I agree with these laws. A person ought to be able to use deadly force in self-defense.Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
In self defense of myself and family's safety
I see somebody commiting a violent & dangerous crime like armed robbery or rape
My own property has been trespassed and I fear my property is threatened
I see a large crime against property, such as insider trading
I see a small crime against property underway - my neighbor's car being burglarized
I see any crime underway
I agree with these laws. A person ought to be able to use deadly force in self-defense.
You bring up a great point here. I have always had a hard time understanding how popping a guy who basically says I'll get you later isn't self-defense. I mean, there are dudes out there who will hunt you down sooner or later, and guys who are robbing your neighbor and know you can identify them COULD fall into that category.These guys are Colombians, you want to fuck with Colombians? I spoke the truth. They come right back over, there is no parole for these guys, there is no way of keeping tabs on them, until they would have been caught for another crime.Sounds like you are just back from your Jr Nazi club meeting. Can you hold back on the redneck talk. You are giving Harlan merit to his pathetic argument. Brown, white, black or green, it was OK for The Great Joe Horn to smoke them like Texas BBQ.
If, and I mean if Joe Horn shot them because he was fearful of his life and that of his family I don't hesitate to understand why he did it. I do mean a fear that goes past just that moment as well. Colombian tells friend, That neighbor is the one that spotted us and is the witness, go pop a cap in his ass. or for fear out of revenge. I don't want to witness a Colombian doing anything but picking coffee beans.
That whole immediate threat thing is BS. This is why I got absolutely no sympothy for the robbers here. Could they be nonviolent guys who simply rob houses when people aren't home...sure. They also could be very dangerous guys who's next trick is kidnapping for profit or whatever. They were crooks, and if they didn't want to be buzzsawed by a shotgun they shoulda stuck to working an honest job.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Here's another great example of Harlan's inability to keep his own argument straight:
And then:
So which is it? Did Joe shoot these guys out of anger, or in cold blood Harlan? Pick one.
Now notice how he keeps injecting race into the equation. If you dare disagree with Harlan's enlightened position, you brand yourself a racist. Such a nice debate tactic.
Yes, you caught me in an inconsistency. John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger. OJ was the same way, he killed out of passion, he loved Nicole so much.
So did Joe shoot these guys out of anger or in cold blood Harlan? Pick one.
I apologize to Joe Horn and OJ for incorrectly describing them as cold-blooded.
Joe is a 61 year old retiree. You guess that he was angry, which certainly makes sense. But it also makes sense that he was scared shitless.
If those thieves were desperate enough to break in through a window, and rob that families house, it's not much of a stretch for them to be desperate enough to be potentially armed, and willing to shoot those standing between themselves and their continued freedom. In that situation, all Horn had to do was to feel threatened for an instant to be justified in pulling the trigger. What he did was reasonable. That grand jury had no choice. This case never went to trial - he wasn't even indicted.
People rarely get prosecuted in these situations no matter what state they reside in, or what the particular laws state.
Did he think those Columbians were gonna launch a missle at him out of their asses as they were fleeing? He shot them in the back, and they continued to stagger away several yards before they dropped dead.He was 61 years old. You guess that he was angry, which certainly makes sense. But it also makes sense that he was scared shitless.
At the end of the 911 call, Joe pleads, "I had to do it, I had no choice." He is claiming self-defense, but the facts of the killings suggest he was just covering his ass, having realized what he had just done.
Thieves aren't going to attack a man with a shotgun. They were running away. If he wanted to fire some shots, he could have fired above their heads, but even that was obviously unnecessary.
How do you know they were running?
Yeah, it's amazing how conveniently predictable all thieves are. That's why cops catch them all, and crime has been eradicated throughout the world.
Did you look at Joe's picture? Does he look very intimidating? This portly old fella is not likely to be mistaken for Rambo or Dirty Harry anytime soon. What if he looked scared shitless, and the convicted felons took him for the easy mark that his picture projects. Took one step toward him, thought better of it as he raised his weapon, and started to turn as he pulled the trigger. The autopsy said they weren't hit squarely in the back.
You give a quick listen to the tape and are willing to label your interpretation of what happened as fact, when the fact is that Joe is the only one left that knows exactly how it all happened. So many of your statements of fact are pure conjecture and speculation.
And you're awfully quick to call him a cold blooded murderer, without any benefit of due process. In fact, you're willing to look completely past the due process that did take place because they're just a bunch of redneck Texas hicks that hate minorities anyway - especially the brown and black ones. And while that's a pretty liberal paraphrase, I think it pretty fairly captures the tone you've projected in your little sermons.
half way into the 911 call, while Joe is watching the thieves at his neighbor's house, Joe tells the dispatcher, "I'm gonna kill 'um"
Self-defense? ya, right.
HOFer
I've said I was gonna kill my ex enough times that I'd best hope nothing ever happens to the man...
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
ah, you've already taken the best years of the poor guys life. what's he got to live for now anyway?
Could reasonably have been bravado, or adrenalin. It certainly wasn't enough to convict him, or slander him the way you did as a cold blooded murderer.
If you planned on murdering someone and using self defense as a ruse, it's probably best not to confess that to an emergency dispatcher on a taped 911 call. He was probably frieghtened, angry and not completely rational. Though he was rational enough not to get killed, which could have easily happened in a case like this.
I've sensed that it might be best to avoid your temper.
Would it be ok if I washed your car today?
HOFer
You could do that, but I'd be much happier with you if you mowed the back yard.... :P
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
Would you shoot the teens?
No Harlan, I would not have shot the teens for cleaning out my garage. Oddly, here in Utah, we pay them.
Would you have shot the fleeing Columbians?
There's that nasty race baiting "Columbian" term again. Columbians, Australians, Canadians, Americans - who cares? I'm not about to ask their nationality or racial makeup before protecting myself. If someone broke into my house, or my neighbors house, and I was armed and confronted them, I'd shoot to kill if I felt threatened in any way at all. I'd give them the opportunity to surrender, as Joe appears to from my recollection from the taped call. But that's their only choice - surrender or die. Why would I let them run to their car to potentially retrieve a weapon, or run me over? It's on them to surrender. The choice was theirs.
Of course I don't own any guns, so the point is moot. And reacting in theory is far different than reacting real time. I hope to God it never happens to me, because I would hate taking a human life, and it would probably haunt me forever. It seems to haunt Joe, even though it appears he did the right thing.
Ok, so he already gave them a verbal warning. Now you expect him to fire some warning shots too? Geez, maybe he should have been required to offer them counseling and sign a waiver prior to engaging in the use of lethal force.
One of the great "rights" we have in this country is "trial by a jury of our peers". Most people's "peers" are good normal Americans with a healthy respect for property rights and a strong disdain for punk criminals messing with good normal people.
Consequently, regardless of what legal precedent has been set by a bunch of elitist liberal courts, watering down the old Common Law concept that a man's home is is castle, a jury can and often does "nullify" the letter of the law.
So if it's deemed that the guy violated the modern interpretation of homicide statutes, the hell with that shit. A jury will (and should) nullify it.
As Shannon Edmonds, a lobbyist for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, put it: "There's an unwritten rule in Texas courthouses: It ain't against the law to kill a son of a bitch."
Looking Kindly on Vigilante Justice
Right. So, he couldn't lock himself in his bedroom with the gun pointed at the door?
Joe is a 61 year old retiree. You guess that he was angry, which certainly makes sense. But it also makes sense that he was scared shitless.
If those thieves were desperate enough to break in through a window, and rob that families house, it's not much of a stretch for them to be desperate enough to be potentially armed, and willing to shoot those standing between themselves and their continued freedom. In that situation, all Horn had to do was to feel threatened for an instant to be justified in pulling the trigger. What he did was reasonable. That grand jury had no choice. This case never went to trial - he wasn't even indicted.
People rarely get prosecuted in these situations no matter what state they reside in, or what the particular laws state.
He chose to go outside and confront them scott. No matter how you spin it, he put himself in the situation.
Clearly, he coulda stayed inside and the police got there pretty quick as they were there to witness the shooting.
Agreed - staying inside was an option. But he had no legal obligation to do so.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote