Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars

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.

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]