Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars, page 35
Pages: <<  32    33    34    35    36    37  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times


reply posted on 8-12-2007 @ 12:36 PM by bigbert81
reply to post by smarteye


So gun posession keeps Houston from total chaos? Why would Houston be the only city where guns keep control? There are several places where guns are not as allowed as they are in Houston, and they're not in total chaos, and cities where there are more illegal immigrants too. So where's your reasoning behind this.

BTW, I'm against gun control. I think people where given the rights to carry guns and we should be able to, so I'm not looking at this as a biased reader.


reply posted on 8-12-2007 @ 01:36 PM by smarteye
reply to post by bigbert81


I at no time said Houston was the only city where guns keep control. I will say Houston is different. In addition to the countless illegal immigrants Houston also received most of the refugees from Katrina.

Houston police believe the evacuees are partly responsible for a nearly 17.5 percent increase in homicides so far this year over the same period in 2005.
source

I have lived in several other cities and have never seen a cesspool like it. Not all illegals are criminals, but the ones who are, tend to be vicious. I can't imagine what it would be like if the criminals didn't have some fear of the public.


reply posted on 9-12-2007 @ 02:30 AM by orangetom1999
defcon 5 and others,

Thanks for confirming my argument.

Before I reconfirm my position I will also add some terms from

Blacks Law Dictionary.

Legal...pertaining to the form of law...appearences...

Lawful..pertaining to the substance of law..what the law was intended to accomplish.

Most lawyers will tell you legal and lawful are the same thing..they are lying.

Legal pertains to the form of law...that the T's are crossed and the I's dotted. This is the appearence of law...not the substance. This is job opportunity for the legal system including jailers, judges, lawyers..etc etc etc ad nauseum often at public expense and consequence.

Lawful pertains to the substance of the law ..what it was actually intended to accomplish..ie..the protection of private property including our persons, homes...etc etc.

In many of your posts you folks debate from the position of the sacredness of life....but you exclude the people who earned the goodies often at great risk to thier persons. Their lives/risks are not sacred. Their "Risk " is completely ignored. This is legalism. This legalism also goes by another term back in ancient times for those of us who know some history. It is called "Phariseeism."

It is quiet obvious in many citys that the local constabulary and legal system , including lawmakers are totally ineffective in stopping this type of crime and only collect data to support more career ineffectiveness.

None of you are debating this "substance." You are debating from a legal position which is often just phariseeism or debating forms.

The historical facts are that when peoples engaging in criminal activity learn that the risks are very high they go elsewhere where the risks are lower. 'This is historically demonstratable. None of you mention this aspect in lieu of your defaults or legalism/phariseeism.

The connection in my posts which some of you claim is apples and oranges is that the substance was accomplished in my examples. These people were far more effective in putting legalism and criminal elements at bay than all the lawyers and constabulary put together.

I will tell some of you folks that professional legal experts like no outside threats to thier job opportunitys or career advancements. They do not publically state so but close examination of these systems will bear this out. They intend to maintain a closed shop at public expense.

This is the Legal and Lawful fingerprints for those who know for what to look.

A handful of these kinds of incidents and the criminal element will be going elsewhere. I do not favor this kind of thing per se. I wish it could be different but it is not. It is simply not any different than this for which I describe.

I will also state that career prosecuters do not like jury trials in cases like this without a handpicked jury....meaning a jury on the public dole.
People who make a honest living by their own labors dont like this kind of criminal element in any neighborhood. They are not easily malliable on a jury to the intents of a career prosecutor...a legalist.

Another thing not mentioned in any of the articles...this fellow who shot these two men..did he in fact know his neighbor. What are the chances that he knew what his neighbor did for a living..what risks they took for their moneys and goods?? This concept too is not mentioned by any of you in your haste to default.

Once again ..none of you are wont to consider the "risks" of peoples in earning their private propertys. Emphasis here is on "Private". When you practice legalism long enough ...Private propertys by default becomes public propertys/freebee day.. which is precisely what is happening in many large citys while the public defenders maintain their careers at public expense. They are becoming part of the problem.

Thanks again for confirming my points.

Orangetom


reply posted on 9-12-2007 @ 07:27 AM by defcon5
reply to post by orangetom1999

Please excuse me if I am misunderstanding what you’re saying, but from where I sit, it translates to:

“I am the type of guy who believes that if we dig very hard we can find a loop-hole in the language of the law, much like O.J. did, as opposed to someone who follows the letter of the law as it’s written and intended .”

Obviously, even Horns attorney knows it’s the wrong path to head down to try and claim “defense of his neighbor’s property”, as he is instead opting for “self-defense”. Horns comments on the phone make it very obvious that his intentions were to extract revenge, not serve justice and defend his neighbors property.

In law they call this annoying little factor “intent”…
It don’t take Warner Von Braun listening to that tape to figure out that his "intent" was to kill someone.

[edit on 12/9/2007 by defcon5]


reply posted on 9-12-2007 @ 12:32 PM by orangetom1999
No Defcon5,

I dont approve of the OJ case and what happened. That was lawyer strategy, legalism/phariseeism too.

What I am describing is a public jury and public sentiment or understanding of what the long term outcome is...the substance including the risk taken by oridinary peoples in accquirring and preserving the privateness of property.

Once again you resort to legalism to make your points. You like others totally ignore the "Risk' facet of which I speak.

Lawyers and Judges serve on the jury ...correct? Or are they sometimes wont to stack the jury or juggle the instructions to a jury to get a predetermined outcome?? 'A political outcome...not one which will benifit the public they have sworn to preserve and protect??? Understand legalism now??

Do not confuse legalism/phariseeism with the public belief or sentiment and their desire to preserve private property.

Americans may not know all the terms or legalisms but they do know private property. Once again ..none of you are debating this point.
This makes an American very different from Europeans or even Englishmen. The ability to own private property. This also implys the ability to protect and preserve this private property.
Among Americans this also implys the ability to protect ones neighborhood/neighbors.
Once again ..a point not even mentioned by most of the posters on this thread in lieu of legalism.

As to Horn's attorney ..he is a legalist too. He will take the easiest ,most solid path to defend. This should be obvious.

Retseh,

I tend to agree with you on the Texas, Jury. We need some of that up here as the Wildlife is moving in and taking advantage. Professional Legalists are not helping the situation as is happening all across the country.

This way is very hard but it keeps the wildlife at bay ..unlike professional legalists.

Thanks,
Orangetom


[edit on 9-12-2007 by orangetom1999]


reply posted on 9-12-2007 @ 03:17 PM by Rasobasi420
reply to post by orangetom1999


Dude, this comment was my outlandish response to some stupid comment about liberals and illegals being the downfall of the country. I guess context counts huh?


reply posted on 10-12-2007 @ 05:49 AM by orangetom1999
Originally posted by defcon5

This whole risk bit sounds like nothing more then some legal excuse to make it ok to kill people over property disputes anyway. In truth how much risk does the normal working person experience in the course of their job each day? I would have to say that with the exception of someone working one of the few high-risk jobs out there, it’s negligible.


I think your public school education is showing here. Would you like to try this line quoted above in front of a jury??? You could pretty well bank on the concept that if people dont in fact do this kind of "risk " work they have family members who do and dont appreciate you "devaluing" their work, lives, and risk. Nor devaluing the property they take risks to acquire by these very risks.

Try this here from the other thread on Alternative news same topic line.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I never said or stated that it was a legal excuse. I spoke of substance ..not legalitys/forms/appearences.

YOu keep refering to legalitys/forms and not substance.

YOu dont know what risks people take for thier moneys and neither do I. I do however give them the benefit of the doubt and not presume that they dont take risks to put ointment on my sentiments. And I can also tell you that giving people the benifit of the doubt is more than these two illegals did with the property/risk of this Texans neighbor. ARe you getting the pattern here yet??

Like DJ Messiah..you weep and bleed for these two illegals. Yet you bleed not for the neighbor who stood to lose property at what risk..you are not intrested. You diminish the value of this neighbors life and risk for someone who does the same by taking this same neighbors property.

What seperates you Defcon 5 from the same inconsideration evidenced by these two illegals??

I Would that none of this had ever happened. Unfortunately this is not at all realistic. People will be put at risk again and again to re earn such propertys by peoples like these two illegals et al. I think this is sometimes refered to as double jeopardy...double risk.

ON another tack here..I have not researched this on line. Does anyone know what has become of this case in this town in Texas??

Orangetom


reply posted on 11-12-2007 @ 04:43 AM by defcon5
Originally posted by orangetom1999
I think your public school education is showing here.

Actually I never stepped a foot in a public school in my life, I went to very good private schools, thank you very much. That however is neither here nor there, and personal attacks in this thread are how the rest of us got the little red flags next to our names. I recommend sticking to the subject, which is not my level of education, though I am sure its better then your own based on your spelling mistakes.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
You could pretty well bank on the concept that if people dont in fact do this kind of "risk " work they have family members who do and dont appreciate you "devaluing" their work, lives, and risk. Nor devaluing the property they take risks to acquire by these very risks.

I am sorry but the majority of people do not have jobs that entail risk. I have had multiple jobs that do entail high risk, and I would never factor that into the value of anything I own.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
YOu keep refering to legalitys/forms and not substance.

Because the law, and the instructions that will be handed to the jury are pretty much black and white. I have discussed this case with several law enforcement friends of mine here (we now have a new set of similar laws), and there is a very high chance that Mr Horn is going to go to prison. A big factor in all criminal law is intent, and his intent was not to subdue, it was to kill.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Like DJ Messiah..you weep and bleed for these two illegals. Yet you bleed not for the neighbor who stood to lose property at what risk.

I don’t personally care one way or the other, but I believe that the man committed murder because he thought that under this new law he could get away with it scott free. As a Christian, I do not jive with the concept that property is more valuable then anyone's life. If you are a Christian and feel any other way, I suggest changing religions. This is a major teaching not only of Christ, but of numerous other major religions, that property is of lesser value then life is.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
you are not intrested. You diminish the value of this neighbors life and risk for someone who does the same by taking this same neighbors property.

Yes, I am sure that the person who lived next door has a more dangerous job then the police officers who arrived at the scene. The same officers who would have apprehended these men alive without killing them.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
What seperates you Defcon 5 from the same inconsideration evidenced by these two illegals??

So now, because I happen to value all human life more so then property your accusing me of being a thief? I would never commit a crime due to strong religious convictions, the very same ones that I was taught in Christian private schools my entire life. My morals are of such a set that I would never commit a crime over property, and I certainly would never value property over human life. I more so question the moral set of those who would defend a hand full of worldly goods at the cost of someone’s life, especially when they did not have to, as the police were on the way to handle it peaceably.


reply posted on 11-12-2007 @ 03:10 PM by orangetom1999
Defcon5,

Actually I never stepped a foot in a public school in my life, I went to very good private schools, thank you very much.


I am happy for you that you went to private schools. However when I use the term public schools I mean and refer to a television education majoring mostly in emotions. No problem here..your welcome. Once again..glad you went to private schools. Obviously I dont think much of public schools or television.

As to the laws handed to a jury..no they are not pretty much black and white. It depends alot on the jurors awareness of the jury system and also what they understand about the instructions by the judge to the jury. I have known of Judges telling and instructing the jury that they ..the judges are the law in an attempt to limit or deceive the jury as to thier responsibilitys and accountabilitys. IF the Judge is the law..what for do they need a jury. It is not all black and white. This is why the most important person in this country is a knowlegable juror. Not someone voting in a voting booth..but a vote on a jury.

As to Mr Horn..the disturbing facet to me is the delay in his prosecution. It is taking an astonishingly long time to charge him in a case which is so cut and dried. As I recall the events this took place some time in November..is this correct??

On the subject of "Risk." The ruler of the account of our lives is measured in our risks/labors. Our labors at law are private property as is our moneys earned in our labors. There are ample law cases on the books stating such.
This means that the private property earned with our labors is also a ruler or account of the moneys/risks taken with our lives. This is not a light thing to the average American and hence the propertys earned with the risks of thier lives are also as valuable as their lives.

Neither you or I know exactly what people do for thier moneys and with thier lives. As stated I do not assume this with a blanket statement.

I know people who work in the convenience store trade...this is a risky job. Cab drivers..risky. As I stated ..my sister cutting grass on tractors for the city. I know nurses..also a risky occupation..especially this time of year as colds and infections abound.

These peoples private propertys are the record of their lives...and thier lives and records are valuable. Why on Gods Green Earth would you think that these peoples lives and propertys earned with their lives has less value than the lives of burgulars?? It is obvious that these burgulars devoutly believed that thier needs had more value than these peoples lives and propertys earned at risk.

By the way..your tendency to diminish these peoples lives and risks is the same rationale that these burgulars used. You yourself diminish the value of these peoples lives who earned these propertys(the record of their lives and risks) stolen. Private property is in fact our lives and the record of our lives lived and risks taken in our lives lived and worked. Do not dismiss this for your sentiments. As I stated..do you honestly think a jury would go along with this if it is explained to them in this manner about private property.

By the way...Defcon5...life is not sacred in the Olde Testament nor the New Testament. Christians are to conduct themselves in a certain manner but life is not sacred. The history reads that they slewed and slawed them up and down ..left and right both in the Olde Testament and the New.
I will remind you that there are places where the diciples are instructed to take their moneys and buy a sword. This was not to swat flies. What they were specifically instructed not to do is steal.

As to the police apprehending these peoples..I dont put much stock in that. I am sure that the crime rate in Houston or Pasadina has dropped significantly in the last ten years due to the effeciency of the local constabulary. What on earth are you thinking here. Also you dont know that the police officers would have apprehended these peoples without killing them. More and more across the country you see people who run from police shot and killed or seriously wounded. They are not necessarily armed but are shot and often killed. Once again ..what are you thinking??

So now, because I happen to value all human life more so then property your accusing me of being a thief?


Sorry Defcon5...it is obvious to me that you dont value the lives and risks of the people earning the moneys and propertys stolen..as much as you value the lives of the burgulars engaging in said occupation. This is clear and it would be clear to a jury once pointed out. Most people cannot make this connection...this is obvious by the numerous similar posts on this thread. You obviously do not value all human life. To diminish the value of peoples propertys is to diminish the record of their lives and risks taken in earning said propertys..hence you diminish the value of thier lives. It is common sense Defcon 5...common sense.

It is clear to me that Mr Horn does value the risks and lives of the people earning the propertys stolen and also understands the privateness of property. Mr Horn also understands the concept of "wildlife" moving in and taking over neighborhoods. As one poster stated..he had enough of wildlife moving into his neighborhood.

Thanks,
Orangetom


reply posted on 12-12-2007 @ 11:34 PM by defcon5
Originally posted by orangetom1999
On the subject of "Risk." The ruler of the account of our lives is measured in our risks/labors. Our labors at law are private property as is our moneys earned in our labors. There are ample law cases on the books stating such.
This means that the private property earned with our labors is also a ruler or account of the moneys/risks taken with our lives. This is not a light thing to the average American and hence the propertys earned with the risks of thier lives are also as valuable as their lives.

Neither you or I know exactly what people do for thier moneys and with thier lives. As stated I do not assume this with a blanket statement.

These peoples private propertys are the record of their lives...and thier lives and records are valuable. Why on Gods Green Earth would you think that these peoples lives and propertys earned with their lives has less value than the lives of burgulars??


I highly disagree with what you are saying because it blurs the lines between civil and criminal proceedings. By assessing personal risk to the acquisition of personal property then, you could conceivably charge any loosing party in a civil case with a criminal activity. I do not feel that this is the intention of the “Castle laws”. I believe that the intention of these laws is to protect people who may be confronted while in possession of their property, and that confrontation has a high risk of becoming violent. What I mean is when someone is car-jacked as opposed to when their empty car is stolen, or when an intruder enters a home with people in it as opposed to one where the residents are not home. If this is not the case, then we might as well make everything criminal as there is no point or purpose to having civil torts.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
As to the police apprehending these peoples..I dont put much stock in that. I am sure that the crime rate in Houston or Pasadina has dropped significantly in the last ten years due to the effeciency of the local constabulary. What on earth are you thinking here. Also you dont know that the police officers would have apprehended these peoples without killing them. More and more across the country you see people who run from police shot and killed or seriously wounded. They are not necessarily armed but are shot and often killed. Once again ..what are you thinking??

They are trained professionals who are equipped to stand a better chance of apprehension without loss of life. They are also trained to keep their cool in situation such as this, where obviously Mr Horn, failed. They are an unemotional third party, where Horn let his emotions rule, and possibly ruin him. What makes you think that its acceptable for an emotional, untrained, third party, who has no vested interest in his neighbors property, to be dispensing any form of justice?

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Sorry Defcon5...it is obvious to me that you dont value the lives and risks of the people earning the moneys and propertys stolen..as much as you value the lives of the burgulars engaging in said occupation. This is clear and it would be clear to a jury once pointed out. Most people cannot make this connection...this is obvious by the numerous similar posts on this thread. You obviously do not value all human life. To diminish the value of peoples propertys is to diminish the record of their lives and risks taken in earning said propertys..hence you diminish the value of thier lives. It is common sense Defcon 5...common sense.

To allow civilians to dispense justice as they see fit, is to allow anarchy. Obviously, you are a big NRA supporter, and you feel that this is the way things should be done. To me this is nothing more then a immature dream of being the “cowboy’ posse or lynch mob, and to allow it to continue is to allow mob rule and the breakdown of the legal system.


reply posted on 13-12-2007 @ 03:53 AM by orangetom1999
Defcon5,

The purpose of law and laws in the case of people and thier private propertys..ie...persuit of happiness ...is to protect and preserve the same. When you put things backwards by mixing civil with other laws ..emotions with private property in a legal/pharisee manner..you turn the law and its intents around backwards. The best people to judge such law and its effectivenes..is the public/jury..not the legal/pharisee system.

When you get it backwards ..the legal/pharisee system soon becomes a jobs program..self sustaining at the public expense. A never ending treadmill. This too is obvious. IN many of the larger citys the legal system serves the legal system first ..not the public.

What I am saying and what I belive is hard and harsh ..but it is much more effective than all the man made laws ever tried.

Police are an unemotional third party. I cannot imagine what you are thinking here. I frequent the local Fraternal Order of Police Lodge with my girlfriend. Some of the biggest city drunks are found here. What was that about unemotional?? I enjoy going to this lodge but I have also learned some intresting things about the constabulary and how it can often work. It is not all it seems above the table. Same with any profession/professioinal
This has given me a new slant or view on what professional means.
lol lol ...obviously this is why they have psychologists on the police payroll?? What are you thinking?? They are unemotional...?? Good grief. I have learned that they are people not much different from most of us...and quite emotional. They are just forced by this professionalism to stow and store thier emotions when in public. THey often pay a heavy price for this straight jacket. Were I one of them I would most likely be a drunk too.

Also you assume to yourself that Mr Horn had no vested intrest in his neighbor or neighborhood. You keep doing this in your posts in order to shore up your position.

To allow civilians to dispense justice as they see fit, is to allow anarchy. Obviously, you are a big NRA supporter, and you feel that this is the way things should be done. To me this is nothing more then a immature dream of being the “cowboy’ posse or lynch mob, and to allow it to continue is to allow mob rule and the breakdown of the legal system.


LOL LOL LOL...Defcon5..you keep doing this ..assuming. Anarchy...you are aware that anarchy is what is going on in many citys and towns regularly with the kind of wildlife that is allowed to run amok under current laws ..civil and criminal..Yes??? Mob rule..you mean rule by the rule of wildlife..or the wildlife mob??
Just scan the answers/replys on this thread alone. Good Grief...Defcon 5..think it through. It is obvious that the constbularys hands are tied in many towns and citys. Once again ..what on earth are you thinking? Obviously the local consabularly is only so effective and in fact losing ground to the wildlife...to the bar too.

YOu already have anarchy in many places and it is being hidden from the public. You can learn hints of this down at the Fraternal Order of Police lodge too..when you can get the local consabularly to speak off the record.No rocket science here or needed.

I an not a proponent of anarchy at all. What I am saying is that people left to thier own devices can solve the anarchy problem too.

Also I am not a member of the NRA. I have no intention of becoming a member of this organization. Once again ..an assumption on your part.
What are you thinking?? NO cowboys here Defcon 5...I am in Virginia...on the seacoast. I dont even watch sports. No intrest in it.

Defcon 5..dont ever worry about me with a gun in my hands. I am a nuclear fueler by trade. I often have nuclear fuel cells in my hands. If I am the cowboy that you assume I am, then you have a much bigger problem to worry about than me with a gun. Once again ..what are you thinking??

I am fully aware of what the sign in your avatar means and also what the colour yellow implys in that usage.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 13-12-2007 by orangetom1999]


reply posted on 13-12-2007 @ 05:36 AM by defcon5
reply to post by orangetom1999



Originally posted by orangetom1999
What are you thinking??
what on earth are you thinking?
what are you thinking??


I believe I am being quite clear about what I am thinking, which part of it are you not understanding so I can more simply clarify it for you?

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am fully aware of what the sign in your avatar means and also what the colour yellow implys in that usage.

Yes it means a nuclear fallout shelter is located where the sign is posted, and the color yellow provides high visibility of that location so the public will take notice. I am sure that is what you mean though as any other interpretation would be a personal attack. Orange is just a redder shade of yellow itself.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Police are an unemotional third party. I cannot imagine what you are thinking here. I frequent the local Fraternal Order of Police Lodge with my girlfriend. Some of the biggest city drunks are found here. What was that about unemotional??

Wow, I have to wonder what type of city that you live in, as I know many Law Enforcement Officers in my area, and not a single one of them is a drinker. As a matter of fact the days of the “Good ‘ol Boys” club is over in all the cities I have lived in. While I do agree that there is still a bit of the “boys in blue club” that exists, it’s not the same as the old days. What I mean is that yes, officer do tend to stick together and stick up for each other still, but long gone are the days of the “good ‘ol boys” who would drink heavily, bend the law, and cover it up for each other. Now a four-year college degree, with military police preference, and academy time are required to even be accepted as a ride along training officer. Internal Affairs regularly check officers for wrongdoing, and substance abuse. IA gets called in at the drop of a hat in today’s society of high profile lawsuits against police departments, and the old attitude of the “good ‘ol boys” club is no longer tolerated in any law enforcement agencies I am aware of, as that attitude draws lawsuits like dung draws flies.

As a matter of fact every officer I know is scared to death to lose the pension that they have been vested in for 5 to 15 years, and now are consummate “T” crossers and “i” dotters. Many of the things that the public perceives as police abuse is misguided perception of the public who often do not know the letter of the law. A prime example being the 14 year old who was pepper sprayed down here in FL for breaking curfew. While it may look like excessive force, the FACT of the matter is that Florida State Statues require that a person who resists is pepper sprayed or tazered.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
The purpose of law and laws in the case of people and thier private propertys..ie...persuit of happiness ...is to protect and preserve the same. When you put things backwards by mixing civil with other laws ..emotions with private property in a legal/pharisee manner..you turn the law and its intents around backwards. The best people to judge such law and its effectivenes..is the public/jury..not the legal/pharisee system.

Actually, I see this as being the exact opposite of a fair justice and legal system. What you are implying is that the lawyers should be able to use the emotions of the jury to sway their verdict, as opposed to the letter of the law. This would make for very uneven sentencing for similar crimes, and again by placing the risk element in with property ownership you blur the lines between criminal and civil law.

Unfortunately, I know that this is often how lawyers are trained to think in this age of frivolous lawsuits. I took a few semesters of Contract law in college, and years later I had a legal discussion with someone who was attending Stetson Law School here in Florida. The object of the “debate” was that he was going to attempt to show me the ways that lawyers today are trained to think “outside the box”. He selected some case based on Business Law that I was familiar with, and we proceeded to argue the case with others in the room listening in. While I was debating the facts based on the law, he was arguing the meaning of the word “is” in very Clinton’esc fashion. This was all lost on the other people in the room who tended to think about the law in a black and white fashion much as I did. I do not see this as justice, but rather as “he who can afford the lawyer who can twist the language of the law the best” wins. To a jury, who would be much like my peers in that room, this often goes beyond what they consider to be justice and is not accepted by them as readily as you may think. Either way though, that is the type of system, and line of thought that you seem to champion. Personally I think its an abomination, and makes a joke of your legal system.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
IN many of the larger citys the legal system serves the legal system first ..not the public.

I agree with this, and have stated similar things often in other threads. But there is a big difference between having frivolous lawsuits and trumped up police charges which artificially inflate the budget of legal system, and allowing mob justice.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Also you assume to yourself that Mr Horn had no vested intrest in his neighbor or neighborhood.

Because there is a ‘reasonable” vested interest in the safety of ones community, which would mean that it is acceptable to watch over your neighborhood and enforce the law using the appropriate means through the law enforcement system. This is much different then taking law into your own hands at a level that allows you to serve as judge, jury, and executioner of the law in your neighborhood.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
LOL LOL LOL...Defcon5..you keep doing this ..assuming. Anarchy...you are aware that anarchy is what is going on in many citys and towns regularly with the kind of wildlife that is allowed to run amok under current laws ..civil and criminal..Yes??? Mob rule..you mean rule by the rule of wildlife..or the wildlife mob??

No, I clearly stated that I mean law via lynch mob as opposed to law via the system of the law. You know, if you don’t like our legal system so much, then you as a citizen have a right to lobby to change those laws, rather then to enforce the law in the way you see fit. Allowing justice by the whim of the mob is nothing less then a state of anarchy because the mob does not follow any set of specific laws, it tends to run on emotion.



reply posted on 13-12-2007 @ 01:34 PM by orangetom1999
Defcon 5,

I dont approve of mob law either or anarchy as you term it.

Mob law is in fact what you have in many citys and towns only the mob is either the law practice itself or the mob law of wildlife. Often both. They tend to need each other to keep the general public dumb and either dependent on them to preserve a monopoly or afraid of them and quiet.
Think carefully as to what constitutes mob law. It is often not what people think.

The quieting of the police department is to keep it too from becoming a mob unto itself. Nonetheless the police department has alot of career drunks and also today ..bean counters. This is to keep it in check and not a threat to the status quo. THe city next to this one is far worse...both in its police department and also its wildlife. There seems to be a relationship there.

Gotta make haste here,
Orangetom

Defcon5,

I have returned after preparing for another nights work. I have been thinking about your last post and decided to edit/add on to this post I have made.

here...you make this point...

I highly disagree with what you are saying because it blurs the lines between civil and criminal proceedings. By assessing personal risk to the acquisition of personal property then, you could conceivably charge any loosing party in a civil case with a criminal activity.


This is up to a jury to decide in this case unless the prosecuters can get Mr Horn charged and wave his right to a jury trial.

THe main point I am making here is that you cannot seem to get outside of legalism here. Phairseeism. I have no intrest in civil or criminal law here...only results. The wildlife going elsewhere..or not at all going elsewhere.

Once again I assess personal risk to everything because anyone thinking knows that labor is a private thing..private property as is the risk taken with private property....labor. Our moneys and popertys purchased at law are in fact private propertys. More than ample law precidents on the case books to support this.

Legalism here only tends over the long run to support the legal system..not the public..nor the privateness of property. IF your neighborhood is not secure ..your homes are not secure ..therefore your private propertys are not secure.
Living in gated communitys does not absolutely gaurantee your propertys and persons are secure. Also ordinary peoples should not have to do such to insure a modicum of security.

What in my mind you tend to do to support a system, is blur the line between private property and risk..only to support a legal system. YOu dont seem to understand that in many citys the system is in fact in a type of anarchy of which you seem so fearful.

REmember what I said or posted earlier...

Legal..to maintain or support the form of the law...appearences..not substance.

Lawful...substance..what the law is intended to accomplish. Not forms...t's crossed and i's dotted. but real substance. Real results.

No matter how one describes it ..legal , lawful..civil or criminal ...does it improve domestic tranquillity?? That is the issue here..not all the other legalisms. This is what a jury decides if properly educated ..properly taught, properly instructed.

Once again..what is the status of t his incident. Are they going to charge Mr Horn. I have not had much time to keep up with this case outside of this thread??

Orangetom

[edit on 13-12-2007 by orangetom1999]


reply posted on 13-12-2007 @ 04:44 PM by roadgravel
reply to post by orangetom1999

I have been watching for information on this event. Last I read was that the police haven't released the information to the DA or whom ever so that the grand jury can consider it.
Pages: <<  32    33    34    35    36    37  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags