PDA

View Full Version : The Use of Deadly Force


mimartin
11-16-2007, 05:32 PM
The right to own guns, gun safety and gun responsibility has been debated in Pho3ix thread ďThe first school shooting in Finland.Ē So this is a little different in that it has to do with when is the use of deadly force necessary and advisable. Is a human life, any human life more valuable than a material things?

Texas law says you can use deadly force to protect oneís property. The question is does it apply to your neighbor property too. Which the newpaper article does the best job of answering.

Houston Newspaper (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5304565.html)

Houston NBC TV (http://www.click2houston.com/news/14597826/detail.html)
Houston TV CBS (http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou071115_tj_911call.7f804f1.html)

So was the man right to kill the two criminals or should he have waited inside his home for the police to arrive like the police dispatcher suggested?

When do you feel the use of deadly force is advisable?

Samuel Dravis
11-16-2007, 06:50 PM
Texas law on deadly force (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.42.00), protection of property (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.41.00), protection of someone else's property (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00), and the use of a device in so doing (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.44.00). I'm not sure if the last one applies to guns, but perhaps so.

I do not think that deadly force should be employed except when in immediate danger of personal injury or death. There was no one in danger of this, and furthermore, the man was explicitly instructed not to do anything by the proper authorities. I consider the man both responsible and unjustified.

John Galt
11-16-2007, 07:05 PM
If the neighbor asked the man to watch his property, the man was certainly in the right after he warned the burglars.

Honestly, if someone breaks into my home, they're gonna get shot, whether or not it looks like they have a weapon.

Samuel Dravis
11-16-2007, 07:17 PM
I think it's important to note that it most definitely wasn't his property he was defending, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for his thinking to have been impaired by fright.

I suppose we will see if he is found legally responsible for the killings.

Rev7
11-16-2007, 08:15 PM
Which the newpaper article does the best job of answering.
I personally think that the last one posted did the better job. ( the one with the recording of the 911 call)
So was the man right to kill the two criminals or should he have waited inside his home for the police to arrive like the police dispatcher suggested?
Well...this is a tough one..... I am not quite sure. Yes if the two burgalars were armed and had intentions of hurting people, but we don't know what they were thinking. No if were not armed and the police were in the general vicinity, and were able to catch the burgalars. But I am still not quite sure, so that is why I voted that we need more information to make a choice.
When do you feel the use of deadly force is advisable?
I think that you should use deadly force when someone has broken into your home and could potentially harm your family. I also think that it is acceptable to use deadly force when a person is armed and you fire upon them in order to protect the lives of others. ( and by this I mean in a public place, and you have a concealed weapons license)

mimartin
11-16-2007, 08:22 PM
I personally think that the last one posted did the better job. ( the one with the recording of the 911 call)I meant the newspaper did a better job of explain the legality of defending your neighbors property. You are correct the CBS one has the 911 call which to me puts the entire thing in perspective.

I suppose we will see if he is found legally responsible for the killings.I donít think he will ever be convicted in the Houston area of Texas. I seriously doubt he will even be charged. If someone can kill a Repo or shot a Scottish businessman banging on their door in the middle of the night, I doubt an old man will be charge with killing a couple suspected buglers.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E2D81F3AF93BA35750C0A9629582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D71530F932A15752C0A9629582 60

Rev7
11-16-2007, 08:47 PM
I personally think that the last one posted did the better job. ( the one with the recording of the 911 call)

I meant the newspaper did a better job of explain the legality of defending your neighbors property. You are correct the CBS on has the 911 call which to me puts the entire thing in perspective.

OPPPS!!! I totally spaced off on that one!

Totenkopf
11-17-2007, 02:11 AM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BREAK_IN_MURDER?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Serpentine Cougar
11-18-2007, 02:19 AM
I don't think people should take the law into their own hands, unless their very lives are in danger or something. But in this case the guy wasn't in danger; it wasn't even in his own house. He should have waited for the police.

Corinthian
11-18-2007, 04:05 AM
Well, those crooks will never do that again. The Old Man was in the right. 1: He gave them fair warning. 2: The Neighbor was out and had asked him to watch the place. 3: They were messing around an empty house, glass breaking, so on and so forth? Definitely up to no good. This all adds up to crooks getting what was coming to them.

mimartin
11-18-2007, 03:39 PM
Well, those crooks will never do that again. The Old Man was in the right. 1: He gave them fair warning. 2: The Neighbor was out and had asked him to watch the place. 3: They were messing around an empty house, glass breaking, so on and so forth? Definitely up to no good. This all adds up to crooks getting what was coming to them.Do you have additional information, because nothing I posted said anything about the neighbor asking the old man to watch the house?

The dispatcher told him to stay in his house and let the police handle it. Instead he took the law into his own hands.

Corinthian
11-18-2007, 07:51 PM
I read the article. Maybe you should read it too?

mimartin
11-18-2007, 08:05 PM
I read the article. Maybe you should read it too?
Cute. Perhaps you should reread it, because it said if the neighbor asked him to watch it. It never stated that he did for a fact.

Defense attorney Tommy LaFon, a former Harris County prosecutor, said the gunman may be on safe legal ground if the neighbor whose home was burglarized tells police he asked the man to watch his property.

"If the homeowner comes out and says, 'My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,' that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role," LaFon said.Hopefully the neighbor did ask him, but I have yet to see that written as a fact. Like I wrote earlier it does matter he will never be charged.

Samuel Dravis
11-18-2007, 08:06 PM
the gunman may be on safe legal ground if the neighbor whose home was burglarized tells police he asked the man to watch his property.

"If the homeowner comes out and says, 'My neighbor had a greater right of possession than the people trying to break in,' that could put him (the gunman) in an ownership role," LaFon said.Residents said they believe their neighbor did the right thing.

"We stand behind the man for protecting his neighbors and his own home," neighbor Lauren Malone said.

"It's important to note that the neighbor isn't in the same position as the homeowner," KPRC Local 2 legal analyst Brian Wice said. "The neighbor does not have the same right to use deadly force." The shooting may become a test of the state law that allows someone to use deadly force to protect oneís property. But does that right extend to protecting the property of your neighbors?I don't see anything about the neighbor specifically saying they told him to watch the house. Article 2 comes closest, but merely mentions a "neighbor," which may or may not be the neighbor whose intentions are in question.


edit: didn't see your post, mimartin. :)

Corinthian
11-18-2007, 11:47 PM
Huh. My mistake. It doesn't matter. As it stands, the man still did the right thing and those guys got what was coming to them. I hope this old man isn't prosecuted for protecting his neighbor's property.

Tommycat
11-19-2007, 12:10 AM
No, Kinda sorta... To an extent, when the neighbor is asked by the owner to protect a home, the neighbor becomes the security guard. However NOT being the property owner, he doesn't have the same rights as the owner. I don't know though... I would hope that it is legal. In hopes that burglers will have a real fear that a neighbor may be watching and shoot them. Now that's what I call neighborhood watch:D

PoiuyWired
11-19-2007, 04:23 PM
If the neighbor asked the man to watch his property, the man was certainly in the right after he warned the burglars.

Honestly, if someone breaks into my home, they're gonna get shot, whether or not it looks like they have a weapon.

QFE.

It would be too late if you just happen to notice him having a gun at the last minute. Though I am more than happy if they would just leave before I need to fire a shot.

mimartin
11-19-2007, 09:54 PM
Well the attempt to make this a race issue happen today.
NBC Houston (http://www.click2houston.com/news/14643409/detail.html)

Also heard where they are trying to get a defense fund set up. I actually feel they should wait for charges to be filed before setting up a defense fund.

Here is to news paper coverage. I did like how the article handled the police dispatcher. In listening to the 911 call I thought the dispatcher handled it right.
Houston Paper (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5309288.html)

They have also released information on the two suspect burglars.
ABC Houston (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5766455)

Corinthian
11-19-2007, 09:57 PM
Isn't it always racist when a black man commits a crime and gets caught?

Ray Jones
11-20-2007, 04:25 AM
Not in Ghana?

Samuel Dravis
11-23-2007, 07:49 PM
This (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5538780) article contains a recording of the 911 call.

Also, I noticed that the call occurred at 2pm. This is not nighttime. Going from the laws I posted near the beginning of this thread, the man was not justified under law, because deadly force is only employable during the night. I quote:

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson,
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime,
or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or
theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect
or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.I am curious how this will affect the shooter's position. Are we willing to overlook "minor" violations of the law (that is, how the law doesn't apply to midday) in favor of what may seem to be larger violations? If we do so, we encourage the very thing we hope to end.

It appears this man was indeed aware of new laws regarding protection of property using deadly force, but not necessarily the specific provisions. This seems to have provided him with the idea he was justified when it is not necessarily the case. This brings up another question: should gun owners be required to understand the specific provisions of law like this one?

Corinthian
11-23-2007, 08:49 PM
That's a crock. Why should it matter if it's midday or midnight?

mimartin
11-23-2007, 09:30 PM
That's a crock. Why should it matter if it's midday or midnight?Because it is the law. If the legislators wanted it to read anytime time of day or night then that is how it would have read.

I am curious how this will affect the shooter's position. Are we willing to overlook "minor" violations of the law (that is, how the law doesn't apply to midday) in favor of what may seem to be larger violations? If we do so, we encourage the very thing we hope to end.If you can shot a Scottish tourist knocking on your door or a repo driver legally taking your vehicle that you have not been making payment on, then shooting a pair of burglarizing the neighbor home is not going to be a big deal. I still believe no charges will be given to the grand jury. The grand jury will no bill this case. He will never see the inside of a court room in this case.

I hope Iím wrong because the 911 call makes it really clear that he disobeyed the police authority after the 911 operator tool him to stay inside and let the police handle it.

Corinthian
11-23-2007, 09:34 PM
So you think he should have let them get away with their crime? Because the cops wouldn't have gotten there in time to stop them if they were already fleeing the scene when he called the police.

mimartin
11-23-2007, 09:56 PM
So you think he should have let them get away with their crime? Because the cops wouldn't have gotten there in time to stop them if they were already fleeing the scene when he called the police.
In Texas, we have these things on our cars and trucks called license plates. Very easy to write down those and give the number to the police. Is a DVD player or a Television worth someone life? Is it worth the agony over the shooting that according to his lawyer Mr. Horn is facing today?

So no, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, but it is a job for the police and not a man with a shot gun. Police have cars and when they have the proper leads they do make arrest and not just at the scene of the crime.

Are you saying we should disregard people of authority and take the law into our own hands?

Corinthian
11-23-2007, 10:56 PM
Yes. The old man did the right thing. We'd be a lot better off if more criminals sucked on shotguns instead of went to prison.

mimartin
11-24-2007, 01:14 AM
Are you saying he was right to disregard the police dispatcher? What if it would have been a real police officer on the phone with him, would it be all right to violate the officerís instructions too? Are you are also saying it is all right for Mr. Horn to violate the Texas state law as Samuel Dravis wrote below? What laws if any should we follow and how do we know when to follow them?

Corinthian
11-24-2007, 02:05 AM
I don't think it was wrong for him to ignore the police dispatcher's orders, because the orders would result in his neighbor being successfully robbed. Now, the cops may have eventually caught them, but that's no guarantee. Besides, like I said, they were scum. The human gene pool is better without them.

Ray Jones
11-24-2007, 06:50 AM
I don't think it was wrong for him to ignore the police dispatcher's orders, because the orders would result in his neighbor being successfully robbed. Now, the cops may have eventually caught them, but that's no guarantee.That leaves the question, why call the police and talk to the dispatcher in the first place, then?

Besides, like I said, they were scum.And you base that statement on what fact exactly?

The human gene pool is better without them.Oh, yeah. You're not the first human carrying such ideas. Thumbs up, you have truly learned from what human history tells us.

Corinthian
11-24-2007, 07:42 AM
1: Because calling the police alerted them to come out to the scene. Presumably, he didn't go out there with the intention of killing them both, but they both attempted to flee. He was probably going out there with the intention of forcing them to remain there until the police arrived.

2: They were thieves.

3: I'm a firm proponent of mandatory sterilization of certain members of the populace. Slugs are effective as well.

mimartin
11-24-2007, 12:51 PM
1: Because calling the police alerted them to come out to the scene. Presumably, he didn't go out there with the intention of killing them both, but they both attempted to flee. He was probably going out there with the intention of forcing them to remain there until the police arrived.If someone pointed a shot gun at you and said ďBoom you deadĒ what would you do stand there or run? He could have said freeze or your dead, but he choice boom your dead. Not the best words for stopping someone. Sound like he watched to many Arnold Schwarzenegger to me. Mr. Horn stated his intention to the dispatcher before he ever went out side by saying if he goes outside they are dead.

2: They were thieves.Yes, they were thieves, not murders. Mr. Horn had no fear for his life if he would have done as instructed and stayed inside his own home.

3: I'm a firm proponent of mandatory sterilization of certain members of the populace. Slugs are effective as well.And just who would decide who got sterilized and who didnít? You would trust the government with that type of power?

Corinthian
11-25-2007, 06:48 PM
If someone pointed a shotgun at me at near-point blank range and said just about anything, I'd put my hands up.

Thieves tend to be more than capable of also killing people. It's not that uncommon for someone to be killed in their own home. They sometimes call it a robbery gone bad.

The Courts, obviously.

mimartin
11-25-2007, 07:26 PM
Thieves tend to be more than capable of also killing people. It's not that uncommon for someone to be killed in their own home. They sometimes call it a robbery gone bad.It not uncommon for a family member to kill a person either, so why canít we go blasting away at anyone we want. He was not being robed. He was not in any danger he did not put his own self into against the advice of a trained professional. He did not say freeze or Iíll shoot, instead he chose to be Rambo and yell boom you are dead.

Those thefts had no respect for anyoneís personal property or they would not have been stealing. They deserved to pay for their crimes just not with their lives.

Mr. Horn seems to either not value human life or he over values material things. No material thing is worth a human life even these scumbags. They could have gotten older and wiser while learning to respect people and peopleís property, but Mr. Horn never gave them that chance.

Tommycat
11-25-2007, 09:35 PM
It not uncommon for a family member to kill a person either, so why canít we go blasting away at anyone we want. He was not being robed. He was not in any danger he did not put his own self into against the advice of a trained professional. He did not say freeze or Iíll shoot, instead he chose to be Rambo and yell boom you are dead.
Best argument available: A criminal already shows a disrespect for the law. By displaying that disrespect for the law it is reasonable that they would take it even further. Many criminals actually live by the code of "No witnesses" meaning: If someone sees them comitting a crime, they have to kill them in order to prevent that person from identifying them. At least that's what I heard most often when I was in...

Those thefts had no respect for anyoneís personal property or they would not have been stealing. They deserved to pay for their crimes just not with their lives.
Maybe, but we do not know how far they would have taken it. How many lives are ruined when someone violates your home.

Mr. Horn seems to either not value human life or he over values material things. No material thing is worth a human life even these scumbags. They could have gotten older and wiser while learning to respect people and peopleís property, but Mr. Horn never gave them that chance.
Yes and they could have learned to invade a person's home and kill the occupants. They could have become even more violent criminals. They could have waited until you get the insurance check and replace everything and robbed the place again. That in turn increases everyone's insurance rates in the area, which in turn can mean the difference between eating a full meal, and only eating a meager meal. It can also mean the difference between having a home and being homeless.

mimartin
11-25-2007, 10:17 PM
Maybe, but we do not know how far they would have taken it. How many lives are ruined when someone violates your home. I've been buggerized. My life was not ruined. I was upset, felt violated, but I was not ruined by any means. Cost me $500.00 deductible and I got new stuff.

Yes and they could have learned to invade a person's home and kill the occupants. They could have become even more violent criminals. They could have waited until you get the insurance check and replace everything and robbed the place again. That in turn increases everyone's insurance rates in the area, which in turn can mean the difference between eating a full meal, and only eating a meager meal. It can also mean the difference between having a home and being homeless.I'm not saying you canít protect your home and yourself. I saying taking a gun and going next door to shoot a couple people after a POLICE DISPATCHER told him to stay in his home where he was safe is stupid and against the Texas State Law.

And yes we donít know what would have become of them. Your example is just as likely as mine, but Mr. Horn did not in any not have any more right to take that away from them than they would have taking it away from him.

Tommycat
11-26-2007, 12:13 AM
I've been buggerized. My life was not ruined. I was upset, felt violated, but I was not ruined by any means. Cost me $500.00 deductible and I got new stuff.
Meh good point, I'm talking more or less about how a child would feel after their home has been burglarized, it truly affects them much deeper than it affects an adult. At any rate, I'm not a big fan of this specific use of force.

I'm not saying you canít protect your home and yourself. I saying taking a gun and going next door to shoot a couple people after a POLICE DISPATCHER told him to stay in his home where he was safe is stupid and against the Texas State Law.
I believe I have already stated that I don't agree with this specific one as the man did not feel threatened, and it appears did not follow the proper guidelines for use of deadly force. I was merely offering side comments with a differing view.

And yes we donít know what would have become of them. Your example is just as likely as mine, but Mr. Horn did not in any not have any more right to take that away from them than they would have taking it away from him.
Actually having served time, I can say it is more likely that my scenario would play out. But Then again, I turned out fine. They could as well. They could very well have been driven to criminal acts by extreme situations. Poverty can do cruel things to people. Some people will find the lure all too easy. As was my case, they may have had extenuating circumstanses which led them to attempt theft.

Of course the best argument against this has little to do with criminal rights. Ignore the criminal acts for a bit and focus on what if's. For example, Perhaps a homeowner while on vacation to Fiji, decides to live there permanently. He calls on a relative to sell off his furnature, and belongings, save a few odd things he's going to come back for(kid's pictures). Oops forgot to tell the neighbor about it. Now the neighbor thinking he's doing good shoots the suspected robber. And now you see why the Texas Law exists. To me that is a much stronger case than the well being of criminals with criminal intent.

mimartin
11-26-2007, 12:46 AM
Ignore the criminal acts for a bit and focus on what if's. For example, Perhaps a homeowner while on vacation to Fiji, decides to live there permanently. He calls on a relative to sell off his furnature, and belongings, save a few odd things he's going to come back for(kid's pictures). Oops forgot to tell the neighbor about it. Now the neighbor thinking he's doing good shoots the suspected robber. And now you see why the Texas Law exists. To me that is a much stronger case than the well being of criminals with criminal intent.That is a very good point and one I did have in the back of my mind. I have friends in and around Houston and I have access to the keys to two of their homes. Usually if their not home I stay in my car, but say I get there and I have to us the restroom. I really would not like to get shot over taking a pee

Web Rider
11-26-2007, 01:04 AM
Ignore the criminal acts for a bit and focus on what if's. For example, Perhaps a homeowner while on vacation to Fiji, decides to live there permanently. He calls on a relative to sell off his furnature, and belongings, save a few odd things he's going to come back for(kid's pictures). Oops forgot to tell the neighbor about it. Now the neighbor thinking he's doing good shoots the suspected robber. And now you see why the Texas Law exists. To me that is a much stronger case than the well being of criminals with criminal intent.

That's not a very likly scenario though. First, if a relative shows up at the house, they're not going to look very suspicious while doing so, namely by pulling up in broad daylight in a very obvious manner, like parking a normal car in the driveway. Second, it's also very unlikly that they're going to be hauling away your valuables. OK, maybe you said your Aunt Jo could have your TV. Well, given that you showed up in daylight, aren't wearing a mask, and aren't acting suspicious, your neighbor isn't very likly to shoot you.

Now, if you were acting very suspicious, like wearing all black and showing up at the house at midnight, and going in through the back door or a window instead of using the key I(the owner of the house), gave you or told you where to find, and so on, well, your neighbor has good reason to shoot first and ask questions second.

Not to mention if you are selling off somebody's stuff, you're likly going to have a yard sale or private auction, in which case LOTS of people would show up to the house and the gun-toting neighbor would stop by and ask "what the heck's goin' on?" and in which case you would inform them.

Tommycat
11-26-2007, 01:23 AM
Well something similar happened with me and my neighbor. They went on vacation, and asked me to watch their house. While they were away, a brother in law came and was taking a few things from their house. Naturally I called the police, as I had never seen the brother in law before, and took him for a burgler. They questioned him, released him, and even helped him get some things into the truck. Apparently my neighbor had told the brother in law it was ok to come and get the pool table and a few other odds and ends from the house. He mistakenly forgot to notify the person watching his house(namely me). Oh And here in AZ, Moving heavy things is generally done at night. Especially in the summer months. It's that whole 115+ degree thing.

Proper gun safety is imperative though. Even had I confronted this person, the first thing is stating clearly and in a loud voice, "Stop!" If they refuse, you say in a clear and loud voice "Stop or I will shoot" Failure to follow those steps can lead to someone dieing that shouldn't have. The key though is IF you contact the police before you confront them, you MUST follow their instructions.

Web Rider
11-26-2007, 05:13 PM
of course, my neighbor, who I discussed this with about half an hour ago, agreed that the best thing to say is "stop!" or "stop or I'll shoot!" and if of course, you're not a burglar, you'll stop and not start running away or something.

Ray Jones
11-26-2007, 07:25 PM
and if of course, you're not a burglar, you'll stop and not start running away or something.Or, as the normal human beings we all are, try to instinct-ish escape from that situation. I don't think we can put "he runs when I say stop or I shoot" equal to "he's a criminal".

So, when I got trained for sentry, one thing we learned is if we have to, we must not necessarily shoot to kill, but to stop a man.

Tommycat
11-26-2007, 09:42 PM
That would be why it is part of responsible gun ownership.

I have no problem with neighbors being tough on crime. Nor do I have a problem with neighbors shooting bad guys. I DO have a problem with trigger happy gun owners who are willing to shoot first and ask questions later.

Web Rider
11-26-2007, 10:09 PM
Or, as the normal human beings we all are, try to instinct-ish escape from that situation. I don't think we can put "he runs when I say stop or I shoot" equal to "he's a criminal".

So, when I got trained for sentry, one thing we learned is if we have to, we must not necessarily shoot to kill, but to stop a man.

but killing people is alot easier to do on purpose and on accident. "wounding" shots are much harder.

But no, I think that if somebody said "stop, i've got a gun!" or "stop or I'll shoot!" given they wern't the police, and you wern't doing anything wrong, you'd probly drop whatever you were carrying if you were carrying something, and you'd say something like "No, wait!"

thus you're acknowledgement that you heard them and not wanting to be shot, and the fact that you said something, means you aren't trying to be sneaky or something.

Ray Jones
11-27-2007, 09:27 AM
but killing people is alot easier to do on purpose and on accident. "wounding" shots are much harder.Really? Well, with some shotgun, maybe, but basically non lethal shots are not that hard at all: just aim low. :rolleyes: Warning shots are somewhat helpful sometimes too.

But no, I think that if somebody said "stop, i've got a gun!" or "stop or I'll shoot!" given they wern't the police, and you wern't doing anything wrong, you'd probly drop whatever you were carrying if you were carrying something, and you'd say something like "No, wait!"And you base that assumption on what fact?

Moreover, how would you know that the person with the gun is not someone criminal trying to rob you?

thus you're acknowledgement that you heard them and not wanting to be shot, and the fact that you said something, means you aren't trying to be sneaky or something.Really? Mimicking certain behaviour is something humans can do really good. I don't think we can put "he doesn't run when I say stop or I shot" equal to "he's not a criminal". Plus, I think *nobody* wants to get shot so...

mimartin
11-27-2007, 01:09 PM
Mr. Horn made the paper again today. Let the spin began, both sides are doing their best in this story. Houston Paper (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5330708.html)
A couple stories from outside the Houston area about the shooting.
AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP3OsajRB6BM1On6y5d66X8hodrwD8T5MN400)
LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-shoot25nov25,1,925907.story?coll=la-news-a_section)

Web Rider
11-27-2007, 02:21 PM
Really? Well, with some shotgun, maybe, but basically non lethal shots are not that hard at all: just aim low. :rolleyes: Warning shots are somewhat helpful sometimes too.
because, in short, legs are narrow and moving quickly, while the torso is large and a relativly stable target(when compared to arms or legs). Not to mention people on drugs are likly to just keep on going, even if shot in the leg.

And you base that assumption on what fact?

Moreover, how would you know that the person with the gun is not someone criminal trying to rob you?
How does the honest citizen know you're not a criminal? We could go back and forth on this, and really it's all just instinct. I'd probly drop whatever I was doing and yell "dont shoot!" if I was doing nothing wrong. If I was, I'd try and be quiet and not say anything.

Really? Mimicking certain behaviour is something humans can do really good. I don't think we can put "he doesn't run when I say stop or I shot" equal to "he's not a criminal". Plus, I think *nobody* wants to get shot so...

And a criminal who doesn't want to get shot when present with that fact will A: run away and get shot
B: surrender.

In short I have little doubt that these new stories would read: "Well armed man does nothing while criminals rob neighbor." And somebody would be trying to get him on charges for being an accessory to the crime by not doing anything about it.

Ray Jones
11-27-2007, 05:04 PM
because, in short, legs are narrow and moving quickly, while the torso is large and a relativly stable target(when compared to arms or legs).With proper training no problem. In fact, I'd rather have to shoot twice or more to stop a man, instead of killing him when not necessary.

Not to mention people on drugs are likly to just keep on going, even if shot in the leg.But he will get slower and thus is easier to hit with another bullet.

We could go back and forth on this, and really it's all just instinct. I'd probly drop whatever I was doing and yell "dont shoot!" if I was doing nothing wrong. If I was, I'd try and be quiet and not say anything.Well, simple, ask the people around you to get a slight feeling for what they would do.

And a criminal who doesn't want to get shot when present with that fact will A: run away and get shot
B: surrender.(C) pull a gun and shoot first (D) run away and not get shot (E) play he would surrender and then ignite a mini atom bomb.

In short I have little doubt that these new stories would read: "Well armed man does nothing while criminals rob neighbor." And somebody would be trying to get him on charges for being an accessory to the crime by not doing anything about it.In fact it is more like the normal citizen is not obligated to do more than calling the cops.

Darth333
11-27-2007, 06:07 PM
Well, simple, ask the people around you to get a slight feeling for what they would do.And even then, what they say is not necessarily what they would do. When you have a gun pointed at you for real, you don't really think: you get an adrenaline boost and instinct kicks in. I've been caught in such a situation once and I was too shocked to say anything, the maid went hysteric shouting "Dios mio! Dios mio!" (Oh my god), one of my friends tried to run away, his brother froze in place (like me) and my mom stayed calm and managed to calm the guy with the gun (we were playing soccer and the balloon went out of the courtyard and hit the guy's car :rolleyes: ).

And a criminal who doesn't want to get shot when present with that fact will A: run away and get shotBut I see no reason to shoot a guy that is running away...obviously my life would not be indanger if he's running away and to me human life > TV, dvd, etc...

Meh good point, I'm talking more or less about how a child would feel after their home has been burglarized, it truly affects them much deeper than it affects an adult.From personal experience, I found that adults tend to worry more. I guess the reaction of the child depends a lot on how the people around react though.

We'd be a lot better off if more criminals sucked on shotguns instead of went to prison.
[...]
Besides, like I said, they were scum. The human gene pool is better without them.
I have worked with quite a few people who had commited grave crimes (including manslaughter) and several of them have taken their lives in hand and are involved in their communities and even try to help others through social programs (such as suicide prevention in one of the cases that comes to my mind).

Ray Jones
11-27-2007, 06:16 PM
And even then, what they say is not necessarily what they would do. When you have a gun pointed at you for real, you don't really think: you get an adrenaline boost and instinct kicks in. I've been caught in such a situation once and I was too shocked to say anything, the maid went hysteric shouting "Dios mio! Dios mio!" (Oh my god), one of my friends tried to run away, his brother froze in place (like me) and my mom stayed calm and managed to calm the guy with the gun.My point exactly - five people, four different reactions.

But I see no reason to shoot a guy that is running away...obviously my life would not be indanger if he's running awayAnother great point anyway.

John Galt
11-27-2007, 07:12 PM
Yeah... I would never shoot to wound, it's inhumane.

Tommycat
11-27-2007, 09:57 PM
Things to remember when firing a deadly weapon.
1) NEVER SHOOT TO WOUND!!!! Ever. At all. If your intention is to wound, it is better not to fire the weapon at all. First off, if you wound them, THEY CAN SUE YOU!!! Second, if you wound them they might be tough enough to be just really ticked off, and now you have a guy that's tough enough to handle a bullet wound THAT'S ANGRY!(anyone that's been bear hunting knows how this works) Third, shooting to wound requires greater accuracy, a keen knowledge of vital organs and arterial distribution and bullets are not surgically precise instruments. Soooo you may as well shoot with the intention to kill.

2) NEVER draw your weapon if you don't intend to use it to kill. This may seem redundant to the first, but its a seperate thing. If you aren't able to pull the trigger and kill someone, you shouldn't pull a deadly weapon in the first place. If you can't kill them you have pretty much given the criminal the weapon they are going to use to kill you.

3) Know the law in your area. This seems like a no brainer, but this is where a lot of idiots get it wrong(yes I include this guy in that category as well). Be aware of what the local authorities need you to do in order to operate your firearm safely.

4) Never go against the police. They have more guns and more people than you. If they tell you to sit tight, do so.

Web Rider
11-28-2007, 03:26 AM
With proper training no problem. In fact, I'd rather have to shoot twice or more to stop a man, instead of killing him when not necessary.
because all gun owners regularly train to do this. No, the average gun owner buys a gun, shoots it once or twice, and keeps it around for "what if" after that.

But he will get slower and thus is easier to hit with another bullet.
maybe.

Well, simple, ask the people around you to get a slight feeling for what they would do.
isn't that what we're doing?

(C) pull a gun and shoot first (D) run away and not get shot (E) play he would surrender and then ignite a mini atom bomb.
we're assuming we're shooting at the criminals now dead in this situation. And that they're NOT Lex Luthor.

In fact it is more like the normal citizen is not obligated to do more than calling the cops.
I never said they were. I only said that they're likly to get crap for doing nothing, as I've seen people get, as they are to get flak for doing something.

But I see no reason to shoot a guy that is running away...obviously my life would not be indanger if he's running away and to me human life > TV, dvd, etc...
cops shoot guys running away all the time. Why does their badge make it OK for them to kill somebody over some guy they never met's TV vs me killing a guy over my neighbor, and likly my friend's TV?

We say cops are justified because they're "protecting others", well, aren't I doing the same when killing that burgular? Now he'll never break into another house, never threaten another person if they're home.

We say cops are justified because they're trained for it. If I have enough training with guns does that make it OK for me to do it?

We say cops are justified because "they're cops". Well, cops are just people in special clothes with special permissions. That hardly makes them good people, and if reports are to be trusted, half the cops who use their guns have less self control when shooting than the average guy. I mean, we've all heard the stories of cops emptying whole clips(10-14+ bullets) into a guy who it only took 1 or 2 to take down. That hardly makes me believe cops are a safer bet than some fat guy with a shotgun.

Corinthian
11-28-2007, 08:10 AM
To be fair, sometimes emptying loads of ammo into a guy is necessary - if you're gonna kill 'em, make sure they're dead. Druggies on PCP can shrug off a good bit of fire and still keep coming.

Tommycat
11-28-2007, 08:25 AM
That's why the house shotgun is loaded with Buck shot and a slug

I've seen a guy shrug off buck shot...

Never met a man who could shrug off a slug.

Web Rider
11-29-2007, 02:38 AM
To be fair, sometimes emptying loads of ammo into a guy is necessary - if you're gonna kill 'em, make sure they're dead. Druggies on PCP can shrug off a good bit of fire and still keep coming.

as I said in my example, a guy that only took one or two shots to take down.

tk102
11-29-2007, 03:18 AM
cops shoot guys running away all the time. Why does their badge make it OK for them to kill somebody over some guy they never met's TV vs me killing a guy over my neighbor, and likly my friend's TV?
Who is saying it's OK for a cop to kill a running burglar? I didn't say so. If I was on jury duty and this was the case in front of me, I would see this as an open-and-shut case of excessive force. If this was an armed robbery or a rape, that's quite different since the nature of the crime is threatens the life of others and allowing the criminal to escape could mean another victim. We say cops are justified because they're "protecting others"...We say cops are justified because they're trained for it...We say cops are justified because "they're cops".
Again, I don't know why you are assuming that cops can get away with shooting anyone running without consequence. The law is supposed to apply to everyone, however I would point out that the police department is part of city government and is granted certain privileges to accompany their responsibilities. This is how order is kept. The fat guy with a shotgun you mentioned (assuming you mean Joe Horn) is a vigilante.

Corinthian
11-29-2007, 05:15 AM
If you run, you get what you deserve.

mur'phon
11-29-2007, 05:31 AM
If you run, you get what you deserve.
even if you pannicked and ran without thinking?

Corinthian
11-29-2007, 05:47 AM
Yes. You run from a cop, or even someone trying to make a citizen's arrest, you deserve what you get. You can plead Panic in court, if you survive.

mur'phon
11-29-2007, 06:01 AM
So, a person deserve to be killed for an action they had no controll of and would not do if they had been thinking?

Corinthian
11-29-2007, 07:01 AM
Firstly, panicking doesn't mean you go absolutely off your nut and start just spasming. Secondly, if you lose control of your actions, you need to be put down. You might say crackheads aren't in control of their actions when they start mugging people. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished with the business end of a Smith and Wesson.

Ray Jones
11-29-2007, 09:33 AM
No, the average gun owner buys a gun, shoots it once or twice, and keeps it around for "what if" after that.That's why noone who'd not be able to handle it proper should be allowed to own a gun.


maybe.Of course, *you* become faster with a bullet in your leg. At least when you're on PCP, that is. I mean, everyone who runs is on PCP anyway. :rolleyes:


isn't that what we're doing?Don't know, do you? As of now I think you don't really have.

we're assuming we're shooting at the criminals now dead in this situation.I thought we were discussing that issue in general, not just that single event.

I never said they were. I only said that they're likly to get crap for doing nothing, as I've seen people get, as they are to get flak for doing something.However, that doesn't mean people that have not received proper training for guns or such situations should go out and shoot at people who they think deserve it. That's what the cops, laws and trials are for. Or am I wrong?


We say cops are justified because they're trained for it. If I have enough training with guns does that make it OK for me to do it?If you have proper gun training you'd have at least a better preposition for handling situations with gun action. But that still doesn't mean you can handle any dangerous situation or the ones where it's about your own and other people's lives. This is where cops receive special training too.

That hardly makes me believe cops are a safer bet than some fat guy with a shotgun.You know, it's often a tough choice cops have to make, especially when situations get hot and dangerous. It's always easy to judge afterwards and point the finger at those who have taken the duty to watch over the common life. And just because someone has a badge doesn't mean he will never fail from that moment on. But when you take it how a man (cop) who received proper training for guns and stress loaded situations can fail at this, why should we put any trust in gun owning people who don't even shoot their guns on a regular basis and who base their "negotiation" skills on what they saw in Schwarzenegger movies?

I mean, what would be next, that instead of the proper trained US Forces, they send a couple of high school kids to Iraq, solely based upon the fact that their dad owns a gun that he shot once ten years ago?

mur'phon
11-29-2007, 10:03 AM
Corinthian
Secondly, if you lose control of your actions, you need to be put down.


Darth333
And even then, what they say is not necessarily what they would do. When you have a gun pointed at you for real, you don't really think: you get an adrenaline boost and instinct kicks in. I've been caught in such a situation once and I was too shocked to say anything, the maid went hysteric shouting "Dios mio! Dios mio!" (Oh my god), one of my friends tried to run away, his brother froze in place (like me) and my mom stayed calm and managed to calm the guy with the gun

In this situation, two people lost controll of their actions. They where not harming anyone, and wheren't a danger to anyone. So, would you "put them down"? I hope (and believe) you wouldn't, but pherhaps you could clarify when you think it's okay to "put down" a person?

Arcesious
11-29-2007, 10:04 AM
So it seems most people have voted no. Um... That's not right. That Man from texas understood what it would feel like to his nieghbor to be robbed of his hard earned possessions, and he defended it for him. Those criminals had crossed the line trying to steal someone's stuff for their own selfish personnal gain! Do you feel better that those criminals are dead instead of them going to jail for a few years, beign released, and going right back to burgling? if they hadn't dided and were put in jail and eventually released, how would you feel if they went and robbed YOU? I think those criminals had what was coming to them. I don't own a gun, but i'd certainly grab a some sort of weapons and probably get a dozen of my neighbors or something and defend my nieghbor's property if i saw it beign burgled! Cause those burglars would probably be long gone by time the police came if i didn't do something! Although i wouldn't fdo that if the burglars were heavily armed. thne i'd call the police. but you get my point right?

Corinthian
11-29-2007, 10:11 AM
Debatable that they actually lost control of their actions, Mur'phon. I would say they did not.

Ray Jones
11-29-2007, 10:11 AM
Cause those burglars would probably be long gone by time the police came if i didn't do something! Although i wouldn't fdo that if the burglars were heavily armed. thne i'd call the police. but you get my point right?I at least got the point that you are a ~snipped~

As long as the "criminals" are unarmed you would shoot at them, however, when they have weapons then suddenly it's "HELP HELP PLEASE DEAR POLICE HELP".

Don't flame, Ray. --Jae

mur'phon
11-29-2007, 10:27 AM
That Man from texas understood what it would feel like to his nieghbor to be robbed of his hard earned possessions

Yes he did, too bad he didn't know how it would feel for the burglars family to have their familymembers killed.

Those criminals had crossed the line trying to steal someone's stuff for their own selfish personnal gain!

Isn't everything we do ultimately for our own gain :) , don't worry, I know what you mean

Do you feel better that those criminals are dead instead of them going to jail for a few years, beign released, and going right back to burgling? if they hadn't dided and were put in jail and eventually released, how would you feel if they went and robbed YOU?

Isn't the point of jails to discourage people from comitting criminal acts, keep society safe, and to show criminals the error of their ways and help them become law abiding citizens? If they don't do that, we clearly need to do something about the jails :)

And if I get robbed again, I'll feel far better for helping the police catch the criminals, than how I would feel had I ended someones life. A human life>anything I own.

but you get my point right?

I do, but I disagre nontheless :)

edit: Corinthian, are you talking about the criminals or darth's friends?
And I would stil like you to clarify when you think it's okay to "put someone down"

Darth333
11-29-2007, 11:52 AM
In this situation, two people lost controll of their actions. They where not harming anyone, and wheren't a danger to anyone. So, would you "put them down"? I hope (and believe) you wouldn't, but pherhaps you could clarify when you think it's okay to "put down" a person?
Err..not sure if you were referring to me or only Corinthian but I never said that I would put them down. On the contrary. I think that there was no reason whatsoever to shoot these guys who were running away and who were not threatening anyone.

Secondly, if you lose control of your actions, you need to be put down.So simply not obeying means that death is justified?

Do you feel better that those criminals are dead instead of them going to jail for a few years, beign released, and going right back to burgling?
Talk about crime prevention! Yeah kill all the criminals (do worse than what they did!), no matter what their crime is...you can be sure that they won't do it again :rolleyes: I wouldn't call that justice (if that's how it was in real life, I'd drop my job right now as I would be too ashamed to practice in the "legal" area.)

I'm with mur'phon on this.

Use of dealy force should the very last recourse. I can't understand how people can value simple proterty such as tvs and dvds (which can be replaced after all) more than human life.

tk102
11-29-2007, 12:39 PM
Use of dealy force should the very last recourse. I can't understand how people can value simple proterty such as tvs and dvds (which can be replaced after all) more than human life.QFE.

Web Rider
11-29-2007, 12:43 PM
As long as the "criminals" are unarmed you would shoot at them, however, when they have weapons then suddenly it's "HELP HELP PLEASE DEAR POLICE HELP".

an armed criminal does not always stop citizens from shooting. In fact it'd probly make them shoot first and warn second.

That's why noone who'd not be able to handle it proper should be allowed to own a gun.
shooting once or twice =/= inability. It doesn't take much to learn how to point, steady yourself, and shoot.

Of course, *you* become faster with a bullet in your leg. At least when you're on PCP, that is. I mean, everyone who runs is on PCP anyway. :rolleyes:
point is, a wounding shot is not as surefire a way to stop a criminal as a fatal one. Thats why cops aren't told to shoot to wound.

Don't know, do you? As of now I think you don't really have.
From what I hear from "the people" here, they think he was justified a good 50% at least. My family and neighbor agreed.

I thought we were discussing that issue in general, not just that single event.
the event in general has too many variables.

However, that doesn't mean people that have not received proper training for guns or such situations should go out and shoot at people who they think deserve it. That's what the cops, laws and trials are for. Or am I wrong?
yes, and no. Cops are just people with special clothes and training. It's an Officer's position to enforce the law, but if burglars know that ONLY cops enforce the law, and the cop-to-citizen ratio is like 1:10,000, thenburglars have a pretty good chance. If a cop isn't around to enfoce a law, or protect others, citizens need to do so. This mindset of "do nothing, wait for a cop", is bogus.

If you have proper gun training you'd have at least a better preposition for handling situations with gun action. But that still doesn't mean you can handle any dangerous situation or the ones where it's about your own and other people's lives. This is where cops receive special training too.
I've yet to see a gun raining program where you shoot at other people. Shooting at targets all day does not prepare you for shooting another human. And what is this special training? "duck and roll"? "aim better"?

You know, it's often a tough choice cops have to make, especially when situations get hot and dangerous. It's always easy to judge afterwards and point the finger at those who have taken the duty to watch over the common life. And just because someone has a badge doesn't mean he will never fail from that moment on. But when you take it how a man (cop) who received proper training for guns and stress loaded situations can fail at this, why should we put any trust in gun owning people who don't even shoot their guns on a regular basis and who base their "negotiation" skills on what they saw in Schwarzenegger movies?
it is our duty to protect ourselves. If we are capable of doing that, we should. The idea that only cops are allowed to protect is dumb.

Yes. You run from a cop, or even someone trying to make a citizen's arrest, you deserve what you get. You can plead Panic in court, if you survive.

I don't think running away is justifiable cause to kill.

Who is saying it's OK for a cop to kill a running burglar? I didn't say so. If I was on jury duty and this was the case in front of me, I would see this as an open-and-shut case of excessive force. If this was an armed robbery or a rape, that's quite different since the nature of the crime is threatens the life of others and allowing the criminal to escape could mean another victim.
Again, I don't know why you are assuming that cops can get away with shooting anyone running without consequence. The law is supposed to apply to everyone, however I would point out that the police department is part of city government and is granted certain privileges to accompany their responsibilities. This is how order is kept. The fat guy with a shotgun you mentioned (assuming you mean Joe Horn) is a vigilante.

Laws tend to say it's OK for cops to kill just about anyone for a variety of reasons. I bought up cops because I'm saying that cops aren't some special breed of humans bred and trained from birth to deal with this stuff. yeah, many have years of experience, but they're still human. If we are entrusting ourselves to any human with special clothes and good training to protect everyone, is it such a stretch to believe one man with some training can protect one other person?

Almost every criminal who escapes will repeat, sometimes bolder and more violently. A simple robbery could be a build up to a bigger one, where people are home, when the criminal has a gun, and he could kill or rape whoever is there. Especially if his experience tells him the cops won't get there in time, and nobody will protect those people.

I assume it because that tends to be the case. We say "oh, they're cops, that's OK then." And the idea you support that ONLY cops can defend us is destructive to society.

Darth333
11-29-2007, 12:56 PM
Laws tend to say it's OK for cops to kill just about anyone for a variety of reasons. I bought up cops because I'm saying that cops aren't some special breed of humans bred and trained from birth to deal with this stuff. yeah, many have years of experience, but they're still human. If we are entrusting ourselves to any human with special clothes and good training to protect everyone, is it such a stretch to believe one man with some training can protect one other person?
I don't know about the laws of where you live (I doubt police officers have carte blanche to shoot people who are running away), but that is certainly not the case where I live. Here, when someone tries to escape arrest, police officers are entitled to use " force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested", if the following conditions are all met ( section 25 of the Canadian Criminal Code (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:s_3_1::bo-ga:l_II//fr?page=2&isPrinting=false#codese:25)):


(a) the peace officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, the person to be arrested;

(b) the offence for which the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be arrested without warrant;

(c) the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest;

(d) the peace officer or other person using the force believes on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the peace officer, the person lawfully assisting the peace officer or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; and

(e) the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.

mur'phon
11-30-2007, 04:19 AM
Darth333
Err..not sure if you were referring to me or only Corinthian

I was referring to corinthian, just using your experience as an example, sorry if I didn't make that clear.


Web Rider
Almost every criminal who escapes will repeat, sometimes bolder and more violently. A simple robbery could be a build up to a bigger one, where people are home, when the criminal has a gun, and he could kill or rape whoever is there. Especially if his experience tells him the cops won't get there in time, and nobody will protect those people.

But if offenders are so likely to comit crimes when they get out of jail, we really need to do something about how people are punished. Besides, very few burgulars go on to become murderers. If we are going to kill anyone who might become a murderer, we might as well start shooting husbands of cheating wives :ears1:

Web Rider
11-30-2007, 07:02 AM
But if offenders are so likely to comit crimes when they get out of jail, we really need to do something about how people are punished. Besides, very few burgulars go on to become murderers. If we are going to kill anyone who might become a murderer, we might as well start shooting husbands of cheating wives :ears1:

Perhaps not murderers intentfully. Perhaps they move up to armed robbery, and they get spooked and kill somebody. Whether or not they meant it, they are not a murderer.
But I do agree, we need a bit of a harsher punishment system to prevent institutionalization of petty criminals, and more efforts into rehabilitation of criminals most likly to be reformed.

And wouldn't it be better to shoot the wives? I know I hear more threats about "killing" or "maiming the genitals" of men from women regarding a cheating husband than men making such threats about a cheating wife....Or especially if he's the one cheating.

"If she ever finds out I'm cheating, I'll kill 'er!" lolwut?

I don't know about the laws of where you live, but that is certainly not the case where I live. Here, when someone tries to escape arrest, police officers are entitled to use " force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested", if the following conditions are all met ( section 25 of the Canadian Criminal Code (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:s_3_1::bo-ga:l_II//fr?page=2&isPrinting=false#codese:25)):
Well, I'm in the US. Where LA Police have long prided themselves on shooting first and asking questions later.....and having fancy lawyers to protect them.

mur'phon
11-30-2007, 07:37 AM
But I do agree, we need a bit of a harsher punishment system to prevent institutionalization of petty criminals, and more efforts into rehabilitation of criminals most likly to be reformed.

Well, at least we agree that something needs to be done. Though we seem to dissagre on what that should be.

And wouldn't it be better to shoot the wives?

Wouldn't it be best to simply not shoot anyone?

Well, I'm in the US. Where LA Police have long prided themselves on shooting first and asking questions later.....and having fancy lawyers to protect them.

Different rules in different places, where I live most cops don't bear arms

Darth Xander
11-30-2007, 01:16 PM
Deadly force wouldn't be nessecary If everyone just got along!

Ray Jones
12-01-2007, 05:54 PM
shooting once or twice =/= inability. It doesn't take much to learn how to point, steady yourself, and shoot.Exactly. That is why cops or military folks train regularly - because it is more than enough to shoot a weapon twice. Especially in situations full hectic and stress.

point is, a wounding shot is not as surefire a way to stop a criminal as a fatal one. Thats why cops aren't told to shoot to wound.Cops are told to place lethal shots as *last* attempt to solve a situation.

I've yet to see a gun raining program where you shoot at other people. Shooting at targets all day does not prepare you for shooting another human.Who said gun training prepares you to shoot at humans?

And what is this special training? "duck and roll"? "aim better"?No. That would be simple gun training. How about "how do I calm critical situations without using a weapon"?

it is our duty to protect ourselves. If we are capable of doing that, we should. The idea that only cops are allowed to protect is dumb.Who said only cops are allowed to protect?

mimartin
06-30-2008, 11:16 PM
A Harris County grand jury issued a no-bill to Joe Horn today. Just proves to me Texas is a state where you donít have to listen to police instructions and life is cheap in this state. Even though I figured that was the case, I was still naÔve enough to hope that was not the case.

Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5864151.html)

Pasadena Ė The Citizen (http://www.hcnonline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19816306&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=532238&rfi=6)

MyFox Houston (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6880701&version=8&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1)

JediAthos
07-01-2008, 11:13 AM
I can't honestly say I feel any sympathy toward the "victims" in this case. If you ask me they got what they deserved for trying to rob someone's home.

I'm afraid I'm with the grand jury on this one.

jonathan7
07-01-2008, 11:25 AM
I can't honestly say I feel any sympathy toward the "victims" in this case. If you ask me they got what they deserved for trying to rob someone's home.

The loss of any human life is a tragedy - I don't think you will find humans anywhere else in the entire universe. To be sentient as humans are is as far as we know extremely unique - indeed currently we could be the only high sentient life-form in the entire universe.

I'm afraid I'm with the grand jury on this one.

So the cost of a human life to you is $1,000?

Justice is not anger, justice is not revenge, justice is in proportion to the crime committed; what occurred - these men should have been sent to prison for what they did; the did not deserve capital punishment.

As such I think the man who did killed them both should be sent to prison; he killed two men over the most trivial of things.

Totenkopf
07-01-2008, 11:48 AM
Would it be fair to say that you would like to see the portions of any law change where a homeowner is authorized to use deadly force on criminals that tresspass on his property, even if no one has been harmed (other than the perps, of course)? Even so much as to incarcerate the homeowner should he kill the intruders? (realize that I know that wasn't the case here)

jonathan7
07-01-2008, 11:54 AM
Would it be fair to say that you would like to see the portions of any law change where a homeowner is authorized to use deadly force on criminals that tresspass on his property, even if no one has been harmed (other than the perps, of course)? Even so much as to incarcerate the homeowner should he kill the intruders? (realize that I know that wasn't the case here)

I think deadly force should only be allowed if intruders are presenting a clear and present danger. That's not to say an individual shouldn't be allowed to try and stop intruders stealing - and if they then become violent deadly force can be used, but I think warnings etc should be given, and if people are making an escape let the authorities deal with them.

It just to me seems such a petty thing to kill someone over; I certainly wouldn't kill someone for stealing from our house - I would use force however if they tryed to harm our animals or family - but even then it would take a lot for me even consider using force let alone deadly force.

My 2 cents.

mimartin
07-01-2008, 12:08 PM
Donít really see a reason why anyone would feel sympathy for the criminals in this case. They took put themselves in the position to be harmed by taking someone elseís property.

Still I disagree with the grand jury because its decision tells the general public is that is alright to take the law in your own hands. Does this mean it is acceptable for me to shot the next drunk driver I see driving down the road? After all, that drunk driver is a danger to not only cause property damage but bodily injuries. Wait, sorryÖthis no-bill also make it clear that bodily injury and human life are not important. So only the property damage matters. This no bill also makes it clear that following police authority does not matter in Texas, so I guess that means that the next time I come to a traffic stop I can ignore that too.

I actually have sympathy for Joe Horn. He disregarded the police dispatcher killing two men and now he must live the rest of his life with the consequences of those actions. He just watched too many John Wayne movies during his life and wanted to be a cowboy.

My only real complaint about all of this is that human life (any human life) is more valuable than a television. When our system of government makes life cheap then why should the citizens feel any different? This decision cheapens all life. Would it be fair to say that you would like to see the portions of any law change where a homeowner is authorized to use deadly force on criminals that tresspass on his property, even if no one has been harmed (other than the perps, of course)? It would make murder all the more easier to get away with. Someone ticks you off just invite them over for a cup of tea. Funny I guess this is already true in Texas except you can invite them over to the neighbors house here.

jonathan7
07-01-2008, 12:14 PM
Don’t really see a reason why anyone would feel sympathy for the criminals in this case. They took put themselves in the position to be harmed by taking someone else’s property.

Do we know why they were stealing? Whatever the reason I still feel sympathy for them... Perhaps they didn't have enough money to live, and were stealing so they could live. Or perhaps they were greedy and seeking the cheap and quick fix; greed can never be filled and were seeking satisfaction in a place it could not be found. Whatever their reason I still think they should be pitied. Though perhaps also given a Darwin award for thinking it a good idea to steal in Texas - a clear non-survival instinct.

Still I disagree with the grand jury because its decision tells the general public is that is alright to take the law in your own hands. Does this mean it is acceptable for me to shot the next drunk driver I see driving down the road? After all, that drunk driver is a danger to not only cause property damage but bodily injuries. Wait, sorry…this no-bill also make it clear that bodily injury and human life are not important. So only the property damage matters. This no bill also makes it clear that following police authority does not matter in Texas, so I guess that means that the next time I come to a traffic stop I can ignore that too.

I actually have sympathy for Joe Horn. He disregarded the police dispatcher killing two men and now he must live the rest of his life with the consequences of those actions. He just watched too many John Wayne movies during his life and wanted to be a cowboy.

My only real complaint about all of this is that human life (any human life) is more valuable than a television. When our system of government makes life cheap then why should the citizens feel any different? This decision cheapens all life. It would make murder all the more easier to get away with. Someone ticks you off just invite them over for a cup of tea. Funny I guess this is already true in Texas except you can invite them over to the neighbors house here.

Agreed.

Totenkopf
07-01-2008, 12:16 PM
In that case, I'd like to invite you to my neighbor's July 4th party. Starts @ 2 AM. :lol:
Seriously, though, I agree that you don't want people shooting others willy-nilly. To bad his aim wasn't more steady. Perhaps he could have shot them in the legs (as he intended to shoot them anyway) were that the case. In the case of the perps, I feel nothing sympathetic for them either. Ashame they had to learn a terminal lesson about stealing from others.

@Jon7--not sure that their reason is relevant. Makes it more tragic, perhaps, but does not excuse it more than if it were simple greed.

mimartin
07-01-2008, 12:35 PM
Do we know why they were stealing? I may have came off a bit callous in my comments. Let me somewhat rephrase. I don’t feel sorry for people that intentionally put themselves in harm’s way. I don’t feel sorry for people that steal from other no matter the reason. Even if the criminals needs the stolen goods to eat, how do we know the owner of the property did not need the items just as much?

I do feel sympathy for the murdered criminals’ families, especially the children. However, I still do not feel that way toward the criminals since their action lead to demise. They are also dead and I don’t believe my sympathy will do them any good anyways. Sympathy is for the living.

jonathan7
07-01-2008, 12:41 PM
@Jon7--not sure that their reason is relevant. Makes it more tragic, perhaps, but does not excuse it more than if it were simple greed.

I may have came off a bit callous in my comments. Let me somewhat rephrase. I don’t feel sorry for people that intentionally put themselves in harm’s way. I don’t feel sorry for people that steal from other no matter the reason. Even if the criminals need the stolen goods to eat, how do we know the owner of the property did not need the items just as much?

If they were stealing for food, it is an act of desperation, and as such thinks casts them in a different light; I'm not saying I agree with their action, but I could understand for example a parent not wanting to see their children starve. If it is the above then its an act of desperation, if someone else needs the food or not doesn't I think come into the mind of the person stealing.

I do feel sympathy for the murdered criminals’ families, especially the children. However, I still do not feel that way toward the criminals since their action lead to demise. They are also dead and I don’t believe my sympathy will do them any good anyways. Sympathy is for the living.

Indeed the familes do have my sympathy. I do also think every deatha tragedy, now they are dead there is nothing that can be done for them. I'm not going to loose sleep over it, but do feel compassion for them.

Rev7
07-01-2008, 03:40 PM
A Harris County grand jury issued a no-bill to Joe Horn today. Just proves to me Texas is a state where you donít have to listen to police instructions and life is cheap in this state. Even though I figured that was the case, I was still naÔve enough to hope that was not the case.
<links snipped>

Very interesting. I hope that they made the right decision. :/
I think deadly force should only be allowed if intruders are presenting a clear and present danger. That's not to say an individual shouldn't be allowed to try and stop intruders stealing - and if they then become violent deadly force can be used, but I think warnings etc should be given, and if people are making an escape let the authorities deal with them.
I 100% agree with that. I think that Joe Horn should have listened to the police on this matter. I don't think that he should have killed these men because they posed no threat to him. He should have let the police deal with it. That, to me, would have been the right thing to do.
It just to me seems such a petty thing to kill someone over; I certainly wouldn't kill someone for stealing from our house - I would use force however if they tryed to harm our animals or family - but even then it would take a lot for me even consider using force let alone deadly force.
I also agree with you. They only stole (tried to steal) material things. Life would have still gone on.

Indeed the familes do have my sympathy. I do also think every death tragedy, now they are dead there is nothing that can be done for them. I'm not going to loose sleep over it, but do feel compassion for them.
Yes, death is a tragedy. No matter whos it is, it hurts. Life is a precious thing...

Totenkopf
07-02-2008, 05:32 AM
If they were stealing for food, it is an act of desperation, and as such thinks casts them in a different light; I'm not saying I agree with their action, but I could understand for example a parent not wanting to see their children starve. If it is the above then its an act of desperation, if someone else needs the food or not doesn't I think come into the mind of the person stealing.


While I can understand that people do act out of desperation, I don't think they even care to look for the alternative. The act of breaking into someon'es home is almost always premeditated. If they are in dire straits, why have they not tried to find another alternative? Frankly, if they were stealing food.....it could have been the munchies. ;)

JediAthos
07-02-2008, 12:16 PM
I would wager that they didn't look at the alternatives because they were already in the United States illegally. One of them even had a prior conviction for which he was deported in '99 which means that not only had he already committed previous crimes, but committed another one just by being in the country.

Totenkopf
07-02-2008, 12:24 PM
Well, I was speaking somewhat generally to J7's point about the apparent motivation of seemingly desperate people who will steal "in the name of the children". I would wager that your assessment is correct. They were criminals, at least one with priors over here. They paid the ultimate price for their callous, selfish stupidity. Looks like stupidity is a crime punishable by death afterall.