[quote name='HotShotX']See, the funny thing is, you're not here to debate an actual topic anymore. You spend more time calling everyone idiots just because they don't agree with your ideals.
That's a lot of hypocrisy coming from someone who's taken up the "equality & understanding" position in this chat.
We're entitled to act/believe how we want in this country, or have you forgotten? So, with this being a debate forum, feel free to join in and express your ideals, but don't go around and start harshly criticizing others for stating how they would act in such a situation or how they feel Horn should be viewed.
Honestly, I think you spend too much time wanting to play the race card, but you're entitled to that, just don't go knocking others for having a different point of view.
Now, getting to your argument:
The guilt admission wasn't running away, it was breaking into the house (Horn witnessed them entering and exiting). I don't believe race had anything to do with it (seeing as how most people don't let strange white men into their house either). Horn left his house to try to apprehend them, and when they fled/ran at him, they were shot.
Is it as black and white as that? No, of course it isn't, but that doesn't mean someone can just assume the absolute worst, call it a hate crime, give Horn the chair, say "justice was served", and call it a day.
As you said, we have a justice system in this country, a justice system where one is judged by a group of their peers. And what will you say, should a group of his peers deem Horn to be in the right for stopping two crooks? Will you think all of them should burn in Hell or be jailed? Will you say justice was not carried out?
All in all, ignorance and stupidity doesn't exist just because someone has a different viewpoint from you. That's the kind of ideology that leads to "bombing some brown people" if you know what I mean.
In the end, I think the following is true:
had nothing to do with it.
~HotShotX[/quote]
I never said someone was not entitled to act or believe what they want. I said that whoever acts like/believes property is more important than life is a
in idiot and I am entitled to say that because it's true. It's undebatable and can't really be argued about. Well it can be, but not logically: If you value stuff more than you value life then you're just simply wrong, and probably stupid. BTW, who the hell said I took up the "equality and understanding" position? My only position is the "Use your brain" position.
Actually more of my post was on topic rather than flaming, so you're wrong there too (about where my time is spent)...again.
Regarding the race card (funny pic BTW) I never said it was a hatecrime (you put those words in my mouth) nor did I say that they were not guilty (though I will now since in USA (even Texas) you're not guilty until proven so beyond a reasonable doubt). I am referring to a court of law here, not a court of public opinion where one is guilty until proven innocent. All I said was that it is more likely than not that race played a factor (just one of many) and that fleeing does not equal guilty. I then proceeded to label people (justifiably so) who think it is more likely race had nothing to do with it than race being a factor in Horn's actions naive and ignorant. Try to re-read this paragraph and even you may be able to understand that my point is
not that Horn killed them because he was racist, only that my point is that IMO, race was more likely than not one factor of many.
HotshotX, one smart and non-ignorant (educated?) point you made was asking how I would feel if a jury acquitted Horn. I'm acutally really glad you brought this up because (1) It may very well happen, and (2) the hypothetical should help everyone understand my and others stance on this subject.
So lets visit "what if" land and assume Horn goes to trial for Murder/Manslaughter whatever. Lets even assume that the prosecution proved all elements of Murder1 beyond a reasonable doubt and we have a room full of deliberating jurors saying/debating "Well, he did, with premeditation, take the life of another human being. The recording, the testimony, everythign is in place telling us to give a GUILTY verdict, but we are still uncomfortable convicting this guy for what he did!" This is what is known by lawyers, and 99% unknown by non-lawyers as "
jury nullification." Jury nullification is where the jury simply disregards the law because following the law will not (in the jury's opinion) result in justice. SO they find him NOT GUILTY anyway. I have absolutely no problem with this. As a matter of fact I will be pleased that the political forces and pressure from orgs like the NRA didn't prevent the DA from pressing charges to begin with. This is what I would call Due Process of Law, and this is what Horn took from the murder victims when he acted as judge/jury/executioner.
My legal opinion though (albeit fairly inexperienced) is that most juries do not have jurors that are aware of jury nullification, and therefore usually do a good job of at least trying to follow the law, which in this case seems to be that Horn will be found Not Guilty as to the murder victim that was allegedly advancing towards him, and Guilty as to the murder victim that was running away from him. (I'm not going to get into the lesser degrees of murder/manslaughter b/c it is VERY complicated).
and some guy who talks, looks, and acts like a racist hick (
