Typo, and a funny one at that...but i am enjoing every typo in this thread.

Especially when the argument of "they may have not understood English" comes up...it makes me laugh a lot.

Here i am typing badly, and yet, wait for it, i'm still alive!!!

Hehe, Columbia!!

Propably the same as a candy bar in Texas - candy bars taste better than humans you know.

Btw, I heard of a case from your home state where the DA wanted to charge a 10 year old boy for molesting his kid sister sexually, because he helped her taking a piss out in the backyard or something. The whole family fled to Switzerland to avoid that their little boy would end up in a juvenile prison. Almost as absurd as that case from Texas if you dont mind me saying so.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

What's the solution? I'd say hand Colorado to Mexico/Canada or whatever but i doubt they'd take CO....also Spad might get a little pissed off and shoot a few Danes.

Not even in Mexico are citizens allowed to defend themselves or their property like that!

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

No but they do have unprecedented access to Texas....

Ill just choke him with some danish bacon!

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Crocodiles in Rio Grande might do the trick.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

I don't. But then, I'm not basing a flimsy argument on speculation of Horn's qualifications as a self-appointed policeman. My argument is the same whether or not Horn is an aspiring deputy.

Spare me the implications that I'd generalize people by region. And, to answer your question, I think that Horn didn't give a flying fuck whether what he was doing was legal or not. I think he was so amped up at the chance to record a kill that nothing else mattered. And, whether or not he's eventually prosecuted, admitting to premeditation for killing certainly isn't a good idea (ie this isn't self defense).

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

That won't work; he'd eat it! With some nice Colombian roast coffee....

Yes, you just said that it wasn't illegal. My rhetorical point was that "legal" and "right" are not one and the same. Even if Horn skates away with no charges, he's closer to a serial killer than a moral human being. He saw an opportunity to kill for a thrill, and did so in spite of the fact that such a thing was completely unnecessary.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Well the burden kinda lays with you seeing as what he did was indeed, lawful...he didn't do anything wrong so in this instance his judgement at least was within the boundries of the law.

That part wasn't aimed at you, you after all don't wanna send Texas back to Mexico. (I think you made that part clear in the thread about throwing puppies off cliffs).

So basically you just "think" you know what the motives are for what he did then? Either way, its everyone's opinion here and Horn is the only one who really knows why and what went down (even though he got most of the audio of it on tape).

Right, and thank you for not putting words in my mouth.

I'm not trying to dance on the issue here though so for what its worth here's my 2 cents on why i think he knewthe law:

If he didn't then he wouldn't have gone through with the whole thing while it was being recorded on phone, thus why i think the conversation (without gettinginto the specifics of the call itself) is a good thing for his defense.

Now that's just my theory as to why i think he knew the law before he did this; its not a tim219 moment of "i say its the case so it definately must be". Just my opinion.

I don't doubt that and that then gets into philosophical arguments about laws being just and whether "law and order" is a good thing or not and tbh i'd rather stay away from that.

Well again that's down to what you define morality as and what you believe his moral standards should meet and so on, you think he's wrong and that's fair enough. I don't wanna get into what i think is just and right, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and what i may see as fair you or anyone elsemay see as barbaric and vicer-versa.

Thanks for seeing the humor in that; I intended it only as a funny.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Wallaroo and you kind of brought up a similarish point of where the line would be drawn, see he said about his scooter and stuff being stolen from him.

Now say we did manage to expand the law to Vehicular inclusion of incurrsion of loss of propertyor it could be deemed that was a property or asset protected under the castle law, then Wallaroo firstly would you have been okay (assuming of course the law allowed for it) that say someone shot the guy riding off with your scooter while he was riding it?

Not neccessarily bringing in the public safety issue or anything but say he got knocked off it and was killed, would that be okay with you on a personal level?

I was sitting at a customer site while posting before, but I read through your posts and thought of the gist of my opinion of this guy, and specifically why I think he is a sociopath. I'll admit that I hadn't considered the angle that he "knew the law" and made a conscious decision to place a 911 call to serve as an "alibi". If I take this assumption of yours at face value, it adds to my point.

I formed the opinion that Horn is a bloodthirsty sociopath shooting for thrills based on the following:

- According to you, he knew enough of the law to known that it would behoove him to call 911 and secure a legal defense in advance. The fact that he said "I'm going to kill them" suggests premeditation, and the fact that he had the foresight to secure an alibi suggests cold blooded premeditation (not generally seen in someone fearing for his life). That is, he had time to consider his course of action, cover his ass, and know that he would face no repercussions. This sort of action doesn't suggest someone defending himself - such a person wouldn't be concerned about legal implications, but rather the life of himself or his loved ones. For instance, Matt is someone I respect and who has likely had previous run ins with dicey situations given previous occupational hazards. He strikes me as someone who would do what was necessary to defend himself or others, but only what was necessary. I can't imagine him (or anyone I respect) acting in this fashion. If you have time and ability to hatch a plot to keep yourself out of trouble, it's hard to make a case that you're being threatened bodily.

- Horn's conduct on the phone indicates excited bravado - not fear or self defense. He sounds like some character in a Western, placing bets that he can shoot people without getting hurt and thinking of how everyone is going to want his autograph.

- He shot the criminals in the back (I'm taking that claim at face value as was cited earlier in the thread - if this is incorrect, I'll have to revise my opinion). He subsequently lied about that to ensure his own 'hero' status and keep his ass out of trouble. Again, these are the actions of someone with conscience of guilt, not someone acting to defend himself.


Personally, I've hung out with people before who owned various guns or weapons and boasted things like, "man, I hope someone tries to break into my house - they'll sure get a surprise". This strikes me as the sort of person that Horn is, and it seems decidedly sociopathic and glib - they'd wish the chance of bodily injury to themselves or loved ones for the reward of notoriety or the thrill of "kicking ass". This may invoke a Bruce Willis or Clint Eastwood character in a movie at first blush, but when you stop and think about what that means outside of fantasyland, it really isn't pretty. You're talking about people itching for the "chance" to kill someone. I don't think that Horn is necessarily likely to go around killing innocent people without cause, but it does bear considering that people with psychopathic tendencies don't often back down after logging their first kill. This could have escalated from other anti-social tendencies and wind up with a guy looking for crimes to "solve" (perhaps deliberately arming himself, parking his car in bad neighborhoods, and waiting for someone "try something").

The sentiment of defending one's neighborhood and sending a message to criminals is certainly understandable. I don't fret for the fate of the lowlifes that broke into that house - screw 'em. That's a dangerous and unethical game, and they wound up on the losing end. However, I certainly don't view a guy shooting people in the back when arrest was imminent as a hero. I view him as a thrill-seeker probably more concerned with notoriety and getting his kicks than anything else. Would you be willing to bet me a cold frosty one that he doesn't have a whole slew of his press clippings framed above his mantle?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson