burglary now punishable by death in texas

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: ohnoes
this situation is a bit different though. Its not that he was coming into his own home, but a neighbors. The discussion in the thread isn't really about self-defense, but rather the deadly use of force to prevent felonies, which was what the guy did.

Not quite. The jury ruled that he was justified in approaching the felons and that his life was in danger when they threatened him, as was witnessed by a police officer. So this is about self defense, too.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Quite often things like that happen. Where one person of a group has a weapon, or tries to do harm, and the defender injures or kills more than just the armed person. They very seldom face punishment for it as the persons in the group assume the liability for the actions of each person in the group (not the correct legal terms, but you know what I mean). In other words if you and a buddy are walking and talking together, and your buddy pulls out a knife to stab me, I probably won't be prosecuted for shooting you both since a reasonable person would assume that you are part of the threat - even if you weren't obviously armed at the time. It's a split-second encounter, with adrenaline and reactions instead of judgment. You really can't fault it. If you don't want to share the punishments just don't be an accomplice.
And that's why I don't think your average Joe (or at least not rednecks like this guy) should be allowed to own a gun. Police officers are trained to react properly in situations like this and half the time they can't make rational decisions in the heat of the moment. It's easy to talk big and tough, but when it comes right down to it, I don't think most people can handle these situations.

Police go through no more training than many cpl holders. Most of an officers training isn't spent on shoot/don't shoot, marksmanship, or any other combat training. Police are no more capable or responsible than the average concealed permit holder, and in fact have been shown more likely to break the law in a violent manner.

People REALLY need to abandon the myth that police are somehow special, or inherently good, or extremely capable. I've worked with them for most of my adult life and I can guarantee you there EXACTLY the same as you and I.

Oh, and now that the supreme court has ruled, your opinion means exactly nothing. I mean, you're entitled to hold it, even if it IS totally unsupported...but you're in the extreme minority and can absolutely surrender any thoughts of ever living in a gun-free America.
At least they go through some training. I wonder how much firearms training Joe Horn has had in his life? Probably just basic gun safety, which doesn't exactly make you qualified to deal with life-or-death situations like this. Shooting a deer from a safe distance is very different than confronting two potentially armed burglars.

It was a 5-4 vote, I don't think a gun-free America is as unlikely a scenario as you make it out to be. But don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily want to ban guns -- I just think we need to be more selective about who we hand them out to.

It's entirely possible that he has a lot of training. I'm just a citizen, not a cop. However I have military training and experience, have had security licenses, training, and experience in 4 states over a dozen years, am a self-defense instructor, and have a number of firearm classes under my belt as a private citizen (concealed carry classes, etc). There are a number of training institutes out there for citizen firearm classes. Unless we know for sure we shouldn't presume what Joe Horn does or does not know.

How can you need to be qualified to attempt to save your own life??? You're the only one there to save yourself, how can you be required to be qualified to do it? If you don't have some kind of special license you think people should just be required to lay down and die??? I mean seriously, think about it. I don't want lunatics getting guns any more than the next guy, but there's just no way to regulate the right of self-defense. Do the best you can, and be judged by your peers for your actions. That's the system we have, it's the system that found Joe Horn acted correctly, and that's the end of it.

The judges voted party lines, the people in polls probably didn't. Some polls showed only 70% support for the individual right, some showed as high as 95%. Not just internet polls, but pew and other respected researchers. In other words, most of the country supports the right of individuals to own a gun, and most support the right to use lethal force in self-defense. That doesn't mean there can't be reasonable regulation, or judicial review for your actions. However those things happened in this case as well, and STILL came down on the side of the good guy. You can disagree, but you ARE in the minortiy.

As for a gun-free America, not a chance. Any attempts to do so WILL cause a full revolution. Period.
And a good chunk of those supporters of the individual right also support stricter legislation. You're in the minority if you think that we should be indiscriminate about who can own a firearm.

The best info on Horn's background I could find mentioned that he was an avid hunter quite a few years back, and that's when he had bought the gun. It didn't mention any military training or anything like that.

You're obviously very qualified, and I have a lot of respect for people like you who take gun ownership so seriously (it's a big responsibility IMO, especially if you have a CCL). Unfortunately, I doubt many gun owners are like you.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: ohnoes
Although here's a question: if it was a street fight between two men, do you feel he would have been justified in shooting the aggressor once he confronted the aggressor & the aggressor had started to run away?

Since we're playing what if, can the aggressor cross the international date line & actually be shot a full calendar day later?
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: ohnoes
Although here's a question: if it was a street fight between two men, do you feel he would have been justified in shooting the aggressor once he confronted the aggressor & the aggressor had started to run away?

Since we're playing what if, can the aggressor cross the international date line & actually be shot a full calendar day later?

The ol' "international date line" defense is a personal favorite of mine.

If the time does not fit, you must acquit!
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: ohnoes
this situation is a bit different though. Its not that he was coming into his own home, but a neighbors. The discussion in the thread isn't really about self-defense, but rather the deadly use of force to prevent felonies, which was what the guy did.

Only if he fired without being threatened in any way. If they threatened first, at all, it's still self-defense. The fact that he went out to interrupt a felony is disconnected from the fact of the shooting IF there was an intervening threat escalating it to self-defense.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Quite often things like that happen. Where one person of a group has a weapon, or tries to do harm, and the defender injures or kills more than just the armed person. They very seldom face punishment for it as the persons in the group assume the liability for the actions of each person in the group (not the correct legal terms, but you know what I mean). In other words if you and a buddy are walking and talking together, and your buddy pulls out a knife to stab me, I probably won't be prosecuted for shooting you both since a reasonable person would assume that you are part of the threat - even if you weren't obviously armed at the time. It's a split-second encounter, with adrenaline and reactions instead of judgment. You really can't fault it. If you don't want to share the punishments just don't be an accomplice.
And that's why I don't think your average Joe (or at least not rednecks like this guy) should be allowed to own a gun. Police officers are trained to react properly in situations like this and half the time they can't make rational decisions in the heat of the moment. It's easy to talk big and tough, but when it comes right down to it, I don't think most people can handle these situations.

Police go through no more training than many cpl holders. Most of an officers training isn't spent on shoot/don't shoot, marksmanship, or any other combat training. Police are no more capable or responsible than the average concealed permit holder, and in fact have been shown more likely to break the law in a violent manner.

People REALLY need to abandon the myth that police are somehow special, or inherently good, or extremely capable. I've worked with them for most of my adult life and I can guarantee you there EXACTLY the same as you and I.

Oh, and now that the supreme court has ruled, your opinion means exactly nothing. I mean, you're entitled to hold it, even if it IS totally unsupported...but you're in the extreme minority and can absolutely surrender any thoughts of ever living in a gun-free America.
At least they go through some training. I wonder how much firearms training Joe Horn has had in his life? Probably just basic gun safety, which doesn't exactly make you qualified to deal with life-or-death situations like this. Shooting a deer from a safe distance is very different than confronting two potentially armed burglars.

It was a 5-4 vote, I don't think a gun-free America is as unlikely a scenario as you make it out to be. But don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily want to ban guns -- I just think we need to be more selective about who we hand them out to.

It's entirely possible that he has a lot of training. I'm just a citizen, not a cop. However I have military training and experience, have had security licenses, training, and experience in 4 states over a dozen years, am a self-defense instructor, and have a number of firearm classes under my belt as a private citizen (concealed carry classes, etc). There are a number of training institutes out there for citizen firearm classes. Unless we know for sure we shouldn't presume what Joe Horn does or does not know.

How can you need to be qualified to attempt to save your own life??? You're the only one there to save yourself, how can you be required to be qualified to do it? If you don't have some kind of special license you think people should just be required to lay down and die??? I mean seriously, think about it. I don't want lunatics getting guns any more than the next guy, but there's just no way to regulate the right of self-defense. Do the best you can, and be judged by your peers for your actions. That's the system we have, it's the system that found Joe Horn acted correctly, and that's the end of it.

The judges voted party lines, the people in polls probably didn't. Some polls showed only 70% support for the individual right, some showed as high as 95%. Not just internet polls, but pew and other respected researchers. In other words, most of the country supports the right of individuals to own a gun, and most support the right to use lethal force in self-defense. That doesn't mean there can't be reasonable regulation, or judicial review for your actions. However those things happened in this case as well, and STILL came down on the side of the good guy. You can disagree, but you ARE in the minortiy.

As for a gun-free America, not a chance. Any attempts to do so WILL cause a full revolution. Period.
And a good chunk of those supporters of the individual right also support stricter legislation. You're in the minority if you think that we should be indiscriminate about who can own a firearm.

The best info on Horn's background I could find mentioned that he was an avid hunter quite a few years back, and that's when he had bought the gun. It didn't mention any military training or anything like that.

You're obviously very qualified, and I have a lot of respect for people like you who take gun ownership so seriously (it's a big responsibility IMO, especially if you have a CCL). Unfortunately, I doubt many gun owners are like you.

I don't expect many people to devote as much to it as I have, but that doesn't take away their absolute right to defend themselves. Might mean there's more chance of accidents, but we must accept that in order to give them their right.
 

ohnoes

Senior member
Oct 11, 2007
269
0
0
lawl, i'm going to reuse the "wow you're retarded for comparing a speeding ticket to a burgarly" card that has already been played. I'm guessing you probably don't have to do any type of detailed analysis for work, and can't comprehend the concept of isolating variables.

But no worries, I'll help you out. Would the shooting be justified in that scenario if the aggressor robbed the other man and took off with his briefcase full of gold bars.
 

ohnoes

Senior member
Oct 11, 2007
269
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: ohnoes
this situation is a bit different though. Its not that he was coming into his own home, but a neighbors. The discussion in the thread isn't really about self-defense, but rather the deadly use of force to prevent felonies, which was what the guy did.

Only if he fired without being threatened in any way. If they threatened first, at all, it's still self-defense. The fact that he went out to interrupt a felony is disconnected from the fact of the shooting IF there was an intervening threat escalating it to self-defense.

right, he confronted the burglars, and from the reports, the first guy was advancing towards him, so the self-defense flies, but the other guy was running straight away.
 

railer

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2000
1,552
68
91
good for him.

If all burglars were shot as dead as these two low-life's......we wouldn't have anymore burglars.

Maybe then the low-life's would get off their lazy asses and get to work, instead of stealing, robbing, and killing innocent people.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: ohnoes
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: ohnoes
this situation is a bit different though. Its not that he was coming into his own home, but a neighbors. The discussion in the thread isn't really about self-defense, but rather the deadly use of force to prevent felonies, which was what the guy did.

Only if he fired without being threatened in any way. If they threatened first, at all, it's still self-defense. The fact that he went out to interrupt a felony is disconnected from the fact of the shooting IF there was an intervening threat escalating it to self-defense.

right, he confronted the burglars, and from the reports, the first guy was advancing towards him, so the self-defense flies, but the other guy was running straight away.

*nod* but read my other post about the association issue. Not that it's AS clearly acceptable, but it's at least understandable.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Police go through no more training than many cpl holders. Most of an officers training isn't spent on shoot/don't shoot, marksmanship, or any other combat training. Police are no more capable or responsible than the average concealed permit holder, and in fact have been shown more likely to break the law in a violent manner.

People REALLY need to abandon the myth that police are somehow special, or inherently good, or extremely capable. I've worked with them for most of my adult life and I can guarantee you there EXACTLY the same as you and I.

Oh, and now that the supreme court has ruled, your opinion means exactly nothing. I mean, you're entitled to hold it, even if it IS totally unsupported...but you're in the extreme minority and can absolutely surrender any thoughts of ever living in a gun-free America.
At least they go through some training. I wonder how much firearms training Joe Horn has had in his life? Probably just basic gun safety, which doesn't exactly make you qualified to deal with life-or-death situations like this. Shooting a deer from a safe distance is very different than confronting two potentially armed burglars.

It was a 5-4 vote, I don't think a gun-free America is as unlikely a scenario as you make it out to be. But don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily want to ban guns -- I just think we need to be more selective about who we hand them out to.

It's entirely possible that he has a lot of training. I'm just a citizen, not a cop. However I have military training and experience, have had security licenses, training, and experience in 4 states over a dozen years, am a self-defense instructor, and have a number of firearm classes under my belt as a private citizen (concealed carry classes, etc). There are a number of training institutes out there for citizen firearm classes. Unless we know for sure we shouldn't presume what Joe Horn does or does not know.

How can you need to be qualified to attempt to save your own life??? You're the only one there to save yourself, how can you be required to be qualified to do it? If you don't have some kind of special license you think people should just be required to lay down and die??? I mean seriously, think about it. I don't want lunatics getting guns any more than the next guy, but there's just no way to regulate the right of self-defense. Do the best you can, and be judged by your peers for your actions. That's the system we have, it's the system that found Joe Horn acted correctly, and that's the end of it.

The judges voted party lines, the people in polls probably didn't. Some polls showed only 70% support for the individual right, some showed as high as 95%. Not just internet polls, but pew and other respected researchers. In other words, most of the country supports the right of individuals to own a gun, and most support the right to use lethal force in self-defense. That doesn't mean there can't be reasonable regulation, or judicial review for your actions. However those things happened in this case as well, and STILL came down on the side of the good guy. You can disagree, but you ARE in the minortiy.

As for a gun-free America, not a chance. Any attempts to do so WILL cause a full revolution. Period.
And a good chunk of those supporters of the individual right also support stricter legislation. You're in the minority if you think that we should be indiscriminate about who can own a firearm.

The best info on Horn's background I could find mentioned that he was an avid hunter quite a few years back, and that's when he had bought the gun. It didn't mention any military training or anything like that.

You're obviously very qualified, and I have a lot of respect for people like you who take gun ownership so seriously (it's a big responsibility IMO, especially if you have a CCL). Unfortunately, I doubt many gun owners are like you.

I don't expect many people to devote as much to it as I have, but that doesn't take away their absolute right to defend themselves. Might mean there's more chance of accidents, but we must accept that in order to give them their right.
And that's where our opinions diverge, lol. Agree to disagree, I guess. :)
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Penalty not commensurate with the crime, FTL!

While I detest criminals preying on society, no court in the land would ever issue a death sentence for household burglary. While I'll defend this guy's right to defend himself, I question his frontier justice.

He shot both unarmed men in the back. That's downright cowardly. Even the cops get taken down for that sort of itchy trigger finger.

They wernt shot for burglary but threating an old man which is commensurate.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
This is the final straw, the fence is going on the northern border of Texas.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
I :heart: Texas

Pro gun ownership + liberal application of property protection by deadly force + crustly old men that don't give damn = justice old school

"Don't mess with Texas":)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: ericlp
Can you imagine coming back home from a long deserved vacation and your door kicked in and your stuff gone?

Would that make you mad? What if your neighbor shot the intruders and killed one. How would you feel? And all your stuff they had in the back of a moving van was safely down at the police station. Would you say thank god all my paper work, computers, TV and what not or would you march your sorry ass over to your neighbors house with a tear in your eye asking him why he shot them and he should have just let them get away with all your stuff...

Would this be OK with you? I guess I find that any asshole that is going to disrespect my property and try to steal from me ... should pay the price of being shot, and if they die well, the way I look it ... ONE LESS retarded scum of society.

I guess this is just my opinion. People that do these certain crimes yes, that even includes stealing your car, and breaking into your car to get your CD player should deserve the same fate.

Then do you support execution for people who are caught by the police and convicted of theft? if not, you need to change what you said. Otherwise, you resemble Saudi Arabia.

Oh, wait, they just chop off the hand.

I guess you're to the right of them.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Text

Audio to remind everyone how this psycho planned on killing these criminals before he left his house.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
The shot in the back part is disturbing IMO. That doesn't sound like self-defense.
 

whylaff

Senior member
Oct 31, 2007
200
0
0
I?m not from Texas, but I?m shocked that people are so shocked about this. It?s Texas. They have some very firm personal protection rights. Texas law is clear regarding the use of deadly force, without retreat, and allows for its citizens to enact some very hard lines of defense.

In Texas, if you enter someone?s home they have the right to use deadly force. They can also exercise this option in their personal areas if (house, car, workplace, etc) someone is committing a violent act, a sexual assault, or you are unlawfully trying to remove someone from their protected place or they suspect you of committing such acts. No retreat required.

Deadly force is also permitted to protect your personal property or the property of a third party if you feel you would have reacted the same way if it was your property or they have specifically asked you to protect it.

So, if they broke into his neighbor?s house, he has the right to use deadly force if he would have with his own home or was asked to. In addition, if he has a reasonable belief that he was protecting his neighbor, he also has the right to use deadly force.

Also, in Texas, he is protected from civil suits claiming wrongful death.

Whether you agree with Texas law is one thing, but there was nothing illegal about what he did.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: daniel1113
There should be no qualifications necessary for one to defend his/her life and property. That's a basic right.

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
But don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily want to ban guns -- I just think we need to be more selective about who we hand them out to.

How elitist of you.

What does elitist mean to you? If I want truck drivers to pass additional tests, is that elitist? If I want the President to have to be 35 and born in the US, is that elitist? If I want my doctor to have a medical degree, is that elitist? If I want my security guard not to have a criminal record, is that elitist? If I want my airline pilot to be certified and pass a drug test, is that elitist?

What's with some people throwing around the wor elitiest so absurdly, too much talk radio?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: bctbct
Text

Audio to remind everyone how this psycho planned on killing these criminals before he left his house.
Apparently premeditated murder is fine if you live in a state like Texas with legal loopholes. Killing someone is as easy as luring them onto your property and provoking a threatening action. :confused:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I :heart: Texas

Pro gun ownership + liberal application of property protection by deadly force + crustly old men that don't give damn = justice old school

"Don't mess with Texas":)

Who needs to, it's already messed up.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: daniel1113
There should be no qualifications necessary for one to defend his/her life and property. That's a basic right.

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
But don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily want to ban guns -- I just think we need to be more selective about who we hand them out to.

How elitist of you.

What does elitist mean to you? If I want truck drivers to pass additional tests, is that elitist? If I want the President to have to be 35 and born in the US, is that elitist? If I want my doctor to have a medical degree, is that elitist? If I want my security guard not to have a criminal record, is that elitist? If I want my airline pilot to be certified and pass a drug test, is that elitist?

What's with some people throwing around the wor elitiest so absurdly, too much talk radio?

This is a textbook example of elitism. You state that you want to be selective about "who we hand them [handguns] out to" as if one should even need permission from our government to make a gun purchase in the first place. Next, you make the assumption that there is a group of individuals that should able to pick and choose who gets to own a gun because they know better than the rest of us. You also include yourself in that group. So, you think you should have the power to select who owns firearms in this country. You think you know better than the rest of us. That is the definition of elitism.

And, comparing firearms to all those other examples is moot, as none of those are activities are explicitly protected by the Constitution. Should we also elect a committee that selects who can and cannot exercise their first amendment rights?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: bctbct
Text

Audio to remind everyone how this psycho planned on killing these criminals before he left his house.
Apparently premeditated murder is fine if you live in a state like Texas with legal loopholes. Killing someone is as easy as luring them onto your property and provoking a threatening action. :confused:
By the way, did anybody catch this? :p

"and the laws have been changed in this country since September the 1st"

Was he trying to refer to 9/11, or something else?