Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars at neighbours' - Page 67 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Traveler · #**991** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

Read the question again, Trav. Your response makes no sense. You said it was permissable because it was legal and I asked if I could remind you of that position the next time you took exception to any other law.

And like i said, go ahead and say as much whenever i say i am opposed to the law.

But its not entirely comprable as i'm not just defending his right to do what he did under the law but i am supportive of the law and principle behind it and the outcome of what happened here.

I would call for a law like this if it didn't exist, and for even more expansive laws than this.

Quote:

I could have sworn we were talking about ONE instance where I think the law was wrong.
And for the record, I find fault with a LOT of laws and I don't think I am hypocritical at all because I agree with some, which makes it hypocritical to use the excuse of "it's legal" as a defense. When I see a law that I feel need to be changed or scrapped I say so.
But you oppose abortion on moral grounds and the laws that say it is legal, but you support Horn's actions because IT'S legal is a lot more hypocritical than anything I have said here.

That argument would work if i didn't support the law, but i do.

A lot of the abortion lovers claim they are morally oppossed to it themselves but the law states that others themselves have a right to abort away.

I support this law and i am glad of the outcome.

Traveler · #**992** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

Yes and no. He was NOT defending himself, as he was safely in his house when he got it into his head to go outside and shoot somebody. And he decided to shoot those guys BEFORE he left his house and properly assess the situation. A trained cop wouldn't do that.

And yes, he was "defending" property, which was not his to defend. He wasn't defending propertIES because his stuff was NEVER in danger as proven by his not telling the dispatcher that.

No there's no "yes and no" nonsense, it doesn't have to be his stuff, he can defend his neighbor's property using deadly force if he choses. He did. It was the right thing to do.

But just for the sake of argument, he did shoot them when they were on his property.

Quote:

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but if a pissed off old man, or anyone else who isn't a cop comes out of his house and yells "freeze" NOBODY is obligated to obey his order, and that doesn't give him permission to kill them if they don't.

You what?? He's not the one in the wrong, its the person who's on the property of his beighbor illegally that is.

But like you said he's not obliged to listen, the same way the neighbor has the right to shoot if they don't oblige him, or just shoot if he deems it neccessary.

Quote:

By defending him you advocate a lawless society where civilians can assume the rightful role of the police, regardless of their qualifications to do so.

How can you say that with a straight face when its the law that allows us to take these actions?

EricOKC · #**993** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scribbler1

Yes and no. He was NOT defending himself, as he was safely in his house when he got it into his head to go outside and shoot somebody. And he decided to shoot those guys BEFORE he left his house and properly assess the situation. A trained cop wouldn't do that.

And yes, he was "defending" property, which was not his to defend. He wasn't defending propertIES because his stuff was NEVER in danger as proven by his not telling the dispatcher that.I don't know about your neck of the woods, but if a pissed off old man, or anyone else who isn't a cop comes out of his house and yells "freeze" NOBODY is obligated to obey his order, and that doesn't give him permission to kill them if they don't.
By defending him you advocate a lawless society where civilians can assume the rightful role of the police, regardless of their qualifications to do so.As I said, defending a man who assumes the role of cop when he is in no danger, and who decided he was going to kill someone even before he left the house to make SURE what he saw was right is just crazy in my book. Do I think it's nuts to applaud actions that indicate a completely lawless society with no guarantees of a trial or a disregard of the accepted legal procedures the rest of the country holds sacred. Yes.
A trained and LEGALLY appointed police officer doesn't decide to kill someone, EVER. He might do that as a final option, and even then try to immobilize them first with pepper spray or his baton, but that is his LAST option and only if his life or the life of another is in danger. Your boy Horn saw shooting them as his first and ONLY option, as he told the dispatcher.
Did Horn try to immobilize, or disable them? No. Did these people have the chance to be tried? No.No, it's not the whole idea. That is a very simplistic and inaccurate position to take. If there are no cops around, you CANNOT do any damned thing you want.
Or can I assume one of the most precious parts of our judicial system, "innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law", doesn't apply to Texas? It sure didn't seem to have entered Horn's mind.
It's funny, but the OTHER 49 states think it's pretty damned important.

You seem to be missing some very important points of fact here scribbler:

1) A private individual is not the state, and therefore not obligated to grant a criminal the same protections.
2) A private individual has the right to defend himself and his property.
3) The concept of not using lethal force to defend property is a relatively recent development in human history. Prior to the late-20th century, if you got yourself killed during a crime, the near universal response was "tough shit".
4) What the police would or would not do, or even what they are legally permitted to do has no bearing on what a private citizen may do.
5) Horn's actions were LEGAL in the State of Texas and frankly, thats all that matters. You are welcome to disagree with our perspective if you wish. We disagree with a lot of yours. Aint life wonderful?
6) Private citizens are not required to follow the same force continuum as the police. Again, they are acting as individuals, not the state, so different laws apply.

Do you realize you are taking a position defending criminals? Do you realize that you're essentially saying that a criminal should not have worry about death or serious physical injury as part of his trade? Do you realize you're expecting the law abiding to respect the desires of the lawless?

From my perspective, the overall message which is getting through is this: Even though the criminal is demonstrating his utter lack of respect for MY rights, you expect me to respect his.

Scribbler1 · #**994** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

And like i said, go ahead and say as much whenever i say i am opposed to the law.

But its not entirely comprable as i'm not just defending his right to do what he did under the law but i am supportive of the law and principle behind it and the outcome of what happened here.

That's just it. I'm not sure this WAS the intent of that law, or if he is even covered by it, and it hasn't even been tested in Horn's case.

Quote:

I would call for a law like this if it didn't exist, and for even more expansive laws than this.

That is your right, but don't expect much support for it in the general population.
That's why I don't generally disparage the entire state of Texas. Of all the people I have known from there, I think I'm on safe ground saying almost all of them would not have approved of taking the law int your own hands.

Quote:

That argument would work if i didn't support the law, but i do.

A lot of the abortion lovers claim they are morally oppossed to it themselves but the law states that others themselves have a right to abort away.

First, there is no such thing as an "abortion lover". That's just your attempt to demonize those you disagree with.
Second, if you're a woman you don't HAVE to have an abortion so the law has no effect on women who don't WANT to do that. It just allows the freedom for those who DO.
And I'm asking you NOW not to turn this into another abortion thread, as that seems to happen every time the very word is mentioned.

Quote:

I support this law and i am glad of the outcome.

What outcome? The law has yet to be tested.

Slon · #**995** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

The dispatchers comments mean nothing from a legal, moral or ethical perspective. Dispatchers are not empowered to give orders and certainly do not make law.

Then why do you care that Horn said "stop?"

Traveler · #**996** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

That's just it. I'm not sure this WAS the intent of that law, or if he is even covered by it, and it hasn't even been tested in Horn's case.

It has been tested in his case, a grand jury took it up and it got nowhere. Tested. He told the dispatcher what he was gonna do, he did it, and the state and feds found it acceptable amd within the scope of the law.

Quote:

That is your right, but don't expect much support for it in the general population.
That's why I don't generally disparage the entire state of Texas. Of all the people I have known from there, I think I'm on safe ground saying almost all of them would not have approved of taking the law int your own hands.

A big majority of the state support the law, but that aside, its irrelevant to you, no?

But it is as much your right to nit pick at the law and find crazy theoretical problems with it using wild scenarios that will never take place.

Btw you asked how i would feel if it was my friend that was shot, it wouldn't happen. We all generally know one another and like i said previously, the amount of time i spend out of the state and country i rely on my neighbor to use this law to defend my property and i tell him in no uncertain terms to use any and or all force to defend it.

Traveler · #**997** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

What outcome? The law has yet to be tested.

I mean the outcome he chose to fire at the intruders, we don't take kindly to criminals.

But the law has been tested in this case, the U.S. attorney out of the area has said he has no plans for any further action to be taken, that's tested.

Traveler · #**998** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

First, there is no such thing as an "abortion lover". That's just your attempt to demonize those you disagree with.

Yes clearly, i would have been btter off labelling them as "nuts", that would have been a much higher level of discourse to meet...

Quote:

Second, if you're a woman you don't HAVE to have an abortion so the law has no effect on women who don't WANT to do that. It just allows the freedom for those who DO.
And I'm asking you NOW not to turn this into another abortion thread, as that seems to happen every time the very word is mentioned.

Agreed, let's take abortion out of it, my point to you was that your argument didn't stand, as i am not just defending Horn's actions because they are lawful, i agree with them.

If i was defending his actions under the defense of "legal parameters" (I.e. "Its legal"), then you may have a point.

EricOKC · #**999** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Then why do you care that Horn said "stop?"

I personally dont, but since others seem to think he never gave the guys a chance, i like to point out the fact to the contrary.

If you're trying to equate his order to the shitbags with the blather of the dispatcher - don't. At best, the dispatchers comments were merely the ignorant ramblings of a fool, and at worst, arguably an abuse of authority under color of law - which is a criminal offense.

He had the moral and legal authority to give that directive, and he quite effectively demonstrated the consequences of ignoring him.

Scribbler1 · #**1000** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

No there's no "yes and no" nonsense, it doesn't have to be his stuff, he can defend his neighbor's property using deadly force if he choses. He did. It was the right thing to do.

I understand that. I also understand that you have been using HIS safety and property interchangeably with that of his neighbor.
I've stated many times I think he has the right to blow away anyone who breaks into HIS house, but the ideas that you can selectively "defend" the property of others I don't agree with. Allowing untrained civilians to assume the role of police in cases where they are not personally in danger sets a bad precedent, and that will be shown the first time somebody shoots an innocent man because he thought he was stealing something.

Quote:

But just for the sake of argument, he did shoot them when they were on his property.

That's what he claims, but I don't know that to be true. The Grand Jury records are kept under wraps. But I do know his defense was that he was scared for his life, and he wouldn't have been if he had just stayed inside.
Would YOU have walked outside if you were terrified of getting hurt?

Quote:

You what?? He's not the one in the wrong, its the person who's on the property of his beighbor illegally that is.

That by itself is just trespassing. A misdemeanor.

Quote:

How can you say that with a straight face when its the law that allows us to take these actions?

According to various articles on the subject, force can be used in SOME cases of property protection. Do you know specifically what cases the law allows?

Traveler · #**1001** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

I understand that. I also understand that you have been using HIS safety and property interchangeably with that of his neighbor.
I've stated many times I think he has the right to blow away anyone who breaks into HIS house, but the ideas that you can selectively "defend" the property of others I don't agree with.

Okay so you don't agree with it, that's established.

I do agree with it.

But i haven't been using it interchangably, both would be constituted as his right to defend in his neighbor's abscense, a point ya'll have been ringing home for months, emphasising no-one was home, so they both fall under his jurisdiction.

Quote:

Allowing untrained civilians to assume the role of police in cases where they are not personally in danger sets a bad precedent,

We're not, the Police would have to meet a different standard and would have different criteria.

Quote:

and that will be shown the first time somebody shoots an innocent man because he thought he was stealing something.

That could happen even without third party protection laws, like say your wife invites a friend over and you don't recognise him, he comes onto the property and you shoot him because he doesn't freeze or he seems suspicious etc, this law doesn't make accidental death anymore likely.

Traveler · #**1002** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

That's what he claims, but I don't know that to be true. The Grand Jury records are kept under wraps. But I do know his defense was that he was scared for his life, and he wouldn't have been if he had just stayed inside.

Well even if it wasn't on his property he was still justified in what he did, but atm the state shows no indication of disbelief in that statement so thus, it stands.

Quote:

Would YOU have walked outside if you were terrified of getting hurt?

Well i sure wouldn't have waited inside with the possiblity that they would have into my house next and come after me...

Quote:

That by itself is just trespassing. A misdemeanor.

If you're armed that's armed trespassing and a felony, but in this case it was actually breaking and entering and that is possibly the only likely scenario in which this sort of event is likely to take place. We don't go around firing at anybody and everybody who walks onto the front lawn.

Scribbler1 · #**1003** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

You seem to be missing some very important points of fact here scribbler:

1) A private individual is not the state, and therefore not obligated to grant a criminal the same protections.

You have that completely backwards. YOU have no rights to grant anyone, but the state is obligated to protect the people you would take them AWAY from. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, remember?

Quote:

2) A private individual has the right to defend himself and his property.

For the TENTH TIME, Eric, YES. But you keep saying "his" property and it isn't HIS property we are talking about.

Quote:

3) The concept of not using lethal force to defend property is a relatively recent development in human history. Prior to the late-20th century, if you got yourself killed during a crime, the near universal response was "tough shit".

Relatively recent? Are you saying Texas hasn't caught up with everyone else yet?

Quote:

4) What the police would or would not do, or even what they are legally permitted to do has no bearing on what a private citizen may do.

Yes it does. As I said before, your concept of your own personal, immutable authority is fatally flawed. You don't have any right to take the law into your own hands, and I maintain this law has not been tested in a court of law or for its constitutionality.

Quote:

5) Horn's actions were LEGAL in the State of Texas and frankly, thats all that matters. You are welcome to disagree with our perspective if you wish. We disagree with a lot of yours. Aint life wonderful?

Yes, my life is just fine, if you must know.
So, has this law been challenged at any time? I don't think so and a grand jury clearing one man in this case doesn't really mean this law passes constitutional muster. WE need to wait and see, and I think after all the publicity SOMBODY will be taking a long look at it.

Quote:

6) Private citizens are not required to follow the same force continuum as the police. Again, they are acting as individuals, not the state, so different laws apply.

Perhaps, but I seriously doubt a private citizen is allowed MORE power to use force than the police, in the case of crimes in the process of commission.

Quote:

Do you realize you are taking a position defending criminals? Do you realize that you're essentially saying that a criminal should not have worry about death or serious physical injury as part of his trade? Do you realize you're expecting the law abiding to respect the desires of the lawless?

Do you realize you're dead wrong. I am arguing the specifics of this situation. I don't really give a shit about Horn OR the burglars, and as they are illegal aliens, why SHOULD I care about them? It's not about them anyway. The Horn case is just an example of the situation as a whole. And if you think I believe criminals should get off for any reason, I invite you to find where I have said so. I'm probably tougher on crime than most people you know. I just like to see them tried and convicted in COURT. You are defending the complete subversion of that principle.

Quote:

From my perspective, the overall message which is getting through is this: Even though the criminal is demonstrating his utter lack of respect for MY rights, you expect me to respect his.

That's what law enforcement is for. When a criminal is nailed, it IS respecting your rights. Shooting someone you THINK is a criminal and/or taking his life for a relatively minor crime (as seen by society) doesn't respect anyone's rights. And, in our society, even burglars have a right to live. And in society, especially a supposedly Christian society, you have no right to TAKE it.

Scribbler1 · #**1004** (**permalink**) 07-12-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

It has been tested in his case, a grand jury took it up and it got nowhere. Tested. He told the dispatcher what he was gonna do, he did it, and the state and feds found it acceptable amd within the scope of the law.

I specifically said a court of law. I don't think a grand jury is sufficient.

Quote:

A big majority of the state support the law, but that aside, its irrelevant to you, no?

Yes, it IS irrelevant because we aren't just arguing if it's "legal" or not. My position is the law is either misapplied, misunderstood or just plain wrong.
As I said to Eric, I don't give a damn about Horn OR the burglars. The power this law supposedly gives ordinary, untrained citizens is WAY too broad.

Quote:

But it is as much your right to nit pick at the law and find crazy theoretical problems with it using wild scenarios that will never take place.

You know enough to never say "never", Trav. And what is so wild and theoretical about someone like Horn deciding to blast some criminal, and afterwards be found WRONG. What is so crazy about believing it is quite possible that someone will someday see some friends of this neighbor borrowing, say, his car and getting shot by the guy next door for it?