Most people agree that a homeowner has got an intrinsic right to protect himself in his home if attacked - but the case of Joe Horn sparked a furious debate whether that right extended to shooting unarmed burglars in the back:
Moments later, Horn saw two burglars leave his neighbor's house, one of them carrying a bag filled with cash and jewelry.
"I'm gonna kill him," Horn said. "Stay in the house," the dispatcher said. "They're getting away," Horn replied. "That's all right," the dispatcher said. "Property's not worth killing someone over. OK?" "---damn it," said Horn, who then defied the dispatcher.
"Well, here it goes, buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going," he said.
"Don't go outside," the dispatcher warned.
Self-Defense? Horn says he came out his front door, down his porch and confronted the two burglars. The next sounds heard on the 911 tape are Horn ordering the two men to stop & and then shooting them both.
"Move you're dead," he said, and fired his shotgun three times.
"Both suspects were shot in the back," Pasadena Police Captain A.H. "Bud" Corbett said. "Not at the same angle, but both suspects were hit in the back."
The Texas grand jury cleared him for the killing, citing the "Castle Doctrine" that gives Texans unprecedented authority to take action against intruders: Link
Do you think what Joe Horn did was justified?
Call the police yes, keep the cops on the phone and provide as much information as you can yes, leave your house and put yourself and others in danger no.
To call it murder is idiotic. To rely on the police to protect you is idiotic as well. This isn't their job. Their job is to prevent crime when possible and investigate it afterward. It is our job to defend ourselves.
I wouldn't call Horn the sharpest stick in the barrel, but he certainly isn't a murderer.
Most states you have to defend yourself inside your home. I.E. Castle doctrine. Once the offender flees you are no longer in danger and it is murder.
This guy should be sent to jail for a very long time, so he can discover first hand that the word "fist" can be used as a verb.
Speaking of which: Happy 4th to all.
I agree with those who said that he's a murderer. I would have wanted to do the same but as others said it wasn't his property and his life wasn't in danger. He took things too far. Granted this world needs less criminals though.
I wonder how long it will be before this law starts to claim truly innocent victims: the kid sneaking home after curfew... the friends planning a surprise party... the sleepwalking spouse. I'm sure Joe Horn would've blown them all away without a second thought... and then tried to claim he'd felt threatened and therefore justified.
Where do you draw the line? How many times do you let you and your neighbors get robbed? How much robbery, murder and rape do you allow before you say "no more"? When do you say "No! I will not be victimized. I will not be forced to live in terror. I will not let the slime bags of the world to take away my right to live in peace"
I think it is very easy for you to say "oh he is a murderer", but if you found out your daughter was in that house, I bet you would change your tune.
This is America, people. We should be allowed to protect ourselves. And who cares if it was his neighbors house? If you don't make a stand, than your house could be next! He very well might have been in fear of his life... maybe not immediate, but he may have feared that his house could be next... after all if one house is an easy target, than maybe the next house will be too.
I would be proud to have this man as a neighbor... because i know one thing: It will be a long time before another house in that area is robbed.
Depending on the police to protect us is foolish, as witness the Virginia Tech shootings recently. How many people would have been killed that day if citizens were encouraged to defend themselves, and allowed to carry the weapons necessary to do so?
The demonization of guns is ridiculous and goes counter to all statistics on the subject, which show time after time after time that violent crime goes UP when you take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Hand-wringing, "thinking of the children" and other forms of decision-making that rely on emotions rather than intellect are erosive of freedom. Today's anti-gun movement is a perfect example of what Benjamin Franklin was talking about when he said that those who would sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve either and will get neither.
However, what's also ridiculous is the pigheadedness of organizations like the NRA, who insist on rights without responsibilities. I'm all for virtually eliminating gun control, as long as buying a gun means you are obligated to (1) get some training to go with it; and (2) use a trigger lock or a gun safe.
Both sides of the gun control debate in America have their heads up their asses, but if I have to take sides I'll side with the pro-gun lobby. Their position is incomplete, since it ignores personal responsibility for gun owners, but at least in supporting their position they aren't just MAKING SHIT UP out of pure overwrought emotion.
Look, I'm all for home protection, and when i was a kid my dad almost killed a man coming in a window. The man was armed, coming through my sisters window. That is Castle Doctrine. Not running outside after making 2 statements over the phone to a police dispatcher about you are going to kill.
Once in the home, take your shot. Once outside and away from you, your loved ones and property, sit your ass down and wait for the cops.
have any of the 'he's a murderer' set actually been burglarized? do you know the pain, frustration and anguish of coming home to a house that has been ransacked? the disgust at your most valuable possessions taken by lazy, shiftless, or desperate scum? indifferent police officers who wearily, dutifully ask for figures and serial numbers, promise to follow up and never do? children growing who will never receive that heirloom ruby ring or fifth-generation gold pocketwatch?
well, i have, and if i'd had a clear shot at the backsides of my robbers, i would have delighted in taking it. thank God i live in alaska, where you have the right to protect your life and property and that of your neighbors whenever it, not you, is threatened.
and i have not heard of a single case of children, friends, or spouses being mistaken for burglars and shot. plenty of actualy, nasty burglers taken down, though :)
And you obviously don't read. Loved ones are killed all the time mistaken as intruders by over reacting other loved ones.
I guess that explains how Texas has such a low crime rate. Oh wait...
Oh, sure, those dudes stole some cash and jewelery, OF COURSE they deserved to die!
Sorry, this feels completely wrong to me, killing is killing. It was nowhere near to be self defense, the guy saw some UNARMED dudes who stole stuff and took on his own to make justice. In my opinion he should go to jail, he had no business doing what he did.
I guess it's "cultural differences" but people saying "I would've done the same thing" sounds insane to me. Why would you shoot unarmed burglars in the back, especially if they did nothing to you AND after you already called the cops on them? It's not like you know for a fact that they're murderers/rapists/child molesters and they actually deserve to die, all you know is that they stole cash and jewelery. you'd shoot them in the back, just in case? Scary.
Would I kill the guy over it? Hell no. Does someone deserve to die because my stuff is gone? No way.
These guys were LEAVING the house they'd broken into - not on their way in. No one's life was in anymore danger. No way did they deserve to die in that moment, at that man's hand.
I mean, come on, it's STUFF. Just stuff. No matter how much it 'means to you' or how hard you worked for it, it's stuff. Does someone deserve to lose their life over stuff?
One of the most valuable lessons I learned through being broken into was forgiveness. The person who intruded on my property obviously need the stuff, or the money for the value of it more than me. Somehow in their life, they were more desperate, more unstable, more drug addicted, more unemployable, more lonely. Something was very wrong in their life, and that is very sad. I would NEVER wish death on the person who took my crap (no matter how valuable). Instead, I wish them the best of luck at turning their lives around.
For the record, the police were able to recover some of my missing items.
(Note that Emerson may have come up with this on his own, and may have been paraphrasing from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who simply said "Property is theft.")
It's all very nice to have ideals and take the high moral ground on such issues, but it's also a mark of immaturity and naivety. Someday you'll be older and wiser, and you'll realize that Communist and Anarchist ideals are exactly that and nothing more: ideals. Unfortunately, such ideals do not work well in the real world with real humans and their very real failure to adhere to the assumptions made by people like Karl Marx. Give us an Anarchist or Communist revolution today, and we will have a strongman as dictator tomorrow. Anarchy fails because human nature abhors a power vacuum... Communism fails because people who have power do not simply give it up for the greater good, no matter what Marx had to say about it.
Obviously you CARE, or you wouldn't even be interested in ideas like "all property is theft." The thing is, your efforts are needed -- everyone's efforts are needed -- in fighting the good fight realistically and effectively. You're not going to bring about Communism or Anarchism any more than Christianity is ever going to make its adherents behave in a Christ-like way. Give it up. Grow up. Put your effort into fighting a fight you can win. Fight within the limits of the system we have; forget your childish 2-dimensional pipe dreams about everyone sharing everything equally, and get busy doing what you can to defend the Constitution against the Fascist neocon pigs who are so busy dismantling it. For an American citizen, anything less is dereliction of duty.
"Damn, those guys are running away, if i wait longer i won't be able to kill them properly." Wow.
I especialy love the sentence "How many times do you let you and your neighbors get robbed?", as if robbers kept track of every crazy armed guy in town they plan to rob :
- Hey, what about this house ? Should we rob it ?
- Let me check... Oh no, see, the database say the guy in this house would come out and kill us. Let's go somewhere else.
Great arguments guys, brilliant.
"Also, what an ugly looking man. He’s photo radiates psycho-christian-redneck culture. YUK!"
I fail to see the difference between your statement and some psycho-Christian redneck looking at a photo of a black guy and saying "Look how ugly he is! His photo radiates nigger-rapist-looter-gangster culture. YUK!"
Judging people by their skin color is just one form of judging people by the way they look.
This form of deterrence does not start with the criminal, but must be imbedded in the fabric of society. Where there are too many walls - black|white, rich|poor, red state|blue state, us|them - a siege mentality is the default mindset. How can you love your neighbour when you don't even know them? How can you know them when you reduce them to an abstract distillate of their observable behaviours?
Protect your loved ones by all means. Protect your property, at any cost? What would Jesus do? I don't expect any of us can realistically measure up to that standard, but we can at least be mindful of it.
First of all, gun rights in America aren't just a matter of culture, they're a matter of our most fundamental laws, which are spelled out in the Constitution.
As for what good it does to kill someone, it certainly acts as a deterrent to them as individuals. If you kill the guy who broke into your house, he definitely won't be breaking into your (or anyone's) house ever again. Hopefully other like-minded individuals will hear about his death, and will think twice before breaking into ANYONE'S house.
No, criminals don't have a database of houses that are safe or unsafe to rob... but the more freedom we have to defend ourselves from robbery, the more criminals will be shot while committing their crimes. This both reduces the sheer number of robbers, and makes robbery in general a less attractive career choice. Your hypothetical database-checking robbers would be more likely to simply decide to do something less risky than breaking into a home if they lived in a world where the shooting of robbers by homeowners was more common.
Note that I still don't support shooting people in the back as they run away from you, but I personally would have no problem shooting to disable rather than kill in the same situation. Letting the robbers go means someone else may get robbed tomorrow, and the robbers might take more than property next time. Like your database of gun owners, the database of houses where nobody is home is also mythical. Burglars break into houses prepared to do SOMETHING if someone turns out to be home, so burglary is quite a bit scarier than a simple matter of someone running off with your stuff.
Ad hominem attacks are a retarded way to convince someone that your argument is valid, and are also evidence that you don't really have an argument at all, just an emotion. Ad hominem attacks that call the opposition retarded are themselves severely retarded.
Would you like cake now?
Give me ONE good reason.
"Murder is murder" is not a reason - scum is scum, overpopulation is overpopulation.
The two guys were both illegal aliens with a long criminal records. But thanks to Joe Horn they won't break into any more houses, or commit any more criminal acts.
As for "ak", neighborhoods that get a reputation for killing burglars are less likely to be robbed. You don't think criminals are smart enough to know a good place to rob vs. a bad one? Then you are a bloody idiot.
We have the right not to live in fear. We have the right to keep our hard earned stuff.
Chet: you don't think that crime rate in texas might have something to do with it being on an unsecured border with mexico? oh wait... you don't think
"I can’t wait for the time when all robbers will be killed so there are only robber-killers left, life will be so much better."
I can't wait for the time when all homes will be burgled by robbers who have no fear of anything but the police. Life will be so much better when only criminals have any property, and the rest of us live in empty houses.
You speak as if you have. Bully for you. As far as calling a redneck a retard, you obviously have never been around them.
Might over right is their motto.
And if you in fact read anything I typed here you would see I'm all for shooting while they are in my home.
Also, the color of a persons skin doesn't keep them from being a redneck.
I guess Florida is just special with the amount of gun related deaths that aren't related to violent robberies or breaking and entering.
Try killing a thief outside your house here and you go to jail.
The question can never be "why did they deserve to live?". A person does not need to justify their existence in order to avoid being legally killed. The question under rule of law must always be "why did they deserve to die?".
For many people, there are ample reasons why these two deserved to die. Not everyone agrees with those reasons, however. Generally speaking, in the eyes of the law, they did not deserve to die, as they were running away and no longer an imminent physical threat to any person. For some reason, the judge in this case found some extenuating circumstances that prompted him to excuse that fact and judge it justifiable homicide. Maybe the judge just doesn't want to see an otherwise law-abiding citizen punished for being tired of his neighborhood being victimized, or maybe there are facts about this case that we are not privy to.
Way to stereotype rednecks. I know they're annoying, but some of them actually are pretty nice people, and a few of them are even in favor of gun control.
How far down are you going to dig before you decide you're deep enough in the hole? So far your debating skills seem to be limited to ad hominem attacks, and broad generalizations of huge groups of people. The terrible irony here is that the very worst variety of rednecks, the kind you so cavalierly lump ALL rednecks in with, are in the habit of using exactly the same retarded tactics. You're no different than that mullet-headed guy in the famous picture holding his sign reading "GET A BRAIN, MORANS."
Each state has different laws on this due to just that.
What the rate of those type crimes are (breaking and entering, robbery). How many innocents die in these crimes... etc....
None of us know what that area is like or how many times the people were preyed upon.
Again, in the house is ok with me. Take a life for threatening mine.
with different laws. If folks object to him shooting these burglars, then the law should be changed. America is (or was at one time) a nation of laws.
Thanks for pointing that out. Fact of the matter is this topic is about why he shot 2 men in the back while running away. Not weather you agree with my understanding of people. As if you lived here, visiting is not living here so you know shit about the color of rednecks or rednecks at all.
Just 2 days ago a dear friend of mines house was broken into while at work. They didn't break or take anything. They sold crack out of her house all day.
If she were a redneck and home at the time they would be dead, but she isn't so she got video security and alarms.
Gee, wonder why rednecks don't think of that alternative?
=================================
* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)
* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)
* As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (62)
* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:
Murder 10.0 years
Rape 7.6 years
Aggravated Assault 3.4 years
(63)
* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)
* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)
* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)
* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)
======================================
That's pretty much my attitude as well. We obviously don't have as much information on the case as the judge did, and it's the judge's job to figure these things out for us anyway. I fail to see why so many people think it's OK to let the police have sole authority and responsibility for their defense, yet want to question every decision made by a judge.
Murder is murder. You all can argue "blah.. blah.. blah.. they were criminals! they deserved to die!"
This man still killed two living, breathing human beings. For what? They took a few trinkets and a few pieces of green paper from his NEIGHBOR. Not him.
Hell. The dispatcher even told him not to shoot, and then he was like FUCK YOU COP. I KILL WHO I WANT TO KILL.
*Blam* *Blam* Two dead kids coming up!
He killed those people, plain and simple. He didn't have to. Their lives may not have meant anything to anybody, but you shouldn't equate the value of human life with someone's stereo.
I wouldn't lose sleep, either, but vigilante justice can be just as dangerous as crime.
"It wasn't his stuff he was protecting" is just a selfish argument. Where people don't look out for each other to some extent, there is no community... and where there is no community, there is only raw competition for resources. I don't want to live in that world, and too many of us already do.
Note once again that I still don't advocate shooting to kill when someone is running away from you... but in the case of a criminal fleeing with stolen goods I'm OK with shooting to disable.
Nothing is that simple, and when you go for the cut-and-dried approach like that, you simply set yourself up as judge and jury in your very own kangaroo court.
You don't know anything about this guy who shot the two burglars, or about the facts of what happened that night, aside from what little you've gleaned from the Internet or the newspapers, two notoriously unreliable and incomplete sources of information. You're not in any way qualified to decide the right and wrong of the case. Even listening to the 911 recording doesn't put you at the scene or in the courtroom, where the facts were either evident or thoroughly and painstakingly gone over.
If a person is willing to break into my neighbor's house, they are willing to break into mine. If we don't stop them, they will continue to break into break into peoples house.
And did he know the these guys were not going to go back into the house? Did he know that no-one was inside? did he know that they were unarmed? No-one here knows for sure what was going through this guy's head, but you are all willing to call him a murderer.
Do not forget, that these were illegal aliens with long criminal records. And now these worthless scumbags will not ruin anymore lives.
This is why I believe in federalism. I like living in a state where thieves are shot. Thieves like living in states where they are not. You can have the thieves, and I can have the rednecks, and we can see who does better.
"*Blam* *Blam* Two dead kids coming up!"
Um, no. One was 38, the other was 30. Were you trying to push some emotional buttons there, or did you just not acquaint yourself with the case before commenting?
If some kid is out raising hell the way kids do, then I grant you that a certain amount of extra tolerance should be exercised. Once you're not a kid anymore, you're expected to behave yourself... and if you're in your THIRTIES and burglarizing houses, you're a career criminal. At that point, you're not some kind of victim or misunderstood youth, even if you get hurt or killed by the people you're preying on.
Just keep in mind, Opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one. You being the most opinionated is making you the biggest ass hole.
What a waste of your fathers money for that degree.
So now your crappy little ad hominem attacks are directed at me?
If you have no argument beyond ad hominem attacks, be quiet and let the adults talk.
My own thought is: I see no harm in him shooting to disable the two burglars. He deliberately shot to kill them. And glib comments about "my stereo is worth their lives" are pointless.
Plain and simple is a matter of fact. He killed those two men. He didn't have to. You can't debate that. He shot them dead. He ended their lives. He wanted to. He didn't know if they were your or old, if they were career criminals, if they were illegal immigrants, or if their lives meant anything to anyone else.
He just decided to kill them. I didn't call him a murderer, but what else could you possibly label it?
In a way, it is justice. Criminals don't care about how you feel violated when they steal your stuff. And in Texas, they probably knew the dangers. As I said, I don't feel any loss for them, but vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.
Again, this is an area for all to comment and your comments really have marked you as a total ass.
Now when you live as long as I have, and seen the riots on Capital Hill in the 60s and the wars that need not be fought, you can be a better judge of people.
You have a problem with having to be right.
This is not a place for being right, it's for expressing your opinion.
We have heard yours over and over. Move on kid and grow the feck up.
I am absolutely right about you wasting a college education trying to have a bigger phallus than every one else. Bye Bye have a nice life if you can live that long.
Something to hide?
You said:
"He killed those two men."
Yes, we do know that much.
"He didn’t have to. You can't debate that."
Of course we can debate it. You don't know he didn't have to. He says he did have to, and the grand jury agreed with him. You and I simply do not know.
"He shot them dead. He ended their lives."
Yes he did.
"He wanted to."
You don't know that.
"He didn’t know if they were your or old, if they were career criminals,"
You don't that either... and if he was close enough to shoot and kill with a shotgun (which is a relatively short-range weapon), he was probably close enough to see approximately how old they were. This happened in daylight, after all... and as I mentioned earlier, if you're in your thirties and burglarizing houses, you're clearly a career criminal.
"...if they were illegal immigrants, or if their lives meant anything to anyone else."
This is the only part I can agree with you on: he had no way of knowing their citizenship or what their relationships with others might be. I don't see why that's relevant, though.
He did know they were criminals. He did know they did obey him when he told them to freeze. He is not a trained cop, nor is he a trained soldier. Maybe he was, he would have reacted differently. Personally I think if I am pointing a gun at someone and they don't do what I say, then they are dangerous.
I would never shoot someone to disable. I will never point a gun at someone that I am not willing to kill. A "disabling" shot is just asking for trouble. You shoot you the main body mass, you are most likely going to stop them, and they will stop being a danger. Besides, dead people can't sue you.
My stuff,and my neighbor's stuff IS worth protecting. We work so that we can work hard, and have nice stuff, and if we are not willing to protect that, then we might as well just give it away.
What a joke.
Just cut to the chase rocket, make all of us measure pee pees with you and get it over with. Damn you're a sorry human being.
What are the possibilities here?
Maybe they came into his yard to attack him, then fled when they saw the shotgun. Maybe they came into his yard as part of their escape route, and fled when they saw him and the shotgun. I find it very unlikely that he was able to remain close enough to his own house that the telephone picked up the cocking of his gun, yet was still able to shoot two people dead with a shotgun while they were running away from him and were NOT in close proximity, hence not on his property.
There are assumptions built into this, of course... I wasn't there and I don't know. But that very clear sound of the gun cocking between being fired seems like good circumstantial evidence that the man was in his own yard, shooting people in his yard. I'm not making a moral judgment on that, just pointing out that it's likely to be the case.
You're clearly some kind of angry dullard and I'm not going to bother to respond to your laughably childish attempts to make me angry... but why on Earth do you think I'm a Republican?
We don't care what you feel about what we say, so there is no need for you to challenge everyones comments.
I'm the dullard? And your the one pushing his point to exhaustion.
Again, grow up and move on. You're a tiresome youngster who seems the need to prove himself and this isn't the place to do it. Night night, have mummy powder yer butt before you hit your crib.
I'm sorry, this will be my last reply to you. If you're not deliberately trolling, then you're just not worth talking to.
You rattle on like you're a slimey politician with a plan to change the world when you haven't even managed to change one persons view here. That is just pathetic.
You make an excellent point regarding disabling shots, and I would agree with you 100% except that these two were shot in the back. If someone is coming AT me and I want to stop them, I'm like you: I'll go for the center of mass every time... given a gun with adequate stopping power, that's the best way to prevent them from reaching you. It also typically turns them into a corpse.
If I thought I was justified in shooting someone who was fleeing from me, I'd go for the disabling shot and be prepared to deliver a coup de grace in case he pulls out a gun of his own. I know a lot of gun enthusiasts would disagree with me there, as it's an added risk, but I just couldn't bring myself to deliberately kill a man who was running away from me.
(Well, OK, maybe if his name was Cheney.)
When I load my .45 for home defense, I alternate between cheap target ammo and Hydra-Shok rounds for this very reason.
Sen. Jesse Helms finally kicked the bucket.
He shared many of your views that you have stated here tonight.
So similar it makes me want to shoot you just to shut you the feck up.
why doesnt this surprise me
If we are going to ban things that kill people, then let us ban cars. Cars afterall, kill more Americans every year than guns do. (41,000 a year on average)
Lives of people who die of car accidents are not morned like others are, we simply say oh well. Maybe Stalin had a point when he said that a single death is a tragedy and a million is a statistic.
We as humans have insticts to survive, we have insticts that make us feel bad when a member of our species is lost. These emotions have kept us alive, but they are not always reasonable.
How long was it before we learned how to prevent common diseases via sanitation? How many people had to die before we learned that? How many people need to die before we learn how to drive safely? How many criminals will have to die before they learn that they should not Rape, Kill, or Steal?
Almost every culture in the world regaurds theft as an offense. Most people are in favor of the death penalty in one way or another. Some people want it fast and others want it to come naturally via life in prison. Not too many people are willing to parole a known murderer. We should also give the death penalty to thieves either life in prison or instant death their choice.
Ok, so maybe that does go too far. But these people stole time from the property owners, they stole things that the owner had to spend a large amount of time earning, maintaining, and finding those items that gave him or her satisfaction, comfort, and peace.
To me, it is sick to live in a Capitalist society where there are plenty of legitamate jobs availiable that will allow you to trade your time formoney in order to buy things that make you feel good, these men were too lazy to do that and wanted to steal someonelse's time. These were Sick Sick men.
Do I think that they desrve to die? Yeah they deserve to die and I hope that they burn in Hell!
It is too bad that I am an atheist and that I don't believe in Hell. If only it was true.
If the two men that Mr. Horn had just witnessed commit a felony were not a danger to Mr. Horn, then he should have been indicted.
Personally I believe that he was in grave danger because in 1 or 2 seconds, those guys could have been all over him. I think that he is darned lucky to have survived that day. He should have stayed inside until he was sure that the guys were far enough away that they couldn't jump him.
Thanks, I haven't had a good belly laugh like that for a while. My culture is 60 thousand years + old. We share! Your assumptions about me are just plain wrong.
But jeez, aren't you going off like a frog in a sock on this thread. LOL!!!
I was going to reply to Shprocket's comment, but that seems way in the past now, after all those comments.
You can debate any point you wish, such as "Is the sky blue?". He said on the 911 call he was going to kill the two. Did he have to? No. He made the choice to. He went outside. They were headed in the opposite direction. He wanted to kill them - yes, he said he was going to. That is intent. He wanted to kill them.
You agree that he really didn't know anything about them, yet I see those reasons being thrown out here as good reasons for him to kill the men. That is how it's relevant. It's justifying his actions after he's committed the deed.
Plain and simple. There's no debate. The court decided in his favour. Fine. I've got no big qualms over what happened, but let's not pretend he did something wonderful. He did a bad thing. It's like when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in jail: nobody wept, but it's still vigilante justice.
I don't know all the laws of Texas, but here in New Mexico one can do what is necessary to defend one's property or to apprehend a criminal who has committed a felony in one's presence. I suppose what is necessary depends on the circumstances, but pointing a gun at a burglar and telling them to freeze.... well, that criminal needs to freeze or they might get shot.
You said:
"You agree that he really didn’t know anything about them, yet I see those reasons being thrown out here as good reasons for him to kill the men. That is how it’s relevant. It’s justifying his actions after he’s committed the deed."
Maybe you've mistaken me for someone else. I never said he was justified in killing them... I only said that you don't know that he wasn't. The people who think that he was justified also don't know if he was or not.
Presumably, he knows if it was justified or not... and he's the only one. Since you're innocent until proven guilty in this country, the grand jury has apparently decided that there's no way to prove he wasn't justified, and that's an end to the case. Personally, I'd rather see a thousand guilty Joe Horns get away with murdering criminals than see one innocent Joe Horn get put in prison for a justifiable homicide.
You said:
"Plain and simple. There’s no debate. The court decided in his favour. Fine. I’ve got no big qualms over what happened, but let’s not pretend he did something wonderful. He did a bad thing. It’s like when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in jail: nobody wept, but it’s still vigilante justice."
Again, maybe you've mistaken me for someone else, or maybe you're addressing others as well as me. I took your post to be specifically aimed at me, maybe I'm wrong about that. In any case, I don't think Joe Horn did something wonderful. I wasn't there and I'm not sure at all what Joe Horn did... YOU are the one who is convinced that the man did something bad, so taking people to task for thinking he did something good seems a little on the hypocritical side, since neither of you really know what happened on Joe Horn's lawn that day.
Sorry if I made some assumptions about you that were off... we don't see many Yanamamo, Australian aborigines, or New Guinean hobbit-people on the Internet, so I naturally assumed you were part of a culture much younger than 60,000 years.
Unfortunately, whatever cultural mores regarding property your 60,000-year-old tribe subscribes to, they're apparently not workable in even a newly industrialized civilization like China.
I still stand by what I said about your comments being bigoted. The way the man's face looks to you has nothing to do with anything.
No wucka's.
To clarify, I was commenting on reading his facial expression, eyes in particular. I'm good at reading faces. Also, you shouldn't think the present state of affairs is fixed and will never change. Things aren't like they were in the past and things wont be like they are now in the future. It's always changing. An invent in the future may occur that could collapse our present system of thought. It's happened plenty of times in the past, it will certainly happen again.
Try telling a judge and jury that you're good at reading faces, and see how far you get with that as evidence of anything.
Maybe Joe Horn was good at reading faces too. Maybe what he saw was a couple of dangerous career criminals who were a threat to him and his neighbors, and who needed killing in his estimation. If you can judge people by their faces, shouldn't he be able to as well? You saw a "psycho-christian-redneck" when you looked at Horn's photograph... maybe he saw psycho killer Colombians.
I'm being facetious, of course. I don't care how good you think you are at reading faces, it's no proper basis for judging a person.