you make it sound like Mr. Horn should have to stand trial for this

the grand jury already decided he didn't have to

and you still havent explained how insurance can replace family heirlooms like you claimed

7/2/2008 11:46:00 AM

Quote :

"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"

i'm sorry your experience with the cops was bad. mine was pretty much the opposite.

Quote :

"you make it sound like Mr. Horn should have to stand trial for this"

that's exactly how i feel.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 11:46:16 AM

I didn't claim that specifically. I was replying to your "people broke into my car" comment.

If the object is indeed valuable, then insurance will replace it at its market value. But you can't expect them to replace it to the excess value some family places on it just because they have had it for awhile.

Anyway, you avoided my comment about having it in a more secure place to begin with.

Your position on this matter has been undermined, maybe try something else?

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM. Reason : a]

7/2/2008 11:52:09 AM

http://www.national-anthems.net/forum/article/rec.travel.usa-canada/333968

dude confessed to the murder of the chick at Auburn...after he stole her ipod and money, he killed her...so here we have some petty thief willing to kill someone for someone else's property...would you kill someone over an ipod they wanted to steal from you? might not matter, they might kill you anyway

^in case you didnt know, the grand jury already decided that Mr. Horn acted accordingly...how exactly has my position been undermined when the grand jury sides with me? Good to see that you're still delusional after your 7 month hiatus

7/2/2008 11:54:56 AM

That isn't your position at all. Your position is that robbers should be blasted in the back on site, a more general position encompassing all crooks and all property regardless of location, than the one position involving Joe Horn

The grand jury decided that Joe Horn acted appropriately under Texas law, a law which is what the majority of us are discussing as just where-as you are just generally advocating all citizens the right to play judge/jury/executioner under any circumstance where they catch someone in the act of robbery. Even the most right leaning of folks in this thread haven't voiced support of this position.

Continue with the insults, hopefully duke plays fair this time and puts you in the box again.

7/2/2008 12:03:12 PM

Quote :

"Your position is that robbers should be blasted in the back on site"

where did i say that? you love making shit up dont you

did you really buy a 6th screenname just to come into TSB and make shit up? you are a sad sad sad person

7/2/2008 12:07:23 PM

Quote :

" where did i say that? you love making shit up dont you"

Hmmm, so you made these two statements about me

Quote :

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

Quote :

"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"

When there really isn't much in my statements to come close to that opinion

And yet, you're going to cry and ask me to show you where you said something after I have assigned you a position

And call me delusional

And a sad person

And just generally not attempt to defend much of anything you say other than to retreat to "the grand jury agrees with me" after numerous folks have told you that your statements and what the grand jury ruled on aren't the same?

7/2/2008 12:15:46 PM

Quote :

"Hmmm, so you made these two statements about me"

1st of all, the 1st quote was an attempt to say "well i disagree but you're entitled to your opinion"...the 2nd quote wasnt even directed at you...you're not that special, get over yourself

and in regards to your constant habit of putting extreme words in peoples' mouthes in order to somehow defend your shitty viewpoint, apparently anyone who disagrees with you, and i fucking quote, "wish(es) that gun toting vigilantes have free reign on a common thief when they catch him robbing his neighbor" and thinks "robbers should be blasted in the back on site", even though you completely made up both of those extreme viewpoints and nobody at all went that far

did you really beg to get back on TWW just to make shit up and troll? fucking pathetic as usual

7/2/2008 12:26:19 PM

This will be the last time I address you about this topic. It will be the last time I need to address you on this topic about your position. Let's look at your comments

Quote :

"the cops don't care if you or your neighbor has something stolen from them...the won't do anything to get your property back...you have to do what you have to do to protect your property and your neighbor's and hope your neighbor would do the same for you.."

Quote :

"- 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"

Quote :

"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..."

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"

Quote :

"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"

Quote :

"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"

Quote :

"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"

Quote :

"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"

Sure, you said twice in the thread that you didn't think anyone should die for robbery, but even a comatose patient can read what you have posted to understand exactly what your position about the matter is. The justice system doesn't work to prevent crooks, the only thing that we as citizen can do is be armed and blast them on site if we catch them in the act because we aren't sure what their intentions are and we damn sure don't want to risk the chance to find out. That's the bottom line, and you're old habits of claiming troll and all the other bullshit you post is just more evidence that you're failing to defend your statements with any appropriate thought or reasoning other than "thats just the way I feel about the matter".

It's ok bro, its easy to be tough on crime on the internet, we admire your energy!

7/2/2008 12:38:07 PM

Quote :

"you said twice in the thread that you didn't think anyone should die for robbery"

yet for some reason you completely ignore that...you ignore the statements i make that are 100% clear cut and impossible to misinterpret that say an ipod or a dvd player arent worth dying over...instead you read between some salisburyboy type lines and trying to insinuate that anyone who agrees with Horn must also automatically think we should have the right to just shoot anyone in the back who might look suspicious...are you really that paranoid?

7/2/2008 12:53:34 PM

Quote :

"For one, we don't know that they don't fear for their lives when robbing."

They broke into a house in texas in broad daylight. Clearly they don't fear for their lives. I will grant you that some people will do stupid stuff even if they're afraid they will get killed doing it, but somehow I doubt we've reached the point where only the insane are robbing houses.

Quote :

"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?"

So people don't have a right to confront and attempt to stop a criminal that they witness committing criminal acts?

Quote :

"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. "

Right, our civilized society had a chance to protect Mr. Horn and his neighbor from these criminals, and they failed, so Mr. Horn did it himself. If you don't want people protecting themselves and those around them, then society needs to provide that protection for them. Since the courts have ruled time and again that police are not obligated to provide any individual protection, what do you expect citizens to do? Stand by and watch crime be committed?

Quote :

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

There was a story about 6 months ago, of a 13 year old boy that was killed when he was shot in the head. That shot came from about a quarter mile away where two idiots were trying to shoot fish in a lake with a gun. The bullet skipped off the water and killed the kid. The point is, shot goes further than you seem to think.

Quote :

"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?"

He wanted someone to confront them. He called the cops hoping the cops would. When they failed to arrive in time, he confronted them. Of course he was going to have to go armed, he was a 60 some odd year old man vs two 30 some year old men, one of whom he knew was armed. You act like a desire to stop a crime in progress is an unnatural urge.

Quote :

"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."

Had the two men surrendered when the man with a gun confronted them, there would have been no need to attempt to kill anyone. Again, the choices were all in the hands of these criminals and they made bad choices from beginning to end.

Quote :

" 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 fail to see how the citizens of a society taking an active role in enforcing the rule of law in their society is a bad thing. History shows us that when this occurs, societies are usually at their best.

Quote :

"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."

We've gone over this before:

1) Officers of the law are required by law to attempt to detain and escalate slowly up the use of force scale. They are, in exchange for this requirement, given substantially more leeway in how they can confront a criminal.
2) Citizens are, by law, not allowed to do all of the things a cop can. They are allowed to confront a criminal IF they witness the crime being committed. They are also allowed to do so in whatever manner is safest for them.
3) Had Mr. Horn attempted to retrain these two physically, it is more likely than not he would have been seriously injured given that at least one of them was armed and both were younger and stronger than he.
4) Had Mr. Horn chased these two down and attempted to restrain them, he would have been violating the law.

This is the unfortunate reality of a world where you will be prosecuted if you don't try to kill someone. I'm sure most people, including Mr. Horn would love if they could load their defensive weapon with a less lethal round for home defense, but the reality is that doing so will land you in more legal trouble than outright killing the criminal. If you don't like it, work with people to change it. I would support you in that endeavor.

Quote :

"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?"

Well the castle doctrine laws as far as duty to retreat go are mostly about saying that a homeowner doesn't have a duty to retreat from a place where he is legally entitled to be (his home). That's hardly a barbaric statement. Are we really suggesting that if a crime is in progress people should be required to cower in fear somewhere? That they shouldn't be allowed to confront a criminal?

Quote :

"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."

Traps are covered under entirely different statutes and no.

Quote :

"ure, 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."

We do have standards. People are allowed to be where they are legally authorized to be, an anyone who attempts to attack or otherwise endanger a person who is where they are legally entitled to be can be answered with whatever level of force that a reasonable person in the same situation would use. I see nothing wrong with this. A citizen should never be required by law to give way to a criminal.

Quote :

"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."

The choice remains the criminal's. All anyone has to do to avoid getting shot for stealing is, ready for this? DON'T STEAL. It's a real simple equation, assault a person or their property = risking your life.

Quote :

"I still think duty-to-retreat is a reasonable principle when it's obvious that the guy could've fled."

Why? Why should a citizen be required by law to leave a place he is legally entitled to be (or avoid such a place) simply because a criminal has decided to practice his occupation there? This is the problem, we tell citizens that they have to back down from criminals, we should encourage people to stand up to criminals. To speak up when they see a crime and to take action to prevent crimes when they can and are so inclined.

Quote :

"Insurance replaces all that stuff."

And then your insurance premiums go up. So I should spend the rest of my life paying for some criminal's decision to violate my rights?

Quote :

"Anyway, you avoided my comment about having it in a more secure place to begin with."

Again, why should people have to adjust their way of life so that criminals don't have such high risks while practicing their trade? Yes, it's a good idea to put priceless things in secure locations, but why does failing to do that mean a criminal shouldn't have to face the possibility of losing their life while stealing that item?

Quote :

"Your position is that robbers should be blasted in the back on site, a more general position encompassing all crooks and all property regardless of location, than the one position involving Joe Horn"

No, the position is that robbers should be confronted, and citizens should be allowed to use force to stop a robber from committing their crime, and in the event that such robbers are dumb enough to charge the man who confronts them while armed with a gun, those robbers should suffer the consequences of that choice up to and including a one way ticket to the morgue.

7/2/2008 12:53:46 PM

Quote :

"I fail to see how the citizens of a society taking an active role in enforcing the rule of law in their society is a bad thing. History shows us that when this occurs, societies are usually at their best."

the secret police in any number of countries throughout our history are perfect examples.

Quote :

"and in the event that such robbers are dumb enough to charge the man who confronts them while armed with a gun"

being shot in the back kinda harms this argument

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 1:04:39 PM

how do you equate government sponsored secret police to non-govt affiliated citizens who essentially look out for their neighbors?

7/2/2008 1:06:48 PM

i'm sure most of those countries would have phrased as neighbors looking after each other.

but the pointis: what one person thinks is looking out for your neighbor, may not fly with the whole neighborhood.

7/2/2008 1:12:19 PM

Quote :

"what one person thinks is looking out for your neighbor, may not fly with the whole neighborhood."

sure, but when can you ever make everyone happy?

i still think you're going WAY OVERBOARD with your secret police comparisons...Horn shot a couple guys who had just stolen property from his next door neighbor...I'd say thats quite a bit different than a secret government commando team who uses violence and intimidation for political gain

7/2/2008 1:14:36 PM

no question it's not the same thing. but b4k4 made a larger claim that societies are at their best when the people take the law into their own hands. and i think that is a very specious claim. i mean hell, just the mob mentality would make me seriously question that claim.

this guy horn doesn't have to go to trial for killing two people. i think he should. maybe he was within his right to shoot. i wasn't there. but it sounds pretty sketchy to me and i think he should have to at least go to trial to work some of it out.

7/2/2008 1:18:57 PM

Quote :

"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."

Arrest isn't a penalty and is temporary. Also, the person placed under citizen's arrest is able to contest it later in court where he does have due process.

Quote :

"I think allowing citizens to take "measures" to deter theft is OK and under the same principle doesn't violate due process."

Depending on the measures, I'm in agreement.

Quote :

"The choice remains the criminal's. All anyone has to do to avoid getting shot for stealing is, ready for this? DON'T STEAL."

So with which crime, exactly, does this theory no longer hold true?

"All anyone has to do to avoid getting shot for having overdue library books is to turn them in on time."

The American constitution and judicial system do not allow for your thinking.

7/2/2008 2:46:32 PM

armed robbery != late library books

7/2/2008 3:53:55 PM

Breaking into your car and taking that stuff != armed robbery either, but you've certainly implied you're fine with these people being lethally dealt with immediately if you catch them in the act since the justice system has failed.

You simply can't deny this unless you want to call yourself a liar.

7/2/2008 3:58:40 PM

Quote :

"you're fine with these people being lethally dealt with immediately"

Quote :

"you said twice in the thread that you didn't think anyone should die for robbery"

Quote :

"This will be the last time I address you about this topic."

7/2/2008 4:37:08 PM

I miss the days when you stole someone's horse you got hung. I am sure career minded thieves put lots of 2nd thought before getting involved in a life of crime. Nowadays getting caught and thrown into jail for stealing car stereos or breaking into houses is almost like a reward.

Get to build that Street Cred and hang out w/ all your homies already locked up.

7/2/2008 4:49:22 PM

Another post another racist comment at the hands of HUR. I'm sure the kids get awesome street cred for getting nicked lifting car stereos. Your insight into this culture is amazing.

7/2/2008 5:05:33 PM

getting nicked? are we talking about thieves in Britain now?

7/2/2008 5:11:23 PM

The world is a better place for those two being dead. This should happen more often.

If you are caught, red fucking handed in the act of committing a real crime (violent crime against property or person) and you get shot after being given fair warning to halt your activity then the shooter should get off the hook damn near 100% of the time.

7/2/2008 5:12:38 PM

^ i don't advocate shooting someone in the back running down the street w/ a TV. As it would open a pandora's box of potential abuse and shady acts of "stopping crime". However, i am all for armed confrontation in which a law abiding citizen attempts to interrupt criminal activity. If the perpetrators attempt to attack the citizen then they must face the consequences of a face full of lead.

7/2/2008 5:29:25 PM

Quote :

"the secret police in any number of countries throughout our history are perfect examples. "

Secret police are a subset of the people held above the law. Hardly the people taking an interest in upholding the law. But you knew that, you just wanted to argue a strawman.

Quote :

"being shot in the back kinda harms this argument"

Not really. I don't buy the theory that just because someone sustained their injury to their back that they weren't a threat or were simply running away. And clearly neither did the Grand Jury or for that matter, the cops who arrived on the scene as Mr. Horn was never arrested.

Quote :

"what one person thinks is looking out for your neighbor, may not fly with the whole neighborhood."

Provided it is upholding the laws, that's irrelevant. Just because the crack dealer down the street doesn't like that you report drug deals happening in the neighborhood doesn't make it a bad thing.

Quote :

"b4k4 made a larger claim that societies are at their best when the people take the law into their own hands. and i think that is a very specious claim. i mean hell, just the mob mentality would make me seriously question that claim."

No, I said that societies are at their best when citizens take an active interest in upholding and enforcing the laws of that society. Prosecution for violations is still something best left to an arbitrator.

Quote :

"i wasn't there. but it sounds pretty sketchy to me and i think he should have to at least go to trial to work some of it out."

The DA took it before a grand jury. That is 12 average citizens. All the DA had to do was convince 9 of those people that he had enough evidence to make a case for murder or manslaughter or whatever crime he wanted to charge. And unlike an actual trial, Mr. Horn gets no opportunity to refute any version that the DA puts forward, all he gets is to provide his story and answer any questions the grand jury has. Since the DA couldn't even convince 9 people that he had a case for murder, I doubt very seriously he could have convinced 12 beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder had occurred. What more do you want?

Quote :

"So with which crime, exactly, does this theory no longer hold true? "All anyone has to do to avoid getting shot for having overdue library books is to turn them in on time.""

You know the two aren't even close to each other. But I should have clarified my statement, so allow me to do so now:

The choice remains the criminal's. All anyone has to do to avoid getting shot for stealing is, ready for this? DON'T STEAL. And failing that, don't attack the person who confronts you while you're committing you crime.

I want to be very clear, had Mr. Horn walked out there without warning and just shot the two of them dead I would not support him or his actions. But he gave them fair warning, and at least one of them moved to attack him. It is for that reason that I have no sympathy for the two criminals.

Again, at the end of the day, all of this could have been avoided had the criminals in question decided to stay home that day. They chose to break into a house in broad daylight in texas while armed. And when they were caught, they chose to attempt to attack the person who confronted them rather than dropping what they were doing and staying very still. They made the choice to gamble their life, and they lost the bet.

7/2/2008 5:46:19 PM

Quote :

"armed robbery != late library books"

Take a step back there, big guy. Armed robbery is one thing. When the person has a weapon you're in a whole other ballgame where your life is threatened. However:

armed robbery != an unarmed man running away

either.

Quote :

"Nowadays getting caught and thrown into jail for stealing car stereos or breaking into houses is almost like a reward."

You realize that jail is jail, right? I generally haven't heard it spoken so highly of.

Also, do you think that if you tried really, really hard, you could post in a thread like this without being an appalling racist?

Quote :

"violent crime against property"

Does not compute

7/2/2008 5:47:54 PM

Quote :

"i don't advocate shooting someone in the back running down the street w/ a TV."

Fuck it, why not? If you don't believe the theft of property is wrong then you have no place in civilized society. What we have now is not a polite, civilized society. You should have the absolute rights to life, liberty, and property. If you violate any of those then you deserve to lose one or more.

I've got no use for the vast majority of criminals, we'd be better off without the majority of the ones who commit real crime. I'm not talking about people guilty of drug use or prostitution, but those who do not respect the rights of another's person or property should either be exiled or executed. Society needs some serious weeding out.

7/2/2008 5:48:59 PM

Quote :

"armed robbery != an unarmed man running away"

having a crowbar != unarmed

and you wouldn't say setting someone's house on fire is a violent crime against property? not that the burglars in this case set his house on fire, but to act like theres no such thing as violent crime on property is ignorant

7/2/2008 5:51:05 PM

Quote :

" Fuck it, why not? If you don't believe the theft of property is wrong then you have no place in civilized society."

Jesus Christ, why do you people even bother? Not wanting to shoot someone dead as they run down the street with your 27" TV is not the same as not thinking the theft of property is wrong. Do you really want me to compare your capability for rational thought to Twistas?

7/2/2008 5:53:11 PM

we get it...you're a huge pussy...enough...let the adults discuss this topic...we all know you're content with having people walk all over you...some people aren't bitches like that

7/2/2008 5:54:29 PM

Quote :

"Fuck it, why not? If you don't believe the theft of property is wrong then you have no place in civilized society."

Nice strawman, try re-reading my last post. I applaud Mr. Horn for shooting those two fucktards bc given what we NOW know it is clear of their intentions. In my post above i noted that i see no issue with an armed citizen attempting to stop criminals in actions. If at this point the suspects try to harm the citizen; obviously in self-defense he would be justified to use deadly force. Authorizing, however, to automatically use deadly force whenever they see a crime being committed though would cause more problems and mishaps in judgment would easily snowball out of control. Effectively it eliminates the duty of the policy to enforce and the courts to judge. I must agree with some liberals that a TV is not worth taking a life over; however we should be encouraged to confront criminals actively committing crime. If at this point your life is in danger then the use of deadly force is ok in my book.


I could see it now where a 14 yr old gets shot when grandma sees him pocket a DVD at walmart deciding to use her .44 drop him cold. Or Billy Bob shooting a suspicious character "stealing" a TV from his neighbors house who is really the relative picking up a TV that is theirs.

This is even ignoring that punishment should fit the crime. I enjoy the the criminal system of some countries in the middle east. If you get caught stealing you lose your hand. That way u must live in shame of your deeds.


[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 6:02 PM. Reason : k]

7/2/2008 5:56:19 PM

Quote :

"I could see it now where a 14 yr old gets shot when grandma sees him pocket a DVD at walmart deciding to use her .44 drop him cold. Or Billy Bob shooting a suspicious character "stealing" a TV from his neighbors house who is really the relative picking up a TV that is theirs."

This same argument keeps getting made to these folks, but they keep wavering on their stance. They don't claim that lethal force should be ok in situations like this, however they think its fine what Mr Horn did even though he wasn't threatened.

They can't make up their mind when we should allow common citizen to be defenders of justice and when maybe they shouldn't.

7/2/2008 6:00:15 PM

Quote :

"They don't claim that lethal force should be ok in situations like this, however they think its fine what Mr Horn did even though he wasn't threatened."

and?

7/2/2008 6:02:12 PM

I've asked you before in not so certain terms to articulate when you think citizens should be allowed to blast crooks. The best you could do was say I was delusional, a troll, a pussy, and don't mind getting walked on.

I'm not really sure how we can have a reasonable discussion on those terms.

7/2/2008 6:04:48 PM

^ it is pretty fucking simple in my mind.

I do not know all the details but here it goes.....

Mr. Horn picks up shotgun to confront and stop what he sees as criminal activity at his neighbors house- OK in my book

than....

A.] Criminals get spooked and start running off with TV/jewelery/whatever in hand; Mr. Horn shoots them in the back

than.... i think he unlawfully used deadly force

B.] Criminals get angry that they have a witness and try to attack Mr. Horn who unleases a hail of fire and brimstone on these fuckbags

than... i think he is in the right and was merely defending himself

Alternatively

If it was Mr. Horn's house being robbed i think the homeowner should be allowed to use force no matter what. Even if it was some bandit sneaking in just to take a steaming smelly shit on Mr. Horn's couch then run back out the door. Once you unlawfully break into someone's else's house i think all bets are off and you should be ready to face the all mighty. For one does not know the ill intent of some ski-masked bandit crowbarring through the window.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM. Reason : l]

7/2/2008 6:06:34 PM

Quote :

"I've asked you before in not so certain terms to articulate when you think citizens should be allowed to blast crooks."

well when you can't realize the difference in a kid stealing a DVD from a walmart, and someone pulling an armed robbery on someone's home, its definitely a you problem, but you'd rather play the "all or nothing" game...if its ok for someone to protect their property, you snowball that into it being ok to shoot someone in the back for a late library return...dont you have a shred of common sense?

scenarios like this are judged on a case by case basis...the grand jury and most Horn supporters in here think in this case he was justified in using deadly force for a number of reasons...then people like you magically transform that into some frightened paranoia of extreme scenarios

maybe if you didnt try to paint everybody who supported Horn as some kind of homicidal maniac just looking for the opportunity to legally kill someone for jaywalking, people wouldnt have to call you out for jumping to such asinine conclusions based on your own fears and lack of common sense

7/2/2008 6:07:00 PM

Quote :

"well when you can't realize the difference in a kid stealing a DVD from a walmart, and someone pulling an armed robbery on someone's home, its definitely a you problem"

You've gotten worked up into such a froth about this whole thing, you keep forgetting he was shooting criminals BREAKING INTO HIS NEIGHBORS HOME, AFTER 911 OPERATORS SAID THAT COPS WERE ON THEIR WAY.

Somehow, you've gotten this really muddled in your head because a grand jury let him go based on some Texas laws and some pretty sketchy evidence surrounding the situation - the suspect appeared to run towards him then angled away at the last second only to be shot in the back- sketchy as hell.

I most certainly see a difference between a kid at walmart and someone breaking into my home while I am there. I do not see a difference between the kid at wal mart and a neighbor running out of his house after 911 operators told him to stay and then shooting the criminals in the back. But I can see how your failed ability to debate a topic and to understand the words that pass your eyeballs could get it all confused.

Can you comprehend this at all, or are you so hell bent on trying to rile me up that you just post whatever the fuck you please that sorta makes sense in that fucked up skull of yours?

Quote :

"maybe if you didnt try to paint everybody who supported Horn as some kind of homicidal maniac just looking for the opportunity to legally kill someone, people wouldnt have to call you out for jumping to such asinine conclusions based on your own fears and lack of common sense"

Again, if you're going to fail epically with your assignment of my stance on a matter, stop wasting everyones time. I might have claimed that folks like Horn are chomping at the bit to blast some robbers, but I never claimed or even approached asserting that those who support his actions in his unique situation were "homicidal maniacs". God damn man, you're terrible at this.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 6:19 PM. Reason : a]

7/2/2008 6:16:46 PM

It is people like Chance TroleTacks with their bleeding heart whiny liberal soft attitudes that has allowed the current underclass of lazy, ignorant, and immoral to flourish. A population whose ranks include members of all races who blames shortcomings in their own lives on others, make no effort to work hard to pull their lives out of the gutter, and offer nothing to society but increased crime.

7/2/2008 6:30:27 PM

Quote :

"he was shooting criminals BREAKING INTO HIS NEIGHBORS HOME, AFTER 911 OPERATORS SAID THAT COPS WERE ON THEIR WAY."

actually they were LEAVING his neighbor's house after robbing it...they weren't BREAKING INTO his neighbor's house when he shot them

also how is what you described not "someone pulling an armed robbery on someone's home"? You call out my quote and correct me by...using different words to describe an armed robbery on someone's home...if i didnt know better i would say you were just trying to troll and start shit...oh wait, i do know better and that is all you're trying to do

Quote :

"You've gotten worked up into such a froth about this whole thing"

lol...different alias, same hypocrisy in every single post

7/2/2008 7:01:05 PM

Quote :

"I could see it now where a 14 yr old gets shot when grandma sees him pocket a DVD at walmart deciding to use her .44 drop him cold."

Right, because kids stealing DVDs from walmart pisses people off just as much as watching two thieves break into a neighbor's home and clean them out with no apparent police response.

Quote :

"Or Billy Bob shooting a suspicious character "stealing" a TV from his neighbors house who is really the relative picking up a TV that is theirs."

You could just make the law say that you have to be reasonably sure that a crime has been committed or risk being prosecuted because you made a bad assumption.

7/2/2008 8:04:22 PM

Quote :

"having a crowbar != unarmed "

Unless the guy is within crowbar-swinging range he might as well be. If they guy was in that range, or attempting to get into that range, fine, blast him.

Honestly, if he had shot the guy while he was "charging," I'd have no problem whatsoever. But the moment someone with a melee weapon has their back to you, they're not a threat to your life.

Quote :

"If you don't believe the theft of property is wrong then you have no place in civilized society."

Ditto if you believe that death is an acceptable punishment for the theft of property.

Actually, ditto if you think this guy had any business punishing the thieves. Because the moment their backs are turned away from you, they're not a threat, so you're not defending yourself. You're punishing them for their crime.

Quote :

"That way u must live in shame of your deeds."

For the rest of your life? You're telling me that a stupid kid who steals a car should spend the rest of his life bearing a visible and debilitating badge of shame regardless of what good he might go on to do later?

Quote :

"well when you can't realize the difference in a kid stealing a DVD from a walmart, and someone pulling an armed robbery on someone's home, its definitely a you problem"

Well let's go into some grayer areas, shall we?

Can you shoot someone you catch breaking into an unoccupied...

complete stranger's house?
mom-and-pop store?
house with no residents at all?

Are all of those acceptable? If so, we'll work from there.

7/2/2008 9:15:44 PM

each of those depends on other circumstances...for example is anyone's life potentially in danger in those particular situations?

7/2/2008 9:27:53 PM

Let's assume that it was like Mr. Horn's situation and say, "No."

7/2/2008 9:31:19 PM

Quote :

"Well let's go into some grayer areas, shall we? Can you shoot someone you catch breaking into an unoccupied... complete stranger's house? mom-and-pop store? house with no residents at all? Are all of those acceptable? If so, we'll work from there."

It's just sad TSB has become a place where you have to debate positions and topics by reducing them to such a childish level. Then, when you go out of your way to reduce your level to this, you still get open ended and poorly thought out and frankly not giving a damn about your question answers.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 9:49 PM. Reason : will add more later]

7/2/2008 9:48:36 PM

the answer IS open ended

what kind of fool would try to make such a complicated issue so black and white and not realize that each situation is different?

maybe next time when you post in TSB, you can actually address the topic instead of just posting diarrhea

7/2/2008 9:51:40 PM

I believe in an absolute minimum of laws, but I believe in the harshest, swiftest punishment that is appropriate to the crime. I'd love to see more citizens go armed, and I'd love to see more of them used to stop the obvious commission of a crime.

7/2/2008 10:04:24 PM

Quote :

" actually they were LEAVING his neighbor's house after robbing it...they weren't BREAKING INTO his neighbor's house when he shot them"

Thank you for getting the details exactly correct but completely avoiding the point entirely.

Quote :

"also how is what you described not "someone pulling an armed robbery on someone's home"? You call out my quote and correct me by...using different words to describe an armed robbery on someone's home..."

For one, maybe you could stop being so damn lazy and quote some shit. I can only assume what you mean by "what I described" as the breaking and entering of the neighbors home.
I'll quote it for you again

Quote :

"I most certainly see a difference between a kid at walmart and someone breaking into my home while I am there. I do not see a difference between the kid at wal mart and a neighbor running out of his house after 911 operators told him to stay and then shooting the criminals in the back."

You mean to tell me, you don't see the difference in a kid at wal mart versus an intruder ENTERING MY HOME WHILE I AM THERE TO STEAL FROM ME, and the Joe Horn case where he RAN OUTSIDE TO STOP THE THEFT OF PROPERTY FROM HIS NEIGHBORS HOME? I don't see why anyone here should be bothered to respond to you if you can't even get something this simple straight in your head.

Regardless of all that, several of us have been mildly ignorant anyway regarding the term "armed robbery". I suggest you go look up what it really means, that is, unless you want your position undermined even more.

Quote :

"if i didnt know better i would say you were just trying to troll and start shit...oh wait, i do know better and that is all you're trying to do"

Lets just get one thing straight. You're the puss from a leaked herpes sore on the panties of the 400 lb prostitute that is internet message boards. No one would even know you were there if it weren't for the itchy burning sensation they got when you flared up. In the past I might have talked mad shit to you and had it labeled as trolling, but make no mistake there is nothing challenging or interesting about you to actually actively try to troll you. You're no Froshkiller, or kiljadn, or someone I'd consider worthy of a troll attempt. I try to treat you like an adult, ask you why you assign bogus positions that aren't even in left field, much less the same ballpark, and try to get you to clarify just what the fuck it is you are talking about (like Grumpy had to do) and yet you'll just retreat to call me a troll when you know you've lost. You're paranoid. I get all the benefits of trolling you, without having to actually do anything. So why would I waste my time on some tripe bullshit? So shut the fuck up with the trolling.

7/2/2008 10:22:39 PM

Quote :

"maybe you could stop being so damn lazy and quote some shit."

i figure its implied whats being quoted when its in response to the previous post, but since you play by a different set of rules than everyone else, i'll humor you

me: well when you can't realize the difference in a kid stealing a DVD from a walmart, and someone pulling an armed robbery on someone's home, its definitely a you problem

you: you keep forgetting he was shooting criminals BREAKING INTO HIS NEIGHBORS HOME, AFTER 911 OPERATORS SAID THAT COPS WERE ON THEIR WAY.

me: how is what you described not "someone pulling an armed robbery on someone's home"? You call out my quote and correct me by...using different words to describe an armed robbery on someone's home

do you get it yet? did i break it into simple enough terms for you to finally understand such a simple point?

Quote :

"You're the puss from a leaked herpes sore on the panties of the 400 lb prostitute that is internet message boards."

you're very mature, and the post is relevant to the topic as well

7/2/2008 10:34:02 PM

There is more than enough substance in the past several posts I have made for you to reply to. You didn't even reply to Grumpys post with anything worth addressing.

Hurr, its OPEN ended, hurr, you can't make it so black and white, hurrr, I'm too stupid to even attempt to meet you on some middle ground and actually grow myself intellectually and maybe challenge my own views, hurrrrr. You're an intellectual infant pal, sad that someone like you is tolerated around here.

7/2/2008 10:47:07 PM