<!--quoteo(post=1683464:date=Jul 15 2008, 06:28 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Jul 15 2008, 06:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683464"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Swift: Again, did you listen to the 911 call? He STATED they were leaving and he was going out to stop them, he went out there with the intention of killing them.<ul><li>"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!"</li><li>"There, one of them's getting away!"</li><li>Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?" Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."</li><li>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.</li></ul>Seriously, does that sound like some one who was defending himself? No, it was some one who decided "Well, the cops ain't gona get here fast enough, so I am gona go out and kill me some burglers!". AKA A Vigilante.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The rest of the evidence regarding the case seems to dispute this interpretation though. And you're leaving out parts of the recording that don't support your assumption. There's a part of the clip where he says something along the lines of "oh jesus, the guy is infront looking at my house" and the first thing he says after dropping the phone and exiting out the front door is "STOP!"
Like I say, both men are shot at a range of about 15 feet, which would be from his doorway. That's not a long way, based on that it's quite likely they were approaching his house directly to get in that kind of range.
Additionally, you haven't read the police interviews, you haven't seen the police reports. There must have been some qualification in the evidence for why they chose to not bring the case to court. If it was as straight as you're making it out to be then I think they most likely would have pressed charges.
I could be wrong, but IMO it seems that the original description of the case I read was accurate. "he told them to stop, they did not, so he shot them each once". IMO his intent was not murder, it was protection of himself and his community, and IMO it's the fault of the criminals for choosing to undertake the crime in the first place. I do not believe what I'm attempting to justify was an execution.
[edit] I'll qualify as well, that if your assumption of his intents and the way the events transpired is correct, then I agree with you as to the wrongfulness of Horn's actions.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683564:date=Jul 16 2008, 04:46 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Jul 16 2008, 04:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I could be wrong, but IMO it seems that the original description of the case I read was accurate. "he told them to stop, they did not, so he shot them each once". IMO his intent was not murder, it was protection of himself and his community, and IMO it's the fault of the criminals for choosing to undertake the crime in the first place. I do not believe what I'm attempting to justify was an execution.
[edit] I'll qualify as well, that if your assumption of his intents and the way the events transpired is correct, then I agree with you as to the wrongfulness of Horn's actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, see, that I can understand (and sorta respect), you just never actually brought any of that up before <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I still think he was incredibly in the wrong, and I dislike that the law protects his actions. Going outside to confront them is not what he should have done, that IS the job of the police (we do have them for a reason). and from the 911 call, it REALLY sounds like he was going outside to stop them from getting away. Seriously, the last thing he said was that he was going outside to see which way they had gone. Maybe there are some other things that transpired, but it really does not seem like it. As you said, the first thing he says upon exiting is STOP. True, stop could be "Get away from me", but it also very possibly could be "Stop running away". Again, based on everything he said in the 911 call ("I ain't letting them get away with this"), it really sounds like his intention was to top them from getting away, not from entering his house.
I mean, seriously, do you really think that ANYONE would be dumb enough to charge some one who is wielding a bloody shotgun? from the NYTimes article: "Mr. Horn fired three blasts of 00 buckshot from his 12-gauge, striking the men in their backs."
The real issue is that Texas has some ######ed up laws on the use of deadly force, aka: "Deadly force can also be used to protect property when “the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.â€" (again, NYT).
Yes, what he did was legal.
He shot and killed 2 fleeing thieves, in the back.
If that happened in most other cities in the US he would probably be looking at spending the rest of his life in jail.
Do you really think that this was a case of self defense? Was this moral?
some one remind me to stay the hell away from Texas.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
The one thing I never understood about his claim that they were coming for him is that the only things the police found on them were a tyre iron and a sack of stolen money/jewellery.
This guy was openly brandishing a shotgun and must've been pretty worked up. I just can't see *anyone*, even someone with the best of intentions, approaching someone like that with little more than a metal stick, especially some thieves who just got caught in the act. The fact that he also shouted "Boom you're dead!" <b>before</b> he fired the first shot leads me to believe that he wasn't a man in fear of his life because two people were rushing him, he was a guy just shootin' some robbers. I will admit, though, that I haven't read anything other than the news articles on it. I wouldn't put *too* much faith into the 15ft argument without seeing his street, though. The street I grew up in was about 15-18ft across (but as I understand it, American streets tend to be bigger anyway).
But like I maintained earlier, that's pretty much all irrelevant in my view. He shouldn't have been out there in the first place.
As I understand it, he told them to stop, they ran, so he shot them... presumably with the intent to stop them one way or another. I'm not sure... I believe in citizens arrest, I believe that if someone is caught with a bag of loot in their hands by a guy with a gun they should follow his orders, provided they aren't obcene or cruel. Shooting after that is understandable. I wouldn't call it ethical, but I'm not sure if it's worthy of punishment.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683670:date=Jul 17 2008, 12:45 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Jul 17 2008, 12:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683670"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I understand it, he told them to stop, they ran, so he shot them... presumably with the intent to stop them one way or another. I'm not sure... I believe in citizens arrest, I believe that if someone is caught with a bag of loot in their hands by a guy with a gun they should follow his orders, provided they aren't obcene or cruel. Shooting after that is understandable. I wouldn't call it ethical, but I'm not sure if it's worthy of punishment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you should do what a man with a gun tells you? And if you don't, he can shoot you? That just doesn't make sense.
I've been repeatedly amazed by reactions to this story. I can *not* see how property is treated equally with life. I just can't see it, at all. It is actually pretty disgusting to me that people think this way.
If this guy had picked up a camera and snapped a few pictures of these robbers through his window, or hell, even opened his door, stood on the porch, took the pictures then gone back inside, the police could've caught them easily. They would've been sentenced properly. Hell, maybe they would've gone on to do good things. They might've been rehabilitated and gone on to get a good job. They might've also gone on to carry on robbing houses. That's not the point.
The point is this guy saw two men stealing some stuff from a neighbours house, so he went outside and shot them, despite several warnings from a 911 operator not to do so. This isn't a case where they broke into his house and he shot them out of fear. This isn't a case of them running over to his house after they've done the other one, trying to get in and he shot them.
He saw a crime taking place, decided to take action himself, and shot two people dead in what I'm still not convinced was anything remotely resembling self defence. The fact that this <i>never even went to trial</i> and that people are supporting this ###### is honestly sickening.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited July 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1683670:date=Jul 16 2008, 07:45 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Jul 16 2008, 07:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683670"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I understand it, he told them to stop, they ran, so he shot them... presumably with the intent to stop them one way or another. I'm not sure... I believe in citizens arrest, I believe that if someone is caught with a bag of loot in their hands by a guy with a gun they should follow his orders, provided they aren't obscene or cruel. Shooting after that is understandable. I wouldn't call it ethical, but I'm not sure if it's worthy of punishment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> so, citizens can do it but cops can't?
cus, you know, cops are NOT allowed to use deadly force in a situation where the suspect is not a clear and present danger to some one else. Well, at least not in most states. Maybe Texas cops are allowed to shoot people fleeing from a purse snatching, I dono. Our laws are there to enforce our ethics. That is the point of them. The Ethics of the majority, enforced on all. You don't find this situation ethical, but you don't think he should be punished for it? Hell, the change in the law practically encourages you to kill people for property crimes. At the start he goes off about how the law was recently changed, and he knows his rights, and he ain't gona let them get away with this. Maybe this is Texas' idea for saving money. Why bother with trials when you can just tell a heavily armed populace that they may now KILL people for nicking their crap. Why waste the money on court fees and DAs when you can just have the citizens go target hunting amongst the undesirables, right? (yes, this entire paragraph is flame bait, but at least I left out the ethnic slurs. Still, feel free to ignore it, it is really just me ranting)
Seriously. That law allows for this situation: I obtain a legal hand gun, and a concealed carry permit. (Difficult, but not impossible to get) I just saw some one pickpocket my friend. I may now whip out my gun and blow his head off. Legally. With no fear of going to jail, or even to trail <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Hey, next time Nelson swipes a candy bar from the Kwik E Mart Apu can just shotgun him in the head! Awesome!
Does this sound sane to you?
Authorization of the use of deadly force when there is NO threat to any one's person.
This reminds me of a story told to me by a family friend a while back. She is a world traveler, I can't remember where she was, however this is the scene she saw unfold: Out side of her hotel, she saw a purse snatcher nab some one's bag and make a run for it. The police opened automatic weapon fire on the man, picked up the bag, and returned it to the woman. This was considered relatively normal.
Do you REALLY want to live in a country like that? I don't.
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
<!--quoteo(post=1683675:date=Jul 16 2008, 06:28 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Jul 16 2008, 06:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683675"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This reminds me of a story told to me by a family friend a while back. She is a world traveler, I can't remember where she was, however this is the scene she saw unfold: Out side of her hotel, she saw a purse snatcher nab some one's bag and make a run for it. The police opened automatic weapon fire on the man, picked up the bag, and returned it to the woman. This was considered relatively normal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems like the police just cut the bull###### and took that dude out. Well done.
<!--quoteo(post=1684381:date=Jul 24 2008, 09:47 PM:name=Liku)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Liku @ Jul 24 2008, 09:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684381"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seems like the police just cut the bull###### and took that dude out. Well done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was?
"Here is you bag back Maam." "There has to be a mistake, my back is white not red."
Imo he did the right thing, he did call the police, and he did wait for them. They took too long to respond like normal, i think this case is a good thing to put out into the media: when you steal, your only sticking your head under a knife.
<!--quoteo(post=1684413:date=Jul 25 2008, 01:10 AM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Jul 25 2008, 01:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684413"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imo he did the right thing, he did call the police, and he did wait for them. They took too long to respond like normal, i think this case is a good thing to put out into the media: when you steal, your only sticking your head under a knife.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So where's the line? How much money does one have to steal off you to get a death sentence?
Comments
Again, did you listen to the 911 call? He STATED they were leaving and he was going out to stop them, he went out there with the intention of killing them.<ul><li>"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!"</li><li>"There, one of them's getting away!"</li><li>Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"
Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."</li><li>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.</li></ul>Seriously, does that sound like some one who was defending himself? No, it was some one who decided "Well, the cops ain't gona get here fast enough, so I am gona go out and kill me some burglers!". AKA A Vigilante.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The rest of the evidence regarding the case seems to dispute this interpretation though. And you're leaving out parts of the recording that don't support your assumption. There's a part of the clip where he says something along the lines of "oh jesus, the guy is infront looking at my house" and the first thing he says after dropping the phone and exiting out the front door is "STOP!"
Like I say, both men are shot at a range of about 15 feet, which would be from his doorway. That's not a long way, based on that it's quite likely they were approaching his house directly to get in that kind of range.
Additionally, you haven't read the police interviews, you haven't seen the police reports. There must have been some qualification in the evidence for why they chose to not bring the case to court. If it was as straight as you're making it out to be then I think they most likely would have pressed charges.
I could be wrong, but IMO it seems that the original description of the case I read was accurate. "he told them to stop, they did not, so he shot them each once". IMO his intent was not murder, it was protection of himself and his community, and IMO it's the fault of the criminals for choosing to undertake the crime in the first place. I do not believe what I'm attempting to justify was an execution.
[edit] I'll qualify as well, that if your assumption of his intents and the way the events transpired is correct, then I agree with you as to the wrongfulness of Horn's actions.
[edit] I'll qualify as well, that if your assumption of his intents and the way the events transpired is correct, then I agree with you as to the wrongfulness of Horn's actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, see, that I can understand (and sorta respect), you just never actually brought any of that up before <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I still think he was incredibly in the wrong, and I dislike that the law protects his actions. Going outside to confront them is not what he should have done, that IS the job of the police (we do have them for a reason). and from the 911 call, it REALLY sounds like he was going outside to stop them from getting away. Seriously, the last thing he said was that he was going outside to see which way they had gone. Maybe there are some other things that transpired, but it really does not seem like it. As you said, the first thing he says upon exiting is STOP. True, stop could be "Get away from me", but it also very possibly could be "Stop running away". Again, based on everything he said in the 911 call ("I ain't letting them get away with this"), it really sounds like his intention was to top them from getting away, not from entering his house.
I mean, seriously, do you really think that ANYONE would be dumb enough to charge some one who is wielding a bloody shotgun? from the NYTimes article:
"Mr. Horn fired three blasts of 00 buckshot from his 12-gauge, striking the men in their backs."
The real issue is that Texas has some ######ed up laws on the use of deadly force, aka:
"Deadly force can also be used to protect property when “the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.â€" (again, NYT).
Yes, what he did was legal.
He shot and killed 2 fleeing thieves, in the back.
If that happened in most other cities in the US he would probably be looking at spending the rest of his life in jail.
Do you really think that this was a case of self defense? Was this moral?
some one remind me to stay the hell away from Texas.
This guy was openly brandishing a shotgun and must've been pretty worked up. I just can't see *anyone*, even someone with the best of intentions, approaching someone like that with little more than a metal stick, especially some thieves who just got caught in the act.
The fact that he also shouted "Boom you're dead!" <b>before</b> he fired the first shot leads me to believe that he wasn't a man in fear of his life because two people were rushing him, he was a guy just shootin' some robbers. I will admit, though, that I haven't read anything other than the news articles on it. I wouldn't put *too* much faith into the 15ft argument without seeing his street, though. The street I grew up in was about 15-18ft across (but as I understand it, American streets tend to be bigger anyway).
But like I maintained earlier, that's pretty much all irrelevant in my view. He shouldn't have been out there in the first place.
So you should do what a man with a gun tells you? And if you don't, he can shoot you? That just doesn't make sense.
I've been repeatedly amazed by reactions to this story. I can *not* see how property is treated equally with life.
I just can't see it, at all. It is actually pretty disgusting to me that people think this way.
If this guy had picked up a camera and snapped a few pictures of these robbers through his window, or hell, even opened his door, stood on the porch, took the pictures then gone back inside, the police could've caught them easily. They would've been sentenced properly. Hell, maybe they would've gone on to do good things. They might've been rehabilitated and gone on to get a good job. They might've also gone on to carry on robbing houses. That's not the point.
The point is this guy saw two men stealing some stuff from a neighbours house, so he went outside and shot them, despite several warnings from a 911 operator not to do so. This isn't a case where they broke into his house and he shot them out of fear. This isn't a case of them running over to his house after they've done the other one, trying to get in and he shot them.
He saw a crime taking place, decided to take action himself, and shot two people dead in what I'm still not convinced was anything remotely resembling self defence. The fact that this <i>never even went to trial</i> and that people are supporting this ###### is honestly sickening.
so, citizens can do it but cops can't?
cus, you know, cops are NOT allowed to use deadly force in a situation where the suspect is not a clear and present danger to some one else. Well, at least not in most states. Maybe Texas cops are allowed to shoot people fleeing from a purse snatching, I dono. Our laws are there to enforce our ethics. That is the point of them. The Ethics of the majority, enforced on all. You don't find this situation ethical, but you don't think he should be punished for it? Hell, the change in the law practically encourages you to kill people for property crimes. At the start he goes off about how the law was recently changed, and he knows his rights, and he ain't gona let them get away with this.
Maybe this is Texas' idea for saving money. Why bother with trials when you can just tell a heavily armed populace that they may now KILL people for nicking their crap. Why waste the money on court fees and DAs when you can just have the citizens go target hunting amongst the undesirables, right? (yes, this entire paragraph is flame bait, but at least I left out the ethnic slurs. Still, feel free to ignore it, it is really just me ranting)
Seriously.
That law allows for this situation:
I obtain a legal hand gun, and a concealed carry permit. (Difficult, but not impossible to get)
I just saw some one pickpocket my friend.
I may now whip out my gun and blow his head off.
Legally.
With no fear of going to jail, or even to trail <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Hey, next time Nelson swipes a candy bar from the Kwik E Mart Apu can just shotgun him in the head! Awesome!
Does this sound sane to you?
Authorization of the use of deadly force when there is NO threat to any one's person.
This reminds me of a story told to me by a family friend a while back. She is a world traveler, I can't remember where she was, however this is the scene she saw unfold:
Out side of her hotel, she saw a purse snatcher nab some one's bag and make a run for it.
The police opened automatic weapon fire on the man, picked up the bag, and returned it to the woman.
This was considered relatively normal.
Do you REALLY want to live in a country like that? I don't.
Out side of her hotel, she saw a purse snatcher nab some one's bag and make a run for it.
The police opened automatic weapon fire on the man, picked up the bag, and returned it to the woman.
This was considered relatively normal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems like the police just cut the bull###### and took that dude out. Well done.
It was?
"Here is you bag back Maam."
"There has to be a mistake, my back is white not red."
So where's the line? How much money does one have to steal off you to get a death sentence?