Quote :

"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? "

Yeah, the death penality. I dont see how sitting in jail for 40 years before gettting killed isnt a great deterrent. I know I remember what the guys who are put down this year did.. back in 67.

I know if i touch a hot stove, im less likely to touch it again vs. a cold one. Dont make things more complicated than they need to be.

risk vs. reward my friend.

7/1/2008 4:24:03 PM

Okay, so you acknowledge the fact that you have no statistical evidence supporting your opinion and that your statements of facts are based solely off of anecdotal evidence?


That's fine and all, if that is what you are presenting, but don't present it as any sort of fact, because it is far from it.

7/1/2008 4:30:33 PM

I haven't weakened anything. Like I said, I agree that Horn should get off scott-free. Now, in regards to the way in which people use deadly force, that is another topic for discussion. I don't believe that Horn tried to avoid killing these criminals, I believe he meant to end their lives.

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM. Reason : -]

7/1/2008 4:31:22 PM

monky supporting my opinion of what?

I know the DC gun ban did wonders to control gun violence in DC. Need those stats? Google them.

I also know that a dead criminal wont commit another crime 100% of the time. Pretty rock solid numbers there.

7/1/2008 4:36:26 PM

I don't think he should get off scott-free for the simple fact that the 911 dispatcher was yelling at him and telling him not to go outside. It was clear from the beginning that Horn meant to kill these people. Listen to the tapes and think if this man is calling to phone in something for the authorities to take care of or if the man is calling to establish some sort of defense for killing someone.

The cops were on scene within a minute of him shooting those people, they would have been caught.

7/1/2008 4:37:22 PM

Quote :

"I know the DC gun ban did wonders to control gun violence in DC."

This is unrelated to the issue we're talking about. Please address the issue of guns in homes being deterrents to crimes (home robbery, petty theft).

Quote :

" I also know that a dead criminal wont commit another crime 100% of the time. "

I know you're not advocating murdering every criminal, that would be stupid, what are you advocating exactly?

7/1/2008 4:41:15 PM

Quote :

"It was clear from the beginning that Horn meant to kill these people."

wow and you call out other people for not having evidence?

- the federal government failed by letting these criminals (back) into the country in the first place (one of the guys had already been deported in 1999 for PWISD cocaine)
- the local government and cops failed to prevent these guys from committing multiple robberies, and failed in capturing them after previous robberies in the area (as if they gave a shit)

sounds like if the feds and the locals fuck up its up to the citizens

besides...what if some of that stolen property was a family heirloom or something from your grandfather? how exactly can you replace those items?

another question for you all: how many of you have ever had your person/home/vehicle/etc robbed? of those of you who have had property stolen, how many of you either got the property back and/or had the criminals caught?

7/1/2008 4:42:03 PM

Unfortunately, Horn should get off scott-free, because of the clear lack of legislation on the books. From a legal standpoint, it's only fair to release Horn. However, this provides incentives for future legislation to correct this loophole in Texas.

7/1/2008 4:43:20 PM

Quote :

" - the federal government failed by letting these criminals into the country in the first place (one of the guys had already been deported in 1999 for PWISD cocaine) - the local government and cops failed to prevent these guys from committing multiple robberies sounds like if the feds and the locals fuck up its up to the citizens "

Not the issue at all. I am addressing crime in general, I don't care where/who these criminals were, it is outside the scope of the argument I am making. (However, you are right that they should not have been in the country.)

Quote :

"how exactly can you replace those items?"

You can't, something along those lines is irreplaceable, but I would never kill someone for something like that either. Yes, I would kill to protect my families lives, but someone trying to steal stuff from my house is not an offense worthy of murder.

7/1/2008 4:46:32 PM

Quote :

"wow and you call out other people for not having evidence?"

How many times in your soap box posting history will you use this comment?

I think it's pretty obvious from the way the statement was made that his statement was an opinion formed on the information he had at hand, not a statement of fact. So your statement about calling someone out for not having evidence doesn't even make sense here.

Quote :

"besides...what if some of that stolen property was a family heirloom or something from your grandfather? how exactly can you replace those items?"

You mean, how can I help my neighbor to replace his family heirlooms?

Quote :

"another question for you all: how many of you have ever had your person/home/vehicle/etc robbed? of those of you who have had property stolen, how many of you either got the property back and/or had the criminals caught?"

I had an $800 mountain bike stolen from my back porch, it was my fault entirely for leaving it there so that it was easily plucked, but Id rather not contemplate how I would react or how I might feel for ending someones life for a fucking bike. A bike?!

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM. Reason : a]

7/1/2008 4:49:58 PM

^^well some people get fed up with burglars being able to steal peoples' shit and never ever having to face consequences...lets say I have $30,000 worth of property stolen from me...not only are they taking $30,000 worth of property from me, but they're taking all the time and work I put in in order to be able to buy those things...they're taking a chunk of your life...FUCK them being able to get away with it because the cops don't care and the justice system is fucked...Mr. Horn had had enough

and i think the failure of both federal and local govt/cops is very relevant...maybe Mr. Horn wouldn't have felt the need to get involved if he had a smidgen of faith that the cops might show up in a reasonable amount of time, that these people would be caught and prosecuted, that his neighbor would have everything returned to him, etc...but thats not how the legal and judicial system work...in theory yes, in reality hell no

^so should we just accept that people will go around stealing your stuff and hardly ever getting caught and be like "oh well i guess somebody broke into my house and stole the stuff i worked hard for, sucks for me?" or maybe we should "let the authorities handle it" even when their idea of handling it is filing a report and putting it in the back of a drawer never to see the light of day again?

7/1/2008 4:50:11 PM

Quote :

"(However, you are right that they should not have been in the country.)"

dont worry, they're not around anymore

7/1/2008 4:51:33 PM

Quote :

"^so should we just accept that people will go around stealing your stuff and hardly ever getting caught? or maybe we should "let the authorities handle it" even when their idea of handling it is filing a report and putting it in the back of a drawer never to see the light of day again?"

If the only thing I have ever had stolen from me in over 28 years of life is a mountain bike, where I placed it in a location that I might as well have had a sign on it that said "take this, I'm an idiot", then I'm not too concerned with having laws to enable gun toting wanna be heroes to blast on site whenever they run outside and and suddenly feel threatened.

I mean damn, insurance replaced everything over my deductible anyway...just wish I could find the bastard that did it for the trouble he caused me, I'd blast his ass

I mean, I kinda wish someone would have blasted this guy

http://www.townofcary.org/news/news2008/police-hotpointarrest.htm

since he was never caught. Wait, what?

7/1/2008 5:00:41 PM

Quote :

"it was my fault entirely for leaving it there so that it was easily plucked,"

Its really sad that that is how people think these days. No it is NOT your fault your bike got stolen. THe fact that it was "easy" to steal reaffirms my risk vs rewards arguement. Do you think it would have been stolen if you were there and armed?

7/1/2008 5:01:57 PM

i'm sure horn's neighbor's house had a sign on it that said "break into my locked house, i'm an idiot"

apparently you're content with how our justice system works...i have absolutely no idea why, but thats your opinion

btw great point with the article from the town of cary...the guy only committed a mere 31 crimes before he was caught

7/1/2008 5:02:05 PM

Quote :

"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."

Do you plan on robbing my neighbor's house? If not, I have no plans to confront you armed with a gun. These criminals took their lives into their own hands when they chose to break into this house. They decided their own fate when they charged the guy with a gun. Every single bit of this could have been avoided if these two chose an honest career path. Their death is their own fault.

Quote :

"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."

In your scenario, do I also witness you breaking into my neighbor's house (at which I know the owner is not) with a crow bar, entering said home and exiting through the same window with my neighbor's property? When I do confront you with a gun, do you stop what you're doing or approach me?

Quote :

"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 "

Care to show any numbers that suggest the number of armed burglaries is higher in places where gun ownership in the home is high?

Quote :

"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. "

Again, shoot to kill is the only shooting that is legally defensible under the law. In almost every state, the argument goes that if you can stop the situation without shooting to kill, then you shouldn't be shooting at all. Many people would prefer it to be different, but you will get in more trouble for maiming a burglar than for killing them.

Further, from the standpoint of tactics, shooting at anything except center mass is a danger both to you and the people within the rage of the weapon you are firing.

Quote :

"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?"

So you don't think that if breaking into a house carried a 50% chance of getting yourself shot, that less people would do it?

But if you want some numbers:

Quote :

"60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”, New York: Aldine, 1986 "

Quote :

"In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year. Dr. Gary Kleck, “Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force”, Social Problems, February 1988 "

Quote :

"A survey of felons revealed the following: • 74% of felons agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." • 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report, July 1985 "

Quote :

"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."

I would feel ecstatic if my neighbor were brave enough to confront people breaking into my home. It would be great to know that even if I'm not around to personally defend my home from thieves that those around me would help keep my home safe.

Besides, how civil of a society are we when criminals roam the streets after having already been convicted and don't fear for their lives when breaking and entering someone's property? A civil society requires that those who would be uncivil are removed. Since the prisons failed to remove these two choir boys, Mr Horn did instead.

Quote :

"^ 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."

And endangered anyone else around from the ricochets from the shot that missed their legs.

Quote :

" I don't believe that Horn tried to avoid killing these criminals, I believe he meant to end their lives."

So calling 911 and waiting until they were done burglarizing his neighbor and on their way out before he confronted them isn't evidence of not wanting to kill them?

Quote :

"I don't think he should get off scott-free for the simple fact that the 911 dispatcher was yelling at him and telling him not to go outside. "

Do you expect the 911 operator to do different? Can you imagine any situation where a 911 op would tell you to confront a criminal?

Quote :

"Listen to the tapes and think if this man is calling to phone in something for the authorities to take care of or if the man is calling to establish some sort of defense for killing someone."

I did listen, as did the grand jury. What I heard was a man who could not believe people would break into homes in his neighborhood and desperately wanted someone to stop these criminals. If he just wanted to kill some people, he would have saved himself a whole lot of trouble just by going outside, shooting them without warning, and calling 911 to have them pickup the bodies.

Quote :

"The cops were on scene within a minute of him shooting those people, they would have been caught."

He didn't know that, nor did the 911 operator see fit to tell him that a plain clothes officer was across the street or that the other officers were just down the block. For 7 minutes Mr. Horn essentially pleaded to the 911 operator for the authorities to do something and this 911 operator didn't see fit to tell him that officers were on the scene.

7/1/2008 5:02:30 PM

Quote :

"THe fact that it was "easy" to steal reaffirms my risk vs rewards arguement. Do you think it would have been stolen if you were there and armed?"

Dunno. It's a bike, I'd rather not be in a situation facing a common criminal with nothing to lose that might be packing himself. Hmm, do I risk taking a bullet from this chode over my $800 bike? Just how much of a gamble do I want to take with my life here?

7/1/2008 5:09:22 PM

Quote :

"i'm sure horn's neighbor's house had a sign on it that said "break into my locked house, i'm an idiot" apparently you're content with how our justice system works...i have absolutely no idea why, but thats your opinion"

Awesome, you still fail miserably when you assign a position or an opinion to someone when you've run out of anything else to logically respond with.

Is it not possible to be discontent with how our justice system works and NOT wish that gun toting vigilantes have free reign on a common thief when they catch him robbing his neighbor?

7/1/2008 5:12:40 PM

you're right...the police will protect you and all of your stuff and if a bad person tries something with you, the police will stop him...just keep thinking that

oh and good job completely missing the point about the sign on his house

you are an idiot for leaving your bike on your porch

horn's neighbors didnt leave anything outside...the burglars actually broke into his house to take his property...maybe he shouldve padlocked all his possessions inside his house too?

and who "wish(es) that gun toting vigilantes have free reign on a common thief when they catch him robbing his neighbor?" i see you're still putting extreme viewpoints in peoples mouthes to try and make shitty points

7/1/2008 5:15:03 PM

Quote :

"s it not possible to be discontent with how our justice system works and NOT wish that gun toting vigilantes have free reign on a common thief when they catch him robbing his neighbor?"

He doesn't have free reign, he has the right to use force, up to and including deadly force, in defense of another person's property, if he reasonably believes the property needs defending and he would be legally allowed to use the amount of force applied if the property were his own. I don't see a problem with this at all, it is the way that a civil society should work, were legal law abiding citizens are allowed to uphold the law when they witness a crime being committed in their presence.

7/1/2008 5:16:53 PM

I think Boone said it best

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."

7/1/2008 5:37:29 PM

I've maintained throughout that Horn should be released, but that the state law should be re-evaluated. Not all citizens are like Horn, and I can see the right to use deadly force to protect "property" as a potential problem for victims in the future.

7/1/2008 6:22:23 PM

How so? Can you describe any situation where the law would be violated that it would not have been violated had force not been authorized by the law?

7/1/2008 6:33:28 PM

I think those fuckers got what they deserved. Of course some whiny liberal will be like "ohh but they were victims of society to which pushed them to a life of crime; and they could have been rebilitated"

7/1/2008 6:56:53 PM

they may very well have been pushed into a life of crime in a rough society...in their native countries of Colombia...but not here in the US where they shouldn't have been illegally in the first place

7/1/2008 7:00:26 PM

Stealing ham to feed a family merits death by shotgun according to your logic. Even when the ham is actually your neighbors and not yours... and regardless of the fact that no one will die because of stolen ham. Clearly we won't agree on this point so I won't continue the discussion, but this type of attitude in regards to using deadly force without provocation is exactly why America needs a federal system to help regulate short-sighted state laws.

7/1/2008 7:12:20 PM

^ no these guys were likely stealing to get money to buy heroin or put hydraulics on their low-riders.

BTW i completely disagree with your comment on federalism. I believe the federal gov't already encroaches to much on areas of law that should be left to the state. If you don't like the laws of a state; i hate to sound cliche' but GTFO! Being a liberal green anti-gun anti-death penalty person then move from Texas to Seattle. u and schmoe can live in liberal hippy paradise together. Besides a prime example of why i disagree with you can be seen in California. California decided that it was acceptable and good for its people to allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. The federal gov't whose current policies on heavily influenced by alternative "interests" (big pharma) are against it.

7/1/2008 7:19:09 PM

i'm not going to touch the ham example, but lets say the only thing they were stealing was a $200 dvd player and nothing else...no $200 isnt worth dying or killing over but i still think this is an example of someone fed up with constantly seeing honest people get taken advantage of and violated by criminals without any culpability, and he decided that he would make those criminals actually pay for the crimes since the police and judicial system constantly fail to

7/1/2008 7:19:48 PM

these guys were pathetic scum and they got what they deserved.

7/1/2008 7:24:47 PM

Quote :

"Stealing ham to feed a family merits death by shotgun according to your logic. Even when the ham is actually your neighbors and not yours... and regardless of the fact that no one will die because of stolen ham. "

Perhaps if one were gainfully employed, one wouldn't need to be stealing food for feeding their family. And don't give me crap about not being able to find a job. If illegal immigrants can find jobs then these guys could too, and a real job even at or below minimum wage would provide stability that stealing for a living can't.

Quote :

"BTW i completely disagree with your comment on federalism. I believe the federal gov't already encroaches to much on areas of law that should be left to the state. If you don't like the laws of a state; i hate to sound cliche' but GTFO! Being a liberal green anti-gun anti-death penalty person then move from Texas to Seattle. u and schmoe can live in liberal hippy paradise together. Besides a prime example of why i disagree with you can be seen in California. California decided that it was acceptable and good for its people to allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. The federal gov't whose current policies on heavily influenced by alternative "interests" (big pharma) are against it."

Yes

7/1/2008 7:56:10 PM

ok, so I'm at sportclips getting a haircut, and unfortunately, i got stuck with a dude cutting my hair, but anyway, i'm all like, did you hear about joe horn killing those two burglars? has it been all over espn? (I still don't have cable since moving recently).

he has no idea what i'm talking about, then decided that i have to be screwing with him.

so i get home, and google it, and

fuck

different joe horn.

7/1/2008 8:48:00 PM

Quote :

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

Gotcha.

Basically, I was agreeing with GrumpyGOP. That is pertinent information--regardless of your stance on this obviously grey-area issue. Whichever side you take, let's not selectively ignore facts that aren't convenient to your position, as some people on each side seem to be doing.

I do generally side with Mr. Horn, and am satisfied with the way it was handled legally, but let's not pretend that this is a completely clear-cut issue, at least in ethical terms.

Quote :

"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. "

That is also possible.

Quote :

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

He didn't tie any argument to his theory--he just stated that it is a plausible scenario. At any rate, there's a lot more evidence for that than there is for this charge of racism that keeps popping up.

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. "

Come on, dude.

Quote :

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

Bad idea, both tactically and legally. Read my earlier post and/or use Google on this subject.

Quote :

"This statement has no evidence behind it. It's already been proven that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent for crimes. "

You may or may not be right that it wouldn't serve as a deterrent, and let's not even go down the road of whether or not it would be a good idea, but comparing the execution by the state for murder and legal support for a citizen smoking you for burglary are two different things for at least a couple of reasons.

Quote :

"I'd feel extremely sad for him if he had to take the lives of some petty criminals."

True, they were not murderers or child rapists...but these guys were career thugs in at least a couple of countries, and part of an organized ring. I wouldn't classify them as petty thieves, either (not that this is really central to the argument, anyway).

Quote :

"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. "

Probably. Still a bad idea, though.

Quote :

"I don't believe that Horn tried to avoid killing these criminals, I believe he meant to end their lives "

What he intended to do once he pulled the trigger is largely irrelevent.

I think he DID try to avoid killing them in terms of calling 911 first, then verbally warning them before shooting. The only thing I have a problem with is shooting them in the back, and while that puts the situation into the grey area in my mind, it isn't enough to overwhelm the other factors that cause me to side with Mr. Horn.

Quote :

"I don't think he should get off scott-free for the simple fact that the 911 dispatcher was yelling at him and telling him not to go outside. It was clear from the beginning that Horn meant to kill these people. Listen to the tapes and think if this man is calling to phone in something for the authorities to take care of or if the man is calling to establish some sort of defense for killing someone. The cops were on scene within a minute of him shooting those people, they would have been caught. "

What the 911 dispatcher told him to do is ONE-HUNDRED percent irrelevent. Also, I don't buy that he called 911 just as a CYA measure. Didn't something like 8 minutes go by between him dialing 911 and squeezing the trigger? Sounds like he waited for the cops to handle it until he felt that it wasn't going to happen. Had he been privy to some bigger-picture information like the plainclothes detective across the street, maybe this wouldn't have happened. I personally doubt the 911 dispatcher knew this, either...I'm sure there just wasn't time and sufficient connectivity between the various parties for this information to be disseminated to everyone in time. That's unfortunate, but it is what it is--there's nobody to point a finger at.

Quote :

"wow and you call out other people for not having evidence? "

haha, seriously. ouch!

Quote :

"I had an $800 mountain bike stolen from my back porch, it was my fault entirely for leaving it there so that it was easily plucked"

Bullshit. It was the fuckhead thief's fault for stealing it.

but whatever, that has nothing to do with our argument here. I just hate that mentality.

(and that sucks balls, dude)

7/1/2008 9:40:46 PM

Quote :

"Besides, how civil of a society are we when criminals roam the streets after having already been convicted and don't fear for their lives when breaking and entering someone's property?"

For one, we don't know that they don't fear for their lives when robbing. Secondly, the better question is, how civil of a society are we that we allow neighbors to run outside when their own property and life wasn't threatened to blast some robbers?

Quote :

"A civil society requires that those who would be uncivil are removed. Since the prisons failed to remove these two choir boys, Mr Horn did instead."

One was convicted for 25 years but deported him? Seems like the problem would have been fixed right there. I don't know why we'd expect a career felon that we just convicted of drugs to stay locked up in some corrupt country as Columbia, etc.

Quote :

"And endangered anyone else around from the ricochets from the shot that missed their legs."

You mean the plainclothes officer that had just pulled up in his car? There was no one else around.

Quote :

" So calling 911 and waiting until they were done burglarizing his neighbor and on their way out before he confronted them isn't evidence of not wanting to kill them?"

He wanted to confront them from the very beginning. But he knew he'd need to be armed to do it. He knew from the very beginning that if he were to confront them, he had to be prepared to pull the trigger. Two guys versus one, he didn't know if they were armed or not, yet he still wanted to confront them?

Quote :

"If he just wanted to kill some people, he would have saved himself a whole lot of trouble just by going outside, shooting them without warning, and calling 911 to have them pickup the bodies."

No one is implying in this thread that he just wanted to kill people. But it's pretty clear that once he went outside there was a high probability that he'd have to attempt it.

Quote :

"you're right...the police will protect you and all of your stuff and if a bad person tries something with you, the police will stop him...just keep thinking that"

Will you attempt to make some sense? None of that addresses anything I posted in the two posts before this one.

Quote :

"oh and good job completely missing the point about the sign on his house you are an idiot for leaving your bike on your porch horn's neighbors didnt leave anything outside...the burglars actually broke into his house to take his property...maybe he shouldve padlocked all his possessions inside his house too?"

Ok? Yeah? As best I can decipher, you're attempting to make some sort of distinction between the theft of my bike and breaking and entering to steal things. Why should that even matter?

Quote :

"and who "wish(es) that gun toting vigilantes have free reign on a common thief when they catch him robbing his neighbor?" i see you're still putting extreme viewpoints in peoples mouthes to try and make shitty points"

Extreme point of view? I'm not the guy that shot 2 dudes in the back because they were robbing me my neighbor. And besides, if what I have just done "putting extreme viewpoints in peoples mouthes [sic] to try and make shitty points" is true, you're hardly in any position to complain about it after you

1) contend I am content with how the justice system works
2) claimed I missed a point you tried to make simply because I chose not to respond to it, and
3) claimed others side more with the crooks than Horn simply for question if it was legal or moral that he killed them

It's also no surprise for me to see you still maintain your old tactics of taking a criticism someone has of your posting tactics and logical black holes and slapping a few canned phrases and statements on it and attempt to throw it back at them and think it makes sense.

Quote :

"He doesn't have free reign, he has the right to use force, up to and including deadly force, in defense of another person's property, if he reasonably believes the property needs defending and he would be legally allowed to use the amount of force applied if the property were his own. I don't see a problem with this at all, it is the way that a civil society should work, were legal law abiding citizens are allowed to uphold the law when they witness a crime being committed in their presence."

I'm not sure any other way to describe blasting two guys in the back for stealing your neighbors stuff as "free reign". No, a civil society is not one where you can shoot thieves of your neighbors property. You'd literally need to arm every citizen (or a large number in a given community), train them like an officer, and deputize them for this sort of system to be anything close to civil. I also wonder, in how many states would an officer of the law, upon catching the crooks in the act chase them down and try to restrain them in some way rather than shooting them in the back. If the object is to protect property, and these guys weren't packing, was Horn not morally obligated to attempt to chase them down or restrain them first? It's kinda sad you don't value life more than you do.

Quote :

"i'm not going to touch the ham example, but lets say the only thing they were stealing was a $200 dvd player and nothing else...no $200 isnt worth dying or killing over but i still think this is an example of someone fed up with constantly seeing honest people get taken advantage of and violated by criminals without any culpability, and he decided that he would make those criminals actually pay for the crimes since the police and judicial system constantly fail to"

Either officially narrow your range of what you think sets the standard for allowable homicide or quit making these comments. Stop ignoring the point that has been made multiple times, that in this instance, no one is really that sad that these guys are dead, we've moved on to discussing the merits of the law. Some white teenager with the potential to actually be a productive member of society doesn't need to die at the hands of a cook like Joe Horn because they made one stupid decision and decided to break into a house, a car, etc.

Hey, I'm fucking pissed these dicks keep bashing my mailbox with a baseball bat, imma fucking shoot them in the back when they are running away the next time I catch them!

7/1/2008 10:33:52 PM

Quote :

"And make no mistake, this man shot these guys in the back from long range."

I'm not entirely convinced that you can "[shoot a guy] in the back from long range" with a shotgun. I'm just sayin...

7/1/2008 11:04:36 PM

Wow, this whole thing is just like an episode of King of the Hill. Takes place in Texas. The neighbor is Vietnamese ... I wonder if Joe Horn sold propane for a living, too ...

Anyway, ... my feeling is that Joe Horn did act legally and shouldn't have been indicted. Do I think he acted ethically? Probably not. He had enough time to jabber on the phone about the castle doctrine to a dispatcher. He could've run off somewhere, which is what I think most reasonable people would've done in that situation. Even if there isn't a legal duty to retreat, you'd think he'd rather do that than shoot two people. I don't know about the rest of you, but my personal bar for gunning people down is pretty high -- and I don't think a 9/11 call is the appropriate time to blather about legal theories for doing so.

Personally I don't think I like the castle doctrine in general. It's one thing to say that you can defend yourself within reason; to shoot someone solely in the name of defending property? Sounds barbaric to me. Is it therefore legal under this theory for one to set up various forms of deadly traps in their home to kill robbers in an automated way, whether you're at home or not? Maybe we should call it the Temple of Doom doctrine.

Sure, the castle doctrine might have a deterring effect. I'm sure that cutting off people's hands in Muslim countries for stealing has a deterring effect too. We gotta have standards, folks.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 4:38 AM. Reason : foo]

7/2/2008 4:36:12 AM

I am forced to admit that I have not read every post in this thread since last I posted. If you feel I have ignored a point you've made, please point it out and don't immediately jump to the conclusion that I did so intentionally.

---

I'm going to first respond to a whole slew of threads with a similar theme: that the fault inherently resides with the person committing the initial criminal offense (in this case, "stealing" or some legal variation on the term).

It will sound cliche for me to say as much, because pretty much everyone with even a cursory understanding of the constitution already understands it, but I will say it anyway:

The founding documents of this country do not give citizens the right to make this decision on their own. This isn't an issue of activist judges or liberal legislators. It's the fucking law, as derived from the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the extent to which a person is or is not a criminal is left to judges and juries to decide.

Yes, based on the information presented in this thread, it appears that the two deceased individuals were criminals. However, that determination is not left to individual citizens with guns. It is specifically delegated to judges and juries. Mr. Horn was neither, and even if he had been, the dead were afforded no legal representation whatsoever.

It is, I feel, the right of every person on the planet to use lethal force and the threat thereof to prevent certain crimes against themselves or others. Murder, rape, even, perhaps, certain kinds of assault. But theft? Tell me, what object is worth a corpse? What amount of wealth is worth that stench? Certainly, incarcerate the thief. But smell a rotting human and tell me that any property you own merits that cost.

Mr. Horn claims that he fired in self-defense, which is, of itself, a reasonable argument. But notwithstanding the lack of evidence that he was charged at, however briefly, we still have the reality of a man shooting another in the back. I'm willing to accept a certain lack of reaction time in the elderly, but the delay between a man rushing you and then turning tail and fleeing is beyond my leniency.

---

There are a number of other things I would like to say, but for the moment I think that the above covers the most important points. I assure you I will return to this thread tomorrow.

7/2/2008 4:52:46 AM

^^I think his mentioning of the "castle doctrine" with the operator occured after the shooting was said and done.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 4:55 AM. Reason : ^^]

7/2/2008 4:53:23 AM

^

Ummmm no. I read the transcript and the first thing he talks about is the new law. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

First lines:

Quote :

"Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?" Horn: "Yes?" Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there." Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it.""

Not only does he know about the law, he knows the date it took effect, etc. And that was after FIVE minutes into the call.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 5:49 AM. Reason : foo]

7/2/2008 5:46:45 AM

Quote :

"The founding documents of this country do not give citizens the right to make this decision on their own. This isn't an issue of activist judges or liberal legislators. It's the fucking law, as derived from the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the extent to which a person is or is not a criminal is left to judges and juries to decide."

Well, I think it's an old and well-established concept in law here that citizens can act as "police" in certain circumstances. For example, there's citizen's arrest which you might argue deprives a citizen of due process because it doesn't involve a judge or jury. But it's allowed nonetheless for practical reasons. I think allowing citizens to take "measures" to deter theft is OK and under the same principle doesn't violate due process. But I would agree with you that allowing for death is going too far.

I still think duty-to-retreat is a reasonable principle when it's obvious that the guy could've fled. Like in this case where he played legal eagle with a 911 operator for five minutes before the shooting.

7/2/2008 5:57:22 AM

It's ironic that one week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rape of a child doesn't merit the death penalty, many Americans are applauding a man not standing trial for the killing of two people who committed a petty robbery.

7/2/2008 10:53:21 AM

Quote :

"besides...what if some of that stolen property was a family heirloom or something from your grandfather? how exactly can you replace those items?"

there is nothing that i own (or anything i can imagine that i could own) that i would kill someone for

Quote :

"another question for you all: how many of you have ever had your person/home/vehicle/etc robbed? of those of you who have had property stolen, how many of you either got the property back and/or had the criminals caught?"

i have been robbed twice. nothing of considerable worth was stolen either time. the guy was caught the first time about a week after robbing another house. the second robbery we're pretty sure was a couple of dumb kids and they weren't caught.

7/2/2008 10:58:20 AM

Quote :

"there is nothing that i own (or anything i can imagine that i could own) that i would kill someone for"

that has nothing to do with the question i asked

7/2/2008 11:00:57 AM

i understand that. but it is relevant to the topic at hand

(your question has no answer -- how can you replace an irreplaceable item!?!@??)

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 11:04 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 11:03:34 AM

so what do you do when a burglar steals a family heirloom and the cops dont give a shit? just say "oh well sucks for me"? some people arent content with being walked all over like that

7/2/2008 11:13:28 AM

in my experience with the rpd, they seemed to give a shit as much as i can imagine. they fingerprinted, took statements, talked to neighbors, all for a pretty cheap, replaceable stuff.

not to mention, followed up a few days later with progress on the case (and some further questions)

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 11:16 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 11:15:18 AM

well the last time i had a vehicle broken into, the cops didnt even come out for prints and i guarantee you they didnt do any followup...probably because they honestly dont care if someone steals your possessions...thats probably why so many people rob and steal, because they know the odds of not being caught are heavily in their favor

7/2/2008 11:19:39 AM

So murder is the obvious answer?

7/2/2008 11:31:16 AM

Insurance replaces all that stuff.

7/2/2008 11:32:26 AM

^^no we should just let robbers run rampant and do whatever they want...I mean they just want your possessions or money, they don't want to take your life, or the life of a UNC student body president or anything like that

^insurance replaces family heirlooms? how does that exactly work?

7/2/2008 11:34:37 AM

They must not have been such an important heirloom that a common thug with a crowbar can enter your home and take it. Ever heard of a bank lock box? A fireproof safe?

Like I said, you continue to narrow your position that eventually you'll have to add armed robbery, assault, and rape to the act to get anyone in here other than the most right leaning of folks to agree that vigilante murder is an acceptable behavior in this country. So why not just give up?

7/2/2008 11:41:42 AM