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: 20
24
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I think Eyewitness and OldTimer are bleeding too much liberal opinion for me. Those two thieving creeps needed killing. Hey, I got it - if you don’t want to be shot and killed - don’t be breaking into other people's homes. DUH!!
There is no-way the DA will ask a Houston area Grand Jury to indict this neighborhood hero who killed the burglars. And, if he was indicted, he would never be convicted. Drop a few more of them and watch the crime rate fall even more.




posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TexasSteel
 


Fine, same token, if you don't want to be stoned to death, don't cheat on your husband. And if you don't want to lose a hand, don't shoplift that Baby Ruth. Looks like Texans and Radical Islam have more in common than they think.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ellen
The man should be given a civic award. Anybody who decides to break into somebody's home deserves to be shot.
The amount of sympathy shown for these dead criminals is disturbing.


Should we just and go make robbery the death penalty? So some 15 year old kid steals something let’s kill him, or hell how about someone just steps a foot on your lawn, that sounds like close enough.

If you agree this guy did the right thing then there are only two ways to look at it.

1. You feel that the death penalty should be used in all crimes.

2. You feel that being a vigilante is ok anytime you feel like it.

That is basically what this guy did. He enacted the death penalty with zero regard for our system of law. If any of you think this is ok then you are no better than the criminals you wish to kill.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If you agree this guy did the right thing then there are only two ways to look at it.

1. You feel that the death penalty should be used in all crimes.

2. You feel that being a vigilante is ok anytime you feel like it.

That is basically what this guy did. He enacted the death penalty with zero regard for our system of law. If any of you think this is ok then you are no better than the criminals you wish to kill.


This is the false choice fallacy, claiming there are only two possible choices in a situation when more exist.

The Texas law on this subject has been posted in this thread several times including on the front page - please review it.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'd like to know what the difference between shooting someone for thievery and stoning someone to death for adultery is. Is there a difference? Are we as "backwards" as these Middle Eastern countries we vilify?


Sounds like people are avoiding my question. What is the difference, if any?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'd like to know what the difference between shooting someone for thievery and stoning someone to death for adultery is. Is there a difference? Are we as "backwards" as these Middle Eastern countries we vilify?


They are two completely different things. One is being punished for a crime of passion and the other is being attacked in an act of defense of property. In one at the time of punishment the act is already done and over with in the other at the time of attack the act is currently in progress.

One involves the potential loss of property and life and the other involves sticky sheets.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
There was no loss of life, only property in the case of theft. And if you ask most married people, the a marriage is much more valuable than any piece of property.

THey are very similar. If you ask me, it's one in the same.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Ok you're right two consenting adults having extra-marital sex and someone breaking into your neighbors house are almost exactly identical.

How could I possibly have been mistaken.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
It's teh punishment that's in question, not the act directly. They're both crimes, and in both cases the punishment is excessive. Not only that, but in both cases it's vigilante justice.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Ellen
The man should be given a civic award. Anybody who decides to break into somebody's home deserves to be shot.
The amount of sympathy shown for these dead criminals is disturbing.


Should we just and go make robbery the death penalty? So some 15 year old kid steals something let’s kill him, or hell how about someone just steps a foot on your lawn, that sounds like close enough.

If you agree this guy did the right thing then there are only two ways to look at it.

1. You feel that the death penalty should be used in all crimes.

2. You feel that being a vigilante is ok anytime you feel like it.

That is basically what this guy did. He enacted the death penalty with zero regard for our system of law. If any of you think this is ok then you are no better than the criminals you wish to kill.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Xtrozero]


Sorry I do not agree with your pro-crime viewpoint. This man caught these thugs in the act of robbing his neighbor's house. He defended his neighbor's property with the force he felt necessary. I doubt running out there and using harsh language would have stopped the thugs so he shot them. They got what they deserved. If they had not have broken into somebody's house then they would still be alive.

Oh and if you think this man is a vigilante then you do not know the meaning of the word. He was defending somebody's property, not going out avenging crimes as he sees fit.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
There seem to be people here that think that the criminals are now thinking 'damn lets not break into anyones house anymore'.

Let's see.

You still have people who need money for drugs. You still have people who need to make money to feed the family. You still have people that need a quick hit of cash to see off the bailiffs or to keep the landlord at bay.

Only the next time they go out breaking into a house (possibly yours), they will take a gun or a knife. They will kill you first to make themselves and the place safe. They will then take your precious items. Items such as your big telly, your fancy jewelery and maybe even your nice big truck/car.

Your big fancy gun remains unloaded. Locked in the cupboard. And your dead.

Bravo!



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I dont think any 100% sane person would agree that the punishment for break and enter should be a firing squad....
But this is not so cut and dry...
Its too easy to look at this in black an white terms.... I.E. Goodies gun down the baddies.... simple right.....??!#$

If these guys did not have weopons he could have held them at gun point until the police arrived. Or at least give the intruders the chance to live by complying.
So I think if he shot first and asked no questions then he does deserve to be charged with something to deter others from dirty harry style "heroics".

But on the other hand I think there is a part of us all that does not have alot of sympathy for them......
But this part of us is not to be lorded...
And the fact that everybody has this capacity does not make it right....
The law does not make it right either...... drones! so stop quoting the law....
The law is scrawl on a paper... in some fatcat's office...
Your real laws are your common sence you concience......
If you do a bit of soul searching you will know this was wrong.... laws or not.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Some interesting conflicts in the report...



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



"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."


His comment before stepping out amounts to premeditation. He planned on killing these two and then did. That perty much tanks any claim of "self defense". In fact, it's not a big legal leap to make that grounds for murder charges. If you plan to kill someone, then do it, it's murder. Kinda cut and dried.

Then again, Texas is a rather odd place in it's celebration of justice through the employment of firearms. I doubt this guy will have much trouble.

Personally... I think I woulda knee capped 'em. Best of both worlds. You stop 'em and they live to learn a valuable lesson about cause and effect (crime and punishment).

[edit on 1-12-2007 by BitRaiser]

Premeditation requires planning. Reacting to a crime is not premeditation.

The crooks made the mistake of escaping the crime scene through Mr. Horn's property giving him every right to shoot.

I want to move to Mr. Horn's neighborhood!



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
Only the next time they go out breaking into a house (possibly yours), they will take a gun or a knife. They will kill you first to make themselves and the place safe.


There are criminals already doing that.


Your big fancy gun remains unloaded. Locked in the cupboard. And your dead.


Not likely to happen around here. Can't speak for the others.

I don't condone people going out to shoot someone, but breaking into a house and taking on the residents would be frowned upon. Have the perp's lawyer leave me off that jury.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by morphonius821
I dont think any 100% sane person would agree that the punishment for break and enter should be a firing squad....
But this is not so cut and dry...
Its too easy to look at this in black an white terms.... I.E. Goodies gun down the baddies.... simple right.....??!#$

If these guys did not have weopons he could have held them at gun point until the police arrived. Or at least give the intruders the chance to live by complying.
So I think if he shot first and asked no questions then he does deserve to be charged with something to deter others from dirty harry style "heroics".

But on the other hand I think there is a part of us all that does not have alot of sympathy for them......
But this part of us is not to be lorded...
And the fact that everybody has this capacity does not make it right....
The law does not make it right either...... drones! so stop quoting the law....
The law is scrawl on a paper... in some fatcat's office...
Your real laws are your common sence you concience......
If you do a bit of soul searching you will know this was wrong.... laws or not.

Typical Liberal lies and distortion!

Sanity to have crime and defend the criminals?

Only socialists don't want the innocent people to have weapons to defend themselves or respond to illegal government actions at Lexington and Concord.

If you listened to the whole tape, you can hear Mr. Horn telling them to stop before he fired. You can't hold people at gunpoint if they are coming towards you and do not listen to you.

I haven't touched a firearm in a quarter century, but silly arguments like yours make me think I better buy one.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Our whole family and neighborhood listened to the 911 call on Break.com yesterday. One, from what we've read about Texas law, it appears the guy has legal right in Texas to defend property with deadly force. Two, we saw the pictures of the guys he killed, no loss.

If more Americans would stand up and quit being such looky luu pansies, crime rate in our Country would drop overnight. Joe Horn is our new hero, God bless him for doing the RIGHT thing. These two losers will only be missed by their crack hoes.

I have a shotgun, and if I saw something like that happen in my hood, you bet your dollar there would be one or more less losers to pollute our planet. God Bless Texas and Joe Horn!

Lastly, this is my one and only visit to this thread, so all you liberal bleeding heart do gooder pansies out there that want to put me down for anything I've expressed here should save your time. As it is, I have to live near "the people's republic of berkeley" here in the bay area, and it's too bad they can't shoot the tree sitters for trespassing.

We called today to see if there was a house available next to Joe Horn! Texas ROCKS!



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anubis Kanubis
Even if he didn't fear for his life, it was a legal action defending his neighbor's property...

Good shooting. Just the fact that these two would break into homes in broad daylight is just practically putting your life on the line. The man wasn't just defending his neighbors, he was defending his neighborhood. What if these guys came back with their crowbar? He also waited for police as long as he possibly could.

Texas is great. He will be praised, not jailed.


Texas is great? Isn't George W. Bush from Texas?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Not sure of the details but it sounds like the guy shot 2 robbers dead while he was not in immediate danger. I support his right to do so but I would have handled it differently.

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death. While those robbers deserve to be locked up for a long long time they shouldnt have been murdered. The shooter seems like he was thirsty for blood. Well, he got what he wanted now he has to live with his conscious.

I would have gone for the legs.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Ellen
The man should be given a civic award. Anybody who decides to break into somebody's home deserves to be shot.
The amount of sympathy shown for these dead criminals is disturbing.


Should we just and go make robbery the death penalty? So some 15 year old kid steals something let’s kill him, or hell how about someone just steps a foot on your lawn, that sounds like close enough.

If you agree this guy did the right thing then there are only two ways to look at it.

1. You feel that the death penalty should be used in all crimes.

2. You feel that being a vigilante is ok anytime you feel like it.

That is basically what this guy did. He enacted the death penalty with zero regard for our system of law. If any of you think this is ok then you are no better than the criminals you wish to kill.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Xtrozero]

If you knew history, you would know that vigilante committees got started when law enforcement was non-existent or effectively non-existent. Yes, vigilante committees have been abused, but no more than regular police.

Death penalty should be used in all crimes? No, but if you are in the process of committing a felony, you should not have a guarantee that will will survive.

Your logic is that of a fool. A 15 year old committing a felony should get the same punishment as an adult. Adult crime - adult time. Giving breaks to young criminals benefits no one. You should focus your efforts in keeping youngster from committing felonies rather than coddling them.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by knows_but_doesnt
...Two, we saw the pictures of the guys he killed, no loss.


And what was it about the pictures that led you to the conclusion it was no loss?





top topics



 
24
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join