Those quotes are from his lawyer, who is of course going to paint this in the best possible light. Was he reasonably threatened? Probably not. Would he have been threatened at all if he had stayed inside? Almost certainly not. Is there a reason he had to shoot them after they turned and ran? No. I mean really. Did he think they were diving for cover or something, digging in for a long firefight?
I agree with most of what you wrote. The only section I'm unsure of is how threaned he felt. I agree, He should have stayed inside. Going outside was asking for trouble. But once he was there he very well could have felt threatened, even if he shouldn't have. The law/interpretation of the law in this case does trouble me.
Mainly I disagree with someone responding with RTFA when the information in the article was correctly extracted.
The 911 tape pretty clearly records him telling the dispatcher that he was going to go out and confront them, and that he was allowed to shoot them under the law, and then proceeds to keep recording as he threatens the subjects and then shoots them.
Again, if there had been any actual danger from the subjects, the cop would have gotten out of his fucking car
As I understand it, the cop said he was fearful that he might be shot as an assumed accomplice. The cops are under no legal obligation to protect anyone.
So the cop was afraid that the armed man was going to fire indiscriminately and didn't put a stop to a shooting (if he was afraid he'd be shot, he was damned sure the shooter was going to shoot).
edit: this is also assuming he couldn't get out of the car and yell "FREEZE, POLICE" and be pretty well sure that the man knew the cops were already coming.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure. It is also probably one of the fundamentals associated with this law that will have to be tried in court to determine a boundary. Obviously it extends to wherever he shot the fellows.
So, let me get this straight. Peeking is ok with shooting to kill non-violent offenders who are fleeing and not presenting an immediate threat of bodily harm. That's...monstrous.
I'm ok with self defense to protect against the threat of death or severe harm. But shoot-to-kill to protect property? How does that make a lick of sense in modern society? That's worse than cutting their hands off.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
Daedalus on
0
Options
Descendant XSkyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered Userregular
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
Clearly Daedalus, Mr. Horn's killing of these two individuals was a public service. He probably brought down the crime rate single-handedly through his actions.
Descendant X on
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
So, let me get this straight. Peeking is ok with shooting to kill non-violent offenders who are fleeing and not presenting an immediate threat of bodily harm. That's...monstrous.
I'm ok with self defense to protect against the threat of death or severe harm. But shoot-to-kill to protect property? How does that make a lick of sense in modern society? That's worse than cutting their hands off.
If you value property rights over the right to life of people suspected of a crime, then you don't have a problem with it I suppose
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death.
Then why are you guys acting like I would omit that portion of the crime intentionally? Doesn't make any sense.
Because it seems like you are trying to sweeten your monstrous notion that theft is a crime worthy of death. Thanks for clarifying; now we know you just have a truly monstrous position.
EDIT: Damnit, Savant, I used the same word. Beat'd.
It's technically theft if I take your pen while I'm over visiting. Is there a monetary value associated with the use of deadly force in theft?
How do you verify in the dark at range that someone has exceeded this monetary threshold?
Why does a dispatcher telling you to not do something and you doing it anyways not at the very least get you hit with failure to obey a police officer?
So property is basically more important than a human life that is in flight.
That's some messed up fucking shit.
Well, that depends on what we're talking about here. Not all property is equivalent in value and not all human life is equivalent in value.
Let's assume "property" = a bag of Cheetos. Similarly, let's assume that if someone tries to rob me of my Cheetos, then they are worthless criminal scum (which is true). My Cheetos are definitely more important than a human life, regardless of whether the human is threatening me, running away, or on their knees begging for mercy.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death. The punishment is to be carried out on the spot as a deterrent. The victim of the theft is to be pulling the trigger. This is going to make the world a better, safer place
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death.
Then why are you guys acting like I would omit that portion of the crime intentionally? Doesn't make any sense.
Because it seems like you are trying to sweeten your monstrous notion that theft is a crime worthy of death. Thanks for clarifying; now we know you just have a truly monstrous position.
EDIT: Damnit, Savant, I used the same word. Beat'd.
Haha... never been accused of trying to sweeten a situation before.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
How would a Shooter on the trail of a suspected criminal possibly know which property the suspected criminal has permission to enter and which he doesn't? Is the Shooter allowed to trespass on the suspected criminal's property in order to shoot him? Could the suspected criminal then justifiably shoot the Shooter, because he had then committed a property crime?
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death. The punishment is to be carried out on the spot as a deterrent. The victim of the theft is to be pulling the trigger. This is going to make the world a better, safer place
Fix'd
Only if it is required to prevent the fleeing and proper prosecution of the criminal. I would rather they be prosecuted for theft, but if they decide that they can steal without any repercussions, then I don't have a problem with someone stopping them with a gun.
PeekingDuck on
0
Options
Descendant XSkyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered Userregular
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
Descendant X on
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
AGAIN - the man ran at him and then ran away and was then shot in the back. Read the thread, kiddo.
You say this as if that makes it okay that he shot two men in the back.
Within his precondition that theft deserves death, it's consistent. Additionally, I believe "monstrous" was a good word used earlier, applied to said precondition.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
How would a Shooter on the trail of a suspected criminal possibly know which property the suspected criminal has permission to enter and which he doesn't? Is the Shooter allowed to trespass on the suspected criminal's property in order to shoot him? Could the suspected criminal then justifiably shoot the Shooter, because he had then committed a property crime?
Under Texas law apparently if someone chases you down and thus steps on someone else's property (not their own) you can shoot them in defense of that person's property?
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
How would a Shooter on the trail of a suspected criminal possibly know which property the suspected criminal has permission to enter and which he doesn't? Is the Shooter allowed to trespass on the suspected criminal's property in order to shoot him? Could the suspected criminal then justifiably shoot the Shooter, because he had then committed a property crime?
The permission from the property owner for the shooter, not the criminal.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death. The punishment is to be carried out on the spot as a deterrent. The victim of the theft is to be pulling the trigger. This is going to make the world a better, safer place
Fix'd
Only if it is required to prevent the fleeing and proper prosecution of the criminal. I would rather they be prosecuted for theft, but if they decide that they can steal without any repercussions, then I don't have a problem with someone stopping them with a gun.
Do you understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or is that something you're not cool with either and would like to see changed?
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
How would a Shooter on the trail of a suspected criminal possibly know which property the suspected criminal has permission to enter and which he doesn't? Is the Shooter allowed to trespass on the suspected criminal's property in order to shoot him? Could the suspected criminal then justifiably shoot the Shooter, because he had then committed a property crime?
Under Texas law apparently if someone chases you down and thus steps on someone else's property (not their own) you can shoot them in defense of that person's property?
No, you can only shoot them for burglary in certain instances. Not just for stepping on a property line.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
fun fact: breaking in to get your stuff back, and then shooting them when they confront you, is second-degree murder.
(at least, up in NY. In Texas I hear they give you a medal.)
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death. The punishment is to be carried out on the spot as a deterrent. The victim of the theft is to be pulling the trigger. This is going to make the world a better, safer place
Fix'd
Only if it is required to prevent the fleeing and proper prosecution of the criminal. I would rather they be prosecuted for theft, but if they decide that they can steal without any repercussions, then I don't have a problem with someone stopping them with a gun.
Do you understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or is that something you're not cool with either and would like to see changed?
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death. The punishment is to be carried out on the spot as a deterrent. The victim of the theft is to be pulling the trigger. This is going to make the world a better, safer place
Fix'd
Only if it is required to prevent the fleeing and proper prosecution of the criminal. I would rather they be prosecuted for theft, but if they decide that they can steal without any repercussions, then I don't have a problem with someone stopping them with a gun.
Do you understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or is that something you're not cool with either and would like to see changed?
If I see a man steal my tv, he is a thief.
If you see a man walk off with your neighbor's TV, is he a thief or is he the repo guy? Or a repairman?
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death. The punishment is to be carried out on the spot as a deterrent. The victim of the theft is to be pulling the trigger. This is going to make the world a better, safer place
Fix'd
Only if it is required to prevent the fleeing and proper prosecution of the criminal. I would rather they be prosecuted for theft, but if they decide that they can steal without any repercussions, then I don't have a problem with someone stopping them with a gun.
Do you understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or is that something you're not cool with either and would like to see changed?
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
Medopine on
0
Options
Descendant XSkyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered Userregular
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
I haven't answered.
That's not the point, and you know it.
Descendant X on
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
fun fact: breaking in to get your stuff back, and then shooting them when they confront you, is second-degree murder.
(at least, up in NY. In Texas I hear they give you a medal.)
I don't think it is appropriate to break into a house to kill the offender, because that would be committing a crime. Nor do I think it is appropriate to enter the property of another party that hasn't given you previous consent. The rest of it, I guess is good to go - so long as it doesn't involve recklessness to the general populace.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death. The punishment is to be carried out on the spot as a deterrent. The victim of the theft is to be pulling the trigger. This is going to make the world a better, safer place
Fix'd
Only if it is required to prevent the fleeing and proper prosecution of the criminal. I would rather they be prosecuted for theft, but if they decide that they can steal without any repercussions, then I don't have a problem with someone stopping them with a gun.
Do you understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or is that something you're not cool with either and would like to see changed?
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Do you understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or is that something you're not cool with either and would like to see changed?
If I see a man steal my tv, he is a thief.
Problem is, as a member of our society and country you agree to abide with the courts' manner of determining that and the punishment for it, not your own. Laws that negate a person's right to a fair trial should not be put into existence. If you have a problem with it, well. You know.
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death. The punishment is to be carried out on the spot as a deterrent. The victim of the theft is to be pulling the trigger. This is going to make the world a better, safer place
Fix'd
Only if it is required to prevent the fleeing and proper prosecution of the criminal. I would rather they be prosecuted for theft, but if they decide that they can steal without any repercussions, then I don't have a problem with someone stopping them with a gun.
Do you understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or is that something you're not cool with either and would like to see changed?
If I see a man steal my tv, he is a thief.
If you see a man walk off with your neighbor's TV, is he a thief or is he the repo guy? Or a repairman?
I don't shoot people carrying tvs. Even my neighbors. What I can agree with is Joe Horn going outside to get the men to put down the items that he saw them with after breaking into his neighbors house.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
fun fact: breaking in to get your stuff back, and then shooting them when they confront you, is second-degree murder.
(at least, up in NY. In Texas I hear they give you a medal.)
I don't think it is appropriate to break into a house to kill the offender, because that would be committing a crime. Nor do I think it is appropriate to enter the property of another party that hasn't given you previous consent. The rest of it, I guess is good to go - so long as it doesn't involve recklessness to the general populace.
But you do seem to think that committing a crime forfeits your right to life. The logical extension of this is that you forfeit all the rights living confers like property ownership, isn't it? Therefore, by your logic, a criminal is essentially a de facto dead man and thus has no claim to the property he once owned and thus breaking into and entering the unowned property is not a crime.
QED.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Descendant XSkyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered Userregular
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
fun fact: breaking in to get your stuff back, and then shooting them when they confront you, is second-degree murder.
(at least, up in NY. In Texas I hear they give you a medal.)
See, it's shit like this that makes it difficult to believe that you guys haven't slaughtered each other to the last child by now. And found a legal loophole in which to do it.
Descendant X on
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Since you're so fond of it: That's not Texas Law.
Didn't say I agreed with all of it. I've never understood the insanity plea. If they are a danger, then they are a danger.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death. The punishment is to be carried out on the spot as a deterrent. The victim of the theft is to be pulling the trigger. This is going to make the world a better, safer place
Fix'd
Only if it is required to prevent the fleeing and proper prosecution of the criminal. I would rather they be prosecuted for theft, but if they decide that they can steal without any repercussions, then I don't have a problem with someone stopping them with a gun.
Do you understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or is that something you're not cool with either and would like to see changed?
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Do you ...do you know what a legal defense is?
Hell, do you understand how criminal law even works?
I'm starting to have serious doubts.
So basically what you're saying here is that you believe that you should not be required to adhere to the requirements of our country's criminal justice system whatsoever when you defend your tv with deadly force.
Peeking, every time you post, I'm torn between the possibilities that a) you're Casket returned to us and b) that your posts are part of a viral marketing scheme for The Dark Knight.
Posts
Then why are you guys acting like I would omit that portion of the crime intentionally? Doesn't make any sense.
I agree with most of what you wrote. The only section I'm unsure of is how threaned he felt. I agree, He should have stayed inside. Going outside was asking for trouble. But once he was there he very well could have felt threatened, even if he shouldn't have. The law/interpretation of the law in this case does trouble me.
Mainly I disagree with someone responding with RTFA when the information in the article was correctly extracted.
So the cop was afraid that the armed man was going to fire indiscriminately and didn't put a stop to a shooting (if he was afraid he'd be shot, he was damned sure the shooter was going to shoot).
edit: this is also assuming he couldn't get out of the car and yell "FREEZE, POLICE" and be pretty well sure that the man knew the cops were already coming.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure. It is also probably one of the fundamentals associated with this law that will have to be tried in court to determine a boundary. Obviously it extends to wherever he shot the fellows.
I'm ok with self defense to protect against the threat of death or severe harm. But shoot-to-kill to protect property? How does that make a lick of sense in modern society? That's worse than cutting their hands off.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
Clearly Daedalus, Mr. Horn's killing of these two individuals was a public service. He probably brought down the crime rate single-handedly through his actions.
If you value property rights over the right to life of people suspected of a crime, then you don't have a problem with it I suppose
Because it seems like you are trying to sweeten your monstrous notion that theft is a crime worthy of death. Thanks for clarifying; now we know you just have a truly monstrous position.
EDIT: Damnit, Savant, I used the same word. Beat'd.
It's technically theft if I take your pen while I'm over visiting. Is there a monetary value associated with the use of deadly force in theft?
How do you verify in the dark at range that someone has exceeded this monetary threshold?
Why does a dispatcher telling you to not do something and you doing it anyways not at the very least get you hit with failure to obey a police officer?
Well, that depends on what we're talking about here. Not all property is equivalent in value and not all human life is equivalent in value.
Let's assume "property" = a bag of Cheetos. Similarly, let's assume that if someone tries to rob me of my Cheetos, then they are worthless criminal scum (which is true). My Cheetos are definitely more important than a human life, regardless of whether the human is threatening me, running away, or on their knees begging for mercy.
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Fix'd
Haha... never been accused of trying to sweeten a situation before.
How would a Shooter on the trail of a suspected criminal possibly know which property the suspected criminal has permission to enter and which he doesn't? Is the Shooter allowed to trespass on the suspected criminal's property in order to shoot him? Could the suspected criminal then justifiably shoot the Shooter, because he had then committed a property crime?
Only if it is required to prevent the fleeing and proper prosecution of the criminal. I would rather they be prosecuted for theft, but if they decide that they can steal without any repercussions, then I don't have a problem with someone stopping them with a gun.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
Under Texas law apparently if someone chases you down and thus steps on someone else's property (not their own) you can shoot them in defense of that person's property?
The permission from the property owner for the shooter, not the criminal.
No, you can only shoot them for burglary in certain instances. Not just for stepping on a property line.
fun fact: breaking in to get your stuff back, and then shooting them when they confront you, is second-degree murder.
(at least, up in NY. In Texas I hear they give you a medal.)
I haven't answered.
If I see a man steal my tv, he is a thief.
If you see a man walk off with your neighbor's TV, is he a thief or is he the repo guy? Or a repairman?
Even if he has a legal defense such as
Necessity
Insanity
Involuntary Intoxication
Duress
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
That's not the point, and you know it.
I don't think it is appropriate to break into a house to kill the offender, because that would be committing a crime. Nor do I think it is appropriate to enter the property of another party that hasn't given you previous consent. The rest of it, I guess is good to go - so long as it doesn't involve recklessness to the general populace.
I answered.
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Problem is, as a member of our society and country you agree to abide with the courts' manner of determining that and the punishment for it, not your own. Laws that negate a person's right to a fair trial should not be put into existence. If you have a problem with it, well. You know.
Since you're so fond of it: That's not Texas Law.
I don't shoot people carrying tvs. Even my neighbors. What I can agree with is Joe Horn going outside to get the men to put down the items that he saw them with after breaking into his neighbors house.
But you do seem to think that committing a crime forfeits your right to life. The logical extension of this is that you forfeit all the rights living confers like property ownership, isn't it? Therefore, by your logic, a criminal is essentially a de facto dead man and thus has no claim to the property he once owned and thus breaking into and entering the unowned property is not a crime.
QED.
See, it's shit like this that makes it difficult to believe that you guys haven't slaughtered each other to the last child by now. And found a legal loophole in which to do it.
Didn't say I agreed with all of it. I've never understood the insanity plea. If they are a danger, then they are a danger.
Hell, do you understand how criminal law even works?
I'm starting to have serious doubts.
So basically what you're saying here is that you believe that you should not be required to adhere to the requirements of our country's criminal justice system whatsoever when you defend your tv with deadly force.