Texas Killer Freed

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
cops and soldiers commit "murder" daily. Why is it right for them to "murder" and John Q Citizen not allowed to to prevent a felony from happening?

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

Even cops and soldiers cannot kill whenever/whoever they feel like, and are required to justify their every use of deadly force, and even account for every bullet.

The 2nd amendment gives people right to own arms, not use them indiscriminately. That is covered elsewhere in the law.

Rights to gun ownership and right to property have absolutely nothing to do with this case. Neither were threatened, except maybe by your own poor arguments in defense of a clear case of willfully excessive use of deadly force.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
cops and soldiers commit "murder" daily. Why is it right for them to "murder" and John Q Citizen not allowed to to prevent a felony from happening?

Please tell me you're not serious.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nitemare
cops and soldiers commit "murder" daily. Why is it right for them to "murder" and John Q Citizen not allowed to to prevent a felony from happening?

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

Even cops and soldiers cannot kill whenever/whoever they feel like, and are required to justify their every use of deadly force, and even account for every bullet.

The 2nd amendment gives people right to own arms, not use them indiscriminately. That is covered elsewhere in the law.

Rights to gun ownership and right to property have absolutely nothing to do with this case. Neither were threatened, except maybe by your own poor arguments in defense of a clear case of willfully excessive use of deadly force.

So what you are saying is defending life and/or property is indiscriminately?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of other people's properties"

that just doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nitemare
cops and soldiers commit "murder" daily. Why is it right for them to "murder" and John Q Citizen not allowed to to prevent a felony from happening?

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

Even cops and soldiers cannot kill whenever/whoever they feel like, and are required to justify their every use of deadly force, and even account for every bullet.

The 2nd amendment gives people right to own arms, not use them indiscriminately. That is covered elsewhere in the law.

Rights to gun ownership and right to property have absolutely nothing to do with this case. Neither were threatened, except maybe by your own poor arguments in defense of a clear case of willfully excessive use of deadly force.

So what you are saying is defending life and/or property is indiscriminately?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of other people's properties"

that just doesn't seem right to me.

What I'm saying is that one's right to property does not supersede another's right to life. And of course vice versa (in all respects).

edit: and your perpetual knee-jerking aside, I am VERY certain that Mr. Jefferson would have agreed with me.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: Vic


What I'm saying is that one's right to property does not supersede another's right to life. And of course vice versa (in all respects).

edit: and your perpetual knee-jerking aside, I am VERY certain that Mr. Jefferson would have agreed with me.

Mr. Jefferson?

 

[Tooncesthedrivingcat]

bans for nested quoting.

kthanx

 

[blurredvision]

Some of you in here seem to like to point out that this guy shot at the burglars even "after the 911 operator told him not to do anything". This is a serious question.....does a 911 operator have any authority whatsoever in situations like this? Some of you make it sound like since the operator told him to stop and not go outside, that it was to be followed explicitly. It seems to me that the operator can only make suggestions, not give orders. But I don't know what authority an operator has, so I don't really know.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
Some of you in here seem to like to point out that this guy shot at the burglars even "after the 911 operator told him not to do anything". This is a serious question.....does a 911 operator have any authority whatsoever in situations like this? Some of you make it sound like since the operator told him to stop and not go outside, that it was to be followed explicitly. It seems to me that the operator can only make suggestions, not give orders. But I don't know what authority an operator has, so I don't really know.

The dispatcher probably had a better idea of the situation outside than Horn did, considering Horn didn't even realize officers had shown up on the scene. He didn't want Horn to run outside, guns blazing, and accidentally shoot an officer or get himself shot.

Generally, in emergency situations, following the 911 operator or dispatcher's advice is probably a good idea. They deal with these scenarios for a living, Mr. Horn does not. I guess legally you don't have to follow their advice, but I think it was pretty poor judgment on his part not to.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I really find it quite disgusting and disturbing how quickly so many of you would be able to kill another human being. It's really very sad.

KT

Actually, I would fight to the death to protect the lives and rights of my fellow human beings. I put that in practice when I joined the army and protected not only my rights, but yours as well.

But I will also not allow my individual rights be violated. I will use whatever force is necessary to protect my rights.

Don't violate my rights and I will not violate yours. It's that easy. Not only that, but I will fight to protect the rights of innocent victims as well. If that requires deadly force to stop a crime while it is in commission, so be it.

Do I like taking a life? Absolutely not. It's a miserable thing that never leaves you and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But being a victim to criminals and bullies and living on my knees rather than my feet is an even more miserable feeling.

That's all well and good, but I still fail to see how burglary/theft is a reason to kill someone.

And heck, in this case it wasn't even his property the thieves were on. He got away with murder in my opinion, which is very disturbing.

KT

If someone breaks into your home are you going to second guess whether they are going to take your possession and leave you be or are you going to worry that they are going to kill the witness to their crime so they don't go to jail? What if your child(ren) and wife were home. You going to hope they don't do something to them?

If you believe that just because someone isn't stealing something they won't kill you you are living in a fantasy world. I've had the misfortune of experiencing the desperation of a thief and his desire to not go to jail. I was in a drag out fight in a parking lot and if I had been 21 at the time I would have been able to defend myself better than getting into a physical confrontation and then getting hit by a car his accomplice drove to get him out of there.
So I have a somewhat unique perspective of how the real dregs of society work. They do not care about you, your possessions or your life. But apparently you do not either so you might as well go lay down in traffic because that's what you re doing by claiming that defending ones self is not worth killing someone else.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I really find it quite disgusting and disturbing how quickly so many of you would be able to kill another human being. It's really very sad.

KT

human beings respect other peoples propertiy and they realize that there are consequences for their actions.

They were killed in the act of a felony.

So stealing a piece of property, a replaceable good, is worthy of death. Wow. I really don't know what to say to that.

KT

^^ exactly why this will never end. There are those of us who don't think a few rugs, and some stereo equipment is worth a person's life - and others, that do.

Do I value a TV over a worthless POS's life who will probably never amount to anything and will always remain as a leech on society...

Yes I do.

Okay... then go move to Zimbabwe. Here in America, everyone is protected under the Constitution and the rule of law, including suspected criminals.

Here in lays the problem. Criminals in some states have more rights than the victims. And in this case you want ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS to have more rights than victims.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I really find it quite disgusting and disturbing how quickly so many of you would be able to kill another human being. It's really very sad.

KT

Actually, I would fight to the death to protect the lives and rights of my fellow human beings. I put that in practice when I joined the army and protected not only my rights, but yours as well.

But I will also not allow my individual rights be violated. I will use whatever force is necessary to protect my rights.

Don't violate my rights and I will not violate yours. It's that easy. Not only that, but I will fight to protect the rights of innocent victims as well. If that requires deadly force to stop a crime while it is in commission, so be it.

Do I like taking a life? Absolutely not. It's a miserable thing that never leaves you and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But being a victim to criminals and bullies and living on my knees rather than my feet is an even more miserable feeling.

That's all well and good, but I still fail to see how burglary/theft is a reason to kill someone.

And heck, in this case it wasn't even his property the thieves were on. He got away with murder in my opinion, which is very disturbing.

KT

If someone breaks into your home are you going to second guess whether they are going to take your possession and leave you be or are you going to worry that they are going to kill the witness to their crime so they don't go to jail? What if your child(ren) and wife were home. You going to hope they don't do something to them?

If you believe that just because someone isn't stealing something they won't kill you you are living in a fantasy world. I've had the misfortune of experiencing the desperation of a thief and his desire to not go to jail. I was in a drag out fight in a parking lot and if I had been 21 at the time I would have been able to defend myself better than getting into a physical confrontation and then getting hit by a car his accomplice drove to get him out of there.
So I have a somewhat unique perspective of how the real dregs of society work. They do not care about you, your possessions or your life. But apparently you do not either so you might as well go lay down in traffic because that's what you re doing by claiming that defending ones self is not worth killing someone else.

Right, because I don't care that my neighbour's TV is being stolen , I should just off myself. Brilliant reasoning on your part. :roll: In actual fact I do care, but I do not think it is reason enough for me, or any other citizen, to take that person's life.

Defending an immediate threat to myself or my family is something entirely different and is not what transpired in this case.

KT

 

[JM Aggie08]

texas ftw.

this man should have his own holiday for exercising his rights.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Yes, the Militia should be able to bear arms. Anyone else, no.

Did you miss the ruling of the SCOTUS???

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Vic

This was burglary, not larceny or robbery.

And no, it's not ironic, except that in your confusion you have reversed roles.

The cops generally do not shoot unarmed men in the back.

No, they just beat them with night sticks on camera. See how much more well trained they are.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I really find it quite disgusting and disturbing how quickly so many of you would be able to kill another human being. It's really very sad.

KT

human beings respect other peoples propertiy and they realize that there are consequences for their actions.

They were killed in the act of a felony.

So stealing a piece of property, a replaceable good, is worthy of death. Wow. I really don't know what to say to that.

KT

^^ exactly why this will never end. There are those of us who don't think a few rugs, and some stereo equipment is worth a person's life - and others, that do.

Do I value a TV over a worthless POS's life who will probably never amount to anything and will always remain as a leech on society...

Yes I do.

Okay... then go move to Zimbabwe. Here in America, everyone is protected under the Constitution and the rule of law, including suspected criminals.

Here in lays the problem. Criminals in some states have more rights than the victims. And in this case you want ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS to have more rights than victims.

How did Horn know they were illegals? Oh yeah, because their skin was brown, they obviously must be here illegally, right.

I'm all for the right to protect yourself when the situation warrants it. I don't consider this to be one of those situations, Horn should have stayed inside and let the police handle things (who, by the way, showed up while the crooks were leaving the house -- they would have apprehended the suspects, Horn's vigilante justice wasn't even necessary). He got off because Texas has some insane castle laws, in any other state he'd probably be in jail.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Nitemare
You mean like maybe allow people to own guns and defend themselves and their properties...

like..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why allow them to have guns if they can't use them?

A "well regulated" militia should be able to use them when it is reasonable and within the law. Giving a gun to every citizen will almost certainly remove the ability to have a "well regulated" militia and we will end up with many more cases like the one here, which is not a good thing at all.

KT

Your argument is just as wrong as his.

Haha, I was just about to post the same thing.

This isn't even an issue of gun ownership. I'm all for Horn's right to own a gun. Unfortunately, he has no right to shoot people in the back when they're trying to escape with things stolen from his neighbor's home.

Or maybe that's amendment 2.5?

Texas Penal Code:
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) [/b]to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary[/b], robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


Under Texas Law. what he did was justified. If you don't like it don't move to Texas. We don't want you. Go cry in your Starbucks coffee.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Hopefully, Horn will get shot in the back while walking on someone's lawn b/c the home owner thought he was going to rob them.

Ah, criminal sympathizers. I love it.

Innocent til proven guilty.

Scenario:
I pull a gun on you. I'm going to rob you then kill you. I tell you this.
You are also armed. You have a CLEAR opportunity to pull your gun and shot me dead.

Do you:
Shoot, or...
Wait for a judge/jury to convict him before you shoot?

Oh, here's another one.

Cops are in a stand off. The perp shoots a hostage and threatens to shoot more.
SWAT is on scene and in place to attack the perp.

Should they:
attack the perp, or...
Wait for a judge/jury trial before they enter?

In short, you have a poor understanding of "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm surprised they still have courts in Texas.

Our courts are better than most in other states.

Here you still have the right to trial by jury for speeding tickets and other traffic infractions.

But only if you can get there without being gunned down in the back by some vigilante first.

It's a regular cowtown shoot up here ever hour. I some how manage to make it out of my house -every day-.

It's amazing.

Because innocent people being gunned down is exactly what happened here. Right?

He's not a vigilante if he's operating within the LAW. Right?

I expected honest arguments from you.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Nitemare
cops and soldiers commit "murder" daily. Why is it right for them to "murder" and John Q Citizen not allowed to to prevent a felony from happening?

Please tell me you're not serious.

Tell me why he isn't serious. As I've stated before, there is no Constitutional Amendments saying that a police officer has the right to kill anyone. In fact there is no Constitutional mandate that we have to have police officers. A police officers powers are granted by the state, and thus he must work under the law and power of the state. Joe Horn or anyone else that will or would use a firearm on another person must do so under the power given to them by their state. Therefore, while the rules they follow are actually stricter on police officers because of departmental regulations, a police officer and a citizen are afforded rights by the state to use deadly force. So if you don't want joe citizen to be able to shoot a bad guy, then you are saying you don't want a police officer to shoot a bad guy for any reason.

Also, no where in the Constitution does it say Thou Shalt not Kill (lest you start flame wars on internet message boards)

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Hopefully, Horn will get shot in the back while walking on someone's lawn b/c the home owner thought he was going to rob them.

Ah, criminal sympathizers. I love it.

Innocent til proven guilty.

Scenario:
I pull a gun on you. I'm going to rob you then kill you. I tell you this.
You are also armed. You have a CLEAR opportunity to pull your gun and shot me dead.

Do you:
Shoot, or...
Wait for a judge/jury to convict him before you shoot?

Oh, here's another one.

Cops are in a stand off. The perp shoots a hostage and threatens to shoot more.
SWAT is on scene and in place to attack the perp.

Should they:
attack the perp, or...
Wait for a judge/jury trial before they enter?

In short, you have a poor understanding of "innocent until proven guilty".

None of your examples fit the description of this crime. The burglars were unarmed. The police were coming. He did not have permission from his neighbors to defend their property. He was inside his house. He came out and shot them in the back.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I really find it quite disgusting and disturbing how quickly so many of you would be able to kill another human being. It's really very sad.

KT

human beings respect other peoples propertiy and they realize that there are consequences for their actions.

They were killed in the act of a felony.

So stealing a piece of property, a replaceable good, is worthy of death. Wow. I really don't know what to say to that.

KT

I'm not sure how you are surprised about this. Defending property with deadly force isn't new at all. The only "new" part about this law is extending that right to defending your neighbors property.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: JM Aggie08
texas ftw.

this man should have his own holiday for exercising his rights.

I'll get the grill going.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I really find it quite disgusting and disturbing how quickly so many of you would be able to kill another human being. It's really very sad.

KT

human beings respect other peoples propertiy and they realize that there are consequences for their actions.

They were killed in the act of a felony.

So stealing a piece of property, a replaceable good, is worthy of death. Wow. I really don't know what to say to that.

KT

I'm not sure how you are surprised about this. Defending property with deadly force isn't new at all. The only "new" part about this law is extending that right to defending your neighbors property.

What I'm surprised by is peoples' wanton disregard for human life.

KT

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: MotionMan
You know, if you do not commit crimes, the likelihood of being shot dead is greatly reduced.

MotionMan

I guess that innocent til proven guilty thing gets thrown out the door here.

if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: slayer202
The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the ?actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.? Deadly force can also be used to protect property when ?the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.?

not sure I agree with that part, but that's the law

I do, dont steal peoples shit and you wont get shot, very simple