Quote :

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

Those two are not the same thing at all.

There's a difference between being investigated and being charged.

Being charged should only follow being investigated.

Unless your name is Nifong.

Quote :

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

I'm curious. Suppose these two guys were caught and found to be, in fact, guilty of B&E and burglary. What would a proper punishment be? How do or should prior crimes affect the punishment?

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : oh, yeah: 3]

12/4/2007 3:36:03 PM

Quote :

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

Well the benefits of society go greater then that. The old man potentially saved someone else's hard earned property from getting stolen by these two. Also, with this story spreading across the country some potential wrong-doers might think again before robbing someones house.

12/4/2007 3:39:25 PM

Quote :

"gun owners seem to take pride in the idea that they can rightly determine who lives or dies"

so do criminals...wheres the outrage about them

12/4/2007 4:15:10 PM

I don't know anyone that isn't outraged by criminals...except maybe criminals?

12/4/2007 4:19:20 PM

Quote :

"so do criminals...wheres the outrage about them"

they are generally dealt with by the law.

12/4/2007 4:19:42 PM

well over half of crimes are never solved so i wouldnt say criminals are generally dealt with by the law

its certainly true in THEORY but not reality

12/4/2007 4:21:01 PM

Quote :

"he man who was arrested, Daniel Lopez, 37, was on parole at the time, police said. Lopez was arrested around 4:30 a.m. Sunday and booked into jail on suspicion of first-degree burglary, aggravated assault and criminal damage."

See maybe if the victims of these criminals first crime would have gotten real with the shotgun these
leeches of society would not have gotten out of jail only to break into someone elses home
and threaten a 15 yr old with an AK-47

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=504877

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 4:36 PM. Reason : a]

12/4/2007 4:35:42 PM

Quote :

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

You're doing a whole lot of assuming.

Quote :

"I'm curious. Suppose these two guys were caught and found to be, in fact, guilty of B&E and burglary. What would a proper punishment be? How do or should prior crimes affect the punishment?"

I don't believe I'm a fan of the whole crime and punishment model.

12/4/2007 4:40:02 PM

Quote :

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

Again: Does he have a right to confront someone committing a crime?

Does he have the right to do so in the safest manner possible?

So far the only person in this instance who didn't have a right to do what they did were the criminals.

Quote :

"You're doing a whole lot of assuming."

Yeah, that whole assumption of innocence thing will get you every time.

Quote :

"I don't believe I'm a fan of the whole crime and punishment model."

What then do you recomend? Serious question. If you don't punish people for comitting a crime, and you don't stop people while comitting a crime, what then do you do about crime?

12/4/2007 4:50:41 PM

Quote :

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

No, it is not even close to the same thing.

Quote :

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

Of course--but he isn't going to charge you with a crime unless his "looking into it" reveals that it appears your behavior was, in fact, criminal.

Quote :

"Again: Does he have a right to confront someone committing a crime? Does he have the right to do so in the safest manner possible? So far the only person in this instance who didn't have a right to do what they did were the criminals."

Exactly.

12/4/2007 5:01:46 PM

theDuke866:

Quote :

"What the fuck kind of warped sense of right and wrong (or lack thereof) is this shit? You're saying that you deserve to get shot for trying to do the right thing, help your neighbor out, and stop a crime? Oh, wait--it's because a gun was involved, and your blind-ass irrational hatred takes over and prevents any sort of rational thought from prevailing. "

actually i already explained i was being completely facetious.

and btw, i'm actually a pretty big fan of guns, so step off my nuts and stop assuming you know shit about me

12/4/2007 5:04:02 PM

Apparently, even the police are not obligated to protect you....

Quote :

"Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: `` For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). "

So if the gov't doesn't want you shooting burglers, and the police aren't legally obligated to do anything about them, where does that leave the citizen?

12/4/2007 5:31:16 PM

^i dont know how people can read about shit like that and then turn around and have so much faith in the police to protect them, all the while ridiculing and insulting a citizen who tries to basically do a good deed because its "vigilante justice"

sometimes thats the only kind of true justice

12/4/2007 5:36:12 PM

Quote :

"So if the gov't doesn't want you shooting burglers, and the police aren't legally obligated to do anything about them, where does that leave the citizen"

and so you discover how the Mafia flourished in NYC during the early 20th century. Especially upon Italian Americans the Mafia were well respected b.c they protected the community when the police did not give two shits about Italian immigrants. Of course you paid your "protection" money. This was extortion but if any petty thief thought about heisting shit from your store; he had the "don" to worry about.

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM. Reason : a]

12/4/2007 5:49:56 PM

Quote :

"D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' "

WTF???

Did I really read that correctly???

Wow... is that really what the law says? That's disgusting, but more than that, it is unbelievable. All that [justifiable] outrage over the rape vicitim getting punishment in Saudi Arabia... how about America fix its own house? The police left the women to be raped for 14 hours... at least in Saudi Arabia the rapists did get punished

Snewf should see this... and anybody who was calling for the Middle East to be nuked because of the rape victim case.


[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 6:07 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2007 6:06:08 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, that whole assumption of innocence thing will get you every time."

Doesn't that apply equally to the dead men? To make one man innocent, you have to assume two are guilty.

Quote :

"What then do you recomend? Serious question. If you don't punish people for comitting a crime, and you don't stop people while comitting a crime, what then do you do about crime?"

Well, I'm not at all opposed to trying to stop folks from committing actions that harm others. Breaking into someone's house and taking his or her possessions would often qualify. If people are hurting others, they should be confronted. Ideally, you try to reason with them. Perhaps a compromise could be reached.

Property crimes such as this one can't be separated from the social and economics circumstances. In a more egalitarian society, people wouldn't be as a likely to take personal possessions from their comrades.

12/4/2007 7:26:59 PM

1. Broad Daylight
2. Premeditation

I'm not anti self-defense. I'm not even anti-gun.

But I'm having a pretty hard time finding the part that makes it not murder.

12/4/2007 7:34:28 PM

^

i hope some criminals break into your house and you go cry in the closet while they walk out w/ your 42" HDTV. Meanwhile your neighbor is chillin on the front porch sippin beer laughing.

12/4/2007 7:37:49 PM

^ Broad daylight. No one was home next door. And the police were en route.

The time to shoot a burglar is when they are inside your house.

12/4/2007 7:41:51 PM

Quote :

"Apparently, even the police are not obligated to protect you...."

Yup, and it's been that way for a while. The police are charged with protecting the public at large, which the courts have found time and time again to mean investigating and arresting after crimes have been committed, but are under no obligation to stop any one particular instance of crime. On one level it makes sense, on the other hand, it's decisions like that which give the people looking for expanded self defense laws their ammo.

Quote :

"Doesn't that apply equally to the dead men? To make one man innocent, you have to assume two are guilty."

The occupational hazard of being a criminal is that you have to survive long enough to make it to the trial.

Quote :

"Well, I'm not at all opposed to trying to stop folks from committing actions that harm others. Breaking into someone's house and taking his or her possessions would often qualify. If people are hurting others, they should be confronted. Ideally, you try to reason with them. Perhaps a compromise could be reached. "

Right, but you have to catch them first. How do you propose that this 60 year old man stop two 30 something criminals with a crowbar so that they can be reasoned with? Besides, these guys had lots of chances to compromise:

1) Don't break in, don't get shot.
2) Don't steal, don't get shot.
3) Don't attack the 60 year old man with a shotgun, don't get shot.

In each case, they would have gotten the better end of the deal, but they chose wrong.

Quote :

"Property crimes such as this one can't be separated from the social and economics circumstances. In a more egalitarian society, people wouldn't be as a likely to take personal possessions from their comrades."

And yet white collar crime is still such a big problem.

I'll lay odds that in Mr. Horn's neighborhood, people are now less likely to take personal possessions from their comrades, especially if that comrade is Mr. Horn.

Quote :

"But I'm having a pretty hard time finding the part that makes it not murder."

Texas State General Statutes Sections 9.41 through 9.43

12/4/2007 7:52:59 PM

Did you bother reading it?

Quote :

"9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994."

That's a hefty burden of proof... Including at least one key element that does not appear to be present in this case.

12/4/2007 8:09:25 PM

Quote :

"The occupational hazard of being a criminal is that you have to survive long enough to make it to the trial."

What does that have to do with anything? I see no particular reason to believe the supposed criminals threatened or attacked Horn. His lawyer says the did. That's about it. Especially after hearing that tape, I'm not at all sure they did.

If they truly attacked him, he acted reasonably. However, on the tape, he sounded damn eager to kill them. Don't you think it's a bit too convenient? Man wants to kill crooks. Man confronts crooks and they immediately give him an excuse to blow them away. Possible, yes, but I'm doubtful.

12/4/2007 8:22:28 PM

Quote :

"Did you bother reading it?"

Yes, I did read it. In fact, if you look at page 2, I even bolded the important parts. Here's something you should pay attention to:

They specify "during the nighttime" for TWO separate crimes, and ONLY those two crimes. If they meant it to apply to all the listed crimes, they would have specified it for all the crimes or for the entire clause. They didn't which means "during the nighttime" applies only to "theft" and "criminal mischief". That's the great thing about lawyers, they always mean exactly what they write. So the burden of proof that he had to meet is as follows:

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41;
and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of ... burglary ...
or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary ... from escaping with the
property;
and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Plus section 9.43

Quote :

"What does that have to do with anything?"

It means that in order to get your fair trial, you need to first be alive to go to trial. Since the criminals in question aren't being tried for burglary, there's no need to presume them innocent. On the other hand, Mr. Horn is alive, and therefore, by law, the state must presume him innocent and prove him guilty, which means they have to presume the criminals guilty and prove them innocent.

But, here, let's presume them innocent for a moment. What are the facts? They broke into his neighbor's house. They removed stuff from the house. They tried to leave with that stuff. That makes them guilty of burglary. Now, it's your turn, prove Horn guilty of murder, be sure to see above.

Quote :

" Man confronts crooks and they immediately give him an excuse to blow them away. Possible, yes, but I'm doubtful."

They were stupid enough to break into a house in broad daylight IN TEXAS. How is it unbelievable that they were dumb enough to attack a 60 year old man with a shotgun?

Again and again, if the criminals wanted to be alive, all they had to do was not steal someone else's shit. It's that simple.



[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 8:47 PM. Reason : blah]

12/4/2007 8:37:30 PM

Quote :

"On the other hand, Mr. Horn is alive, and therefore, by law, the state must presume him innocent and prove him guilty, which means they have to presume the criminals guilty and prove them innocent."

Well, perhaps t3h g0v should, but that doesn't mean we have to. Unlike the g0v, I'm not threatening anyone with imprisonment or death. I say it's damn suspicious, and, unlike your state, I don't necessarily favor Horn simply because he's still alive.

Quote :

"Again and again, if the criminals wanted to be alive, all they had to do was not steal someone else's shit. It's that simple."

I don't consider it reasonable to kill people for stealing, so this means nothing to me. It's only a matter of whether they threatened him. Of course, I'm not even sure he should be pointing a gun at them simply because he thinks they were taking his neighbors possessions.

12/4/2007 9:24:33 PM

Quote :

"Well, perhaps t3h g0v should, but that doesn't mean we have to. Unlike the g0v, I'm not threatening anyone with imprisonment or death. I say it's damn suspicious, and, unlike your state, I don't necessarily favor Horn simply because he's still alive."

Fine, so let's assume Horn is guilty of murder, to prove him innocent, I merely have to prove that the killing he did was not unlawful. The criminals were committing burglary, texas law permits the use of deadly force to prevent burglary if the person using deadly force believes that use of other force would expose him to substantial risk of death or bodily injury. Horn is a 60 year old man. The criminals are 30 year old men with a crow bar. Horn attempting to get into a fist fight with them would expose him to substantial injury. Killing is legal under texas law. Horn is innocent.

Quote :

"I don't consider it reasonable to kill people for stealing, so this means nothing to me."

I don't consider it reasonable to expect to be treated fairly by society when you refuse to live by society's rules.

Quote :

"It's only a matter of whether they threatened him. "

Not in texas it isn't. Thankfully at least one state recognizes that a persons sweat and blood is something valuable and worth protecting.

12/4/2007 9:45:53 PM

I want to be clear, because I'm not sure. Let's say Horn simply stepped outside and shot the burglars. No time for them to attack or yield. Would you accept that a legitimate use of deadly force?

12/4/2007 10:54:58 PM

^ burden of proof is on the state b.c you are innocent until proven guilty as it should be. I mean it would be a sad state of affairs if $millions were spent for a full blown investigation to imprison a man who stopped two already convicted felons from committing a burglary on someones house.

Of course the Jesse Jackson crew will protest so i am sure their will be...

Quote :

"They were stupid enough to break into a house in broad daylight IN TEXAS. How is it unbelievable that they were dumb enough to attack a 60 year old man with a shotgun? Again and again, if the criminals wanted to be alive, all they had to do was not steal someone else's shit. It's that simple. "

[/thread]
[

12/5/2007 12:27:07 AM

Quote :

"I want to be clear, because I'm not sure. Let's say Horn simply stepped outside and shot the burglars. No time for them to attack or yield. Would you accept that a legitimate use of deadly force?"

Legally, possible. From my standpoint? No, the first warning ("hey stop!") or something similar would be the first level of force. Short of seeing them armed with guns, calling out to them to stop IN THIS INSTANCE does not subject Horn to substantial risk of bodily harm. However, I still wouldn't feel sympathy for the choir boys, nor would I want Horn charged. Just because I would do things differently, doesn't mean it should be illegal to do it any other way. Like I said, don't want to get shot, don't commit a crime. It really is that simple.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 12:47 AM. Reason : clarification]

12/5/2007 12:45:36 AM

^ I was definitely misreading the law last night... But the question of guilt or innocence should be determined in a court of his peers. It appears in this case that whether or not to press charges will depend on:

Quote :

"the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

So really, it's up to whether or not it was reasonable for Horn to feel that he had no other choice in order to stop the crime. That's depends on a host of issues, police response time, whether or not they had a getaway car, etc... but the most damning piece of evidence against Horn in this case is still going to be that audio tape. He was given clear instructions by the 911 operator not to do what he did... that could easily be a hangup on the reasonable belief that there was no other option. (Enough of a hangup to merit further investigation to say the least)

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 8:58 AM. Reason : ...]

12/5/2007 8:57:29 AM

if this guy is convicted of murder, bullshit like this is gonna cause other robberies to happen. So, now robbers know, no one is gonna shoot them if they rob shit cause its against the law to take any action against them? Soon no one is gonna bother to protect themselves or others due to fear of legal repercussions.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 9:38 AM. Reason : .]

12/5/2007 9:38:23 AM

^^ And that's the sad thing about all of this. If he had just wanted to kill some folks, all he had to do was do the same confrontation before he called 911 and this would barely be news. It's because he gave the cops a chance to respond first that he's in the trouble he's in. In short, the lesson being taught here is don't call 911 until after you've shot the criminals.

12/5/2007 10:04:41 AM

well, the cops arent gonna allow you to put yourself into a dangerous situation anyway. and if he had shot before he called the cops, and shooting them wasn't supposed to be allowed by the cops, wouldn't that just be a situation of "if theres no one to say its illegal, then its ok".

12/5/2007 10:36:51 AM

Seems that a lot of people seem to think this guy was wrong for confronting these burglers. That's the kind of complacencey that leads to crowds of people stading by and watching a rape occur or people turning up their TV's so they can't hear a woman being beaten to death outside their home. I guess we should just go ahead and prosecute the guy for for not being a pussy.

Some people also seem to have a problem with this guy bringing his gun along while he confronted them. Let's think about that for a second: 61 year-old man confronting two men in their 30s who are armed with a crowbar. The real question is why would he not bring his gun?

Then there are those who think this was racially motivated and that gun owner's simpley enjoy shooting people. Grow up. If you're not a murdering psycopath in the first place, buying a gun certainly won't turn you into one. Most people who legally own their guns don't go around shooting people, which is why it remains legal to own a gun. As far as race goes, I suppose you could make the argument that this shooting was racially motivated if the guy had shot two random black men who were just walking by and minding their bussiness. But it's hard to get around the fact that he saw them breaking into his neigbors home.

Also, the police can not be trusted to solve crimes like these. My brother was robbed at gunpoint by two people at his apartment. They took his cell phone which had an anti-theft GPS locator in it, a fact he made the police (who never actually came to his apartment) aware of. The only response he ever got from the police was a phone call from a detective seven weeks later at 11:30 PM. The fact is that the police spend little to no effort solving burglaries or robberies.

Now I'm not saying every person should intervene in every situation. I do, however, believe that a great deal of crimes could be prevented if a bystander would step in and confront the criminals. Most burglars will run at the sight of a home-owner, much less one who has a gun. I believe this guy was expecting exactly that to happen. But it does not appear that these two men tried to flee the scene at all. I don't know all the facts here, but if the two men in question did threaten a man with a gun, then they deseved to get shot.

Personally, I'd take this guy as my my neighbor anytime. You can agree or dissagree, I really don't give a rat's ass.

12/5/2007 10:45:02 AM

^^^ Agreed.

12/5/2007 10:50:20 AM

Quote :

"lso, the police can not be trusted to solve crimes like these. My brother was robbed at gunpoint by two people at his apartment. They took his cell phone which had an anti-theft GPS locator in it, a fact he made the police (who never actually came to his apartment) aware of. The only response he ever got from the police was a phone call from a detective seven weeks later at 11:30 PM. The fact is that the police spend little to no effort solving burglaries or robberies."

yeah 1000's of robberies occur around the country everyday. It would be impossible for the cops to try and solve all of them. If people stood up for themselves and their neighbors like Mr. Horn did then maybe we can turn the tide of crime in this country.

Back in the old west if you stole a horse; a mob of people hung you in the town square. We do not have to go that extreme but it's all about risk v. reward. 15% chance of getting caught by police and spending 3 years in jail may be worth the risk for breaking into someone's house to steal a big screen TV and some jewelry then running out, netting a few $1000. If instead there was a 15% of getting caught by the police and a 25% chance of some angry neighbor or the house's resident wasting you with a shotgun; then maybe the criminal will decide to get a job and stop stealing shit.

12/5/2007 11:12:09 AM

I think its okay to kill to defend property

this guy seemed to be itching to kill somebody though

12/5/2007 11:39:53 AM

Quote :

"However, I still wouldn't feel sympathy for the choir boys, nor would I want Horn charged. Just because I would do things differently, doesn't mean it should be illegal to do it any other way. Like I said, don't want to get shot, don't commit a crime. It really is that simple."

Well, I disagree completely. As far as I'm concerned, shooting two burglars isn't much different from shooting anyone else. Confronting them is fine. Being armed is probably wise. However, shooting only becomes moral and reasonable if they attack you.

Quote :

"That's the kind of complacencey that leads to crowds of people stading by and watching a rape occur or people turning up their TV's so they can't hear a woman being beaten to death outside their home."

Rape and murder are completely different from burglary.

Quote :

"Then there are those who think this was racially motivated and that gun owner's simpley enjoy shooting people. Grow up."

Before confronting the men, Horn said, "I'm going to kill them." You don't find that at all suspicious?

12/5/2007 1:15:44 PM

Quote :

"shooting two burglars isn't much different from shooting anyone else"

i think shooting two burglars is much much different from shooting say two school children or two nuns or just two people who happen to be minding their business as opposed to breaking into your neighbor's house to rob him

12/5/2007 1:30:22 PM

We clearly differ on that point.

You should only use a gun to defend yourself or others from death or injury. Not to defend your neighbor's property.

Burglary isn't even a violent crime. Burglars don't deserve death.

12/5/2007 1:33:34 PM

I think force is a reasonable means of defending property

the state does it all of the time
the individual's right to use force to protect his/her own interests is only subordinate to the state insofar as the power of the state is much larger than the power of the individual

12/5/2007 2:05:13 PM

Quote :

"the state does it all of the time"

I agree, though the state rarely shoots people over property alone. I don't recognize this use of force as legitimate.

12/5/2007 2:17:04 PM

What is the criminals made an aggressive move toward him thinking grandpa will not do shit or we can overpower grandpa. The guy is 60 what do you want him to do; roll his sleeves up and have a "fair" fist fight Jena6 style against the two 30 yr old men.

^ you are the reason that crime permeates our society. b.c often the criminals can break the law, profit, and get away with it without punishment.

The burden of proof is on the state of Texas need be that Horn murdered these men without reasonable cause and not self defense. This will be hard since the two guys were already committing felonies!!! Kind of like how if you are pulled and given a ticket for 85 in a 65 when you were really going 72. You can take it to court and fight it but the burden is on you who were already breaking the traffic laws to prove that "officer friendly" maliciously increased the speed for the ticket.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 2:37 PM. Reason : aa]

12/5/2007 2:33:15 PM

except not at all like that in any way

12/5/2007 4:38:50 PM

Quote :

"What is the criminals made an aggressive move toward him thinking grandpa will not do shit or we can overpower grandpa."

If so, he acted reasonably, as I said. However, it's nothing to celebrate.

Quote :

"^ you are the reason that crime permeates our society."

I can live with that. (Until I get shot for being a criminal, anyway.)

12/5/2007 4:44:51 PM

Quote :

"Before confronting the men, Horn said, "I'm going to kill them." You don't find that at all suspicious?"

Again, if he just wanted to kill him some darkies, he could have avoided all the trouble he's in now by just shooting them first and calling 911 to come pick up the bodies. The fact that he called 911 first suggests to me that he didn't want to kill anyone if he didn't have to, but he also wasn't going to let some dumb ass punks who think they're above the law get away with stealing a piece of his neighbor's life.

Quote :

"Burglary isn't even a violent crime."

You and I differ on that point, Burglary is an act of violence against a person. Just because your body is not physically harmed doesn't make it non-violent.

Quote :

"Burglars don't deserve death."

When you live outside the laws and rules of society, you don't deserve the same protections those laws and rules provide.

12/5/2007 4:47:08 PM

Quote :

"The fact that he called 911 first suggests to me that he didn't want to kill anyone if he didn't have to, but he also wasn't going to let some dumb ass punks who think they're above the law get away with stealing a piece of his neighbor's life."

He seemed to want official sanction for confronting the burglars. That he was somewhat reluctant to confront them doesn't mean acted properly once he did so.

Quote :

"You and I differ on thatmost if not all points"

Indeed. This is a consistent pattern, by the way. Have we ever agreed on anything? I'm not sure.

Quote :

"Burglary is an act of violence against a person. Just because your body is not physically harmed doesn't make it non-violent."

I say it does exactly that. Otherwise, the distinction between violent and non-violent crimes becomes meaningless.

Quote :

"When you live outside the laws and rules of society, you don't deserve the same protections those laws and rules provide."

The right not to be shot, if want to call it that, doesn't depend on any society or laws. It's a natural one.

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 5:02 PM. Reason : indeed]

12/5/2007 5:01:14 PM

Quote :

"When you live outside the laws and rules of society, you don't deserve the same protections those laws and rules provide."

so burglary should be punishable by death

[Edited on December 5, 2007 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2007 5:02:55 PM

death by homeowner

12/5/2007 5:03:14 PM

Quote :

"The right not to be shot, if want to call it that, doesn't depend on any society or laws. It's a natural one."

that sounds fine in fantasy land, right along with the right to not have scumbags break into your house and rob you

12/5/2007 5:03:36 PM

remember, this guy's house wasn't being robbed.

you guys need to stop acting as if the dudes busted up into his house, that isn't the case at all. if it had been, i doubt many people would have a problem with the situation.

12/5/2007 5:07:15 PM