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

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just hope that if you have kids that you don't let them play in the yard. I wouldn't want them to be harmed for your or your neighbor's inability to assess what is truly valuable in this world.

I will teach them to not climb out of people's house's wearing ski masks and carrying stolen TV's. I hope you teach yours, the same.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just hope that if you have kids that you don't let them play in the yard. I wouldn't want them to be harmed for your or your neighbor's inability to assess what is truly valuable in this world.

So how many times has a child been shot in a situation like this? Does this happen all the time or are you just pulling out every "what if" situation that you can think of? Do you have any facts to back up your irrational fear of kids being shot while a neighbor is stopping a burglary?

I do not have any facts of my very rational fear. I also don't have any facts to justify an irrational belief in a supreme being that poofed the universe out of nothing for his/her/its own amusement. But there sure seems to be enough people that find enough "what if" scenarios to have laws enacted to protect their right to be afraid for their eternal souls and want the rest of us to behave in a manor in compliance with that.

I just know that there are hundreds/thousands of examples of kids being hit by stray bullets in drive-bys and other armed conflicts and don't really want to have every burglary escalated to that level of violence and risk there being stats to back up my fears.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just hope that if you have kids that you don't let them play in the yard. I wouldn't want them to be harmed for your or your neighbor's inability to assess what is truly valuable in this world.

So how many times has a child been shot in a situation like this? Does this happen all the time or are you just pulling out every "what if" situation that you can think of? Do you have any facts to back up your irrational fear of kids being shot while a neighbor is stopping a burglary?

I do not have any facts of my very rational fear. I also don't have any facts to justify an irrational belief in a supreme being that poofed the universe out of nothing for his/her/its own amusement. But there sure seems to be enough people that find enough "what if" scenarios to have laws enacted to protect their right to be afraid for their eternal souls and want the rest of us to behave in a manor in compliance with that.

I just know that there are hundreds/thousands of examples of kids being hit by stray bullets in drive-bys and other armed conflicts and don't really want to have every burglary escalated to that level of violence and risk there being stats to back up my fears.

so do you propose leaving your door open with a free TV sign in your yard? This way criminals would not become irate, pissy and hostile for having to crawl in windows, not to mention all the windows that would be saved(think of the environment). Maybe your children can help them get it to their car as well. Just think about how glad the robber would be steal from you. He might even write you a thank-you letter.

Yes, 100's of thousands of kids are hit by stray bullets in drive-bys....is that daily or since the advent of guns?

I wish they labeled neighborhoods:

Neighbors who own guns that will shoot robbers.

and

Neighbors who don't believe in violence but have nice crap to steal.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just hope that if you have kids that you don't let them play in the yard. I wouldn't want them to be harmed for your or your neighbor's inability to assess what is truly valuable in this world.

So how many times has a child been shot in a situation like this? Does this happen all the time or are you just pulling out every "what if" situation that you can think of? Do you have any facts to back up your irrational fear of kids being shot while a neighbor is stopping a burglary?

I do not have any facts of my very rational fear. I also don't have any facts to justify an irrational belief in a supreme being that poofed the universe out of nothing for his/her/its own amusement. But there sure seems to be enough people that find enough "what if" scenarios to have laws enacted to protect their right to be afraid for their eternal souls and want the rest of us to behave in a manor in compliance with that.

I just know that there are hundreds/thousands of examples of kids being hit by stray bullets in drive-bys and other armed conflicts and don't really want to have every burglary escalated to that level of violence and risk there being stats to back up my fears.

so do you propose leaving your door open with a free TV sign in your yard? This way criminals would not become irate, pissy and hostile for having to crawl in windows, not to mention all the windows that would be saved(think of the environment). Maybe your children can help them get it to their car as well. Just think about how glad the robber would be steal from you. He might even write you a thank-you letter.

Yes, 100's of thousands of kids are hit by stray bullets in drive-bys....is that daily or since the advent of guns?

I wish they labeled neighborhoods:

Neighbors who own guns that will shoot robbers.

and

Neighbors who don't believe in violence but have nice crap to steal.

Apparently you didn't read the entire thread (or even the last few pages of it). If you had, you would have seen that I feel each person has a right to protect their home/family/self. You would have also seen that I believe that that right includes deadly force if necessary.

THIS WAS NOT NECESSARY!!!

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just hope that if you have kids that you don't let them play in the yard. I wouldn't want them to be harmed for your or your neighbor's inability to assess what is truly valuable in this world.

So how many times has a child been shot in a situation like this? Does this happen all the time or are you just pulling out every "what if" situation that you can think of? Do you have any facts to back up your irrational fear of kids being shot while a neighbor is stopping a burglary?

I do not have any facts of my very rational fear. I also don't have any facts to justify an irrational belief in a supreme being that poofed the universe out of nothing for his/her/its own amusement. But there sure seems to be enough people that find enough "what if" scenarios to have laws enacted to protect their right to be afraid for their eternal souls and want the rest of us to behave in a manor in compliance with that.

I just know that there are hundreds/thousands of examples of kids being hit by stray bullets in drive-bys and other armed conflicts and don't really want to have every burglary escalated to that level of violence and risk there being stats to back up my fears.

so do you propose leaving your door open with a free TV sign in your yard? This way criminals would not become irate, pissy and hostile for having to crawl in windows, not to mention all the windows that would be saved(think of the environment). Maybe your children can help them get it to their car as well. Just think about how glad the robber would be steal from you. He might even write you a thank-you letter.

Yes, 100's of thousands of kids are hit by stray bullets in drive-bys....is that daily or since the advent of guns?

I wish they labeled neighborhoods:

Neighbors who own guns that will shoot robbers.

and

Neighbors who don't believe in violence but have nice crap to steal.

Apparently you didn't read the entire thread (or even the last few pages of it). If you had, you would have seen that I feel each person has a right to protect their home/family/self. You would have also seen that I believe that that right includes deadly force if necessary.

THIS WAS NOT NECESSARY!!!

Sorry to offend, but you were making it out like thousands of kids die from stray bullets. How is it a rational fear when it rarely ever happens?

The odds of a kid dieing from a stray bullet shot by someone defending their property is probably alot less than a kid being hit while waiting for a bus by a person on their cellphone.

Do you own a cellphone?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just hope that if you have kids that you don't let them play in the yard. I wouldn't want them to be harmed for your or your neighbor's inability to assess what is truly valuable in this world.

So how many times has a child been shot in a situation like this? Does this happen all the time or are you just pulling out every "what if" situation that you can think of? Do you have any facts to back up your irrational fear of kids being shot while a neighbor is stopping a burglary?

I do not have any facts of my very rational fear. I also don't have any facts to justify an irrational belief in a supreme being that poofed the universe out of nothing for his/her/its own amusement. But there sure seems to be enough people that find enough "what if" scenarios to have laws enacted to protect their right to be afraid for their eternal souls and want the rest of us to behave in a manor in compliance with that.

I just know that there are hundreds/thousands of examples of kids being hit by stray bullets in drive-bys and other armed conflicts and don't really want to have every burglary escalated to that level of violence and risk there being stats to back up my fears.

so do you propose leaving your door open with a free TV sign in your yard? This way criminals would not become irate, pissy and hostile for having to crawl in windows, not to mention all the windows that would be saved(think of the environment). Maybe your children can help them get it to their car as well. Just think about how glad the robber would be steal from you. He might even write you a thank-you letter.

Yes, 100's of thousands of kids are hit by stray bullets in drive-bys....is that daily or since the advent of guns?

I wish they labeled neighborhoods:

Neighbors who own guns that will shoot robbers.

and

Neighbors who don't believe in violence but have nice crap to steal.

Funny how the rest of the states in the country manage not to devlove into anarchy without the right to blow away crooks fleeing their neighbors' houses. And maintain similar crime levels to boot. Go figure.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Lock him up. He went vigilante. Clearly no danger to him here.

Just by chance, you going to vote for Hillary and do you have lots of Che shirts?

FYI we the people own this country, not the government, not the police, WE THE PEOPLE who have the power to act of our own free will when trusted appointed authorities are unable or unwilling to do the job. In fact this country was founded and the Constitution written by "vigilantes", so think about that next time you call someone defending his neighbors house or our countries border a "vigilante" just because he doesn't get paid to wear a badge.

You seem like one of those people who like to appeal to authority and see a caste system where "citizen" or "civilian" is a lower class and less privileged position than "those with badges and suits" who "have power". Is civilian a dirty word for you? Does the word citizen represent those who should be controlled and ruled by those "who know better"?

Do you look at police officers and government officials as a fellow citizen, neighbor, and countryman entrusted by the public to maintain order and worthy of your respect? O do you look *up* to them as lords, as someone more privileged and higher on a caste system than you, a mere citizen, as someone who has control to dictate what people can and cant do?

Citizen != subject. It doesn't work that way in the USA.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: blackllotus
The death penalty for stealing... last time I checked this was 2007 not 1007

I'll bet you that it will be a long time before another robbery takes place in that neighborhood again.

Or the thieves (you don't think crime is going to just end over this do you?) would simply kill whoever they see first instead of being sneaky about it. If it was just jail time they were threatened with, well, no reason to get violent then. But you wanna make theft a life or death situation? You got it.

I can't believe you. You are saying criminals are justified to kill people in order to carry out their crimes because people might be willing to defend what is theirs?

Do you believe that bank robbers have a right to shoot at police because police pulled their guns out first and made the robbers feel threatened?

The criminal is ALWAYS wrong when escalating.

Let them start killing people to steal. Maybe more honest citizens will wake up and stop being institutionalized sheep, and take measures to reassert their independence and protect themselves and their property, and we'd no longer have these debates.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As bad as this is, if it happens every time a home gets burglarized, home burglary will end. You have to decide for yourself if a society with draconian punishment for theft that never gets applied in a society that can sleep safely in their homes is better or worse than a crime ridden permissive society.

Who was it that said, "Thou shalt not steal"?

The same guy that said "Thou shalt not kill".

And I think that if Texas would just execute a few criminals that murder would cease to exist. Oh, wait....

I believe it was deliberately "Thou shall not commit murder", a very deliberate difference from simply killing (murder is killing with malice, hate, with evil intentions, etc).

 

[jandrews]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As bad as this is, if it happens every time a home gets burglarized, home burglary will end. You have to decide for yourself if a society with draconian punishment for theft that never gets applied in a society that can sleep safely in their homes is better or worse than a crime ridden permissive society.

Who was it that said, "Thou shalt not steal"?

The same guy that said "Thou shalt not kill".

And I think that if Texas would just execute a few criminals that murder would cease to exist. Oh, wait....

I believe it was deliberately "Thou shall not commit murder", a very deliberate difference from simply killing (murder is killing with malice, hate, with evil intentions, etc).

No, you are incorrect it is 'thou shall not kill' regardless there is a lot of killing in the bible with the lords permission so it would seem. So who knows man who knows.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: jandrews

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As bad as this is, if it happens every time a home gets burglarized, home burglary will end. You have to decide for yourself if a society with draconian punishment for theft that never gets applied in a society that can sleep safely in their homes is better or worse than a crime ridden permissive society.

Who was it that said, "Thou shalt not steal"?

The same guy that said "Thou shalt not kill".

And I think that if Texas would just execute a few criminals that murder would cease to exist. Oh, wait....

I believe it was deliberately "Thou shall not commit murder", a very deliberate difference from simply killing (murder is killing with malice, hate, with evil intentions, etc).

No, you are incorrect it is 'thou shall not kill' regardless there is a lot of killing in the bible with the lords permission so it would seem. So who knows man who knows.

It was translated to "kill" on purpose in order to pacify the populace and curtail ANY kind of killing, including self defense, because of over righteous moral high horse executives who manipulated the texts in translation to suit their own agenda. After all the power to take life, even for a righteous reason, is very powerful, and the sheep can't be allowed such power. So lets modify things to suite our ends.

The original Hebrew text uses the word 'murder' in the commandments.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Lock him up. He went vigilante. Clearly no danger to him here.

Just by chance, you going to vote for Hillary and do you have lots of Che shirts?

FYI we the people own this country, not the government, not the police, WE THE PEOPLE who have the power to act of our own free will when trusted appointed authorities are unable or unwilling to do the job. In fact this country was founded and the Constitution written by "vigilantes", so think about that next time you call someone defending his neighbors house or our countries border a "vigilante" just because he doesn't get paid to wear a badge.

You seem like one of those people who like to appeal to authority and see a caste system where "citizen" or "civilian" is a lower class and less privileged position than "those with badges and suits" who "have power". Is civilian a dirty word for you? Does the word citizen represent those who should be controlled and ruled by those "who know better"?

Do you look at police officers and government officials as a fellow citizen, neighbor, and countryman entrusted by the public to maintain order and worthy of your respect? O do you look *up* to them as lords, as someone more privileged and higher on a caste system than you, a mere citizen, as someone who has control to dictate what people can and cant do?

Citizen != subject. It doesn't work that way in the USA.

Welcome to the thread. I have to admit I didn't bother reading closely anything you wrote, but I did skim it. Apparently you don't realize that anywhere but Texas (any other states have this law?) this guy would be in jail. So before you call me crazy, you might have 40something other states to argue with as well.

And you might want to look at or read articles about this case cuz there are plenty of Texans who felt he shouldn't have killed people in this situation. Even the 911 operator repeatedly said it's not worth killing people over possessions. The shooter even says he feels horrible about what happened and expressed remorse to the families of the guys he killed.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, would you feel worse about living with having taken two peoples lives unnecessarily, or living with having let your neighbor's lose some of their crap.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: blackllotus
The death penalty for stealing... last time I checked this was 2007 not 1007

I'll bet you that it will be a long time before another robbery takes place in that neighborhood again.

Or the thieves (you don't think crime is going to just end over this do you?) would simply kill whoever they see first instead of being sneaky about it. If it was just jail time they were threatened with, well, no reason to get violent then. But you wanna make theft a life or death situation? You got it.

I can't believe you. You are saying criminals are justified to kill people in order to carry out their crimes because people might be willing to defend what is theirs?

Do you believe that bank robbers have a right to shoot at police because police pulled their guns out first and made the robbers feel threatened?

The criminal is ALWAYS wrong when escalating.

Let them start killing people to steal. Maybe more honest citizens will wake up and stop being institutionalized sheep, and take measures to reassert their independence and protect themselves and their property, and we'd no longer have these debates.

Nice strawman twist there. Did I "justify" criminals killing people when committing crimes or did I "predict" that that is what is likely to happen if they know they might be killed carrying out a non-violent criminal activity the punishment for which is generally a few years in prison and not the death penalty? Learn how to parse please.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Lock him up. He went vigilante. Clearly no danger to him here.

Just by chance, you going to vote for Hillary and do you have lots of Che shirts?

FYI we the people own this country, not the government, not the police, WE THE PEOPLE who have the power to act of our own free will when trusted appointed authorities are unable or unwilling to do the job. In fact this country was founded and the Constitution written by "vigilantes", so think about that next time you call someone defending his neighbors house or our countries border a "vigilante" just because he doesn't get paid to wear a badge.

You seem like one of those people who like to appeal to authority and see a caste system where "citizen" or "civilian" is a lower class and less privileged position than "those with badges and suits" who "have power". Is civilian a dirty word for you? Does the word citizen represent those who should be controlled and ruled by those "who know better"?

Do you look at police officers and government officials as a fellow citizen, neighbor, and countryman entrusted by the public to maintain order and worthy of your respect? O do you look *up* to them as lords, as someone more privileged and higher on a caste system than you, a mere citizen, as someone who has control to dictate what people can and cant do?

Citizen != subject. It doesn't work that way in the USA.

Welcome to the thread. I have to admit I didn't bother reading closely anything you wrote, but I did skim it. Apparently you don't realize that anywhere but Texas (any other states have this law?) this guy would be in jail. So before you call me crazy, you might have 40something other states to argue with as well.

And you might want to look at or read articles about this case cuz there are plenty of Texans who felt he shouldn't have killed people in this situation. Even the 911 operator repeatedly said it's not worth killing people over possessions. The shooter even says he feels horrible about what happened and expressed remorse to the families of the guys he killed.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, would you feel worse about living with having taken two peoples lives unnecessarily, or living with having let your neighbor's lose some of their crap.

I wouldn't have resorted to deadly force immediately myself, but I assure you they would have been leaving with nothing more than what they came with and I would have one upped their resistance every step of the way. For example, I'd force them with legal physical obstruction to relinquish the property but if they pulled a knife or gun or otherwise approached me, I would shoot them. They wouldn't be dead over a VCR, they would be dead because they threatened my life while I was in the process of legally retaining my belongings from intruders on private property.

I disagree on the popular view that life is not worth property. I exchange a portion of my LIMITED LIFESPAN in the form of labor in order to earn that property and pursue my life and happiness the way I see fit. Am I not entitled to enjoy my life and labor without someone else taking it from me in any measurable quantity?

When someone takes the property I earned with my blood, sweat, and tears, they are essentially taking the precious hours of my life that I traded and can never get back in order to earn that property. I will not stand to have someone take what would be hundreds of hours of my life in a matter of seconds because they feel entitled to the rewards of my labor.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: blackllotus
The death penalty for stealing... last time I checked this was 2007 not 1007

I'll bet you that it will be a long time before another robbery takes place in that neighborhood again.

Or the thieves (you don't think crime is going to just end over this do you?) would simply kill whoever they see first instead of being sneaky about it. If it was just jail time they were threatened with, well, no reason to get violent then. But you wanna make theft a life or death situation? You got it.

I can't believe you. You are saying criminals are justified to kill people in order to carry out their crimes because people might be willing to defend what is theirs?

Do you believe that bank robbers have a right to shoot at police because police pulled their guns out first and made the robbers feel threatened?

The criminal is ALWAYS wrong when escalating.

Let them start killing people to steal. Maybe more honest citizens will wake up and stop being institutionalized sheep, and take measures to reassert their independence and protect themselves and their property, and we'd no longer have these debates.

Nice strawman twist there. Did I "justify" criminals killing people when committing crimes or did I "predict" that that is what is likely to happen if they know they might be killed carrying out a non-violent criminal activity the punishment for which is generally a few years in prison and not the death penalty? Learn how to parse please.

You proposed as though it was an accepted and automated response by the criminals while failing to note that the criminal is the one who is still wrong on all accounts, as if you are somehow justifying criminal activity and removing all burden of defense from those involved. You are insinuating that it is the honest citizen who is making the problem worse by defending himself and therefore it should not be allowed, and that is appalling.

I personally would rather see more criminals killing people to steal their stuff. Then more citizens would arm themselves and start taking responsibility for themselves and their lives and property and start exercising their Constitutional rights rather than sitting on their hands and losing those rights one at a time by putting their trust in Big Nanny. I'd rather not see this country turn into a police state like Britain where the people are basically powerless sheep.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: blackllotus
The death penalty for stealing... last time I checked this was 2007 not 1007

I'll bet you that it will be a long time before another robbery takes place in that neighborhood again.

Or the thieves (you don't think crime is going to just end over this do you?) would simply kill whoever they see first instead of being sneaky about it. If it was just jail time they were threatened with, well, no reason to get violent then. But you wanna make theft a life or death situation? You got it.

I can't believe you. You are saying criminals are justified to kill people in order to carry out their crimes because people might be willing to defend what is theirs?

Do you believe that bank robbers have a right to shoot at police because police pulled their guns out first and made the robbers feel threatened?

The criminal is ALWAYS wrong when escalating.

Let them start killing people to steal. Maybe more honest citizens will wake up and stop being institutionalized sheep, and take measures to reassert their independence and protect themselves and their property, and we'd no longer have these debates.

Nice strawman twist there. Did I "justify" criminals killing people when committing crimes or did I "predict" that that is what is likely to happen if they know they might be killed carrying out a non-violent criminal activity the punishment for which is generally a few years in prison and not the death penalty? Learn how to parse please.

You proposed as though it was an accepted and automated response by the criminals while failing to note that the criminal is the one who is still wrong on all accounts, as if you are somehow justifying criminal activity and removing all burden of defense from those involved. You are insinuating that it is the honest citizen who is making the problem worse by defending himself and therefore it should not be allowed, and that is appalling.

I personally would rather see more criminals killing people to steal their stuff. Then more citizens would arm themselves and start taking responsibility for themselves and their lives and property and start exercising their Constitutional rights rather than sitting on their hands and losing those rights one at a time by putting their trust in Big Nanny. I'd rather not see this country turn into a police state like Britain where the people are basically powerless sheep.

Nice sentiment. I propose they start at your house.

And you continue your strawman argument. Now I not only endorse criminals shooting people but I think criminals are not solely to blame for the crimes they commit. I have to stop arguing with you as you don't seem to be able to make sense. Anyone else want to help him? No, not you Nebor. Cadsortaguy and Genx are usually pretty articulate.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Lock him up. He went vigilante. Clearly no danger to him here.

Just by chance, you going to vote for Hillary and do you have lots of Che shirts?

FYI we the people own this country, not the government, not the police, WE THE PEOPLE who have the power to act of our own free will when trusted appointed authorities are unable or unwilling to do the job. In fact this country was founded and the Constitution written by "vigilantes", so think about that next time you call someone defending his neighbors house or our countries border a "vigilante" just because he doesn't get paid to wear a badge.

You seem like one of those people who like to appeal to authority and see a caste system where "citizen" or "civilian" is a lower class and less privileged position than "those with badges and suits" who "have power". Is civilian a dirty word for you? Does the word citizen represent those who should be controlled and ruled by those "who know better"?

Do you look at police officers and government officials as a fellow citizen, neighbor, and countryman entrusted by the public to maintain order and worthy of your respect? O do you look *up* to them as lords, as someone more privileged and higher on a caste system than you, a mere citizen, as someone who has control to dictate what people can and cant do?

Citizen != subject. It doesn't work that way in the USA.

Welcome to the thread. I have to admit I didn't bother reading closely anything you wrote, but I did skim it. Apparently you don't realize that anywhere but Texas (any other states have this law?) this guy would be in jail. So before you call me crazy, you might have 40something other states to argue with as well.

And you might want to look at or read articles about this case cuz there are plenty of Texans who felt he shouldn't have killed people in this situation. Even the 911 operator repeatedly said it's not worth killing people over possessions. The shooter even says he feels horrible about what happened and expressed remorse to the families of the guys he killed.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, would you feel worse about living with having taken two peoples lives unnecessarily, or living with having let your neighbor's lose some of their crap.

IIRC Hawaii and Missouri have similar laws.

The point is you can either let them get away with a felony, or you can stop them. It is every citizen's responsibility to do his part to uphold and enforce righteous law. "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing."

I don't feel that there is any other way Horn could have affected an arrest against bigger, stronger, younger, more numerous felons.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: blackllotus
The death penalty for stealing... last time I checked this was 2007 not 1007

I'll bet you that it will be a long time before another robbery takes place in that neighborhood again.

Or the thieves (you don't think crime is going to just end over this do you?) would simply kill whoever they see first instead of being sneaky about it. If it was just jail time they were threatened with, well, no reason to get violent then. But you wanna make theft a life or death situation? You got it.

I can't believe you. You are saying criminals are justified to kill people in order to carry out their crimes because people might be willing to defend what is theirs?

Do you believe that bank robbers have a right to shoot at police because police pulled their guns out first and made the robbers feel threatened?

The criminal is ALWAYS wrong when escalating.

Let them start killing people to steal. Maybe more honest citizens will wake up and stop being institutionalized sheep, and take measures to reassert their independence and protect themselves and their property, and we'd no longer have these debates.

Nice strawman twist there. Did I "justify" criminals killing people when committing crimes or did I "predict" that that is what is likely to happen if they know they might be killed carrying out a non-violent criminal activity the punishment for which is generally a few years in prison and not the death penalty? Learn how to parse please.

You proposed as though it was an accepted and automated response by the criminals while failing to note that the criminal is the one who is still wrong on all accounts, as if you are somehow justifying criminal activity and removing all burden of defense from those involved. You are insinuating that it is the honest citizen who is making the problem worse by defending himself and therefore it should not be allowed, and that is appalling.

I personally would rather see more criminals killing people to steal their stuff. Then more citizens would arm themselves and start taking responsibility for themselves and their lives and property and start exercising their Constitutional rights rather than sitting on their hands and losing those rights one at a time by putting their trust in Big Nanny. I'd rather not see this country turn into a police state like Britain where the people are basically powerless sheep.

Nice sentiment. I propose they start at your house.

More than happy to perform a public service and lower crime rates as long as sympathizers like you aren't on the Jury. I have a feeling they would rather hit your house though since you will be busy abandoning your home running while trying to dial 911 while everything you ever earned is being loaded into a van.

FWIW I question the justification here, unless there was a warning such as "keep your hands where I can see them" that the would be self appointed wealth redistribution czars blatantly ignored.

What I have a problem with are the principles of some weak spined individuals who don't have the fortitude to stand up for their community, their neighbors, and themselves. People who are unconditional pacifists who suck their thumb and curl up into fetal position when confronted by a fellow human being are just as mentally disturbed as trigger happy lunatics who want to shoot someone for merely stepping on their property.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Lock him up. He went vigilante. Clearly no danger to him here.

Just by chance, you going to vote for Hillary and do you have lots of Che shirts?

FYI we the people own this country, not the government, not the police, WE THE PEOPLE who have the power to act of our own free will when trusted appointed authorities are unable or unwilling to do the job. In fact this country was founded and the Constitution written by "vigilantes", so think about that next time you call someone defending his neighbors house or our countries border a "vigilante" just because he doesn't get paid to wear a badge.

You seem like one of those people who like to appeal to authority and see a caste system where "citizen" or "civilian" is a lower class and less privileged position than "those with badges and suits" who "have power". Is civilian a dirty word for you? Does the word citizen represent those who should be controlled and ruled by those "who know better"?

Do you look at police officers and government officials as a fellow citizen, neighbor, and countryman entrusted by the public to maintain order and worthy of your respect? O do you look *up* to them as lords, as someone more privileged and higher on a caste system than you, a mere citizen, as someone who has control to dictate what people can and cant do?

Citizen != subject. It doesn't work that way in the USA.

Welcome to the thread. I have to admit I didn't bother reading closely anything you wrote, but I did skim it. Apparently you don't realize that anywhere but Texas (any other states have this law?) this guy would be in jail. So before you call me crazy, you might have 40something other states to argue with as well.

And you might want to look at or read articles about this case cuz there are plenty of Texans who felt he shouldn't have killed people in this situation. Even the 911 operator repeatedly said it's not worth killing people over possessions. The shooter even says he feels horrible about what happened and expressed remorse to the families of the guys he killed.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, would you feel worse about living with having taken two peoples lives unnecessarily, or living with having let your neighbor's lose some of their crap.

IIRC Hawaii and Missouri have similar laws.

The point is you can either let them get away with a felony, or you can stop them. It is every citizen's responsibility to do his part to uphold and enforce righteous law. "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing."

I don't feel that there is any other way Horn could have affected an arrest against bigger, stronger, younger, more numerous felons.

You ever listen to the careful wording that police and operators use?

They never say you can't do something, they merely say you shouldn't or that they recommend against it while basically conceding that you do what you need to do to protect yourself.

Such concepts as citizens arrest and civic duty and things like that have been long lost on the masses of sheep. If you so much as breath without a police officer on the scene now you are labeled a vigilante. That is how the leftist pacifist education and media institutions have raised the sheep.

ie: they burn into children's heads in elementary schools that fighting is wrong no matter what and that you should "tell an authority figure" even when cornered by a bully and you will get in trouble if you punch back. Or TV ads that suggest you should give them your wallet and run or use your keys as a weapon, purposely omitting more effective solutions like enlisting in a conceal carry program with a local law enforcement center. And showing guns and handcuffs on the screen whenever they are talking about crime in the news, etc.

Some of us can see right through that social conditioning shit. I hope others can start to see it too.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Nebor

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

You're statement is nonsense.

The full phrase is:

"(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;"

That phrase, "during the nighttime" applies to ALL of the crimes listed. Or do you think it's logical that "during the nighttime" applies only to "theft," but not to burglary, robbery, or aggravated robbery?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Nebor

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

You're statement is nonsense.

The full phrase is:

"(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;"

That phrase, "during the nighttime" applies to ALL of the crimes listed. Or do you think it's logical that "during the nighttime" applies only to "theft," but not to burglary, robbery, or aggravated robbery?

After looking at the whole law, I think it actually does apply only to theft during the nighttime. Observe Sec 9.42A

A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime

See how they separate out theft and crim mischief at the end? I think that makes it clear.

What is still disputed is that if someone is fleeing after a burglary, you are only allowed to use deadly force TO RECOVER THE PROPERTY, which means it was THEFT and not BURGLARY. Burglary is essentially breaking and entering. Once they take property, now its theft, and you can only shoot if they are fleeing at night. It's confusing.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Lock him up. He went vigilante. Clearly no danger to him here.

Just by chance, you going to vote for Hillary and do you have lots of Che shirts?

FYI we the people own this country, not the government, not the police, WE THE PEOPLE who have the power to act of our own free will when trusted appointed authorities are unable or unwilling to do the job. In fact this country was founded and the Constitution written by "vigilantes", so think about that next time you call someone defending his neighbors house or our countries border a "vigilante" just because he doesn't get paid to wear a badge.

You seem like one of those people who like to appeal to authority and see a caste system where "citizen" or "civilian" is a lower class and less privileged position than "those with badges and suits" who "have power". Is civilian a dirty word for you? Does the word citizen represent those who should be controlled and ruled by those "who know better"?

Do you look at police officers and government officials as a fellow citizen, neighbor, and countryman entrusted by the public to maintain order and worthy of your respect? O do you look *up* to them as lords, as someone more privileged and higher on a caste system than you, a mere citizen, as someone who has control to dictate what people can and cant do?

Citizen != subject. It doesn't work that way in the USA.

Welcome to the thread. I have to admit I didn't bother reading closely anything you wrote, but I did skim it. Apparently you don't realize that anywhere but Texas (any other states have this law?) this guy would be in jail. So before you call me crazy, you might have 40something other states to argue with as well.

And you might want to look at or read articles about this case cuz there are plenty of Texans who felt he shouldn't have killed people in this situation. Even the 911 operator repeatedly said it's not worth killing people over possessions. The shooter even says he feels horrible about what happened and expressed remorse to the families of the guys he killed.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, would you feel worse about living with having taken two peoples lives unnecessarily, or living with having let your neighbor's lose some of their crap.

I wouldn't have resorted to deadly force immediately myself, but I assure you they would have been leaving with nothing more than what they came with and I would have one upped their resistance every step of the way. For example, I'd force them with legal physical obstruction to relinquish the property but if they pulled a knife or gun or otherwise approached me, I would shoot them. They wouldn't be dead over a VCR, they would be dead because they threatened my life while I was in the process of legally retaining my belongings from intruders on private property.

I disagree on the popular view that life is not worth property. I exchange a portion of my LIMITED LIFESPAN in the form of labor in order to earn that property and pursue my life and happiness the way I see fit. Am I not entitled to enjoy my life and labor without someone else taking it from me in any measurable quantity?

When someone takes the property I earned with my blood, sweat, and tears, they are essentially taking the precious hours of my life that I traded and can never get back in order to earn that property. I will not stand to have someone take what would be hundreds of hours of my life in a matter of seconds because they feel entitled to the rewards of my labor.

Isn't this basically what the government does when they tax your blood, sweat, and tears?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Nebor

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary

That's all he needs.

It's funny, all the people who aren't from Texas are foaming at the mouth, and all of us Texans are saying "Good job!" We know this guy isn't going to get charged. I think the thing is, this is one of the few Texas stories that's made national news. People get shot over property every day in Texas. Most of the time it doesn't even make the news. Justice shouldn't be so uncommon as to be remarkable when witnessed.

You're statement is nonsense.

The full phrase is:

"(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;"

That phrase, "during the nighttime" applies to ALL of the crimes listed. Or do you think it's logical that "during the nighttime" applies only to "theft," but not to burglary, robbery, or aggravated robbery?

After looking at the whole law, I think it actually does apply only to theft during the nighttime. Observe Sec 9.42A

A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime

See how they separate out theft and crim mischief at the end? I think that makes it clear.

What is still disputed is that if someone is fleeing after a burglary, you are only allowed to use deadly force TO RECOVER THE PROPERTY, which means it was THEFT and not BURGLARY. Burglary is essentially breaking and entering. Once they take property, now its theft, and you can only shoot if they are fleeing at night. It's confusing.

Well, the grand jury disagreed with both of you, Horn is a free man. :thumbsup:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Lock him up. He went vigilante. Clearly no danger to him here.

Just by chance, you going to vote for Hillary and do you have lots of Che shirts?

FYI we the people own this country, not the government, not the police, WE THE PEOPLE who have the power to act of our own free will when trusted appointed authorities are unable or unwilling to do the job. In fact this country was founded and the Constitution written by "vigilantes", so think about that next time you call someone defending his neighbors house or our countries border a "vigilante" just because he doesn't get paid to wear a badge.

You seem like one of those people who like to appeal to authority and see a caste system where "citizen" or "civilian" is a lower class and less privileged position than "those with badges and suits" who "have power". Is civilian a dirty word for you? Does the word citizen represent those who should be controlled and ruled by those "who know better"?

Do you look at police officers and government officials as a fellow citizen, neighbor, and countryman entrusted by the public to maintain order and worthy of your respect? O do you look *up* to them as lords, as someone more privileged and higher on a caste system than you, a mere citizen, as someone who has control to dictate what people can and cant do?

Citizen != subject. It doesn't work that way in the USA.

Welcome to the thread. I have to admit I didn't bother reading closely anything you wrote, but I did skim it. Apparently you don't realize that anywhere but Texas (any other states have this law?) this guy would be in jail. So before you call me crazy, you might have 40something other states to argue with as well.

And you might want to look at or read articles about this case cuz there are plenty of Texans who felt he shouldn't have killed people in this situation. Even the 911 operator repeatedly said it's not worth killing people over possessions. The shooter even says he feels horrible about what happened and expressed remorse to the families of the guys he killed.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, would you feel worse about living with having taken two peoples lives unnecessarily, or living with having let your neighbor's lose some of their crap.

I wouldn't have resorted to deadly force immediately myself, but I assure you they would have been leaving with nothing more than what they came with and I would have one upped their resistance every step of the way. For example, I'd force them with legal physical obstruction to relinquish the property but if they pulled a knife or gun or otherwise approached me, I would shoot them. They wouldn't be dead over a VCR, they would be dead because they threatened my life while I was in the process of legally retaining my belongings from intruders on private property.

I disagree on the popular view that life is not worth property. I exchange a portion of my LIMITED LIFESPAN in the form of labor in order to earn that property and pursue my life and happiness the way I see fit. Am I not entitled to enjoy my life and labor without someone else taking it from me in any measurable quantity?

When someone takes the property I earned with my blood, sweat, and tears, they are essentially taking the precious hours of my life that I traded and can never get back in order to earn that property. I will not stand to have someone take what would be hundreds of hours of my life in a matter of seconds because they feel entitled to the rewards of my labor.

You are the first person other than myself I have ever heard make that argument.

:thumbsup::beer:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: exdeath
...
I wouldn't have resorted to deadly force immediately myself, but I assure you they would have been leaving with nothing more than what they came with and I would have one upped their resistance every step of the way. For example, I'd force them with legal physical obstruction to relinquish the property but if they pulled a knife or gun or otherwise approached me, I would shoot them. They wouldn't be dead over a VCR, they would be dead because they threatened my life while I was in the process of legally retaining my belongings from intruders on private property.

I disagree on the popular view that life is not worth property. I exchange a portion of my LIMITED LIFESPAN in the form of labor in order to earn that property and pursue my life and happiness the way I see fit. Am I not entitled to enjoy my life and labor without someone else taking it from me in any measurable quantity?

When someone takes the property I earned with my blood, sweat, and tears, they are essentially taking the precious hours of my life that I traded and can never get back in order to earn that property. I will not stand to have someone take what would be hundreds of hours of my life in a matter of seconds because they feel entitled to the rewards of my labor.

You are the first person other than myself I have ever heard make that argument.

:thumbsup::beer:

Probably because it's kind of a silly argument. Following that logic, I can kill someone for cutting me off in traffic. After all, the other driver is forcing me to spend more of my LIMITED LIFESPAN than I planned on getting where I want to go. Isn't that really the same argument? I spent $2000 on that laptop your stealing, and since it would take me a fair amount of labor to earn another $2000, I have the right to kill you to prevent you from stealing...is that about right? In other words, ANY amount of "wasted time" on my part is equivalent to you stealing part of my limited lifespan, so I'm justified to take the rest of yours? Needless to say, the idea isn't all THAT unappealing...the guy in front of my at Starbucks takes a really long time to decide what he wants, shooting him in the head would save me a lot of time in the morning. But somehow it just doesn't seem like a good way to run a society.