Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

[shira]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

Uh.... were they still carrying the loot or not? Or don't you think that matters?

I'm not sure if it matters, the nighttime theft element is a bit confusing about when it applies. His lawyer keeps pushing the defense-of-self argument though, which is why i find the autopsy results relevant.

I'm not sure what the law says about such a situation but it matters to me because of the moral judgment I make on Mr. Horn.

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation. BUT, if they dropped the loot and ran then Mr. Horn had accomplished the goal of stopping the crime in progress and had no valid reason to shoot them as they fled.

This argument is ludicrous. You're claiming chasing after a criminal puts you in a life-threatening situation. Thus, since it's perfectly legal to chase after ANY fleeing criminal - even if the criminal has dropped stolen goods (remember, attempted theft is a crime, too) - then by your reasoning, you can shoot-to-kill at ANY fleeing criminal, even a shoplifter.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

Uh.... were they still carrying the loot or not? Or don't you think that matters?

I'm not sure if it matters, the nighttime theft element is a bit confusing about when it applies. His lawyer keeps pushing the defense-of-self argument though, which is why i find the autopsy results relevant.

I'm not sure what the law says about such a situation but it matters to me because of the moral judgment I make on Mr. Horn.

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation. BUT, if they dropped the loot and ran then Mr. Horn had accomplished the goal of stopping the crime in progress and had no valid reason to shoot them as they fled.

This argument is ludicrous. You're claiming chasing after a criminal puts you in a life-threatening situation. Thus, since it's perfectly legal to chase after ANY fleeing criminal - even if the criminal has dropped stolen goods (remember, attempted theft is a crime, too) - then by your reasoning, you can shoot-to-kill at ANY fleeing criminal, even a shoplifter.

Ludicrous? What's ludicrous is standing there and letting the criminals get away scott-free without doing anything because your afraid you might violate their rights. All these two theifs had to do was stop when asked and they would still be alive.

What's ludicrous is trying to compare a shoplifter with a thief who will break into your home to rob it, not even knowing if someone is there. They have shown themselves to be dangerous and a threat to life or limb by that very act. Anybody can plainly see that breaking into houses is several levels of seriousness above shoplifiting no matter how you try to spin it.

I clearly stated that if the theives had dropped the goods and ran that I don't feel Mr. Horn would be justified in shooting them so go try and put words in someone else's mouth.

Baliff, whack his peepee.

 

[jonks]

http://www.khou.com/news/local...grandjury.79b6998.html

Grand jury expected to look into Joe Horn case
04:28 PM CST on Tuesday, December 11, 2007
KHOU.com staff report

A grand jury is expected to convene next week to decide whether to indict Joe Horn.

Grand jury proceedings are secret, but one of the witnesses who may testify is the first detective to arrive on the scene.

Police spokesman Bud Corbett describes what that detective saw. ?As he came closer to the horn residence suddenly the suspects emerged between two houses and were then westbound on the ground across Mr. Horn?s front yard. Mr. Horn then fired on the first person running in the northwesterly direction, then turned and fired on subject running an easterly direction. The detective said that after Mr. Horn confronted these people, the northwest bound suspect actually got closer to Mr. Horn after he initiated his run.?

The grand jury will be looking to see if the burglars confronted Horn.

They want to know if Horn fired in self defense or if he took the law into his own hands.
*********************

I'm not sure if this is actually a definitive statement on what the grand jury will be looking for, but if self-defense is the threshold question, Horn's 911 tape will not be helpful to him.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

Uh.... were they still carrying the loot or not? Or don't you think that matters?

I'm not sure if it matters, the nighttime theft element is a bit confusing about when it applies. His lawyer keeps pushing the defense-of-self argument though, which is why i find the autopsy results relevant.

I'm not sure what the law says about such a situation but it matters to me because of the moral judgment I make on Mr. Horn.

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation. BUT, if they dropped the loot and ran then Mr. Horn had accomplished the goal of stopping the crime in progress and had no valid reason to shoot them as they fled.

This argument is ludicrous. You're claiming chasing after a criminal puts you in a life-threatening situation. Thus, since it's perfectly legal to chase after ANY fleeing criminal - even if the criminal has dropped stolen goods (remember, attempted theft is a crime, too) - then by your reasoning, you can shoot-to-kill at ANY fleeing criminal, even a shoplifter.

Ludicrous? What's ludicrous is standing there and letting the criminals get away scott-free without doing anything because your afraid you might violate their rights. All these two theifs had to do was stop when asked and they would still be alive.

What's ludicrous is trying to compare a shoplifter with a thief who will break into your home to rob it, not even knowing if someone is there. They have shown themselves to be dangerous and a threat to life or limb by that very act. Anybody can plainly see that breaking into houses is several levels of seriousness above shoplifiting no matter how you try to spin it.

I clearly stated that if the theives had dropped the goods and ran that I don't feel Mr. Horn would be justified in shooting them so go try and put words in someone else's mouth.

Baliff, whack his peepee.

While I wouldn't call either of your positions ludicrous, I think shira's point is it seems disingenuous to chase down criminals who you think are probably dangerous and then claim self-defense. For ex, in a bar, if you punch someone in the face, and then when he gets up and walks towards you menacingly, you can't shoot him and claim self-defense. When you create a danger to yourself, by chasing down criminals, the self-defense claim is much weaker.

In Horn's case I don't think it's so much of a chase situation. He had a right within the law to go investigate outside. He didn't chase them down the block. If the perps were on his lawn, and he reasonably thought they were moving towards him after he confronted them, I have no problem with the shooting. Still need to find out what the investigation reveals on that score.

 

[SilthDraeth]

I read the news story, and I believe he was completely justified in shooting two thieves in the back, head, face, groin, where ever he shot them. Who is to say they didn't turn as he started shooting?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

Uh.... were they still carrying the loot or not? Or don't you think that matters?

I'm not sure if it matters, the nighttime theft element is a bit confusing about when it applies. His lawyer keeps pushing the defense-of-self argument though, which is why i find the autopsy results relevant.

I'm not sure what the law says about such a situation but it matters to me because of the moral judgment I make on Mr. Horn.

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation. BUT, if they dropped the loot and ran then Mr. Horn had accomplished the goal of stopping the crime in progress and had no valid reason to shoot them as they fled.

This argument is ludicrous. You're claiming chasing after a criminal puts you in a life-threatening situation. Thus, since it's perfectly legal to chase after ANY fleeing criminal - even if the criminal has dropped stolen goods (remember, attempted theft is a crime, too) - then by your reasoning, you can shoot-to-kill at ANY fleeing criminal, even a shoplifter.

Ludicrous? What's ludicrous is standing there and letting the criminals get away scott-free without doing anything because your afraid you might violate their rights. All these two theifs had to do was stop when asked and they would still be alive.

What's ludicrous is trying to compare a shoplifter with a thief who will break into your home to rob it, not even knowing if someone is there. They have shown themselves to be dangerous and a threat to life or limb by that very act. Anybody can plainly see that breaking into houses is several levels of seriousness above shoplifiting no matter how you try to spin it.

I clearly stated that if the theives had dropped the goods and ran that I don't feel Mr. Horn would be justified in shooting them so go try and put words in someone else's mouth.

Baliff, whack his peepee.

I'm putting your own words in your mouth. Your own statement was that chasing a perpetrator put the chaser in a life-threatening situation, which justified shooting to kill.

So why is chasing a perpetrator who has dropped goods any different? By your reasoning, chasing them STILL puts the chaser in a life-threatening situation, and that - according to you - justifies deadly force.

No, those foul-tasting words are your own.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
I read the news story, and I believe he was completely justified in shooting two thieves in the back, head, face, groin, where ever he shot them. Who is to say they didn't turn as he started shooting?

You don't get that whole "faster than a speeding bullet" thing, do you?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

Uh.... were they still carrying the loot or not? Or don't you think that matters?

I'm not sure if it matters, the nighttime theft element is a bit confusing about when it applies. His lawyer keeps pushing the defense-of-self argument though, which is why i find the autopsy results relevant.

I'm not sure what the law says about such a situation but it matters to me because of the moral judgment I make on Mr. Horn.

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation. BUT, if they dropped the loot and ran then Mr. Horn had accomplished the goal of stopping the crime in progress and had no valid reason to shoot them as they fled.

This argument is ludicrous. You're claiming chasing after a criminal puts you in a life-threatening situation. Thus, since it's perfectly legal to chase after ANY fleeing criminal - even if the criminal has dropped stolen goods (remember, attempted theft is a crime, too) - then by your reasoning, you can shoot-to-kill at ANY fleeing criminal, even a shoplifter.

Ludicrous? What's ludicrous is standing there and letting the criminals get away scott-free without doing anything because your afraid you might violate their rights. All these two theifs had to do was stop when asked and they would still be alive.

What's ludicrous is trying to compare a shoplifter with a thief who will break into your home to rob it, not even knowing if someone is there. They have shown themselves to be dangerous and a threat to life or limb by that very act. Anybody can plainly see that breaking into houses is several levels of seriousness above shoplifiting no matter how you try to spin it.

I clearly stated that if the theives had dropped the goods and ran that I don't feel Mr. Horn would be justified in shooting them so go try and put words in someone else's mouth.

Baliff, whack his peepee.

I'm putting your own words in your mouth. Your own statement was that chasing a perpetrator put the chaser in a life-threatening situation, which justified shooting to kill.

So why is chasing a perpetrator who has dropped goods any different? By your reasoning, chasing them STILL puts the chaser in a life-threatening situation, and that - according to you - justifies deadly force.

No, those foul-tasting words are your own.

LOL, you are an idiot if you can't see what I'm saying. Here my quote in question:

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation.

Once the thieves have dropped the goods then Horn accomplished what he set out to do. If Horn chose to chase them AFTER they dropped the goods then that's a different story. Yes, he's putting himself in a life threatening situation but for no good reason IMO. He's now just being a vigilante and thereby forfiets the right to use deadly force.... unless they pull a gun or something.

So stop with trying to read what you think I said into what I actually said. Your irrational hate of gun owners has you blinded.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
I read the news story, and I believe he was completely justified in shooting two thieves in the back, head, face, groin, where ever he shot them. Who is to say they didn't turn as he started shooting?

You don't get that whole "faster than a speeding bullet" thing, do you?

You obviously have no or little hunting experience. Many is the time I've shot a dead bird that someone else shoot first, but I couldn't react fast enough to stop myself. It has nothing to do with how fast the bullet was going, it has to do with human reaction time.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
I read the news story, and I believe he was completely justified in shooting two thieves in the back, head, face, groin, where ever he shot them. Who is to say they didn't turn as he started shooting?

You don't get that whole "faster than a speeding bullet" thing, do you?

You obviously have no or little hunting experience. Many is the time I've shot a dead bird that someone else shoot first, but I couldn't react fast enough to stop myself. It has nothing to do with how fast the bullet was going, it has to do with human reaction time.

Your example is backwards. But to continue your example, it's the bird's reaction time in question, not the shooter's.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
I read the news story, and I believe he was completely justified in shooting two thieves in the back, head, face, groin, where ever he shot them. Who is to say they didn't turn as he started shooting?

You don't get that whole "faster than a speeding bullet" thing, do you?

You obviously have no or little hunting experience. Many is the time I've shot a dead bird that someone else shoot first, but I couldn't react fast enough to stop myself. It has nothing to do with how fast the bullet was going, it has to do with human reaction time.

Your example is backwards. But to continue your example, it's the bird's reaction time in question, not the shooter's.

The bird was already dead, it didn't have a "reaction time" anymore, but I shot it anyway even though I consicoulsy knew the bird was dead. The command to pull the trigger had been sent and by the time my brain processed the information that the bird had already been shot I couldn't react fast enough to stop myself from pulling the trigger.

The same thing could happen with someone unexpectedly spinning around real fast. It's possible and I'm sure it has happened before. I personally would rather give Horn the benifit of the doubt over a couple of professional theives.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
I read the news story, and I believe he was completely justified in shooting two thieves in the back, head, face, groin, where ever he shot them. Who is to say they didn't turn as he started shooting?

You don't get that whole "faster than a speeding bullet" thing, do you?

You obviously have no or little hunting experience. Many is the time I've shot a dead bird that someone else shoot first, but I couldn't react fast enough to stop myself. It has nothing to do with how fast the bullet was going, it has to do with human reaction time.

Your example is backwards. But to continue your example, it's the bird's reaction time in question, not the shooter's.

The bird was already dead, it didn't have a "reaction time" anymore, but I shot it anyway even though I consicoulsy knew the bird was dead. The command to pull the trigger had been sent and by the time my brain processed the information that the bird had already been shot I couldn't react fast enough to stop myself from pulling the trigger.

The same thing could happen with someone unexpectedly spinning around real fast. It's possible and I'm sure it has happened before. I personally would rather give Horn the benifit of the doubt over a couple of professional theives.

This what I was talking about. Not that the thieves heard the gunshot and spun so it would hit them in the back. But if he jacked a shell into the chamber, with intent to fire, and the thieves realized the intent and turned to run, instead of dropping to the ground like an intelligent person would have done, and then the man started shooting.

But irregardless of whether or not that is how it happened, I believe he was justified in shooting the thieves.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
I read the news story, and I believe he was completely justified in shooting two thieves in the back, head, face, groin, where ever he shot them. Who is to say they didn't turn as he started shooting?

You don't get that whole "faster than a speeding bullet" thing, do you?

You obviously have no or little hunting experience. Many is the time I've shot a dead bird that someone else shoot first, but I couldn't react fast enough to stop myself. It has nothing to do with how fast the bullet was going, it has to do with human reaction time.

Your example is backwards. But to continue your example, it's the bird's reaction time in question, not the shooter's.

The bird was already dead, it didn't have a "reaction time" anymore, but I shot it anyway even though I consicoulsy knew the bird was dead. The command to pull the trigger had been sent and by the time my brain processed the information that the bird had already been shot I couldn't react fast enough to stop myself from pulling the trigger.

The same thing could happen with someone unexpectedly spinning around real fast. It's possible and I'm sure it has happened before. I personally would rather give Horn the benifit of the doubt over a couple of professional theives.

This what I was talking about. Not that the thieves heard the gunshot and spun so it would hit them in the back. But if he jacked a shell into the chamber, with intent to fire, and the thieves realized the intent and turned to run, instead of dropping to the ground like an intelligent person would have done, and then the man started shooting.

But irregardless of whether or not that is how it happened, I believe he was justified in shooting the thieves.

Just fyi, that's not a word.

 

[jonks]

Police report turned over to DA.

http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...ropolitan/5385715.html

My fav quote:
"Horn's attorney Charles Lambright said his client shot in self-defense after going outside to look for a license plate number and being surprised by the burglars."

Did you hear him say anything about getting a plate on the 911 call? I don't. I only seem to recall hearing "I'm not letting them get away, I'm gonna kill them." He may win on self-defense but he might wanna stick with the truth before they get him for perjury instead

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Police report turned over to DA.

http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...ropolitan/5385715.html

My fav quote:
"Horn's attorney Charles Lambright said his client shot in self-defense after going outside to look for a license plate number and being surprised by the burglars."

Did you hear him say anything about getting a plate on the 911 call? I don't. I only seem to recall hearing "I'm not letting them get away, I'm gonna kill them." He may win on self-defense but he might wanna stick with the truth before they get him for perjury instead

I hope he sticks to that story so the GJ will consider his honesty in assessing whether or not he is a murderer.

 

[1EZduzit]

Interesting article:

Diego Ortiz, 30 and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, who were carrying a sack with more than $2,000 cash and jewelry taken from the home, were pronounced dead at the scene in Pasadena. Both were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia, and Torres had previously been deported once after going to prison for selling cocaine.

I guess they were just doing the jobs Americans don't want?

A plainclothes Pasadena officer witnessed the shooting from his patrol car in front of Horn's house.

That is what will decide this case...... one way or the other.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Horn case on NPR right now. Horn shot burglers on his property, carrying loot toward undercover cops car. Cop hid under dash, only vehicle on street. Add it up yourself.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

Uh.... were they still carrying the loot or not? Or don't you think that matters?

I'm not sure if it matters, the nighttime theft element is a bit confusing about when it applies. His lawyer keeps pushing the defense-of-self argument though, which is why i find the autopsy results relevant.

I'm not sure what the law says about such a situation but it matters to me because of the moral judgment I make on Mr. Horn.

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation. BUT, if they dropped the loot and ran then Mr. Horn had accomplished the goal of stopping the crime in progress and had no valid reason to shoot them as they fled.

This argument is ludicrous. You're claiming chasing after a criminal puts you in a life-threatening situation. Thus, since it's perfectly legal to chase after ANY fleeing criminal - even if the criminal has dropped stolen goods (remember, attempted theft is a crime, too) - then by your reasoning, you can shoot-to-kill at ANY fleeing criminal, even a shoplifter.

Ludicrous? What's ludicrous is standing there and letting the criminals get away scott-free without doing anything because your afraid you might violate their rights. All these two theifs had to do was stop when asked and they would still be alive.

What's ludicrous is trying to compare a shoplifter with a thief who will break into your home to rob it, not even knowing if someone is there. They have shown themselves to be dangerous and a threat to life or limb by that very act. Anybody can plainly see that breaking into houses is several levels of seriousness above shoplifiting no matter how you try to spin it.

I clearly stated that if the theives had dropped the goods and ran that I don't feel Mr. Horn would be justified in shooting them so go try and put words in someone else's mouth.

Baliff, whack his peepee.

I'm putting your own words in your mouth. Your own statement was that chasing a perpetrator put the chaser in a life-threatening situation, which justified shooting to kill.

So why is chasing a perpetrator who has dropped goods any different? By your reasoning, chasing them STILL puts the chaser in a life-threatening situation, and that - according to you - justifies deadly force.

No, those foul-tasting words are your own.

LOL, you are an idiot if you can't see what I'm saying. Here my quote in question:

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation.

Once the thieves have dropped the goods then Horn accomplished what he set out to do. If Horn chose to chase them AFTER they dropped the goods then that's a different story. Yes, he's putting himself in a life threatening situation but for no good reason IMO. He's now just being a vigilante and thereby forfiets the right to use deadly force.... unless they pull a gun or something.

So stop with trying to read what you think I said into what I actually said. Your irrational hate of gun owners has you blinded.

No, YOU don't get it. Dropping the goods and running away is STILL a crime in progress. Attempted theft is just as much a crime as actual theft, so running away doesn't change the fact that a crime is still in progress.

Do you see how irrational your argument would be otherwise? You now seem to be claiming that if a person fleeing with stolen good drops the goods, private citizens cannot legally pursue them. Do you REALLY want to take that position?

Yet, if citizens can still legally chase after those who have dropped the stolen goods, then by your own criteria, the chasers are in a life threatening situation. So they can shoot to kill with impunity, right?

Fool.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: bctbct
More information released today. Apparently a plain clothes detective was a witness arriving on scene seconds before 1 guy was shot. They have also determined 1 guy was shot in the back.

Text

Was he still carrying the loot?

Looks like both were shot in the back. So much for them lunging at him. There goes self defense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152984/

Uh.... were they still carrying the loot or not? Or don't you think that matters?

I'm not sure if it matters, the nighttime theft element is a bit confusing about when it applies. His lawyer keeps pushing the defense-of-self argument though, which is why i find the autopsy results relevant.

I'm not sure what the law says about such a situation but it matters to me because of the moral judgment I make on Mr. Horn.

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation. BUT, if they dropped the loot and ran then Mr. Horn had accomplished the goal of stopping the crime in progress and had no valid reason to shoot them as they fled.

This argument is ludicrous. You're claiming chasing after a criminal puts you in a life-threatening situation. Thus, since it's perfectly legal to chase after ANY fleeing criminal - even if the criminal has dropped stolen goods (remember, attempted theft is a crime, too) - then by your reasoning, you can shoot-to-kill at ANY fleeing criminal, even a shoplifter.

Ludicrous? What's ludicrous is standing there and letting the criminals get away scott-free without doing anything because your afraid you might violate their rights. All these two theifs had to do was stop when asked and they would still be alive.

What's ludicrous is trying to compare a shoplifter with a thief who will break into your home to rob it, not even knowing if someone is there. They have shown themselves to be dangerous and a threat to life or limb by that very act. Anybody can plainly see that breaking into houses is several levels of seriousness above shoplifiting no matter how you try to spin it.

I clearly stated that if the theives had dropped the goods and ran that I don't feel Mr. Horn would be justified in shooting them so go try and put words in someone else's mouth.

Baliff, whack his peepee.

I'm putting your own words in your mouth. Your own statement was that chasing a perpetrator put the chaser in a life-threatening situation, which justified shooting to kill.

So why is chasing a perpetrator who has dropped goods any different? By your reasoning, chasing them STILL puts the chaser in a life-threatening situation, and that - according to you - justifies deadly force.

No, those foul-tasting words are your own.

LOL, you are an idiot if you can't see what I'm saying. Here my quote in question:

If he told them to stop and they ran off carrying the loot then the crime is still in progress and he has the right to chase them down, which means he is still in a life threatening situation.

Once the thieves have dropped the goods then Horn accomplished what he set out to do. If Horn chose to chase them AFTER they dropped the goods then that's a different story. Yes, he's putting himself in a life threatening situation but for no good reason IMO. He's now just being a vigilante and thereby forfiets the right to use deadly force.... unless they pull a gun or something.

So stop with trying to read what you think I said into what I actually said. Your irrational hate of gun owners has you blinded.

No, YOU don't get it. Dropping the goods and running away is STILL a crime in progress. Attempted theft is just as much a crime as actual theft, so running away doesn't change the fact that a crime is still in progress.

Do you see how irrational your argument would be otherwise? You now seem to be claiming that if a person fleeing with stolen good drops the goods, private citizens cannot legally pursue them. Do you REALLY want to take that position?

Yet, if citizens can still legally chase after those who have dropped the stolen goods, then by your own criteria, the chasers are in a life threatening situation. So they can shoot to kill with impunity, right?

Fool.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, now is it. Here is what I said, it's quoted above, but you seem to be more fixated on calling me names then actually trying to understand my position.

I'm not sure what the law says about such a situation but it matters to me because of the moral judgment I make on Mr. Horn.

Now who's the fool, fool.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, now is it. Here is what I said, it's quoted above, but you seem to be more fixated on calling me names then actually trying to understand my position.
Now who's the fool, fool.

So, chasing after someone with stolen goods is a life threatening situation. But chasing after someone who has dropped stolen goods is a non-life-threatening situation.

Let's give a practical example:

The burgler flees with a stolen Rolex wristwatch. I yell "Stop!" He flees with the goods. I chase him, and I'm in a life threatening situation, so I can with impunity shoot to kill.


OR

The burgler flees with a stolen Roles wristwatch. I yell "Stop!" He flees, but drops the watch. I chase after him, but now I'm not in a life threatening situation, so I can't shoot-to-kill.

Please explain why a thief running with a wristwatch is life-threatening, while a thief running after dropping a wristwatch is non-life-threatening. Go on, I dare you.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, now is it. Here is what I said, it's quoted above, but you seem to be more fixated on calling me names then actually trying to understand my position.
Now who's the fool, fool.

So, chasing after someone with stolen goods is a life threatening situation. But chasing after someone who has dropped stolen goods is a non-life-threatening situation.

Let's give a practical example:

The burgler flees with a stolen Rolex wristwatch. I yell "Stop!" He flees with the goods. I chase him, and I'm in a life threatening situation, so I can with impunity shoot to kill.


OR

The burgler flees with a stolen Roles wristwatch. I yell "Stop!" He flees, but drops the watch. I chase after him, but now I'm not in a life threatening situation, so I can't shoot-to-kill.

Please explain why a thief running with a wristwatch is life-threatening, while a thief running after dropping a wristwatch is non-life-threatening. Go on, I dare you.

Do you understand the difference between "legal" and "moral"? They are not the same thing.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who doesn't want to hear what I'm trying to say, so for one last time I will attrempt to explain myself. I would feel both legally and morally justified to shoot someone caught in the act of stealing my property. If they dropped the property then irregardless of what my legal rights in the situation are I would not feel it morally right to shoot them and would let them go.... unless of course they started shooting at me, tried to run over me with the car in their escape, or something like that.

/discussion

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, now is it. Here is what I said, it's quoted above, but you seem to be more fixated on calling me names then actually trying to understand my position.
Now who's the fool, fool.

So, chasing after someone with stolen goods is a life threatening situation. But chasing after someone who has dropped stolen goods is a non-life-threatening situation.

Let's give a practical example:

The burgler flees with a stolen Rolex wristwatch. I yell "Stop!" He flees with the goods. I chase him, and I'm in a life threatening situation, so I can with impunity shoot to kill.


OR

The burgler flees with a stolen Roles wristwatch. I yell "Stop!" He flees, but drops the watch. I chase after him, but now I'm not in a life threatening situation, so I can't shoot-to-kill.

Please explain why a thief running with a wristwatch is life-threatening, while a thief running after dropping a wristwatch is non-life-threatening. Go on, I dare you.

Do you understand the difference between "legal" and "moral"? They are not the same thing.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who doesn't want to hear what I'm trying to say, so for one last time I will attrempt to explain myself. I would feel both legally and morally justified to shoot someone caught in the act of stealing my property. If they dropped the property then irregardless of what my legal rights in the situation are I would not feel it morally right to shoot them and would let them go.... unless of course they started shooting at me, tried to run over me with the car in their escape, or something like that.

/discussion

Well of course you wish to end the discussion. You've reached a dead end of your own design.

So now it's "moral" rather than "legal." And if no crime is in progess, a citizen has no "moral" right to pursue. Have I got that clear?

So, if I see a woman being raped, but by the time I reach the scene of the rape, it's over and the rapist flees, I have no "moral right" to pursue. Is that your position?

But in those circumstances where I have a "moral right" to pursue, I'm in a life threatening situation, so I'm allowed to shoot to kill? Again, is this your "system?"

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, now is it. Here is what I said, it's quoted above, but you seem to be more fixated on calling me names then actually trying to understand my position.
Now who's the fool, fool.

So, chasing after someone with stolen goods is a life threatening situation. But chasing after someone who has dropped stolen goods is a non-life-threatening situation.

Let's give a practical example:

The burgler flees with a stolen Rolex wristwatch. I yell "Stop!" He flees with the goods. I chase him, and I'm in a life threatening situation, so I can with impunity shoot to kill.


OR

The burgler flees with a stolen Roles wristwatch. I yell "Stop!" He flees, but drops the watch. I chase after him, but now I'm not in a life threatening situation, so I can't shoot-to-kill.

Please explain why a thief running with a wristwatch is life-threatening, while a thief running after dropping a wristwatch is non-life-threatening. Go on, I dare you.

Do you understand the difference between "legal" and "moral"? They are not the same thing.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who doesn't want to hear what I'm trying to say, so for one last time I will attrempt to explain myself. I would feel both legally and morally justified to shoot someone caught in the act of stealing my property. If they dropped the property then irregardless of what my legal rights in the situation are I would not feel it morally right to shoot them and would let them go.... unless of course they started shooting at me, tried to run over me with the car in their escape, or something like that.

/discussion

Well of course you wish to end the discussion. You've reached a dead end of your own design.

So now it's "moral" rather than "legal." And if no crime is in progess, a citizen has no "moral" right to pursue. Have I got that clear?

So, if I see a woman being raped, but by the time I reach the scene of the rape, it's over and the rapist flees, I have no "moral right" to pursue. Is that your position?

But in those circumstances where I have a "moral right" to pursue, I'm in a life threatening situation, so I'm allowed to shoot to kill? Again, is this your "system?"

Your an idiot who is trying to put words in my mouth and define what I say as YOU want it to read instead of attempting to understand what I'm actually saying.... as evidenced by your new apples to oranges comparison. Do you think going through every imaginable circumstance to see what my "moral take" on it is will prove or disprove anything?

That's why it's time to end the discusion, only a fool would continue this argument with you.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, now is it. Here is what I said, it's quoted above, but you seem to be more fixated on calling me names then actually trying to understand my position.
Now who's the fool, fool.

So, chasing after someone with stolen goods is a life threatening situation. But chasing after someone who has dropped stolen goods is a non-life-threatening situation.

Let's give a practical example:

The burgler flees with a stolen Rolex wristwatch. I yell "Stop!" He flees with the goods. I chase him, and I'm in a life threatening situation, so I can with impunity shoot to kill.


OR

The burgler flees with a stolen Roles wristwatch. I yell "Stop!" He flees, but drops the watch. I chase after him, but now I'm not in a life threatening situation, so I can't shoot-to-kill.

Please explain why a thief running with a wristwatch is life-threatening, while a thief running after dropping a wristwatch is non-life-threatening. Go on, I dare you.

Do you understand the difference between "legal" and "moral"? They are not the same thing.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who doesn't want to hear what I'm trying to say, so for one last time I will attrempt to explain myself. I would feel both legally and morally justified to shoot someone caught in the act of stealing my property. If they dropped the property then irregardless of what my legal rights in the situation are I would not feel it morally right to shoot them and would let them go.... unless of course they started shooting at me, tried to run over me with the car in their escape, or something like that.

/discussion

Well of course you wish to end the discussion. You've reached a dead end of your own design.

So now it's "moral" rather than "legal." And if no crime is in progess, a citizen has no "moral" right to pursue. Have I got that clear?

So, if I see a woman being raped, but by the time I reach the scene of the rape, it's over and the rapist flees, I have no "moral right" to pursue. Is that your position?

But in those circumstances where I have a "moral right" to pursue, I'm in a life threatening situation, so I'm allowed to shoot to kill? Again, is this your "system?"

Your an idiot who is trying to put words in my mouth and define what I say as YOU want it to read instead of attempting to understand what I'm actually saying.... as evidenced by your new apples to oranges comparison. Do you think going through every imaginable circumstance to see what my "moral take" on it is will prove or disprove anything?

That's why it's time to end the discusion, only a fool would continue this argument with you.

He got you pretty good. First one to start name calling has usually lost.

 

[piasabird]

Who cares if a criminal is shot?

Does anyone care about what is right and wrong anymore?