Man kills two robbers attempting to rob a neighbor's home

HotShotX

HotShotX

CAGiversary!
Feedback
31 (100%)
Actual 911 Call by Joe Horn (man who shot and killed 2 robbers):
http://www.break.com/index/brave-neighbor-kills-2-robbers-911-call2.html

News Article:
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1375180.php/Texan_kills_2_robbers_while_on_phone_with_911

After hearing the 911 call and reading the article, I fully applaud the guy. The Second Amendment as of late has been broken down over the years to the point that you cannot use deadly force against anyone unless they are literally breaking into your bedroom. Meaning you cannot physically do anything to prevent the arson, pillaging, or vandalism of your own home.

However, in Texas, this was expanded to:

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.
Click to expand...
As redneck as it sounds, I'd be out there holding a gun too. You simply do not stand idly by and allow evil to take place. (Not that dramatic but you get my ideology).
Update: 12/3/07

Support groups on both sides showing up and protesting/supporting Horn's actions.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/03/reese.tx.shooting.protest.khou

And of course, it wouldn't be a proper protest unless the race card was played, right?
Click to expand...
~HotShotX
 
The 2nd amendment is out of date and 90% of the people in the country don't even understand it.

I'd rather see the guys sit in a slammer for a bunch of years and attempt to turn around than to basically be murdered. Yes, I know they shouldn't have been doing it... but to kill them might be a little excessive unless they were clearly armed.
 
Vigilante justice FTW!

He killed them because they were breaking into his neighbor's house, not his. He killed them because he wanted to, not because he was scared for his life. IF he was scared for his life he would have stayed hidden in his own house and not charged out his front door with a shotgun.
 
[quote name='Trenchalicious']I'd rather see the guys sit in a slammer for a bunch of years and attempt to turn around than to basically be murdered. Yes, I know they shouldn't have been doing it... but to kill them might be a little excessive unless they were clearly armed.[/QUOTE]

THIS.

Shoot the guys in the knee, at least.
 
Not sure how I feel about this. While it's sad that he shot the guys, I think he has the right to confront them, and if they made a threatening move towards him, he certainly has the right to defend himself. I understand that he could have sat in the house and waited, but I dunno if I would do that either if I saw my friend's house getting robbed. It's a tough call really to me.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Not sure how I feel about this. While it's sad that he shot the guys, I think he has the right to confront them, and if they made a threatening move towards him, he certainly has the right to defend himself. I understand that he could have sat in the house and waited, but I dunno if I would do that either if I saw my friend's house getting robbed. It's a tough call really to me.[/QUOTE]

We have police for a reason. They deal with situations like this, not the general public. Now, had someone's life been on the line I could understand the need for lethal force. Those 2 guys may have been losers and criminals but they didn't deserve to be killed over just stuff.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']We have police for a reason. They deal with situations like this, not the general public. Now, had someone's life been on the line I could understand the need for lethal force. Those 2 guys may have been losers and criminals but they didn't deserve to be killed over just stuff.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I can agree with that, but if he confronted them and they charged him (which obviously I don't know if they did or not), wouldn't he have a right to shoot them? Is it just because they were stealing stuff, what if they were assaulting someone and he confronted them? Would it be okay to shoot them then? Not being a smartass, just thinking out loud.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Yeah, I can agree with that, but if he confronted them and they charged him (which obviously I don't know if they did or not), wouldn't he have a right to shoot them? Is it just because they were stealing stuff, what if they were assaulting someone and he confronted them? Would it be okay to shoot them then? Not being a smartass, just thinking out loud.[/QUOTE]

First off, I can tell you that in just about any other state in US, the guy would have been charged with murder. Texas has the most outlaw justice laws regarding lethal self defense that you just have to look at someone funny for them to be justified in shooting you.

I'll definetly agree that if they were assaulting someone at his neighbor's house then he could have and should have used lethal force. Now, that's not saying he should have came in with guns blazing but at least his interjection would be a bit more justified.

My overall point/opinion is the same as most state's lethal self defense laws are regarded, protect people, not property. Furthermore, most states say that if you have an avenue of escape from the situation that may require lethal self defense you have to take that first before killing the person. If there's no avenue of escape then you can kill the person. This guy's avenue of escape was to just not enter the situation in the first place. Like I said earlier, he wanted to kill those burglars, not because he was scared of them but because they were criminals in his mind and they needed to be stopped.
 
From what I've read, the confrontation went like this:

1. One (or both) burglar left the neighbor's house, and began approaching the caller's house.
2. The caller exited his house, shotgun in tow, and aimed at the robber(s), shouting "You move, you're dead" (i.e. A Warning).
3. The robber(s) approached him (no idea if there was a weapon involved on their end)
4. The caller shot him/them (no idea on aiming, most likely self-defensive standpoint: midsection, three? shots fired in phone call)

Despite him actually going out and "looking for a fight", he did attempt to just have them surrender. Once he made his presence known, the robbers started moving towards him, and well, I wouldn't want to be the one to take on the guy willing to move TOWARDS a shotgun aimed at him.

So, what would you call it? Aggravated Self-Defense?

~HotShotX
 
Point one of your list isn't evident from anyone's story. Joe Horn was explicitly told not to go outside. Horn WANTED to kill those guys, you can hear it in is voice, he left the house with the fully intent on mowing those men down. RvB was absolutely right, if this happened in any place besides Texas, Horn would be going to the electric chair for premeditated murder. He MURDERED two men with families over a bag of stereo equipment. If Texas ever wanted to shrug the image that it's residents are all pig-fvcking rednecks they could start by sending this guy to death row.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Point one of your list isn't evident from anyone's story. Joe Horn was explicitly told not to go outside. Horn WANTED to kill those guys, you can hear it in is voice, he left the house with the fully intent on mowing those men down. RvB was absolutely right, if this happened in any place besides Texas, Horn would be going to the electric chair for premeditated murder. He MURDERED two men with families over a bag of stereo equipment. If Texas ever wanted to shrug the image that it's residents are all pig-fvcking rednecks they could start by sending this guy to death row.[/QUOTE]

I've read 3 different articles on this story and not one of them mentioned that one (or both) burglers started heading toward Horn's house. What all of the articles did say is that he asked if he could go out and stop them. He wanted to be a vigilante. He went outside with the express purpose of gunning down those men. He had made up his mind before he even go off the phone with the dispatcher. I mean for god's sake he even flat out says to the dispatcher "I'm gonna kill them." before setting ONE foot outside his door or even having ANY interaction with them.
 
He removed two pieces of garbage who were probably going to be cancers on society for the rest of their lives. Meh, at least it wasn't a bunch of school children or something.
 
[quote name='Trenchalicious']The 2nd amendment is out of date and 90% of the people in the country don't even understand it.
[/quote]

Free speech is out of date too, that's why Bush is trying to get rid of it.

And it gives us the right to protect ourselves, what isn't there to understand?

You can't get go out into the street and shoot people! What would happen if some guy was taking out the trash and he shot and killed him? You can't just hunt people down!

And this news is old, people here have to move a little faster. :p
 
After hearing the 911 call, I can tell this guy was hellbent on killing the burglars. He didn't care about waiting for the police to arrive on the scene, and the dispatcher told him countless times not to go outside, and he did it anyway. He wanted them dead, plain and simple.

Vigilante justice and it's finest, or worst.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']We have police for a reason. They deal with situations like this, not the general public....[/QUOTE]


Not in regards to this situation, but you can't really be serious when you say you believe the Police are here to protect us. 99% of every police force exists to create a deterrent to prevent crime and then investigate after a crime has already been committed. The chances of a police officer being present when a crime is being committed are about as good as being struck by lightning. They can't be everywhere at once. The "general public" is obligated to protect their own life because we don't have our own personal police force on guard 24/7.

I'm not sure what city you're from but it must be some cushy, white-bread suburban neighborhood to have this naive view of police protection. I could be wrong, though. Maybe you pay enough taxes in your area to have a deputized security guard on every street corner. Or perhaps you'd prefer the defacto "police state" that having so many officers on duty at once would create.
 
You are wrong. The police are supposed to protect the people. At the same time we have the right to protect ourselves. He was in no danger! If they came into his house he could have blown them away and then ate them for breakfest, I wouldn't have cared.

However he went out and HUNTED the people he THOUGHT were the ones that stole from the house. And we have judges for a reason, and we have laws that say you shouldn't be killed by just robbing a house. He killed these people without a trial because he's an insane fucker that wanted to hunt humans.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Point one of your list isn't evident from anyone's story. Joe Horn was explicitly told not to go outside. Horn WANTED to kill those guys, you can hear it in is voice, he left the house with the fully intent on mowing those men down. RvB was absolutely right, if this happened in any place besides Texas, Horn would be going to the electric chair for premeditated murder. He MURDERED two men with families over a bag of stereo equipment. If Texas ever wanted to shrug the image that it's residents are all pig-fvcking rednecks they could start by sending this guy to death row.[/quote]

Like these men really give a fuck about their families?
Would you be willing to trade your family for a bag of stereo equipment?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Not in regards to this situation, but you can't really be serious when you say you believe the Police are here to protect us. 99% of every police force exists to create a deterrent to prevent crime and then investigate after a crime has already been committed. The chances of a police officer being present when a crime is being committed are about as good as being struck by lightning. They can't be everywhere at once. The "general public" is obligated to protect their own life because we don't have our own personal police force on guard 24/7.[/quote]

There's some truth to the police force being, in modern times, a *reactive* force that deals with crime (what you say), compared to being proactive (e.g., criminalizing vagrancy and other "state of being" offenses so as to avoid the concentration of undesirable people in areas of town such that would lead to the "broken windows" effect). It's not perfect, of course, but as you say, most importantly, the probability of police being there at the time of the crime is pretty unlikely.

I'm torn in this scenario. I appreciate people wanting to protect themselves, but also recognize the potential for insidious use this kind of action should have. There's some easily argued malice involved on the part of someone...who wouldn't have been in this situation if not for being "victimized" (proximally, at any rate). Should there be a penalty for that in terms of crime? That is an interesting topic for debate.
 
Life is the most precious thing you can lose. -Pennywise

The eyes of the law agree, there is no right to take life or risk serious bodily harm to protect proptery; not your own and certainly not your neighbor's.

Moreover I know some were saying it facetiously, however anyone advocating vigilante justice has not thought it through. I know it really sounds like its coming from "The Man" but it's true.
 
I'm surprised no one has played the race card. "He only wanted to shoot them because they were Mexican."
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']You are wrong. The police are supposed to protect the people. At the same time we have the right to protect ourselves. He was in no danger! If they came into his house he could have blown them away and then ate them for breakfest, I wouldn't have cared.

However he went out and HUNTED the people he THOUGHT were the ones that stole from the house. And we have judges for a reason, and we have laws that say you shouldn't be killed by just robbing a house. He killed these people without a trial because he's an insane fucker that wanted to hunt humans.[/QUOTE]

I said my comment was not about this circumstance. Of course, the police are supposed to protect you, but the fact is they can't. It's a statistical impossibility. If you want to rely on the police to save your live like a goddamn superman comic book - go ahead. I'll be there to say I told you so the next time some asshole decides to shoot through your local school.


What suprises me is that with the liberal personal protection allowances in Texas, some dumbasses still think it's a good idea to steal from peoples houses. What kind of idiot criminal does that knowing everyone in Texas probably has multiple firearms behind their bedroom nightstand ? I say it's natural selection to get rid of the stupid people.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
What kind of idiot criminal does that knowing everyone in Texas probably has multiple firearms behind their bedroom nightstand ?[/quote]The kind that knows that nobody's home?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']What suprises me is that with the liberal personal protection allowances in Texas, some dumbasses still think it's a good idea to steal from peoples houses. What kind of idiot criminal does that knowing everyone in Texas probably has multiple firearms behind their bedroom nightstand ? I say it's natural selection to get rid of the stupid people.[/QUOTE]

And I'd say it's because deterrence is not a realistic proposition; that rational cost/benefit analysis that, in your head tells you "stealing from a Texan is a bad idea because of X, Y, and Z" does not exist in the head of those people who go through with it.

Find me a rational meth head or junkie.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I'm surprised no one has played the race card. "He only wanted to shoot them because they were Mexican."[/quote]

I think he thought they were black actually. At least when he described them on the tape. Actually if the pictures I've seen are correct they were black (Hispanic people are of various races/colors).
 
[quote name='article']"I got ultras coming out there"[/quote]

Virtua_Cop_2-front.jpg
 
you should know if you are breaking into someones house you risk getting shot. The sad part is, your better if you kill em, cuz if not they'll sue you. How do you know theres not a child in the house alone or something.

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"
That part was pretty good.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Nobody deserves to die for stealing. Texas is so fucked up.[/quote]

These guys died because they were committing a crime and started walking towards a loaded shotgun.

I don't really see a problem with the guy's action, provided the trespassers were actually criminals and they started approaching him when he pulled out the shotgun.

The real thing that sucks with Texas law is that acording to a literal reading if you default on your car loan you still have the right to shoot the repo-man if you catch him on your property. Texas is a bad state for the repo-man.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And I'd say it's because deterrence is not a realistic proposition; that rational cost/benefit analysis that, in your head tells you "stealing from a Texan is a bad idea because of X, Y, and Z" does not exist in the head of those people who go through with it.

Find me a rational meth head or junkie.[/quote]

I know we've been over this but not every burglar is a meth head or junkie, even if the majority are; so you're making a generalization that is probably mostly right but not always. Anybody with a modicum of common sense would be deterred from B and E or burglary or robbery in Texas relative to a different state with stricter "no death to protect property" laws.

Hell yall, pret recently Bush cunry had laws that made it legal for a husband to shoot his cheatin whore of a wife. It wasnt until the Texas Supreme Court had extend the same protections to let a woman go who shot her cheatin whore of a husband until that law was overturned.
 
[quote name='camoor']These guys died because they were committing a crime and started walking towards a loaded shotgun.

I don't really see a problem with the guy's action, provided the trespassers were actually criminals and they started approaching him when he pulled out the shotgun.
[/quote]

Do you know how to fucking read?

They weren't walking towards him, and he couldn't have been sure they were the bad guys. He went outside and found them and hunted them down like deer!

So learn how to read the fucking article before posting your bullshit. Nevermind, I'm just going to block your ignorance.
 
[quote name='camoor']These guys died because they were committing a crime and started walking towards a loaded shotgun.

I don't really see a problem with the guy's action, provided the trespassers were actually criminals and they started approaching him when he pulled out the shotgun.

The real thing that sucks with Texas law is that acording to a literal reading if you default on your car loan you still have the right to shoot the repo-man if you catch him on your property. Texas is a bad state for the repo-man.[/quote]

I don't know if they were walking towards the guy or not, in the phone call he said that one was in the street. There would have to be more details to figure out exactly what happened.

Self-defense is one thing, and I agree that he would have the right to defend himself, but going outside with the intention of killing someone is another. He wanted to kill them for stealing and so he did. He said himself he didn't want them to get away, he felt justified in killing them to stop them from getting away with his neighbor's property. I have no doubts that he was scared, but nothing forced him to go out of his house and shoot them.

The number of people who think he was completely justified for killing them for stealing (not for self-defense) is disgusting. Especially disgusting when some people see the names and think it's even more justified since they "may be illegal" since that apparently makes you less of a person.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Do you know how to fucking read?

They weren't walking towards him, and he couldn't have been sure they were the bad guys. He went outside and found them and hunted them down like deer!

So learn how to read the fucking article before posting your bullshit. Nevermind, I'm just going to block your ignorance.[/QUOTE]

??

I just read it and came across these words:
They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

and then

They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

Am I misreading something when I read that they came in his front yard?
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't know if they were walking towards the guy or not, in the phone call he said that one was in the street. There would have to be more details to figure out exactly what happened.

Self-defense is one thing, and I agree that he would have the right to defend himself, but going outside with the intention of killing someone is another. He wanted to kill them for stealing and so he did. He said himself he didn't want them to get away, he felt justified in killing them to stop them from getting away with his neighbor's property. I have no doubts that he was scared, but nothing forced him to go out of his house and shoot them.

The number of people who think he was completely justified for killing them for stealing (not for self-defense) is disgusting. Especially disgusting when some people see the names and think it's even more justified since they "may be illegal" since that apparently makes you less of a person.[/quote]

I don't know if you've ever been in a fight/stand-off/etc (I mean that sincerely not in a jackass way) but these things escalate quickly.

The critical decision was when the guy left the house with his gun with the intention of making a citizen's arrest based upon a perceived robbery and trespassing. After this point the situation likely determined his actions. Therefore you really need to judge his actions based upon whether or not you believe it is OK to use the threat of lethal force to defend your property against trespassers when you have a reasonable belief that these trespassers are thieves.

If you pull out a gun you need to be prepared to use it. If someone does not back down in the face of such force then you really have little recourse but to fire because to do otherwise is to put yourself at their mercy. Being that the guy had a shotgun, winging his assailant is probably not a viable option.

Granted, there is only so much you can tell from a phone call but I've read a few articles on this too and there is more then one opinion on the facts (it would make a great Law and Order episode)
 
I wouldn't think its that people think they should be killed because they're stealing. People think they should be killed because they're scum. It takes a worthless person to violate someones home/property like that. It shows that not only do they not respect anyone else, but they also do not respect themselves.

It's not like you could argue this was a crime of necessity. They didn't steal cans or boxes of food. Even if they were stealing electronics to sell to get money for food, why not just get help a legal way like a soup kitchen?

I find the think that makes their lives worthless is the fact that they believed themselves entitled to someone else's property. The notion that they think they can just take whatever they want simply because it was left unguarded sickens me. I live in this shit; I'm neck deep in scum that will break into anything they can just because its easier than being a civil human and getting a job.



[quote name='SpazX']
The number of people who think he was completely justified for killing them for stealing (not for self-defense) is disgusting. Especially disgusting when some people see the names and think it's even more justified since they "may be illegal" since that apparently makes you less of a person.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']I wouldn't think its that people think they should be killed because they're stealing. People think they should be killed because they're scum. It takes a worthless person to violate someones home/property like that. It shows that not only do they not respect anyone else, but they also do not respect themselves.

It's not like you could argue this was a crime of necessity. They didn't steal cans or boxes of food. Even if they were stealing electronics to sell to get money for food, why not just get help a legal way like a soup kitchen?

I find the think that makes their lives worthless is the fact that they believed themselves entitled to someone else's property. The notion that they think they can just take whatever they want simply because it was left unguarded sickens me. I live in this shit; I'm neck deep in scum that will break into anything they can just because its easier than being a civil human and getting a job.[/quote]

Stealing things doesn't make you less than human. You can say they're scum all you want, but in the end if you think they're scum for stealing and you say they deserve to die because they're scum, then you're saying they deserve to die because they were stealing.

You don't know them or their situation or reasoning (if there was any). They might have thought that what they stole wouldn't hurt the owner very much, and from the looks of those homes it probably wouldn't have. I'm not trying to say it was right (it wasn't, and they deserved to be arrested and tried for their crimes), but you're dehumanizing someone you know nothing about. They should have been arrested not killed, no matter what they stole or who it was from.

And to camoor, it seems from the tape that he wanted them dead before he left his house.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']??

I just read it and came across these words:
They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

and then

They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

Am I misreading something when I read that they came in his front yard?[/QUOTE]


he walked out to them, then they came to him. Who robs a house and goes to rob the house next door. Too many Walker Texas Rangers in Texas for its own good. There really needs to be a test to own a gun, i mean there is a test to get a drivers license so why not a gun license test. Lets not use the constitution to defend the gun nuts, things change, black people are 3/5th white people any more. There is no way the founding fathers could have envisioned the kind of weapons that are available today. The law has become an antique and needs revision, thats whats so good about the constitution, it can be changed when necessary.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Do you know how to fucking read?

They weren't walking towards him, and he couldn't have been sure they were the bad guys. He went outside and found them and hunted them down like deer!

So learn how to read the fucking article before posting your bullshit. Nevermind, I'm just going to block your ignorance.[/quote]
Ok, first off, he did know that they were the robbers because he watched them break into the house, and told the 911 operative what window and what they used to enter with.

Secondly, he didn't hunt them down like deer (you use cars for that in New Jersey), he waited for them to come outside, attempted to get them to stop by aiming the shotgun at them, and saying "you move you're dead", and when they started to APPROACH him, he opened fire.

To summarize:

He knew they were the robbers. He saw them break in.
They approached him when he ordered them to stop. No hunting necessary.
I did read the article(s), I listened to the phone call, I posted truth, not bullshit...

But despite all of that I still have to put up with your ignorance. Next time, come to the table with an intelligent argument instead of getting your panties in a bunch and insulting others.

The Break link tot he actual call is 404 now..

anyone have a new link?
Click to expand...
I just checked all the links in the OP, and they still work for me. Maybe it was taken down due to traffic temporarily, but it's up now.

Stealing things doesn't make you less than human. You can say they're scum all you want, but in the end if you think they're scum for stealing and you say they deserve to die because they're scum, then you're saying they deserve to die because they were stealing.
Click to expand...
All that aside, the only thing the guy knew about the robbers was that they were robbing his neighbor's house. Based on that, did they deserve to die? No, of course not, but they also did not deserve to get away.

Considering all the shit that does go on in this country, there are far too many people who stand idly by even when it takes place in front of them. Too many people turn the other way or don't want to get involved, stupid shit like that. So, I applaud those who actually make a stand to do some good in this country and stop shit like this from happening.

Now, the guy didn't just run out there and shoot the robbers repeatedly until they died. He went out, established his power and will to stop them, give an obvious warning for them to stop and give up, and they didn't run away (something I could see them NOT getting shot for), they APPROACHED him.

Which, considering all the things we know about these guys (they just robbed a home), I'm not that inclined to see if they're interested in a friendly chat. No, odds are, they aren't going to be doing nice things if they're in physical reach of you. So, given that they are not fleeing and are instead coming towards me, I'm shooting them.

Taking into account the "Oh fuck, they're coming at me" impulse, I'm not faulting the shooter for his aim (wound over kill). Again, did they deserve to die, no, of course not. But I'm wouldn't be sitting there waiting for the justification to arise when two people whom I KNOW are going to do something bad are coming towards me. Finally, running away is not an option because the stupidest thing you could ever do in this situation (once you are in it), is to turn your back on the enemy.

~HotShotX
 
The only response I have (and need) for everyone that's saying it was justified because he was protecting himself? He flat out said "I'm gonna kill them." The sad part about this whole thing is that no District Attorney is gonna have the balls to stand up and charge this guy so we'll never really have a decent answer on the situation.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']
To summarize:

He knew they were the robbers. He saw them break in.
They approached him when he ordered them to stop. No hunting necessary.
I did read the article(s), I listened to the phone call, I posted truth, not bullshit...
~HotShotX[/QUOTE]


God DAMN you're stupid. If i'm talking on the phone with you and I say i'm going North, do you really think I am?


I don't know how anyone can hate Texas law for allowing us to protect our home. If someone is going to rob a house, you can bet your stupidass that they're armed and dangerous. R.I.P. Sean Taylor.

What this tard did was not self defense, he should be fucking jailed. He had full intention of killing them. He should've listened to dispatcher and stayed in the house.

I can't believe there are dumbasses that actually applaud/defend this guy.
 
[quote name='gokou36']God DAMN you're stupid. If i'm talking on the phone with you and I say i'm going North, do you really think I am?


I don't know how anyone can hate Texas law for allowing us to protect our home. If someone is going to rob a house, you can bet your stupidass that they're armed and dangerous. R.I.P. Sean Taylor.

What this tard did was not self defense, he should be fucking jailed. He had full intention of killing them. He should've listened to dispatcher and stayed in the house.

I can't believe there are dumbasses that actually applaud/defend this guy.[/quote]

Just how does that make me stupid? If Joe Horn is talking with you on the phone, and he says he's going to kill two robbers, do you really think he is?

I never said anything about hating Texan law for protecting your home, I agree that if someone is going to rob a home, they are probably armed (R.I.P. Sean Taylor).

However, at the same time, I hate those who stand idly by and watch shit take place without doing anything. As I said, we have too many people in our country who do this, and would rather bitch and whine about little things than actually do some fucking work to change this country (It's the new "Proud to be an American" stance).

Again, he didn't just go out there and mow them down. He was armed and asked them to stop. When they didn't, and began to approach him (read: armed and dangerous men approaching another, probably with intent to harm him), he shot them.

Should he have stayed in the house, probably, but honestly, we're not dumbasses for applauding those who actually take a stand for what they believe in and stepping in. We're just sick of people who don't, God knows there are far too many people in this world who don't do a damn thing when something like this happens.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='gokou36']I can't believe there are dumbasses that actually applaud/defend this guy.[/quote]

I can. I can beleive there are dumbasses that applaud/defend this guy because there are a lot of really stupid, unintelligent people in this country (centralized in Texas no doubt).

Lets face it bro, America is full of a bunch of trigger happy vigilante dumbasses. I don't mean dumbass like a dick or a jerk, I mean more of in a stupid/unintelligent/ignorant way.

The few posts on here of people who've justified the man's actions evince this well. Some just do not think things through and are prone to act-first-think-later knee jerk reactions. I guess it's the schools or parents or genetics failure for this umm...(sorry I really don't know what to call it) stupidity.

Lets think about this, whats more important...hmmm.... life or stuff. It's a tough one, material possessions are really nice and valuable...hmm but you need life to be able to enjoy them. Life or stuff? Life or things? Life or possessions....what is more important?

Now lets ask the question this guy had to consider: What's more important, life or SOMEONE ELSE"S property? Hmm....life or OPP, life or OPP. It looks like this guy was down with OPP.

Think about it HotshotX, what would have happened if this guy stayed on the phone with the cops and watched them/got a plate # or even (I wouldnt even recommend this) followed them on a cell after they left to tell the cops where to catch them? Law enforcment would have came and arrested the guys and nobody would have gotten hurt. Worst case scenario, the cops come, there is a shootout (extremely extremely rare in law enforcement, except in movies) and we get the same result as what this vigilante did. Let the pros handle this. How can you say one is standingly idly by and doing nothing when they're reporting crime in progress? Additionally when cops caught the victims of this shooting the property would have been returned, even if they got away (THIS TIME) insurance would have recouped the victim.

So your suggestion is to allow people to handle situations like this on thier own like this guy did and we as a society should just put law enforcment and justice into the untrained citizens' hands? I am having a hard time beleiving that you really think a society would be better off if more people would "take a stand for what they believe in and stepping in" if what you mean by that is "take a stand for what they believe in and stepping in [and take law enforcment into their own hands by exacting vigilante justice]". It is seriously so stupid I am havin a hard time telling if you genuinely think crime should be fought by the populace instead of the government or if you're just playing devils advocate. Okay enough flaming the crap out of the simple minded who think it would be better to live in a comic book world where we leave the justice system up to millions of individual citizens' interpretations of "standing up for what they beleive in: "Robbers should be shot!" Life or property?

Thank G-d there are at least some of us with the brains to realize what a chaotic disasterous place our lives would take place in if vigilante justice was legal! Yes, I am referring to the legislative bodies of the federal government, and every single one of the 50 states. Well okay we'll only count it as half illegal in Texas, so 49.5 out of the 50 states.
 
pittpizza, you're right, the best case solution would be to stay on the phone and just report the crime to the police, give them whatever info needed, and let them handle it.

But at the same time, I truly agree with the way the man felt, when it came to shit like this going on in this country. I can relate to how angry one feels when something like this takes place but no one actually steps in to confront it.

To give you a bit of perspective, I was walking home from high school one day, and on the other side of the street, a nerdy kid was being followed, harassed, and occaisionally attacked (throwing sticks and rocks) by about 15 kids following him home, I shit you not.

Being the same kind of nerdy kid back then, I wanted to step in and take on every kid in the group, but didn't have the balls to. Well, someone did, pulled his car over, and stepped in between the kid and the mob, ready to take on every one of them (granted, he was a teacher). They ended up backing off, but I truly respect those who can stand up and do something they believe in a situation like that.

8 years later (I'm 22 now), and I still believe that. I believe people should stand and fight for something they believe in, and protect other people/stop the spread of crime.

Now, do I believe they should've been shot, yes, because they began to approach him, and he fired in self-defense. Should Horn have been out there in the first place? Many will disagree with me, but yes, I believe he should have. I believe anyone willing to should have been there.

This however, does not mean that I believe that people should be out looking to fight crime or become vigilantes. It means that when confronted with a situation, when another is being victimized (directly or innately) one should act, do the right thing, and not let it continue.

To me, doing the right thing was calling the police and attempting to apprehend the robbers by using intimidation to try to get them to surrender, but when they tried to attack him, then he had to shoot.

Do I expect everyone to be out there and take on something they believe is not right? No, of course I don't. But damnit, if you have the conviction, you had better be out there acting on it.

Like I said, there are far too many people in this country that want change but never act on it. That want to do good but don't want to avert evil. That know something wrong is taking place but look the other way because they don't want to get involved. They want to tackle little shit so they can feel good about themselves but not do the hard work it takes to solve real problems.

Honestly, I'm sick of that mentality, because I've seen years of it, been on the receiving end of it for years, and these days, I see much more good coming from people who actually stand up and do something about the shit that's wrong with this country than those who complain but never lift a finger.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']All that aside, the only thing the guy knew about the robbers was that they were robbing his neighbor's house. Based on that, did they deserve to die? No, of course not, but they also did not deserve to get away.[/quote]
All that aside? If they don't deserve to die then they don't deserve to die. Whether killing them keeps them from getting away or not, they don't deserve to die and therefore they shouldn't be killed, for any reason. The only time that it's ok to kill someone is in self-defense, and I'm really not sure this qualifies.

Considering all the shit that does go on in this country, there are far too many people who stand idly by even when it takes place in front of them. Too many people turn the other way or don't want to get involved, stupid shit like that. So, I applaud those who actually make a stand to do some good in this country and stop shit like this from happening.
Click to expand...
Killing them was not good, they did nothing to warrant their deaths. Is it good to let crimes happen? No. Is it good to kill someone to stop them from stealing? No. People shouldn't turn away, they should call the cops, like he did, if there's a way to disable them without bringing harm to yourself, then go for it, but killing them is not good and admirable. This isn't a movie.

Now, the guy didn't just run out there and shoot the robbers repeatedly until they died. He went out, established his power and will to stop them, give an obvious warning for them to stop and give up, and they didn't run away (something I could see them NOT getting shot for), they APPROACHED him.

Which, considering all the things we know about these guys (they just robbed a home), I'm not that inclined to see if they're interested in a friendly chat. No, odds are, they aren't going to be doing nice things if they're in physical reach of you. So, given that they are not fleeing and are instead coming towards me, I'm shooting them.

Taking into account the "Oh fuck, they're coming at me" impulse, I'm not faulting the shooter for his aim (wound over kill). Again, did they deserve to die, no, of course not. But I'm wouldn't be sitting there waiting for the justification to arise when two people whom I KNOW are going to do something bad are coming towards me. Finally, running away is not an option because the stupidest thing you could ever do in this situation (once you are in it), is to turn your back on the enemy.
Click to expand...
I still don't know for sure if they were approaching him or not, but in any case, he went out of his house with the intention of killing those men. He said it himself. They couldn't come toward him if he didn't go out of the house. These houses are maybe 10-15 feet away from each other, so him going out of the house would put him pretty close to the guys in the first place. If you go after somebody with intention of killing them and they pull a gun on you (which I don't even think they had) and you shoot them (which you had intended to do anyway), is that self-defense or premeditated murder? If he shot one guy and the other guy started running, was it ok to shoot that guy too?

There are still a lot of unknowns (to me anyway, if you have better info let me know) that could change things, such as where exactly the men were when they were shot, where on their bodies they were shot, and if either one was actually shot twice (they say he fired 3 times, did he miss once?).

I don't really feel like the guy should get the same penalty that a murderer would, considering the situation, but I don't feel like he should go unpunished either. I think he made a bad decision that led to the deaths of both of those men.

EDIT: Sorry if this is a bit late and you've addressed what I said, I was writing during a class...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top