Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: "Justifiable Homicides" Are on the Rise: Have Self-Defense Laws Gone Too Far?

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-19-08
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,783

    "Justifiable Homicides" Are on the Rise: Have Self-Defense Laws Gone Too Far?

    [Quite a lot of whining going on here.]

    One year ago today, a 61-year old Texan named Joe Horn looked out his window in Pasadena, just outside of Houston, and saw a pair of black men on his neighbor's property. It appeared to be a burglary in action, so he called 911. But as he described what he saw to the emergency dispatcher, he began to get agitated. The police would take too long to get there, he decided. Instead, he'd stop the crime himself.

    "I've got a shotgun," Horn told the 911 dispatcher. "You want me to stop him?"

    The dispatcher tried to talk him down. "Nope, don't do that," he told Horn. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

    It was not OK with Horn. With the dispatcher still on the phone, he grabbed his gun, went outside, yelled, "Move, you're dead!" -- and shot the two men in the back.

    The victims turned out to be two undocumented immigrants from Colombia, Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus. Both died on the scene.

    The killings sparked instant controversy nationwide, with some labeling it a deplorable act of vigilante justice, and others calling Horn a hero for defending his neighbor's property. Because the victims were in the country illegally, the controversy was further fueled by the ugly, ongoing fight over immigration. Protesters who arrived on Horn's block to call for justice for his victims were met with counterprotesters waving signs in support of their neighbor. "Once again, our chaotic immigration system has led to death," Bill O'Reilly fumed on Dec. 6, 2007.

    This summer, Horn was officially cleared of wrongdoing, when a grand jury failed to indict him on any charges. The decision was met with dismay by the families of Ortiz and de Jesus. Diamond Morgan, Ortiz's widow, will now raise their infant son without him. "It's horrible," she said about the 911 recording. "(Horn) was so eager, so eager to shoot." "This man took the law into his own hands," Stephanie Storey, de Jesus' fiancee, told reporters. "He shot two individuals in the back after having been told over and over to stay inside. It was his choice to go outside and his choice to take two lives."

    But Horn and his attorney claimed that in addition to protecting his neighbor's home, he was acting in self-defense. "He was afraid for his life," his lawyer, Tom Lambright argued. " I don't think Joe had time to make a conscious decision. I think he only had time to react to what was going on. Short answer is, he was defending his life. "

    But the 9/11 recording tells a different story:

    Horn: He's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window.
    Dispatcher: Don't, don't -- don't go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?
    Horn: They just stole something. I'm going after them, I'm sorry.
    Dispatcher: Don't go outside.
    Horn: I ain't letting them get away with this ****. They stole something. They got a bag of something.
    Dispatcher: Don't go outside the house.
    Horn: I'm doing this.
    Dispatcher: Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house.
    Horn: I'm sorry. This ain't right, buddy.
    Dispatcher: You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think.
    Horn: You want to make a bet?
    Dispatcher: OK? Stay in the house.
    Horn: They're getting away!
    Dispatcher: That's all right. Property's not worth killing someone over, OK?
    Horn: (curses)
    Dispatcher: Don't go out the house. Don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated, but don't do it.
    Horn: They got a bag of loot.
    Dispatcher: OK. How big is the bag? Which way are they going?
    Horn: I'm going outside. I'll find out.
    Dispatcher: I don't want you going outside, Mr. Horn.
    Horn: Well, here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going.
    Dispatcher: Don't go outside.
    Horn: (yelling) Move, you're dead!
    (Sound of shots being fired)
    Besides being a disturbing recording, the tape is also notable for what it reveals about the moments before Horn saw Ortiz and de Jesus emerge from the window. "I have a right to protect myself too, sir," Horn argued with the dispatcher. " And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it."

    Horn was referring to Texas's newly enacted Castle Law, signed by Gov. Rick Perry on March 27, 2007, and which had gone into effect that fall. The law, as described by the governor, "allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that they use deadly force." Its benefit, Perry said, is that "it protects law-abiding citizens from unfair litigation and further clarifies their right to self-defense."

    It may seem like a stretch to say Horn was acting out of self-defense. As CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin observed after listening to the tape, "He does not appear to be someone who's in a panic. It's a very cool and rather chilling determination to go out and use his gun, against the instructions of the 911 operator." Nevertheless, the new statute ultimately saved Horn from prosecution. Whether or not the law was designed to protect private property as much as human life, rather than "clarifying" the right to self-defense, as Perry claims, the practical effect of Texas' Castle Law appears to be a broadening of the definition to an unprecedented -- and deadly -- degree.

    "Stand Your Ground" Laws

    The Castle Law is not some wild Texas invention. In fact, the "castle doctrine" is a concept that dates back to English Common Law. As Ohio State law professor and criminal justice expert Joshua Dressler explains, the castle doctrine basically dictates "that your home is your castle; it's the one place where you should be able to be free from intrusion." This idea has provided the legal basis for self-defense legislation across the country for years -- legislation that traditionally has also acknowledged a person's "duty to retreat" in the face of a threatening situation. "The law has always taken the view for self-defense that someone can use deadly force to respond to what the person reasonably believes is a threat," explains Dressler. But, he adds, "the old law tended to be that people ought not to use deadly force until absolutely necessary. They tended to require people to find non-deadly solutions."

    Recent decades have seen some exceptions. One precursor to the new Texas law is a 1985 Colorado law, nicknamed the "Make My Day" law, that treats property crimes as legitimate grounds for the use of force. The law came under national scrutiny in 1990, when an 18-year-old named Laureano Jacobo Grieigo Jr. was shot in the head by a 69-year-old-man as he fled his the man's home in an unsuccessful robbery attempt. No charges were filed, and an article published in the New York Times at the time called the law an "unusual" statute "that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force -- including deadly force -- against an invader of the home." (The same article quoted a criminologist at Florida International University, Dr. William Wilbanks, who warned that the law was ripe for abuse. "The danger is not that this kind of law will be abandoned, but that it will be extended even more," he said. ''The public sentiment is clearly behind this kind of law.")

    Almost two decades later, Texas' Castle Law is part of a wave of similar legislation passed by states throughout the country, building upon the castle doctrine and broadening the right of civilians to use lethal force under the auspices of self-defense. The new laws are particularly expansive in that they go beyond the boundaries of private homes to include cars, workplaces or anywhere else a person may feel threatened. In this sense, says Dressler, "what is happening is that the castle doctrine is becoming less important."

    Leading the pack was Florida. In 2005, Gov. Jeb Bush signed a law that, as written, "authorizes (a) person to use force, including deadly force, against (an) intruder or attacker in (a) dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances." The law "provides that person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances," and "provides immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using deadly force." Formally called the "Protection of Persons/Use of Force" law, it became known as the "Stand Your Ground" law.

    Heavily backed by the National Rifle Association, Florida's new law alarmed more than just gun control advocates. Many people were appalled at the fact that it could apply in public spaces. As the Christian Science Monitor reported at the time:

    "Most significantly, (the law) now extends that right to public places, too, meaning that a person no longer has a duty to retreat from what they perceive to be a threatening situation before they are entitled to pull the trigger. Members of the public may now stand their ground and "meet force with force," it states, without fear of criminal prosecution or civil litigation. "It's common sense to allow people to defend themselves," said Gov. Jeb Bush (R) as he signed the new law."

    Only 20 state legislators opposed the law. One Democratic critic worried that it could "turn Florida into the OK Corral," but other Democratic politicians "admitted that they did not want to appear soft on crime by voting against it." It helped that one of the driving forces behind the law was Marion Hammer, a lobbyist who argued that the law would protect women against abuse and assault. She "characterized herself as a feminist," recalls Dressler, "but more relevantly, was a former president of the NRA."

    Mere months after the passage of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, similar legislation was being proposed in more than 20 states. The NRA was happy to take the credit. "Today, the NRA is feeding the firebox of Castle Doctrine legislation in states throughout the country," an article posted on the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action Web site boasted, crediting itself with "reuniting Americans with the right to protect themselves and loved ones from danger."

    "Justifiable Homicides" on the Rise

    Today, there are similar new laws in at least 15 states across the country, and while it may be too early to know the effects, in Texas, the newly passed Castle Law was followed by a series of shootings that prompted questioning over the potential "sudden impact." "Does new law make them quicker to pull the trigger?" asked the Dallas Morning News in January. (At least one source said yes: "I think the Castle Law has more citizens thinking about fighting back, knowing they're protected from being sued later," said a Dallas man who shot and killed a man who broke into his garage, "where he stored thousands of dollars worth of tools.")

    Anecdotal evidence aside, one recent government report suggests that the laws may be having some effect. A little-noticed study released in mid-October by the FBI found a spike in the number of "justifiable homicides" recorded in the past few years.

    The FBI defines "justifiable homicides" as "certain willful killings" that "must be reported as justifiable, or excusable." This includes "the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty" and "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." According to the report, in 2007, police officers killed 391 people -- the highest number since 1994 -- and private citizens killed 254 -- the most since 1997.

    Although the report got little attention in the press, an article in USA Today quoted criminal justice experts who cited "an emerging 'shoot-first' mentality by police and private citizens" as a possible explanation.

    Dressler agrees. "What's been happening is that a lot of states have broadened their homicide rules to give greater authority to citizens to use deadly force in circumstances that in the past would not have been permissible," he says. Expanding "stand your ground" style legislation "means that there are going to be, in the future, many more homicides perpetrated by citizens against other citizens -- homicides that were in the past viewed as criminal now will be seen as justifiable."

    "If you talk to prosecutors, the message that they're getting is, really, don't even prosecute cases that come close to the category of what is now deemed 'just homicides.'"

    Whether a killing is "just" or not is currently determined by local police departments, to whom the concept is long familiar. "Police, of course, use justifiable homicide, both in self-defense and in crime prevention," explains Dressler, "but now a couple things are happening. One is the reality that thanks to the NRA, some fairly conservative judges, Republicans, we've really become an armed nation. Far more people possess guns today than in the more distant past, and that means that when a police officer is dealing with someone, they have much greater reason to fear that the person they're dealing with is armed." This, perhaps, helps to explain the rise in "justifiable homicides" committed by police (not to mention the rise of "non-lethal" weapons like tasers, themselves deadly weapons).

    The recent FBI study is not the first time the government has tracked the number of "justifiable homicides" committed by police alongside those committed by civilians as if they were equivalent phenomena. But given that police officers are, at least in theory, trained to be uniquely authorized to use force in a law enforcement capacity, to what extent do these new laws blur the distinction between police and civilians?

    "I think the creed of the NRA is that citizens/civilians have the right to use deadly force because the police don't (or cannot) protect us," says Dressler. "So, under that view, yes, the distinction is blurring."

    More Homicides Will Be Seen as Justifiable

    Although it may be an old concept, the notion of "justifiable homicides" is itself a slippery one. Anti-abortion extremists, for example, have used the term to describe the killing of abortion providers, on the grounds that they are defending the lives of the unborn. But perhaps more alarming is the positive connotation the term holds for some. When a Memphis paper reported earlier this year that the number of local justifiable homicides "jumped from 11 in 2006 to 32 in 2007," it quoted a firearms instructor whose (admittedly unscientific) explanation was that "the thugs have started running into people who can protect themselves." It's a rather glib way to talk about murder, and the perverse effect is to cast the killings as a positive trend. In Memphis that year, the 32 "justifiable homicides" included four killings by police officers. "All were found to be what internal affairs investigators term 'good shoots,'" according to the report, which explained that "Tennessee law gives citizens the right to defend themselves if they have a reasonable and imminent fear of harm from a carjacker, rapist, burglar or other violent assailant. They can also employ deadly force to protect another person."

    But what about another person's property, as in the case of Joe Horn? If a person can shoot two men in the back and get away with it -- and, indeed, if he cites his legal right to do so -- haven't these laws gone too far?

    Dressler thinks so. "My fear is that these changes in self-defense laws will lead to a lot more homicides -- and that a lot more homicides will be seen as justifiable."

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-02
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    25,516
    But what about another person's property, as in the case of Joe Horn? If a person can shoot two men in the back and get away with it -- and, indeed, if he cites his legal right to do so -- haven't these laws gone too far?
    "Too far?" What kind of idiocy is that? We really need to let criminals know if the value of the property exceeds $5, their lives are at risk.

    Harsh? You bet. Unfair? Nope. It's the criminals' choice to undertake the risks.
    No tyrant should ever be allowed to die a natural death.

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-16-07
    Location
    Green River, WY
    Posts
    1,637
    Why do they keep viewing criminals being killed when commiting a crime as murder? I will say that I am not sure that the main case featured in the article was a good shoot.
    No Choice No Chance. Support Campus CCW.

    I think people are entitled to beliefs that are not completely illogical. Want to believe the sky is plaid? Too bad, facts are against you. People don't get to believe in anything willy nilly and expect to be able to hide behind defenses of "it is my belief" or "it is my opinion." I don't have to agree with the logic and/or proof, but there has to be at least some of either.
    -MJRW

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    11-11-03
    Location
    New Jersey Highlands
    Posts
    2,128
    "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

    That's the logic flaw right there.

    Property represents a portion of your time, your life on this earth.

    The most basic right is the right to exist, the right to your time here.

    Allowing people to steal a portion of it is cheating you of our time, your basic right. Accepting that will ultimately lead to the forfeiture of the right to self defense.

    That aside, it always amazes me to see how many people sympathize with criminals (and illegal aliens to boot.)

    Best way not to get shot: don't break into someone's house!

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-18-07
    Posts
    206
    I agree with Standing Wolf,,,,,it "might" be different, if someone was stealing food for their family, but NOT to break-in, in the cover of darkness and rob/steal from someone that has worked for what they have.
    I've worked hard all my life, and I don't think I'd let anyone steal from me!!!

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-07-07
    Posts
    703
    WTF?!

    If the premise was that vigilantes were seeking out victims, then there could be SOME justification for concern.

    When a BG breaks the plane, they are no longer citizens with rights - plain and simple, they are criminals engaged in criminal activity and subject to all that such actions entail - including assuming room temperature when they encounter a citizen protecting the fruits of their labors.

    What makes it so ludicrous is the fact that a normally peaceful but prepared citizen isn't looking for a rumble which this wrong minded agenda driven article purposely overlooks.

    Get ready folks, the inmates are running the asylum once again, this PC drek will only intensify before it abates.

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-20-05
    Location
    Sarasota Florida
    Posts
    987
    There's alot of errors in that article.. the guys weren't black, but illegal Mexicans.
    Visit my new website. Now offering Detachable Magazine Bottom metal for FN-SPR rifles.

    www.cdiprecisiongunworks.com

  8. #8
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-31-05
    Posts
    4,230
    The recent FBI study is not the first time the government has tracked the number of "justifiable homicides" committed by police alongside those committed by civilians as if they were equivalent phenomena. But given that police officers are, at least in theory, trained to be uniquely authorized to use force in a law enforcement capacity, to what extent do these new laws blur the distinction between police and civilians?
    I'm not sure what the author of that article thinks the difference is between a police shooting and on by a private citizen. Its not as though police officers are executioners.

    Here's the ucr data http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offe...rtable_14.html I don't think there's a story there

    t "the thugs have started running into people who can protect themselves." It's a rather glib way to talk about murder, and the perverse effect is to cast the killings as a positive trend.
    Perhaps there we see the root of the problem. As time goes on we see fewer and fewer americans who can admit that sometimes someone needs to be shot to protect an innocent person. We're not quite like the UK yet but give it time.
    Every social movement (*snip*) that tries to break the bonds of mindless convention and tradition and that defies established privilege gets accused of being rude and worse, much worse, and there are always weak apologists for the status quo who use that pathetic etiquette excuse to try and silence the revolutionaries. Successful revolutionaries ignore the admonitions about which fork to use for their salad because they care only to grab the steak knife as they launch themselves over the table. -- Richard Dawkins

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-02
    Location
    southeast AR
    Posts
    2,236
    It is high time that crime again becomes a high-risk activity in the US. 'Nuff said.
    <-------------------------------->
    1911

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-24-08
    Location
    Downstate NY
    Posts
    193
    "Steal at your own risk"

    should our laws not convey this message to any would-be theives?

    Good for Mr. Horn

  11. #11
    New Member  
    Join Date
    04-17-06
    Location
    SOBX, NC
    Posts
    26
    Concur with Sumo. If I KNOW a crime's being committed on my property (not just a drunk kid stumbling around what he thinks is his own house, etc), I'll likely shoot to stop. Whether I deliver verbal warning is up to a number of circumstances.

    There are some dumb criminals out there who live in la-la land; there's a specific TV show about them I believe. But there's plenty who understand the intrinsically dangerous nature of their trade and prepare themselves accordingly (self-preservation's paramount WRT human nature). I will err on the side of caution, just as many BGs do, and assume the "other guy" has a way to harm/kill me. With that knowledge, I will not wait to find out whether I have to return fire. I will initiate. And when you sweep all the politics off the scenario, that is called self-defense.

    If BGs know we have a "duty" to effect all non-lethal means before applying deadly force, they'll become brazen. If they know we can assume we are in danger of losing our lives...*insert obvious here*

    The main case does appear shady, but consider this. Those two men who decided to loot a house put their lives on the line the moment they trespassed on the property. It's very feasible that they have a way to defend themselves against the threat (homeowner). Unless they're well trained, they'll likely perceive ANY human resistance (even "STOP!") as an immediate danger to their lives, and react accordingly. The BGs likely spent MUCH more time preparing themselves for the crime than the citizen spent preparing to stop them. Therefore, I believe it would be reasonable to assume the shooter was justifiably fearful of losing his or his neighbors life. (proper grammar? ugh...)

    For the sake of the OP, I'll agree that that are many out there who will not know how to apply the proper reasoning to handle a "castle doctrine scenario" in a reasonable manner. Don't get me started on my views of society as a whole...way off topic. ;->

    I deplore death of any sort. Although it happens to us all at some point, it's still unnatural. But I see it as a means to good ends, in some cases - in the application of justice, self defense, just wars, etc. I will never even applaud a justified killing or execution, but I WILL revel in the good that it brings. That said, there will always be bad guys, good guys, and homicides. It's my belief that castle doctrine laws and others like it will ultimately change the ratio of GG/BG deaths for the better.

    EDIT: Wow, lots of replies after Sumo. Now I concur with everyone up to this point, but what critter said is priceless. Prevention is exactly what it is.
    Last edited by kornesque; November 15th, 2008 at 02:19 PM. Reason: addition

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-23-06
    Location
    Middle, TN
    Posts
    2,093
    If you don't wanna get shot don't be a breakin in and stealin! Simple concept really!
    Not all problems can be solved by shooting the heck out of them..... Well most can, and if not then high explosives can really be your friend!

    If you can't do something smart ........ do something right!

    There are only 2 people in this world I trust and you ain't one of'em!

  13. #13
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-28-08
    Location
    NC Sandhills
    Posts
    1,089
    When a Memphis paper reported earlier this year that the number of local justifiable homicides "jumped from 11 in 2006 to 32 in 2007," it quoted a firearms instructor whose (admittedly unscientific) explanation was that "the thugs have started running into people who can protect themselves." It's a rather glib way to talk about murder, and the perverse effect is to cast the killings as a positive trend. In Memphis that year, the 32 "justifiable homicides" included four killings by police officers. "All were found to be what internal affairs investigators term 'good shoots,'" according to the report, which explained that "Tennessee law gives citizens the right to defend themselves if they have a reasonable and imminent fear of harm from a carjacker, rapist, burglar or other violent assailant. They can also employ deadly force to protect another person."
    A. If it was ruled a "justifiable homicide" it wasn't "murder".

    B. Its hard to even come up with something coherent to say about the mindset of a person who considers it objectionable that predators have been prevented from further preying on innocent citizens.
    3KB

    "When confronted by a hungry wolf, it is unwise to goad the beast... But it is equally unwise to imagine the snarling animal a friend and offer your hand..." - Cicero

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-26-02
    Location
    Occupied Montanistan
    Posts
    11,489
    One Democratic critic worried that it could "turn Florida into the OK Corral,"
    Well, not unless a bunch of "lawmen" are going around confiscating guns from citizens

    Those who don't remember their history are destined to make stupid statements
    Governments don't live together. People live together.

  15. #15
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-01-08
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    877
    But perhaps more alarming is the positive connotation the term holds for some. When a Memphis paper reported earlier this year that the number of local justifiable homicides "jumped from 11 in 2006 to 32 in 2007," it quoted a firearms instructor whose (admittedly unscientific) explanation was that "the thugs have started running into people who can protect themselves." It's a rather glib way to talk about murder, and the perverse effect is to cast the killings as a positive trend. In Memphis that year, the 32 "justifiable homicides" included four killings by police officers. "All were found to be what internal affairs investigators term 'good shoots,'" according to the report, which explained that "Tennessee law gives citizens the right to defend themselves if they have a reasonable and imminent fear of harm from a carjacker, rapist, burglar or other violent assailant. They can also employ deadly force to protect another person."
    These statistics are completely uninteresting and mostly meaningless unless there is an accompanying statistic, using the same vector values of time and place, that indicate by how much murder had gone down.

    For example, if the same amount of violent activity were committed in that time period as the same period immediately before the Castle laws were passed, and there was a significant increase in justifiable homicide and a significant decrease in murdered innocents, then I would say the law is working beautifully.

    I don't celebrate death, but I do celebrate deaths prevented. Criminals dying instead of the innocent is death prevented. This is a contradiction in terms, yes, but this is in reference to preventable death. Criminal activity is not preventable and the repercussions are life threatening. The death of innocents is preventable.
    NRA Life Member, October 2009.
    SAF Defender Club Member, January 2011.
    NRA Endowment Member, January 2011.

  16. #16
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    09-28-06
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    1,220
    "Justifiable homicides" are just that! Justifiable! Cheebis. If self-defense laws had gone too far people would be able to shoot non-criminals. So far people are shooting criminals in the act.
    "Guns are swell" - me

  17. #17
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-04-08
    Location
    eastern Massachusetts
    Posts
    8,699
    Perhaps the argument could be offered that when more robbers are being "unnecessarily" shot by defenders, than are victims being unnecessarily shot by robbers, we've gone too far...

  18. #18
    New Member  
    Join Date
    07-04-07
    Location
    Van Nuys CA USA
    Posts
    7
    Justifiable homocides are on the rise BECAUSE of self defense laws. Criminals have to realize the hazards of their chosen "profession" just like miners, loggers, LEO, etc. If you violate someone else's rights, you forfeit your own rights, possibly including right to life.

  19. #19
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-14-07
    Posts
    162
    There's alot of errors in that article.. the guys weren't black, but illegal Mexicans.
    You're wrong, actually. And, from THAT ARTICLE you disparaged:

    "The victims turned out to be two undocumented immigrants from Colombia, Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus."

    People complain that people should be justified shooting anyone trying to steal something as little as $5, but again, this guy shot people robbing his neighbor, not him. He wasn't being threatened, he wasn't being robbed. He shot them in the back.

    I personally think that robbers should be strung up by certain body parts but come on...

  20. #20
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-21-04
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,106
    Harsh, but deserved justice. I'm amazed how all the lib's seem to think it's ok to steal what is mine, like I should just walk away and everything will be ok.
    Browningguy
    Houston, TX

  21. #21
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-26-02
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Posts
    2,630
    It is far better that the criminals should be afraid than honest citizens. I have a hard time sympathizing with some scumbag that got killed while doing a felony, no great loss, as society is better off with fewer, not more, preditors. I could maybe find a little for the BG's family, in that it's hard to lose a loved one, but keep in mind it was the BG's choice of 'work' that led to the end consequence.
    The Second Amendment IS homeland security.
    Pacifism is a priviledge of the protected.
    Fast is fine, but accurate is final, the trick is learning how to take your time when you're in a hurry. - W. Earp

    M2

  22. #22
    New Member  
    Join Date
    02-19-07
    Location
    N.E Tn
    Posts
    2
    I agree with Miguel. We work too hard for our things to allow someone else to take them.
    Joe Horn was a great example of a good neighbor.
    the media described martyrs that Mr. Horn shot were both career criminals. One had been previously incarcerated for cocaine distribution before being deported. BOTH had a criminal history and were proven career criminals.
    The idea that they deserve anything in the way of a "chance to live" while they continue their predations is equatable to the idea that you can "pick up a turd by the clean end and not get your hands dirty". Its an idea so ludicrous that only an intellectual would come up with it.
    insert nifty, witty tagline here.

  23. #23
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-12-08
    Posts
    183
    Joe Horn's neighbor was away for the weekend and Mr. Horn was placed in charge of his neighbor's property (by that neighbor) that weekend as reported in other articles.

    Texas lawmakers tried to leveled the playfield with the 'castle doctrine'. That a person has the right to protect their property...seems very reasonable to me.

  24. #24
    Member  
    Join Date
    07-06-07
    Posts
    44

    Sheesh!

    One thing overlooked here is that Joe Horn's shooting of those people was witnessed by a plain cloths LEO who had just pulled up, and took a moment to assess the situation before proceding. The perps, when confronted, came onto Joe Horn's property before he shot them. This is what the cop testifyied to at the grand jury hearing.

  25. #25
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-25-07
    Location
    SE Iowa
    Posts
    770
    Actually, the perps came onto his property twords him, befor he fired. And he did not shoot them in the back.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •