Shprocket 1's Comments
Pudifoot:
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.
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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Wow, you're in your 50s, and still not grown up enough for civil discourse? You have to sling insults and call people names, make all kinds of assumptions and jump to all kinds of conclusions about them? That's the behavior of a 'kid', regardless of your age.
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.
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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Tim,
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?
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?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
It might be relevant to point out that, on the 911 call, you can clearly hear not just the reports of the three shotgun blasts, but also the two recockings of the shotgun between them. Horn could not have been very far from the telephone when he opened fire. Assuming the telephone was in the house and that he put it down before going outside, the man must have been (as he stated) in his own yard. He claims they came into his yard too before he shot them; since we know they were shot in the back, though, they must have changed their minds and turned tail.
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.
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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Ted,
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.
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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Tim,
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.
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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
CheeseDuck said:
"*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.
"*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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I see a lot of people making extremely simple statements followed by phrases like "plain and simple".
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.
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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
"Property isn't worth someone's life" is an overly-simplistic argument against killing burglars. The lack of some forms of property will kill you, for one thing... and there's more to the issue than just property. Criminals who break into a home don't know if you're home or not, and they wouldn't break in if they didn't have some kind of contingency plan in case you're there. Some of the sicker ones are hoping you are!
"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.
"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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Ola Amigo:
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.
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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Here are some interesting statistics from JustFacts.com on guns and crime. Note that I haven't cherry-picked anything here; I've left in statistics that SEEM to indicate that gun control is a good thing even though I strongly disagree on that point.
=================================
* 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)
======================================
=================================
* 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)
======================================
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Tim, I've been to both Florida and Texas many times. Your generalizations are still nothing but bigotry, just like all generalizations that assign a particular attitude or thought process to large groups of people predicated on things like skin color, regional accent, hair length, fashion sense, or age.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Tim Giachetti:
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."
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."
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Kew:
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.
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.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
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.