Man calls 911, then shoots burglars while on the phone with 911

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: 1EZduzitUntil the facts are know there just isn't much to discuss. I personally don't think I would shoot two burglars who were running away from me.... especially with someone else's property and unless they took a threatening posture of some kind I have a difficult time believeing someone else would do that.

Not knowing all the facts didn't stop Joe Horn from shooting two "alleged" burglars of a home whose owner he doesn't even know. Have they even found the home owners yet?

Please, you don't think these guys were burglers? LOL, that's a pretty assinine claim. Do you even have one shred of evidence to support it?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: 1EZduzitUntil the facts are know there just isn't much to discuss. I personally don't think I would shoot two burglars who were running away from me.... especially with someone else's property and unless they took a threatening posture of some kind I have a difficult time believeing someone else would do that.

Not knowing all the facts didn't stop Joe Horn from shooting two "alleged" burglars of a home whose owner he doesn't even know. Have they even found the home owners yet?

Please, you don't think these guys were burglers? LOL, that's a pretty assinine claim. Do you even have one shred of evidence to support it?

I don't know and neither do you and sadly neither did Joe Horn. Joe Horn made a series of assumptions based on outside evidence. Maybe he was right but unless Joe Horn was 100% positive that they where burglars then he was obligated to not kill them.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: 1EZduzitUntil the facts are know there just isn't much to discuss. I personally don't think I would shoot two burglars who were running away from me.... especially with someone else's property and unless they took a threatening posture of some kind I have a difficult time believeing someone else would do that.

Not knowing all the facts didn't stop Joe Horn from shooting two "alleged" burglars of a home whose owner he doesn't even know. Have they even found the home owners yet?

Please, you don't think these guys were burglers? LOL, that's a pretty assinine claim. Do you even have one shred of evidence to support it?

I don't know and neither do you and sadly neither did Joe Horn. Joe Horn made a series of assumptions based on outside evidence. Maybe he was right but unless Joe Horn was 100% positive that they where burglars then he was obligated to not kill them.

That's the real problem with vigilante behavior. Sure, MAYBE you could defend that kind of behavior if it targeted only criminals, but it's not as easy to tell the difference between criminals and innocent people sometimes. That's why we don't give cops the power to execute people on the spot, and why we have a complex legal system that affords the accused many rights.

 

[bctbct]

I believe this is the latest version of the law. I see many hurdles for Horn. IANAL but as a layman I interpret the thrid persons property claus to be when its in your custody.

Nightime- NO
HIs property-NO
The land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means- NO

I would be intersted in knowing if the police responded with sirens.


§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Perknose
He's a knee jerk, blithering idiot who can't even keep his pre-programmed, right wing talking points seperate.

Cut and run Perknose, cut and run.....

Thanks for so promptly confirming my point.

You're responses are positively Pavlovian. Is that drool or froth on your lips?

Down, boy, heel! Or I'll make you watch an advance video of President Hillary's inagural speech.

Why is it so hard for you to stop with the personal attacks and answer my question? You brought up the crime rate in Iraq and Pakistan, not me.

*crickets*

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: 1EZduzitUntil the facts are know there just isn't much to discuss. I personally don't think I would shoot two burglars who were running away from me.... especially with someone else's property and unless they took a threatening posture of some kind I have a difficult time believeing someone else would do that.

Not knowing all the facts didn't stop Joe Horn from shooting two "alleged" burglars of a home whose owner he doesn't even know. Have they even found the home owners yet?

Please, you don't think these guys were burglers? LOL, that's a pretty assinine claim. Do you even have one shred of evidence to support it?

I don't know and neither do you and sadly neither did Joe Horn. Joe Horn made a series of assumptions based on outside evidence. Maybe he was right but unless Joe Horn was 100% positive that they where burglars then he was obligated to not kill them.

The police have investigated this incident and didn't charge Horn with anything, but apparantly you know something the rest of us don't? Please enlighten us with some evidence or stop it with the nonsense.

Here are the known facts as I see them, Horn saw them break into the house and saw them leave with a bag of goods. It was his neighbors house, he knows who lives there and they didn't live there. He told them not to move when he accousted them. The police were right on the scene and haven't charged Horn with anything.

They were burglars, it's just that plain and simple. That said, with the known facts I wouldn't have shot them unless they made a threatening move on me after I acousted them and told them to freeze. That's the unkown here and since the police were there within seconds and have questioned Horn, examioned the evidence, etc., I don't condemn the man until/unless some other evidence arises to support another conclusion.

 

[RightIsWrong]

YET. The police have not charged Joe Horn....YET.

But, as you said....don't let the facts get in the way of a predisposed opinion of what has happened to this point.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
YET. The police have not charged Joe Horn....YET.

But, as you said....don't let the facts get in the way of a predisposed opinion of what has happened to this point.

You weren't there any more then I was, but the police were there within seconds so don't let that facts get in the way of YOUR predisposed opinion either.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
YET. The police have not charged Joe Horn....YET.

But, as you said....don't let the facts get in the way of a predisposed opinion of what has happened to this point.

LOL, they'll take everything to a grand jury, then we'll see.

Don't forget we're talking about Texas here... We may well name a school after Mr. Horn

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I saw an interview this AM on MSNBC and the lawyer that they had on from Houston said that he will certainly be charged.

Edit: The lawyer stated that he and his legal team are going to have an incredibly difficult time proving that he was in danger considering he placed himself in the situation by going outside to confront them.

Just a liberal legal consultant. Unless it was the District Attorney, his opinion doesn't mean squat. Come to think of it, the Harris County DA is a liberal douchebag, so his opinion still doesn't mean squat.

Found this in today's news though: The woman who lives across the street from Horn says she has always seen him as a grandfather figure. ?He is the guardian of the neighborhood. He takes care of all our kids. If we ever need anything, we call him.?

Good goin' grandpa :thumbsup:

I like how you say that those you consider 'liberal' don't have meaningful opinions. What's also strange is how I've noticed that whatever you don't tend to like suddenly becomes "liberal". Seems like a pavlovian response to me.

Please enlighten me by letting me know who can have opinions on this case that will mean 'squat'?

The Houston DA has repeatedly ignored the intent of the law and had Harris county law enforcement arrest anyone with a handgun in their car without a CHL, totally ignoring the "traveling" law, and even the amendment to the traveling law. Eventually this prompted a total rewrite of the law regarding handguns in a car, allowing anyone to carry a concealed handgun, to, from, or in their car as long as their destination is a premises "under their control." When asked what he thinks about the new law via email, the DA has made some pretty rude responses.

 

[Moonbeam]

The following dialog between RightIsWrong and SarcasticDwarf gets to one of the central issues of this debate, in my opinion:

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Or maybe we should allow you to do what you are asking to be allowed to do. Have your wish. But if you are wrong even one time....you get put away for a 1/4 of your life expectancy. The DA can then prosecute your case, since you were so gung-ho to shoot, as felony manslaughter and should serve 20 without parole. That would be just peachy for you mandatory sentence folks that think that you can shoot anyone at anytime. At least then there would be a "deterrent" for some of you idiots.

There are two problems with this:

1) Prosecuting people for mistakes has the side effect of discouraging correct behavior.
2) Police officers kill innocent people on a fairly regular basis (happens at least once every couple of months) and are almost never prosecuted. These citizens can be considered to be acting as a sort of police officer, making them less liable for their actions.

Your first point is exactly what my point was...

Allowing people to skate without any punishment whatsoever for mistakes has the side effect of allowing some people the thoughts that they can shoot anyone at any time and just say....Oops, my bad.

You second point is something that is unfortunate, but it is also something that the shooter(s) involved are trained and when/if something like that happens, they are investigated and some sort of disciplinary action is taken (even if criminal charges aren't).

I think you missed my point. Let's say that I am in a state where CCW is legal. I catch someone in the act of raping a woman. In shooting them (killing someone committing a rape is generally legal in any state IIRC), the bullet goes through the person, but then ricochets, goes through a window some distance away, and kills someone sleeping in their bedroom. Now, what would prosecuting me do? The odds of such a thing happening are probably a million to one, but it does happen. If prosecuted, everyone else with a CCW would be far, far less likely to fire their weapon (and CCW holders almost never do as it is) because they would be afraid that despite the fact that they would save a life, they would go to prison. It would have the same effect as prosecuting everyone who got in a car accident where another person was killed (and drugs/alcohol were not involved)...nobody would want to drive.

This also gets into the second point where they are acting in the capacity of law enforcement officers.

You and I are talking about the same exact thing but from opposite sides of the fence. I believe that you have a right to do what you described. I also feel that you should not be prosecuted in some freak accident circumstance as you described but the felony in progress claim needs to be fully investigated.

However, I also feel that the idiot in the OP should be prosecuted because there was no clear danger to himself or anyone else AT THE TIME of the shooting. He was clearly sporting a Ron Jeremy size hard on thinking about his chance to get to shoot someone from the 911 transcripts.

The law in TX is poorly written so as to give unabated pathways to murder with the claim that they were witnessed committing a felony at the time. There needs to be a common sense middle ground to both sides of this equation and TX does not come close to this from the side of respect for human life and the opposite side goes to far in restricting people's rights from self defense in other states.

I agree that there needs to be a middle ground, but I think that is largely impossible to legislate. Since it is all going to depend on the circumstances, Texas has decided to take a "the homeowner is right by default and anything otherwise has to be proven." Most other states have a policy of "you have to prove that a life was in imminent danger and there was no possibility of escape." Both viewpoints are valid in their own way. One restricts the right of someone to defend themselves while the other restricts the rights of the perpetrator. How do you come to a middle ground in that? I don't think you can. You have to accept that either a few innocent homeowners die or that those committing somewhat minor crimes will die. It would be nice if we could have a single person (preferably God) preside over every case like this to be able to hand down clear, consistent rulings, but unfortunately we don't have it.

Essentially, we are not God, but we have to act and make choices as if we were anyway. We have to craft our laws as best we can.

In the argument above why has each reached the conclusion they have and which if either is the more proper view? What is at the heart of the difference?

In my opinion, the difference is in which end of a spectrum you take in proportional to whose ox gets gored. It's basically, I think, these two perspectives:

Neanderthal vigilante slays decent citizen who threw out his receipt before he left the store, or honest citizen is executed for killing a rapist running from his wife's bed room out into the street.

With whom do you identify. Is your fellow man a madman that laws must protect you from or is he a fellow keeper of the law. How do you balance the law between these two attitudes?

Any balance, in my opinion, will have to be a compromise between these two extremes and will not fully satisfy those far to either end. But it seems to me the balance will have to be struck according to the prevailing general attitude of those who make the laws and that will also include states and local government.

So in law and order redder places the laws, it seems to me, will balance out in favor of the notion that the general citizen can be trusted, and in more liberal places the election may be more control over the individual citizen.

(Some of these differences, as an aside, it would seem to me, are going to depend on the degree of population density and tradition, where areas distant from police protection will lean toward more personal self reliance.)

So is it better to lean one way or the other?

That would be difficult to state, in an absolute way, in my opinion, because it surely would relate to the culture we are talking about. In a society with a lot of loose cannons running around blowing away anybody in dirty clothes, or a society in which crime is destroying lives, how you see this would need to change, it seems to me.

Do you trust yourself to play God or do you want God played by esoteric and more lofty legal abstractions, some judge and jury. It seems to me that depends on whether you yourself feel more or less reliable to make such decisions.

Setting aside the certainty of the madman who is superior in all things, it seems to me that to trust yourself is a good thing. You want to be able to protect your life with a right of self defense, for example and not have to wait for some higher authority to protect you. You want, also, it seems to me to have a moral citizenry who can apply moral judgment in emergency situations.

In short, it seems to me that to err on the side of the trustworthiness of the individual is preferable and of higher nobility than to limit that trust with laws that discourage moral action.

The key, then, it would also seem to me, is moral education. We are ultimately only as safe as the mentality of the guy next door and we better do what we can to make each of our citizens as moral as we can.

Now, given that there are folk who rely on themselves to insure justice and folk who fear vigilantism, who has the right to impose their views on the other. Horse thieves were hung because a man depended on his horse to live. Is it wrong if somebody sees his horse in his neighbor's TV? Do you have the right to determine what stage of moral evolution is legal? Well certainly you do with your vote and what laws you support. Don't other folk have the same right?

And, of course, the issue is not the TV but the violation of the neighborhood's security in freedom from theft. We will not be violated. In Texas, apparently, that's an idea people understand.

All that is required for evil to triumph if for good men to do nothing.

 

[Moonbeam]

In 1751, Benjamin Franklin wrote a satirical commentary in his Pennsylvania Gazette suggesting that as a way to thank the Brits for their policy of sending convicted felons to America, American colonists should send rattlesnakes to England.

In December 1775, he published an essay in the Pennsylvania Journal under the pseudonym American Guesser in which he suggested that the rattlesnake was a good symbol for the American spirit:

I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids?She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.?She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.?As if anxious to prevent all pretentions of quarrelling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenceless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defence, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:?Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.?Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Shooting an unarmed burgler...my what a progressive country we live in.

This guy murdered two people. Throw the book at him.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Perknose
He's a knee jerk, blithering idiot who can't even keep his pre-programmed, right wing talking points seperate.

Cut and run Perknose, cut and run.....

Thanks for so promptly confirming my point.

You're responses are positively Pavlovian. Is that drool or froth on your lips?

Down, boy, heel! Or I'll make you watch an advance video of President Hillary's inagural speech.

Why is it so hard for you to stop with the personal attacks and answer my question? You brought up the crime rate in Iraq and Pakistan, not me.

*crickets*

I'm glad I wasn't holding my breath, whats wrong Perknose, WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: daveymark
Text

burglars got what they deserved.

that said, it wasn't his house so it raises questions

The shooter's life was not in danger, it was not his property being robbed, and he said he was going to kill somebody.

This sounds like premediated murder to me but the shooter lives in Texas so he will probably get away with it.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: daveymark
Text

burglars got what they deserved.

that said, it wasn't his house so it raises questions

The shooter's life was not in danger, it was not his property being robbed, and he said he was going to kill somebody.

This sounds like premediated murder to me but the shooter lives in Texas so he will probably get away with it.

Listen to how well versed he was on the new Sept laws that made it ever more easy for him to kill these guys with no fear of recourse.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: daveymark
Text

burglars got what they deserved.

that said, it wasn't his house so it raises questions

The shooter's life was not in danger, it was not his property being robbed, and he said he was going to kill somebody.

This sounds like premediated murder to me but the shooter lives in Texas so he will probably get away with it.

Listen to how well versed he was on the new Sept laws that made it ever more easy for him to kill these guys with no fear of recourse.

I think reasonable people can agree that there should be no criminal or civil liability for a person reasonably taking steps to protect themselves and their property against an intruder in their home, up to and including the use of firearms.

I believe it becomes a different conversation when it is entirely legal to chase down a guy who ripped off your neighbor and execute them. I think this is the debate, and the fact that there are those on the other side of it I find kinda disturbing.

 

[digiram]

I hope this shows up in National news. It would give criminals out there something to think about before commiting such crimes.

Having said that, it sucks but we have laws and laws must be followed.

 

[rpanic]

I wonder how many crimes and people that have been hurt by these thugs up tell the time they were shot?


Two career criminal thugs dead, job well done. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: daveymark
Text

burglars got what they deserved.

that said, it wasn't his house so it raises questions

The shooter's life was not in danger, it was not his property being robbed, and he said he was going to kill somebody.

This sounds like premediated murder to me but the shooter lives in Texas so he will probably get away with it.

Listen to how well versed he was on the new Sept laws that made it ever more easy for him to kill these guys with no fear of recourse.

I think reasonable people can agree that there should be no criminal or civil liability for a person reasonably taking steps to protect themselves and their property against an intruder in their home, up to and including the use of firearms.

I believe it becomes a different conversation when it is entirely legal to chase down a guy who ripped off your neighbor and execute them. I think this is the debate, and the fact that there are those on the other side of it I find kinda disturbing.

He didn't execute them. He gave them a chance to surrender and go to jail.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: rpanic
I wonder how many crimes and people that have been hurt by these thugs up tell the time they were shot?


Two career criminal thugs dead, job well done. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Sure, THIS time it might have worked out...but having laws and cultural norms decided by one event is stupid. Maybe next time Wyatt Earp will miss the guys running away and hit some little kid. Or maybe he'll mistake teenagers being stupid for criminals and end up killing some 15 year old kid.

There is a reason we have a legal system, it's because things aren't always clear cut and just going around blasting "thugs" isn't really a good way to ensure justice is done.

Edit: My problem is that I don't put such unconditional trust in the average Joe that you seem to. Sure, if every Joe Sixpack was a wonderful judge of guilt and innocence and had a strong feeling about justice and right and wrong, maybe this system would work fine. But the average Joe is not usually the sharpest knife in the drawer. I trust him to defend himself and defend the life of someone else in danger, but not much beyond. Judge Dredd is a terrible idea even with well trained professionals, giving amateurs the job is not an improvement.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: daveymark
Text

burglars got what they deserved.

that said, it wasn't his house so it raises questions

The shooter's life was not in danger, it was not his property being robbed, and he said he was going to kill somebody.

This sounds like premediated murder to me but the shooter lives in Texas so he will probably get away with it.

Listen to how well versed he was on the new Sept laws that made it ever more easy for him to kill these guys with no fear of recourse.

I think reasonable people can agree that there should be no criminal or civil liability for a person reasonably taking steps to protect themselves and their property against an intruder in their home, up to and including the use of firearms.

I believe it becomes a different conversation when it is entirely legal to chase down a guy who ripped off your neighbor and execute them. I think this is the debate, and the fact that there are those on the other side of it I find kinda disturbing.

He didn't execute them. He gave them a chance to surrender and go to jail.

I find that a little hard to believe. I'm sure most criminals aren't exactly rocket scientists, but if someone points a gun at them and says "stop, or I'll shoot", I have a hard time believing they'll continue to run away or try to attack the guy with the gun. All we have is this guy's story about what happened, and what the hell else is he going to say?

And from the purely defensive standpoint, this guy is an idiot who saw too many movies. You point a gun at someone, you better be trying to kill them. This "freeze" bullshit is best left to people who get paid for that sort of thing.

 

[rpanic]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: rpanic
I wonder how many crimes and people that have been hurt by these thugs up tell the time they were shot?


Two career criminal thugs dead, job well done. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Sure, THIS time it might have worked out...but having laws and cultural norms decided by one event is stupid. Maybe next time Wyatt Earp will miss the guys running away and hit some little kid. Or maybe he'll mistake teenagers being stupid for criminals and end up killing some 15 year old kid.

There is a reason we have a legal system, it's because things aren't always clear cut and just going around blasting "thugs" isn't really a good way to ensure justice is done.

Edit: My problem is that I don't put such unconditional trust in the average Joe that you seem to. Sure, if every Joe Sixpack was a wonderful judge of guilt and innocence and had a strong feeling about justice and right and wrong, maybe this system would work fine. But the average Joe is not usually the sharpest knife in the drawer. I trust him to defend himself and defend the life of someone else in danger, but not much beyond. Judge Dredd is a terrible idea even with well trained professionals, giving amateurs the job is not an improvement.

Very true there is a fine line, but this time things worked out the way they should, pretty obvious when two grown men break a window on the side of a house and crawl in what they are doing. Justice was served only the methods are in question.

Seeing how poverty and education for various reasons is getting worse in this country I am sure we will see more of this happen for better or worse. More and more people are feeling helpless about crime and I don?t see that attitude getting any better. It also doesn?t help that some cultures seem to promote thuggish behavior especially in the media it just makes things worse.

Also surprised the guy was able to get 911 before the burglars came and went I have called and been on hold for 5-20+ minutes, those cops got there fast.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Perfect example of the Golden Rule;do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Doing for his neighbor as he would wish his neighbor to do for him. Shoot the burglers stealing his property.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In 1751, Benjamin Franklin wrote a satirical commentary in his Pennsylvania Gazette suggesting that as a way to thank the Brits for their policy of sending convicted felons to America, American colonists should send rattlesnakes to England.

In December 1775, he published an essay in the Pennsylvania Journal under the pseudonym American Guesser in which he suggested that the rattlesnake was a good symbol for the American spirit:

I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids?She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.?She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.?As if anxious to prevent all pretentions of quarrelling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenceless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defence, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:?Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.?Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?

"DON'T TREAD ON ME" !