Abrams: Texas jury OKs shooting burglars in the back?, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:25 PM by drwizardphd

Originally posted by TheComte
I can't believe the number of people on ATS that defend criminals; from burglars to child rapists. It's sickening.

It's even more sickening how willing people here are to defend murderers.

Joe Horn committed a double homicide. A coup de grace with a shotgun to the back. He is the criminal, the two would be criminals became victims as soon as he began to enforce Texas justice.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:29 PM by jasonjnelson

reply to post by drwizardphd

How is it murder?

Since when did YOU get to decide the value of my property, ergo my time and life?

Since when did YOU get to decide that a jury of his peers could not decide, with all the facts, what constitutes murder?

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:31 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by drwizardphd

He didn't enforce any justice. he acted within his right in the law.

On New years Eve i don't go out. Know why? there are drunk drivers. I am aware of the risk of going out, so i don't do it.

The important lesson here is: if you want to burglarize houses, do it in California, not Texas.

I will tell you what, if someone breaks into my house you will sit there and call me a murderer, too. It is about making a statement as much as anything.

I am just shy of being a pacifist. But, on this planet, you have no right to expect anything that you don't do for yourself. This is the Texas way.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:33 PM by Animal

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I did not attack you. I asked you if you do not read very well, because you are omitting large portions of the story and ignoring my previous clarification. it is an honest question, as i would assume that being accused of having difficulty reading is more likely than the thought that you just mismanage comprehension.

I call it a lie because you leave out critical parts of the story to paint the story in a light that allows you to present your arguement. It is called a "lie by omission". Now, if you have reading difficulty, i would say it is less a "lie" and more of a "misunderstanding". Let me help alleviate the misunderstanding for you:

Agins lets please stick to the topic of the thread, I really am not interested in personal discussions, U2U me if you would like to do that....

Mr. Horn looked outside and saw his neighbors home being burglarized. He had been asked by this neighbor to watch his property.

Mr. Horn grabs his gun (for protection) and calls 911. When he gets outside, the burglars begin to approach him, and it is dark. He levels his gun on them and states loudly "Don't move or i will shoot you" (rough quote, as he likely used more coarse language). The men froze momentarily, and then turned to run. Mr. Horn thought they were rushing him (as they had actually entered his yard when they approached him) so he shot them. It happened in split seconds. A shotgun doesn't have the kind of range to do what you insinuate happened. When the police showed up, there were two corpses in Mr. Horn's yard.

This is all shared in the opening of the thread, I do not need to present what happened in every post, I need only respond to the information given. I read three articles before I replied as well, so I feel like I have enough knowledge to make the replies I have as well.

Now, your version includes that he shot the men, and that he shot them in the back. But there is absolutely nothing regarding the specifics of what happened.

He did create the confrontation and he did shoot them in the back. All the information is already presented I do not need to repeat it over and over. He made a decision to approach and to intervene, he made a decision to kill.

You lead people to believe that he just walked up and executed two men. That is untrue. The two men were robbing a house, entered Mr. Horns property, and were shot when they made a sudden movement in the dark.

I made the case that he created the confrontation, I made the case that he made the decision to kill. I made the case that he shot men in the back. All are true, like it or not.

I do not level personal attacks. Read just about every post i have ever made...that is not my style. I DO keep people honest, as the truth is what "Deny Ignorance" aspires to achieve.
[edit on 1-7-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

All of these…:

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Do you not read very well?

...

Another myth being perpetuated. If you want to argue, argue the facts, not your daydreams.

...

I will repeat: your "spin" is a lie.

...

Your insistence on perpetuating untrue events is going to cause me to lobby to have your thread labelled a "Farce" or something, honestly.

…to me are personal attacks in that they are critiques of ME rather than a discussion of the TOPIC.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Animal]

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:38 PM by drwizardphd

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by drwizardphd

Since when did YOU get to decide the value of my property, ergo my time and life?

I'm not deciding what value your property holds. I am saying that
your property is less important than a human life. Any property, I don't care how hard you worked for it. You have no right to kill for it.

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
Since when did YOU get to decide that a jury of his peers could not decide, with all the facts, what constitutes murder?

If you kill somebody with any intention other than self defense it is murder. The fact that he said over the phone he was going to kill them before he did makes it premeditated murder. Premeditated murder is first degree murder. The man is a murderer.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:39 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

so, let me get this right...if i question your version of "facts", you call it a personal attack and say that it is off topic?

What is the purpose of this thread? So that people can come in and agree with you?

I question the validity of your rendition of the facts. Your consistent omission of WHY they were shot in the back, for example. And your persistent insinuation that it was an act of cowardice. If THAT is off topic, then i have no reason to be here in your thread. Likewise, if you feel that me doing so is a personal attack, i likely have no reason to be here in your thread.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:40 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by drwizardphd

Since when did YOU get to decide the value of my property, ergo my time and life?

I'm not deciding what value your property holds. I am saying that
your property is less important than a human life. Any property, I don't care how hard you worked for it. You have no right to kill for it.

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
Since when did YOU get to decide that a jury of his peers could not decide, with all the facts, what constitutes murder?

If you kill somebody with any intention other than self defense it is murder. The fact that he said over the phone he was going to kill them before he did makes it premeditated murder. Premeditated murder is first degree murder. The man is a murderer.

In the state of Texas, both of your assertions are wrong. Read our law. It is that way because the people of Texas want it his way and have voted it to be so.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:43 PM by drwizardphd

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

In the state of Texas, both of your assertions are wrong. Read our law. It is that way because the people of Texas want it his way and have voted it to be so.

So in Texas, you kill people over property, and its not premeditated murder if you plan to do it beforehand? Sounds like a great place to raise the kids.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:45 PM by jasonjnelson

reply to post by drwizardphd

Please send me your address. I really want to take all of your things, as you show no intention of defending them. I, in turn, will let you try the same at my house.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:47 PM by Animal

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I question the validity of your rendition of the facts. Your consistent omission of WHY they were shot in the back, for example. And your persistent insinuation that it was an act of cowardice. If THAT is off topic, then i have no reason to be here in your thread. Likewise, if you feel that me doing so is a personal attack, i likely have no reason to be here in your thread.

In almost every case I believe I referred to the men killed as "the burglars" and yes being shot in the back is very very often equated to cowards.

"And your persistent insinuation that it was an act of cowardice. "

What? Please man I mentioned it once MAYBE twice...

Also you have so far not replied to the points I made in my response to the OP once, I am done with this pointless attempt at discussion with you.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:50 PM by drwizardphd

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by drwizardphd

Please send me your address. I really want to take all of your things, as you show no intention of defending them. I, in turn, will let you try the same at my house.

That is the most brilliant argument I have heard yet. /Sarcasm

Rest assured, if you came into my house uninvited I would most certainly defend myself. However, unless you pointed a weapon at me or someone in my family, you would still be alive. The police would have you, and you might not ever be able to walk again, but you wouldn't be six feet under. I could not bring myself to kill another human being unless I felt I had to in order to protect myself or my loved ones. That is the difference between responsible gun ownership and murder.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:54 PM by TheComte

reply to post by Animal

Animal, not just you. There's been a spate of threads recently, one dealing with a child rapist and the other a rape case. In the first someone said raping babies wasn't as bad as raping older kids because they don't remember it. Then in the other thread someone said rape wasn't that bad, two people having sex whoop di dooo, was I believe how they put it. Now this thread. It's just too much.

Two people are trying to burglarize someone else's private property. Shooting them is not murder, at least not in Texas. Where I live it would be, but that's just wrong. It's a license to steal, is what it is. Actually, recently there was a home invasion in my area. A young (16) man stole a shotgun and used it to rob three stores, clubbing one clerk with the shotgun. So, you see that if he would have been shot in the burglary the other crimes wouldn't have happened. But, no, we citizens have to stand back and let the criminals run wild. BS.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 09:58 PM by Animal

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by Animal

Animal, not just you.

[Emphasis Added]

Once again I will ask you: Show Me Where I Stood Up For, Tried To Protect, Or Argued For the Protection of Criminals.

Now because I know you can not, I will ask you to Stick With The Facts and Please Do Not Slander Me To Dismiss My Points.

Edit: I suppose saying you can not "shoot to kill" a burglar IS arguing for protecting them, but I feel the spirit of what you assert and what I am saying is two different things, I am only protecting them from people who think an object is worth a life.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Animal]

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 10:10 PM by TheComte

Originally posted by Animal
Shameful. Killing over robbery? Shooting people in the back justified? Something about this does not seem very legitimate to me.

"Deadly force" to protect your property seems like a very slippery and dangerous slope.

Shooting someone for stealing my old broken down hibachi grill? What the hell is wrong with people today?

This to me is a perfect example of why state sovereignty should be trumped by the federal government.

This whole post shows how you are apologizing for burglars. The burglar makes his choice to victimize an innocent person. In Texas, you are allowed to shoot that burglar. Get over it.

And yes, some property is worth more than some lives, like it or not.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 10:16 PM by Animal

Originally posted by TheComte
I can't believe the number of people on ATS that defend criminals; from burglars to child rapists. It's sickening.

To this I asked you to show me where I was DEFENDING criminals to which you post:

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by Animal
Shameful. Killing over robbery? Shooting people in the back justified? Something about this does not seem very legitimate to me.

"Deadly force" to protect your property seems like a very slippery and dangerous slope.

Shooting someone for stealing my old broken down hibachi grill? What the hell is wrong with people today?

This to me is a perfect example of why state sovereignty should be trumped by the federal government.

This whole post shows how you are apologizing for burglars. The burglar makes his choice to victimize an innocent person. In Texas, you are allowed to shoot that burglar. Get over it.

And yes, some property is worth more than some lives, like it or not.

* Emphasis Added.

First off you have switched from "Defending Burglars" to "Apologizing" for Burglars. I have done Neither of these tings. I have only argued against killing over robbery, killing with the intent of killing.

Now it is quite clear you are more interested in trying to diminish my point by diminishing me, something I will not fall for or tolerate. I consider your point, dismissed.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 10:29 PM by TheComte

reply to post by Animal

Nice job side-stepping the issue and making this about semantics. Whatever...

You asked where you were "defending burglars" and I showed you. And again, there is some property that is worth way more than some lives. Life is cheap. Namely, people that prey on innocents.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 10:35 PM by sigung86

Originally posted by Animal
Shameful. Killing over robbery? Shooting people in the back justified? Something about this does not seem very legitimate to me.

"Deadly force" to protect your property seems like a very slippery and dangerous slope.

Shooting someone for stealing my old broken down hibachi grill? What the hell is wrong with people today?

This to me is a perfect example of why state sovereignty should be trumped by the federal government.

Are you looking to steal someone's broken down hibachi?

Texas is, essentially, a whole different country. They don't tolerate law breakers down there much. Men still walk around looking each other in they eye. Ladies are defended... And should it be illegal to steal someone's broken down hibachi, you know it's illegal to steal that broken down hibachi, and you steal that broken down hibachi, then you deserve what you get for being that stupid.

That doesn't take a whole lot of common sense. And to the animal, I don't know where you came from, but the Federa government, in many ways, trumps state government. That issue was decided in a little dust up they called "The Civil War". You might remember that one. A little gathering of a few folks from different states who were bent on dissolving the Union, on one side, and preserving it on the other? The South guys lost, the union was preserved, and gosharooty, Batman... Lincoln was assassinated. You must have heard a little bit about it.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 10:38 PM by Animal

reply to post by TheComte

How is saying you can not KILL a burglar Defending a burglar? I agree burglary is wrong and should be punished, but allowing people to KILL over it is insane. The "street justice" punishment does not match the severity of hte crime, it is not about defending their right to be criminals it is about upholding laws and protecting the sanctity of life.

If we were talking about kill or be killed I would be all for shooting to kill, but we are not. We are talking about a man who was not threatened AT ALL creating a situation where he premeditatedly killed two robbers.

Also it is not about semantics it is about your claims that I am doing something I am not.

Sure I am arguing for defending burglars from bing KILLED by those who think their crime is worthy of murder. Your right and you win, enjoy it.

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 10:40 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by Animal

If you want a response to that particular post (out of all the ones you have made), then just ask for it.

Shameful. Killing over robbery? Shooting people in the back justified? Something about this does not seem very legitimate to me.

"Deadly force" to protect your property seems like a very slippery and dangerous slope.

Shooting someone for stealing my old broken down hibachi grill? What the hell is wrong with people today?

This to me is a perfect example of why state sovereignty should be trumped by the federal government.

this is the one, correct? OK..here goes.

1. It is not "killing over burglary". it is killing men who encroached upon HIS yard after he told them to stop, and then after he warned him to not move. He was willing to allow the men to lie down and wait for the police, but they chose to run. It isn't the fact that they ran that got them shot. it was the fact that they made sudden movement. Put yourself in that position, two men standing in your yard and they make a sudden movement.

2. a "slippery slope" argument is an informal fallacy and cannot be debated. It relies on a series of "what ifs". the fact is that it is the law in Texas, and that is what the people of Texas have decided, per the process of the state and US constitution. As well, the protection of property was exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they instituted the bill of rights. That is WHY we get to keep guns, and WHY soldiers cannot take up forced residence in your home.

3. There was no mention of what the property was. No one mentioned a hibachi grill, that i saw. It is unrelated to the case. What was stated is that they had a "bag of property".

4. State sovereignty is a constitutional matter. That is the way our nation was created. Further, Texas has "special" rights of sovereignty beyond the other states.

Now, since i went to the trouble to reply to the one specific post that you seem to have wanted me to reply to, will you address your misrepresentation of how/why they were shot in the back? Your insinuation is presumptive, as you are not including all facts in the assertion.

I have no problem with you not agreeing with the decision. But at least be honest in your discussion about it.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply posted on 1-7-2008 @ 10:43 PM by sigung86

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by drwizardphd

Please send me your address. I really want to take all of your things, as you show no intention of defending them. I, in turn, will let you try the same at my house.

That is the most brilliant argument I have heard yet. /Sarcasm

Rest assured, if you came into my house uninvited I would most certainly defend myself. However, unless you pointed a weapon at me or someone in my family, you would still be alive. The police would have you, and you might not ever be able to walk again, but you wouldn't be six feet under. I could not bring myself to kill another human being unless I felt I had to in order to protect myself or my loved ones. That is the difference between responsible gun ownership and murder.

No it isn't. It's the difference between you being alive the next morning or dead the next morning. In a situation where you don't have a predefined set of parameters about when is a good time to use deadly force, and when isn't, you will, in all likelihood, guess wrong. And it only takes once.

You come into my house uninvited, you best have a password and/or countersign... yeah, it keeps me from killing my children at 02:00 a.m.

If you don't like that about me, then get over it, or don't come in my house, uninvited at 02:00 a.m. Most particularly without password or countersign.

Interesting thing about this is that Texas, much to the chagrin of people on this forum, who probably don't live there, could care less about what you think is a slippery slope, a Fed trumps State thing, or what-have-you. The law is pretty much cut and dried, and the way I consider that it should be all over the country. You break the law, you pay the price. If you're stupid enough to be breaking the law where someone has a gun and you go down... Well.... S'long mate. You shouldn't be that stupid.

It's time to quit blaming the law abiding citizens for the stupidity of criminals. And it's damn sure time to quit making them carry the burden of stupid criminals and the stupid tricks.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by sigung86]