why that was nice

[mrray13 10+ year member]

Explain how his safety was jeopardized. I believe it was jeopardized by him leaving the house. He did the right think in calling the police... but exchanging life for goods does not equate. If it does equate for you, then I'm sure you would love slavery to come back. Cause that's really what it was. It was just equating a group of people to property.

he did jeopardize his safety, i agree. he jeopardized his safety for the greater good. that being stopping two thieves who he jsut witnessed breaking into his neighbor's house. he took a step most would not take, he put his own safety to the side to defend the rights and property of his neighbor.

and it's not the jsut the goods, it's the principle. it's the sheer foundation of what we hold to be the truth. those thieves were violating another man's home and safety. they didn't hold their fellow man's rights above their own, rather, they tramped them straight into teh ground by breaking into that person's home. for their own personal gain and they cared less to whom they did it to or of what consquenses to caused that person. why treat them any better then they were treating the victim?

and this has nothing to do with slavery or color or anything of that nature. i would be backing joe if he was black and the thieves were white. it doesn't equate to that at all. if you are tryint to read that into it, you need to rethink yourself. this is nothing more then one man finally standing up for himself and his neighbor's right to live a life without fear of being robbed.

again, don't forget, this all started because two people broke the law by breaking into someone else's property. the fact they were killed by teh victims neighbor is their own fault. you want lay blame, then lay it where it deserves to be laid. at the feet of the two thieves. accountability. they were held accountable, period.

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

 

[slick rick 10+ year member]

Is this the "amended" amendment the guy was talking about?

its the amendment he speaks of...and granted it has been interpreted for use in other matters such as getting conecealed weapons permits, etc., it does NOT allow someone to just shoot a gun at a person because the amendment says so.

 

[mrogowski 5,000+ posts]

If this happened more often... Then I guarantee crime will still happen, and the people committing the crime will just become more violent as well. It just creates a more violent state, and more open doors for murder.

This is speculation, which is just what I was doing too. I do find it interesting that you can walk down the street at midnight in Singapore knowing you will not be mugged or assaulted.

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

Wow... you guys really do want Sharia law... How does accountability equate to death? Accountability would be imprisonment. Why do we even need police if citizens are going to go out of their way to take the law into their own hands.

and you want no law? if our sytem truly worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and even our police officers wouldn't have a need for firearms. but the truth is, the prison system is a joke and instills no fear in a criminal.

and yep, crime will always happen. but if more people took the stance joe did, it would happen far less. why? even criminals don't want to get shot at. and they will not go where there is the possibility of someone defending themselves (like my house) when they know there is a house where there isn't (your house or yoru neighbors). they will always take the easy path, the one with less risk.

you choose to live the way you live, cool. means i won't have to shoot anyone, cause they know you won't. they'll break in your home long before mine.

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

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

This is speculation, which is just what I was doing too. I do find it interesting that you can walk down the street at midnight in Singapore knowing you will not be mugged or assaulted.

You're right, it is pure speculation. That's just what I would expect. I don't know enough about Singapore to know that I will not be mugged or assaulted. If you're referring to a Police State, then that's definitely an infringement on freedom.

 

[mrogowski 5,000+ posts]

its the amendment he speaks of...and granted it has been interpreted for use in other matters such as getting conecealed weapons permits, etc., it does NOT allow someone to just shoot a gun at a person because the amendment says so.

Ok. I thought it might have been some local or state law that was amended to allow him to do such things.

On a personal note, I think these laws should be rewritten to apply to today's standards and not those of two hundred years ago (this should be done to both American and Canadian laws).

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I still say the legal system is in place for a reason, and it is not for ordinary citizens to decide who lives and who dies based on the crimes they committed.

I don't agree with crime, but I don't agree that I should be the one to decide at the spur of the moment whether someone else lives or dies. The legal process should be followed...that's why it's there in the first place.

If people are dissatisfied with the current legal process, then it is up to them to make a change, and it doesn't start with blasting whomever they choose.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I nominate Gummo for worst movie ever

Stupid people never understand it.

I've mentioned it twice now, and everyone has conveniently ignored it, so I'll mention it one more time, to see if anyone is man enough to address the fact.
Anyone who breaks into someone's home with the intent of stealing knows without a doubt that there is a possibility they could be killed in the act... this of course excludes those with mental illnesses, I'd say.

Therefore...

The thief already chose to risk his life for the potential (not the guarantee) of material gain. The thief (thieves in this case) already chose to continue with the criminal enterprise, having weighed the value of his own life and found risking it less important than stealing someone else's possessions.

He already made the determination of his life's value.

*Note - I'm not defending the shooter, that point is irrelevant to mine.

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.

So are you suggesting they were stealing food and shouldn't be blamed?
They weighed the value of their lives versus an illegal act... they took their lives into their own hands the first time by entering the dwelling.

Then, when confronted with IMMEDIATE and CERTAIN retribution in the form of a gun-wielding man commanding them to halt, they did it again... and they lost.

So... like I said... I don't feel sorry for them at all. They took the risks, they knew the risks, they saw the immediate and certain life-threatening danger, and still chose to run.

Sorry. They lost.

You cant really ascertain for certain how it all went down from an audio tape. He could have just said that for the purpose of a legal defense. Who knows, he could have said that, and then shot the first one *** he complied and the second one after he saw his friend get killed and ran.

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.

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

and you want no law? if our sytem truly worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and even our police officers wouldn't have a need for firearms. but the truth is, the prison system is a joke and instills no fear in a criminal.
and yep, crime will always happen. but if more people took the stance joe did, it would happen far less. why? even criminals don't want to get shot at. and they will not go where there is the possibility of someone defending themselves (like my house) when they know there is a house where there isn't (your house or yoru neighbors). they will always take the easy path, the one with less risk.

you choose to live the way you live, cool. means i won't have to shoot anyone, cause they know you won't. they'll break in your home long before mine.

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

The reason our system doesn't work is because our system does not seek to fix the causative factor. What do we think the penitentiary system is? It's not rehabilitation. I worked in a level 14 boys group home (right under juvey.) You know what the majority of the boys learn?... Better ways to be criminal. Fortunately, the group home setting is set up with therapy and investigation on how to change behavior. Root out the cause, root out the problem. The cause is not the person, the cause is usually environment.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

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.

 

[mrogowski 5,000+ posts]

You're right, it is pure speculation. That's just what I would expect. I don't know enough about Singapore to know that I will not be mugged or assaulted. If you're referring to a Police State, then that's definitely an infringement on freedom.

In all honesty, I do not know myself. I work with a man from Singapore though, and he has stated on many occasions how safe it is to live there. Laws there are specific and repercussions swift.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

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.

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.

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

its the amendment he speaks of...and granted it has been interpreted for use in other matters such as getting conecealed weapons permits, etc., it does NOT allow someone to just shoot a gun at a person because the amendment says so.

your correct. it doesn't allow for one to jsut shoot a person for no reason. it's intended to allow a person to maintain a firearm to defend themselves, their freedom and property against those who would violate that freedom, that property, that person. be it foreign or domestic, goverment or individual, one has the god given right to defend themselves against what is wrong. and thieves breaking into people's homes for the intent of gaining material wealth, can never be thought of as being in the right or as a victim when someone stops them. and it shows jsut how weak we are when people actually stop to defend their lives over the victim's rights they just violated.

and don't forget, they were warned. they were given more of a chance to live and learn then the owner's of the house they broke into. i don't recall anyone saying the victims house got a call that said, "if you leave, we are going to rob you." they choose to ignore that warning and they lost.

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

 

[mrray13 10+ year member]

The reason our system doesn't work is because our system does not seek to fix the causative factor. What do we think the penitentiary system is? It's not rehabilitation. I worked in a level 14 boys group home (right under juvey.) You know what the majority of the boys learn?... Better ways to be criminal. Fortunately, the group home setting is set up with therapy and investigation on how to change behavior. Root out the cause, root out the problem. The cause is not the person, the cause is usually environment.

on this, you get no arguement from me. and this speaking from someone who has spent time on the locked side of the fence.

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

 

[jrerun21 10+ year member]

Who shouts "Boom! You're dead,"

in defense?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story

On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.
"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.

Then Horn is back on the phone:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the --- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

Dispatcher: "Did you shoot somebody?

Horn: "Yes, I did, the cops are here right now."

Dispatcher: "Where are you right now?"

Horn: "I'm inside the house. ..."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, put that gun down before you shoot an officer of mine. I've got several officers out there without uniforms on."

Horn: "I am in the front yard right now. I am ..."

Dispatcher: "Put that gun down! There's officers out there without uniforms on. Do not shoot anybody else, do you understand me? I've got police out there..."

Horn: "I understand, I understand. I am out in the front yard waving my hand right now."

Dispatcher: "You don't have a gun with you, do you?

Horn: "No, no, no."

Dispatcher: "You see a uniformed officer? Now lay down on the ground and don't do nothing else."

Yelling is heard.

Also interesting to note he endangered the lives of nonuniformed officers.