It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Blueracer
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?

Who knows what is going on inside the mind of a yahoo with a shotgun, full of redneck rage and a good dose of "I'll get them punks!".

It reminds me of when a trick or treater in the US was shot and killed, because he was on some old guys property. Shot because he was on some senile old tits yard, and was assumed to be a thief.

Good job...

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:52 PM
No more bigotry.

Do not ignore my instructions.

Edit to add: For anyone wondering what's going on here, this is a rather rare case where a subject like this has actually been discussed at length with a relative minimum of the usual trollery that accompanies such threads.

Let's try to keep it that way.

All these ignorant attempts at baiting and injecting insults into the discussion are obvious and will not be tolerated.

Leave the personal attacks, nationalistic and ethnic slurs for some other place. They are not welcome here.

[edit on 12/8/2007 by Majic]

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:53 PM

Originally posted by apc
You take away that deterrent, and there's nothing to stop them.

Oh and it's such a resounding success, because there is absolutely zero crime in the....... Oh hang on.. Crikey, I almost went mad.

Carry on.

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:57 PM

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

Why do police exist? Why do lawyers exist? Why do judges exist? Why does a jury exist? Why are there prisons? Why is there such a thing as law?

Who needs all that, when you got your Horn dawgs dishing out front porch justice eh?


posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 09:03 PM

Mod edit: Enough! As previously stated, this sort of commentary is not welcome. We will discuss this via U2U. -- Majic)

[edit on 12/8/2007 by Majic]

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:06 PM
Mr. Horn on his call to 911 mentioned the law changes that went into effect on Sept 1 of the year, and alluded to his rights with his fire arm. I get the impression he didn't research those changes and what his rights were. Although there are other laws discussed here that may apply, what he was alluding to I believe was the "Castle Law", which even the author of that law stated that it most likely doesn't apply in this case.

It reminds me of a neighbor I talked with once about gun law. He his knowledge was based on the popular rumors and "having hunted longer" than the people in the conversation. No reading of the State code or any other research.

Hopefully this will open some eyes of people in the state to what's actually in the law.

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:31 PM
Easy to tell entry/exit wounds. Not legal for citizen to shoot burglars in the back.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by pc is here]

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:15 PM
What's weird is that some folks are saying, "It's just some immigrant perps. No one is going to care one way or the other. Horn will get off or should get off because no one cares." Now, I've heard that many times in this thread and the other thread covering this same topic. To me that sounds like that the law shouldn't apply because Horn was just doing what he thought best, to kill a couple of thieves that no one cares about. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, what should matter is the law. We cannot have it both ways. Sometimes it's okay to take the law into your own hands. Sometimes we should allow the law to be applied. Or, the law should apply to some and not to others depending on the circumstances and who is involved in a particular case. To me, this thinking is ludicrous! Some folks are focused on what Horn INTENDED to do rather than what he DID do. Outside of my opinion and according to the law, Horn at least has to stand trial. Whether he will stand trial and whether he will stand trial for murder or manslaughter is up the the Grand Jury, General Attorney, and District Attorney. Though, he should stand trial because laws were broken. Now should he be found guilty of any charges brought against him? That's not for me to decide. Right now Horn is innocent. If he should have to stand trial he would still be innocent. At the moment his guilt or innocence is not the issue because he is presumed to be innocent. However, there's no way in the world after reading and interpreting the laws that were presented in this thread that one can reach the conclusion that Horn has not broken any laws. That's impossible.

This case is not about the burglary suspects alleged actions concerning a burglary. It definitely is not about their history or criminal history. The two burglary suspects are dead. This case is about Horn's alleged actions. This case is about Horn's reaction and response in a matter concerning the defense of himself against those two individuals, both of whom Horn shot and killed. Horn's attorney states that his client acted in self defense. Two suspects were shot in their backs and killed by someone who claims to have been fearful for his own life at the hands or actions of those two suspects. That is the case.

The laws we've covered pertain to actions that an individual is allowed to take. They do not address what an individual's intentions would be or would not be. That's what the courts are for. That's where the judges, trial attorneys and trial jurors come in.

No doubt we can have our own court of opinion. And many have taken advantage of the opportunity to voice theirs. But where opinion is being offered without regard for the law, well, those are not the strongest statements being made. If we don't like certain laws then we have to lobby to get them changed. As laws exist on the books legal precedent also figures into interpretation of those laws and how those laws will be applied. At any rate -- one cannot just disregard the law in a discussion about the legal ramifications of one's actions. What would be the point of bringing up the law in the first place? Might as well have a conversation about what we all like and dislike regardless of the law.

Anyway, I think that just about covers it.

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:25 PM
I would shoot this guy just to prove hypocrisy is real.

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:33 PM
Forget it.

I didn't know them, so I don't care if they got killed. They WERE breaking the law! Maybe if they were higher class, I might care a bit more, but they were ILLEGALS. Nobody cares about 2 illegals getting killed because they broke the law. Why the hell should I?

Maybe if I actually knew them, I might care a little, but I didn't, so I don't.

We should kill everyone we see who breaks the law because no one will care, THEY BROKE THE LAW! WHO'S WITH ME?!

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:45 PM

Originally posted by syer5437
I would shoot this guy just to prove hypocrisy is real.

Oh the irony...

... and by doing so you'd near become one and the same. Intellectual kin, if you will... based on your words, not mine. Would your "schedule" allow for dual-trial? Time constraints and all...



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by bigbert81...We should kill everyone we see who breaks the law because no one will care, THEY BROKE THE LAW! WHO'S WITH ME?!

Not me. And for your own sake, I hope that your PC is free of illegally obtained software/movies/mp3's. You might get shot in the back for that, you know.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by Farnswoth


Crap, I'd better get myself one of those bicycle helmets with the mirror on it and start wearing it 24/7.

Hopefully none of the ATS members who support this killing know where I live...

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:55 AM
Yawn, you guys are still arguing over this?

I own a handgun, and have been trained privately on it's proper and safe use. I also have had the displeasure of having my house (bedroom specifically) broken into
while I was sleeping. In the heat of the moment I did not reach for my gun only because it was out of arms reach (in a small lock box under my bed) but I did reach for a 15lb. dumbbell and struck the intruder on the face as he attempted to enter my home. He stumbled and fell out of the window, onto the landing only 5 feet below ( I had to specify the distance so no bleeding heart lawyers start harassing me).
I must add that I am not a violent person. Although, that night as I woke up to see a sneaker, then a leg coming through my window all I thought of was my handgun. I was in fear, had no time to think about what could happen to me, and reached for the nearest thing I could find to use as a weapon. I (and the intruder) were lucky. After much though I do not wish that I had shot him, but at the time it was all I could think of (and all I could think of for hours, and days afterward.)
It's easy to say a redneck with a shotgun is what's wrong with this country and this person was wrong and evil for delivering his own brand of justice, but until you are in a situation that requires you to think on your feet and the decision you come to could have a bearing on your life and your well being, you will always choose survival by any means necessary.
And for the record this event occurred in the People's Republic Of Cambridge Massachusetts, so please no cheap swipes at me being a good 'ol boy from down south.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:06 AM
reply to post by Comma8Comma1

That is a COMPLETELY different scenario. If someone's in your house and you feel threatened, you have the right to kill.

This is a bit different when, after calling 911, he goes outside with a shotgun and shoots the men in the back.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 02:15 AM
Below is taken from Wiki on Castle law.

"Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what amount of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

* An intruder must be making an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited
* The intruder must be acting illegally -- i.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an office of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties."


@ apc

"Americans maintain a deep reverence for their Second Amendment rights. This legislation is an extension of those rights. It ensures law-abiding Missourians will not be punished when they use force to defend themselves and their loved ones from attacks in their own home or vehicle," Gov. Blunt said. "I commend the General Assembly for supporting and passing this important law for Missouri families."


maybe you should learn the law in Missouri before you go shooting someone in missouri.

if you shoot someone in the back in missouri you will be charged with murder as they would be presumed as retreating and any threat you may have proceived would no longer be there! couldn't find a source for that one but quoted from a friend that is a sheriff where i live.

now on topic. If this guy shot these two criminals after they broke into his neighbors house and he shot them in the back he was not in any danger simply because:
1. it was not his house
2. he was told by the police dispatcher that there was officers on the scene.
3. maybe these two guys didn't speak english they were from a spanish speaking country.

but now matter how u break it down this guy should be tried from murder, he injected himself in the situation after being told to stay in his house and officers were on the scene. his life or property was not in danger. he took the law into his own hands.

He broke the law he should now man up and face his punishment.

Sorry if the info i posted has been hashed and rehashed but its late here and i'm tired. and i haven't read every thread yet.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 02:49 AM
Thanks for posting snippets from that article. The person, who shot those robbers, seemed to have been seeking revenge. I don't see him as a hero, but a person (like all of us), who wants justice.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 03:10 AM
I live in Texas, I do not own a Gun, I was a Marine and know how and when to use fire arms.

I hate to say this but at most he will get a fine, if anything at all, the under cover officer did not make himself known, and no where in the "castle" law does it state you have to warn before acting, thats what will get Mr. Horn off the hook. The 911 operators in Texas are not police officers, they do not require a criminal degree as a prerequisite to becoming an operator.

Mr. Horn saw the individuals leaving the home and knew they were not the property owners, then when confronting them, they entered his yard (this is where his defense comes in) had they just left and not entered onto his property, it would have been murder, but they did not, thats why he IS allowed to claim self defense ( who, in their right mind, would advance on a man with a large gun [shotgun] after robbing a home anyways?)

Personally, I myself, (210 lbs 6'4" 1.93 m for you metric folks) and a 3rd degree black belt would be taken aback if I was carrying a shot gun and two thieves from the house next door, came at me under those circumstances.

Had the Officer on scene made himself known before the shotgun was fired I could see that it would be different, but he didn't and the 911 operator was NOT on the scene. So it was reasonable that the items wouldn't be recovered, so both laws Do apply.

One final thing that a lot people fail to remember about Texas, it's was an independent Republic, not just a "State". thats why it's mindset and methodologies are so hard for "outsiders" to understand.

(I own a blowgun and a few swords. and can put a three inch long dart flush into a cinder block at 20 feet, so yes you could say I'm a blowhard

BBcode edit

[edit on 9-12-2007 by thedigirati]

[edit on 9-12-2007 by thedigirati]

[edit on 9-12-2007 by thedigirati]

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 06:23 AM
I tip my hat to Horn. Now we have two less illegal immigrant criminals in the US. The US needs more people like Horn.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:06 AM

Originally posted by badw0lf

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

Why do police exist? Why do lawyers exist? Why do judges exist? Why does a jury exist? Why are there prisons? Why is there such a thing as law?

Who needs all that, when you got your Horn dawgs dishing out front porch justice eh?


So a gang smashes down my door, charges into my house, tells me that they are here to take my posessions & rape my family and then kill us...

What am I supposed to do?

Obey the law myself, Let them do as they wish & then hope your Law avenges my death & the death of my family?

[edit on 12/9/2007 by Ironclad]

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in