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

[quote name='RedvsBlue']You stated that these guys gave up their right to life when they decided to commit their crime of burglary, a property crime.

My argument is that if criminals should have to give up their right to life for a property crime like burglary then why shouldn't someone who engages in drunk driving (a crime that costs thousands of innocent people their lives every year) be expected to do the same thing?[/quote]

I never said that these irreverant crooks gave up their right to life. Do not tell me what I said unless you are quoting me.

If these people had been arrested by the police, and then shot by a citzen it would different. If they had not trespassed on private property then it would have been different. If they had not invaded someone else's home then it would have been different. In fact, there are too many differences to list.

This is not about drunk drivers, it is about a home invasion. If you want to defend these criminals for their actions, then defend their actions.
 
[quote name='JohnnyReb']I never said that these irreverant crooks gave up their right to life. Do not tell me what I said unless you are quoting me.

If these people had been arrested by the police, and then shot by a citzen it would different. If they had not trespassed on private property then it would have been different. If they had not invaded someone else's home then it would have been different. In fact, there are too many differences to list.

This is not about drunk drivers, it is about a home invasion. If you want to defend these criminals for their actions, then defend their actions.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='JohnnyReb']
How did this country become so backwards that we are actually defending the bad guys? They gave up their rights when they decided to commit an immoral and dispicable act.[/QUOTE]

So, if you're not saying that they gave up their right to life when they committed their crime, what rights did they give up? Due process? Are you saying that once someone commits a crime they should give up all their constitutional rights? What's the point of our criminal justice system at that point then? We should just acuse people and send them to prison. Why bother with rights? Rights? What's that, only law abiding citizens deserve rights.

This discussion isn't about burglary, it isn't about drunk driving, its about the rights of accused persons. These 2 guys never had a chance to defend their actions in the court of law before they were killed. Their sentence was handed out by Joe Horn the minute he saw them committing what he believed was burglary. He left his house with the intention of killing them for the crime he believed they had committed. This is evidenced by his statement "I'm gonna kill 'em."

Please save your breath and don't mention self defense. Self defense could be a valid argument if he had stayed inside his home and they had entered his home rather than him seeking them out with a weapon when they didn't have any visible weapon themselves.
 
The point is that if you are invading a persons home and stealing their possessions in a place where state law dictates that you may be shot and killed for your actions, then you should not be surprised when it happens. This is the law in Texas and if you don't like it you certainly don't have to live here. And if you are the type of person who wants to burglarize houses without consequence then we don't want you here anyway.

I commend Joe Horn for being one of the few people left to stand up for what is right.

You are trying to compare a court verdict to the right to defend your family and friends. They are not the same and if the police would have been there to protect the neighborhood then this wouldn't be an issue. That is another reason why we can protect ourselves and our property, because the police cannot always do so.
 
[quote name='JohnnyReb']The point is that if you are invading a persons home and stealing their possessions in a place where state law dictates that you may be shot and killed for your actions, then you should not be surprised when it happens. This is the law in Texas and if you don't like it you certainly don't have to live here. And if you are the type of person who wants to burglarize houses without consequence then we don't want you here anyway.

I commend Joe Horn for being one of the few people left to stand up for what is right.

You are trying to compare a court verdict to the right to defend your family and friends. They are not the same and if the police would have been there to protect the neighborhood then this wouldn't be an issue. That is another reason why we can protect ourselves and our property, because the police cannot always do so.[/QUOTE]

Ironically enough, I think you said it best...

[quote name='JohnnyReb']
It is a red herring in that you are attempting to steer the conversation away from the actual facts to a situation that is vaguely similar.
[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Ironically enough, I think you said it best...[/quote]

I am talking about home invasion robberies and you were talking about drunk driving. The difference is that the topic has nothing to do with drunk driving and everything to do with home invasion.

Like I said earlier, if you want to defend the actions of criminals, then do so. Arguing semantics will never justify the villianous actions of thugs and hoodlums with no respect for the rights of others.
 
[quote name='JohnnyReb']I am talking about home invasion robberies and you were talking about drunk driving. The difference is that the topic has nothing to do with drunk driving and everything to do with home invasion.

Like I said earlier, if you want to defend the actions of criminals, then do so. Arguing semantics will never justify the villianous actions of thugs and hoodlums with no respect for the rights of others.[/QUOTE]
You're the one who brought up "rights" and here you're doing it again. I used drunk driving as an example of how you're application of who gets "rights" and who doesn't seems to be largely subjective. This is expressly why we have rights, so that everyone gets fairly treated whether that applies to being accused of burglary, drunk driving, homicide, or shoplifting.

You don't seem to be even concerned with whether or not these "hoodlums" or "thugs" were guilty or not, merely that they appeared guilty in Joe Horn's eyes.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You're the one who brought up "rights" and here you're doing it again. I used drunk driving as an example of how you're application of who gets "rights" and who doesn't seems to be largely subjective. This is expressly why we have rights, so that everyone gets fairly treated whether that applies to being accused of burglary, drunk driving, homicide, or shoplifting.

You don't seem to be even concerned with whether or not these "hoodlums" or "thugs" were guilty or not, merely that they appeared guilty in Joe Horn's eyes.[/quote]

I am not concerned with whether the home invaders were guilty or not, because they were guilty, and everyone knows it.

And just for the record, I think they were treated perfectly fairly. Break into a house in Texas and chances are you will be killed. That's the way it is and that is the way it ought to be.

I am more concerned about the law abiding citzens than I am about two derelicts, who are so brazen as to break into a house with no regard for the law or the family whose home and property they are so careless with.
 
[quote name='JohnnyReb']I am not concerned with whether the home invaders were guilty or not, because they were guilty, and everyone knows it.

And just for the record, I think they were treated perfectly fairly. Break into a house in Texas and chances are you will be killed. That's the way it is and that is the way it ought to be.

I am more concerned about the law abiding citzens than I am about two derelicts, who are so brazen as to break into a house with no regard for the law or the family whose home and property they are so careless with.[/QUOTE]

Guilt is determined in this country by a court of law, not by anyone with a gun. You're placing your entire faith of the story on the word of 1 man's account, nothing more.
 
I was actually surprised you have a problem with the drunk driving comparison JonnyReb. BY FAR! Deaths and injuries caused by drunk driving outweigh those caused by burglaries. DUI is a much more serious threat the one's life and well being than burglary is. Well I guess that is only true if you value your life over your stuff...which you better well fucking should.

Moreover this guy wasn't defending himself, his friends, or his neighbors. I have no problem with using lethal force when lethal force is being used/threatened against you/your family member/your friend/even a stanger. He was protecting his neighbor's personal property. Not worth killing over by any stretch of the imagination.

We are talking about possessions people! WTF is wrong with you? Stuff is not worth life! Stuff you can get back, life OTOH, once taken away, is gone forever.

This 2nd A. stuff, to be understood properly, needs to be viewed under its original context. It was included in the US Const. to prevent the government (both the newly matastacized US one and the British one) from outlawing gun ownership so they could oppress/abuse the populace w/out fear of revolt. Take that for what its worth.

Enough Con Law interpretation; here is a quickie criminal law lesson for you:
Burglary (non-violent crime): A (1) tesspassory (2) taking or carrying away, (3)personal property of another. Each element, per the U.S. Const. must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Robbery (violent crime): Same as above except add "...(4) with the use of force or threatened use of force."

Examples: I go into my neighbor's house when they're not home and steal COD4 =Burgalary. I go into my neighbors home when they're there and say "Gimme COD4 or I'll beat your ass!" = robbery (you don't even need to use force or a weapon, the threat is enough.)

You think Joe Horn stood up for what is right!? What is that, what did he do that was right? Was it shooting two guys in the back over STUFF or was it taking the law into his own hands? Or maybe if you're a Texan maybe you think it was gettin rid of two niggers? Which of these is right? If you think he was protecting himself or anybody else's safety you should read the article. The only thing the burglars were endangering was property. Were they even armed?

fuckin ridiculous people support this trigger happy hick. Not suprising though, after all Bush did get elected so it really is just a testament the complete and udder stupidity, ignorance, and ethnocentric nationalistic shoot-first-ask-questions-later knee-jerkism. YYYeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaawwwww!!! The idiots are taking over. -NoFX. G-d bless America (with some intelligence), we need it.
 
I was actually surprised you have a problem with the drunk driving comparison JonnyReb. BY FAR! Deaths and injuries caused by drunk driving outweigh those caused by burglaries. DUI is a much more serious threat the one's life and well being than burglary is. Well I guess that is only true if you value your life over your stuff...which you better well fucking should. Maybe DUI's aren't "violent" enough for you? Go and get T-boned by a drunk driver, then go and get burgled while you're at work and then you tell me which is more violent.

Moreover this guy wasn't defending himself, his friends, or his neighbors. I have no problem with using lethal force when lethal force is being used/threatened against you/your family member/your friend/even a stanger. He was protecting his neighbor's personal property. Not worth killing over by any stretch of the imagination.

We are talking about possessions people! WTF is wrong with you? Stuff is not worth life! Stuff you can get back, life OTOH, once taken away, is gone forever.

This 2nd A. stuff, to be understood properly, needs to be viewed under its original context. It was included in the US Const. to prevent the government (both the newly matastacized US one and the British one) from outlawing gun ownership so they could oppress/abuse the populace w/out fear of revolt. Take that for what its worth.

Enough Con Law interpretation; here is a quickie criminal law lesson for you:
Burglary (non-violent crime): A (1) tesspassory (2) taking or carrying away, (3)personal property of another. Each element, per the U.S. Const. must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Robbery (violent crime): Same as above except add "...(4) with the use of force or threatened use of force."

Examples: I go into my neighbor's house when they're not home and steal COD4 =Burgalary. I go into my neighbors home when they're there and say "Gimme COD4 or I'll beat your ass!" = robbery (you don't even need to use force or a weapon, the threat is enough.)

You think Joe Horn stood up for what is right!? What is that, what did he do that was right? Was it shooting two guys in the back over STUFF or was it taking the law into his own hands? Or maybe if you're a Texan maybe you think it was gettin rid of two niggers? Which of these is right? If you think he was protecting himself or anybody else's safety you should read the article. The only thing the burglars were endangering was property. Were they even armed?

They were guilty huh?? Oh yeah?? Because here, in America, I thought people were innocent until proven guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. But what do I know? I guess this isn't important huh? Lets just let Joe Horn decide on a whim and not fuss with all this silly due process of law mumbo jumbo.

fuckin ridiculous people support this trigger happy hick. Not suprising though, after all Bush did get elected so it really is just a testament the complete and udder stupidity, ignorance, and ethnocentric nationalistic shoot-first-ask-questions-later knee-jerkism. YYYeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaawwwww!!! The idiots are taking over. -NoFX. G-d bless America (with some intelligence), we need it.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I was actually surprised you have a problem with the drunk driving comparison JonnyReb. BY FAR! Deaths and injuries caused by drunk driving outweigh those caused by burglaries. DUI is a much more serious threat the one's life and well being than burglary is. Well I guess that is only true if you value your life over your stuff...which you better well fucking should. Maybe DUI's aren't "violent" enough for you? Go and get T-boned by a drunk driver, then go and get burgled while you're at work and then you tell me which is more violent.[/QUOTE]

Well you see, anyone can be a drunk driver, your grandma, little Billy's principal, Lindsey Lohan but only those undesirable "hoodlums" and "thugs" commit burglary therefore they should die.
 
I would rather of had no killing but i am all for the guy trying to protect his neighbors. I mean how would he have felt if he didnt do any thing and the next day he finds out his neighbors are dead. I am bummed the people are dead but I think that if the people moved in any way hostile durring the events he had all the rights to shoot them.
 
[quote name='Dragon_Master']I would rather of had no killing but i am all for the guy trying to protect his neighbors.[/quote]

I am too. Hell I'm even all for him trying to protect a complete stranger as I've posted earlier. If you think I'm not you've missed my point.

My point (one of em ;) ) was that he was not protecting anybody; there was no danger to anyone except possibly the cops who, one should mention, DID IN FACT SHOW UP. Only instead of showing up to two busted burglars, he shows up to two dead guys. Some of you may be chuckling "Good, save everyone some time and money (no prison) and just kill them" and well...thats fucked up IMO.

Call me a bleeding heart but I think (and have learned) that in America, under our law, a person's rights are at their highest when they're in the custody of the government and I (and the drafters of the constitution, pretty smart guys IMO) think that these rights ( due process, to counsel, to be presented with your charges, to face your accuser, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures....) are important. By shooting these guys on the spot, all of this is gone.

Nobody is attacking one's right to defend their home, as a matter of fact there is no duty to retreat in one's home, one's workplace, etc...(some exceptions of course).

But these are not the facts sub judice. At bar, this was about someone protecting another's stuff, he wasnt protecting anybody from bodily harm, only financial harm and this is not enough to take a life.
 
Moreover this guy wasn't defending himself, his friends, or his neighbors. I have no problem with using lethal force when lethal force is being used/threatened against you/your family member/your friend/even a stanger. He was protecting his neighbor's personal property. Not worth killing over by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is true in your neck of the woods, but in Texas lethal force is justified in order to protect personal property. If a person disagrees with that, you certainly don't have to live here, nor do you have to break into our homes. Maybe we just don't suffer fools gladly.

fuckin ridiculous people support this trigger happy hick. Not suprising though, after all Bush did get elected so it really is just a testament the complete and udder stupidity, ignorance, and ethnocentric nationalistic shoot-first-ask-questions-later knee-jerkism. YYYeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaawwwww!!! The idiots are taking over. -NoFX. G-d bless America (with some intelligence), we need it.
Click to expand...

Name calling and degrading someone because of where they are from lends you no credibility. That is what kids do on the playground. You insinuate that being from Texas makes you automatically a racist against "niggers" as you put it. Then you turn around and try to categorize all Southerners as hicks and idiots. This is called hypocrisy.

I am no law expert like you, so I won't argue the finer points of criminal law. I can tell you that I have plenty of common sense, something that isn't very common nowadays. It is so uncommon that the perpetrators are now the victims, and someone stopping a crime in progress is the bad guy.
 
[quote name='JohnnyReb']Maybe this is true in your neck of the woods, but in Texas lethal force is justified in order to protect personal property. If a person disagrees with that, you certainly don't have to live here, nor do you have to break into our homes. Maybe we just don't suffer fools gladly.

Name calling and degrading someone because of where they are from lends you no credibility. That is what kids do on the playground. You insinuate that being from Texas makes you automatically a racist against "niggers" as you put it. Then you turn around and try to categorize all Southerners as hicks and idiots. This is called hypocrisy.

I am no law expert like you, so I won't argue the finer points of criminal law. I can tell you that I have plenty of common sense, something that isn't very common nowadays. It is so uncommon that the perpetrators are now the victims, and someone stopping a crime in progress is the bad guy.[/quote]

Not once did I even mention the South or Texas in any of my previous two posts. Not one single time. So if it seems to you I was judging someone "because of where they are from" you're flat out wrong. I accord blame and responsibility based on people's actions, not where they're from or the color of their skin or their religion. I call people names and degrade them for two reasons (1) I'm an asshole, (2) Stupidity pisses me off. It's the stupidity that I blame people for, not where they're from. I still don't know how you got that since I never once even mentioned location or "the south".

After rereading the posts (something I wish more CAGers did) I can see how one would think I, impliedly categorized people by where they're from but this is a misinterpretaion of my meaning. Its the stupidity and mentality that I fault, not a person's location. Whether or not there happens to be a high concentration of stupidity and shoot-first mentality is a different question, to which you probably already know my answer.

The perps here were the victims of murder, no matter how much "common sense" or the other kind of logic you use...like...oh I dunno...legal reasoning.

Someone who takes the law into their own hands (a crime) and hands down two death penalties, in contradiction to a police operator's orders, is a bad guy. It's common sense.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Call me a bleeding heart but I think (and have learned) that in America, under our law, a person's rights are at their highest when they're in the custody of the government[/quote]

Doubleplusgood!

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
 
Not once did I even mention the South or Texas in any of my previous two posts. Not one single time.
Click to expand...

...maybe if you're a Texan maybe you think it was gettin rid of two niggers?
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?


[quote name='pittpizza']The perps here were the victims of murder, no matter how much "common sense" or the other kind of logic you use...like...oh I dunno...legal reasoning.

Someone who takes the law into their own hands (a crime) and hands down two death penalties, in contradiction to a police operator's orders, is a bad guy. It's common sense.[/quote]
Not neccesarily, according to Texas law:

§ 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 ... etc

With all of this pro-criminal rhetoric, you must be a defense attorney. ;)


Originally Posted by pittpizza
Call me a bleeding heart but I think (and have learned) that in America, under our law, a person's rights are at their highest when they're in the custody of the government
Click to expand...
Just like in Guantanamo Bay, right?

***Edited for truthiness.
 
[quote name='JohnnyReb']

Not neccesarily, according to Texas law:

§ 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 ... etc


[/QUOTE]

Since you cited Texas law as legitimate, let me point out the absurdity of it.

The OP's post states that in Texas, residents may use deadly force to prevent criminal mischief.

Criminal mischief is defined in Texas as, among other things:

(a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:

(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings,
including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the
tangible property of the owner.
Click to expand...

So, in Texas, you can legally be shot for taking a marker to someone's garage. How absurd is that?
 
[quote name='Mike23']So, in Texas, you can legally be shot for taking a marker to someone's garage. How absurd is that?[/quote]

What is absurd is the discraceful, shameless creature who is so irreverent that they would put graffiti on another person's property.

There is nothing at all illegitimate about Texas laws. They hold criminals accountable for their misdeeds and put the rights of the victim first, just as it should be.
 
When I saw "criminal mischief" in the law I figured it was just a catchall so that you could pretty much shoot anybody on your property that pissed you off.

And no, you shouldn't be able to shoot somebody for graffiti. That might not even be permanent damage for Christ's sake. You'd basically be saying the value of the time it took to powerwash the paint off your garage was equal to or greater than the value of that person's life.

EDIT: In Texas the least punishment for graffiti (less than $500 in damage) is up to a $2,000 fine and up to 6 months in jail. But if a citizen exercises their "rights" on the person on their property - death.
 
In a related note, my college (Florida Institute of Technology) is currently under seige by a group of armed men who have made 3 armed robbery attempts of students walking on campus in the past 3 days. 1 succeeded.

In the past 72 hours, this shit has escalated from 4 guys driving near campus in car, attempting to rob students, to one guy stalking a student from his car and chasing him until he reached a building in a well-lit area.

I can ensure you that this is going to be very worse before it gets better. I'll keep you posted.

And no, I'm not going to patrol campus with a shotgun, but I will be carrying a knife when I go to finals, and escorting my g/f to her finals.

This is bullshit.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='pittpizza']We are talking about possessions people! WTF is wrong with you? Stuff is not worth life! Stuff you can get back, life OTOH, once taken away, is gone forever.[/QUOTE]Seems to me that this just boils down to a philosophical differences.
I think that my (or anyone elses) property rights are worth a fuck lot more than a piece of shit who'd stoop as low as to steal them's right to life.

You think that it's better to have that trash live and get away scott free--and potentially hurt someone in their future...endeavors--rather than have them cut down by a well meaning neighbor (who, from what we understand in the phone call, was threatened by the thieves when he tried to stop them).
I'm not saying that they needed to die (Horn could have, for example, shot them in the knee caps), but I applaud him nonetheless. He did the right thing, and I can only hope that more people will do the same, should they ever been in a similar situation.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']
You think that it's better to have that trash live and get away scott free[/quote]Liquid, you're a fuck of a lot better a debater than that...
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Liquid, you're a fuck of a lot better a debater than that...[/QUOTE]
Heh, sorry. I got worked up over the fact that people think Horn should get punished for doing the right (IMO) thing.
Shouldn't have let that attack through. :oops:

Like I said though, all this discussion seems to boil down to is philosophical differences and how much one values the life of a criminal.
 
So we've determined that a preson's garbage can now be protected with lethal force in Texas. So if a police detective was going through someone's garbage and they came out and shot them it would be justified. FABULOUS!
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So we've determined that a preson's garbage can now be protected with lethal force in Texas. So if a police detective was going through someone's garbage and they came out and shot them it would be justified. FABULOUS![/QUOTE]What point are you trying to make?


Response to this seemingly pointless, hypothetical situation:
1) That cop had better have a warrant (not like the who in this situation matters anyways)
2) It's very easy to mistake someone for an identity thief/bum
3) If this person didn't respond to warnings, then yeah, they could be shot, under the law

I'm not sure if garbage is included in the definition of property though.
 
What warnings did horn give the guys.

Murder is the prediliberated/premeditated intentionall killing of another human being.

Horn said "I'm gonna kill em" he then, against police instructions, went outside and shot them. The fact that he said so and did it against orders shows premeditation. Horn is guilty of 1st Degree Murder and in Texas, he'll possibly get the chair. As he fuckin should. He is a murderer plain and simple. No amount of provocation will justify taking the law into your own hands, and acting as judge jury and executioner.

What we are talking about here is a far cry from self defense.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']What point are you trying to make?


Response to this seemingly pointless, hypothetical situation:
1) That cop had better have a warrant (not like the who in this situation matters anyways)
2) It's very easy to mistake someone for an identity thief/bum
3) If this person didn't respond to warnings, then yeah, they could be shot, under the law

I'm not sure if garbage is included in the definition of property though.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think it might not be.
 
Johnny Reb is my hero, he seems to have joined CAG to argue this point since 14 out of 15 of his posts are here. Also he thinks guns are our God Given right, which means it was god taking those guys lives.

Here's to you Johnny Reb
 
I like you.
[quote name='JohnnyReb']What is absurd is the discraceful, shameless creature who is so irreverent that they would put graffiti on another person's property.

There is nothing at all illegitimate about Texas laws. They hold criminals accountable for their misdeeds and put the rights of the victim first, just as it should be.[/quote]
 
[quote name='pittpizza']What warnings did horn give the guys.

Murder is the prediliberated/premeditated intentionall killing of another human being.

Horn said "I'm gonna kill em" he then, against police instructions, went outside and shot them. The fact that he said so and did it against orders shows premeditation. Horn is guilty of 1st Degree Murder and in Texas, he'll possibly get the chair. As he fuckin should. He is a murderer plain and simple. No amount of provocation will justify taking the law into your own hands, and acting as judge jury and executioner.

What we are talking about here is a far cry from self defense.[/quote]

Despite his clear anger at what these men were doing, you can still hear him give ample warning when you approached them ("You Move You're Dead"), and when they did not comply, and moved towards him, he shot them.

I'd rather see two robbers removed from the gene pool than a diligent man like Horn, at least he cared enough to actually do something about the trash in this country rather than pass it off like it's someone else's problem.

And yes, these men were trash. When you break into someone else's home and try to steal or worse (See: Sean Taylor), then you should not be treated like some sort of special citizen who's rights must be overprotected because you wanted to be an idiot. You assumed responsibility for those risks the moment you broke into another's home.

The funny thing is, if even a single person was home, even if they were completely untouched by the robbers, Horn would be called a hero by everyone. Some grand preventor of homegrown terrorism. You know FOX News would be all over it. The problem with everyone's beliefs on the "sanctity of life" is that too many people believe that things are "unsanct" without it, if you get what I mean.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']...When you break into someone else's home and try to steal or worse (See: Sean Taylor), then you should not be treated like some sort of special citizen who's rights must be overprotected because you wanted to be an idiot. You assumed responsibility for those risks the moment you broke into another's home...[/QUOTE]


I don't think it can be said better than that, :applause:
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Despite his clear anger at what these men were doing, you can still hear him give ample warning when you approached them ("You Move You're Dead"), and when they did not comply, and moved towards him, he shot them.

[/QUOTE]



and how exactly did u know them moved towards him besides his word
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Murder is the prediliberated/premeditated intentionall killing of another human being.

Horn said "I'm gonna kill em" he then, against police instructions, went outside and shot them. The fact that he said so and did it against orders shows premeditation. Horn is guilty of 1st Degree Murder and in Texas, he'll possibly get the chair.[/QUOTE]
Being that this is Texas, I expect he will get a medal and run for governor.

In any other state, I would say the 911 recording would sink him and he would be charged with premeditated murder.

Is it too late to give Texas back to Mexico?
 
Update

He shot at least one of the guys in the back as he was attempting to flee. Not exactly the stuff of heroes.

And the entire event was witnessed by a plainclothes cop in his car so I expect we'll get a clearer version of the events soon.

Horn wanted to shoot them, no question about it. He could have stayed inside and let the police handle it. Or if he just wanted to scare them away, he could have fired a warning shot while they were still in his neighbor's house and shouted that he was calling the cops. But no, he waited until they were outside and ignored the 911 dispatcher and went outside to shoot two unarmed (as far as firearms) men.

But he's old, they're illegal immigrant burglars and it's Texas so at the most, I expect a showy trial with probation for manslaughter.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Is it too late to give Texas back to Mexico?[/quote]

Sorry, The Republic of Texas won their independence from Mexico in 1836.


A few facts from the article that was linked:

Both were illegal immigrants from Colombia, authorities said. Torres had been deported to Colombia in 1999 after serving time for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Both were also using fake identification cards and aliases, and their backgrounds are now being scrutinized by federal authorities to determine if they were part of a Colombian fake ID and burglary ring, authorities said.
Click to expand...

"One of them (suspects) moved and Joe thought he was coming towards him," Lambright said. "They were in such close proximity (to Horn) that they could be on top of him in half a second."
The fact that a police officer witnessed the shooting but did not arrest Horn is further evidence that he acted in self-defense, he said.
"You've got a trained police officer sitting there watching this, and he doesn't arrest Horn," Lambright said. "If the (plainclothes) officer thought it was not a righteous shooting, maybe the Pasadena Police Department would have arrested Mr. Horn for murder."
Click to expand...
 
No one has said the burglars were saints. But Horn didn't know any of that. He just saw brown people stealing his neighbor's stuff and he wanted to shoot them ignoring all the warnings from 911.

As for the plainclothes cop not arresting him at the scene, did he talk to 911 at the scene? Did he know then about the premeditated nature of the crime?
 
So do you know he shot them because they were brown or are you just trying to criminalize him to push your case and make yourself feel better?

[quote name='MrBadExample']No one has said the burglars were saints. But Horn didn't know any of that. He just saw brown people stealing his neighbor's stuff and he wanted to shoot them ignoring all the warnings from 911.

As for the plainclothes cop not arresting him at the scene, did he talk to 911 at the scene? Did he know then about the premeditated nature of the crime?[/quote]
 
Alright, there were people who were defending him by saying they were coming towards him and so he was defending himself, now we know they were running away (one guy might have been perceived as coming towards him, the other clearly wasn't).

Does that change anything?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Alright, there were people who were defending him by saying they were coming towards him and so he was defending himself, now we know they were running away (one guy might have been perceived as coming towards him, the other clearly wasn't).

Does that change anything?[/quote]
Not really, we still have two guys who were confronted when they were doing something they should not have been doing (breaking into the house). I for one would not just be standing there letting it take place (just because they weren't hurting anyone).

The one who approached Horn was justly put down, and while the other wasn't so much since he was running away, too bad for him.

I honestly cannot get behind the idea that letting a criminal get away when you have the ability to not let them is a justifiable action. They wanted to break the law, they wanted to take things that didn't belong to them, thank God no one was home, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't gain any protection because there wasn't anyone for them to hurt.

I don't really care if it was these two low-lifes who wanted to sneak into our country and deal drugs, or if it was two nuns looking to take items for a charity. You simply cannot enter someone's home forcefully without permission and expect to be treated like a special citizen while they debate your punishment (if you're caught).

No, do something like that in this country (and just about anywhere else in the world), and you can expect to take the risk that there will be someone with a gun nearby who doesn't give a damn about your "rights" when you want to treat others the way you do.

So no, this doesn't change anything for me. They wanted to be idiots, let them reap the consequences as such (that there might be others nearby with more firepower and less tolerance). As such, Horn should not be punished for doing the right thing and further pushing the Darwinism envelope.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='SpazX']Alright, there were people who were defending him by saying they were coming towards him and so he was defending himself, now we know they were running away (one guy might have been perceived as coming towards him, the other clearly wasn't).

Does that change anything?[/quote]

I'd say he's about as much of a vigilante as spiderman.
 
[quote name='camoor']I'd say he's about as much of a vigilante as spiderman.[/quote]
I don't think spiderman ever shot a guy (he's also fictional, but yeah).

If Joe Horn had stopped the guys with webbing and subsequently turned them over to the cops, we wouldn't be having this conversation (it would be a much more interesting one...).

EDIT: To HotshotX, nobody is saying they should be treated special, they should be treated the way any burglar is treated.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't think spiderman ever shot a guy (he's also fictional, but yeah).

If Joe Horn had stopped the guys with webbing and subsequently turned them over to the cops, we wouldn't be having this conversation (it would be a much more interesting one...).[/quote]

Jksimmonsjonahmovie.jpg


The reason the cops are after Spiderman is because he went after the theives who broke into Uncle Ben's house and one of them ended up dead in the scuffle.

Hmm sounds familiar :D
 
[quote name='HotShotX']I honestly cannot get behind the idea that letting a criminal get away when you have the ability to not let them is a justifiable action. They wanted to break the law, they wanted to take things that didn't belong to them, thank God no one was home, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't gain any protection because there wasn't anyone for them to hurt.[/QUOTE]

So where do you draw the line? Where is the division between misdemeanors and crimes that get you shot in the back? How about embezzlers? Can we shoot them without an arrest or trial? After all, they steal more in one day that these two could have ever hoped to take in a lifetime of B&Es.
 
Sure. Anyone smart enough to come up with a scheme like that is smart enough to know its still illegal.

[quote name='MrBadExample']So where do you draw the line? Where is the division between misdemeanors and crimes that get you shot in the back? How about embezzlers? Can we shoot them without an arrest or trial? After all, they steal more in one day that these two could have ever hoped to take in a lifetime of B&Es.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']So do you know he shot them because they were brown or are you just trying to criminalize him to push your case and make yourself feel better?[/QUOTE]
I don't have to do anything to criminalize a murderer. And I think it's naive to think race had nothing to do with Horn's ignorant determination to go outside and shoot two people who weren't posing a threat to anyone's physical safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top