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.

 

Pasadena police say Horn shot 2 men in the back - More on the 'Hero'

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
How can it be defending yourself when

a) he went to them created the situation?
b) he shot them in the back?



I will reply to you this time.

a. I would say that the criminals created the situation by breaking into homes.
b. He had them in front of him. Warned them not to move or he would shoot. The two criminals decided to try to get away anyway. Again, their own fault. Why didn't they surrender?

I'm sorry that you have to name call anyone that does not agree with you on the situation but I do not own any guns myself except paintball guns.




posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr. Pele Pele
 


About as different as breaking into somebody's home and jaywalking?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime

I will reply to you this time.

a. I would say that the criminals created the situation by breaking into homes.
b. He had them in front of him. Warned them not to move or he would shoot. The two criminals decided to try to get away anyway. Again, their own fault. Why didn't they surrender?

I'm sorry that you have to name call anyone that does not agree with you on the situation but I do not own any guns myself except paintball guns.


a), the crime of burglary is not the issue here, shooting two unarmed men is, that was a conscious choice of the murderer.
b), it doesnt matter, the law says he cannot do what he did. A cowardly act of shooting 2 unarmed men in the back despite the police being on the scene but too scared to get out of the car because they knew what a psycho this guy was.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


I know you were talking to me but I have a question for you.
If they weren't commiting a crime, would they have been shot?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
a), the crime of burglary is not the issue here, shooting two unarmed men is, that was a conscious choice of the murderer.
b), it doesnt matter, the law says he cannot do what he did. A cowardly act of shooting 2 unarmed men in the back despite the police being on the scene but too scared to get out of the car because they knew what a psycho this guy was.


a). They were not unarmed. They had what was considered a weapon under the law just not guns. They were breaking into homes. That is the issue. A person saw a serious crime being committed. The called the police but the police were not going to arrive on time.

b) no charges have been filed so as of right now your statement is false. A grand jury will decide if any laws were violated. Even if they decide there have been laws violated good luck find 12 jurors that will vote to convict in this case.

I also do not believe this man was a "psycho." He was a citizen of the USA who saw a crime being committed against his neighbor and decided to do something about it.

I understand that when people want to win a debate they must demonize the opposite side of the issue. So far you have used terms like Gun Nuts and Psycho but you have to understand that calling other people names doesn't mean you win the debate.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by zerotime]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
One thing that stands out with me is how Houston's notables react.

Here we have Quanell-X and group outraged with this man. May be they should be.

What about the shooting of a young deputy constable Carltrell Odom two weeks later.


According to police, Odom was talking to friends outside his apartment in the 4800 block of Allendale when he was approached by four males wearing hooded sweatshirts and carrying pistols, police said.

They ordered Odom, who was not in uniform, and his two friends to lie on the ground, demanding their valuables.

Odom struggled with one of the suspects, then broke away and tried to flee. Police said Nickerson, whom investigators have identified as the shooter, gave chase and fired several shots, striking Odom. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Houston Chronicle Link


No protests about the crooks robbing and shooting people. I guess this stuff is so rampant that only the most unusual circumstances merit uproar and protests. Everything else is just another day in the city.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


I would imagine everyone on this site would want the crook to get put away for murder. Thats why its not an issue.

However, there are people on this site that want the other murderer to go free, thats why its an issue.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
a). They were not unarmed. They had what was considered a weapon under the law just not guns. They were breaking into homes. That is the issue. A person saw a serious crime being committed. The called the police but the police were not going to arrive on time.

The police were already there, and watching the house. Not on time is not the case, it was simply not going down the way that Mr Horn wanted to see it go down with the police confronting them on his lawn.

As I already stated maybe the undercover officer had decided to wait until they returned to their vehicle so they could also arrest the driver.


Originally posted by zerotime
I also do not believe this man was a "psycho." He was a citizen of the USA who saw a crime being committed against his neighbor and decided to do something about it.

The guy was obviously itching to get to use his shotgun, its apparent in the phone call. That is not a normal human response to this situation, that is someone who is looking for a fight. For some reason I picture the cleche nosey old neighbor, that is just sitting in his living room with a gun waiting for the opportunity to use it.


apc

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


OK. Sorry. Protect yourself OR somebody else.

If I'm carrying and some piece of trash mugs someone right in front of me, I have no problem putting a bullet in their back as they run away as I would be entirely within my right in defense of an innocent. In Missouri, anyway. I've heard of people in Colorado who just go get their deer rifle and put the punk down at 100yards.

This threat of deadly force in response to property crime is the exact reason why there are fewer incidents of such offenses in jurisdictions that allow concealed carry. The scum know people are armed, and they know they could get killed trying to rob someone. These Colombians knew what they were doing, what the risks were, and what would happen if they ran up against someone with the stones to confront them. They got what they deserved.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
a). They were not unarmed. They had what was considered a weapon under the law just not guns. They were breaking into homes. That is the issue. A person saw a serious crime being committed. The called the police but the police were not going to arrive on time.

b) no charges have been filed so as of right now your statement is false. A grand jury will decide if any laws were violated. Even if they decide there have been laws violated good luck find 12 jurors that will vote to convict in this case.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by zerotime]


a) the police were on the scene but he didnt want to get out of the car because he was scared of getting shot. He was probably right to, this killer stopped the police from doing their job.

Everything was under control but this Dirty Harry wannabe decided he wanted them dead.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Blueracer
 


Heres a question for you, does thast mean its ok to shoot someone doing some graffiti or shoplifting?


apc

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The guy was obviously itching to get to use his shotgun, its apparent in the phone call. That is not a normal human response to this situation, that is someone who is looking for a fight. For some reason I picture the cleche nosey old neighbor, that is just sitting in his living room with a gun waiting for the opportunity to use it.


That is EXACTLY what home burglars fear most, and rightfully so. Not alarms, cops, or dogs, but someone with a gun just waiting for an excuse to blast someone. You take away that deterrent, and there's nothing to stop them.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


No. Now answer my question.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
OK. Sorry. Protect yourself OR somebody else.

It is ok to protect yourself or someone else, that is not in dispute here. What is in dispute is that the only person who needed protecting was the shooter, and he placed himself in danger to begin with.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
That is EXACTLY what home burglars fear most, and rightfully so. Not alarms, cops, or dogs, but someone with a gun just waiting for an excuse to blast someone. You take away that deterrent, and there's nothing to stop them.


Yet they were doing burglaries at the time so your point makes no sense.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The guy was obviously itching to get to use his shotgun, its apparent in the phone call. That is not a normal human response to this situation, that is someone who is looking for a fight. For some reason I picture the cleche nosey old neighbor, that is just sitting in his living room with a gun waiting for the opportunity to use it.


What is a "normal human response"? how in the world do you judge that?

Why is your predisposing of this man okay. What interesting colorful descriptions would you give of the two men breaking into homes. I don't know about the everyone else but I would like to hear it.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blueracer

No. Now answer my question.


No but that doesnt excuse the killer gunning them down.

If you use that logic, its ok to gun anyone down while they are breaking the law.


apc

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


The violated homeowner is who he was protecting by stopping the theft of their property.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
a) the police were on the scene but he didnt want to get out of the car because he was scared of getting shot. He was probably right to, this killer stopped the police from doing their job.

Everything was under control but this Dirty Harry wannabe decided he wanted them dead.

Listen at the end of that call, you can hear the officer tell him to get on the ground, and he has the guts to tell him “No!”. Even the dispatcher is telling the guy he needs to do what the officer is telling him to do. This is not the kind of help that the police need out there, and I will bet that he is made an example of.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I'm glad that you agree with me that they would not have been shot if they were not commiting that crime. Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join