Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars at neighbours' - Page 60 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

EricOKC · #**886** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefe

Yes, I was under the impression that "self defense" was to avoid harm to one's body, not their stuff. But thank you for explaining the reasoning behind Texas laws - it almost makes sense when you explain it that way.

You're welcome - and thank you for understanding that we're not just a bunch of ignorant savages. I guess I owe you and apology for my snarky comments as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefe

Just curious, does there come a point where you would let the police handle the situation?

Sure. I expect them to earn their pay, but on the other hand, i am not foolish enough to depend solely upon them. They get there fast enough and they can handle it anyway they want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefe

Let's say you didn't witness the burglary of your home, so you weren't there to defend your stuf...uh... yourself. Then you later discover that it was a lowlife neighbor down the street who had actually stolen your stuff. The evidence is right there in his garage. Does Texas law allow you to walk over to his house and ventilate him? Or would you be required by law to allow the police to handle it at that point?

The law, at that point, does not allow the use of force, and it becomes a matter for the police.

I would even go so far as to say it SHOULDN'T allow the use of force. At this point, you have discovered a crime after it was committed. Using your scenario, it is quite plausible someone gave him that stuff and he has no idea of its source.

Jefe · #**887** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

You're welcome - and thank you for understanding that we're not just a bunch of ignorant savages. I guess I owe you and apology for my snarky comments as well.

Hey, no problem. BTW, I never thought you were a bunch of ignorant savages; I've always believed that ignorant people can come from every corner of the country (or the planet), just as intelligent people can hail from anywhere. My time on this board has only reinforced that belief.

I just hope you don't think that all of "us yankees" are a bunch of whiney, scared little pussies!

Quote:

Sure. I expect them to earn their pay, but on the other hand, i am not foolish enough to depend solely upon them. They get there fast enough and they can handle it anyway they want.

The law, at that point, does not allow the use of force, and it becomes a matter for the police.

I would even go so far as to say it SHOULDN'T allow the use of force. At this point, you have discovered a crime after it was committed. Using your scenario, it is quite plausible someone gave him that stuff and he has no idea of its source.

OK, that makes sense - you wouldn't go in guns-a-blazin' after the crime has been commited, and since you didn't actually witness him commiting the burglary, it is possible that he wasn't the one who stole directly from you (he's still in posession of stolen goods, obvioulsy).

Humor me a response to another scenario, if you would: What if you witness someone leaving your house, and they're getting away? They're off your property, in their car speeding down the road with your stuff. Are you allowed to chase after them in your car, and use deadly force if necessary?

EricOKC · #**888** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefe

Hey, no problem. BTW, I never thought you were a bunch of ignorant savages; I've always believed that ignorant people can come from every corner of the country (or the planet), just as intelligent people can hail from anywhere. My time on this board has only reinforced that belief.

I feel about the same - although, there have been a few who have only served to remind me that stereotypes are there for a reason...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefe

I just hope you don't think that all of "us yankees" are a bunch of whiney, scared little pussies!

Well not ALL of ya...hell, God managed to find Lot and his family after all...hehe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefe

Humor me a response to another scenario, if you would: What if you witness someone leaving your house, and they're getting away? They're off your property, in their car speeding down the road with your stuff. Are you allowed to chase after them in your car, and use deadly force if necessary?

Actually - yes, you are.

We take a VERY dim view of crime down here.

Before some people react to that - consider that the police may be hours away and you may have no other way to recover your property. Yes - i said HOURS. Some people in the northeast tend to forget that Texas is a VERY large state. We have counties larger than most of the new england states.

Certain kinds of theft used to be punishable by death down here. We haven't lost that mentality

SomeMarine · #**889** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Whoah - slow down there. I'd be absolutely comfortable doing that. I thought the pretext of the discussion was whether or not I'd go a-people huntin' on someone else's property.

Once again, you show your willfull ignorance of the case. Horn never left his property, and a police officer who was present at the scene ( who did nothing to stop any of the actions ) says the bad guys did indeed enter Horns property, and begin to approach him, on his own property.

I ask again, how in the hell did you get a job as a moderator?

SomeMarine · #**890** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

I would even go so far as to say it SHOULDN'T allow the use of force. At this point, you have discovered a crime after it was committed. Using your scenario, it is quite plausible someone gave him that stuff and he has no idea of its source.

Not only that, but now you would be entering HIS property in order to force a confrontation. He would have the right to ventilate you.

drgoodtrips · #**891** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeMarine

Once again, you show your willfull ignorance of the case. Horn never left his property, and a police officer who was present at the scene ( who did nothing to stop any of the actions ) says the bad guys did indeed enter Horns property, and begin to approach him, on his own property.

I ask again, how in the hell did you get a job as a moderator?

I sneaked in before they made knowledge of the life and times of Horn a requirement. And speaking of purple dinosaurs, how did you ever get such an impressive mastery of non sequitur?

SomeMarine · #**892** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

1)I sneaked in before they made knowledge of the life and times of Horn a requirement.

2) And speaking of purple dinosaurs, how did you ever get such an impressive mastery of non sequitur?

1) So, you admit you are talking out your ass?

2) What? Are you serious? Mods are supposed to calm things down, keep the rhetoric in check. They are NOT supposed to go around fanning the flames of partisinship. In other words, I'm saying that you don't MOD so much as fling shit at walls.

drgoodtrips · #**893** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeMarine

1) So, you admit you are talking out your ass?

No. From what I read, Horn claimed the men were on his property. This stands to reason in light of his legal situation. I don't really see any reason to take his story at face value. But, regardless of Horn's legal standing, Traveler and I spent a lot of pages talking about various hypothetical situations. This was the point, in the middle of a conversation, at which you came in and expressed your displeasure with my moderating as it relates to Joe Horn.

Quote:

2) What? Are you serious? Mods are supposed to calm things down, keep the rhetoric in check. They are NOT supposed to go around fanning the flames of partisinship. In other words, I'm saying that you don't MOD so much as fling shit at walls.

"Fling shit at walls"? Well, three or four years ago, when I was asked to moderate, I must admit that I wasn't aware you would come post here, nor that moderation duties would include making sure my views didn't make a future poster named "SomeMarine" unhappy.

I have to say, in all the years I've moderated and seen various posters get pissed off at various moderators, this is a first. I'm not even sure how to make you happy, since it isn't actually possible to agree with everyone. If I decided now to agree with you in order to make you think I was a good moderator, why then pramjockey would have a legitimate gripe that I was moderating poorly.

Boy, this moderating stuff was a lot easier before you took over USPO, and I was simply tasked with enforcing the rules of the forum as they were written.

drgoodtrips · #**894** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

No it works because we're generally not in easily confusable environments where folks end up breaking into their own property and get shot due to mistaken identity.

To use that as an argument to knock this law, well you're gonna have a hard time convincing most people.

No the scenario is not likely at all, more than likely if there were folks moving stuff about from the house someone who lived there would have also been there, supervising and directing what was going on.

Also the big van/lorry with the sign that indicated they were removal men etc would have also been a give away sign. It would be very difficult for Horn to make the case that he in any way thought they were burglars and would be in trouble if he shot them.

Yes but that's not likely to happen, and more than likely if he told them to freeze they would have, not tried to get away like this pair.

If new folks come into small towns you can tell, you know if there's another car and the light in the spare bedroom/guest room is on etc, the scenario just isn't likely.

It does if you have abuse but again if you really deemed him to be a burglar and he wasn't it may well be different to Horn's case, where it turned out he was right and actually killed the intruders. Mistakes can be madee, but this law doesn't make it any easier for them to be made.

So, taking Horn's actions at face value...

If they had been (and did turn out to be) burglars, then Horn gets off without legal trouble. But, let's say that they had been friends of the neighbors, helping them move in extremely shady fashion. Presumably then, Horn shoots them and is sent to jail.

But, if that's how the law goes, isn't it unfair to Horn? That is, he would have no reasonable way of knowing that they weren't burglars, and yet he could wind up in jail even with reasonable cause to believe they were, under this law? I'm not making a rhetorical point - I'm asking if that's your understanding of the law.

SomeMarine · #**895** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

1) at which you came in and expressed your displeasure with my moderating as it relates to Joe Horn.

2) "Fling shit at walls"? Well, three or four years ago, when I was asked to moderate, I must admit that I wasn't aware you would come post here, nor that moderation duties would include making sure my views didn't make a future poster named "SomeMarine" unhappy.

3) I have to say, in all the years I've moderated and seen various posters get pissed off at various moderators, this is a first. I'm not even sure how to make you happy, since it isn't actually possible to agree with everyone. If I decided now to agree with you in order to make you think I was a good moderator, why then pramjockey would have a legitimate gripe that I was moderating poorly.

4) Boy, this moderating stuff was a lot easier before you took over USPO, and I was simply tasked with enforcing the rules of the forum as they were written.

1) It isn't just about Joe Horn. It is the way you deride and jeer at what you don't agree with Such as: """ So really, anyone can shoot the embezzling CEO, even if said CEO is fleeing, crying and wetting himself in the face of the Avenger's high powered semi-automatic weapon, maniacal grin, and raging erection. And, it's a bonus if the Avenger actually knew anyone who was being wronged by the CEO.""""

That's fanning flames and flinging shit.

2) Dude, your views do not have to make me happy, but as a mod, you SHOULD NOT be activly engaging in what you are supposed to be prohibiting.

3) PramJockey is absolutly correct. You do moderate poorly. You don't know the facts, you take a malicious partisan side, and you use hyperbole and derision to make your point.

4) It's kinda hard to enforce something you join in, Know what I'm saying?

SomeMarine · #**896** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

So, taking Horn's actions at face value...

If they had been (and did turn out to be) burglars, then Horn gets off without legal trouble. But, let's say that they had been friends of the neighbors, helping them move in extremely shady fashion. Presumably then, Horn shoots them and is sent to jail.

But, if that's how the law goes, isn't it unfair to Horn? That is, he would have no reasonable way of knowing that they weren't burglars, and yet he could wind up in jail even with reasonable cause to believe they were, under this law? I'm not making a rhetorical point - I'm asking if that's your understanding of the law.

Neighbors or friends helping you move, even ina shady fashion, probably would inform you of what they are doing when they see you holding a shotgun, don't you think?

drgoodtrips · #**897** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeMarine

1) It isn't just about Joe Horn. It is the way you deride and jeer at what you don't agree with Such as: """ So really, anyone can shoot the embezzling CEO, even if said CEO is fleeing, crying and wetting himself in the face of the Avenger's high powered semi-automatic weapon, maniacal grin, and raging erection. And, it's a bonus if the Avenger actually knew anyone who was being wronged by the CEO.""""

That's fanning flames and flinging shit.

2) Dude, your views do not have to make me happy, but as a mod, you SHOULD NOT be activly engaging in what you are supposed to be prohibiting.

3) PramJockey is absolutly correct. You do moderate poorly. You don't know the facts, you take a malicious partisan side, and you use hyperbole and derision to make your point.

4) It's kinda hard to enforce something you join in, Know what I'm saying?

Out of curiosity, have you actually read the forum rules? I'd be curious if you could direct me to the ones that prohibit vulgarity, sarcasm, partisanship (as an aside, check this out: SCOTUS Denies Widow I've now been accused of liberal and conservative partisanship within minutes of each other

), hyperbole, vivid imagery, or strong opinions. Because if those are in there, I've missed them.

It should also be noted that you won't find posts where I call people names, discuss the moderation status of posters or points, plagiarize or fail to cite sources, or even moderate people who have done those things toward me. Any caustic discourse, such as the quote you attribute to me about one Joe Horn, is directed not at posters. If Joe Horn joins the forum and makes himself known, I'll remove the offending statements.

And, I remember the comment you made earlier about talking and asses. I'll take the high road and not repeat it to you, but suggest instead that you actually read the forum rules you've busied yourself with dictating to others.

drgoodtrips · #**898** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeMarine

Neighbors or friends helping you move, even ina shady fashion, probably would inform you of what they are doing when they see you holding a shotgun, don't you think?

I don't know, to be honest. I'm not sure how I'd react if I were breaking into my house (and I have before) and an obviously agitated man with a shotgun yelled at me. My inclination would probably be to put my hands in the air and hope he calmed down, but it's hard to say.

Traveler · #**899** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

So, taking Horn's actions at face value...

If they had been (and did turn out to be) burglars, then Horn gets off without legal trouble. But, let's say that they had been friends of the neighbors, helping them move in extremely shady fashion. Presumably then, Horn shoots them and is sent to jail.

But, if that's how the law goes, isn't it unfair to Horn? That is, he would have no reasonable way of knowing that they weren't burglars, and yet he could wind up in jail even with reasonable cause to believe they were, under this law? I'm not making a rhetorical point - I'm asking if that's your understanding of the law.

No no, if he did shoot the wrong guy it would be more likely that he could be in trouble, UNLESS he could clearly prove that he had no idea they were friends or relatives etc. If they were lawfully on the property and he shoots them he still doesn't wind up going to jail if he shot them unknowingly, and with good intention to protect his neighbors.

That however doesn't mean that it leaves the argument open slippery slope "He could shoot delivery men and the milk and post man too" stuff.

I worded what i said poorly in my previous post, the way i intended it to come accross is that you can't get away with shooting someone and then claim it was mistaken identity unless you're a criminal mastermind.

Traveler · #**900** (**permalink**) 07-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I don't know, to be honest. I'm not sure how I'd react if I were breaking into my house (and I have before) and an obviously agitated man with a shotgun yelled at me. My inclination would probably be to put my hands in the air and hope he calmed down, but it's hard to say.

Right, you probably wouldn't move and let him/give him reason shoot you would you?