Quote :

"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."

wow are you going for quickest suspension ever?

IT IS OPEN ENDED

ITS TOO COMPLICATED A SITUATION TO HAVE ONE SET OF RULES THAT ALWAYS APPLY REGARDLESS OF OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES

why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

7/2/2008 10:49:00 PM

Quote :

"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."

If I remember correctly, and I can't find the article currently, the cops statements at the time put Mr. Horn about 20 feet from the one who rushed him when he first confronted them and much closer when he was shot. Certainly within threat range for someone so armed.

Quote :

"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."

Do you really believe that? So if someone comes at you with a knife, but is spinning while doing so (yes I know it's absurd), he is switching between threat and not a threat just by virtue of which way he's facing at any given time? Clearly, yes, them having their back to you means they pose less of a threat, but only in the sense that they have to turn to continue attacking you. I just don't buy that someone who would run at a guy armed with a shotgun is suddenly not a threat because he turned his back. Also, you and I both know that shot in the back can mean anything from square on to shot so that most of the shot hit his back side as he was turning away.

As a side note, is it possible that just once we could have a thread without Twista and someone else getting into an e-pissing contest?

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 11:09 PM. Reason : ddd]

7/2/2008 11:04:46 PM

it's also possible that the guy was running away and got shot

7/2/2008 11:35:57 PM

Quote :

"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"

Thats exactly the point. You're so lazy in what you do here, and your points are so malformed and incongruent, that even when you reply to the post immediately before, it's sometimes difficult to figure out what the hell you are getting at.

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"

Are you completely incapable of rational thought? Are you this birdbrained? To me, there is nothing different from the kid at walmart and the burglar of my neighbors home that would make me think its fine to shoot the neighbors burglar. It should be well implied if not explicitly stated in more than one of my posts in this thread. Of course everyone here recognizes there are levels of severity in the committing of any crime, it's this exact thought that led Grumpy to ask you for some scenarios to get an idea of where you really stand on this position, and the best you can do is say it's complicated? Really? No wai?!

Quote :

"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"

I specifically capitalized the "neighbors home" part. Multiple times in this thread you float back and forth between "armed robbery of your own home" and "armed robbery of a neighbors". Regardless, it should have been clear from the walmart comparison what I meant. Too bad you couldn't figure it out.

Furthermore, I also pointed out that anyone (including myself) using the legal term "armed robbery" to describe what the burglars did has been incorrect and they should educate themselves about it. But to no ones surprise, you didn't bother to do that.

Quote :

"wow are you going for quickest suspension ever?"

Every post I have made in this thread is free and clear per Dukes rules. There are a few posts you've made that are not. I'd tread wisely if I were you.

Quote :

"If I remember correctly, and I can't find the article currently, the cops statements at the time put Mr. Horn about 20 feet from the one who rushed him when he first confronted them and much closer when he was shot. Certainly within threat range for someone so armed."

I've actually found a link that put it at 7 ft when he was confronted, which certainly gives strength to your case. However, I haven't been able to find anything that states whether either were actually still holding the crowbar as they approached.

Quote :

"Do you really believe that? So if someone comes at you with a knife, but is spinning while doing so (yes I know it's absurd), he is switching between threat and not a threat just by virtue of which way he's facing at any given time? Clearly, yes, them having their back to you means they pose less of a threat, but only in the sense that they have to turn to continue attacking you. I just don't buy that someone who would run at a guy armed with a shotgun is suddenly not a threat because he turned his back."

Yes, your scenario is absurd. I can actually give a pass on the death of the first guy if he indeed ran towards him. What I imagine is Horn ran to the corner of his yard next to the neighbor, they were dashing toward the street (possibly around some bushes, who knows) saw Horn as he yelled freeze and then "angled away from him". The fact that they had already dashed past before he shot them in the back just goes to show the threat was gone. Anyhow, when you add his words to the 911 operator "I'm going to kill them" to what he did with the second guy, who we can imagine was well on his way away from Joe Horn and posing zero threat at all, then only in Texas with their current law should he not be forced to stand trial on manslaughter.

Quote :

"As a side note, is it possible that just once we could have a thread without Twista and someone else getting into an e-pissing contest?"

I tried talking to the mods for years, they don't do anything. As long as I keep the language and insults down, I'll continue to correct anyone that mislabels my position, puts words in my mouth, or otherwise is just generally derelict of the minimal amount of responsibility they have to this section. If he doesn't want to clean his potty mouth and baseless insults up, I can only hope the mods will be fair and deal with him accordingly just as I have been dealt with in the past.

7/3/2008 8:16:02 AM

Quote :

"Multiple times in this thread you float back and forth between "armed robbery of your own home" and "armed robbery of a neighbors""

thats 100% false...probably why you didn't cite any specific instances at all

Quote :

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

7/3/2008 10:08:43 AM

Quote :

"thats 100% false...probably why you didn't cite any specific instances at all"

Are you purposefully being disingenuous? There is a post I made where I quoted all your comments that would lead someone to your position. Did you not see it?

I'll take the effort to do it again. You'll take the effort to do the Twista thing where you post some lame tripe like "it's complicated"

Instance 1

Quote :

"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...the guys he shot were armed robbers...yet they get victimized...maybe they shouldn't have been robbing peoples' homes...do the crime face the punishment"

Within a single statement you have mentioned robbery of your own and your neighbors property.

Instance 2

Quote :

"and they chose to break into people's houses...unemployed colombian illegal aliens came to america to break into houses and steal shit"

Here, you don't make any real distinction between a neighbors house and your own house, so how the hell are we supposed to know where you stand on the issue?

Instance 3

Quote :

"theres an easy solution you know...if you don't want to go out like these guys did DON'T BREAK INTO PEOPLES' HOUSES seems simple enough"

Here, you say "peoples houses" again, but it's at least obvious you are fine with a neighbor coming out of his home to shoot two burglars in the back AFTER an agent of the state told him not to. This is clearly your position...at least, as of this post.

Instance 4

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...Mr. Horn had had enough"

For the entire paragraph you talk about people stealing from you, but then you talk about Mr. Horn, who was not having his property stolen.

But wait
Instance 5

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"

So $200 isn't worth killing for, but letting a neighbor shoot folks in the back is ok? Then asked where your line was, you retreated to "it's complicated", because basically, all this thread was about was your chance to tell the world you're glad some scum aren't on earth anymore - and here is a shocker for you, EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS THREAD IS GLAD TOO - but when the adults decide to have a conversation on the merits of the law and whether Horn should at least go to trial because the events are pretty sketchy, you just give up because you aren't really interested to grow internally, that's not what a damn soap box is for anyway, right? It's for you to dump your right leaning politics on the rest of us and we can fuck off if we don't like it. I mean, why should we even bother to ask you questions when thats all you're interested in anyway? We've given you too much of a chance for you to actually prove you've gotten a clue about debate and enlightenment, but since you've managed to run off many other good posters in the process, the place has tired and some of us just decide to throw you some bones as entertainment for ourselves anyway.


There really isn't anything else you can say. Sure, you'll quote 1 line out of all I just typed and make another post like the one that started this reply. You'll see something that isn't perfect and play some sort of lame semantic game. You'll do anything else besides actually be a productive member to this section. Thats...just....what you do.





[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM. Reason : a]

7/3/2008 11:37:35 AM

quit trolling

7/3/2008 11:41:45 AM

Quote :

"What I imagine is Horn ran to the corner of his yard next to the neighbor, they were dashing toward the street (possibly around some bushes, who knows) saw Horn as he yelled freeze and then "angled away from him". The fact that they had already dashed past before he shot them in the back just goes to show the threat was gone. "

It's my understanding that they didn't actually start running at him until Horn confronted them.

7/3/2008 12:15:25 PM

Can you please start posting some links? I've read a decent amount of different articles and reports about this. It's not that I don't trust you, but I've tried to find a detailed description of events, and I haven't seen it yet.

7/3/2008 12:17:24 PM

Quote :

"I've read a decent amount of different articles and reports about this"

really? which article did you read that gave you this impression?

Quote :

"I think it's pretty obvious these guys didn't charge Joe and the cop made up that little bit to help him slide. I think the racism piece of it (as much as I hate to see the card played) is definitely in effect here. Think about it. Two stereotypical gun toting cowboy Texans have just eliminated two latinos that were robbing homes."

Can you please start posting some links?

7/3/2008 12:20:31 PM

I like how no one has responded to my last two posts with anything substantial. Same ole soapbox.

7/3/2008 2:10:05 PM

HUR and I both responded to your 2nd to last post (the one about the ham)

and as a suggestion, maybe if you had asked questions instead of just made statements people would respond?

7/3/2008 2:20:40 PM

Jesse would be all over this if the two were black.

7/6/2008 2:50:40 PM

Jesse hated mexicans too.

7/6/2008 3:49:18 PM

Quote :

" Traps are covered under entirely different statutes and no."

You can't back that up.

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. It's a real simple equation, assault a person or their property = risking your life. "

You keep repeating this over and over on this thread like it's some gospel truth of interpersonal ethics that we should all agree to. It's also pretty representative of how you live on a planet with thinner air than the rest of us.

If you like the idea you posted above, how about this -- go live in Iran. That's about the same standard of law and order we're getting out of Texas on this so-called "castle doctrine." Actually it's worse. They only maim you.

7/7/2008 1:00:01 AM

Quote :

" 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. "

Yes but in practical terms Citizen's Arrest by itself is not too far from kidnapping (which is a penalty by itself). In fact many people later sue for False Imprisonment later for this very reason.

But my basic point was -- even if you're right ethically (and I think I agree) -- I don't think there's necessarily a legal tradition that makes the Castle Doctrine unconstitutional. We do let people "take matters into their own hands" at their own risk. And it's hard to draw strict lines of "proportional justice" when people are under extreme duress.

We can do better, though.

7/7/2008 1:05:24 AM

^^I don't see what's bad about the castle doctrine, and I don't really see why anyone's making that the issue in this case.

My only problem with what happened is that he shot at least one of them in the back.

Quote :

"And it's hard to draw strict lines of "proportional justice" when people are under extreme duress. "

...and this, considered alongside the entire picture of what happened, is why I'm generally ok with the outcome of this situation, even though I do have my aforementioned reservations.

[Edited on July 7, 2008 at 1:08 AM. Reason : asdfasdads]

7/7/2008 1:06:36 AM

^

I think it's bad because there's no notion of "duty to retreat." If you really have a choice between just leaving and calling the police, versus standing your ground and gunning someone down for an act of theft -- well, ethically, morally, socially, that seems like an obvious choice to me.

For the record I don't think "duty to retreat" is good as a "blanket" policy; I think the courts should error in favor of the man with the property. But -- in the case of Joe Horn, the guy sat and gabbed on the phone forever while the thieves were next door (even taking time to cite law). That to me reeks of premeditated killing; he was just given a convenient excuse.

7/7/2008 1:10:58 AM

I largely agree; I just don't think you should have to retreat from your own house.

7/7/2008 1:24:28 AM

^

Well it's not ideal but I think the duty to retreat should only apply in a very limited set of circumstances. i.e. you have a very clear escape route with absolutely no chance of your being harmed. I still can't see the justification for shooting someone only over property with no real threat to your person. Plus in realistic terms the castle doctrine kind of policy can definitely lead to nasty accidents e.g. "door to door salesman shot for 'acting suspicious'." After all, how do you really know that guy at your doorstep isn't a criminal?

Besides that should the law _really_ encourage people to confront criminals with guns if they don't have to? In reality I think most people aren't Rambo and don't have the clear shot Joe Horn did. Sometimes running is the best option. The Joe Horn situation, for example, could easily have turned into an actual gun fight and I sure doubt that would only affect his property.

[Edited on July 7, 2008 at 1:41 AM. Reason : foo]

7/7/2008 1:41:14 AM