievable:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
From the reading, it looks like they were simply on the phone.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Given that he killed both of them - chances are his aim was good enough with the shotgun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
"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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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...
Pissing in your pants ain't looked to kindly 'round these parts...Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
Bang!!!
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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
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.
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:
Came for the Texas + Guns story, stayed for the Dave and Lemur Show.
:balloon2:
Or you could just tell me in the same amount of time that it takes for you to try to be glib.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
That seems a bit circular, but fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend_Joe
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
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.
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.
Been celebrating Canada Day as well, GoreBag? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Man könnte's sagen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
How many shootings and violent robberies are reported to have taken place just in Houston this past week Rabbit .Quote:
And the BBC wonders why America is such a tranquil place.
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?
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.
They totally deserved it. :yes:Quote:
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.
Don't you believe in personal responsibility?
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger