Robbers should be punished by death now? K.

7/1/2008 11:45:11 AM

theres an easy solution you know...if you don't want to go out like these guys did

DON'T BREAK INTO PEOPLES' HOUSES

seems simple enough

7/1/2008 11:46:25 AM

^^ I don't think that's what anyone is suggesting.

7/1/2008 11:47:23 AM

great summary duke. I imagine that fact that they didnt "freeze" but actually ran towards the shotgun will shut up several on this thread.

7/1/2008 12:01:41 PM

It is. If it is justifiable for a citizen to shoot someone and kill them for robbing a neighbors house, then why is it not alright for the government - the one that is in charge of enforcing the laws in this country - to execute the same punishment?

7/1/2008 12:02:40 PM

Quote :

"And make no mistake, this man shot these guys in the back from long range. This was an execution, he was not defending anything."

One of them was shot on his property (ok, the curb in front of his property) the other in his next door neighbor's backyard, hardly long range shooting, remember this is a suburb.

Quote :

"What I do not understand is if a plainclothes officer was across the street, why didn't the dispatcher inform him of this? He knew Joe was enraged watching this go down and after 8 minutes felt like the police were never going to get there. I genuinely think if he had just said "Joe, we have an undercover officer outside to tail them" he would have been alright with it. "

That is certainly a question I wish could have been answered. Clearly the reason he confronted them in the first place was because he thought the cops weren't going to get there in time, there were a couple more just up the street too responding to the call as well.

Quote :

"And when all else fails, the question of whether or not theft is worth the loss of life is up to the criminal, not the property owner."

Should be made into law. This whole situation in the first place could have been avoided if the two career criminals had chosen different careers.

Quote :

"It always amazes me that those most likely to feign defense of the absolute nature of the constitution and the rule of law in matters of legislation are the most likely to ignore the whole "innocent until proven guilty in the court of law" thing. "

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct designed to protect citizens from the government, not criminals from law abiding citizens defending themselves, their property and the rule of law. Furthermore, in order to be proven guilty in a court of law, you have to survive long enough to get to the court of law, clearly these two didn't have good survival instincts.

Quote :

"he should have had the shells filled with salt. that would have stopped them too."

As duke covered, this would most certainly have landed horn in jail. The law has been interpreted by the courts to mean that if you are going to shoot anything, you are shooting to kill, period.

Quote :

"They were fleeing from a neighbor's home several houses down. "

They were charging at him from his next door neighbors house.

Quote :

"here is a huge difference between shooting someone who has come into your house and it is ambiguous whether they are a threat and walking down the street shooting two unarmed theives from a home you know to be vacant. "

Except he didn't walk down the street, he walked out into his front yard and confronted the men next door.

Quote :

"here is a huge difference between shooting someone who has come into your house and it is ambiguous whether they are a threat and walking down the street shooting two unarmed theives from a home you know to be vacant. "

Of course he's talking himself up, he's a 60 some odd year old man about to confront two much younger armed criminals. You would be talking yourself up too.

Quote :

" What he did was kill someone, execution style and from behind."

Hardly execution style, he gave them a chance to stop and surrender and one of them decided to charge him.

Quote :

" I don't want my front yard turned into a bloody crime scene over my stereo."

Agreed, that's why I support the elimination of career criminals from society, whether by jail or on the job injury.

Quote :

"The dispatcher repeatedly tells the man not to go out there and do anything. He even tells the dispatcher, "I'm sorry." The dispatcher tells the man for MINUTES not to go out and that killing someone for property isn't worth it."

Of course the dispatcher was telling him that. If he hadn't a Horn had died, he would be liable in Horns death. Similarly, if he had and the criminals died, he'd be liable there as well. No 911 dispatcher is ever going to tell you to confront a criminal, ever.

Quote :

"He also yells, 'you're dead.'"

He specifically yells, "Move and you're dead". In other words, an offer to surrender. They instead chose to charge the man with a shotgun.

Quote :

"On the other hand, I think it's pretty obvious these guys didn't charge Joe and the cop made up that little bit to help him slide. I think the racism piece of it (as much as I hate to see the card played) is definitely in effect here. "

The cop didn't make it up, Horn said as much himself, clearly his story was substantiated by the cop, but the claim that they charged him is entirely Horn's

Quote :

"I don't mind the law so much in cases like this, but like others mentioned, if 2 white American teenagers decide to do something stupid like rob a house for shits and giggles, is blasting them in the back justifiable punishment for them?"

If they charged the man with the shotgun, yes. Sorry, being a teen doesn't mean you don't know not to attack people with guns.

Quote :

"Robbers should be punished by death now? K."

Robbers should choose a different career path. Chance of death is just one of the many job hazzards.

Quote :

"It is. If it is justifiable for a citizen to shoot someone and kill them for robbing a neighbors house, then why is it not alright for the government - the one that is in charge of enforcing the laws in this country - to execute the same punishment?"

If one of them had charged an armed cop that had ordered them the freeze, it would have been just as justifiable.

Further, the government is provided with considerably more leeway than private citizens and therefore is under a larger obligation to attempt to apprehend the criminal first.

7/1/2008 12:13:38 PM

Quote :

"The cop didn't make it up, Horn said as much himself, clearly his story was substantiated by the cop, but the claim that they charged him is entirely Horn's"

Durr, they corrobarated on the story together in real time. What unarmed person charges someone with a gun pointed at them? We can imagine that maybe this was the point Joe yelled freeze, why did he still feel threatened when the criminal turned to run the other way? Why didn't he pull the trigger the instant the thug was running at him, instead, he waited and shot him in the back? Does not compute.

7/1/2008 1:05:48 PM

You know, for all this talk about how they were "charging" Horn, perhaps it bears repeating:

Quote :

"Authorities have said one man ran toward Horn but had angled away toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb."

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2008 1:06:01 PM

^ Agreed

^^ I don't necessarily think it's what happened here, but I have no problem believing that an unarmed man would sometimes "charge" an armed man.

In this case, I think they were running away from the house they just robbed, and just happened to pick a direction that would carry them across the property of a man with a shotgun who was (a) unable to read their minds and know their intent when they mistakenly ran in his general direction, (b) pissed that they were robbing his neighbor's house, and (c) legally allowed to shoot them in these circumstances.

7/1/2008 1:12:39 PM

Quote :

"(a) unable to read their minds and know their intent when they mistakenly ran in his general direction,"

How was the guy shot in the back while running in his general direction? Moonwalk?

7/1/2008 1:19:00 PM

who knows...its just a risk you take when you break into peoples' houses to steal their property...if you continuously show zero respect for other peoples' property, perhaps eventually someone will show zero respect for your life and you'll die

7/1/2008 1:20:51 PM

I never claimed he was. Hell, if you'll notice, I agreed in that same post that it bears repeating that he'd angled away and was shot in the back.

Now, that may or may not mean he was running straight away...it could mean that, all the way up to running nearly perpendicular to Joe Horn. It does mean, though, that at the time Horn squeezed the trigger, he wasn't running at him.

7/1/2008 1:22:13 PM

Forgive me for being confused where you agreed with Grumpy, then stated this

Quote :

" ^^ I don't necessarily think it's what happened here, but I have no problem believing that an unarmed man would sometimes "charge" an armed man."

I realize charge is in quotes, but I can't read your mind, especially when the rest of your post and every other post in this thread sides completely with Horn.

7/1/2008 1:25:56 PM

well whether or not you think Horn was completely justified in what he did, whether it be morally justified, legally justified, etc, I don't see how anyone could side with the burglars MORE than they side with Horn

7/1/2008 1:33:11 PM

what makes you think anyone here is "siding more" with the burglars than with Horn?
Because some of us think that the burglars don't deserve to be dead means that we "side more with them"?

7/1/2008 1:39:07 PM

Stealing is wrong, should be in jail.

Killing is wrong, should be in jail.


See? It's not one sided at all. They're both in the wrong. Unfortunately people lost their lives because of the latter, while only property was potentially lost in the first case.

As a side note, the stolen property is probably locked away as evidence for years now and will not be recovered.

7/1/2008 1:45:50 PM

Quote :

"They're both in the wrong."

the grand jury disagrees

do you know why many people rob and steal other peoples' shit instead of working hard like you're supposed to do to be able to afford your own shit? its because they know chances are they won't get caught by the cops and they'll get away with it

7/1/2008 1:47:00 PM

That's fine if you want to tow that line, but can I hold you to that when you bitch about any court decisions that you think are unjust?

7/1/2008 1:48:36 PM

i enjoyed the recent Supreme Court decision on the 2nd amendment

and I'm only mentioning that the grand jury disagrees because they obviously have more of a say in the matter than you or I...they don't think Horn was in the wrong...thats how they interpreted their laws

according to them, Horn shouldn't be in jail

7/1/2008 1:50:45 PM

That's great, but that doesn't invalidate my, or your opinion.

7/1/2008 1:54:45 PM

it doesn't invalidate your opinion but it sure as hell validates mine

and i don't think anyone who steals should be sentenced to death or anything like that...but i damn sure don't have sympathy for the lives of some illegal aliens who come into our country to rob our citizens...fuck that

7/1/2008 1:55:31 PM

I wonder if the old man was holding his shotgun against his side when he went outside and yelled "Freeze!" at which point the goons ran towards him (not seeing the shotgun for whatever reason, or seeing it as a baseball bat or something), then when he raised it up at them they realized it was a shotgun (not a baseball bat or a piece of rebar) and tried to run like fuck.

I'd say it is vigilantism, but I don't see anything wrong with it in this case, besides the fact that they died because they wouldn't stop. They did make their own choices in life, and the grand jury agreed that this incident wasn't outside of the range of expected workplace hazards for criminals. It sucks that they got shot, but society didn't lose anything with them gone.

7/1/2008 1:59:26 PM

Quote :

"at which point the goons ran towards him (not seeing the shotgun for whatever reason, or seeing it as a baseball bat or something), then when he raised it up at them they realized it was a shotgun (not a baseball bat or a piece of rebar) and tried to run like fuck."

that's imagining quite a scenario with little to no evidence

7/1/2008 2:06:11 PM

I think it's pretty obvious that when a person has broken into your house to steal something, theft isn't the only potential crime the property owner has to fear.

So let's put the "death penalty for theft!?" argument to rest.

7/1/2008 2:39:02 PM

I'd put it to rest if the criminals were in Mr. Horn's house. He had to go outside to confront them, not the other way around.

7/1/2008 2:41:56 PM

^^Well, they weren't breaking into his house, which is why this case is even in the news at all. That and the fact that he decided to call 911 first. But even though they weren't breaking into his home, texas law certainly seems to have been on his side, and the grand jury agrees.

Still, a man has a right, and in my opinion the responsibility, to attempt to stop a crime in progress if he is so inclined.

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM. Reason : wee]

7/1/2008 2:42:08 PM

Yeah, Texas law....the same law that allowed Horn to murder the thieves originated along side the same ones outlining when it was legal to execute your slaves. rofl.

7/1/2008 2:44:09 PM

^^^ Well it's hard to debate this specific case. It's crazy, and apparently we don't even know the details.

But people were attacking the broader concept of home defense, with a pretty lame argument, so I chimed in.

7/1/2008 2:46:12 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, Texas law....the same law that allowed Horn to murder the thieves originated along side the same ones outlining when it was legal to execute your slaves. rofl. "

I bet when you typed that you thought it was a good point too.

7/1/2008 2:49:06 PM

What?

7/1/2008 2:53:58 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, Texas law....the same law that allowed Horn to murder the thieves originated along side the same ones outlining when it was legal to execute your slaves. rofl."

Actually, the law in question passed just a few months before this incident occurred. Besides, when does it matter when the law originated? The law that allows you to a trial by jury originated when you could be arrested for laughing at a politician? Does that make it out dated and something we should ignore?

7/1/2008 2:58:53 PM

Quote :

"But people were attacking the broader concept of home defense, with a pretty lame argument, so I chimed in."

where?

7/1/2008 3:04:17 PM

Quote :

"death penalty for theft!?"

7/1/2008 3:10:47 PM

you're presuming a lot there boone. i know i was referring to this case, in that he's in effect punishing them for a crime they committed on someone else's property. nice try though.

7/1/2008 3:11:39 PM

Quote :

"Actually, the law in question passed just a few months before this incident occurred."

I haven't studied every detail about this case, but he didn't get off because of the Castle Doctrine. He got off because of this

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00

and if I read correctly (searching for the link again) this originated all the way back to the 1850s, though this actual language was included in a revision to the penal code in 1973.

Texas is cool with property over life. Is anyone surprised?

Quote :

"Besides, when does it matter when the law originated? The law that allows you to a trial by jury originated when you could be arrested for laughing at a politician? Does that make it out dated and something we should ignore?"

It generally shouldn't matter when a law originated, but it should matter that old antiquated laws coming from a time when we were a less enlightened people are still existing and allow a guy like Joe Horn to murder 2 folks who were of no threat to him or his property.

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 3:14 PM. Reason : a]

7/1/2008 3:12:47 PM

Part of the castle doctrine law was, if I recall, the elimination of the duty to retreat when outside your home.

Quote :

"Texas is cool with property over life. Is anyone surprised? "

The burglars were clearly cool with it too, else they wouldn't be burglars.

7/1/2008 3:26:12 PM

I doubt your average burglar thinks he'll be shot by the neighbor when robbing a home he cased and knew to be empty.

7/1/2008 3:28:01 PM

Maybe if more states were like texas and more people were like Joe Horn, they would, and we'd see less burglars. Besides, if you're a criminal and don't count on being killed as an occupational hazard, you're not going to last too long.

7/1/2008 3:30:28 PM

This is a real tough one. I think that Horn should get off scott-free considering the unique situation, and that new legislation should be processed so that in the future Texas can clarify what is considered legal deadly force. This goes way beyond good samaritan laws and what is considered self-defense or protection of personal property.

7/1/2008 3:31:07 PM

Quote :

"I doubt your average burglar thinks he'll be shot by the neighbor when robbing a home he cased and knew to be empty."

I agree. Which is why if this was an option, we could see less robberies and home invasions.

I dont see where he did anything wrong. He even told them to freeze.. the criminals made some very very poor decisions up until thier death.

7/1/2008 3:36:16 PM

Texas law allows people to defend other's property as well, if they reasonably believe it is in need of defense, and that is quite frankly a good thing. History has shown us time and time again that only when the people, not the police, not the government and not the military, the people, show an interest in the enforcement of law and the peacefulness of their communities and a willingness to work for that peacefulness, will crime go down. Why do you think neighborhood watches are effective?

7/1/2008 3:38:46 PM

Quote :

"I dont see where he did anything wrong. "

Just the whole playing God thing with 2 individuals that weren't infringing on his life one bit. I suppose you could make the case that a robbery in his neighborhood would effect his home value.

Personally, I'm just not comfortable with guys like you and b4ka deciding the fate of my life in some weird non criminal instance where you have put yourself in a position to be threatened when it didn't exist before. I envision some weird case where my little dog gets loose, runs into the neighbors back yard, and your crazy ass runs out of the house mistaking the bag of shit Im carrying for a bag of loot and blasts me in the back when I try to run away. Sure it's fanciful, but with laws to prevent guys like you from playing judge/jury/executioner, we'd never have that discussion.

7/1/2008 3:41:01 PM

7/1/2008 3:43:58 PM

Quote :

"Maybe if more states were like texas and more people were like Joe Horn, they would, and we'd see less burglars."

And then maybe burglars would look to arm themselves with guns instead of crowbars. And then maybe we'd have armed shoot outs every time someone robs a house. That would be fun wouldn't it? Yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaw

7/1/2008 3:44:58 PM

Quote :

"Just the whole playing God thing "

You prochoice tole? Support the military? Im curious where you draw the line.

Seems to me the criminals made a bad decision when breaking into the country. Another when they broke into the house(not located in a blue state). Another when they approached the man with the gun. Another when they didnt listen to what he said.

I applaud the man for being a good neighbor and american. Its about time we had our courts backing good people taking a stand against criminals.

7/1/2008 3:54:46 PM

He didn't have to shoot to kill. How about no more Kneecaps instead? The way the story is told it seems like his intention was to kill, not to immobilize and arrest. That's the biggest problem with this case.

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 3:58 PM. Reason : -]

7/1/2008 3:57:33 PM

Quote :

"Which is why if this was an option, we could see less robberies and home invasions."

This statement has no evidence behind it. It's already been proven that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent for crimes. Can you put any numbers behind your statement?

7/1/2008 4:04:03 PM

Quote :

"He didn't have to shoot to kill. How about no more Kneecaps instead? "

please don't bring that up - it weakens your argument. Every military and police-trained person on here is going to jump all over you.

in short: there is not such thing as "shoot to maim". You cannot "aim for the knees" or whatever. In any situation where you have a firearm, you shoot at the largest mass, which is the chest, and you shoot to kill. All the stuff you see on TV and movies where they shoot knees or feet or they graze your shoulder is just hollywood BS

7/1/2008 4:04:11 PM

Quote :

"I applaud the man for being a good neighbor and american."

Shooting guys in the back that you made a threat to yourself - The American Way!

Just think about that for the neighbor part for a second. I'd feel extremely sad for my neighbor if he felt compelled to put his life in danger to protect some material property I have in my home. I'd feel extremely sad for him if he had to take the lives of some petty criminals. Sure these guys are pretty much low lifes, but lets be honest here, they didn't execute someone in the street, they didn't rape a child, they didn't mug an elderly individual. Encouraging the murder of these two in defense of property....property?.... no matter how worthless to society they were, is taking a step back in civility.


^ He was carrying a shotgun, not a 9mm. At the distance he was, there is a pretty good chance he could have hit lower extremities and not killed these guys.


[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 4:10 PM. Reason : a]

7/1/2008 4:05:14 PM

ALWAYS REMEMBER

IN A SITUATION WHERE SEVERE INJURY OR IMMEDIATE DEATH MAY ENSUE, AND YOU CANNOT FLEE - SHOOT TO NEUTRALIZE THE SITUATION. NOTHING LESS, NOTHING MORE

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : -]

7/1/2008 4:20:47 PM