burglary now punishable by death in texas

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
Threads like this one just show us all how polarized we really are about these sorts of news stories involving guns, illegals, personal property, and self-defense. That there is no right answer here in this case should be obvious from the moment he pulled the trigger to the grand jury decision.

We can go on about what ifs and multiple interpretations eternally.

Some of the facts many posters choose to ignore for arguements sake.

Texans have been defending the borders and sovereignty from Mexico, Mexicans, the Spanish and Mexico?s South American allies since before its founding as a state and long before even the Alamo occurred.

Texas shares the longest continuous national border with one of the most corrupt and criminal countries in the American hemisphere.

The majority of illegals in this country enter through Texas, California is second.

Houston is a mere 353 miles from this lawless border wasteland.

Houston is one of the major stopping points in the illegal smuggling routes in Texas.

All the major cities in Texas are rapidly becoming illegal alien crime cesspools, and the closer to the border you are, the worse it is.

It's kind of hard to yell at someone in English to "Stop, or I am going to shoot." when they often speak in some unknown regional Spanish dialect which even other true Spanish speakers may have trouble communicating in. But you can bet they turn their backs and run away when you raise your shotgun at them. Unless they are armed too, that is.

When the Feds and the states allow wanton illegal alien lawlessness and border crossings to occur just to give shady businesses cheap labor so they can avoid paying a fair wage and taxes, honestly, what do you expect to happen?

When illegals overrun your home, your neighborhood, your cities, your states and even your jobs and the authorities appear to willingly allow it to happen, do you or do you not have the right to defend yourselves against illegal criminals who are in your country illegally with the sole purpose of committing illegal crimes against you and your families? Keep in mind they will keep committing these crimes until they are killed or deported. And chances are unless it is a felony, even when caught, the illegals will not spend any time in jail for lesser crimes like burglary. In fact, if caught, they will be most likely immediately set free, and then be on the honor system to show back up in court! Like that's going to happen when no one even knows their true identities since illegals lie about it the vast majority of times.

Now, can anyone really blame this old guy for doing what he did to illegal alien career criminals who were only here illegally in the USA to do one thing, commit crimes? Can anyone blame the grand jury for not indicting him for protecting not just his house or his neighbors house, but the very USA from this criminal plague of illegal aliens upon our borders?

In case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Nebor
But the laws in Texas are meant to support "vigilantism." Citizens using the force necessary to stop a felony in progress.

I seriously doubt that the intent of the law was to allow ordinary citizens even more latitude in the use of deadly force than Texas law currently allows to law enforcement personnel.

Ordinary citizens in nearly every state have much, MUCH looser restrictions on the use of deadly force compared to law enforcement. That's not to say that law enforcement personnel are held to a different legal standard (they are citizens too) but instead are held to a certain professional standard.

The law is very clear here, and in many states: deadly force may be lawfully used to stop a felony in progress.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: xochi

Posted this in the OT thread about same subjet.

My thoughts are that Horn was in error. If he was fearing his life, he would have warned the suspects that police were on their way and he would have stood his ground, (protected himself/wife inside his home) not go outside guns blazing looking to kill. no doubt civil suits for the next 5-7 years

Jesus fucking christ. If the brain dead masses can't get over the facts of the case, this damn ferris wheel discussion will get no where. He didn't have to fear for jack shit. The law in that local allows for the use of firearms in a response to burglary of personal property. The draft of the DOI even followed Locke's thought in use of pursuit of property.

Guess what, he exercised his 2nd amendment rights to the full authority granted by his local regulations and we have 2 career criminals no longer performing crimes.

And a bunch of guys posting here with hard ons waiting for their own opportunity to "defend" their neighbors property. :roll:
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: SlickSnakeIn case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.

Not if we move the border fence a few hundred miles north where it should be.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: SlickSnakeIn case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.

Not if we move the border fence a few hundred miles north where it should be.

Have you been here long enough to know what DIAF means? Because you should totally DIAF.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: SlickSnake
In case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.
Do you realize how difficult it is for people to take you seriously with this sort of partisan spew? Go blame the federal gov't for not protecting your southern border - they're the ones responsible, remember?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: SlickSnakeIn case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.

Not if we move the border fence a few hundred miles north where it should be.

Have you been here long enough to know what DIAF means? Because you should totally DIAF.

And you can DIAMS (Mexican stampede).
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: SlickSnakeIn case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.

Not if we move the border fence a few hundred miles north where it should be.

Have you been here long enough to know what DIAF means? Because you should totally DIAF.

I understand it means 'the poster is an idiot not to be listened to'. Prove me wrong?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: SlickSnakeIn case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.

Not if we move the border fence a few hundred miles north where it should be.

Have you been here long enough to know what DIAF means? Because you should totally DIAF.

I understand it means 'the poster is an idiot not to be listened to'. Prove me wrong?

Sorry, but it's usual up to those making the claim to prove it true. Shouldn't be too tough though, I'm a 'tard.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: SlickSnake
In case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.
Do you realize how difficult it is for people to take you seriously with this sort of partisan spew? Go blame the federal gov't for not protecting your southern border - they're the ones responsible, remember?

Are you coming back for more of an online asswhipping?!

First you LIE about what I say, then you take things out of context and THEN you blatanlty IGNORE FACTS that I post.

Your a glutton for punishment arent you.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Threads like this one just show us all how polarized we really are about these sorts of news stories involving guns, illegals, personal property, and self-defense. That there is no right answer here in this case should be obvious from the moment he pulled the trigger to the grand jury decision.

We can go on about what ifs and multiple interpretations eternally.

Some of the facts many posters choose to ignore for arguements sake.

Texans have been defending the borders and sovereignty from Mexico, Mexicans, the Spanish and Mexico?s South American allies since before its founding as a state and long before even the Alamo occurred.

Texas shares the longest continuous national border with one of the most corrupt and criminal countries in the American hemisphere.

The majority of illegals in this country enter through Texas, California is second.

Houston is a mere 353 miles from this lawless border wasteland.

Houston is one of the major stopping points in the illegal smuggling routes in Texas.

All the major cities in Texas are rapidly becoming illegal alien crime cesspools, and the closer to the border you are, the worse it is.

It's kind of hard to yell at someone in English to "Stop, or I am going to shoot." when they often speak in some unknown regional Spanish dialect which even other true Spanish speakers may have trouble communicating in. But you can bet they turn their backs and run away when you raise your shotgun at them. Unless they are armed too, that is.

When the Feds and the states allow wanton illegal alien lawlessness and border crossings to occur just to give shady businesses cheap labor so they can avoid paying a fair wage and taxes, honestly, what do you expect to happen?

When illegals overrun your home, your neighborhood, your cities, your states and even your jobs and the authorities appear to willingly allow it to happen, do you or do you not have the right to defend yourselves against illegal criminals who are in your country illegally with the sole purpose of committing illegal crimes against you and your families? Keep in mind they will keep committing these crimes until they are killed or deported. And chances are unless it is a felony, even when caught, the illegals will not spend any time in jail for lesser crimes like burglary. In fact, if caught, they will be most likely immediately set free, and then be on the honor system to show back up in court! Like that's going to happen when no one even knows their true identities since illegals lie about it the vast majority of times.

Now, can anyone really blame this old guy for doing what he did to illegal alien career criminals who were only here illegally in the USA to do one thing, commit crimes? Can anyone blame the grand jury for not indicting him for protecting not just his house or his neighbors house, but the very USA from this criminal plague of illegal aliens upon our borders?

In case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.

I'm sure this is what it look like to Texans, but to the rest of the USA, it looks like you guys have already become Mexico. Criminals, corruption, and all. Hell, Bush would have made a great President of Mexico.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: SlickSnake
In case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.
Do you realize how difficult it is for people to take you seriously with this sort of partisan spew? Go blame the federal gov't for not protecting your southern border - they're the ones responsible, remember?

Meh. SlickSnake seems to have forgotten that the Yankee North is the United States of America, and the turncoats states are the South. If he and his fellows want to keep talking like that, I'm sure a rematch could be arranged, and the rebels can get their asses kicked even worse the 2nd time around.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

You waive your right to trail in this country when you threaten another person. It may not be spelled out that way, but it's true. Anyone, police or citizen, can use lethal force to defend themselves against a threat and will generally face no charges for it. That means that this country accepts that you give up your right to live if you threaten innocent people.

That is not true. The whole reason why everyone has a right to trial is just because someone says you are committing a crime does not mean you are guilty of that crime. In the case of Honks, it is more cut and dry but that's not good enough. See my previous post on regarding exceptions for an explaination as to why this is a bad idea.

I know what you're saying, but I'm saying this IS the way our nation has worked, and continues to work. Each state allows lethal force to respond to a threat. In other words each state says in writing that you do not commit a crime by killing someone who is threatening you (within varying specifics). Therefore each state acknowledges that a person who threatens another is accepting the possibility that they will be killed without trial. I realize it's roundabout, but that IS in essence what is being said.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Citrix
errr why not?

i just dont understand the thinking of some of you in here. the bottom line is what he did is legal in the eyes of texas law. what part of that do you people not understand?

if you dont live in texas why do you care anyway. its not your state law.

Well, you are right about the living in Texas thing and I already expressed how I feel it is a very good thing that the people have the freedom of choice when it comes to this matter since there are a many ways to skin the cat and many states choose to walk different paths. The rest is just my opinion on what I believe the best course of action is to take.

In regards to why I believe the "feeling threatened" thing should not apply in Horn's case is because while he was on the phone with that 911 operator his life was not being threatened by these people yet he made the decision to shoot and kill anyways. However, according to Texas, that isn't good enough. I guess they do not believe in the right to a fair trial. They would rather just kill people.

You skipped the step where he went outside and got threatened, which was perfectly within the law and some people's morality.

And you skipped the part -- yet again -- where he shot unarmed men in the back.

No, not really, as already completely clarified repeatedly. Read the forensic reports and my various illustrations about how someone can be justifiably shot in the back.

Except then we get to the fact, already discussed repeatedly, how Horn announced his intention to kill these burglars prior to leaving his own house. And what that does, combined with the shot-in-the-back aspect, is make your various justifications look like the fabrications that they are.

If you needed a hero for your vigilante justice cause, PoW, there are plenty to choose from. Horn is not one of them, however. But I'll remember that you draw the line at jaywalking...

And while that gives us pause, it cannot, in and of itself, be the deciding factor. Otherwise anyone who announces an intention to do something will already be considered guilty of having done it - regardless of truth or due process. See my previous example of how simple this really is to see in action.

You also fail to address the EYEWITNESS report of a police officer who tells us that this IS exactly what happened, and NOT a fabrication. In other words, I think you should contact Texas immediately so you can call the officer a liar, the forensic expert an idiot, and let them know that you know more than the entire judicial system AND the jury and so should be the single voice which decides all cases in the future.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Can you prove that if those men had surrendered immediately, or had calmly walked directly away without an intervening threat, that he would have shot them? If not then there's reasonable doubt that he did wrong, meaning he'd get off in court had it gone there.

I don't have to. The existence of that loophole is a good enough reason for me not to support his actions. He should have stayed inside.

Look man, just face it. You don't care as much about reducing crime and preserving fair justice as you do about fulfilling your desire to kill people that commit these crimes and defend those who feel the same way.

You're welcome to your opinion, but your opinion is utterly meaningless. It's not the way things are. You're free to try and change them however.

I think I care more about preservation and justice for innocents than I do for criminals, and you feel either that they must be equal or that criminals deserve more somehow. What I haven't seen is any indication of how changing the system would preserve justice for innocents. It seems to me it just strips away rights and hands all power to criminals.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

You skipped the step where he went outside and got threatened, which was perfectly within the law and some people's morality.

He went outside with intentions of killing them. That is a fact in this case. He was life threatening to them before they were life threatening to him assuming they were threatening his life at all which we do not even know for sure. That counts for something. Like it or not, criminals have rights to. We cannot just do whatever we want with them and expect to get away with it anymore than they should be able to do whatever they want to us and expect to get away with it. Things like that are huge loopholes to get away with murder despite whether or not Horn is guilty of such things.

Can you prove that if those men had surrendered immediately, or had calmly walked directly away without an intervening threat, that he would have shot them? If not then there's reasonable doubt that he did wrong, meaning he'd get off in court had it gone there.
"You want to make a bet? I'm going to kill them."

Irrelevant, or at best merely cautionary. People say all sorts of things, but that doesn't strip them of their rights, nor make them guilty without specific illegal actions.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

You waive your right to trail in this country when you threaten another person. It may not be spelled out that way, but it's true. Anyone, police or citizen, can use lethal force to defend themselves against a threat and will generally face no charges for it. That means that this country accepts that you give up your right to live if you threaten innocent people.

That is not true. The whole reason why everyone has a right to trial is just because someone says you are committing a crime does not mean you are guilty of that crime. In the case of Honks, it is more cut and dry but that's not good enough. See my previous post on regarding exceptions for an explaination as to why this is a bad idea.

I know what you're saying, but I'm saying this IS the way our nation has worked, and continues to work. Each state allows lethal force to respond to a threat. In other words each state says in writing that you do not commit a crime by killing someone who is threatening you (within varying specifics). Therefore each state acknowledges that a person who threatens another is accepting the possibility that they will be killed without trial. I realize it's roundabout, but that IS in essence what is being said.

Except the self-defense argument has nothing do with the case in question. No one is saying that people do not have the right to defend themselves. This has already been discussed ad naseum, and you just keep puking this straw man back up. The issue here is that Horn took the law into his own hands. Which would have been fine IMO except for the part where he went past playing cop and decided to be judge, jury, and executioner too.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Can you prove that if those men had surrendered immediately, or had calmly walked directly away without an intervening threat, that he would have shot them? If not then there's reasonable doubt that he did wrong, meaning he'd get off in court had it gone there.

I don't have to. The existence of that loophole is a good enough reason for me not to support his actions. He should have stayed inside.

I don't agree. Horn did not have to stay inside. But if he wanted to play the cop, then he should have acted like a cop. IOW, he should have made an arrest.

Well, we are just going to have to agree to disagree then because what you are suggesting puts the lives of others around the area in danger should shots be fired and hit targets that they are not intended to hit. At the very least, if this sort of thing became common practice then you know it would lead to more shootings in more neighborhoods when it could have been just a robbery. I would prefer the robberies over the shootings where I choose to live personally. That's just me though.

It would have been better if he made an arrest. I admit that. At least that would have put the criminals in a position to choose whether or not to threaten murder vs defending themselves from being murdered and to choose to havea fair trial.

How do you arrest someone who doesn't want to be? What IS an arrest exactly? An arrest is merely removing the freedom of another person in order to exert your will over them. In order to do that they must agree, or you must use force. If the attempt to use that force results in a need for defense, then we're right back to where we came from. So how does that solve anything?

Again, despite 400 years of weapon ownership, 40 years of concealed carry, and the INCREDIBLE number of defensive gun uses, this has yet to be a major issue. And yet somehow you claim that without changing a single law this incident is going to start it happening?
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: xochi

He shouted "Move, you're dead," words he regrets saying, and fired when one of the men started to charge him, the Chronicle reported.

"There was no time to aim," Mr. Horn said. "To this day, I still don't know where I shot."

Autopsy reports released Tuesday show the two men were shot in the back, arms and shoulders.

Something just isn't adding up right. What are they blaming this on anyways? Ricochet?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU IDIOT HOW MANY GOD DAMNED TIMES ARE PEOPLE GOING TO HAVE TO POST AN ANSWER TO THIS BEFORE YOU READ WHAT THEY SAY???

Go back and read the answer to your question OR FUCK THE HELL OFF!
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
It would be fascinating to see this discussion if the two people killed were relatives of the people who lived at the house being 'invaded', and had no keys with them, but had run back to their cousin's house to grab some money they forgot, or something along those lines, and they went in through a window - and perhaps didn't know the security code on the doors, so they left via the window as well.

Would princeofwands and his gang still be singing the praises of this shooter?

This guy put himself 'in danger' when he ran across the street. The two people he shot were in no way, shape, or form a danger to him. His phone call to 911, made while he was still across the street, showed he already had intent to kill them.

The bottom line here is that you can't take the background of the two dead people into account here - and not knowing that, I think a much greater percentage of people wouldn't be so quick to congratulate this guy.

I'm not losing any sleep over these two pieces of crap being dead - and the discussion about our lack of judicial punishment being any type of deterrent whatsoever is another issue - but in my opinion what this guy did was criminal as well. He practically sounded excited about going over there and shooting them.

Obviously it would be tragic, but there must be such incidents in order to achieve the greater good granted by these freedoms. It's that whole 'giving up liberty for security' thing.

Actually you don't get to decide they weren't a danger, as you weren't there. Even the cop who was on scene said they were, and someone doesn't even actually have to BE a danger, just be PERCEIVED as one.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

You waive your right to trail in this country when you threaten another person. It may not be spelled out that way, but it's true. Anyone, police or citizen, can use lethal force to defend themselves against a threat and will generally face no charges for it. That means that this country accepts that you give up your right to live if you threaten innocent people.

That is not true. The whole reason why everyone has a right to trial is just because someone says you are committing a crime does not mean you are guilty of that crime. In the case of Honks, it is more cut and dry but that's not good enough. See my previous post on regarding exceptions for an explaination as to why this is a bad idea.

I know what you're saying, but I'm saying this IS the way our nation has worked, and continues to work. Each state allows lethal force to respond to a threat. In other words each state says in writing that you do not commit a crime by killing someone who is threatening you (within varying specifics). Therefore each state acknowledges that a person who threatens another is accepting the possibility that they will be killed without trial. I realize it's roundabout, but that IS in essence what is being said.

Except the self-defense argument has nothing do with the case in question. No one is saying that people do not have the right to defend themselves. This has already been discussed ad naseum, and you just keep puking this straw man back up. The issue here is that Horn took the law into his own hands. Which would have been fine IMO except for the part where he went past playing cop and decided to be judge, jury, and executioner too.

BULL FUCKING SHIT! It has EVERYTHING to do with it because it WAS a self-defense case. At the moment he was threatened it BECAME a self defense case. YOU are the one puking up the straw man, claiming it's wrong to shoot burglary suspects.

The eyewitness agrees (who is a cop), the forensic evidence agrees, the defendant agrees (obviously), the jury agrees, many people agree...YOU are the one with the problem here...but fortunately for all involved your opinion doesn't matter for squat in this case.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
... SlickSnake seems to have forgotten that the Yankee North is the United States of America, and the turncoats states are the South. If he and his fellows want to keep talking like that, I'm sure a rematch could be arranged, and the rebels can get their asses kicked even worse the 2nd time around.
This doesn't have anything to do with killing people but it might be representative of a southern mindset:

After moving to southern georgia, I was taken aback the first time I was called a yankee - and this was by a supposedly "mature southerner". I thought he was kidding - "why would you bring that up, we're one country aren't we?". He was serious. Many are still fighting the civil war here and think that what they believed in then still applies now. This is the result of completely unscientific polling but the fact that even one thinks this is disappointing.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

You waive your right to trail in this country when you threaten another person. It may not be spelled out that way, but it's true. Anyone, police or citizen, can use lethal force to defend themselves against a threat and will generally face no charges for it. That means that this country accepts that you give up your right to live if you threaten innocent people.

That is not true. The whole reason why everyone has a right to trial is just because someone says you are committing a crime does not mean you are guilty of that crime. In the case of Honks, it is more cut and dry but that's not good enough. See my previous post on regarding exceptions for an explaination as to why this is a bad idea.

I know what you're saying, but I'm saying this IS the way our nation has worked, and continues to work. Each state allows lethal force to respond to a threat. In other words each state says in writing that you do not commit a crime by killing someone who is threatening you (within varying specifics). Therefore each state acknowledges that a person who threatens another is accepting the possibility that they will be killed without trial. I realize it's roundabout, but that IS in essence what is being said.

Except the self-defense argument has nothing do with the case in question. No one is saying that people do not have the right to defend themselves. This has already been discussed ad naseum, and you just keep puking this straw man back up. The issue here is that Horn took the law into his own hands. Which would have been fine IMO except for the part where he went past playing cop and decided to be judge, jury, and executioner too.

BULL FUCKING SHIT! It has EVERYTHING to do with it because it WAS a self-defense case. At the moment he was threatened it BECAME a self defense case. YOU are the one puking up the straw man, claiming it's wrong to shoot burglary suspects.

The eyewitness agrees (who is a cop), the forensic evidence agrees, the defendant agrees (obviously), the jury agrees, many people agree...YOU are the one with the problem here...but fortunately for all involved your opinion doesn't matter for squat in this case.

Remember that part in this thread where I told that true story of mine and you cheered that that guy shot a 14 year-old kid in the back from 100 feet away (and I forgot to mention, a whole block from his property)? That 'criminals getting what they deserve' hot air of yours when they get shot in the back while running away?
That's where you threw away what little credibility you had left on this issue (if not everything else as far as I'm concerned).

And IIRC self defense was not the grounds that had the jury decline to make the indictment. More pulling out of your ass. This was a Castle Doctrine case.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: SlickSnake
In case you bleeding heart east coast liberals obviously forgot about it, Texas is and always has been struggling to remain democratic, free and a viable part of the USA. But if Texas turns into Texaco one day, like it rapidly is, all the rest of you liberal Yankee turncoat states will certainly be next to follow us as the USA is completely overrun and destroyed by the criminal illegal alien plague.
Do you realize how difficult it is for people to take you seriously with this sort of partisan spew? Go blame the federal gov't for not protecting your southern border - they're the ones responsible, remember?

Are you coming back for more of an online asswhipping?!

First you LIE about what I say, then you take things out of context and THEN you blatanlty IGNORE FACTS that I post.

Your a glutton for punishment arent you.

Everyone can quite easily see what you said, it's spelled out in black and white. The only liar is you.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Irrelevant, or at best merely cautionary. People say all sorts of things, but that doesn't strip them of their rights, nor make them guilty without specific illegal actions.

You'd make a shitty lawyer. It shows intent. Clear and unmistakable intent that Horn went outside NOT to stop a crime in progress, but to KILL those two men.