It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars

page: 18
24
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by discomfit

I don't think that word means what you think it means. It has been established that the man doing the shooting was withing the constraints of the law.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by discomfit]




Absolutely nothing has been established on this forum in terms of the law. Unless ATS is the judge, jury and executioner, this case has yet to run its course.

Mr Horn, although very unlikely, could face murder charges.




posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


What part of this leads you to believe he may face charges ?


§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.


A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person
if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


[edit on 2-12-2007 by discomfit]

[edit on 2-12-2007 by discomfit]

[edit on 2-12-2007 by discomfit]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


A good lawyer would agree, it was not his home or family in danger, now when we visit friends and family its a big QUESTION MARK on what waits on knocking on that door. Peace



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by discomfit
reply to post by skibtz
 


What part of this leads you to believe he may face charges ?



Every single part of it where the word 'reasonable' crops up.

Did I miss something?

Is the case closed already?

Is he absolutely, definately a free man who will not face charges?

I though the case was ongoing?

For someone who likes to quote law you sure don't like to wait for it to take it's course!



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Anubis Kanubis
 


A Son isn't classed as a posession, we're talking about things like, you know a microwave, tv etc. You can't put a price on human life, which is why killing someone for a £350 tv can't be right. We'd be stumbling back into the dark ages if we killed people for any crime.

But the lack of capital punishment in England is leaving the place in a sorry state. There needs to be boundaries on it, but by all means there are some people beyond saving.

I agree on killing a man raping a woman, but would you kill a man if he'd just stolen your neighbours tv? I'm sure they'd have home insurance in any case which will replace at no cost. If they don't, incentive to get some



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser


He's now going to grow up knowing that his dad was gunned down in the street like a dog by a white man who could afford a rather nice house, and the law never did anything about it.



What makes you so sure he was white? Moreso, what difference does his skin colour make? i'm sure he'd be rqually pissed off if a man painted pink with green polka dots had done it. unless those feelings were already there?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Longy4eva
I agree on killing a man raping a woman, but would you kill a man if he'd just stolen your neighbours tv? I'm sure they'd have home insurance in any case which will replace at no cost. If they don't, incentive to get some


The solution is insurance? So a person can pay rip off prices for insurance that most likely won't repay a person the amount the item cost in the first place. Once a couple of claims are filed the cost will be very high or the policy will be canceled because the insured is a poor risk. Not a solution to crime.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
What a bunch of animals when all the people are condoning the murder of 2 people. Yes they were thieving scum and deserved to be punished, but killed?

There was absolutely no justification for the murder of the two Burglars.

Just the typical blood lust of a strange state in a stranger country.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
If I am wrong then please feel free to shoot me by all means but I could not help laughing my ass off when I read the op's story.

These two thieving scum bags thinking "hey we got a nice easy one here, we will be getting our fix in no time at all" then bam bam your dead suckers.


Fair play to the guy as far as I am concerned, don’t break the law and your safe otherwise expect someone to be handing your ass to you in a bag.

Peace.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser

If you believe that justice can be dispensed from a smoking barrel, where does it stop?



It starts and stops at the place that you are trying to shift blame from, PARENTS.

Then mom or guardian of the son of that scumbag needs to remind his son that his dad died because he was a looser that want it to get things the easy way causing pain and suffering to others in blatant disregard of others peoples privacy.

The kid should learn from an early age that crime is not the right and that education is. The kid should learn to respect people and to follow the law put in place by society. ALL THIS learning need to come from a parent or guardian. If the parent or guardian decide to raise a kid full of hate that's their problem not the shooters, police departments, government or judiciary problem.

Is totally ridiculous to shift the blame from where it should be.

Edit to add: This is just ONE case out of hundred of thousand of burglary cases that end up this way. ONE!!, many of this cases are never resolved, the items taken by the thieves sold on the street in order to buy drugs an once that drugs is out, guess what they going to do? Where they going to get money from?

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I have experience with some of this.

I was renting a storage space for my star wars collection.

I was there for about a year or so. suddenly, I've noticed things being moved around..didn't do anything. thought it was my bad memory.

But I retured later on to find that for sure, lots of item had been stolen. My atari was gone, my millenium falcon and at at walker toys. those were very large boxed.

the lock was still on the door. no forced entry. so how did they get in? The people at the front desk had sold me the lock.

it was them who stole my stuff and I knew it was them. they were middle eastern. I confronted them and told them, "you guys broke into my space" and they said, you can't prove nothing because the lock is still there and there's no evidence of forced entry..

now I could have gone home and got a gun and shoot them both..or I could just walk away..and that's what I did.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
So I suppose all you bloodlusting right wingers would say it is just fine to EXECUTE burglars? Let's see...if a burglar gets caught why not just execute them before the police arrive? If the burglar goes to court and is found guilty of stealing then just put him in the electric chair..right? You MUST think the death penalty is Ok for stealing...this mad dog killer decided to murder two human beings and found the perfect opportunity to do so. The 9-11 operator told him NOt to go outside but this murderer was having none of that!! He wanted to KILL!!

Then, he killed..and now has to live with himself....but that souldn't be too hard as he has no sould and no conscience...murder plain and simple. Just because a person has the EXCUSE does NOT mean they have the RIGHT. It was WRONG to execute two men for petty thievery. I hope that this guy gets prison time..and has to spend it with a bunch of convicted burglars!!


And I suppose there are a number of right wingers and so forth that hope this never happens to you.

How very cool of you to come out here on the forum, foaming at the mouth, casting all sorts of aspersions, calling people names, declaring yourself smarter than the law of the land and generally making a horse's patoot out of yourself without adding or detracting a damned thing. Plus, there's the obviously positive side of not being able to control your emotions... And your telling everyone else what's wrong with them?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I posted this earlier:

"Violence does, in truth, recoil upon the violent, and the schemer falls into the pit which he digs for another." –Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

A hero to me is not someone who saves material goods. A hero is someone who saves lives. Sometimes, in order to save lives, lives must be given or taken. A hero would exercise prudent action according to circumstance. As far as the OP is concerned, no matter how I try to rationalize the actions of the alleged "hero", I cannot. He is a murderer. He set out with intent to kill as evidenced, witnessed, and recorded by his call to 911. There's no need for me to extrapolate from a hypothetical scenario, the actual scenario provides everything necessary for the charge of murder to apply.

There was a case in New Hampshire this year where someone witnessed a police officer being shot and killed. The witness took the slain officer's handgun and killed the suspect. The witness was not charged because his actions were deemed justified by the New Hampshire Attorney General's office. That case and the case featured in the OP couldn't be more different. The differences are obvious which makes pointing them out redundant. The point is, the witness featured in the OP committed murder, this is clear, regardless of whether or not he will be charged. He called 911 with his shotgun in hand as a first response, evidence of an internal debate, one that he hoped the 911 would help him resolve. After he'd made up his mind, he also hoped the 911 operator would give him permission to kill the two suspects. As far as is clear to the OP's article, the witness should have remained safe and sound in his own home. Going outside and placing himself in danger and the two suspects in mortal danger was a decision that he made despite efforts of the 911 operator telling him otherwise. I do not see self-defense nor protection of the neighbor's property here as motives. This spells out intent to kill and it spells out murder. Having a conversation with the 911 operator suggests strongly a rational person. Fear does not enter into the equation until AFTER the witness exits his home. The witness displayed great confidence that he would succeed in killing the suspects. The witness committed murder.

From the following it's pretty clear:


"Uh, I've got a shotgun," he told the dispatcher. "Uh, do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," the dispatcher responded. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said as a shell clicked into the chamber. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."


The witness may have held the advantage:


"Move," Horn can be heard saying on the tape. "You're dead."


But the witness did not have the authority or right to kill. He received instructions from the 911 operator and ignored them. The suspects didn't need to provide further reason, the witness' decision had been made inside his home PREVIOUS to his confrontation with the suspects outside of his home and his neighbors home.

Now if the suspects had went knocking on the witness' front door, that would be different.



Sources:

New Hampshire Case

OP Case



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Taped audio evidence of a man abusing his wife has been used to show that the husband was capable of killing his wife. For example, the O.J. Simpson case. Yet, taped audio evidence of a witness bearing a shotgun declaring that he would kill suspects seen breaking into and exiting his neighbor's home is not evidence of premeditation. Why?













[edit on 2-12-2007 by Areal51]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I already answered one post by itself, before I realized that all the left leaning marshamllows who want to give up any individuality are out here beating on the right wing scum who like to be able to make their own determinations.

First of all... In the area where this occurred the law of the land is the law of the land. If you don't like it, don't live there.... If you don't plan on breaking into places that aren't yours, no problem... Like Will Smith said in Men in Black... "Don't start nothin', wont be nothin' ".

Interesting to me is that the "liberals' are out here condemning people who want the right to live the life they want to live. Seems awfully funny to me that it is of paramount importance to be angry over people dying, when
a: They knew the possible consequences
b: They chose to take the chance
c: They paid the possible consequences.

What could be the lefty malfunction, other than each of them seems to know what is best and right for everyone and seem as equally determined to not let anyone else have a say in what they do or do not do?

Ya now... If you live somewhere and don't like the laws, you can either move to someplace more ammenable to your style... Or you can work to change the laws within the various formats that we have in this land.

However, I do not understand how you can come out on a forum with your nose so high up that if you were taking a shower you would drown... Calling a man who, without resorting to a phonecall to Ann Landers to get permission, took an action, which he deemed appropriate, and will live with those consequences, calling names, and casting aspersions on his character, when some of you seem incapable of spelling aspersions. What gives you, or anyone else on a forum like this the right to sit in judgment?

Seems to me that the most you can honestly and reasonably be able to do is hope they hang him.

See... This is why the liberals have such a rough time here in the USA. You have some goodl, no ... Wonderful ideas... You just don't seem to be clear thinking enough to get them to working without putting everyone else down, calling them names, and questioning whether or not they shouldn't have baby sitters...

Be kind of cool to see a post there that wasn't so negative, or in fact, detrimental to your cause.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
Like Will Smith said in Men in Black... "Don't start nothin', wont be nothin' ".




You were making lots of sense until you quoted will smith.

You lost all credibilty with that sentence.


Sorry, but we are not living in the old west drinking rum with billy the kid. Texas has to move on.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
in reply to sigung86

..calling names,

Okay then. No name calling.

..and casting aspersions on his character, when some of you seem incapable of spelling aspersions.

Oh right. We are back to name calling now?!

..What gives you, or anyone else on a FORUM like this the right to sit in judgment?

Erm. This is a public forum where we can discuss and share opinions?

The fact is there are those of us who are peaceful and those of you who are happy to kill people. Let's just live in harmony eh?!!


p.s. Your post is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. We dont mind if you dont mind


[edit on 2/12/2007 by skibtz]

[edit on 2/12/2007 by skibtz]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 



I did not come on here putting you down personally "Jedi". Nor did I come on here with intentions of impressing you much. As a matter of fact, I may go eat brunch in a while and not even ask myself what you would like me to eat, or where...

Liberty, life and pursuit of happiness as attibuted in the papers of the founders of this fine country had nothing to do with drinking whiskey with Billy the Kid or with salivating over a President having oral sex in the White House. That's the way of life. Matter of fact, after some very basic guidelines, and laws down to the local level... The father's kind of figured that we would be smart enough to take care of things on our own, individually, and without coming to you or someone else for permission.

However I do appreciate you coming on here and so clearly demonstrating the facts that I stated regarding liberals, who like to call names and/or cast aspersions.

You chose to give up your personal goods to some "Middle Easterners"... Great! You are to be applauded for choosing a path then sticking to it. That, however, in no way, makes you an expert on anything else. And I suspect that there are a great number of people on this forum, and just alive generally, who would appreciate being able to do the same thing without being put down by someone for living thir lives the way they see fit.

I'm thinkiing that in Texas, you can kind of, within obvious limits, live the life you want. I further suspect that if you can't see your way clear to do that, then perhaps you should

a: Never move to Texas where no one will listen to you or do what you say.

b: If you already in Texas, disregard a:. Pack and move somewhere else as quickly as you can to avoid ulcers, high blood pressure, .aches and a depressed ego.


[edit on 2-12-2007 by sigung86]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
in reply to sigung86

..calling names,

Okay then. No name calling.

..and casting aspersions on his character, when some of you seem incapable of spelling aspersions.

Oh right. We are back to name calling now?!

..What gives you, or anyone else on a FORUM like this the right to sit in judgment?

Erm. This is a public forum where we can discuss and share opinions?

The fact is there are those of us who are peaceful and those of you who are happy to kill people. Let's just live in harmony eh?!!


p.s. Your post is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. We dont mind if you dont mind


[edit on 2/12/2007 by skibtz]

[edit on 2/12/2007 by skibtz]





It is agood to meet someone who is not all that full of themselves, or in need of taking themselves all that seriously.

I am putting a star on your post.

Thanks for being a human being!


Insofar as my "aspersions"... You're right... But sometimes I just can't help myself.


But... Once again, you have managed to prove what I meant. It's much easier to attack someone personally than to address issues.

And before you come after me again, realize that one finger points at you, three point back at me... And someone needs to light your smoke.


I've had to quit.


[edit on 2-12-2007 by sigung86]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but here is the audio of the incident. I believe both parties were in the wrong, I sure would hate to be on this jury.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join