Quote :

"well its clear some people in this thread realize the state of the criminal injustice system, and other people are clueless"

yep criminals, like the ones you described, get away with shit all time.

doesn't mean everyday citizen joe gets a license to kill.

just so we're CRYSTAL CLEAR, tree.

if he was truly defending his property, i am 100% totally okay the outcome. so stop misrepresenting shit

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 5:40 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 5:39:34 PM

Quote :

"criminals, like the ones you described, get away with shit all time"

and some people dont like the fact that their property that they worked hard for can get so easily stolen, and then the cops dont give a fuck and dont do shit about it...i dunno, most people think that seems unfair...but i guess the law is the law!

12/3/2007 5:42:08 PM

I really can't see being charged with anything if I armed myself and confronted someone who was breaking into my neighbor's house. If they did file a charge it would probably be "brandishing a weapon" or something minor like that. Personally, I think the guy had every right to confront them. What happens next is up to the robbers.

If they ran away he had no right to shoot. If they stopped he had no right to shoot. If they came at him I think he should be within his rights to shoot. It'll be up to the court system to decide if my assessment is true.

12/3/2007 6:00:51 PM

i concur with all of that.

12/3/2007 6:15:57 PM

12/3/2007 6:20:08 PM

Quote :

"On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone. "Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again. "

That's fucking hardcore. Two parasites of society down for the count

12/3/2007 6:40:43 PM

uh, yeah, THAT scenario sounds defensible

12/3/2007 6:44:03 PM

^
^^

You can listen to the full 911 call. Someone linked to it on Pg 1.

12/3/2007 6:51:18 PM

Just listened to the 911 call. The officers were literally seconds away from the scene when the guy shot them. It's a good thing the 911 operator informed him to put the gun down and that the officers wouldn't be uniformed. He'd be in a lot more trouble (or dead) if the officers had come upon the scene with his gun out.

12/3/2007 7:17:42 PM

I don't suppose everyone could just calm down and let the prosecutors/police decide what to do this?

12/3/2007 7:19:52 PM

^^
The officer told him to get down, and it sounded like he yelled "no" at them.

And, for this guy at least, I stand by my statement that:

Quote :

""Gun owners live for the opportunity to shoot people""

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 7:44 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2007 7:43:41 PM

Quote :

"for this guy at least"

way to make a blanket statement about millions of people based on your opinion of "this guy"

12/3/2007 7:54:33 PM

Quote :

"if this is the case, he should definitely be prosecuted for murder you can't run up on criminals trying to be billy-badass citizen cop and not expect there to be some sort of confrontation where you may be threatened and feel you need to shoot people "

Do people have the right to confront a criminal they catch in the act of committing a crime?

Quote :

"unfortunately the story we have so far doesnt mention whether or not either of the robbers had a weapon...i think thats an important piece of information"

One of them at least had a crowbar.

Quote :

"you have to have more sense than that. pick up a phone, call the cops, get a tag #. lock your door, protect your family. stop trying to be dog the bounty hunter. he handled the situation terribly. if he confronted the robbers with a gun, you could construe the situation as him threatened the robbers!"

So people have no right to stop a crime in progress?

Quote :

" what if the robbers were leaving the scene. no weapons but a crowbar. and dude ran up on them with a gun? what then "

What then is entirely up to the robbers at that point. If they drop everything, turn tail and run, and he shoots them in the back, then he is guilty (under current law, and only assuming they drop everything) of at least manslaughter. If they threaten and or attack him, any reasonable person would assume that someone who doesn't back down at the sight of a gun is intent on causing great bodily harm, and so self defense is in order.

Here is the relevant texas law, emphasis mine:

Quote :

"SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY § 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. § 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or (2) the actor reasonably believes that: (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property; (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994."

Quote :

"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again. ""

For what it's worth, most of the other news reports (and what I heard on the call) claim he said "Move, your dead" or something to that effect.

Quote :

"Just listened to the 911 call. The officers were literally seconds away from the scene when the guy shot them. It's a good thing the 911 operator informed him to put the gun down and that the officers wouldn't be uniformed. He'd be in a lot more trouble (or dead) if the officers had come upon the scene with his gun out."

Too bad (for the choir boys) the officers didn't get there a little earlier, it's a lot like that old joke about how some old guy keeps calling the cops saying someone's stealing his shit, and they never come, so finally he calls and says he's just killed the robbers and the cops are there in 2 minutes.

The really sad thing about all of this, is that, if he hadn't called 911 first, if he had instead heard them breaking in, walked outside to investigate, confronted them and shot them when they attacked him, and then called 911, this wouldn't even be real news. It's only because he called 911 first and tried to give the cops a chance to get there first (if a cop were calling for backup, does anyone think it would take 7 minutes for them to get there?) that this is news.

Lesson learned: Shoot the criminals first, then call 911.

what a screwed up lesson.

12/3/2007 7:56:51 PM

Quote :

"The full 911 call is online here: http://www.break.com/index/brave-neighbor-kills-2-robbers-911-call2.html some relevant law stuff here: http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=186267 "

That second link you have there frames the issue well, I think.

Quote :

"Legal opinions conflict Lambright contended that Horn was startled to find the burglars just 15 feet from his front door when he stepped onto his porch. "He was petrified at that point," the lawyer said. "You hear him say, 'I'll shoot. Stop!' They jumped. Joe thought they were coming for him. It's a self-defense issue." Attorneys and legal experts said Horn's defense probably will be based on state law that allows people to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property. "If you see someone stealing your neighbor's property, you can get involved and help to stop it," said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center. Others disagreed. The statutes that allow people to use deadly force to stop a burglary appear to require that the incident be occurring at night, said Craig Jett, a Dallas criminal defense attorney and president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association. "

I can see how someone can think it means only at night, but it doesn't seem that clear to me. I'm not use to reading legalese, but I think he'd be in the clear, the way the Texas law is written. Texas has some of the most permissive laws in the country though regarding this type of defense.

Quote :

" "Some people on the grand jury will sympathize with him," said Adam Gershowitz, a law professor at South Texas College of Law. "Maybe he shouldn't have done this, but he was acting in a way a lot of people feel." But that does not mean he won't be charged, Gershowitz added. "There's a reason we don't let people take the law into their own hands," he said. "We have a police force for that. As an established society, we believe we are better off with an authorized police force that has standards and training rather than untrained vigilantes." "

This is the core of the issue, I think, though. We have established rules in our society, and people must follow them for things to work well, especially when it comes to killing other people. At the very least, they have to make a show like they're considering serious punishments for this guy, but I highly doubt anything happens to him.

I think the 911 operator was valid to say though that no property is worth killing someone over. I do sympathize with Horn, but I also feel for the burglar's families as well.

12/3/2007 8:39:33 PM

as we discussed a couple weeks ago with the farmer who killed a guy with his car, caught stealing form him, the problem with vigilante justice is there is no clear line, and it is a slippery slope. The law in most states clearly defines that you are allowed to use deadly force when faced with a life-or-death situation for your or your family, or presumably for people surrounding you. That is clear and non-disputable. But if you are not faced with a life-or-death situation, or a situation where your or your family could be harmed, the line is just too fuzzy for normal people to just pick up guns and take the law into their own hands.

Look at this matrix that I just made up. On the left are actions you see occurring at a neighbors house. Across the top are actions you can take against the perpetrators. Police actions are clear in each of these situations. That's why we have the law, and they are sworn to uphold it. Private citizens? well.... you decide which boxes to check



[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 9:20 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 9:19:19 PM

Quote :

"I can see how someone can think it means only at night, but it doesn't seem that clear to me. I'm not use to reading legalese, but I think he'd be in the clear, the way the Texas law is written. "

Yeah, when they say at night, they are referring to 9.42.2a but I think if they intended to say that it only applied at night, they wouldn't have specified "during the nighttime" for two acts, but none of the others.

Quote :

"We have established rules in our society, and people must follow them for things to work well, especially when it comes to killing other people."

Right, rules like not breaking into people's houses. Sure, we have police to handle the law, but when the police aren't around, the people have the right, and I would say the responsibility to act in their stead whenever possible. We can prevent crime with more police or with more active citizens, and since everyone can't be a cop,active citizens seems like the best route.

Quote :

"I think the 911 operator was valid to say though that no property is worth killing someone over. "

Perhaps, but at the end of the day, it isn't Joe Horn that decided property was worth someone's life, it was the people who committed the crime in the first place.

It's also a really shitty way of framing the argument. That property represents some investment of money by it's owner, and most people get their money by working, which means that money represents some part of their lives that they can never get back. It's more than just property, it's your life, your blood and your sweat. It's also your sense of security and peace. So many people who have been robbed will tell you, it really wasn't the stuff they lost that bothered them the most, it was their loss of peace, of being able to sleep easy. How much is that worth to you?

Sure there are a hundred different things that could have happened differently. The cops could have showed up faster, Horn could have never seen them, they could have run away when he confronted them, he could have stayed inside, but there is only one thing that could have prevented EVERYTHING that happened that afternoon, and that would be if the criminals decided to stay home. In the end, they are the ones that decided to risk their lives, and they are dead because they decided that someone else's property was worth more than their life.

^ I fully support a criminal's right to a fair trial and do proper handling by the police. The problem is that the occupational hazard of being a thief is surviving long enough for the cops to show up.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 9:23 PM. Reason : edit]

12/3/2007 9:19:53 PM

Quote :

"Right, rules like not breaking into people's houses. Sure, we have police to handle the law, but when the police aren't around, the people have the right, and I would say the responsibility to act in their stead whenever possible. We can prevent crime with more police or with more active citizens, and since everyone can't be a cop,active citizens seems like the best route."

That make sense, but we also shouldn't let active citizens kill without some type of formal investigating process afterwards.

12/3/2007 9:34:29 PM

People should be able to defend themselves; their property; and their neighbors w/o having big brother slapping them in jail. The police can not be everywhere and the alternative is taking it in the ass from any thug that wants to come along and do harm to you or your community.

Quote :

"Look at this matrix that I just made up. On the left are actions you see occurring at a neighbors house. Across the top are actions you can take against the perpetrators. Police actions are clear in each of these situations. That's why we have the law, and they are sworn to uphold it. Private citizens? well.... you decide which boxes to check"

your matrix is flawed. swinging at them with a tire iron in my opinion escalates the situation a little more then pulling out your 9mm. Pulling out your gun is a threat to stop your unlawful actions and get the fuck out. If they ignore you then that is the fuzzy grey area of what you do. If they run off then fine you stopped the crime put your gun away. On the other hand if they make an aggressive move toward you or pull out their weapons then you have the right to defend yourself from bodily harm. On the other hand if you just go out swinging your tire iron at the thief taking the grill; you are escalating the situation to violence. Likely it will end worse for you b.c i am sure someone planning on burgularing a house is carrying something a little more dangerous then a tire iron.

The guy is a hero. When i was younger our deck furniture got stolen and our neighbor witnessed the whole thing. He did not even call 911 to report the larceny in progress. We found out about it b.c the wife heard this and got pissed off at her husband. She felt so bad she even replaced one of the benches with her own money. I hope most of you wouldn't be that DOUCHE that just chills. For a modern developed country our crime rate is relatively high. If the criminals had more to fear like getting a shotgun blast to the gut then perhaps crime against property would be lower.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 9:46 PM. Reason : k]

12/3/2007 9:42:44 PM

Quote :

"but we also shouldn't let active citizens kill without some type of formal investigating process afterwards."

yeah, that was my main point from the previous thread about the farmer killer guy. Even if you're 100% justified in killing someone, you must expect to be brought up on charges and face the law. If what you did was right or justified, then the charges will be dropped after investigation, you will be acquitted, or you will be guilty of something like voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, with no punishment associated with it.

Bottom line is - you kill someone, anyone, expect to face the law one way or another.

12/3/2007 9:44:03 PM

i'll agree; killing someone should not be taken lightly. There should be an investigation to ensure that the good Samaritan was in the right and to discourage people from just going around shotting others unless their damn sure something needs to be done.

12/3/2007 9:48:23 PM

Quote :

"People should be able to defend themselves; their property; and their neighbors w/o having big brother slapping them in jail. The police can not be everywhere and the alternative is taking it in the ass from any thug that wants to come along and do harm to you or your community. "

That's easy to say, but this obviously can't apply universally around the country.

Otherwise, you'd see a lot of gangs in cities claiming their activities are legit on the basis of them defending their family/property/neighbors.

12/3/2007 9:48:58 PM

Quote :

"your matrix is flawed. swinging at them with a tire iron in my opinion escalates the situation a little more then pulling out your 9mm. Pulling out your gun is a threat to stop your unlawful actions and get the fuck out."

that doesn't make the matrix flawed. It demonstrates the entire slippery slope concept of vigilante justice. What if the neighbor doesn't own a gun, but wants to do something? If he only has a tire-iron, which you seem to thing will only escalate the situation, should he now just not do anything?

Quote :

"People should be able to defend themselves; their property; and their neighbors w/o having big brother slapping them in jail."

that's not at issue. It is possible to face the law without being "slapped in jail". However, if you take another person's life, for whatever reason, you don't have the right to pull the "government big-brother, libertarian, keep your hands our of my life" bullshit. The government may meddle in people business too much in some situations, but investigating a situation where someone died is hardly Orwellian.

12/3/2007 9:50:00 PM

i should just go cower in fear in my closet when the gangster breaks into my house b.c using my gun will get me in trouble w/ the law

12/3/2007 9:55:01 PM

CLEARLY NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE SMART GUY

12/3/2007 9:56:43 PM

how did you go from ^^^^^, which was a perfectly rational and reasonable post, to ^^, which is a strawman and FUD?

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 9:57:28 PM

Quote :

"For a modern developed country our crime rate is relatively high."

We mostly match our peers:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

We're better than the UK, Finland, Denmark and New Zealand, but marginally worse than Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Norway, and France (a bit more than marginal for France).

Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Japan are much better than us, by this chart. Note this is all crimes, not just violent/gun crimes.

12/3/2007 10:00:02 PM

Quote :

"how did you go from ^^^^^, which was a perfectly rational and reasonable post, to ^^, which is a strawman and FUD"

TreeTwista10 is rubbing off on me.


^ Possibly for overall crime. For violent crime we are a whole level of magnitude higher.

12/3/2007 10:05:36 PM

Murder per Capita

Quote :

"#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people .... #40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people #43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people #46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people #51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people "

12/3/2007 10:10:43 PM

^
But those numbers correlate loosely to gun ownership rates of the developed countries (except for dirty Switzerland).

Percent of households that own guns
United States 1993 39 %
France 1994 22.6
Australia 1994 19.4
England/Wales 1992 4.7
Netherlands 1994 1.9

Statistically, it would seem more people with guns is not the answer. Perhaps we should embrace a culture less tolerant of needless killing? This doesn't mean ban guns, it means teach people not to want to use guns.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 10:15 PM. Reason : sizzource: http://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html]

12/3/2007 10:14:08 PM

Quote :

"Gun owners live for the opportunity to shoot people"

I'm a gun owner and I hope to God I never have to use it.

I listened to the 911 tape. Just going by that--If I was on Mr. Horn's jury, I would find him guilty of murder. I understand that the law changed in Texas where you can use deadly force to protect property.
This guy did not follow the instructions of the 911 operator. He should've stayed inside. Killing someone over property is wrong. I understand that property is the fruit of your hard work. But human life is more important..even when it's those two scumbags.

It seemed to me that this guy was looking to shoot those two no matter what. He put himself into the position of having those jerks go after him. His actions caused their action towards him.

12/3/2007 10:26:07 PM

Quote :

"yeah, that was my main point from the previous thread about the farmer killer guy. Even if you're 100% justified in killing someone, you must expect to be brought up on charges and face the law. If what you did was right or justified, then the charges will be dropped after investigation, you will be acquitted, or you will be guilty of something like voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, with no punishment associated with it. "

I agree there should always be an investigation, but no charges should be brought until the police think a crime has been committed. From beginning to end, you shouldn't have to prove your innocence, the state should have to prove your guilt.

Quote :

"This guy did not follow the instructions of the 911 operator. He should've stayed inside. Killing someone over property is wrong. "

He didn't have to listen to the 911 operator.

The relevant questions are:

1) Does a person have the right to confront a criminal who they catch in the act of committing a crime?

2) If a person does have that right, do they have the right to be as safe as possible while doing so?

3) Does a person have a right to defend themselves or their property from attack using force, up to and including deadly force?

Quote :

" I understand that property is the fruit of your hard work. But human life is more important..even when it's those two scumbags. "

Why is their life more important than his neighbor's? How much is a hour of your life worth to you? And remember that if they file an insurance claim to replace the stuff, their insurance rates go up, meaning for the rest of their life, they are paying for the crime committed against them. How much is an hour a day for the rest of your life worth?

Quote :

"It seemed to me that this guy was looking to shoot those two no matter what."

If that was the case, he would have shot them before calling 911. He wanted the cops to handle it, he gave them all the time he could to let the cops arrive. If officers were that close, why didn't the 911 operator tell him that? This guy honestly thought these criminals were going to get away with his neighbor's stuff and that the cops were not there to catch them. By law he can, and it was at that point which he did.

Quote :

"He put himself into the position of having those jerks go after him. His actions caused their action towards him."

And their initial actions of committing a crime caused his actions towards them. They made the decision to bet their life, and they lost the bet. Like I said, only one choice could have prevented everything that day, and the criminals made the wrong choice.

12/3/2007 10:53:12 PM

Quote :

"Statistically, it would seem more people with guns is not the answer. Perhaps we should embrace a culture less tolerant of needless killing? This doesn't mean ban guns, it means teach people not to want to use guns. "

This is an illusory correlation. A lot of the violent crimes are a result of the War on Drugs not b.c of the drugs the War tries to fight. The people committing a lot of these violent crimes would still have guns regardless if they were legal or not. While Sally Sue and her adulterous lover might not get a shotgun blast when her enraged drunk b/f catches them. Jose, however, running the cocaine shipment from I95 to NYC will likely still be packing heat.

12/3/2007 11:17:55 PM

Quote :

"Does a person have the right to confront a criminal who they catch in the act of committing a crime?"

You do not have any obligation to protect someone else's property.

Quote :

"Why is their life more important than his neighbor's? ..their insurance rates go up,."

His neighbor's life was not in danger. He confronted them in the front yard while they were escaping. And are you saying that killing two people to keep your neighbor's insurance rate from increasing is OK?

Quote :

"And their initial actions of committing a crime caused his actions towards them"

Deadly force should only be used in your self-defense. Their actions did not require his involvement. He has no duty to protect his neighbor's stereo.

What if the neighbor didn't want anyone killed over his property? What if he would've rather let them take it, rather than see them dead. Now he has to live with the fact that two people are dead because of his X-Box.

12/4/2007 12:05:10 AM

Quote :

"Deadly force should only be used in your self-defense. Their actions did not require his involvement. He has no duty to protect his neighbor's stereo. What if the neighbor didn't want anyone killed over his property? What if he would've rather let them take it, rather than see them dead. Now he has to live with the fact that two people are dead because of his X-Box."

that is a good point


but seriously OMFG what has humanity come to people getting shot while in the process of stealing the hard earned property of someone else boohoo

12/4/2007 12:35:15 AM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10 is rubbing off on me."

you have such soft skin

12/4/2007 1:32:40 AM

Quote :

"that is a good point but seriously OMFG what has humanity come to people getting shot while in the process of stealing the hard earned property of someone else boohoo"

You've made your point.

You think it's ridiculous that people would protest the killing of two burglars.

Anything more to add?

Or are you going to do like you did in the McDonald's thread and keep bringing the obnoxious?

Maybe we should change the topic of this thread. Like, maybe we can discuss the fact that people can fucking protest almost any time they feel like it and for whatever reason, regardless of what some dude miles away from the event thinks.

Seriously, anything more to add?

And before you answer, consider the chances that you may want to add an offensive impersonation of the protesters later. If you can somehow mention rims, you'll be rounding out your typical contribution to the Soap Box. Perhaps you can squeeze in another Al Sharpton reference for good measure.

12/4/2007 4:13:15 AM

didn't read this whole thread, but:

Quote :

"But, in general, if someone shoots someone, they should be charged, and cleared if they didn't do anything wrong."

that is one of the most fucking retarded things I've seen posted here in a while. In addition to being completely illegal, it's not even remotely sensible or just. It reeks of an emotional response characteristic of a dumber than average middle schooler, rather than anything remotely resembling a rational and well-thought out position.

Quote :

"I really can't see being charged with anything if I armed myself and confronted someone who was breaking into my neighbor's house. If they did file a charge it would probably be "brandishing a weapon" or something minor like that. Personally, I think the guy had every right to confront them. What happens next is up to the robbers. If they ran away he had no right to shoot. If they stopped he had no right to shoot. If they came at him I think he should be within his rights to shoot me they would be two dead motherfuckers who bought it fair and square.. It'll be up to the court system to decide if my assessment is true."

concur

Quote :

""if this is the case, he should definitely be prosecuted for murder you can't run up on criminals trying to be billy-badass citizen cop and not expect there to be some sort of confrontation where you may be threatened and feel you need to shoot people"

Well no shit, that's why he went armed when he confronted the criminals. I don't know what happened that day, and the transcript of the 911 call makes this particular incident sound questionable, but I would have no problem with him going to stop the burglary--and of course it would only be reasonable to be armed if you were going to do so. If he was reasonably threatened by the culprits, I don't see the problem with responding with deadly force.

Nothing in what you're describing even loosely meets the definition for murder.

Quote :

"One letter to the Houston Chronicle said, "He didn't shoot them in the legs, to make sure they did not run away, or hold them at gunpoint until police arrived. No, he was judge, jury and executioner.""

this quote from an article bugs me, too.

You do not shoot people in the legs. It's bad for a couple of reasons tactically, and it's actually bad legally for the reason that the law often takes the stance that if you only needed to kneecap him, it wasn't bad enough that you needed to shoot him to begin with. No, if you are going to shoot someone, you need to aim for center of mass. Also, as the saying goes in the USMC...bullets are cheap--lives are expensive. Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Quote :

"the protests are stupid and in general I support his actions but... this is the same incident where the 911 operator EXPLICITLY told him not to interfere i can see why people are upset"

The 911 operator carries no more weight than John Doe off the street, though.

Quote :

"Realistically, there's no information in the article to indicate what they're doing. We're only presuming they were there to burgle because the article asserts they were suspected burglars. I have no reason to believe that Horn is completely in the clear, or the the suspected black guys did anything wrong, or vice versa, from any actual information presented in this thread. It seems to me a lot of you are leaping to conclusions about what was going on, on the basis of an old white guy shooting 2 young black guys (with Spanish-y names). If anything, this bias lends some credence to the protesters saying Horn should be charged."

I think that while nothing is set in stone from what we know, you are the one who is stretching things and grasping at straws.

Quote :

"that doesn't mean that Horn shouldn't have to face the legal system, which should also exonerate him if he didn't do anything wrong."

Sure, but that doesn't mean to charge him or try him! Not unless it appears that a crime was committed, at least. That's like saying that you should be charged with rape just because you boned some strange from the bar--if the trial reveals that it was consensual, then we'll let it slide.

No thanks.

Quote :

"Gun owners live for the opportunity to shoot people, and we just have to encourage them to keep thinking rationally"

I don't think that statement is accurate at ALL about the vast majority of gun owners.

I'll bite, though. I'm 100% cool with killing people who deserve it. It's one of the biggest reasons I'm in the line of work I'm in--making the world a better place by offing shitheads who are determined to fuck it up for innocents (it's my contribution to humanity). It's not something I expect most people to have the sort of affinity for as I do, but that doesn't make people like me monsters. Properly tempered and ethically restrained, I think it's a great asset.

I wouldn't have the heart to kill anyone over a burglary (although I can see myself confronting them--armed, of course). If they threatened me or anyone else, though, it would be all over.


all of that said, they

Quote :

"if he saw two robbers robbing his neighbor, then they crossed over his lawn, he grabbed a gun, and went out to confront them, he's just as deserving of being shot as they are"

What the fuck kind of warped sense of right and wrong (or lack thereof) is this shit? You're saying that you deserve to get shot for trying to do the right thing, help your neighbor out, and stop a crime?

Oh, wait--it's because a gun was involved, and your blind-ass irrational hatred takes over and prevents any sort of rational thought from prevailing.

Quote :

"what if the robbers were leaving the scene. no weapons but a crowbar. and dude ran up on them with a gun? what then"

Uhh, I'd shoot him. Twice.

Maybe 3 times.

Quote :

"more like, siding with the rule of law. you can't run-up on people and cap them. end of story. if it turns out the robbers threatened him, on his property, before any attempted intervention by the man, then he would be in the right."

Familiarize yourself with the Rule Of Law in the State of Texas. Unfortunately for you, I think you'll find that it will quite inconveniently not mesh with your opinions on the matter.

(Also, I'll spell this out for you: I'm asserting that you aren't of that opinion because you're trying to be some great champion of the Rule Of Law. You have your opinion, and are looking for ways to justify it.)

Quote :

" I fully support a criminal's right to a fair trial and do proper handling by the police. The problem is that the occupational hazard of being a thief is surviving long enough for the cops to show up"

Exactly.

Quote :

"That make sense, but we also shouldn't let active citizens kill without some type of formal investigating process afterwards."

Sure, but as far as I've ever seen, we pretty much don't. That formal investigation can be of varying depth and, well, formality, but it's not like we just look the other way.

Quote :

"Even if you're 100% justified in killing someone, you must expect to be brought up on charges and face the law."

No, Mike Nifong!

What the fuck??

This is not how our criminal justice system works. You are brought up on charges if they reasonably have a case that you broke the law. You don't charge someone with a crime for the purpose of investigating him.

Quote :

"You do not have any obligation to protect someone else's property."

Of course you don't, but that's not what he was asking.

Quote :

"Deadly force should only be used in your self-defense."

What about in defense of another person?

Quote :

"If you can somehow mention rims, you'll be rounding out your typical contribution to the Soap Box."

haha

12/4/2007 4:45:56 AM

I basically agree with Duke, though I don't think killing in self-defense should ever be celebrated.

"Those jackass criminals got they the deserved."

No thanks. I'll never agree with that sentiment. Using potentially lethal methods in defense is only acceptable because they're currently the most effective way to stop a person. If we had phasers set on stun, that would be ideal.

I can't believe I didn't notice the reference to shooting for the legs earlier. Why does that argument continue to be voiced? We don't have aimbots yet, folks.

EDIT: I just listened to that phone call, and it's a bit absurd. It sounds very much as if he simply wanted to shoot them and then finally did so. Did they actually threaten him?

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 10:44 AM. Reason : phone call]

12/4/2007 10:38:15 AM

GoldenViper what do you think those criminals deserved? A short prison sentence paid for by you and me, followed by parole and more people getting more stuff stolen?

You do the crime, you might do the time, or get killed...its part of the game, they know the risks and they break into peoples' houses anyway

12/4/2007 10:45:57 AM

Quote :

"Does a person have the right to confront a criminal who they catch in the act of committing a crime?"

I feel you don't have a right to initiate force upon someone who is not initiating force on you. If he had walked out there with his shotgun and pointed out that robbery is illegal..and they rushed him-- that would be a different story. But he went out there shouted "Bang you're dead" and started firing.

Quote :

"What about in defense of another person?"

No problem with that.

12/4/2007 10:49:00 AM

Quote :

"GoldenViper what do you think those criminals deserved? A short prison sentence paid for by you and me, followed by parole and more people getting more stuff stolen?"

Considering the conditions in our prisons, that would also be too harsh.

Quote :

"But he went out there shouted "Bang you're dead" and started firing."

Yeah, what the hell was that? I almost have trouble believing that phone call is real. Who says that?

12/4/2007 10:51:56 AM

Quote :

"and they rushed him-- that would be a different story. But he went out there shouted "Bang you're dead" and started firing. "

you don't know that.


btw good going old guy. two thugs off the street.

12/4/2007 10:55:11 AM

Quote :

"you don't know that"

From the 911 tape...

Horn: I'm gonna kill'em. They're gittin away

911 guy: Don't worry. Property's not worth killing someone over. Don't go outside"

Horn: Sorry buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going


Upon closer listening, it seems to me that Horn yells. "Move...you're dead" and then you instantly hear the first shotgun blast.

12/4/2007 11:18:07 AM

Quote :

"btw good going old guy. two thugs off the street."

That's a load of shit.

12/4/2007 11:20:51 AM

Quote :

"You do not have any obligation to protect someone else's property. "

I didn't ask that. I asked if you had a right to stop a crime you witness if it is within your power to do so, and you feel so compelled?

Quote :

"His neighbor's life was not in danger. He confronted them in the front yard while they were escaping. And are you saying that killing two people to keep your neighbor's insurance rate from increasing is OK?"

Killing two people to keep your neighbors insurance from going up is not ok. However, if in the process of committing a crime, two criminals decide to attack the man confronting them with a shotgun, yes, killing them is ok.

Again, do you have the right to confront a criminal?

If so, do you have the right to do so as safely as possible?

everything after that is up to the criminal.

Quote :

" Deadly force should only be used in your self-defense."

He confronted them, they attacked. Sounds like self defense to me.

Quote :

"Their actions did not require his involvement. He has no duty to protect his neighbor's stereo. "

But does he have the right to stop a crime?

Quote :

"What if the neighbor didn't want anyone killed over his property? What if he would've rather let them take it, rather than see them dead. Now he has to live with the fact that two people are dead because of his X-Box."

Two people are dead because they thought it would be a good idea to commit a crime, and when challenged by a 60 year old man wielding a shotgun, decided to attack him instead of tuck tail and run, not because of an X-Box.

Quote :

"I feel you don't have a right to initiate force upon someone who is not initiating force on you. "

So then if you see some guy snatch a woman's purse and take off running, you don't have the right to tackle them and stop them from committing the crime? Why don't people have a right to stop crime in their own neighborhood? Remember that there would be no need to initiate force of any kind if the crime was not being committed in the first place.

12/4/2007 12:31:59 PM

What's your evidence that they tried to attack him?

12/4/2007 2:15:00 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "But, in general, if someone shoots someone, they should be charged, and cleared if they didn't do anything wrong." that is one of the most fucking retarded things I've seen posted here in a while. In addition to being completely illegal, it's not even remotely sensible or just. It reeks of an emotional response characteristic of a dumber than average middle schooler, rather than anything remotely resembling a rational and well-thought out position. "

You do realize that this is basically saying the same thing as this:

Quote :

""that doesn't mean that Horn shouldn't have to face the legal system, which should also exonerate him if he didn't do anything wrong." Sure, but that doesn't mean to charge him or try him! Not unless it appears that a crime was committed, at least. That's like saying that you should be charged with rape just because you boned some strange from the bar--if the trial reveals that it was consensual, then we'll let it slide."

Also, if you bone someone and they accuse you of rape, someone's going to look in to it.

I doubt that anyone can be shot by another person, and not have someone cry murder. It will almost always be the case that someone cares enough to claim the person was murdered, which is what's happening in this case. Also, it's not 100% clear either that a crime wasn't committed. As you seem to realize, shooting another human being, let alone 2, is not something that should be taken too lightly.

Quote :

""Gun owners live for the opportunity to shoot people, and we just have to encourage them to keep thinking rationally" I don't think that statement is accurate at ALL about the vast majority of gun owners. I'll bite, though. I'm 100% cool with killing people who deserve it."

You do realize though that who YOU think deserves to be killed might not always be the same as who society thinks should be killed? Horn clearly thought these 2 thieves should be killed for their crime, but it's obvious that a meaningful amount of society feels otherwise. That's why we have a legal system that's theoretically appointed by society to sort these issues out.

It's the fact that gun owners seem to take pride in the idea that they can rightly determine who lives or dies at all, in certain cases, that lead me to make that statement.

12/4/2007 2:56:39 PM

^^ Well, he obviously didn't shoot them in the back. If he had, it would be all over the news. There's also that he claims that they came at him and were shot in his yard, and the fact that he hasn't been arrested indicates that none of the evidence suggests it wasn't self defense. Innocent until proven guilty right?

Quote :

"It's the fact that gun owners seem to take pride in the idea that they can rightly determine who lives or dies at all, in certain cases, that lead me to make that statement."

The gun owners don't determine who lives and who dies. The people who bet their lives for someone else's property decide that. Again, if the crime wasn't being committed in the first place, no one would be dead now.

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : sdaf]

12/4/2007 3:03:17 PM

Quote :

"Again, if the crime wasn't being committed in the first place, no one would be dead now. "

Also, if he had listened to the 911 operator, no one would have been dead. 2 wrongs don't really make a right.

12/4/2007 3:10:40 PM

My only question is should the old man get a tax refund for the money he saved the taxpayers?

Could give people some incentives to do the right thing.

12/4/2007 3:33:19 PM