Shoot um up

[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

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://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.