Texas says "yes!" to vigilante justice

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 6, 2008, 6:58 pm

Nick wrote:Yes I'm "delusional" because I don't think petty criminals should be immediately murdered for their crimes. Aren't you the fuckstick who's cousin is in jail for murder or something?

You're a Fucking spastic.

No. You're delusional because only your opinion on a certain issue can be the correct one. Through your words of anger and personal attacks I can see how you feel on this issue. I disagree with your stance, but I think it's nice how you selectively value life. You'll wish ill will on me and my children because of my opinions on a message board, but those criminals didn't deserve the punishment they got. Ummm, yeah, I can see your logic there. You are a fine exmaple for us all Nick.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 6, 2008, 7:18 pm

In other worse, you're a moron.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 6, 2008, 7:20 pm

I'm not saying theft should be punishable by death... I don't think anyone else is either, so I don't think it's fair to start comparing other crimes and claiming we want others punishable by death as well.

Police are there to enforce the law, but they're not the only ones capable of doing so. I don't know about you, but I would listen to the man pointing a shotgun at me... He is pretty much the authority at that point, don't you think?

In this case, in that little microcosm, he took that command. He didn't need to do that for his neighbors property, I agree... He could have washed his hands of it and went back to eating funions. He has got a lot of balls at his age, going out knowing he's up against 2 big dudes who may be armed as well. He did it, though, and they didn't listen.

What if he was an off-duty cop? He wasn't, but hypothetically I think you see where I'm going with it.

There was a time when everyone was prepared to defend their own property, and more willing to defend that of a neighbor.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 7, 2008, 1:18 am

I think anyone who breaks the law should be killed on sight. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, he or she should be able to shoot you in the head. After a couple of weeks, I bet people would stop speeding.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 7, 2008, 3:22 pm

Fash wrote:I'm not saying theft should be punishable by death... I don't think anyone else is either, so I don't think it's fair to start comparing other crimes and claiming we want others punishable by death as well.

Police are there to enforce the law, but they're not the only ones capable of doing so. I don't know about you, but I would listen to the man pointing a shotgun at me... He is pretty much the authority at that point, don't you think?

In this case, in that little microcosm, he took that command. He didn't need to do that for his neighbors property, I agree... He could have washed his hands of it and went back to eating funions. He has got a lot of balls at his age, going out knowing he's up against 2 big dudes who may be armed as well. He did it, though, and they didn't listen.

What if he was an off-duty cop? He wasn't, but hypothetically I think you see where I'm going with it.

There was a time when everyone was prepared to defend their own property, and more willing to defend that of a neighbor.

Bump... what, no one has anything to say now?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 7, 2008, 3:25 pm

Spang wrote:I think anyone who breaks the law should be killed on sight. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, he or she should be able to shoot you in the head. After a couple of weeks, I bet people would stop speeding.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 7, 2008, 3:27 pm

Well yeah but what about now? Or... Now? Huh huh? How about now?? You got nothin!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 7, 2008, 3:40 pm

Aslanna wrote:Well yeah but what about now? Or... Now? Huh huh? How about now?? You got nothin!

It's obvious neither you nor Spang does.....have anything.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 7, 2008, 3:42 pm

Don't be a hypocrite.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 7, 2008, 4:08 pm

You're not seeing the big picture Spang. We're going to have to put you down now.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » July 7, 2008, 4:14 pm

Spang wrote:I think anyone who breaks the law should be killed on sight. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, he or she should be able to shoot you in the head. After a couple of weeks, I bet people would stop speeding.

I bet you're right. Thank you for finally understanding. Now just apply that logic to actual reality and you're almost there.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 7, 2008, 6:56 pm

You've quoted sarcasm.

Killing people is not the answer.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » July 7, 2008, 7:33 pm

Spang wrote:You've quoted sarcasm.

Killing people is not the answer.

Really? It's not?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 7, 2008, 7:40 pm

Do you have me confused for someone else?

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » July 7, 2008, 7:42 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:OK....from the link Boog had:

In another twist, investigators revealed that a plainclothes Pasadena detective witnessed the Nov. 14 shootings after he pulled up in an unmarked car seconds before Horn fired three shots from his 12-gauge shotgun.

The men, who had just burglarized Horn's neighbor's house, faced him from seven to 10 feet away when they ignored his order to "not move"or they would be dead, police said.

That is definitive, end of story, your life is ending range. The commonly held self defense range that will hold up as the standard in court is 21 feet. If an individual is within 21 feet and is coming at you in a threatening manner and you are in fear of your life, that is game over. 100% justified shooting....just makes it a no-brainer when there is a cop standing there to cooberate the story.

First - They faced him, no one has presented any evidence to suggest they were within 21 feet AND coming at [him].
Second - The fact that a police officer was there could very well have been used by the defense to show that Horn's life was not in immediate danger.

It's been pretty well established that this isn't a defensible action by Castle Doctrine. Some in this thread argue that Horn's life was in danger, and therefore he could use deadly force. What you're missing is that it was Horn who put himself in danger - even after being told by police to stay inside.

Consider: I see a downed power line and call the power company. They thank me and let me know they are sending someone out to fix it right away. I promptly hang up the phone, go pick up the wire to move it out of harm's way, and get myself electrocuted. Why do I have this crazy feeling that the VV redneck posse would be the first on my ass saying I'm an idiot who deserved what he got?

edit: cause html is herd.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 7, 2008, 9:24 pm

I guess the police officer can't be believed as to distance and them moving toward him. I am not shocked another lib believes this way though.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 7, 2008, 9:45 pm

Toshira wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:OK....from the link Boog had:

In another twist, investigators revealed that a plainclothes Pasadena detective witnessed the Nov. 14 shootings after he pulled up in an unmarked car seconds before Horn fired three shots from his 12-gauge shotgun.

The men, who had just burglarized Horn's neighbor's house, faced him from seven to 10 feet away when they ignored his order to "not move"or they would be dead, police said.

That is definitive, end of story, your life is ending range. The commonly held self defense range that will hold up as the standard in court is 21 feet. If an individual is within 21 feet and is coming at you in a threatening manner and you are in fear of your life, that is game over. 100% justified shooting....just makes it a no-brainer when there is a cop standing there to cooberate the story.

First - They faced him, no one has presented any evidence to suggest they were within 21 feet AND coming at [him].
Second - The fact that a police officer was there could very well have been used by the defense to show that Horn's life was not in immediate danger.

It's been pretty well established that this isn't a defensible action by Castle Doctrine. Some in this thread argue that Horn's life was in danger, and therefore he could use deadly force. What you're missing is that it was Horn who put himself in danger - even after being told by police to stay inside.

Consider: I see a downed power line and call the power company. They thank me and let me know they are sending someone out to fix it right away. I promptly hang up the phone, go pick up the wire to move it out of harm's way, and get myself electrocuted. Why do I have this crazy feeling that the VV redneck posse would be the first on my ass saying I'm an idiot who deserved what he got?

edit: cause html is herd.

Okay, the post you quoted has part of the police officer's quote in it as being 7-10 feet from him, and the rest of it indicated that they were closer to him than when they started moving on him. What part of that has them staying away from him at over 21 feet?

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » July 7, 2008, 11:25 pm

Well, consider they were probably coming from a neighbor's house...it's possible they were running across his lawn.

Also remember, if they did turn to face him at all - how did he shoot them both in the back? I'm not sure where you get that they were approaching him, either. Sure, Horn's attorney says "they were attacking" - that's hyperbole, not fact. The only other positional statement I see is again from the attorney "they [the two deceased] were near the front door. That's pretty subjective.

Further, just because someone gets within 21 feet, or even 7 feet, doesn't mean you have a right to bust a cap. The only thing these two had done to Horn, apparently, was criminal trespass when they cut across his lawn. Apparently for that jury, that's enough to constitute a claim of perceived bodily harm. Really, I could go up to hunters who trespass on my land and just blow them away - then claim to feel threatened, if that were the case.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 7, 2008, 11:33 pm

In Texas you probably could. It's true that this case doesn't fall under Castle Law (before some people argue consider that even the creator of the law in Texas says it doesn't) but fortunately for Horn there are numerous other laws in Texas that pretty much guarantees he wouldn't go to jail. No jury in Texas has ever sided with the victim in cases similar to this. I think if this happened in just about any other state you might have had a different outcome.

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » July 8, 2008, 1:14 am

Spang wrote:
Spang wrote:I think anyone who breaks the law should be killed on sight. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, he or she should be able to shoot you in the head. After a couple of weeks, I bet people would stop speeding.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » July 8, 2008, 11:44 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I guess the police officer can't be believed as to distance and them moving toward him. I am not shocked another lib believes this way though.

Source? I guess I missed where it said the police officer saw the soon-to-be-deceased moving towards Horn. NOT THAT POLICE OFFICERS CAN BE WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT KILMOLL?

Ah, it's going to be a fun 8 years watching you bitch about the next president

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 8, 2008, 11:50 am

This is why I posted the link to the original thread about this on page one of this one...

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... t=joe+horn

The original link was in this post:

Boogahz wrote:
Nick wrote:
Maybe you also missed the part where they came into his yard.
Source?
From the 911 dispatch call:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."
From the plainclothes police witness:

The two burglary suspects killed by Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn were shot in the back after they ventured into his front yard, police disclosed Friday.

In another twist, investigators revealed that a plainclothes Pasadena detective witnessed the Nov. 14 shootings after he pulled up in an unmarked car seconds before Horn fired three shots from his 12-gauge shotgun.

The men, who had just burglarized Horn's neighbor's house, faced him from seven to 10 feet away when they ignored his order to "not move"or they would be dead, police said.

...

Corbett said the plainclothes detective, whose name has not been released, had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

Corbett believes neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present.

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (get-away driver). He ducked at one point."

When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze.

Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

The Houston Chronicle story has been archived since it was first posted in December.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » July 8, 2008, 12:35 pm

"Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb."

What? How much sense does this make? Even so...

""Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----." - from the 911 call. Yeah, clearly someone in fear of his life. Wow. Can't believe he got away with murder.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 8, 2008, 12:40 pm

Yet he did. They didn't get away with that shit on his watch.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 8, 2008, 12:42 pm

A model citizen, this Mr. Horn.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 8, 2008, 1:47 pm

Indeed.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 8, 2008, 3:01 pm

Toshira wrote:"Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb."

What? How much sense does this make? Even so...

""Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----." - from the 911 call. Yeah, clearly someone in fear of his life. Wow. Can't believe he got away with murder.

I guess because if someone is taking a shot at you your instinct is to turn away from it. If you would like to volunteer to be the test case, we can video it and put it up on LibTube.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » July 8, 2008, 3:06 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Toshira wrote:"Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb."

What? How much sense does this make? Even so...

""Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----." - from the 911 call. Yeah, clearly someone in fear of his life. Wow. Can't believe he got away with murder.

I guess because if someone is taking a shot at you your instinct is to turn away from it. If you would like to volunteer to be the test case, we can video it and put it up on LibTube.

...

Animale · Post by **Animale** » July 8, 2008, 3:10 pm

I guess I took the wrong Gun Safety and Self Defense Courses... the most important rule that was taught to us was to avoid placing yourself in situations where the use of a gun or other physical force was needed. This fellow actively sought out a situation where his firearm use would be "justified," which is the biggest no-no in all of this. If they broke into his front door, then sure he'd be totally in the right. But going outside into his yard to confront them and escalate the situation, that breaks every single rule of self defense that I've ever heard of. He endangered himself, he endangered any passersby, he endangered the plainclothes cop that had just shown up. Maybe not murder, maybe not manslaughter (although I personally think he deserves this charge), but I can't believe they weren't able to get him for reckless endangerment or something like that. He took 3 quick shots in a residential area with a shotgun with little to no regard for what was behind his targets. I know I'd be pissed if my neighbor did that no matter what the situation.

Animale

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 8, 2008, 4:53 pm

Animale wrote:I guess I took the wrong Gun Safety and Self Defense Courses... the most important rule that was taught to us was to avoid placing yourself in situations where the use of a gun or other physical force was needed. This fellow actively sought out a situation where his firearm use would be "justified," which is the biggest no-no in all of this. If they broke into his front door, then sure he'd be totally in the right. But going outside into his yard to confront them and escalate the situation, that breaks every single rule of self defense that I've ever heard of. He endangered himself, he endangered any passersby, he endangered the plainclothes cop that had just shown up. Maybe not murder, maybe not manslaughter (although I personally think he deserves this charge), but I can't believe they weren't able to get him for reckless endangerment or something like that. He took 3 quick shots in a residential area with a shotgun with little to no regard for what was behind his targets. I know I'd be pissed if my neighbor did that no matter what the situation.

Animale

One would assume there was lawn/street beyond his targets, unless you know something I don't. I don't think it's like he was in an apartment hallway where each shiot could potentially go through the wall and kill an innocent.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 8, 2008, 4:56 pm

I wouldn't assume to know whether or not he 'carelessly' fired without regard for what was behind his targets.

We weren't there, so how the fuck would we know?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 8, 2008, 5:39 pm

Fash wrote:I wouldn't assume to know whether or not he 'carelessly' fired without regard for what was behind his targets.

We weren't there, so how the fuck would we know?

We wouldn't know. We don't presume things like that. People who think they know better than everyone else does.....do.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 8, 2008, 5:42 pm

Ultimately, I do agree with Fash on this one. Two guys killed commiting a crime, one who shot them. Realistically, there were no cameras or eyewitnesses save the defendant. And in America, it is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of reasonable doubt.

Bottom line, though we both know a death sentance is not appropriate for theft, they ran that risk the moment they engadged in criminal activity in Texas, where most people do own a gun.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 8, 2008, 5:53 pm

Acies wrote:Ultimately, I do agree with Fash on this one. Two guys killed commiting a crime, one who shot them. Realistically, there were no cameras or eyewitnesses save the defendant. And in America, it is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of reasonable doubt.

Bottom line, though we both know a death sentance is not appropriate for theft, they ran that risk the moment they engadged in criminal activity in Texas, where most people do own a gun.

Well said Sir. The problem comes in with some of these folks who would love to get rid of the innocent until proven guilty thing. They KNOW what happened that night and want that man to pay. It's a sickness. That elitist attitude pervades every walk of life. So damn frightening.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 8, 2008, 6:01 pm

Well, they *know* that the defendant shot the two men, because he said he did. Ballistic proves reasonably that he did. What they are unsure of is the context, in that did the defendant really fear for his life against two unarmed men ten + paces away with a 12 gauge? Put in that light, it does not make much sense. Legally, they likely should have been able to prove that no, he was not fearful, and likely got off because a jury of his peers were quite easily able to say "Hey, that could have been me."

Which is what I love about our legal system. The cut and dry law says he should go to jail. A jury says though there was circumstance which the law does not cover, and he shouldn't.

Personally, I agree with the jury, but I am not disheartened by other people having other takes on this subject. I would not be frightened by that Mid. The ability to have a differing opinion is the meat our country is built on, well, that and a shit load of human bodies, but really, all foundations are the same everywhere

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 8, 2008, 6:05 pm

If he hadn't killed those darkies, they would have walked off with $2,000 worth of meaningless crap.

He should have a street named after him.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 8, 2008, 6:10 pm

I am not saying he is a hero, I am saying however that I do not believe he should have to go to jail for his involvement. My personal belief, and I do not know if it is entirely correct in the grand scheme of things. But my belief echos the jury in this case.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 8, 2008, 6:22 pm

Spang wrote:If he hadn't killed those darkies, they would have walked off with $2,000 worth of meaningless crap.

He should have a street named after him.

How do you know they only had $2000 worth of his neighbors property? Hindsight? I don't believe he had that.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » July 8, 2008, 6:27 pm

I read.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 8, 2008, 6:29 pm

So the actual amount has meaning? Point being it's simply property. The value of those items is not relevant whether it be $2 or $20,000.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 8, 2008, 6:36 pm

Aslanna wrote:So the actual amount has meaning? Point being it's simply property. The value of those items is not relevant whether it be $2 or $20,000.

I agree 100%. I'm glad they have been removed from society, permanently.

Post by **pyrella** » July 8, 2008, 7:02 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Acies wrote:Ultimately, I do agree with Fash on this one. Two guys killed commiting a crime, one who shot them. Realistically, there were no cameras or eyewitnesses save the defendant. And in America, it is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of reasonable doubt.

Bottom line, though we both know a death sentance is not appropriate for theft, they ran that risk the moment they engadged in criminal activity in Texas, where most people do own a gun.

Well said Sir. The problem comes in with some of these folks who would love to get rid of the innocent until proven guilty thing. They KNOW what happened that night and want that man to pay. It's a sickness. That elitist attitude pervades every walk of life. So damn frightening.

Lol. Unfortunately dead people don't have the opportunity to prove guilt or innocence. What happened to their innocent until proven guilty - or did that happen in his personal court of law, comprised of a jury of the accused's peers?

Oh wai.....big picture. When painted in the color scheme you like. Must be impressionistic, because it seems a bit muddy.

And now - relevant art!

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 8, 2008, 7:17 pm

Oh cool, a sailboat!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 8, 2008, 7:20 pm

pyrella wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Acies wrote:Ultimately, I do agree with Fash on this one. Two guys killed commiting a crime, one who shot them. Realistically, there were no cameras or eyewitnesses save the defendant. And in America, it is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of reasonable doubt.

Bottom line, though we both know a death sentance is not appropriate for theft, they ran that risk the moment they engadged in criminal activity in Texas, where most people do own a gun.

Well said Sir. The problem comes in with some of these folks who would love to get rid of the innocent until proven guilty thing. They KNOW what happened that night and want that man to pay. It's a sickness. That elitist attitude pervades every walk of life. So damn frightening.

Lol. Unfortunately dead people don't have the opportunity to prove guilt or innocence. What happened to their innocent until proven guilty - or did that happen in his personal court of law, comprised of a jury of the accused's peers?

I'm sorry, we're they tried in the ten minutes it took them to die? I don't recall that happening. I believe they were caught in the act. Maybe they were just borrowing those items. Maybe the owners told them to enter through the window because the front door is jammed and to go ahead and borrow those items, but please bring them back, or else!! *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

When you're right you're right. When you can bend any viewpoint to match your, how can you not be right? Right?

Ahh, you have you all over me. That's for sure. I mean you point of view was so convincing you didn't even have to throw in a personal jab at me and link a picture of a painting to further that jab. Ahhh yes, you are the witty one. I bow before thee.

Going out to play pool now with my fellow klan members. Have a nice night.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » July 8, 2008, 7:22 pm

Fash wrote:I wouldn't assume to know whether or not he 'carelessly' fired without regard for what was behind his targets.

We weren't there, so how the fuck would we know?

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (get-away driver). He ducked at one point."

Sure sounds like the witness (a cop) thought he was shooting with little regard for what was behind his targets.

Animale

Post by **pyrella** » July 8, 2008, 7:38 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
pyrella wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Acies wrote:Ultimately, I do agree with Fash on this one. Two guys killed commiting a crime, one who shot them. Realistically, there were no cameras or eyewitnesses save the defendant. And in America, it is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of reasonable doubt.

Bottom line, though we both know a death sentance is not appropriate for theft, they ran that risk the moment they engadged in criminal activity in Texas, where most people do own a gun.

Well said Sir. The problem comes in with some of these folks who would love to get rid of the innocent until proven guilty thing. They KNOW what happened that night and want that man to pay. It's a sickness. That elitist attitude pervades every walk of life. So damn frightening.

Lol. Unfortunately dead people don't have the opportunity to prove guilt or innocence. What happened to their innocent until proven guilty - or did that happen in his personal court of law, comprised of a jury of the accused's peers?

I'm sorry, we're they tried in the ten minutes it took them to die? I don't recall that happening. I believe they were caught in the act. Maybe they were just borrowing those items. Maybe the owners told them to enter through the window because the front door is jammed and to go ahead and borrow those items, but please bring them back, or else!! *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

When you're right you're right. When you can bend any viewpoint to match your, how can you not be right? Right?

Ahh, you have you all over me. That's for sure. I mean you point of view was so convincing you didn't even have to throw in a personal jab at me and link a picture of a painting to further that jab. Ahhh yes, you are the witty one. I bow before thee.

Going out to play pool now with my fellow klan members. Have a nice night.

It was your own words. Did he know for a fact who they were and what they were doing?

Shall we go faith/moral based? Eye for an eye? Perhaps turn the other cheek? Do either of those ring true for a robbery? Hell, go old school Hamarabi (sp?) style - cut off their hands.

Obviously the law was on his side - regardless of how people feel about it. However - it doesn't change the fact that people have strong feelings about it. You're attempts at making it sound as if I was trying to twist the situation to match a view point I didn't state is humurous at best. You said innocent until proven guilty - but only one sided. My only claim, was the fact that dead people don't have a chance to prove innocence or guilt. I guess it's also why it's reccomended in the event you do need to draw a weapon on someone, you should kill them. Not wound. Not threaten. Kill. Or they will be able to attempt to sue you for assault/disability/etc/etc. Completely non sarcastic.

And if I didn't have the best usage of using your own 'big picture' statement ever, I'll eat my hat.

Going out to find a hat made of cheesecake. Have a nice night.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 8, 2008, 7:50 pm

Animale wrote:
Fash wrote:I wouldn't assume to know whether or not he 'carelessly' fired without regard for what was behind his targets.

We weren't there, so how the fuck would we know?

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (get-away driver). He ducked at one point."
Sure sounds like the witness (a cop) thought he was shooting with little regard for what was behind his targets.

Animale

That's not what I get from it. It sounds like he ducked because he was afraid he'd be mistaken for the getaway driver.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 8, 2008, 8:18 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Toshira wrote:"Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb."

What? How much sense does this make? Even so...

""Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----." - from the 911 call. Yeah, clearly someone in fear of his life. Wow. Can't believe he got away with murder.

I guess because if someone is taking a shot at you your instinct is to turn away from it. If you would like to volunteer to be the test case, we can video it and put it up on LibTube.

Kilmoll is NEO!!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 8, 2008, 8:21 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Acies wrote:Ultimately, I do agree with Fash on this one. Two guys killed commiting a crime, one who shot them. Realistically, there were no cameras or eyewitnesses save the defendant. And in America, it is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of reasonable doubt.

Bottom line, though we both know a death sentance is not appropriate for theft, they ran that risk the moment they engadged in criminal activity in Texas, where most people do own a gun.

Well said Sir. The problem comes in with some of these folks who would love to get rid of the innocent until proven guilty thing. They KNOW what happened that night and want that man to pay. It's a sickness. That elitist attitude pervades every walk of life. So damn frightening.

Your hypocrisy would be hysterical if you weren't so clueless about it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 9, 2008, 1:08 am

Zaelath wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Acies wrote:Ultimately, I do agree with Fash on this one. Two guys killed commiting a crime, one who shot them. Realistically, there were no cameras or eyewitnesses save the defendant. And in America, it is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of reasonable doubt.

Bottom line, though we both know a death sentance is not appropriate for theft, they ran that risk the moment they engadged in criminal activity in Texas, where most people do own a gun.

Well said Sir. The problem comes in with some of these folks who would love to get rid of the innocent until proven guilty thing. They KNOW what happened that night and want that man to pay. It's a sickness. That elitist attitude pervades every walk of life. So damn frightening.
Your hypocrisy would be hysterical if you weren't so clueless about it.

Really? Let's break it down for you since you're having a problem with this very elementary problem.

Joe Horn knew they broke into his neighbors house.

The folks on this board, think they know about what happened when it all went down. They have conjectured about how maybe they were running away, or turning, or weren't wihtin 21 feet, or 7 feet or whatever.

The difference here is Joe Horn was there and these elitist know-it-all tools on this board weren't. A court of law found him innocent. Yet these motherfuckers know better. I'm the hypocrit? LOL