<!--quoteo(post=1661459:date=Nov 21 2007, 04:46 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 21 2007, 04:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I now support the shooting of select individuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fixed (ambiguity and formality.)
<!--quoteo(post=1661462:date=Nov 22 2007, 12:08 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Nov 22 2007, 12:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is all my fault! I bow my head in shame!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fixed.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
edited June 2008
That is absolutely ridiculous. Like I noted in my first post, my issue isn't so much with the fact that he shot two robbers who had <b>nothing to do with him</b> (although I strongly disagree with that too), my issue is with the fact that he called the police first, then <i>ignored instructions to stay inside</i> and went out to kill them. He specifically states he was going out to kill them. Not to go out and warn them to stay put, not to go out and tell them to drop what they've stolen, he went out there to shoot them to death. In other words, he went out there not to prevent a crime, not to prevent harm on someone, he went out there to punish criminals. Think what you want about preventative action in regards to crime (fighting off a mugger etc...) but <b>punishment of a crime</b> should be firmly in the hands of the courts.
If they broke into his house and he shot them, fine. I can see that.
If he went outside to investigate a noise, they tried to attack him and he shot them, again, I can understand that.
But that's not what happened.
Even if they tried to rush him, which although I haven't read the full court details I highly doubt (that news article said they had a tyre iron and a pillow case, would they *really* have tried to cross the street and attack a man wielding a shotgun?), it was <i>his own fault for going out there, ignoring police advice to stay put</i>.
I don't think I can adequately put my contempt for this ruling into words. I really just can't.
Also (this was news to me, probably not to others) did anyone else notice that snippet about what Texas regards as legal use of deadly force? You can legally use lethal force on someone who has robbed somewhere and is *running away*. You can legally shoot someone in the back as they attempt to flee. That's some ######ed up ###### right there.
On a lighter note, I think this is the first time I've ever seen a threadomancy (not a long one but whatever) that was actually relevant. Bravo, Gwahir.
First of all, why is everyone so intent on claiming that criminals have the right to commit a crime? --> If a criminal doesn't have the right to commit a crime at your or a comrade's expense why shouldn't you be allowed to stop him?
I do feel as if the old man overreacted to the situation-after all it was a burglary, (misdemeanor) not a robbery. (felony) But it is easy to make that call from my shoes. If I was in the same position, the only thing I'd do different is use something chambered in .308 <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
*No one* anywhere in this thread suggested that anyone has the right to commit a crime. That is not the issue here. At all.
The issue is that the entire court system is built around due process, with fair trials. Punishments are designed to match the crime. That is why you don't get hanged for stealing a car.
What this man did was completely ignore the entire legal system and take the law into his own hands, killing two men who, according to everything I've read, were doing nothing more than stealing some stuff and running away.
Should theft be legal? No. Should they have been punished? Yes. Should they have been shot by a man who was told to stay away <i>by a 911 operator, who also told him that police were *on the way*</i>? No. 100% no.
He shouldn't have been there, pure and simple. And as I said above, he did not "prevent" anything. That wasn't even his intention, by his own admittance. He went out there to <b>punish</b> them. That is so patently wrong it's literally amazing to me that no one else can see this.
Since this is a fairly old thread and the links to the original news thing are on the first page, I'm gonna quote the main conversation here and link to the news article:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."
Shortly after, Horn said he sees one suspect was standing in front of his house, looking at it from the street.
"I don’t know if they’re armed or not. I know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with. ... Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood."
He gets more agitated. The dispatcher asks if he can see the suspects but they had retreated into the target's house, out of view: "I can go out the front [to look], but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."
"Stay inside the house and don’t go out there, OK?" the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK?"
"I don’t want to," Horn said, "but I mean if I go out there, you know, to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?
"No, I don’t want you to go out there, I just asked if you could see anything out there."
The dispatcher asks if a vehicle could be seen; Horn said no. The dispatcher again says Horn should stay inside the house.
Almost five minutes into the call, police had not arrived.
"I can’t see if [the suspects are] getting away or not," Horn said.
Horn told the dispatcher that he doesn’t know the neighbors well, unlike those living on the other side of his home. "I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something, because I know them very well," he said.
Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?"
Horn: "Yes?"
Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there."
Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."
Dispatcher: "I understand."
Horn: "I have a right to protect myself ..."
Dispatcher: "I'm ..."
Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon."
Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..."
Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "
Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..."
Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"
Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."
Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."
Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."
Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"
Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."
Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!
Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."
Horn: "They got a bag of loot."
Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.
Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"
Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."
Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."
Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."
On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.
"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.
Then Horn is back on the phone:
"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's obvious. He deliberately went out there and shot them, seemingly taking pleasure in doing so. Seriously, does yelling "BOOM! YOU'RE DEAD!" sound like something you'd yell if you just had to defend yourself? He yelled it *before he fired*.
Like I said before, I honestly don't think I can put into words how utterly insane I think this whole situation is. I simply cannot see how anyone can condone his actions.
<!--quoteo(post=1660988:date=Nov 18 2007, 02:51 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Nov 18 2007, 02:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660988"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Moral of the story:</b> Don't mess with old people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True moral: Kill old people, before they get the chance to kill you!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"The message that Harris County sent to the entire world is that Houston, Tex., is God’s city."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hallelujah, the will of the Lord has been done! Amen!
<!--quoteo(post=1682285:date=Jul 1 2008, 03:42 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jul 1 2008, 03:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682285"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hallelujah, the will of the Lord has been done! Amen!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If god's city is a festering pit of delinquent quasi-humanoid degenerates who'll end each-other's lives over a bit of material worth, no f**king wonder Atheism is on the rise worldwide.
This makes me sick. That guy should rot in a prison for the rest of his natural life.
Actually, the quote above was from someone critical of the ruling, oddly enough. To put it into a larger context: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But others reacted angrily to the decision. “There is not a snowflake’s chance in hell that an African-American man could do what Joe Horn did and get away with it,†said Quanell X, a local black activist. “The message that Harris County sent to the entire world is that Houston, Tex., is God’s city. There is no longer a need for the criminal justice system, police, judge or jury. You can be all of that on your own.â€<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Does that strike anyone else as odd? What the hell does religion have to do with this?
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
edited July 2008
This is insane! I was hoping justice would be done on this man. I have lost ALL respect for texas, and other sorrunding states have to show damn nice grades to make it in my book. I cannot express my contempt and anger even, well enough in written english.
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->[English only plskthx - Scythe]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited July 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1682277:date=Jun 30 2008, 10:09 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Jun 30 2008, 10:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682277"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also (this was news to me, probably not to others) did anyone else notice that snippet about what Texas regards as legal use of deadly force? You can legally use lethal force on someone who has robbed somewhere and is *running away*. You can legally shoot someone in the back as they attempt to flee. That's some ######ed up ###### right there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Welcome to Texas, one of the few (if not only) states where the use of force (of any kind) is authorized for the protection property. The normal law is that you may match force to what you reasonably expect to happen to you. Some one pulls a knife, and you expect them to use it? Shoot em dead. Some one starts swinging at you and your pull a knife? you are fsked now.
<!--quoteo(post=1682282:date=Jun 30 2008, 11:28 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Jun 30 2008, 11:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682282"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's obvious. He deliberately went out there and shot them, seemingly taking pleasure in doing so. Seriously, does yelling "BOOM! YOU'RE DEAD!" sound like something you'd yell if you just had to defend yourself? He yelled it *before he fired*.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> BOOM! HEADSHOT!
nuff said.
<!--quoteo(post=1682288:date=Jul 1 2008, 01:58 AM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scythe @ Jul 1 2008, 01:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682288"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If god's city is a festering pit of delinquent quasi-humanoid degenerates who'll end each-other's lives over a bit of material worth, no f**king wonder Atheism is on the rise worldwide.
This makes me sick. That guy should rot in a prison for the rest of his natural life.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Umm, Houston isn't actually called God's city. That was just some twit with an X for a last name (which is amusing as that practice was, iirc, started by the Nation of Islam), looking for a way for get his name in the paper.
Look, I condemn the man for what he did. And I condemn Houston and Texas for allowing these laws to be on the books. And I am sure they are right, if it was a Black/Hispanic/Arab man and the robbers were white? They guy would be on death row by now.
But I also can't stand people who instantly make it into a matter of race, and just using it as a way to spout their party line. Hell, most religions would condemn these actions as well (Though shall not kill? hell, even the concept of an eye for an eye is in the bible as an example of the government handing out proper punishment to fit the crime).
bah.
Entire thing makes me sad.
ninja edit: No one mentioned something specific about this: IT NEVER WENT TO TRIAL!
The man was not Indited! It was shot down at the grand jury!
Hell, this is just depressing, and makes me feel like the prosecution wasn't even trying.
<!--quoteo(post=1682292:date=Jul 1 2008, 04:30 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jul 1 2008, 04:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682292"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Does that strike anyone else as odd? What the hell does religion have to do with this?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You must be new to America.
What he was saying though is that there are no laws or anything: shoot whoever you want and let God sort it out.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1682305:date=Jul 1 2008, 09:51 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Jul 1 2008, 09:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682305"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You must be new to America.
What he was saying though is that there are no laws or anything: shoot whoever you want and let God sort it out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah that's what I got out of it too. And I completely agree <b>X_Stickman</b>.
First of all, all states have some anti-robbery ordinance. You can kill whoever is trying to rob you, with small deviations between the states such as the law forcing you to retreat before you shoot someone, and if they follow you - then kill them, for Connecticut for example.
But that is not the problem, these people weren't robbers. These people were burglars.
Next comes the right to defend your property. All states allow you to defend your property and don't try to argue this because you will be arguing for the rights of sociopaths. (which is what liberals like to do)
I'm sure that the judge was thinking somewhere in that ballpark and then decided to be extremely lenient to the man because he probably doesn't have a criminal history. Again, none of us know all of the details, but I feel that the ruling is extremely fair and that ruining the rest of an old man's life would be something completely unnecessary in this case.
<!--quoteo(post=1682313:date=Jul 1 2008, 05:40 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jul 1 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]Next comes the right to defend your property. All states allow you to defend your property and don't try to argue this because you will be arguing for the rights of sociopaths. (which is what liberals like to do)[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah! Sociopaths are people too! Who are we to suppress them just because they want to eat newborn children and bathe in the blood of virgins? We need more sociopath rights! ... I'm sorry, what? I think I've managed to miss that part of the "liberal agenda." Seems like I'm looking at a classical strawman argument here.
Next comes the right to defend your property. That right... is irrelevant in this case. The man wasn't defending his property, he was defending someone else's property. The laws you're referring to are commonly known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_US" target="_blank">"castle doctrines"</a> or "castle laws" and derive from the expression "my home is my castle." Note that the expression is not "my neighbour's home is my castle."
<!--quoteo(post=1682313:date=Jul 1 2008, 05:40 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jul 1 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]I'm sure that the judge was thinking somewhere in that ballpark and then decided to be extremely lenient to the man because he probably doesn't have a criminal history. Again, none of us know all of the details, but I feel that the ruling is extremely fair and that ruining the rest of an old man's life would be something completely unnecessary in this case.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't call any ruling in which a man shoots two unarmed, fleeing burglars dead and is not even put on trial "extremely fair," but a clean legal record tends to influence things a little. Old age, however, doesn't. And neither does "ruining a man's life." Being sent to prison adversely affects anyone, and that defense alone won't save you. If you're put on trial at all, that is.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1682313:date=Jul 1 2008, 11:40 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jul 1 2008, 11:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First of all, all states have some anti-robbery ordinance. You can kill whoever is trying to rob you, with small deviations between the states such as the law forcing you to retreat before you shoot someone, and if they follow you - then kill them, for Connecticut for example.
But that is not the problem, these people weren't robbers. These people were burglars.
Next comes the right to defend your property. All states allow you to defend your property and don't try to argue this because you will be arguing for the rights of sociopaths. (which is what liberals like to do)
I'm sure that the judge was thinking somewhere in that ballpark and then decided to be extremely lenient to the man because he probably doesn't have a criminal history. Again, none of us know all of the details, but I feel that the ruling is extremely fair and that ruining the rest of an old man's life would be something completely unnecessary in this case.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, the difference between robber and burglar is irrelevant in this case since the men <i>weren't on his property</i>.
Second, liberals don't argue for the rights of sociopaths, they argue for rights for <i>everyone</i>.
Third, the man wasn't defending his property. This is exactly the reason why there are clauses like the one in Connecticut, so you don't have a bunch of nutcases going around vigilante style.
Finally, there's no reason to believe these burglars are sociopaths. I'd be more inclined to believe the old man who shot them is a sociopath to be honest since he seems to have very little value for human life.
<!--quoteo(post=1682315:date=Jul 1 2008, 06:05 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jul 1 2008, 06:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682315"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]Second, liberals don't argue for the rights of sociopaths, they argue for rights for <i>everyone</i>.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Note how they <i>fail to exclude sociopaths.</i> Would YOU vote for someone who won't not argue for the rights of sociopaths? Or pedophiles?
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1682313:date=Jul 1 2008, 11:40 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jul 1 2008, 11:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First of all, all states have some anti-robbery ordinance. You can kill whoever is trying to rob you, with small deviations between the states such as the law forcing you to retreat before you shoot someone, and if they follow you - then kill them, for Connecticut for example.
But that is not the problem, these people weren't robbers. These people were burglars.
Next comes the right to defend your property. All states allow you to defend your property and don't try to argue this because you will be arguing for the rights of sociopaths. (which is what liberals like to do)
I'm sure that the judge was thinking somewhere in that ballpark and then decided to be extremely lenient to the man because he probably doesn't have a criminal history. Again, none of us know all of the details, but I feel that the ruling is extremely fair and that ruining the rest of an old man's life would be something completely unnecessary in this case.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Criminal != sociopath, stop building straw men. Next, yes you can defend your property, very RARELY can you do so with deadly force (Texas IS an extreme here). Generally it should go something like this: Guy breaks into place -> you confront. Guy runs away? You don't shoot him in the back. (flying tackle? tazer? probably ok) Guy threatens you? Fine, you can probably shoot him now. (though not even always then, you tend to need to have a reasonable fear for your life, remember, reasonable doesn't mean that it has to be real, just that you had good reason to be afraid)
But you know what? None of this matters! Why? Because they didn't threaten any one (As you said, they were burglars, not robbers). They were not on his property, they were running away, he went out there with the explicit intent to KILL some one.
The sad thing is that he likely DIDN'T break any laws in Houston, because they have ######ed up laws.
BTW, judge didn't have squat to do with this. This was a Grand Jury. They couldn't even get him indited! The prosecutor could not even produce enough evidence to get a trial! Seriously, that just screams incompetent (or willful incompetence) in my mind.
<!--quoteo(post=1682316:date=Jul 1 2008, 12:07 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jul 1 2008, 12:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Note how they <i>fail to exclude sociopaths.</i> Would YOU vote for someone who won't not argue for the rights of sociopaths? Or pedophiles?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
actually, most democrats are just as bad when it comes to trouncing on peoples' rights if they don't like them. It would be the Libertarians that are most likely to try and defend pedophiles and what not.
Oh, and yes. I will defend ANYONE's rights, I don't care who or what they are. You get a fair and impartial trail, and equal protection.
Unfortunately, that means that I agree, he shouldn't have been convicted, but that is just because the laws there suck.
<!--quoteo(post=1682316:date=Jul 1 2008, 12:07 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jul 1 2008, 12:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Note how they <i>fail to exclude sociopaths.</i> Would YOU vote for someone who won't not argue for the rights of sociopaths? Or pedophiles?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allowing the stripping of somebodies rights just because the general public deems them to be undesirable is how witch-hunts get started. There is no crime great enough to warrant the loss of the right to a trial (assuming taking the person to trial is an option, obviously if the person dies in a fire-fight that's different).
With that said, it's despicable that the man got away with it. Just reading the log of the chat with the operator is chilling. He killed them in cold blood, and that's it. He was in no danger and had no right to open fire yet he did anyway. He is a murderer and a sociopath who values material worth higher then human life and should have been put away.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1682317:date=Jul 1 2008, 12:45 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Jul 1 2008, 12:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682317"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->actually, most democrats are just as bad when it comes to trouncing on peoples' rights if they don't like them. It would be the Libertarians that are most likely to try and defend pedophiles and what not. Oh, and yes. I will defend ANYONE's rights, I don't care who or what they are. You get a fair and impartial trail, and equal protection.
Unfortunately, that means that I agree, he shouldn't have been convicted, but that is just because the laws there suck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> To be fair the word "liberal" has had it's meaning changed in this country to mean "democrat" when that's not the original definition of the word at all. And just because you defend everyone's rights doesn't mean you have to defend this guy's "right" to vigilante justice, especially since it infringed on someone else's right to live.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1682319:date=Jul 1 2008, 12:54 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jul 1 2008, 12:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682319"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To be fair the word "liberal" has had it's meaning changed in this country to mean "democrat" when that's not the original definition of the word at all. And just because you defend everyone's rights doesn't mean you have to defend this guy's "right" to vigilante justice, especially since it infringed on someone else's right to live.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> oh, 100% true.
Liberal == open to ideas.
I know Liberal Dems/Repubs and Conservative Dems/Repubs. (more conservatives then liberals for both parties, and thus why I dislike em both, tbh)
However, I also believe in the rule of law. Technically it looks like the Houston law says that he was in the right, and thus I am glad he didn't get tossed in jail. I also hope that some rational individual takes this case up and shows just how horribly backwards minded the laws are and works on getting them changed.
I know Liberal Dems/Repubs and Conservative Dems/Repubs. (more conservatives then liberals for both parties, and thus why I dislike em both, tbh) <b>However, I also believe in the rule of law. Technically it looks like the Houston law says that he was in the right, and thus I am glad he didn't get tossed in jail.</b> I also hope that some rational individual takes this case up and shows just how horribly backwards minded the laws are and works on getting them changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The issue with this though, as I think somebody mentioned earlier, was that had the burglars been white and he had been ethnic the case would have turned out differently. Either way, him getting away with this is a perversion of justice.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1682322:date=Jul 1 2008, 01:17 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Jul 1 2008, 01:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682322"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, I also believe in the rule of law.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you're the first person I've 'met' who's said they believe in the rule of the law. I'm of the philosophy that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, and that there are always exceptions to the letter of the law. I feel like the letter of the law protects against perceived injustice while the spirit of the law protects against actual injustice. But I suppose I've never really understood lawyers either.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
If the law doesn't do what it is intended to do, then the law must be changed.
Or if what the law does is WRONG (as in this case) then it must be changed.
However this doesn't mean that we should flaunt/ignore the law. Law needs to be upheld if for no other reason then it COULD (not would/should/will) create a slippery slope type environment where law doesn't really mean anything. I don't really think this could happen, but still, I don't like the idea.
The flip side to this is of course "Well, how do you change a law?".
And the answer is often things such as civil disobedience where you willfully break the law and take the punishment to set an example. (see Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, and other people like them). Obviously though, the preferable way to do it is work with in the system.
There's a difference between respecting the law and agreeing with or applauding it. You don't need to be happy that a man was treated in accordance with laws you think are outrageous. It's enough that you respect that due process was followed and abide by any legal decisions made. You are fully within your rights to be as angry and outraged about this as you like.
The fact that laws get changed or abolished means that "law" is not infallible. It's one of those situations where we all abide to follow a system we know to be imperfect because we don't see a better alternative, all the while changing and adapting it to more closely approximate what we see as ideal.
Modern, free societies require you to follow the rule of law. They don't require you to like it, or to shut up and accept it. You're welcome to argue or even campaign for changes. All that is required is that you follow the current laws until they're changed. And if you deem that completely unacceptable, you can break them and take your chances in court.
Comments
Fixed.
Funny.
Fixed (ambiguity and formality.)
<!--quoteo(post=1661462:date=Nov 22 2007, 12:08 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Nov 22 2007, 12:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1661462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is all my fault! I bow my head in shame!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fixed.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html</a>
If they broke into his house and he shot them, fine. I can see that.
If he went outside to investigate a noise, they tried to attack him and he shot them, again, I can understand that.
But that's not what happened.
Even if they tried to rush him, which although I haven't read the full court details I highly doubt (that news article said they had a tyre iron and a pillow case, would they *really* have tried to cross the street and attack a man wielding a shotgun?), it was <i>his own fault for going out there, ignoring police advice to stay put</i>.
I don't think I can adequately put my contempt for this ruling into words. I really just can't.
Also (this was news to me, probably not to others) did anyone else notice that snippet about what Texas regards as legal use of deadly force? You can legally use lethal force on someone who has robbed somewhere and is *running away*. You can legally shoot someone in the back as they attempt to flee. That's some ######ed up ###### right there.
On a lighter note, I think this is the first time I've ever seen a threadomancy (not a long one but whatever) that was actually relevant. Bravo, Gwahir.
I do feel as if the old man overreacted to the situation-after all it was a burglary, (misdemeanor) not a robbery. (felony) But it is easy to make that call from my shoes. If I was in the same position, the only thing I'd do different is use something chambered in .308 <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
The issue is that the entire court system is built around due process, with fair trials. Punishments are designed to match the crime. That is why you don't get hanged for stealing a car.
What this man did was completely ignore the entire legal system and take the law into his own hands, killing two men who, according to everything I've read, were doing nothing more than stealing some stuff and running away.
Should theft be legal? No. Should they have been punished? Yes. Should they have been shot by a man who was told to stay away <i>by a 911 operator, who also told him that police were *on the way*</i>? No. 100% no.
He shouldn't have been there, pure and simple. And as I said above, he did not "prevent" anything. That wasn't even his intention, by his own admittance. He went out there to <b>punish</b> them. That is so patently wrong it's literally amazing to me that no one else can see this.
Since this is a fairly old thread and the links to the original news thing are on the first page, I'm gonna quote the main conversation here and link to the news article:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."
Shortly after, Horn said he sees one suspect was standing in front of his house, looking at it from the street.
"I don’t know if they’re armed or not. I know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with. ... Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood."
He gets more agitated. The dispatcher asks if he can see the suspects but they had retreated into the target's house, out of view: "I can go out the front [to look], but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."
"Stay inside the house and don’t go out there, OK?" the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK?"
"I don’t want to," Horn said, "but I mean if I go out there, you know, to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?
"No, I don’t want you to go out there, I just asked if you could see anything out there."
The dispatcher asks if a vehicle could be seen; Horn said no. The dispatcher again says Horn should stay inside the house.
Almost five minutes into the call, police had not arrived.
"I can’t see if [the suspects are] getting away or not," Horn said.
Horn told the dispatcher that he doesn’t know the neighbors well, unlike those living on the other side of his home. "I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something, because I know them very well," he said.
Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?"
Horn: "Yes?"
Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there."
Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."
Dispatcher: "I understand."
Horn: "I have a right to protect myself ..."
Dispatcher: "I'm ..."
Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon."
Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..."
Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "
Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..."
Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"
Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."
Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."
Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."
Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"
Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."
Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!
Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."
Horn: "They got a bag of loot."
Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.
Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"
Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."
Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."
Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."
Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."
On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.
"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.
Then Horn is back on the phone:
"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml?source=mostpop_story" target="_blank">Link.</a>
That's obvious. He deliberately went out there and shot them, seemingly taking pleasure in doing so. Seriously, does yelling "BOOM! YOU'RE DEAD!" sound like something you'd yell if you just had to defend yourself? He yelled it *before he fired*.
Like I said before, I honestly don't think I can put into words how utterly insane I think this whole situation is. I simply cannot see how anyone can condone his actions.
True moral:
Kill old people, before they get the chance to kill you!
If god's city is a festering pit of delinquent quasi-humanoid degenerates who'll end each-other's lives over a bit of material worth, no f**king wonder Atheism is on the rise worldwide.
This makes me sick. That guy should rot in a prison for the rest of his natural life.
--Scythe--
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But others reacted angrily to the decision. “There is not a snowflake’s chance in hell that an African-American man could do what Joe Horn did and get away with it,†said Quanell X, a local black activist. “The message that Harris County sent to the entire world is that Houston, Tex., is God’s city. There is no longer a need for the criminal justice system, police, judge or jury. You can be all of that on your own.â€<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does that strike anyone else as odd? What the hell does religion have to do with this?
I have lost ALL respect for texas, and other sorrunding states have to show damn nice grades to make it in my book.
I cannot express my contempt and anger even, well enough in written english.
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro-->[English only plskthx - Scythe]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Welcome to Texas, one of the few (if not only) states where the use of force (of any kind) is authorized for the protection property. The normal law is that you may match force to what you reasonably expect to happen to you. Some one pulls a knife, and you expect them to use it? Shoot em dead. Some one starts swinging at you and your pull a knife? you are fsked now.
<!--quoteo(post=1682282:date=Jun 30 2008, 11:28 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Jun 30 2008, 11:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682282"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's obvious. He deliberately went out there and shot them, seemingly taking pleasure in doing so. Seriously, does yelling "BOOM! YOU'RE DEAD!" sound like something you'd yell if you just had to defend yourself? He yelled it *before he fired*.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BOOM! HEADSHOT!
nuff said.
<!--quoteo(post=1682288:date=Jul 1 2008, 01:58 AM:name=Scythe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scythe @ Jul 1 2008, 01:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682288"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If god's city is a festering pit of delinquent quasi-humanoid degenerates who'll end each-other's lives over a bit of material worth, no f**king wonder Atheism is on the rise worldwide.
This makes me sick. That guy should rot in a prison for the rest of his natural life.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Umm, Houston isn't actually called God's city. That was just some twit with an X for a last name (which is amusing as that practice was, iirc, started by the Nation of Islam), looking for a way for get his name in the paper.
Look, I condemn the man for what he did. And I condemn Houston and Texas for allowing these laws to be on the books. And I am sure they are right, if it was a Black/Hispanic/Arab man and the robbers were white? They guy would be on death row by now.
But I also can't stand people who instantly make it into a matter of race, and just using it as a way to spout their party line. Hell, most religions would condemn these actions as well (Though shall not kill? hell, even the concept of an eye for an eye is in the bible as an example of the government handing out proper punishment to fit the crime).
bah.
Entire thing makes me sad.
ninja edit:
No one mentioned something specific about this:
IT NEVER WENT TO TRIAL!
The man was not Indited! It was shot down at the grand jury!
Hell, this is just depressing, and makes me feel like the prosecution wasn't even trying.
You must be new to America.
What he was saying though is that there are no laws or anything: shoot whoever you want and let God sort it out.
What he was saying though is that there are no laws or anything: shoot whoever you want and let God sort it out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah that's what I got out of it too. And I completely agree <b>X_Stickman</b>.
But that is not the problem, these people weren't robbers. These people were burglars.
Next comes the right to defend your property. All states allow you to defend your property and don't try to argue this because you will be arguing for the rights of sociopaths. (which is what liberals like to do)
I'm sure that the judge was thinking somewhere in that ballpark and then decided to be extremely lenient to the man because he probably doesn't have a criminal history. Again, none of us know all of the details, but I feel that the ruling is extremely fair and that ruining the rest of an old man's life would be something completely unnecessary in this case.
Yeah! Sociopaths are people too! Who are we to suppress them just because they want to eat newborn children and bathe in the blood of virgins? We need more sociopath rights!
... I'm sorry, what? I think I've managed to miss that part of the "liberal agenda." Seems like I'm looking at a classical strawman argument here.
Next comes the right to defend your property. That right... is irrelevant in this case. The man wasn't defending his property, he was defending someone else's property. The laws you're referring to are commonly known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_US" target="_blank">"castle doctrines"</a> or "castle laws" and derive from the expression "my home is my castle." Note that the expression is not "my neighbour's home is my castle."
<!--quoteo(post=1682313:date=Jul 1 2008, 05:40 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jul 1 2008, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]I'm sure that the judge was thinking somewhere in that ballpark and then decided to be extremely lenient to the man because he probably doesn't have a criminal history. Again, none of us know all of the details, but I feel that the ruling is extremely fair and that ruining the rest of an old man's life would be something completely unnecessary in this case.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't call any ruling in which a man shoots two unarmed, fleeing burglars dead and is not even put on trial "extremely fair," but a clean legal record tends to influence things a little. Old age, however, doesn't. And neither does "ruining a man's life." Being sent to prison adversely affects anyone, and that defense alone won't save you. If you're put on trial at all, that is.
But that is not the problem, these people weren't robbers. These people were burglars.
Next comes the right to defend your property. All states allow you to defend your property and don't try to argue this because you will be arguing for the rights of sociopaths. (which is what liberals like to do)
I'm sure that the judge was thinking somewhere in that ballpark and then decided to be extremely lenient to the man because he probably doesn't have a criminal history. Again, none of us know all of the details, but I feel that the ruling is extremely fair and that ruining the rest of an old man's life would be something completely unnecessary in this case.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, the difference between robber and burglar is irrelevant in this case since the men <i>weren't on his property</i>.
Second, liberals don't argue for the rights of sociopaths, they argue for rights for <i>everyone</i>.
Third, the man wasn't defending his property. This is exactly the reason why there are clauses like the one in Connecticut, so you don't have a bunch of nutcases going around vigilante style.
Finally, there's no reason to believe these burglars are sociopaths. I'd be more inclined to believe the old man who shot them is a sociopath to be honest since he seems to have very little value for human life.
Note how they <i>fail to exclude sociopaths.</i> Would YOU vote for someone who won't not argue for the rights of sociopaths? Or pedophiles?
But that is not the problem, these people weren't robbers. These people were burglars.
Next comes the right to defend your property. All states allow you to defend your property and don't try to argue this because you will be arguing for the rights of sociopaths. (which is what liberals like to do)
I'm sure that the judge was thinking somewhere in that ballpark and then decided to be extremely lenient to the man because he probably doesn't have a criminal history. Again, none of us know all of the details, but I feel that the ruling is extremely fair and that ruining the rest of an old man's life would be something completely unnecessary in this case.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Criminal != sociopath, stop building straw men.
Next, yes you can defend your property, very RARELY can you do so with deadly force (Texas IS an extreme here). Generally it should go something like this:
Guy breaks into place -> you confront.
Guy runs away? You don't shoot him in the back. (flying tackle? tazer? probably ok)
Guy threatens you? Fine, you can probably shoot him now. (though not even always then, you tend to need to have a reasonable fear for your life, remember, reasonable doesn't mean that it has to be real, just that you had good reason to be afraid)
But you know what? None of this matters!
Why?
Because they didn't threaten any one (As you said, they were burglars, not robbers). They were not on his property, they were running away, he went out there with the explicit intent to KILL some one.
The sad thing is that he likely DIDN'T break any laws in Houston, because they have ######ed up laws.
BTW, judge didn't have squat to do with this. This was a Grand Jury. They couldn't even get him indited! The prosecutor could not even produce enough evidence to get a trial! Seriously, that just screams incompetent (or willful incompetence) in my mind.
<!--quoteo(post=1682316:date=Jul 1 2008, 12:07 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jul 1 2008, 12:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Note how they <i>fail to exclude sociopaths.</i> Would YOU vote for someone who won't not argue for the rights of sociopaths? Or pedophiles?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
actually, most democrats are just as bad when it comes to trouncing on peoples' rights if they don't like them. It would be the Libertarians that are most likely to try and defend pedophiles and what not.
Oh, and yes. I will defend ANYONE's rights, I don't care who or what they are. You get a fair and impartial trail, and equal protection.
Unfortunately, that means that I agree, he shouldn't have been convicted, but that is just because the laws there suck.
Allowing the stripping of somebodies rights just because the general public deems them to be undesirable is how witch-hunts get started. There is no crime great enough to warrant the loss of the right to a trial (assuming taking the person to trial is an option, obviously if the person dies in a fire-fight that's different).
With that said, it's despicable that the man got away with it. Just reading the log of the chat with the operator is chilling. He killed them in cold blood, and that's it. He was in no danger and had no right to open fire yet he did anyway. He is a murderer and a sociopath who values material worth higher then human life and should have been put away.
Oh, and yes. I will defend ANYONE's rights, I don't care who or what they are. You get a fair and impartial trail, and equal protection.
Unfortunately, that means that I agree, he shouldn't have been convicted, but that is just because the laws there suck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be fair the word "liberal" has had it's meaning changed in this country to mean "democrat" when that's not the original definition of the word at all. And just because you defend everyone's rights doesn't mean you have to defend this guy's "right" to vigilante justice, especially since it infringed on someone else's right to live.
oh, 100% true.
Liberal == open to ideas.
I know Liberal Dems/Repubs and Conservative Dems/Repubs. (more conservatives then liberals for both parties, and thus why I dislike em both, tbh)
However, I also believe in the rule of law. Technically it looks like the Houston law says that he was in the right, and thus I am glad he didn't get tossed in jail. I also hope that some rational individual takes this case up and shows just how horribly backwards minded the laws are and works on getting them changed.
Liberal == open to ideas.
I know Liberal Dems/Repubs and Conservative Dems/Repubs. (more conservatives then liberals for both parties, and thus why I dislike em both, tbh)
<b>However, I also believe in the rule of law. Technically it looks like the Houston law says that he was in the right, and thus I am glad he didn't get tossed in jail.</b> I also hope that some rational individual takes this case up and shows just how horribly backwards minded the laws are and works on getting them changed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The issue with this though, as I think somebody mentioned earlier, was that had the burglars been white and he had been ethnic the case would have turned out differently. Either way, him getting away with this is a perversion of justice.
I think you're the first person I've 'met' who's said they believe in the rule of the law. I'm of the philosophy that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, and that there are always exceptions to the letter of the law. I feel like the letter of the law protects against perceived injustice while the spirit of the law protects against actual injustice. But I suppose I've never really understood lawyers either.
Or if what the law does is WRONG (as in this case) then it must be changed.
However this doesn't mean that we should flaunt/ignore the law. Law needs to be upheld if for no other reason then it COULD (not would/should/will) create a slippery slope type environment where law doesn't really mean anything. I don't really think this could happen, but still, I don't like the idea.
The flip side to this is of course "Well, how do you change a law?".
And the answer is often things such as civil disobedience where you willfully break the law and take the punishment to set an example. (see Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, and other people like them). Obviously though, the preferable way to do it is work with in the system.
The fact that laws get changed or abolished means that "law" is not infallible. It's one of those situations where we all abide to follow a system we know to be imperfect because we don't see a better alternative, all the while changing and adapting it to more closely approximate what we see as ideal.
Modern, free societies require you to follow the rule of law. They don't require you to like it, or to shut up and accept it. You're welcome to argue or even campaign for changes. All that is required is that you follow the current laws until they're changed. And if you deem that completely unacceptable, you can break them and take your chances in court.