Shoot um up

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm interested in the threshold where people think it's ok to take a shotgun and blow somebody's head off.

I've tried to arrange the situations in order of increasing seriousness, so that if you vote for one situation, you'd also vote for the crimes about it. I know its not perfect. So shoot me.

[Deputy Nutz]

There are a couple of them where I wouldn't hesitate to shoot somebody. If you can kill a deer, you can kill a person and eat them.

[Zool]

Ridiculous. When is it OK for anything 100% of the time? I know you think you're funny, but you're the only one laughing, and you're no Andy Kauffman.

[MadtownPacker]

You forgot "The person is wearing different colors then your gangs".

[Deputy Nutz]

You forgot "The person is wearing different colors then your gangs".

How many gangs can one person belong to?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ridiculous. When is it OK for anything 100% of the time? I know you think you're funny, but you're the only one laughing, and you're no Andy Kauffman.

I'm not being funny. Alright, fine, it is hard to sign-on 100% for some of the categories. Then pick a category and explain what criteria the shotgun holder should use in deciding when to fire.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You forgot "The person is wearing different colors then your gangs".

You are just a Sears MExican and the closest you ever came to a gang was watching Spanky & Our Gang on TV. I can't believe anybody still believes your bullshit. You are no vato loco, girlfriend. ( i learned that word at the same place you learn all your slang talk.)

[MadtownPacker]

You forgot "The person is wearing different colors then your gangs".

How many gangs can one person belong to?You can have your neighborhood set, followed by the the city affiliations.

But you know I actually meant "gang's" you sorry bitch.

[Zool]

Blood in Blood out was a good flick.

Mad's a pachuco though, not a cholo.

[MadtownPacker]

You forgot "The person is wearing different colors then your gangs".

You are just a Sears MExican and the closest you ever came to a gang was watching Spanky & Our Gang on TV. I can't believe anybody still believes your bullshit. You are no vato loco, girlfriend. ( i learned that word at the same place you learn all your slang talk.)Shut yer trap your screamin ninny (how do you like my cracka slang you stupid hoe?). A gay ass joto like youself just needs to stay where you are safely able to hunger for young boys without consequence.

Im gonna stop by your boarding house room when I go to GB this year and take your TV in front of you since you said you wont do shit about it anyways, fucking panocha.

[SkinBasket]

Im gonna stop by your boarding house room when I go to GB this year and take your TV in front of you since you said you wont do shit about it anyways, fucking panocha.

Can we start a gang for this? The thought of a mob of packerrats assaulting Harlan's hovel and taking everything that's not nailed down seems like a good idea. It would be cathartic and should only take a minute or two. Maybe we could burn it all in his front yard while chanting "yes we can!"

[Zool]

Im gonna stop by your boarding house room when I go to GB this year and take your TV in front of you since you said you wont do shit about it anyways, fucking panocha.

Can we start a gang for this?

YES WE CAN!

[Scott Campbell]

The thought of a mob of packerrats assaulting Harlan's hovel and taking everything that's not nailed down seems like a good idea.


I can't imagine what would be worth taking.

[Zool]

Skin's prolly running low on Astro Glide and naked pictures of Danny Terrio

[Scott Campbell]

Can some legal eagle weigh in here. Is insider trading considering a property crime as Harlan suggests?

[Scott Campbell]

when is it ok to shoot somebody dead?



It ought to be ok anytime Harlan starts a stupid poll.

[Freak Out]

If someone is in my home threatening my family I'll kill them...if they are inside my home they better surrender fast or they are dead. If they run I'll let them go as long as nobody was hurt....although I'd be tempted to shoot them just on principles but many have gone to jail here for intruders shot outside the home. I'm not going to shoot someone because they broke into my fucking car..property is replaceable.

[LL2]

If someone is in my home threatening my family I'll kill them...if they are inside my home they better surrender fast or they are dead. If they run I'll let them go as long as nobody was hurt....although I'd be tempted to shoot them just on principles but many have gone to jail here for intruders shot outside the home. I'm not going to shoot someone because they broke into my fucking car..property is replaceable.

I agree. Although if you do shoot them on the way out make sure they are dead. I think the judicial system is screwed up if someone goes to jail for shooting an intruder. I'd also vote to shoot someone for rape, child molestation, and wife or child beating.

[Harlan Huckleby]

In the Joe Horn story, there were no intruders. Just a couple of Columbians in the neighbor's yard running away with some loot. Still, many people thought it was ok to shoot um in the back.

I think most of it comes down to how pissed-off you are. People get pissed-off by burglars, the thought of burglary hits close to home, so they don't mind Joe wasting the columbians. But lets say the bank manager catches an employee sneaking off with some money, most people wouldn't agree with the bank manager getting a shotgun out of his closet and wasting the thief.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Can we start a gang for this? The thought of a mob of packerrats assaulting Harlan's hovel and taking everything that's not nailed down seems like a good idea. It would be cathartic and should only take a minute or two. Maybe we could burn it all in his front yard while chanting "yes we can!"

I'm gonna fill a squirt gun with ejaculate, and don't think I'll be afraid to use it. Nobody messes with my stuff.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm gonna fill a squirt gun with ejaculate, and don't think I'll be afraid to use it. Nobody messes with my stuff.


I always wondered why you watch the View every day - you sick fuck.



http://www.otherlandtoys.co.uk/images/soakerdevastator800.jpg

[SkinBasket]

In the Joe Horn story, there were no intruders.

What the fuck are you calling them? Propertial interlopers? Borrowers of other people's shit?

Or is this like, "there is no spoon."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

In the Joe Horn story, there were no intruders.

What the fuck are you calling them? Propertial interlopers? Borrowers of other people's shit?

Or is this like, "there is no spoon."

They weren't intruders of Mr. Horn's home.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think a lot of people (including Mr. Basket) didn't listen to the youtube audio of the 911 call. It really tells a story, Joe is pretty open about why he is gonna waste those two.

John Horn is every bit as much of a cold-blooded murderer as OJ. Our imperfect legal system excused both of them, but that doesn't mean we should approve of what they did.

Some people in our country are appalled that Islamic Law allows a thief's hand to be cut-off. The kooks in the Christian World, mostly concentrated in the U.S., go far more extreme: it's ok to murder an apparent thief, even if they aren't on your property and pose no threat.

Recently, tough-guy, gang-banger-pretend Madtown made a passionate speech about how it is wrong to prevent convicted felons from voting. Now he turns around and says it is right to prevent unconvicted felons from breathing or walking.

[bobblehead]

speeding....if someone is speeding down the road and could cause an accident that kills someone I put a 9mm drill bit in their forehead...I have no tolerance for law breakers.

[the_idle_threat]

I think you should only wing somebody for jaywalking. No need to get all crazy vigilante here.

[SkinBasket]

In the Joe Horn story, there were no intruders.

What the fuck are you calling them? Propertial interlopers? Borrowers of other people's shit?

Or is this like, "there is no spoon."

They weren't intruders of Mr. Horn's home.

That doesn't make them not-intruders. Or is it only a crime if it affects you personally?

[Tarlam!]

In the Joe Horn story, there were no intruders.

What the fuck are you calling them? Propertial interlopers? Borrowers of other people's shit?

Or is this like, "there is no spoon."

They weren't intruders of Mr. Horn's home.

That doesn't make them not-intruders. Or is it only a crime if it affects you personally?

At the point where they followed him onto his property, they became intruders. According to the tapes on youtube and from what I can gather the ununiformed police officer had to say, he acted in self defense.

[Scott Campbell]

I think a lot of people (including Mr. Basket) didn't listen to the youtube audio of the 911 call. It really tells a story, Joe is pretty open about why he is gonna waste those two.



Hmmmm. Did you listen to the youtube audio of the 911 call Harlan? Because many of the user comments there mirrored the comments on this site. It appears there are lots and lots of Americans that believe Joe is a hero.

[Tarlam!]

It appears there are lots and lots of Americans that believe Joe is a hero.

Damn it, SC. *footstomp* *tantrum*

[sheepshead]

speeding....if someone is speeding down the road and could cause an accident that kills someone I put a 9mm drill bit in their forehead...I have no tolerance for law breakers.

HAAAAAAAAAAA

[Scott Campbell]

Now he (Madtown) turns around and says it is right to prevent unconvicted felons from breathing or walking.



Hmmmm. I don't remember Madtown saying that.

[MadtownPacker]

Recently, tough-guy, gang-banger-pretend Madtown made a passionate speech about how it is wrong to prevent convicted felons from voting. Now he turns around and says it is right to prevent unconvicted felons from breathing or walking.If Im such a pussy why didnt you accept my free ticket invite to the bears/Packers game last year? Cuz you aint nothing but a big, scary bitch. Real man, yeah right, you aint nothign but a real wimp.

As for you ignorant comment, I said convicted felons who have done their time and have gotten their shit together and are now contributing members of society should be allowed to vote again. These guys that got blasted dont fit that description so dont try to spin things cuz you really aint very good at it despite your belief that you are highly intelligent you fucking balls licker.

[bobblehead]

In the Joe Horn story, there were no intruders.

What the fuck are you calling them? Propertial interlopers? Borrowers of other people's shit?

Or is this like, "there is no spoon."

They weren't intruders of Mr. Horn's home.

That doesn't make them not-intruders. Or is it only a crime if it affects you personally?

The proper response was.....YET....and now they won't be ever.

[MadtownPacker]

They weren't intruders of Mr. Horn's home.

That doesn't make them not-intruders. Or is it only a crime if it affects you personally?Thats what makes Mr Horn a hero IMO. He did something that is badly lacking Im America today, not turning a blind eye to something bad going down right in front of him.

If we thought a little more like Mr Horn the world would be a much better place.

[swede]

Can we start a gang for this? The thought of a mob of packerrats assaulting Harlan's hovel and taking everything that's not nailed down seems like a good idea. It would be cathartic and should only take a minute or two. Maybe we could burn it all in his front yard while chanting "yes we can!"

I'm gonna fill a squirt gun with ejaculate, and don't think I'll be afraid to use it. Nobody messes with my stuff.

Go ahead. I'm wearing a condom!



And I voted for the first one only.

Joe Horn murdered those two guys and he was wrong.

But I can't get excited about the injustice of not prosecuting him.

I'll bet crime goes down on his block anyway.

[CyclonePackFan]

I think a lot of people (including Mr. Basket) didn't listen to the youtube audio of the 911 call. It really tells a story, Joe is pretty open about why he is gonna waste those two.

John Horn is every bit as much of a cold-blooded murderer as OJ. Our imperfect legal system excused both of them, but that doesn't mean we should approve of what they did.

Some people in our country are appalled that Islamic Law allows a thief's hand to be cut-off. The kooks in the Christian World, mostly concentrated in the U.S., go far more extreme: it's ok to murder an apparent thief, even if they aren't on your property and pose no threat.

Recently, tough-guy, gang-banger-pretend Madtown made a passionate speech about how it is wrong to prevent convicted felons from voting. Now he turns around and says it is right to prevent unconvicted felons from breathing or walking.

1.) First of all, the term "cold-blooded murderer" implies to me someone killed a person with no remorse. Joe Horn has since expressed regret for what he did, and has stated that if he could relive the scenario, he wouldn't go outside. That doesn't sound "cold-blooded" to me.

2.) They were on his property, and they were posing a threat.

Public opinion of Joe Horn in the Houston area (which, by the way, is a lot more diverse than you'd like to portray. You want to see old "shoot-em-up Texas", head out towards El Paso). is 2-to-1 in support of Horn. I still say we pin a medal on the man, and no, I'm not a neo-con conservative. I've never owned, held, or shot a gun. I still wouldn't mind one bit if he moved next door to me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

speeding....if someone is speeding down the road and could cause an accident that kills someone I put a 9mm drill bit in their forehead...I have no tolerance for law breakers.

ok, then they crank-open the crashed car and there in the back seat is the driver's dead, pregnant wife, about to give birth.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They weren't intruders of Mr. Horn's home.

That doesn't make them not-intruders. Or is it only a crime if it affects you personally?[/quote]

Are you saying that it is ok to shoot anyone you see committing a crime? Where do YOU draw the line? You were opposed to shooting teenagers spotted stealing beer from the neighbors garage. But you are cool with shooting fleeing columbians. Why the differentiation? (I suspect it is just a difference in anger, but speak for yourself.)

In my opinion, it is only a crime worthy of a shooting if someone's safety is at stake.

The handful of people who gave serious thought to this questions gave answers that I think most people will reach if they start thinking about the consequences. Firearms should only be used as a last resort, in self defense.

[Harlan Huckleby]

At the point where they followed him onto his property, they became intruders. According to the tapes on youtube and from what I can gather the ununiformed police officer had to say, he acted in self defense.


If these are the facts, then I agree he had a right to shoot the bastards.

But that doesn't sound likely. He shot both guys in the back as they were running away. Obviously a shot in the air would have accomplished his self-protection, if even that were needed. And the cops were already on the scene, and Joe Horn knew it, he shot them while he had the chance. The New York Times emphasised that it was "protection of property" that the jury used to let Smokin' Joe off.

That jury sounds a lot like the OJ jury.

[Harlan Huckleby]

convicted felons who have done their time and have gotten their shit together and are now contributing members of society should be allowed to vote again. These guys that got blasted dont fit that description so dont try to spin things cuz you really aint very good at it despite your belief that you are highly intelligent you fucking balls licker.

How can you know what description those guys fit when you pull the trigger?

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Im such a pussy why didnt you accept my free ticket invite to the bears/Packers game last year? Cuz you aint nothing but a big, scary bitch. Real man, yeah right, you aint nothign but a real wimp.

:lol: Just a review of the facts:

You had THREE extra tickets because understandably nobody wanted to sit next to you. I told you I would take all three, I needed two for myself because of my large size and fucking unbendable leg, and I would bring my lesbian packer fan friend for the third seat.

You crapped your pants. Sent me an email "it's just me and you, motherfucker." Obviously you didn't want to share me.

The next thing I know, you've sold two of your extra tickets on eBay. You mailed them by carrier pigeon or something, and its obvious the people aren;t going to get them in time. So you're in the forum whining "what should I do, what should I do!" GBRulz sez she'll fix everything, but predictably the bitch falls short. I heroically insist that you call the packer office, you take my advice, and they fix things for you.

Now, isn't that REALLY how things went down, Pinocchio ?

[Scott Campbell]

That jury sounds a lot like the OJ jury.


Ironically you've always reminded me of Marcia Clark.

[Tarlam!]

At the point where they followed him onto his property, they became intruders. According to the tapes on youtube and from what I can gather the ununiformed police officer had to say, he acted in self defense.


If these are the facts, then I agree he had a right to shoot the bastards.

But that doesn't sound likely. He shot both guys in the back as they were running away. Obviously a shot in the air would have accomplished his self-protection, if even that were needed. And the cops were already on the scene, and Joe Horn knew it, he shot them while he had the chance. The New York Times emphasised that it was "protection of property" that the jury used to let Smokin' Joe off.

That jury sounds a lot like the OJ jury.

It seems to me, (I listened to the tape you posted, did you?), that it is a fact that the intruders were at one time charging Joe Horn on his property. So, I think your point is mute.

Somebody posted that back in the day your country was becoming great, everyone had a gun and would have used it in a similar way to Joe horn, given the circumstances were similar.

Now, in 1776, I doubt there were too many illegal alien Colombians breaking into your neighbors house. But over the 232 year period since then, liberal law makers in my country as well as yours have basically put out a welcome mat for criminals.

That has got to stop. With the world economy going ape-shit, honest people can no longer afford the luxury of leniency.

Your example of kids stealing beer from my garage is pathetic. They shouldn't be stealing anything from my garage and they wouldn't be, if they knew I had a shotgun and was prepared to protect my beer with it.

[Scott Campbell]

You were opposed to shooting teenagers spotted stealing beer from the neighbors garage.



Was it cold beer?

[mraynrand]

I voted for all o them except 'any crime' and 'insider trading' While there are exceptions to each one, I can see circumstances in al those cases where it's perfectly acceptable to shoot someone. Again, I point out: If you don't want to get shot dead, don't commit crimes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It seems to me, (I listened to the tape you posted, did you?), that it is a fact that the intruders were at one time charging Joe Horn on his property. So, I think your point is mute.


:lol: :lol:
The Columbians saw a cracker with a shotgun and decided to charge him!!?? :lol: :lol: Maybe they did deserve to die! And they were charging running backwards!?

Ya know, it's possible that OJ was innocent, a victim of a gigantic, complex police conspiracy. People will believe what they want to believe.

Smokin Joe wasn't afraid for his safety, he was afraid the little shits were gonna get away with the loot. And the jury didn't say he was acting in self-defense, it was "defense of property", a lovely feature of Texas law, in this case extended to the property of his neighbors.


Your example of kids stealing beer from my garage is pathetic. They shouldn't be stealing anything from my garage and they wouldn't be, if they knew I had a shotgun and was prepared to protect my beer with it.

so would you actually pull the trigger? I'll give you credit for being consistent, I have more respect for this position than for people who will only execute columbians.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I voted for all o them except 'any crime' and 'insider trading' While there are exceptions to each one, I can see circumstances in al those cases where it's perfectly acceptable to shoot someone. Again, I point out: If you don't want to get shot dead, don't commit crimes.

Why are you willing to hold your fire against the insider trader!!?? They are effectively stealing massive amounts of money, and devaluing the portfolio of innocent people. I suppose you would let a bank embezzler live too. Why no execution of white collar criminals?

[Scott Campbell]

I voted for all o them except 'any crime' and 'insider trading' While there are exceptions to each one, I can see circumstances in al those cases where it's perfectly acceptable to shoot someone. Again, I point out: If you don't want to get shot dead, don't commit crimes.

Why are you willing to hold your fire against the insider trader!!?? They are effectively stealing massive amounts of money, and devaluing the portfolio of innocent people. I suppose you would let a bank embezzler live too. Why no execution of white collar criminals?


Because they're white Harlan. Conservatives only shoot minorities.

:roll:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Joe Horn has since expressed regret for what he did, and has stated that if he could relive the scenario, he wouldn't go outside.

if he was acting in self-defense, what is there to regret?


2.) They were on his property, and they were posing a threat.

If this were true, then this would be a very uninteresting case. He shot two people in the back who would otherwise get away.


Public opinion of Joe Horn in the Houston area ... is 2-to-1 in support of Horn. I still say we pin a medal on the man,

What a shock - people are glad that illegal immigrants caught burglarizing were shot dead.

I'm not so sure Joe will appreciate the medal, it sounds like he knows perfectly well what he did.

[Scott Campbell]

What a shock - people are glad that illegal immigrants caught burglarizing were shot dead.


What a shock - you play the race card like Jesse Jackson at a Rainbow Coalition rally.

[Scott Campbell]

Joe Horn has since expressed regret for what he did, and has stated that if he could relive the scenario, he wouldn't go outside.

if he was acting in self-defense, what is there to regret?


I think normal human beings can regret the loss of human life regardless of the circumstances.

[Scott Campbell]

What a shock - people are glad that illegal immigrants caught burglarizing were shot dead.



You try to minimize what they did, and what they were a part of by lumping them in with all the harmless illegals in this country. And teens stealing beer out of garages. The police set up a task force to stop this ring. This crime ring was also suspected of weapons trafficking - not exactly the mischevious yet harmless rascals your painting them as.

[MadtownPacker]

convicted felons who have done their time and have gotten their shit together and are now contributing members of society should be allowed to vote again. These guys that got blasted dont fit that description so dont try to spin things cuz you really aint very good at it despite your belief that you are highly intelligent you fucking balls licker.

How can you know what description those guys fit when you pull the trigger?Now you are making this shit too easy. At least try to put up a decent arguement. Fuck at this point make shit up if you have to because questions like this put yo in a deeper hole.

Answer - If they are taking shit that doesnt belong to them and they bolt when told to freeze I would heavily lean towards them NOT being contributing members of society.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I was watching an interview with a billionaire Arab business man, he sells cell phone service in asia, africa, middle east.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/7/2/1/a-conversation-with-naguib-sawiris

Damn interesting interview, guy REALLY knows a lot about the world, check it out! Anyway, the guy said the U.S. is the greatest country on earth, and when pressed for an explanation, the first words that come out of his mouth were "the rule of law in the U.S." We have the best legal system in the world, and that changes everything.

The illegal immigrants who were burglarizing are particularly descpicable. And burglary is a crime that understandably makes people madder than just about anything, everybody feels so vulnerable.

What makes our legal system work is that it is based on principles, guidelines, and not on emotion or public passions. Well, it's imperfect in this regard, but that is a real cornerstone.

Vigilante executions are a real bad idea. I won't explain why, you can figure it out using common sense. Just look at the decisions people make when driving. Deadly force should only be used for self-defense.

[MadtownPacker]

:lol: Just a review of the facts:

You had THREE extra tickets because understandably nobody wanted to sit next to you. I told you I would take all three, I needed two for myself because of my large size and fucking unbendable leg, and I would bring my lesbian packer fan friend for the third seat.

You crapped your pants. Sent me an email "it's just me and you, motherfucker." Obviously you didn't want to share me.

The next thing I know, you've sold two of your extra tickets on eBay. You mailed them by carrier pigeon or something, and its obvious the people aren;t going to get them in time. So you're in the forum whining "what should I do, what should I do!" GBRulz sez she'll fix everything, but predictably the bitch falls short. I heroically insist that you call the packer office, you take my advice, and they fix things for you.

Now, isn't that REALLY how things went down, Pinocchio ?I actually only had one extra ticket you silly bitch. 1 for me, 1 for you, 1 for 007 and 1 for Master P. 007 couldn't make it, me and Partial sat together (had a great time with the maniac). I had intended to take you from the get go but I didnt realize you where so much of a fatass that you couldn't fit in one seat. And fuck no I aint gonna get stuck sitting with any fucking body you know. As it is I was concerned I might have to remind you to take a shower before going.

As for the extra tickets, UPS fucked up and luckily I bought them from a legit dude who was able to hook me up with dups. I never contacted the Packers ticket office you semen gargler.

So I guess that isnt how it went down you ignorant, fat, broke, lonely, trick leg having SOB.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Answer - If they are taking shit that doesnt belong to them and they bolt when told to freeze I would heavily lean towards them NOT being contributing members of society.

WEll, right, they are probably scum bags. (Although there is a possibility that you are wrong, they might be doing something legitimate.)

The ex-felons who you want to give the vote to were scum bags at one time too.

Killing somebody is serious stuff. Punishment should fit the crime.

[Harlan Huckleby]

me and Partial sat together (had a great time with the maniac).

you raped him. i wonder if P remembers this as a "great time."

[MadtownPacker]

me and Partial sat together (had a great time with the maniac).

you raped him. i wonder if P remembers this as a "great time."Memories like that last a lifetime. See what you missed out on you mancave?

[Scott Campbell]

I had intended to take you from the get go but I didnt realize you where so much of a fatass that you couldn't fit in one seat.



I wonder if he'd shoot to protect his corn dogs?

[mraynrand]

I voted for all o them except 'any crime' and 'insider trading' While there are exceptions to each one, I can see circumstances in al those cases where it's perfectly acceptable to shoot someone. Again, I point out: If you don't want to get shot dead, don't commit crimes.

Why are you willing to hold your fire against the insider trader!!?? They are effectively stealing massive amounts of money, and devaluing the portfolio of innocent people. I suppose you would let a bank embezzler live too. Why no execution of white collar criminals?

I didn't argue against execution, necessarily. Just against shooting. Why waist bullets when you can easily take them into custody. Hell, if they even put up a fight, then you get to beat the crap out of them. If they resist arrest, then I figure it's one of those win-win situations.

[Deputy Nutz]

I voted for all o them except 'any crime' and 'insider trading' While there are exceptions to each one, I can see circumstances in al those cases where it's perfectly acceptable to shoot someone. Again, I point out: If you don't want to get shot dead, don't commit crimes.

Why are you willing to hold your fire against the insider trader!!?? They are effectively stealing massive amounts of money, and devaluing the portfolio of innocent people. I suppose you would let a bank embezzler live too. Why no execution of white collar criminals?

I didn't argue against execution, necessarily. Just against shooting. Why waist bullets when you can easily take them into custody. Hell, if they even put up a fight, then you get to beat the crap out of them. If they resist arrest, then I figure it's one of those win-win situations.

Why so they can get out of prison in 2 years, or get deported, hop a fence and come right back in as undocumented criminals that can't be tracked? Kill them, it is easier and less of a hassle.

[bobblehead]

I voted for all o them except 'any crime' and 'insider trading' While there are exceptions to each one, I can see circumstances in al those cases where it's perfectly acceptable to shoot someone. Again, I point out: If you don't want to get shot dead, don't commit crimes.

Why are you willing to hold your fire against the insider trader!!?? They are effectively stealing massive amounts of money, and devaluing the portfolio of innocent people. I suppose you would let a bank embezzler live too. Why no execution of white collar criminals?


Because they're white Harlan. Conservatives only shoot minorities.

:roll:

Moderater.........Scott's account has been hijacked by another poster on this forum I do my best to avoid looking at and he tricked me by using campbell's avatar.

[MJZiggy]

I voted for all o them except 'any crime' and 'insider trading' While there are exceptions to each one, I can see circumstances in al those cases where it's perfectly acceptable to shoot someone. Again, I point out: If you don't want to get shot dead, don't commit crimes.

Why are you willing to hold your fire against the insider trader!!?? They are effectively stealing massive amounts of money, and devaluing the portfolio of innocent people. I suppose you would let a bank embezzler live too. Why no execution of white collar criminals?

I didn't argue against execution, necessarily. Just against shooting. Why waist bullets when you can easily take them into custody. Hell, if they even put up a fight, then you get to beat the crap out of them. If they resist arrest, then I figure it's one of those win-win situations.

Why so they can get out of prison in 2 years, or get deported, hop a fence and come right back in as undocumented criminals that can't be tracked? Kill them, it is easier and less of a hassle.

They're easy enough to find...just go to any mall that sells gucci.

[Scott Campbell]

:lol: Just a review of the facts:

You had THREE extra tickets because understandably nobody wanted to sit next to you. I told you I would take all three, I needed two for myself because of my large size and fucking unbendable leg, and I would bring my lesbian packer fan friend for the third seat.


There is that entitlement mindset at work again. Graciously offered one free ticket, you balk unless you're given 3. Most people would have simply said thank you.

I assume you're joking about needing 2 for yourself.

[SkinBasket]

You were opposed to shooting teenagers spotted stealing beer from the neighbors garage. But you are cool with shooting fleeing columbians. Why the differentiation? (I suspect it is just a difference in anger, but speak for yourself.)

I don't know Harlan. Really, I don't. But the reason I don't know is because you're arguing against yourself again - using your words as mine so it's easier to defeat yourself and claim victory. Ironic then that you end your exercise in stupidity by asking me to speak for myself.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm sorry if i misstated your positions, mr. skinbasket. you earlier expressed anger at the equivocation of teens stealing beer and columbians running away with a bag of stolen loot. I only assumed ... well, silly me.

If you aren't too busy, maybe you could mention what you yourself would do in both cases. Shoot to kill? (thanks in advance for the second chance.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is that entitlement mindset at work again. Graciously offered one free ticket, you balk unless you're given 3. Most people would have simply said thank you.

I assume you're joking about needing 2 for yourself.

thank you for your interest.

I only offered to take all three tickets & bring a friend as a way to solve a problem. When you deal with mad, everything is done like a drug deal, always very secretive, he holds his cards close to his sunken chest. He put the two extra tickets on ebay without telling me - as it turns out, the two tickets would have worked fine for me. (i really do need 2 tickiets or an aisle seat to dangle out my leg.)

the greasy bastard begged me for a month to go to that fucking game, then he got all angry & spooked when he sensed that the drug deal was not going down according to his original plan. now he blames me for not coming. he really is a strange man.

[MJZiggy]

What's your excuse for not showing up when I invited you?

[Harlan Huckleby]

cause i didn't want to drive up to gb late in the day to watch the game in a bar.

[MadtownPacker]

Why so they can get out of prison in 2 years, or get deported, hop a fence and come right back in as undocumented criminals that can't be tracked? Kill them, it is easier and less of a hassle.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.

[MadtownPacker]

There is that entitlement mindset at work again. Graciously offered one free ticket, you balk unless you're given 3. Most people would have simply said thank you.

I assume you're joking about needing 2 for yourself.Hey that's a nice white way of putting it. I never even thought of it like that but you are right.

What a greedy, spoiled little bitch!!

[MadtownPacker]

thank you for your interest.

I only offered to take all three tickets & bring a friend as a way to solve a problem. When you deal with mad, everything is done like a drug deal, always very secretive, he holds his cards close to his sunken chest. He put the two extra tickets on ebay without telling me - as it turns out, the two tickets would have worked fine for me. (i really do need 2 tickiets or an aisle seat to dangle out my leg.)

the greasy bastard begged me for a month to go to that fucking game, then he got all angry & spooked when he sensed that the drug deal was not going down according to his original plan. now he blames me for not coming. he really is a strange man.
:lol: Good stuff man.

Damn, why the hell am I even defending myself against your relentless personal attacks?? I guess because you are kinda like a woman pounding on my chest and crying. It doest hurt, just makes me feel like bitch slapping you.

Need to quit twisting things up HH. Like you said I kept asking you and you kept faking the funk like always. When it came down to clutch time you choked (big surprise) and I did what I had to do.

[Harlan Huckleby]

look, i couldn't go with a single non-aisle seat. it's as simple as that. we could have worked it out if you had been more communicative. as far as the personal attacks, i'm just yanking your chain. you're a good boy.

[Scott Campbell]

There is that entitlement mindset at work again. Graciously offered one free ticket, you balk unless you're given 3. Most people would have simply said thank you.

I assume you're joking about needing 2 for yourself.

thank you for your interest.

I only offered to take all three tickets & bring a friend as a way to solve a problem. When you deal with mad, everything is done like a drug deal, always very secretive, he holds his cards close to his sunken chest. He put the two extra tickets on ebay without telling me - as it turns out, the two tickets would have worked fine for me. (i really do need 2 tickiets or an aisle seat to dangle out my leg.)

the greasy bastard begged me for a month to go to that fucking game, then he got all angry & spooked when he sensed that the drug deal was not going down according to his original plan. now he blames me for not coming. he really is a strange man.


I was just busting your balls Harlan. No explanation necessary.

[SkinBasket]

I'm sorry if i misstated your positions, mr. skinbasket. you earlier expressed anger at the equivocation of teens stealing beer and columbians running away with a bag of stolen loot. I only assumed ... well, silly me.

I bet you're sorry you sad sack of shit. 90% of what you post is a misstatement, intentional or not. Your pathetic fucking "equivocation" was that of teens cleaning out a garage being mistaken for thieves being shot in your lame fucking attempt to draw race into this argument to augment your omnipotent divination skills concerning Joe Horn's true motivations for shooting and your dire predictions of a Texas Armageddon if something wasn't done to make people like Joe Horn accountable for acting within the law.

It's the same tired shit from you. You can't even keep your own fucking argument straight, much less anyone else's, so what's the point?

[Deputy Nutz]

Why so they can get out of prison in 2 years, or get deported, hop a fence and come right back in as undocumented criminals that can't be tracked? Kill them, it is easier and less of a hassle.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.

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.

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.

[Scott Campbell]

Vigilante executions are a real bad idea.


Agreed. Vigilante executions are a real bad idea.

Though this wasn't a vigilante execution. And your attempt to classify it as such is vintage Harlan.

[Scott Campbell]

Harlan attempted to portray this as a Texas phenomenon - an aberration of US legal system. Here are the other Castle Doctrine states:

Since the enactment of the Florida legislation, Alabama[8], Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have adopted similar statutes, and other states (Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own. These statutes create a presumption of innocence for people who use deadly force whenever they are threatened with violence in their home, car, or place of business and also provide civil immunity from possible lawsuits arising from the use of force in these contexts. Links: 1 2.[9]

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm sorry if i misstated your positions, mr. skinbasket. you earlier expressed anger at the equivocation of teens stealing beer and columbians running away with a bag of stolen loot. I only assumed ... well, silly me.

I bet you're sorry you sad sack of shit. 90% of what you post is a misstatement, intentional or not. Your pathetic fucking "equivocation" was that of teens cleaning out a garage being mistaken for thieves being shot in your lame fucking attempt to draw race into this argument to augment your omnipotent divination skills concerning Joe Horn's true motivations for shooting and your dire predictions of a Texas Armageddon if something wasn't done to make people like Joe Horn accountable for acting within the law.

It's the same tired shit from you. You can't even keep your own fucking argument straight, much less anyone else's, so what's the point?

No, I wasn't comparing teens cleaning out a garage with the Joe Horn situation, I was comparing teens spotted stealing stuff from the garage of a neighbor. (Of course it might later turn out that something different than a theft was going on over there, but that is always the case.)

I'm trying to get your opinion on when it is justified to kill somebody. Would you shoot the teens? Would you have shot the fleeing Columbians?

[Harlan Huckleby]

These statutes create a presumption of innocence for people who use deadly force whenever they are threatened with violence in their home, car, or place of business and also provide civil immunity from possible lawsuits arising from the use of force in these contexts. Links: 1 2.[9]

I agree with these laws. A person ought to be able to use deadly force in self-defense.

[bobblehead]

Why so they can get out of prison in 2 years, or get deported, hop a fence and come right back in as undocumented criminals that can't be tracked? Kill them, it is easier and less of a hassle.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Scott Campbell]

It's the same tired shit from you. You can't even keep your own fucking argument straight, much less anyone else's, so what's the point?



Here's another great example of Harlan's inability to keep his own argument straight:



If you lsiten to this incident, its perfectly clear that this guy was just angry that some black guys (who turned out to be brown) might get away with burglary of his neighbor. Anger is now a justification for murder.

And then:


John Horn is every bit as much of a cold-blooded murderer as OJ.


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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

John Horn is every bit as much of a cold-blooded murderer as OJ.


So did Joe shoot these guys out of anger or in cold blood Harlan? Pick one.

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.

I apologize to Joe Horn and OJ for incorrectly describing them as cold-blooded.

[Scott Campbell]

John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger.



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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger.

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.

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.

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.

[Scott Campbell]

They were running away.


How do you know they were running?

[Scott Campbell]

Thieves aren't going to attack a man with a shotgun.


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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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.

[MJZiggy]

I've said I was gonna kill my ex enough times that I'd best hope nothing ever happens to the man...

[Harlan Huckleby]

ah, you've already taken the best years of the poor guys life. what's he got to live for now anyway?

[Scott Campbell]

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.



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.

[Scott Campbell]

I've said I was gonna kill my ex enough times that I'd best hope nothing ever happens to the man...


I've sensed that it might be best to avoid your temper.

Would it be ok if I washed your car today?

[MJZiggy]

You could do that, but I'd be much happier with you if you mowed the back yard.... :P

[Scott Campbell]

No, I wasn't comparing teens cleaning out a garage with the Joe Horn situation, I was comparing teens spotted stealing stuff from the garage of a neighbor. (Of course it might later turn out that something different than a theft was going on over there, but that is always the case.)

I'm trying to get your opinion on when it is justified to kill somebody. Would you shoot the teens? Would you have shot the fleeing Columbians?



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.

[Scott Campbell]

If he wanted to fire some shots, he could have fired above their heads, but even that was obviously unnecessary.



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.

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820028,00.html?imw=Y)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger.



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.

Right. So, he couldn't lock himself in his bedroom with the gun pointed at the door?

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.

[Scott Campbell]

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.

[Scott Campbell]

.....the police got there pretty quick as they were there to witness the shooting.



I wasn't aware the police witnessed the actual shooting.

[Deputy Nutz]

John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger.



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.

Right. So, he couldn't lock himself in his bedroom with the gun pointed at the door?

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.

Gee what on odd concept to step up and protect your property but also your neighborhood as well.

Instead you think he should hide in his closet. Thank god I will never have to count on you to have my back. You will run to the first closet you see and put your head between your knees, and whisper, "Please make them go away, make them go..."

[Scott Campbell]

He chose to go outside and confront them scott. No matter how you spin it, he put himself in the situation.


What spin? I've never argued that he didn't put himself in that situation. What are you talking about?

[Scott Campbell]

Instead you think he should hide in his closet.



That statement embodies much of what I'm getting at. Not only are Harlan and Tyrone big fat soft targets themselves, but their attitudes and sympathies are also likely to make this type of burglary that much more attractive. The lower the risk, the better the odds for the criminal type. They prey on the path of least resistance, and Tyrone and Harlan are inadvertently arguing to widen the path.

If Harlan had his way (a criminal conviction), that would open the door for those two convicted felons and their families to benefit from a lottery type windfall by nailing poor Mr. Horn with a civil suit. And then it's even more attractive to be a crook. At some point it won't pay to be an honest citizen anymore.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger.



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.

Right. So, he couldn't lock himself in his bedroom with the gun pointed at the door?

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.

Gee what on odd concept to step up and protect your property but also your neighborhood as well.

Instead you think he should hide in his closet. Thank god I will never have to count on you to have my back. You will run to the first closet you see and put your head between your knees, and whisper, "Please make them go away, make them go..."

Protect his property...what, was the grass in danger. The criminals didn't do anything to his property..and certainly hadn't when he called the police.

The issue was shooting them...because he either feared for his life or his property. His property wasn't in danger..and he put himself in danger.

You can't have it both ways...you can't cry and say he had no choice but to shoot them...when he did have a choice. He didn't have to go outside and he coulda waited for his tax dollars to be utilized..that is why we have police.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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.

Right. It is called common sense..and listening to the police dispatcher.

Now, your criteria is legal obligation. Fine, i don't want to hear you cry about legal options that don't favor your viewpoint then..."frivilous lawsuits," etc.

The bottom line is you and the rest of your fans would be singing a different tune if Horn had been shot and killed. Then, it woulda been.."shoulda stayed inside..shoulda listened to the dispatcher...shoulda waited for the cops, etc."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

He chose to go outside and confront them scott. No matter how you spin it, he put himself in the situation.


What spin? I've never argued that he didn't put himself in that situation. What are you talking about?

Exactly how many posts does it take you to answer one of mine?

Trying to run up your post totals again?

[Scott Campbell]

He didn't have to go outside and he coulda waited for his tax dollars to be utilized..that is why we have police.



It ain't against the law to go outside on your own lawn.

[Scott Campbell]

Trying to run up your post totals again?



Are you typing from the safety of your closet you pussy?


Why don't you just answer the question? Or are you afraid of that too?

[Partial]

I'm not going to bother reading this whole thing, but in my opinion, if anyone comes onto my property and threatens me I should be able to shoot them. Thats why its MY property. I'm not going to wait for the cops, and I'm sure as hell going to shoot to kill. Those jag bags that rob people would rather slit your throat then be reasoned with.

Now, if this person is

[Scott Campbell]

Exactly how many posts does it take you to answer one of mine?


Somewhere between 1 and 100. Pretty much as many as I fucking want Tinkerbell.

[Deputy Nutz]

John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger.



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.

Right. So, he couldn't lock himself in his bedroom with the gun pointed at the door?

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.

Gee what on odd concept to step up and protect your property but also your neighborhood as well.

Instead you think he should hide in his closet. Thank god I will never have to count on you to have my back. You will run to the first closet you see and put your head between your knees, and whisper, "Please make them go away, make them go..."

Protect his property...what, was the grass in danger. The criminals didn't do anything to his property..and certainly hadn't when he called the police.

The issue was shooting them...because he either feared for his life or his property. His property wasn't in danger..and he put himself in danger.

You can't have it both ways...you can't cry and say he had no choice but to shoot them...when he did have a choice. He didn't have to go outside and he coulda waited for his tax dollars to be utilized..that is why we have police.

Real simple, neighbor gets robbed, you are most likely to me next. You witness crime, you could become a victim. The police claim that the criminal began to run at Mr. Horn after Horn told them to freeze and gave them a warning. These criminal would not have hesitated to go after Horn, that is until they realized he really did have shotgun.

Again he stood up for his community at the very least and I respect the hell out of him, it would be my honor to have him as my neighbor.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Trying to run up your post totals again?



Are you typing from the safety of your closet you pussy?


Why don't you just answer the question? Or are you afraid of that too?

Which question?

Perhaps if you confined your limited retorts to one larger post it would be easier to address them. Nah, that would be smart. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

John Horn is not a cold-blooded murderer, he murdered in anger.



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.

Right. So, he couldn't lock himself in his bedroom with the gun pointed at the door?

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.

Gee what on odd concept to step up and protect your property but also your neighborhood as well.

Instead you think he should hide in his closet. Thank god I will never have to count on you to have my back. You will run to the first closet you see and put your head between your knees, and whisper, "Please make them go away, make them go..."

Protect his property...what, was the grass in danger. The criminals didn't do anything to his property..and certainly hadn't when he called the police.

The issue was shooting them...because he either feared for his life or his property. His property wasn't in danger..and he put himself in danger.

You can't have it both ways...you can't cry and say he had no choice but to shoot them...when he did have a choice. He didn't have to go outside and he coulda waited for his tax dollars to be utilized..that is why we have police.

Real simple, neighbor gets robbed, you are most likely to me next. You witness crime, you could become a victim. The police claim that the criminal began to run at Mr. Horn after Horn told them to freeze and gave them a warning. These criminal would not have hesitated to go after Horn, that is until they realized he really did have shotgun.

Again he stood up for his community at the very least and I respect the hell out of him, it would be my honor to have him as my neighbor.

So, the police were there? Again, what is the need for him to be outside?

Again, you fail to acknowledge that he had a choice..he put himself in danger.

Would they have gone after him without a gun. Agreed. But, he wouldn't have been outside acting like a dumbass if he didn't have one.

And, your logic..that he was next...when? That night? LOL. When...5 years from now when they get back into the country...popo was there..they are gettin deported.

Standing up for his neighbor/community...that was done when he called the police. That was the act that was required and needed. Acting as the police to kill them as he stated on the phone wasn't needed.

Do you want to put executioners out of work in texas?

[Scott Campbell]

Trying to run up your post totals again?



Are you typing from the safety of your closet you pussy?


Why don't you just answer the question? Or are you afraid of that too?

Which question?

Perhaps if you confined your limited retorts to one larger post it would be easier to address them. Nah, that would be smart. :roll:


Yeah, yeah Tyrone - I'm stupid. Whatever.

It's the 3rd post from the top of the page. Even Einstein could find it.

You implied that I spun something that I never said. I responded. That's how it's gonna work.

[Scott Campbell]

Again, you fail to acknowledge that he had a choice..he put himself in danger.


I consider that a partial truth. All 3 of them were responsible for being there, not just Joe.

[Scott Campbell]

Again, what is the need for him to be outside?

Maybe he needed to get the mail, or wash his car. Or catch a breath of fresh air. Who really cares? It ain't illegal to "trespass" on your own front lawn.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Trying to run up your post totals again?



Are you typing from the safety of your closet you pussy?


Why don't you just answer the question? Or are you afraid of that too?

Which question?

Perhaps if you confined your limited retorts to one larger post it would be easier to address them. Nah, that would be smart. :roll:


Yeah, yeah Tyrone - I'm stupid. Whatever.

It's the 3rd post from the top of the page. Even Einstein could find it.

You implied that I spun something that I never said. I responded. That's how it's gonna work.

Oh, scott...you are so cute when you play the martyr. :roll:

If you post 3 times to one of mine, there is a good chance something will be missed. If you want a response, trying putting all your thoughts into one post...or are you like a young child that can't wait to show how bright they are?

Your spin is putting it in context of defending his property..when you know that he put himself in position to defend it...it wasn't in danger, the police told him not to go outside, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Again, you fail to acknowledge that he had a choice..he put himself in danger.


I consider that a partial truth. All 3 of them were responsible for being there, not just Joe.

Again, spin away. Who is talking about responsibility.

We are talking about choices? Horn had several.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Again, what is the need for him to be outside?

Maybe he needed to get the mail, or wash his car. Or catch a breath of fresh air. Who really cares? It ain't illegal to "trespass" on your own front lawn.

Who is talking about legality. Just because something is legal doesn't make it smart to do it.

It is legal for you to walk down the street in whatever section of town you desire...but, it sure ain't smart.

[Scott Campbell]

Again, what is the need for him to be outside?

Maybe he needed to get the mail, or wash his car. Or catch a breath of fresh air. Who really cares? It ain't illegal to "trespass" on your own front lawn.

Who is talking about legality. Just because something is legal doesn't make it smart to do it.

It is legal for you to walk down the street in whatever section of town you desire...but, it sure ain't smart.


Tyrone, where have I argued that this was smart? Has anyone here argued that this was smart?


Legality has been brought up repeatedly by Harlan with his references to "murder" and the OJ jury. I can't remember if you've brought up legality outside of loosely with your crazy death sentence rhetoric.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Again, what is the need for him to be outside?

Maybe he needed to get the mail, or wash his car. Or catch a breath of fresh air. Who really cares? It ain't illegal to "trespass" on your own front lawn.

Who is talking about legality. Just because something is legal doesn't make it smart to do it.

It is legal for you to walk down the street in whatever section of town you desire...but, it sure ain't smart.

Death sentence...did he not do exactly that. He said he was going to kill them and he did it.

That sounds like a death sentence to me. :roll:

Tyrone, where have I argued that this was smart? Has anyone here argued that this was smart?


Legality has been brought up repeatedly by Harlan with his references to "murder" and the OJ jury. I can't remember if you've brought up legality outside of loosely with your crazy death sentence rhetoric.

[Scott Campbell]

Again, what is the need for him to be outside?

Maybe he needed to get the mail, or wash his car. Or catch a breath of fresh air. Who really cares? It ain't illegal to "trespass" on your own front lawn.

Who is talking about legality. Just because something is legal doesn't make it smart to do it.

It is legal for you to walk down the street in whatever section of town you desire...but, it sure ain't smart.

Death sentence...did he not do exactly that. He said he was going to kill them and he did it.

That sounds like a death sentence to me. :roll:

Tyrone, where have I argued that this was smart? Has anyone here argued that this was smart?


Legality has been brought up repeatedly by Harlan with his references to "murder" and the OJ jury. I can't remember if you've brought up legality outside of loosely with your crazy death sentence rhetoric.


And you complained about my posts being screwed up? :lol:


I hope nobody assumes that that crazy crackhead shit came out of my mouth.

[Scott Campbell]

From the other thread:


...is that not a death sentence? Did he not carry it out?



Ok Mr. Bigguns. A death sentence is handed down by the state, and carried out by the state. Those two dudes just got themselves shot in a botched robbery attempt. There's a HUGE difference - even in crackhead land.

Don't be stupid here Ty.

A better analogy of a death sentence would be you trying to defend your silly statement.




And I'll add this - Joe Horn's actions don't fit my definition of carrying out a death sentence. I doubt any legal professional would accept your crazy ass use of the term. If you want to broaden the meaning so wide that it could possibly include this, well then God bless you. It certainly adds a dramatic flair to what happened. It's emotional, inflamatory rhetoric. I imagine that if the Lifetime channel were to make a made for tv movie sympathetic to the convicted felons, that they might try and pull on delicate heart strings with a term like "death sentence" in describing Joe Horn's actions.

[Deputy Nutz]

Again, you fail to acknowledge that he had a choice..he put himself in danger.


I consider that a partial truth. All 3 of them were responsible for being there, not just Joe.

Again, spin away. Who is talking about responsibility.

We are talking about choices? Horn had several.

Thank god he made the right one.

You are right he had several, instead of acting like a pussy he did something about it. I am sure he didn't just open fire on the criminals with a half dozen cops standing there watching him and cheering him on. I believe their was an off-duty cop there, not several squad cars.

You also fail to take into account that these criminals were probably still there because of Joe, who knows if the cops would have gotten there in time if Joe didn't take matters into his own hands.

I still find it difficult that you either choose to play the devils advocate, or you are defense lawyer, or just somebody that has a soft spot for criminal behavior.

[Scott Campbell]

Trying to run up your post totals again?



Are you typing from the safety of your closet you pussy?


Why don't you just answer the question? Or are you afraid of that too?

Which question?

Perhaps if you confined your limited retorts to one larger post it would be easier to address them. Nah, that would be smart. :roll:


Yeah, yeah Tyrone - I'm stupid. Whatever.

It's the 3rd post from the top of the page. Even Einstein could find it.

You implied that I spun something that I never said. I responded. That's how it's gonna work.

Oh, scott...you are so cute when you play the martyr. :roll:


LOL

Ok, so now I'm a stupid martyr. Anything else?

[Zool]

You smell like feet wrapped in leathery burnt bacon.

[Scott Campbell]

You smell like feet wrapped in leathery burnt bacon.


Fair enough. I'm a stupid, smelly martyr. :lol:

[Partial]

Its just not worth it Scott. Someday when a guy trying to kill Ty comes into his humble abode we'll wait and see how he reacts.

[Scott Campbell]

Its just not worth it Scott.


I really think Joe Horn's actions are worth defending from this kind of slanderous speculation. There rhetoric might sound harmless, until the next Joe Horn decides to let his neighbors worry about their own damned stuff rather than be subjected to Harlan and Tyrone's accusations.

[MJZiggy]

Actually Scott has a point here. As far as I'm concerned, the criminals' (don't argue, it's what they were) rights ended when they crossed Mr. Horn's property line. And if they were Columbian crime ring members, I gotta believe that they don't look like Partial and his buddies trying to scam some beer outta your garage (that's not a race statement, it's in the way they move, carry themselves and act--nerds are nerds regardless of race). Horn had a right to go out and find out what was going on in his front yard, and if in so doing, he sensed himself in any kind of danger on his own property, he had the right to defend it. In the poll I chose to shoot to defend my property because if my property's in danger, it's quite likely I am too. See Sean Taylor.

Perhaps the dudes had the right to due process, but they gave up that right when they went after a guy with a shotgun who was trying to warn them off. Apparently stupidity trumps your right to due process. Darwinism at its finest if you ask me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

if anyone comes onto my property and threatens me I should be able to shoot them.

In this situation, Joe Horn announced his intention to "kill 'um" when he was watching them on his neighbor's property.

The question I asked was where is the exact point where killing someone becomes justified?

A few early posters gave thoughtful answers, FReak Out and a couple others. But the people arguing vehemently for Joe Horn have so far been unwilling to discuss their opinions in any detail. They just keep repeating mindless crap about the pussies on the other side. I guess they just don't want to think about it.

The poll responses show some thought and balance. The large majority only approve of deadly force for self-defense, or to end a violent situation. A handful of people voted that we should be able to kill whenever we observe any lawbreaking, but I imagine these people either are being wiseguys, or they haven't thought about the consequences. We'd all be in a 24x7 war zone.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the criminals' (don't argue, it's what they were) rights ended when they crossed Mr. Horn's property line. And if they were Columbian crime ring members, I gotta believe that they don't look like Partial and his buddies trying to scam some beer outta your garage

So are you saying it would be wrong to shoot Partial when he was stealing beer out of the garage?

Is your point that it is up to the shotgun holder to judge the character of the people he is about to waste before he pulls the trigger?

I say if it is OK to shoot the Columbians, then Partial ought to be executed too. Its impossible to judge a person in the middle of an apparent crime, well, other than to take note of the basics like their age, size, and race.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Its just not worth it Scott. Someday when a guy trying to kill Ty comes into his humble abode we'll wait and see how he reacts.

Um, partial, have you picked up on the fact that nobody in this thread has argued against the use of deadly force in self-defense?

[MJZiggy]

the criminals' (don't argue, it's what they were) rights ended when they crossed Mr. Horn's property line. And if they were Columbian crime ring members, I gotta believe that they don't look like Partial and his buddies trying to scam some beer outta your garage

So are you saying it would be wrong to shoot Partial when he was stealing beer out of the garage?

Is your point that it is up to the shotgun holder to judge the character of the people he is about to waste before he pulls the trigger?

I say if it is OK to shoot the Columbians, then Partial ought to be executed too. Its impossible to judge a person in the middle of an apparent crime, well, other than to take note of the basics like their age, size, and race.

I'm saying that it is rather easy to distinguish Partial (sorry, dude) from a member of a Columbian crime ring. I can guarantee you the Columbian will act with more purpose, confidence and in likely a more aggressive manner. If Partial is stealing beer and then comes into my yard approaching me, then it's my call and he's an idiot for not listening to someone with a shotgun telling him to freeze.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm saying that it is rather easy to distinguish Partial (sorry, dude) from a member of a Columbian crime ring. I can guarantee you the Columbian will act with more purpose, confidence and in likely a more aggressive manner. If Partial is stealing beer and then comes into my yard approaching me, then it's my call and he's an idiot for not listening to someone with a shotgun telling him to freeze.

How do you know the "columbian crime ring" guys aren't just stupid pool cleaners stealing from a client?

Would you feel justified in shooting Partial for stealing beer? Why or why not? Should you go to jail for doing it?

[MJZiggy]

When the stupid pool cleaners come onto my property and ignore me when I say "freeze," they (and Partial) become target practice. Moot point anyway, I keep dogs not guns. They make the decisions for me. But if I had a gun, I have the right to defend myself and my property. If they came onto his property, he was justified in defending himself.

No, I'm not going to shoot them over beer if they're walking away (ok, maybe a shot in the ass to give them something to think about), but my impression was that this is not what happened. The fact is that the grand jury chose not to indict. This means that whatever defense he gave was credible.

[mraynrand]

What happens a lot with these types of stories is that people sit and discuss in the comfort of their safe living rooms and speculate on how much force was necessary, whether you should wait for the cops etc. But how many have actually had to confront criminals? How the hell do you know if they're a first time kid, a hardened criminal, or a Jean Valjean type, desperately trying to save themselves or their family. The point is you don't know and if you take time for sympathy, you might end up dead yourself. You might anyway. You could also kill a pretty minor criminal too, and feel regret and/or suffer PTSD the rest of your life. All those things happen. But you just don't know.

An example. My uncle is a cop in northern Wisconsin. Often, they get Chicago crooks coming up who target a specific item - dirt bikes, DVRs, etc. And actually fill a van with the stuff. On a routine traffic stop for speeding, my uncle pulls over a Ryder van with a young guy (maybe 20-25ish) wearing a college baseball cap, clean-shaven. Guy talks to my Uncle, tells him he's a student returning from college with his stuff, gives him his license, and as my uncle returns to the squad car to run the license, he pull a gun and starts shooting. My uncle is lucky and isn't hit - gets back to his squad car, and starts shooting from behind his door. After exchanging fire for several minutes - with reloading, the 'kid' finally stops shooting. Backup arrives - they find the van stuffed with stolen shit and they check out the 'kid' - my uncle shot him 12 times. 11 fucking times and the guy was still alive and shooting. Turns out he was a first time offender. Nice kid. Good grades.

[Scott Campbell]

Actually Scott has a point here.



LOL


You say this like its the first time ever!

[MJZiggy]

Sounds like a therapist's dream. How has your uncle handled it? What'd the kid try to shoot the cop for? He likely wouldn't have spent that much time in Ripon.

[mraynrand]

Actually Scott has a point here.



LOL


You say this like its the first time ever!

With 6431 posts, the law of averages says that you must at least have had one point.

[Scott Campbell]

Perhaps the dudes had the right to due process........



I don't think they had any right to due process during the commission of the crime. If they had been safely apprehended, then they'd deserve due process.

[Scott Campbell]

Actually Scott has a point here.



LOL


You say this like its the first time ever!

With 6431 posts, the law of averages says that you must at least have had one point.


So what you're saying is, keep an eye out for post #12,862 - my next gem.

[Zool]

Actually Scott has a point here.



LOL


You say this like its the first time ever!

With 6431 posts, the law of averages says that you must at least have had one point.


So what you're saying is, keep an eye out for post #12,862 - my next gem.

I think I'll set the over/under at 9700.

[SkinBasket]

Again, you fail to acknowledge that he had a choice..he put himself in danger.

I think this is where the hiding in the closet comments come from. Some felon comes along and says, "I'm taking your neighbor/friend's shit. Now fuck off before I take your shit." Joe Horn says, "Like fuck you are." You say, "OK. I'll be in the closet. Please just don't hurt me."

People who wouldn't hide in the closet tend to be somewhat repulsed by the closet crowd. It's nothing personal and probably has a lot to do with the flight/fight response, which may or may not correlate roughly to the tendency to be conservative or republican on gun issues.

[Harlan Huckleby]

When the stupid pool cleaners come onto my property and ignore me when I say "freeze," they (and Partial) become target practice.

The pool cleaner doesn't speak English. So he panics and runs away. Do you shoot him in the back like Joe Horn did?


The fact is that the grand jury chose not to indict. This means that whatever defense he gave was credible.

Or the jury was like some of the posters in this thread. Criminals deserve to be shot dead.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm taking the over.

[Scott Campbell]

When the stupid pool cleaners come onto my property and ignore me when I say "freeze," they (and Partial) become target practice.

The pool cleaner doesn't speak English. So he panics and runs away. Do you shoot him in the back like Joe Horn did?



What was he wearing? Sprinting, or just jogging?

[MJZiggy]

When the stupid pool cleaners come onto my property and ignore me when I say "freeze," they (and Partial) become target practice.

The pool cleaner doesn't speak English. So he panics and runs away. Do you shoot him in the back like Joe Horn did?


The fact is that the grand jury chose not to indict. This means that whatever defense he gave was credible.

Or the jury was like some of the posters in this thread. Criminals deserve to be shot dead.

As to the pool cleaner, ALTA! Besides, I'm not yelling stop if he's running away. I'm yelling stop and no if he's approaching. Most of the world's people (especially those in my neighborhood (and in Texas) know the word no. Maybe they feel criminals in the act and posing as a threat need to be shot.

I still feel guilty about accidentally running over a squirrel in 1991. I think Mr. Horn, having already expressed remorse, will have this on his mind for a while and have plenty of time to think about what he's done.

[Scott Campbell]

You say, "OK. I'll be in the closet. Please just don't hurt me."


Yeah, you think it's safe in the dark closet. Until you realize Harlan is already in there when he whispers "hold me". I'd rather take my chances with the Columbians.

[MJZiggy]

You say, "OK. I'll be in the closet. Please just don't hurt me."


Yeah, you think it's safe in the dark closet. Until you realize Harlan is already in there when he whispers "hold me".

Dammit, Scott!! Now I'm gonna have nightmares!

[Zool]

You say, "OK. I'll be in the closet. Please just don't hurt me."


Yeah, you think it's safe in the dark closet. Until you realize Harlan is already in there when he whispers "hold me".

Dammit, Scott!! Now I'm gonna have nightmares!

I think you'll be fine. You've got girl germs.

[Scott Campbell]

Great signature - I laughed like hell at that comment too.

[Scott Campbell]

Would you feel justified in shooting Partial for stealing beer?



Partial better be a little paranoid about picking up the wrong beer cup at the poster's game.

[MJZiggy]

Are you coming to the game, Scott?

[texaspackerbacker]

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 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820028,00.html?imw=Y)

A big AMEN to that! And it ain't just Texas. The subtle implication of the jury's verdict in the O.J. case was that the victims "needed killin'". As I said, the principle of Jury Nullification is very real. Somebody may be guilty by the letter of the law, but if the jury--a cross section of good normal Americans in most cases--thinks what the guy did was OK, the law be damned. They can find him not guilty.

One disgusting trend in this country--mainly due to liberal courts (that fact will undoubtedly be proven in this forum by who disagrees that this is a bad thing)--is the steady erosion of property rights. It used to be that if somebody trespassed on your property, you had a virtual license to kill. Gradually, it has gotten to the point where idiots talk about "locking yourself in your bedroom", presumably while the bad guy ransacks your house.

The cure for this malady is Jury Nullification--the idea that if you blow somebody away for messing with your stuff, you either won't be found guilty in a jury trial, or you will get a slap on the wrist for a sentence. And that is a good thing!

[bobblehead]

I noticed something here. Texaspackerbacker was noticably absent from posting during joe horns arraignment.....hmmm.....grumpy old man with a shotgun?? Anyone...bueller?? anyone??

[Deputy Nutz]

I'm saying that it is rather easy to distinguish Partial (sorry, dude) from a member of a Columbian crime ring. I can guarantee you the Columbian will act with more purpose, confidence and in likely a more aggressive manner. If Partial is stealing beer and then comes into my yard approaching me, then it's my call and he's an idiot for not listening to someone with a shotgun telling him to freeze.

How do you know the "columbian crime ring" guys aren't just stupid pool cleaners stealing from a client?

Would you feel justified in shooting Partial for stealing beer? Why or why not? Should you go to jail for doing it?

I can't believe you went back. You did.

[Scott Campbell]

Are you coming to the game, Scott?

Unfortunately, no. Not unless I stop traveling for work. So you'll just have to find someone else to give a wedgie to.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820028,00.html?imw=Y)

A big AMEN to that! And it ain't just Texas. The subtle implication of the jury's verdict in the O.J. case was that the victims "needed killin'".

I would say the all-black jury in the OJ case was angry about the LA police's past history of racism. So they made a statement. Although the Joe Horn case was not quite so racially charged, the jury was angry about crime, police ineffectiveness, and trouble-making illegal immigrants, so they too ingnored the facts and made a statement.

If there was credible evidence that Joe Horn acted in self defense, this story would be boring, it wouldn't have gotten national attention. But Joe Horn announced he was going to kill the dudes when he spotted them crawling around his neighbors property, and he shot them in the back as they were fleeing. Now we got something to talk about!

I think some people will agree with what Joe did, even if they honestly face the facts.

[Scott Campbell]

Although the Joe Horn case was not quite so racially charged, the jury was angry about crime, police ineffectiveness, and trouble-making illegal immigrants, so they too ingnored the facts and made a statement.



Or, they realized there was zero chance of a conviction based on current Texas statutes, so they simply did not even bother to indict him.


You presume to know way too much Harlan.

[Harlan Huckleby]

whether it is Texas law or the jury that allows someone to get away with murder is not important. wrong is wrong.

[Zool]

And your opinion of right and wrong should be the gold standard? Is that the idea?

[Harlan Huckleby]

And your opinion of right and wrong should be the gold standard? Is that the idea?

umm, no. that's why we have something to discuss.

[Zool]

But your level of discussion does not seem to bend at all. Anyone suggests anything contrary to you is immediately rebuffed. Could just be my perception however.

[Harlan Huckleby]

i'm open to difference of opinion. I am a real SOB in trying to get people to explain their views. Sometimes I think people are reacting on emotion, rather than thinking things through. A sure sign is when they won't explain their position, but just try and insult you.

[SkinBasket]

A sure sign is when they won't explain their position, but just try and insult you.

People insult you because they explain their position and you pretend you don't understand it in any other way than the way you misconstrue it to fit your argumentative needs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

SkinBasket, case in point. You have yet to say a word about when you think deadly force is justified. I asked you to compare what Joe Horn did to shooting teenagers stealing beer, and you just repeated your complaints about the deviousness of the question.

[Scott Campbell]

SkinBasket, case in point. You have yet to say a word about when you think deadly force is justified.


Ok. I'll admit it. I'm a bit jealous. Harlan doesn't hang on my every word like that.

Skinbasket - you ho bag.

[SkinBasket]

SkinBasket, case in point. You have yet to say a word about when you think deadly force is justified. I asked you to compare what Joe Horn did to shooting teenagers stealing beer, and you just repeated your complaints about the deviousness of the question.

No shit it's a case in point. If you had just used my name the first time, we would have gotten here more directly you twatberry.

Why the fuck would I compare what Joe Horn did to shooting teenagers stealing beer? Because you decided that somehow these two things are tangentially comparable?

Joe Horn acted within the law. You trying to attach wildly misconceived motivations to his actions doesn't change that.

[texaspackerbacker]

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 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820028,00.html?imw=Y)

A big AMEN to that! And it ain't just Texas. The subtle implication of the jury's verdict in the O.J. case was that the victims "needed killin'".

I would say the all-black jury in the OJ case was angry about the LA police's past history of racism. So they made a statement. Although the Joe Horn case was not quite so racially charged, the jury was angry about crime, police ineffectiveness, and trouble-making illegal immigrants, so they too ingnored the facts and made a statement.

If there was credible evidence that Joe Horn acted in self defense, this story would be boring, it wouldn't have gotten national attention. But Joe Horn announced he was going to kill the dudes when he spotted them crawling around his neighbors property, and he shot them in the back as they were fleeing. Now we got something to talk about!

I think some people will agree with what Joe did, even if they honestly face the facts.

Yeah, let's re-open the O.J. case. If I was on that jury, I'd have been just looking for an excuse to acquit. Why? Because certain things just seem like very justifiable reasons to kill--coming on MY property, messing with MY woman--even after a divorce in the case of O.J., etc.

Wrong is wrong, Harlan? And whose definition of "wrong" is that "wrong" which is "wrong"? I and a helluva lot of other people apparently are open to a whole lot more in the line of justifications than you are.

THAT is why Jury Nullification is such a great thing. It defeats the elite effete liberals who think they have a monopoly on knowledge of right and wrong, and who would stick it to good normal people just upholding a simpler and just as worthy set of values.

[twoseven]

Wow, I'm late to this string, thought it was about the WR that used to play for the Saints. :D

My attempt at answering based on legal as far as I know from what my cop brother and cop friends have told me. I could be wrong about some or many, but I think they're accurate answers:

It's Ok to use deadly force inside of your home to defend yourself against someone trying to actually harm you or your family, most likely with a weapon of some kind. Your lawn? Same as inside the house I think, but they better approach you and you cannot follow them out of the house if they flee to shoot them. If they are unarmed inside or out and not really a threat to your life? No, you cannot start blasting to kill. If they run away, you chase them to kill them? No. Your neighbor is being robbed and the neighbor is not there? No. Your neighbor is about to be killed on their lawn and you run over to help without the neighbor screaming for help? I don't think so, but maybe. Same scenario and neighbor calls for your help? Maybe, but you are gonna be hard pressed to prove you had to actually kill to help the neighbor. Your neighbor is being threatened with deadly force inside their home and you run over with your gun to kill the intruder unasked? I don't think you can, but maybe. Same sceanrio if asked? Same as outside answer I think, better prove you had to use deadly force. All these things are dependant upon witnesses and evidence of the intruder brandishing a weapon. These are pretty easy to get around if you are a good liar and have some weapons in your home you can plant on the perp.

The police expect you'll notify them in most cases, not play the hero yourself.

Personally, if any moron comes inside my home with ill intent that I deem is potentially fatal they'll be shot dead pretty quick and a rather large knife will be placed in their dead hand. Over and done. All other scenarios its gunpoint and 911.

[Scott Campbell]

Wow, I'm late to this string, thought it was about the WR that used to play for the Saints. :D

My attempt at answering based on legal as far as I know from what my cop brother and cop friends have told me. I could be wrong about some or many, but I think they're accurate answers:

It's Ok to use deadly force inside of your home to defend yourself against someone trying to actually harm you or your family, most likely with a weapon of some kind. Your lawn? Same as inside the house I think, but they better approach you and you cannot follow them out of the house if they flee to shoot them. If they are unarmed inside or out and not really a threat to your life? No, you cannot start blasting to kill. If they run away, you chase them to kill them? No. Your neighbor is being robbed and the neighbor is not there? No. Your neighbor is about to be killed on their lawn and you run over to help without the neighbor screaming for help? I don't think so, but maybe. Same scenario and neighbor calls for your help? Maybe, but you are gonna be hard pressed to prove you had to actually kill to help the neighbor. Your neighbor is being threatened with deadly force inside their home and you run over with your gun to kill the intruder unasked? I don't think you can, but maybe. Same sceanrio if asked? Same as outside answer I think, better prove you had to use deadly force. All these things are dependant upon witnesses and evidence of the intruder brandishing a weapon. These are pretty easy to get around if you are a good liar and have some weapons in your home you can plant on the perp.

The police expect you'll notify them in most cases, not play the hero yourself.

Personally, if any moron comes inside my home with ill intent that I deem is potentially fatal they'll be shot dead pretty quick and a rather large knife will be placed in their dead hand. Over and done. All other scenarios its gunpoint and 911.


You've covered a lot of scenarios there. Great stuff. Thank you. But what we really need to learn from this case is - would you shoot teens for stealing beer from your garage?

[Scott Campbell]

.....

[Scott Campbell]

Because certain things just seem like very justifiable reasons to kill--coming on MY property, messing with MY woman--even after a divorce in the case of O.J., etc.



:shock:

:shock:

:shock:


I guess ex-wives count as personal property down by you.


Note to self: Remember this comment for getting out of jury duty.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't know, Scott. I never had an ex-wife. I really can empathize with O.J., though.

Twoseven, good job of summarizing what current law in that area has evolved into. My point, though, is that in the jury trial system, if even a few, really even if one person on the jury is sympathetic to the defendant, all that legal stuff goes out the window--as well it should, IMO. Most of those scenarios you mentioned as legal no-no's would present VERY sympathetic defendants--to me, and I think, to the great many other good normal Americans.

[twoseven]

You've covered a lot of scenarios there. Great stuff. Thank you. But what we really need to learn from this case is - would you shoot teens for stealing beer from your garage?Sorry, nine pages was too much for me to get into, I had to wing it. Fuck no, I wouldn't shoot some kids for getting after my beer. I would shoot some asshole who would shoot some kids for something as harmless as that, I think. Too many cowboys out there that think they have endless rights when they are in their house or on their front porch. Gun and property owners need to ask the police exactly what they can and cannot do when these things arise. That old west mentality is asking for trouble. Old Joe Horn could have gotten himself capped just as easily (for no reason) by his actions.

[twoseven]

I don't know, Scott. I never had an ex-wife. I really can empathize with O.J., though.

Twoseven, good job of summarizing what current law in that area has evolved into. My point, though, is that in the jury trial system, if even a few, really even if one person on the jury is sympathetic to the defendant, all that legal stuff goes out the window--as well it should, IMO. Most of those scenarios you mentioned as legal no-no's would present VERY sympathetic defendants--to me, and I think, to the great many other good normal Americans.My answers are based on things not going to trial in the first place, that's one guarantee you won't be worrying about a jury's decision. Also, it's a stretch to think the lawyers won't weed out these sympathizers with rounds and rounds of questions as they select the jury from the pool. I still say some people take too many liberties, thinking their rights extend further than they actually do, and act on them without knowing if it's ok. This to me is just as harmful and dangerous as some punk kids stealing things.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

From the other thread:


...is that not a death sentence? Did he not carry it out?



Ok Mr. Bigguns. A death sentence is handed down by the state, and carried out by the state. Those two dudes just got themselves shot in a botched robbery attempt. There's a HUGE difference - even in crackhead land.

Don't be stupid here Ty.

A better analogy of a death sentence would be you trying to defend your silly statement.




And I'll add this - Joe Horn's actions don't fit my definition of carrying out a death sentence. I doubt any legal professional would accept your crazy ass use of the term. If you want to broaden the meaning so wide that it could possibly include this, well then God bless you. It certainly adds a dramatic flair to what happened. It's emotional, inflamatory rhetoric. I imagine that if the Lifetime channel were to make a made for tv movie sympathetic to the convicted felons, that they might try and pull on delicate heart strings with a term like "death sentence" in describing Joe Horn's actions.

Your definition. LOL

Perhaps you should join the rest of america.

www.imdb.com/title/tt0804461

[Freak Out]

The grand jury did it's job in the case of Joe Horn...the new Texas castle laws protect that type of action whether you believe it was justified or not.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The grand jury did it's job in the case of Joe Horn...the new Texas castle laws protect that type of action whether you believe it was justified or not.

maybe so. But any law that lets you shoot thieves in the back as they are fleeing ain't right.

[Deputy Nutz]

The grand jury did it's job in the case of Joe Horn...the new Texas castle laws protect that type of action whether you believe it was justified or not.

maybe so. But any law that lets you shoot thieves in the back as they are fleeing ain't right.

come on, you are going back to the fleeing card? Criminal charges realizes man has a shotgun, starts to cut, gets blasted.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why the fuck would I compare what Joe Horn did to shooting teenagers stealing beer? Because you decided that somehow these two things are tangentially comparable?

I really don't know why deadly force would be justified when you see illegal immigrants prowling around your neighbors yard with loot, but then not justified if you see teens stealing beer. You may see them as drastically different situations, OK, explain how they are different.

twoseven just gave reasonable and thoughtful opinion.

He's no smarter than you, well, not much smarter. you can do it too!

[Harlan Huckleby]

The grand jury did it's job in the case of Joe Horn...the new Texas castle laws protect that type of action whether you believe it was justified or not.

maybe so. But any law that lets you shoot thieves in the back as they are fleeing ain't right.

come on, you are going back to the fleeing card? Criminal charges realizes man has a shotgun, starts to cut, gets blasted.

I think you'd have to be there to know for sure, that's true. If he did act in self defense, I got no problem with it.

Joe left the house with the intent to kill, after seeing the guys on his neighbors property. He shot both the guys in the back as they were running away, and both continued to stagger away after they were hit. I can't say for sure, but self-defense doesn't sound likely.

[texaspackerbacker]

And you'd give the benefit of the doubt to the criminal over the homeowner?

[Harlan Huckleby]

And you'd give the benefit of the doubt to the criminal over the homeowner?


No, actually I would give the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner. I thought the evidence that Joe went huntin was pretty clear. He said he was gonna kill um before he went outside, and he even recited to the dispatcher the Texas law code that allowed him to do so! The dispatcher let him know that the police were about to arrive on the scene, but he insisted on shooting them.

That's not right, we should allow killing only where it is necessary for protection.

[texaspackerbacker]

I say more power to him. The punks "needed killin'".

Why does it bother you so much that a couple of lowlifes like that got terminated and prevented from harming anybody else in the future?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why does it bother you so much that a couple of lowlifes like that got terminated and prevented from harming anybody else in the future?

Their death doesn't bother me a bit. IT was for the best, I'm sure those guys were gonna cause more harm to people.

That's the practical side.

But there's also principle. We shouldn't legalize murder, our system of justice is important. And its wrong to take human life unnecesarrily. And maybe the next time the people that get executed will turn out to be not so criminal.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's not a question of newly legalizing something (although I am curious about those Texas "castle laws" that Freakout mentioned). It's time honored tradition, and indeed Common Law.

On top of that, I think it falls well within the "morally OK" zone of the huge majority of people--even if you aren't one of them.

[Harlan Huckleby]

On top of that, I think it falls well within the "morally OK" zone of the huge majority of people--even if you aren't one of them.

I wonder if any of those people that are so cool with allowing people to kill in non-self-defense situations also oppose abortion out of their high respect for human life.

[texaspackerbacker]

You don't draw a distinction between INNOCENT victims and CRIMINALS?

[Harlan Huckleby]

You don't draw a distinction between INNOCENT victims and CRIMINALS?

everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law in America.

and if you don't agree with this American value, maybe you understand the notion embedded in our culture that punishment should fit the crime. We don't execute shoplifters and car thieves.

[texaspackerbacker]

You don't draw a distinction between INNOCENT victims and CRIMINALS?

everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law in America.

and if you don't agree with this American value, maybe you understand the notion embedded in our culture that punishment should fit the crime. We don't execute shoplifters and car thieves.

Actually, no. Everyone is PRESUMED to be innocent. What they actually are is what they actually are at the time the deed is done.

Car thieves have been known to be "executed" summarily by car owners with guns and a mean streak. I say that's a good thing. The only reason the same isn't true of shoplifters is because big businesses are customarily held to a higher standard of due diligence than individuals. Let some small time convenience store owner with a gun under his counter spot some shop lifter scooting out the door, and you'll see a nifty little justified killing there too--and if the law doesn't allow it, a jury of his peers will. I guaran-damn-tee it.

[twoseven]

I say more power to him. The punks "needed killin'".

Why does it bother you so much that a couple of lowlifes like that got terminated and prevented from harming anybody else in the future?What HARM did they do him that deserved KILLING? How did he ID these individuals as deserving of this fate, did he figure ot they needed to die by merely looking at them as they were running away? If it was nighttime how good of a look did he get, they could have been stupid kids dicking around. Hypothetically, if these were some kids being stupid all he did was shoot some kids in the back for no good reason. They could have been friggin neighbor kids.. a similar incident happened in MN not too long ago, an old coot shot and killed and intruder WHO DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON and DID NOT THREATEN THE OLD MAN and he killed him, it turned out to be a neighbor kid who meant to harm and was being young and stupid entering his home at night. You may think that the kid entering the home at night was reason enough to kill, I don't. You may also think that none of your kids, none of your neighbor kids, or no kids period that you know of would ever do something young and stupid like enteringt someone's home out of curiousity or on a dare. Good for you if that's your world, I know good kids that still do stupid shit from time to time. I hardly see this as a reason to shoot them. In the end, if said person has no weapon, does not threaten me, and runs away from me if I prodcue a gun..for all that is still sane in this world, why the fuck would I then try to kill them? Back to Horn..that they didn't threaten him with a weapon AND turned and ran away is exactly the reason he should NOT have shot them. Being pissed off and/or scared, while not actually being threatend with deadly force, is NOT good enough reason to take a life, regardless of what you may think of the person who's life you are taking. Unless you've actually been in a position to take someon's life, especially someone without a weapon that is trying to run away from you, how in the hell do you know what you'd do? Eastwood said it well in The Unforgiven..'it's a hell of a thing, killng a man. You take away all they are, all that they'll ever be..' Real life ain't a damn video game where you can hit the reset button.

[mraynrand]

a similar incident happened in MN not too long ago, an old coot shot and killed and intruder WHO DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON and DID NOT THREATEN THE OLD MAN and he killed him, it turned out to be a neighbor kid who meant to harm and was being young and stupid entering his home at night.

If you don't want to get shot dead, stay out of old people's homes at night when you aren't invited. I can say with 100% confidence that had that kid not entered the old man's house, the old man wouldn't have shot him.

[SkinBasket]

Why the fuck would I compare what Joe Horn did to shooting teenagers stealing beer? Because you decided that somehow these two things are tangentially comparable?

I really don't know why deadly force would be justified when you see illegal immigrants prowling around your neighbors yard with loot, but then not justified if you see teens stealing beer. You may see them as drastically different situations, OK, explain how they are different.

Of course they're completely the same... when you ignore as many important details as you do to render the situations comparable. That's your bag though. Ignore what doesn't fit your opinion and blow everything else out of proportion so that now we have a virtual legion of dead teens at the hands of Joe Horn.

Why not just make it babies stealing beer? Or puppies? Maybe retarded baby puppies? That's the effect your going for after all. Might as well go all the way.

[Scott Campbell]

I wonder if any of those people that are so cool with allowing people to kill in non-self-defense situations also oppose abortion out of their high respect for human life.


Were these unborn babies stealing beer?

[Scott Campbell]

You may think that the kid entering the home at night was reason enough to kill, I don't.


The homeowner has no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine whether the home intrusion was going to end harmlessly, or in the death of said homeowner. It's reasonable to shoot first and ask questions later during a home invasion, because you are reasonably in a kill or be killed situation. Just ask Sean Taylor who was killed by a kid in a home invasion. And that's exactly why the law of this land will excuse these kinds of things as justifiable self defense.

Is it sad? Hell ya. But that homeowner didn't kill that kid - Darwin did.

[Scott Campbell]

I thought the evidence that Joe went huntin was pretty clear.


If it were pretty clear, he would have at the very least been indicted. But they didn't even indict the guy.

[Scott Campbell]

I really don't know why deadly force would be justified when you see illegal immigrants prowling around your neighbors yard with loot, but then not justified if you see teens stealing beer.



Oh look, more race baiting. Such a lovely debate tactic.

[SkinBasket]

I thought the evidence that Joe went huntin was pretty clear.


If it were pretty clear, he would have at the very least been indicted. But they didn't even indict the guy.

Fortunately, Harlan doesn't let the evidence stand in the way of his evidence.

[Scott Campbell]

We don't execute shoplifters and car thieves.



I see. So if we don't agree with Harlan's righteous way of thinking, we must be for executing shoplifters.

Such a lovely debate tactic.

What's really funny is how you act like it's so mysterious that people attack you personally. Gee - I wonder why?

[mraynrand]

Is it sad? Hell ya. But that homeowner didn't kill that kid - Darwin did.

I always thought Darwin had the look of a killer.

http://uk.gizmodo.com/charles_darwin_l.jpg

[mraynrand]

I thought the evidence that Joe went huntin was pretty clear.


If it were pretty clear, he would have at the very least been indicted. But they didn't even indict the guy.

Well, there was the curious way he was dressed...

http://www.ndtourism.com/uploads/highres/145/gl-hunter%20and%20dog%20Jason%20Berger.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why the fuck would I compare what Joe Horn did to shooting teenagers stealing beer? Because you decided that somehow these two things are tangentially comparable?

I really don't know why deadly force would be justified when you see illegal immigrants prowling around your neighbors yard with loot, but then not justified if you see teens stealing beer. You may see them as drastically different situations, OK, explain how they are different.

Of course they're completely the same... when you ignore as many important details as you do to render the situations comparable. That's your bag though. Ignore what doesn't fit your opinion and blow everything else out of proportion so that now we have a virtual legion of dead teens at the hands of Joe Horn.

Why not just make it babies stealing beer? Or puppies? Maybe retarded baby puppies? That's the effect your going for after all. Might as well go all the way.

you are unwilling to have an intelligent conversation. you just resort to mockery, and never face the substance of the question.

darn you, Skinbasket!

I'll try again: you observe some teens stealing something out of your neighbor's garage. Is it OK to shoot them? you see what appears to be criminal-types stealing something out of your neighbors garage, is the situation any different?

[Harlan Huckleby]

If it were pretty clear, he would have at the very least been indicted. But they didn't even indict the guy.[/quote]


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 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820028,00.html?imw=Y)

[Harlan Huckleby]

The dirty little secret is that there is probably very little difference of opinion over the principles involved here. That is shown in the poll results.

Ya, there are a few people who said "go ahead and kill whenever you see ANY illegal activity", but those people are either: A) insincere wise guys, B) unimaginably stupid, or C) psychopathic killers. I'm guessing that most or all fall into category A.

If someone really believes that Joe acted in self-defense, then there is no disagreement on the issues. But I wonder if you believe this because you want to so badly. Just like the OJ jury bought the police conspiracy argument because they wanted so badly to believe.

For instance: Joe says he is going to "kill 'um" when he watches the Columbians crawling around next door. They aren;t any threat to him at that point. If you believe Joe was a self-defense guy, you must think he meant something different than what he said. By "kill" he meant "arrest" or "scare-off." I say you're full of it.

[SkinBasket]

you are unwilling to have an intelligent conversation.

Has it occurred to you that I don't think there's anything here to have an intelligent conversation about?

I'll try again: You see a wild dog mauling a baby, making the baby cry, so you shoot it. You see a puppy lick a baby, making the baby cry, so you shoot it. Is the situation any different? Oh I forgot, both babies, the dog, and the puppy are all in a garage full of beer. Oh, and the lights are florescent tubes. 40 watt. And there's a can of blue paint in the corner. Proceed...

[Harlan Huckleby]

ok. the comparisons are just a way to get at your fundamental position. If you don't like the comparisons, maybe you will just directly explain:

Under what circumstances do you think it is justified to used deadly force?

[Zool]

Under what circumstances do you think it is justified to used deadly force?

Every time someone starts an argument just for the sake of argument. Every person that makes an annoying radio or TV ad with retards yammering back and forth. Every time Bob and Tom laugh into their mic 3 times as loud as the comedian we are trying to listen to.

[SkinBasket]

Under what circumstances do you think it is justified to used deadly force?

You're getting close.

[Harlan Huckleby]

:lol:

ok, I won't press you to give serious answers in the future.

[twoseven]

You may think that the kid entering the home at night was reason enough to kill, I don't.


The homeowner has no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine whether the home intrusion was going to end harmlessly, or in the death of said homeowner. It's reasonable to shoot first and ask questions later during a home invasion, because you are reasonably in a kill or be killed situation. Just ask Sean Taylor who was killed by a kid in a home invasion. And that's exactly why the law of this land will excuse these kinds of things as justifiable self defense.

Is it sad? Hell ya. But that homeowner didn't kill that kid - Darwin did.You better prove they were intending to and could have harmed you if you kill them, or it's you that may end up in jail. It's not so simple as they were in my home so I killed them.

Those that entered Taylor's home did so to ROB Taylor and were prepared to KILL IF NEED BE. It was PRE-MEDITATED, they planned it out ahead of time after casing his home at a party (?). They broke in WITH WEAPONS and WITH INTENT TO DO HARM. The kid I mentioned was sneaking around in the neighborhood 'haunted house' out of curiousity without weapons and without intent to rob or do harm. The old man shot him from a distance before the kid could do anything, I don't think the kid even knew what happend. No warning, no get the fuck out of my house-I have a gun, just a gunshot. These situations couldn't be more different. If Taylor saw them coming and blasted their ass like the old man did, it would have been perfectly ok and legal. Shooting an unarmed and unwary intruder is not the same.

It appears we differ in opinion, there's no need to go round and round. I know what I would do and you know what you would do. Fair enough.

[SkinBasket]

:lol:

ok, I won't press you to give serious answers in the future.

You're not pressing anyone for serious answers. You're pressing for answers that fit your opinion, either in the affirmative or the negative.

[SkinBasket]

Shooting an unarmed and unwary intruder is not the same.

Unwary intruder? Is that like an accidental murderer? Or a naive rapist?

Once they break in, they are a threat and they are a criminal, regardless of how aware of their surroundings they are. Asking that home owners scout out the intruder to take an inventory of the intruder's arsenal or announce their presence and intentions to a criminal before defending themselves or their property is ridiculous. The "intruders" certainly don't seem to be under the same obligation you propose.

It seems your basing your opinions about this on a lot of information that was discovered after the fact, instead of what the homeowners knew at the terrifying moment someone discovers an intruder in their home in the middle of the night.

[twoseven]

Shooting an unarmed and unwary intruder is not the same.

Unwary intruder? Is that like an accidental murderer? Or a naive rapist?

Once they break in, they are a threat and they are a criminal, regardless of how aware of their surroundings they are. Asking that home owners scout out the intruder to take an inventory of the intruder's arsenal or announce their presence and intentions to a criminal before defending themselves or their property is ridiculous. The "intruders" certainly don't seem to be under the same obligation you propose.

It seems your basing your opinions about this on a lot of information that was discovered after the fact, instead of what the homeowners knew at the terrifying moment someone discovers an intruder in their home in the middle of the night.Do you own a gun? Have you ever shot and killed an animal? Would you kill someone if they broke in your home?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hi God...it's me tyrone.

If it isn't too much trouble..can you have tex trespass on my lawn. I promise to put him down mercifully.

Your humble servant..tyrone.

P.S. Sorry for stealing from the collection plate...i just really needed a rock. I'm sure you understand.

[Deputy Nutz]

Shooting an unarmed and unwary intruder is not the same.

Unwary intruder? Is that like an accidental murderer? Or a naive rapist?

Once they break in, they are a threat and they are a criminal, regardless of how aware of their surroundings they are. Asking that home owners scout out the intruder to take an inventory of the intruder's arsenal or announce their presence and intentions to a criminal before defending themselves or their property is ridiculous. The "intruders" certainly don't seem to be under the same obligation you propose.

It seems your basing your opinions about this on a lot of information that was discovered after the fact, instead of what the homeowners knew at the terrifying moment someone discovers an intruder in their home in the middle of the night.Do you own a gun? Have you ever shot and killed an animal? Would you kill someone if they broke in your home?

I don't have a gun that I could technically use in an urban environment, nor would I want to even if someone broke into my home. I use it to hunt deer, and a 30-06 bullet would go through the intruder and into the neighbors house across the street. Honestly if someone broke into my house with my family present I would give them one warning to stop what they are doing and leave, otherwise they ain't leaving. I would lay down my own live in a heartbeat to protect my family, and the very least buy them some time until the law would come. I am not going to guess at the intentions of someone that has broken into my home.

[SkinBasket]

Do you own a gun? Have you ever shot and killed an animal? Would you kill someone if they broke in your home?

No. The wife doesn't want one around the kids.

Yes. I grew up on a farm.

I would try. And I wouldn't ask stupid questions first or shout, "Here I am! Kill me if that's what you're going to do! If not, then I kindly ask that you leave now! Please."

I'm already at enough of a disadvantage not knowing who they are or what they're carrying to worry if I'm going to be clubbing an "unwary intruder" to unconsciousness/death or someone looking to kill my kids and rape my wife after I'm dead because I was more concerned about the criminal's mental state and motivations than the lives of my family.

Maybe you want to pass a law that requires the homeowner to sneak up and hug the intruder before taking any other action? Just in case the intruder is just looking for a little snuggle. Don't want any hug seeking unwary intruders to accidentally be killed after all.

[twoseven]

Do you own a gun? Have you ever shot and killed an animal? Would you kill someone if they broke in your home?

No. The wife doesn't want one around the kids.

Yes. I grew up on a farm.

I would try. And I wouldn't ask stupid questions first or shout, "Here I am! Kill me if that's what you're going to do! If not, then I kindly ask that you leave now! Please."

I'm already at enough of a disadvantage not knowing who they are or what they're carrying to worry if I'm going to be clubbing an "unwary intruder" to unconsciousness/death or someone looking to kill my kids and rape my wife after I'm dead because I was more concerned about the criminal's mental state and motivations than the lives of my family.

Maybe you want to pass a law that requires the homeowner to sneak up and hug the intruder before taking any other action? Just in case the intruder is just looking for a little snuggle. Don't want any hug seeking unwary intruders to accidentally be killed after all.I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you, if you want to act like a fucking prick, go right ahead. Whatever you might do in your own home, great. I thought I said as much in earlier posts, but don't fucking tell me how to act in mine. There isn't a how-to on how to handle this shit, and I am genuinely interested in what people think about it. For every person that is going to blast first and not care who or what they shoot, there are plenty of people that are going to handle it different. The law is fucked these days and defending your home can land your ass in jail if you don't handle it right, that's a fact. I have no intentions of spending any fucking time in jail because I didn't realize what my rights as a gun owner defending my home actually entail. If you want to continue mocking my opinions about this, go right ahead.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hi God...it's me tyrone.

If it isn't too much trouble..can you have tex trespass on my lawn. I promise to put him down mercifully.

Your humble servant..tyrone.

P.S. Sorry for stealing from the collection plate...i just really needed a rock. I'm sure you understand.

Thank you for making my point, Tyrone. You can sit out on your front porch gunning down trespassers 'til the cows come home, and you won't find me in your sights or any other good normal Americans either.

What you will be doing is ridding the world of a bunch of trash that "needs killin'".

Twoseven, you also seem not to be able to grasp this concept that even though the punk victims in any of these cases and others like them may not have been doing direct harm to the good-hearted souls pulling the triggers, they are the kind of people who in the huge majority of cases, undoubtedly have already and would continue to do harm to true innocents. Putting them down prevents that, and if a tiny fraction happen to not be guilty-as-sin career criminals, well, that's where the term "acceptable losses" comes in.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Dear God,

It's tyrone again. Please allow one of Tex's neighbors to sell their house. Please allow said neighbor to make a nice profit.

Please god, allow tex to welcome me to the neighborhood uninvited.

yours in eternal devotion,
Tyrone

[SkinBasket]

Do you own a gun? Have you ever shot and killed an animal? Would you kill someone if they broke in your home?

No. The wife doesn't want one around the kids.

Yes. I grew up on a farm.

I would try. And I wouldn't ask stupid questions first or shout, "Here I am! Kill me if that's what you're going to do! If not, then I kindly ask that you leave now! Please."

I'm already at enough of a disadvantage not knowing who they are or what they're carrying to worry if I'm going to be clubbing an "unwary intruder" to unconsciousness/death or someone looking to kill my kids and rape my wife after I'm dead because I was more concerned about the criminal's mental state and motivations than the lives of my family.

Maybe you want to pass a law that requires the homeowner to sneak up and hug the intruder before taking any other action? Just in case the intruder is just looking for a little snuggle. Don't want any hug seeking unwary intruders to accidentally be killed after all.I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you, if you want to act like a fucking prick, go right ahead. Whatever you might do in your own home, great. I thought I said as much in earlier posts, but don't fucking tell me how to act in mine. There isn't a how-to on how to handle this shit, and I am genuinely interested in what people think about it. For every person that is going to blast first and not care who or what they shoot, there are plenty of people that are going to handle it different. The law is fucked these days and defending your home can land your ass in jail if you don't handle it right, that's a fact. I have no intentions of spending any fucking time in jail because I didn't realize what my rights as a gun owner defending my home actually entail. If you want to continue mocking my opinions about this, go right ahead.

I'm not trying to tell you how to act in your home. If you want to declare where you are and what you intend to do, or as the case may be, not do, to someone who's broken into your home, that's your business.

This isn't about "blasting first." What happens first is that some fuck breaks into someone else's home, then someone shoots them. As far as I'm concerned, that's it. That's the end game. After that, all bets are off. I'm sorry I don't believe that once someone breaks into your home, they should be granted some special rights reserved only for home intruders. As far as I'm concerned, it's comparable to telling a woman that once her rapist has penetrated her, she must declare what steps she intends to take to stop said rape and ascertain whether her rapist intends to do her "real" harm before she uses force to stop him.

I guess I don't give a shit if killing or maiming a home intruder lands me in jail because I didn't properly ascertain what weapons the intruder was carrying or what their intentions were. As long as my family is kept as far from harm as possible, that's all that matters.

[Partial]

Do you own a gun? Have you ever shot and killed an animal? Would you kill someone if they broke in your home?

No. The wife doesn't want one around the kids.

Yes. I grew up on a farm.

I would try. And I wouldn't ask stupid questions first or shout, "Here I am! Kill me if that's what you're going to do! If not, then I kindly ask that you leave now! Please."

I'm already at enough of a disadvantage not knowing who they are or what they're carrying to worry if I'm going to be clubbing an "unwary intruder" to unconsciousness/death or someone looking to kill my kids and rape my wife after I'm dead because I was more concerned about the criminal's mental state and motivations than the lives of my family.

Maybe you want to pass a law that requires the homeowner to sneak up and hug the intruder before taking any other action? Just in case the intruder is just looking for a little snuggle. Don't want any hug seeking unwary intruders to accidentally be killed after all.I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you, if you want to act like a fucking prick, go right ahead. Whatever you might do in your own home, great. I thought I said as much in earlier posts, but don't fucking tell me how to act in mine. There isn't a how-to on how to handle this shit, and I am genuinely interested in what people think about it. For every person that is going to blast first and not care who or what they shoot, there are plenty of people that are going to handle it different. The law is fucked these days and defending your home can land your ass in jail if you don't handle it right, that's a fact. I have no intentions of spending any fucking time in jail because I didn't realize what my rights as a gun owner defending my home actually entail. If you want to continue mocking my opinions about this, go right ahead.

I'm not trying to tell you how to act in your home. If you want to declare where you are and what you intend to do, or as the case may be, not do, to someone who's broken into your home, that's your business.

This isn't about "blasting first." What happens first is that some fuck breaks into someone else's home, then someone shoots them. As far as I'm concerned, that's it. That's the end game. After that, all bets are off. I'm sorry I don't believe that once someone breaks into your home, they should be granted some special rights reserved only for home intruders. As far as I'm concerned, it's comparable to telling a woman that once her rapist has penetrated her, she must declare what steps she intends to take to stop said rape and ascertain whether her rapist intends to do her "real" harm before she uses force to stop him.

I guess I don't give a shit if killing or maiming a home intruder lands me in jail because I didn't properly ascertain what weapons the intruder was carrying or what their intentions were. As long as my family is kept as far from harm as possible, that's all that matters.

echoed for an excellent post

[Harlan Huckleby]

:lol:

ok, I won't press you to give serious answers in the future.

You're not pressing anyone for serious answers. You're pressing for answers that fit your opinion, either in the affirmative or the negative.

I don't have any idea what this means.

Tex is the only Warrior for Joe Horn who has been willing to talk about when he thinks deadly force is justified. The rest of the Warriors just use sarcasm & mockery, and beat their chests in a display of manhood.

I don't know, because they aren't talkin, but my guess is that most of the Joe Hornies base their opinion on emotion & prejudice. In other words, killing somebody is right when it feels right. And they don't want to leave their comfort zone and think any more about it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm trying to have an honest conversation with you,

Good luck with that! :lol:

[Deputy Nutz]

:lol:

ok, I won't press you to give serious answers in the future.

You're not pressing anyone for serious answers. You're pressing for answers that fit your opinion, either in the affirmative or the negative.

I don't have any idea what this means.

Tex is the only Warrior for Joe Horn who has been willing to talk about when he thinks deadly force is justified. The rest of the Warriors just use sarcasm & mockery, and beat their chests in a display of manhood.

I don't know, because they aren't talkin, but my guess is that most of the Joe Hornies base their opinion on emotion & prejudice. In other words, killing somebody is right when it feels right. And they don't want to leave their comfort zone and think any more about it.

How long have you been waiting to use that?

[Deputy Nutz]

Harlan you want a cut and dry answer about when someone thinks it is ok to use deadly force. I can't answer that with a singular answer.

[Scott Campbell]

I have no intentions of spending any fucking time in jail because I didn't realize what my rights as a gun owner defending my home actually entail.


I have no intentions of spending any fucking time in the morgue because I called my attorney to find out what my rights are instead of blasting some prick that broke into my home.

And I hear where you are coming from, and have no problem with you handling it your way.

[Scott Campbell]

......................

[MadtownPacker]

27 - I dont see how you can argue with SB's post. Isnt the safety of your family worth spending 5-10 years in jail for manslaughter? That if you even get in trouble. Doesnt matter because if you wait to see what the intruder does you have already lost unless you are some fucking six-shooter slinging speedy gunslinger.

Maybe Joe Horn could have let those guys live, maybe not but the bottom line is that they where up to no good. That CANT be denied. Because of that I stand by his decision. I think you need to go read terrible stories about families that fell prey to some lowlifes. This one happenend close by.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060624/NEWS/101100025/0/NEWS&theme=METH


"Patrick Joseph Booth, violently high on meth, invaded the home of Darren and Chastity Baker, beat Darren Baker with a baseball bat and trapped the couple in their bathroom for nearly 24 hours. He forcibly injected meth into their 11-year-old son. He looted the Bakers' home and stole their vehicle."

Maybe is someone had disposed of this animal during one of the many crimes he commited before it would have saved a lot of people of lot of pain. What if this was your family? You have to think about it like that IMO. It is you or them. Im picking me every time.

[twoseven]

27 - I dont see how you can argue with SB's post. Isnt the safety of your family worth spending 5-10 years in jail for manslaughter? That if you even get in trouble. Doesnt matter because if you wait to see what the intruder does you have already lost unless you are some fucking six-shooter slinging speedy gunslinger.

Maybe Joe Horn could have let those guys live, maybe not but the bottom line is that they where up to no good. That CANT be denied. Because of that I stand by his decision. I think you need to go read terrible stories about families that fell prey to some lowlifes. This one happenend close by.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060624/NEWS/101100025/0/NEWS&theme=METH


"Patrick Joseph Booth, violently high on meth, invaded the home of Darren and Chastity Baker, beat Darren Baker with a baseball bat and trapped the couple in their bathroom for nearly 24 hours. He forcibly injected meth into their 11-year-old son. He looted the Bakers' home and stole their vehicle."

Maybe is someone had disposed of this animal during one of the many crimes he commited before it would have saved a lot of people of lot of pain. What if this was your family? You have to think about it like that IMO. It is you or them. Im picking me every time.Argue with his posts? All I am doing is giving MY OPINION of what I WOULD DO. To me it seems like he is suggesting I am an idiot for making a distinction between two different situiations. All due respect to both of you, whom I repsect quite a bit, ity seems to me like you and he are looking at this in black and white..inturder enters home, homeowner is at a DISADVANTAGE, no middle ground, no rooom for anything to happen but homeowner kills inturder. That's fine.

I clearly stated if I had the advantage, meaning my gun and the element of surprise, and got the drop of some dumbshit out in my living room I would not shoot them if they were unarmed and once confronted they ran for the door or plain surrendered. If the two of you would do things differently if you had the advantage, that's fine. I think that spending any amount of time in jail for needlessly killing someone who I have dead to rights and subdued that is no longer a threat, considering my wife is unemployed and could do little to raise our two kids if I'm locked up, would be a pretty fucking stupid thing to do.

The examples I keep reading to the contrary are talking about someone who is actually a threat confronting a homeowner at a disadvantage. SB doesn't own a gun. He is clearly at a disadvantage if someone enters his home. Go ahead and defend yourself. I own a gun and know how to use it, and would kill in a heartbeat if I felt I HAD TO. But if I didn't actually have to..hey, good luck telling the cops I was the one that needed defense if I shoot an unaramed perp in the back in the driveway, or there's a dead kid in my living room with no weapon clinging to my Xbox. Think the police aren't going to try and figure out if you actually needed to kill someone in your home? They aren't even allowed to shoot someone unless their lives are actually threatened, usually a perp pointing a gun at them. My brother and quite a few of my friends are cops, I have heard plenty of real stories from them about all kinds of things like this. For every sad story like the one you mentioned there have been others about overzealous homeowners that fucked themselves over because they went too far with their gun in defending themselves when they didn't have to. If it weren't for some of the things that I have learned from them about gun rights, homeowners rights, defending your home, what can happen when homeowners brandish weapons and confront inturders, etc I might have a very different perspective and opinion on all of this. As I said, the law is fucked and gives too many rights to the criminals these days, but I am not going to risk getting shipped because I disagree with them if I don't have to.

We are coming at this from different sides. I agree 100% with you and him about the idea of killing to protect your family from imminenet danger or threat. I have been talking about more than just that. Don't look down on me for looking at all the angles and considering how I personally would handle a situation that was not such a threat, especially when the wrong decision made by me IN THAT SITUATION could ALSO fuck my family over because daddy is now in jail. Harlan started this whole string to try and get a measure of what and how much it would take to feel you needed to kill someone, I gave my answer.

[mraynrand]

Harlan,

It's obvious that the answer to you question is that each of us have different thresholds at which we would try to kill a particular criminal and that threshold represents our estimation of the relative threat to our lives or the lives of our families. We can debate it all we want, as a cold argument, but I suspect all of that changes when it's actually happening. For example, 2-7 argues that he wouldn't kill once a criminal is confronted and subdued - but there are all sorts of things that can happen between the confrontation and the subduing that can cost you or the criminal his life. It isn't simple cut and dry stuff. That's why I related that story about the guy who took 11 bullets and was still firing.





http://www.ghettodriveby.com/images/indiscriminantly.jpg

[SkinBasket]

Come on 27, you know I'm not trying to insult you. I talk that way to everyone here. If I find one of your opinions completely at odds with my own, please don't take my sometimes slightly abrasive refutation of said opinion as a personal attack. Like you said, we approach this from two different sides and have probably been discussing two different ideas of what's happening during an intrusion.

I just find it hard to imagine a situation where, even if I had a handgun, that I would be able to fix an advantage on someone who's broken into the house in such a way that I would feel confident enough to declare myself without feeling that they might simply turn and fire. It's most likely going to be dark, I'm going to be waking up from sleep, they're going to hear me coming from the upper level - which means they know where I am, but I don't know where they are, and I'm the one "playing" defense. They cut and run, they lose nothing. I've got everything at stake. There is always going to be an element of the unknown confronting an intruder - usually a lot of unknown. Given all these factors plus the problems fear, confusion, and adrenalin pose, I doubt I would ever be able to assess the situation thoroughly enough to know what the intruder's reaction is going to be when confronted - even if I had a handgun and I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

You're working from a position of if the intruder has surrendered or fled once you've confronted them. Maybe you're comfortable taking that chance of actually initiating the confrontation, but I'm not. That might make me a coward, but like I said before, that doesn't much matter to me given the circumstances and what's at stake. The first confrontation they'll get here is a baton to the skull.

We've discussed the handgun as home defense idea in our house before we had kids. If I had a handgun, the first two rounds would be less lethal rounds. The rest of the clip would be regular ammunition. That's my only concession to a home intruder. No confrontations. No questions. They would get two rubber rounds, then a warning to stay still or die. So i guess I'm not such a cold hearted guy after all.

[Oscar]

This has been an interesting thread to read. I grew up in E.St.Louis a place where breakins were fairly common but rarely happened where we lived. When I was 6 my family had an intruder break in. He made it into the kitchen and was greeted by my dog. The dog (a German Shepard) attacked the intruder nearly killing him. My dad who owned a gun came in called off the dog and held the man(who was armed) until the police came. The dog probably saved our lives.. At the time my brother was 4 and my sister was 6 months old.. I know not everyone can have dogs where they live or just choose not to but I'm glad we did.

[Scott Campbell]

So i guess I'm not such a cold hearted guy after all.


Tell that to the retarded baby kittens stealing beer.

[Zool]

So i guess I'm not such a cold hearted guy after all.


Tell that to the retarded baby kittens stealing beer.

He already shot them. No sense in telling them now.

[Scott Campbell]

This has been an interesting thread to read. I grew up in E.St.Louis a place where breakins were fairly common but rarely happened where we lived. When I was 6 my family had an intruder break in. He made it into the kitchen and was greeted by my dog. The dog (a German Shepard) attacked the intruder nearly killing him. My dad who owned a gun came in called off the dog and held the man(who was armed) until the police came. The dog probably saved our lives.. At the time my brother was 4 and my sister was 6 months old.. I know not everyone can have dogs where they live or just choose not to but I'm glad we did.



Harlan is going to want to prosecute your vigilante dog. He should have called 911 and hid in his dog house.

The jury will need to decide, would he have bitten teens stealing beer?

[Oscar]

This has been an interesting thread to read. I grew up in E.St.Louis a place where breakins were fairly common but rarely happened where we lived. When I was 6 my family had an intruder break in. He made it into the kitchen and was greeted by my dog. The dog (a German Shepard) attacked the intruder nearly killing him. My dad who owned a gun came in called off the dog and held the man(who was armed) until the police came. The dog probably saved our lives.. At the time my brother was 4 and my sister was 6 months old.. I know not everyone can have dogs where they live or just choose not to but I'm glad we did.



Harlan is going to want to prosecute your vigilante dog. He should have called 911 and hid in his dog house.

The jury will need to decide, would he have bitten teens stealing beer?


If they were stealing beer out of the old man's fridge at 2am..Chances are...Yes... :lol:

[Deputy Nutz]

In all honestly I think Joe Horn might have overreacted. I wasn't there I don't know all the facts. He did call the cops, but somewhere in there he decided that he had the right to shoot.

I suppose talkng about getting our own homes broken into has made me rethink the situation a bit. If somebody just broke into my house while nobody was home I don't think I have a piece of property in my house that I would kill over. I just don't, now if I had Skin's TV, and three gaming consoles that would be different story, but all that stuff is replacable. I would be pissed, but to kill over? I don't want that kind of shit on my hands. So why would I decide to kill somebody for stealing property from a neighbor? Again I don't know all the facts, these criminals could have been exremely violent, could have hurt or injured the neighbors, I don't know any of this, neither did Joe, he was scared, and angry and believed it best to fire his weapon. Mr. Horn could have justifiably felt that he was a target by these criminals, I don't know how he felt, and neither does Harlan, or Tyrone, or Tex, or Scott, or Skin.

What I can tell you, I am not going to wait and find out the intentions of bad people. If someone is attempting or committing a violent act of aggression, like breaking into your house, robbing you, threatening bodily harm, I am not going to sit back and hope everything is going to work out. So there is your answer Harlan.

[Scott Campbell]

Hi God...it's me tyrone.

If it isn't too much trouble..can you have tex trespass on my lawn. I promise to put him down mercifully.

Your humble servant..tyrone.



Better ask God to grant you a clean shot from the safety of your closet.

[Scott Campbell]

You don't draw a distinction between INNOCENT victims and CRIMINALS?

everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law in America.



And that should include Joe Horn, who you called a cold blooded murderer.

[MadtownPacker]

We are coming at this from different sides. I agree 100% with you and him about the idea of killing to protect your family from imminenet danger or threat. I have been talking about more than just that. Don't look down on me for looking at all the angles and considering how I personally would handle a situation that was not such a threat, especially when the wrong decision made by me IN THAT SITUATION could ALSO fuck my family over because daddy is now in jail. Harlan started this whole string to try and get a measure of what and how much it would take to feel you needed to kill someone, I gave my answer.It's all good man. Im not downing on you just trying to make my point that in a perfect world you might be able to stop them but if someone has the balls to break into a house there is no way to tell what else they will be down to do. Things are going to happen and they will happen fast. Giving someone who has invaded my pad any advantage is not an option. Maybe you are right, a kill first mindset may not be needed but a attack first one is.

I saw the pics you posted and I bet you would provide a good beating to some scumbag (even worse if he is mexican :lol: ).

[Scott Campbell]

In all honestly I think Joe Horn might have overreacted.


Agreed. The key word being "might". That's why there was an investigation, and it went before a grand jury to decide if he "did" overreact. The grand jury decided the case did not have enough merit to even warrant a trial. They, like you, decided not to presume that Joe just went a huntin, did it out of anger, and because of his prejudice against Columbian illegals. I doubt any of them called Joe a cold blooded murderer, compared him to OJ, or make lame attempts to equate what Joe did to killing teens for stealing beer.

I don't think anyone here claimed to know for certain what Joe was thinking, beyond making educated guesses. Well, anyone besides our usual resident "exception".

[Harlan Huckleby]

Mr. Horn could have justifiably felt that he was a target by these criminals, I don't know how he felt, and neither does Harlan, or Tyrone, or Tex, or Scott, or Skin.

His comments that he was gonna kill 'um when he saw them coming out of his neighbor's house is a pretty good clue that Joe's intent was to prevent them from getting away with their crime, not to protect himself or his own property. It is harder to interpret the scene once he went outside.


What I can tell you, I am not going to wait and find out the intentions of bad people. If someone is attempting or committing a violent act of aggression, like breaking into your house, robbing you, threatening bodily harm, I am not going to sit back and hope everything is going to work out. So there is your answer Harlan.

I don't disagree with this. I think most people would use weapons when they are threatened.

The interesting question is if it is OK to kill somebody when you see them committing a crime, like if you spot somebody breaking into a car.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Joe a cold blooded murderer, compared him to OJ

OJ is just as innocent as Joe, they were both cleared by a jury.

I think they are both murderers. They are innocent before the law, but that doesn't mean I have to see them that way.

[GoPackGo]

Mr. Horn could have justifiably felt that he was a target by these criminals, I don't know how he felt, and neither does Harlan, or Tyrone, or Tex, or Scott, or Skin.

His comments that he was gonna kill 'um when he saw them coming out of his neighbor's house is a pretty good clue that Joe's intent was to prevent them from getting away with their crime, not to protect himself or his own property. It is harder to interpret the scene once he went outside.


What I can tell you, I am not going to wait and find out the intentions of bad people. If someone is attempting or committing a violent act of aggression, like breaking into your house, robbing you, threatening bodily harm, I am not going to sit back and hope everything is going to work out. So there is your answer Harlan.

I don't disagree with this. I think most people would use weapons when they are threatened.

The interesting question is if it is OK to kill somebody when you see them committing a crime, like if you spot somebody breaking into a car.

No its not ok to kill someone for property damage outside of your home. Inside your home anything goes in my opinion. If the robber is crazy enough to break into my house who knows what else he is crazy enough to do while inside. I'm definately firing at his chest if he doesn't do what I say or makes a sudden move.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree with your take, GoPAck. But those guys with the itchy balls are startin to get on my nerves. I'm thinking of bringing charges against you for indecent exposure, a poll may be in the works.

[GoPackGo]

I agree with your take, GoPAck. But those guys with the itchy balls are startin to get on my nerves. I'm thinking of bringing charges against you for indecent exposure, a poll may be in the works.

your little blue dog and viva france location info has been getting on my nerves for 2 years.

[Scott Campbell]

Joe a cold blooded murderer, compared him to OJ

OJ is just as innocent as Joe.........



Wrong again Harlan:


On February 5, 1997 a civil jury in Santa Monica, California unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman, battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown.