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.

 

Abrams: Texas jury OKs shooting burglars in the back?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
In reading all these replies so many assume that if you wait police will respond and take charge of the matter. I'd just like to remind you that the courts have ruled the police do not owe any individual protection. Even if they are aware you are in danger or threatened personally. They have repeatedly ruled that is too high a burden to place on the police.




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Stepping back for a moment and looking at the various views on this thread, I say this:

Public opinion is a pendulum. It swings between the excesses of too much mercy versus too much retribution.

I think most people, in Texas and elsewhere, are fed up with the fact that our governments have dealt out too much mercy for criminals in the past half-century.

Regardless of any person's opinion, the public seems to feel like there has been way too much mercy extended. Many people are willing to overlook possible excesses of retribution in the interest of avoiding the failures they've seen in public policy.

Similarly with the death penalty. There was a time in the USA, when the death penalty was functionally illegal in all but a handful of states. But now, 40 years later, the pendulum of public opinion is swinging the other way, and more and more states are providing for the death penalty.

The fact that a jury, and many posters here, are willing to overlook Mr. horn's possible excess in the name of stopping crime tells us that more people are afraid of crime than they are of brutality.

In other words, brutality in the name of Justice doesn't seem like a credible threat, compared with the threat of being victimized, and having the government do nothing about it.

I'm not posting any more about my opinions in this case; I'm becoming more interested in what the discussion says about what our society wants right now.

all the best.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Regardless of your opinion on whether or not this inncident was justified, the fact remains that Horn was within his legal rights according to Texas law.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

Unless the law changes, the jury ruled correctly.
Personally, if the law stated I could not shoot a criminal under any circumstances, I would ignore it. The life of my family and myself is more important than what some stupid politican might think.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


So funny this new transcript you posted has contradicted MANY of the points you your self have made to support the actions of Mr. Horn.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
the true story has been stretched so far as to be paper thin.

Horn went outside when he noticed some people burglarizing a neighbors home.

This neighbor had asked him to keep an eye on the property (as is a long standing Texas custom), and he did just that.

So he heads outside with a shotgun and says something to them. They begin walking his way, so he points the gun at them and tells them to "don't move or i will shoot you." It was dark so he didn't have the best view, and all he noticed was that they both made sudden movements. So he pulled the trigger.


He noticed them from his second floor game room and called the police from there.

He himself says in the transcript you provide:

"He said he began to feel scared. He didn't know who the men were, nor if his neighbors were home and were in danger. Was his home the next target?"

He would know his neighbors were not home if they asked him to watch their house, no?

You say it was dark and thus it was hard to see them men. Really at 2pm in the afternoon at 15 feet?



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

2. when he told them to "freeze", they didn't.

I guess that number 2 leads to a third mistake: they were here illegally. possibly they did not understand him.



“He shouted the words he now regrets: "Move, you're dead." The men — about 10 feet and 13 feet from him — stopped immediately. They looked at one another and said nothing.”

“The two Hispanics legal immigrants - Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30 - were leaving”

rackjite.com...


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Animal

Do you not read very well? He was asked by his neighbor to watch out for his property. In Texas, this means you keep people from doing anything, using the same force you would use for your own belongings. this kind of goes back to the days of horses and cowboys.

as well, Mr. Horn should not have to stay inside his house because of criminals. Especially in a rural area where police response can be slow.



The neighbor he was unsure was home or not? Slow police response they got there in time to see him with a gun in his hands, sounds like he would have been fine had he done as the 911 operator had asked.

Your false assertions continue and I do not have the time to point them all out but I would like to end with this quote from you:



I will repeat: your "spin" is a lie. You are leaving out important parts of the story so that you can perpetuate your flawed logic. Your insistence on perpetuating untrue events is going to cause me to lobby to have your thread labeled a "Farce" or something, honestly.


While I will not lobby to have anything DONE to you I will call you out on doing exactly what you accuse me of. I did not present any information that was not readily available in the OP.

I am not talking about the Law where you can protect yourself in your home I am talking about a man who said:



Operator: You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with that gun. I don't care what you think. Stay in the house.

Horn: You wanna make a bet? I'm gonna kill 'em.


A man who made a DECISION to CREATE a CONFRONTATION. A man who made a DECISION to KILL.

If you can not see the difference you are simply being willfully blind to the differences in situations.


[edit on 2-7-2008 by Animal]

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Unless the law changes, the jury ruled correctly.



Not meaning to parse you post, but I just wanted to point out that the jury is "correct" in whatever verdict it reaches. If the grand jury doesn't want to proceed to trial, that's their decision. The jury is . . . de jure . . . the definition of what is correct, based on the evidence they received.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I remember this story. There was a 9-11 call where the dispatcher was pleading with some old nutcase not to fire on these two. The dispatcher said no property was worth killing someone for. The guy went out and did it anyway. It didn't happen at all like some are portraying in this thread.

Anyway, the guy's a murderer whether the grand jury let him off the hook or not. Just further evidence of the decline of civilization and lots of fodder for the kooks that think this behavior is justified.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
You guys are talking about KILLING as if it is the ONLY recourse. I highly doubt any of you is so simple as to assume that KILLING someone is the only way of protecting your home. And if you do, I feel sorry for you.


Uh yep. That's how it works here in Texas. The method of staying alive is SO gosh darned simple it will make your head spin - you ready? Don't break into someone else's house! Hey, not that hard is it?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Not meaning to parse you post

Then why do it unless you meant to parse my post

Anyway, I know what you saying. I guess I could have worded it differently because your point it correct.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Not meaning to parse you post

Then why do it unless you meant to parse my post



Because I was being a prig:


a person who displays or demands of others pointlessly precise conformity, fussiness about trivialities, or exaggerated propriety, esp. in a self-righteous or irritating manner.


See, I just did it again.

Sometimes I get so smug in my knowledge of technical terms that I just have to share it anonymously over the internet.



My Cacozelia is milder when I take the yellow pills. And the therapy really is working. I promise.


all the best.

(edit for clarity; can you believe it?)

[edit on 2-7-2008 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
What is all of the debate about? Two low life scum sucking pieces of crap illegal aliens (career criminals) paid for their stupidity. Darwin in action. End of story!



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by oldcop911
 


Perfect, to the point, and accurate! Case closed!!



Zindo



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
In regard to those Dr. Phil puppies who argue in an intellectual vacuum that persons should not be shot for stealing property...

How is it one can be absolutely assured in an attempted break-in that property is the purpose, or sole purpose for the invasion? How many are raped and murdered as the exclusive purpose of an invasion?

It is pathetic that only a first hand experience of such a situation is the only proven therapeutic remedy to deprogram the socially indoctrinated and restore independent thinking and common sense -- should they survive.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
as far as I am concerned the jury came back with the right decision.

for everyone that doesn't like this ruling, have you ever been robbed before? I don't think you'd be singing the same tune.

If you are robbing me and i have a gun. I'm gonna shoot you dead. Do the crime pay the price.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

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.


Somebody who breaks into your property to steal, is just as likely to kill you or your children to stop from being identified and arrested. People who break in to steal are usually meth addicted and they are not known for making rational decisions. It is not your brokend down hibachi grill they are after. It is your TV, Computer, Car, Bank Account, Identity, and Life.

I will yell "Stop I am armed and you are under Citizens Arrest!". I will only yell it one time. When somebody has burglarized my neighbors house today, he will probably come around tonight or tomorrow to do mine. That is IF HE GETS AWAY WITH IT. If he does not get away with it, then lives and property of more worthy citizens are spared.

The police cannot prevent crime in anyone's neighborhood. Not even if you have a camera on every corner of every building. The police will only react to crime after it has been committed. Then there is a thirty minute response time once they are called. IT IS UP TO AN ARMED CITIZENRY TO STOP CRIME!! CRIMINALS FEAR AN ARMED CITIZENRY MORE THAN THEY FEAR THE POLICE.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with Mr. Horns actions...lets break it down into it's simplest terms...

1) Were they breaking the law?....YES

2) Did Mr. Horn tell them to "Halt, Freeze, etc?...YES

3) Did they?....NO

4) Did they approach Mr. Horn ON HIS PROPERTY?...YES

5) Did Mr. Horn feel threatened?...YES

6) Would they still be alive today had they not BEEN BREAKIN THE LAW?...PROBABLY

7) Would they still be alive had they not been here ILLEGALLY to begin with?...More then likely.

This IS NOT the first case of illegal criminals doing bad things to LAW ABIDING citizens...and for the record...I could CARE LESS if they were illegal or not...black, white ot purple polka dotted...If you are breaking into a house...your neighbors house...the house across the street, etc...and YOU CHOOSE to live this life style, then YOU are the one responsible for the outcome...As a former Military Police Officer, there are 3 things you need to use deadly force...Intent, capability and opportunity...in the civilan world, all you really need is to feel your life threatened...and the actions of these clowns demonstrated AT LEAST that...too bad for them...goody goody for Mr. Horn, his neighbor and the great state of Texas!!!
BTW...I'm in Fla...and I REALLLLY wouldn't do that same thing here, either...more then likely end up the same way with the same results. And if you don't think that law abiding citizens care about what happened to these two idiots??? Sure we do...now we don't have to pay for a trial or encarcerate them for lord knows how long...they were repeat offenders...and that typically dosen't change



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

The Universal Law of Consequences has rendered judgement.


No, some human with a gun and the propensity to KILL rendered their judgment. I guess in Texas a gun gives you the right to CHOOSE who lives and dies.
I stand by my previous statement that the Feral Government should come down on laws such as this like a ton of bricks.

Guns are for hunting and protecting ones life NOT ones Nintendo and stereo. Validating such behavior is barbaric.


Sure does and we're right proud of that fact!



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76


Texas has always been pro-gun and protecting ones property. So in Texas if the NWO knocks on my door, I have the right to shoot to kill? This is interesting.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


If the "nwo" knocks on your door?

May I ask who the NWO is? .. And why they would be knocking on your door?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Bottom line:

Mr. Horn made the decision to put himself into the situation. Should he have heeded the warnings of the 911 operator (repeated warnings at that) then he would not have been responsible for ending two lives.

HE became the vigilante, when in fact, he was in no apparent danger, other than his own paranoia.

It has been said by those involved that it was a quiet neighborhood where nothing ever really happened. Why then, I ask you, was Mr. Horn so alarmed about the situation?

I am not saying the guy had a bloodlust, but the transcript shows an irrational thought process.

If he had waited seconds more, the cops would have been there and would have done their job.

Instead, two criminals were murdered (yes, it is still murder, and premeditated at that)....

The dead can't tell their side of the story. No, I am not justifying their actions either. It is a mere observation.

Our justice system may be flawed, however, the scale of justice was not held true in this situation. Blood for material worth is not something that balances them.

How can any of you sit there and justify extinguishing someone else's existence, when this man was in no apparent danger other than that he brought onto himself by stepping out his door?

Even if his neighbors asked him to watch their house, I am pretty sure they did not mean "defend it at all costs"....

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Azazelus]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azazelus
Bottom line:

Mr. Horn made the decision to put himself into the situation. Should he have heeded the warnings of the 911 operator (repeated warnings at that) then he would not have been responsible for ending two lives.

Umm...sorry, but that is NOT the bottom line.
What gives you the impression that the 911 operator knows what is best for you? Is the operator there on scene? No, so one has to look out for their own interests and not blindly follow some advice from an anonymous person on the phone.

As another poster pointed out, 911 operators are frequently incorrect in their advice. Hell, they were telling everyone to stay inside the world trade towers and well, we know how well that advice worked out.


[edit on 2-7-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
So, with some of the thought patterns on this thread, why don't we all just give our guns to the govt, and stand on our front porch and hand our belongings out to illegal aliens? Because that sounds like thats the way some of you would have preferred he handled it.


**edit for typo

[edit on 2-7-2008 by siFtInG]

Maybe we don't all agree, but my belongings ARE worth more than the life of a theif. Sorry, it's been pointed out time and time again, it's real easy to prevent, don't steal.

Another point that needs to be brought up, do you think this is going to happen less frequently in the future? With gas prices on the steady climb, food prices following along with every other problem (energy costs, etc), how many people are going to turn to a life of crime? How many that already have, are going to come out of the woodwork?

You know what my BIGGEST fear in the world is, as far as worldly? It's that I will go home one day to find everything I've worked for has been carried off, probably to be traded for drugs. You know why that bothers me? Not because of my possesions...but because I know what I will do when I go back and look at the surveillance videos, and see who did it.....



[edit on 2-7-2008 by siFtInG]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join