why that was nice

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

That's interesting. Not 'It is against the law to shoot someone', or 'if you shoot someone you will be charged'..

That's because it's not against the law to shoot someone... in self defense. In this case I believe the best self defense would be to stay in the house and stop trying to intervene when the police were already on the way.

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

he doesn't say "boom, you're dead"

"Move' date=' you're dead," Horn, who took the phone outside with him, could be heard saying to the suspects.

Then three gunshots could be heard.

Horn admits later on the 911 call that he did, in fact, fire those shots. The names of the two men shot have not yet been released pending identification and notification of their next of kin. Horn has not been arrested or charged with any crime. A police investigation is still underway. This case likely will end up in the hands of a Harris County grand jury.

(Copyright © 2007, KTRK-TV)

[/quote']

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

There's no way to argue that this guy hadn't already planned on shooting the guys. I don't know what the purpose of trying to make excuses for the guy is when he was told to "stay in the house." If i see somebody breaking into a vending machine and stealing all the quarters, and then they walk across my yard, should I come out side and shoot the person or report everything I witnessed?

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

he doesn't say "boom, you're dead"






wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

Well then there's a discrepancy because other news sources quote him differently. I know its not the deciding factor, but his demeanor on the phone before he shoots is very questionable.

 

[mrogowski 5,000+ posts]

That's because it's not against the law to shoot someone... in self defense. In this case I believe the best self defense would be to stay in the house and stop trying to intervene when the police were already on the way.

I agree, and I believe that was said by the dispatcher a few times IIRC. That will probably be the shooter's downfall too - was that he was told by the police (I assume it was the police on the phone) to stay indoors. He will undoubtedly be charged with some crime, whether it be manslaughter, or obstruction of justice, or whatever it may be..

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

There's no way to argue that this guy hadn't already planned on shooting the guys. I don't know what the purpose of trying to make excuses for the guy is when he was told to "stay in the house." If i see somebody breaking into a vending machine and stealing all the quarters, and then they walk across my yard, should I come out side and shoot the person or report everything I witnessed?

a little different then breaking into your neighbor's home. however, i would think you would at least go outside, or scream out your window, that you have called the police and that they should stop while they are ahead.

Well then there's a discrepancy because other news sources quote him differently. I know its not the deciding factor, but his demeanor on the phone before he shoots is very questionable.

typical of our news reporting, lol. and to be honest, IMO, his voice raised an octave when he warned them. he was scared/excited or both.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[mrogowski 5,000+ posts]

Maybe he was practicing for deer hunting..

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

a little different then breaking into your neighbor's home. however, i would think you would at least go outside, or scream out your window, that you have called the police and that they should stop while they are ahead.


wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

I think they have a better chance of getting caught if they don't know the police are after them.

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

Is killing someone for a crime that does not warrant capital punishment still considered law abiding? If the court of justice does not deem burglary is sufficient to kill someone, how is it right for Joe Schmoe with a shotgun to decide that?

if, at any time, an innocent person's life is in danger, then yes. and again, at least one was in joe's yard, and in many states, that is indeed threating him.

it is all situation based. and has to be approached as such. if the thieves came out of the house and ran away from joe and he shot them in the street, then i would agree that he should be charged with something. i would still feel that the thieves got what they deserved, but would agree that joe was in no danger and as such had no right to take that action. as it was, that didn't happen, and i feel joe was justified.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

I agree, and I believe that was said by the dispatcher a few times IIRC. That will probably be the shooter's downfall too - was that he was told by the police (I assume it was the police on the phone) to stay indoors. He will undoubtedly be charged with some crime, whether it be manslaughter, or obstruction of justice, or whatever it may be..

True. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. (And not take the law into our own hands.... haha)

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

I think they have a better chance of getting caught if they don't know the police are after them.

they didn't know the police would be after them, so they broke into the vending machine.

that can go both ways. and i do believe people need to get involved instead of being so passive. criminals bank on you not getting involved, when you do get involved, things change.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

they didn't know the police would be after them, so they broke into the vending machine.
that can go both ways. and i do believe people need to get involved instead of being so passive. criminals bank on you not getting involved, when you do get involved, things change.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

[Calling the police] That is getting involved. I agree we should be actively involved in thwarting crime, though my mechanisms may differ. But I think this is an example of when a citizen should be passively involved. Document all the proper information and letting the cops know how to get them is enough.

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

[Calling the police] That is getting involved. I agree we should be actively involved in thwarting crime, though my mechanisms may differ. But I think this is an example of when a citizen should be passively involved. Document all the proper information and letting the cops know how to get them is enough.

lol, we're getting closer to compromise. i think it's up to the individual and the amount of getting involved he/she wants to do. i will agree that that getting involved should be within the limits of the law. and in some states, joe was, is, well within his rights.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/peace.gif.2db28b618ed8d1964ebbe2f5021d2c39.gif

 

[tRidiot 10+ year member]

I ignored your point because it was irrelevant. If they were reasonably sure that no one was home they are not taking their lives into their own hands anymore than the daily risks involved in life.
Breaking into an empty house runs the risk of getting caught, but doesn't necessarily encompass the risk of a vigilante neighbor gunning you down in cold blood.

To claim that anyone breaking into a house realizes the outcome could be death is foolish. They could be certain no one is home and risk only criminal offense.

Not true. You NEVER NEVER NEVER know what's going to happen when you break into anyone's house. You don't know for 1000% certain no one is in there, even if all the lights are off, even if the place looks deserted. Hell, someone could come home and see you robbing their place if nothing else. Making an ASSUMPTION that no one is home does not equate to removal of the risk involved. That's just silliness.

Again i will ask if this is such a good policy why dont we expand it to include the use of deadly force against anyone seen committing any crime?
According to you guys we could do away with all police and just let citizens police each other with state sanctioned legal executions of anyone seen committing a crime.

Once again, senseless and useless hyperbole. No one here is advocating that, yet you and others keep bringing it up as if it's our stance. It's not. Please stop putting words in our mouths and making assumptions that are not based on what we're saying. If you want to have a logical discussion, that's fine, but vilifying us for placing some of the accountability on the perpetrators of the crime will not help your cause.

I was about to say the same thing.

If someone steals from a house two blocks down the road and happens to drive by, should I run out of my house and shoot them in the face as they drive by?

It's what they deserve, right?

Maybe I should be posted outside of Wal-Mart, waiting to shoot the 14 year old girls who steal makeup.

More senseless and stupid hyperbole. Do I need to post the definition of this term so you guys realize what you're doing? No... you guys are well aware of what you're doing, in my opinion, and it's one of the lowest forms of debate, indicating (to me at least) a number of things, including a lack of debate skills, a lack of a reasonable stance and a conviction on that stance, and desperation in trying to discredit one's opponent by use of inflammatory means. It's one of the things I despise about most politicians in this country, too...

No one is saying that the victims should not be defended to the letter of the law. No one has a problem with the burglars going to jail. But the burglars should not have been killed.
What I find funny is that people are afraid to go places where the law is taken into the hands of the people (think ghetto's) and yet here people are, saying "Yeah, let them do as they please." It's ridiculous.

I never said they should have been killed for stealing or that simple larceny should be a capital offense. People being afraid of going into places like the ghetto is not from fear of people enforcing the law by themselves, but because of crime... because of a lack of people willing to step up and see that the law is upheld. It's a significant difference. I have lived in places where the common people will pull a child molester out and beat him within an inch of his life, where thieves caught red-handed have "street justice" meted out, and where people are not afraid to stand up for what is right... it's actually nice to know that the common man walking the street will have your back if you're a victim.

Do those who support this killing believe that burglary warrants capital punishment?

I don't support them being killed, although it is most certainly a risk any non-mentally-ill American should be able to assess when deciding if they are going to rob someone or not.

Then Joe says... "I'm not going to let them go"

He didn't want them to get away scott-free is how I understand that... he did not say he was going out to kill them. He said he wasn't going to let them get away. People are making the assumption that he intended all along to kill these guys... if that were the case, why would he have called the police first? Why would he have stayed on the line with the dispatcher? Why would he have warned them to stand still? It would have been much better for him to simply go over to "investigate" suspicious activity he noticed, then "spontaneously" shot them and claimed they threatened him. MUCH MUCH easier... no... I think this guy was trying to get things done the proper way, and when he saw that the thieves were (apparently) going to get away, he decided that the last resort was for him to step in... I believe he showed remarkable restraint for some time, waiting and waiting, only intervening when he felt there was no reasonable option left that would still result in the perpetrators being captured.

However... once again, I am not defending him shooting them, as I don't know what happened in that yard.

i will agree that that getting involved should be within the limits of the law. and in some states, joe was, is, well within his rights.

Not sure I agree with this, but I haven't (and don't intend to) listened to the 911 tape, because it is irrelevant to my point.

 

[T3mpest 10+ year member]

No property is worth someones life. In that regard I feel he went overboard and should be punished. Unless the robbers did something to actually threaten his life in the front yard. Vigilante justice when it involves capitol punishment is a bad idea. Very few crimes in our criminal justice system warrant capitol punishement when viewed objectively. Our laws show this pretty clearly. For a person under stress in a situation like this, he's not likely to be thinking rationally and will go overboard, ala killing someone over a relatively small amount of money. No court would have sentenced those men to death, ever. What they did wouldn't have warranted it objectively. For someone thinking this is MY neighborhood, these are MY friends, this could be MY house, etc, a empathic arguement could be made for killing them, if only to himself in his own mind. That's the dangerous part about it. Having a single person dole out a capitol punishment when he may not have all the facts, be in a bad mindset for decision making etc, is a bad idea.

PS. what they are using is a well known and accepted logicall FALLACY google slipperly slope fallacy. If this happens then so does this this this this and this, no end to the madness, blah, blah, blah.