Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released

Options
1…89111314…16

Comments

  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    onelongsong wrote:
    because it's only a story here.
    which tells you how sick the human animal is....to think its somehow civilized or okay to kill someone for some silver is sick, twisted and really sad......worse than being an animal.

    I want to be.....I want to be with...I want to be with an animaaaaaaal"
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • mookie9999
    mookie9999 Posts: 4,677
    onelongsong wrote:
    it's not my job to educate you. go buy a book and read like the rest of us had to. i haven't read "supreme court gun cases" but i'm told it deals with 12 high profile vigilante cases. i haven't processed orders for 2 days now because of this thread and i'm not going to spend any more time talking to people that won't take my research but also won't look it up on their own. this has become nothing more than a pissing contest.


    If your making the claims (vigilante justice) it's not up to us to support and locate your conclusions that it's perfectly fine to blow away neighborhood thieves, it's up to you. As to the orders you haven't processed, I thought you were retired?
    "The leads are weak!"

    "The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"

    "What's your name?"

    "FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    onelongsong wrote:
    but he will also argue that 911 didn't tell him the new law doesn't apply in this case. it's not 911s place to offer legal advice; but if the opperator had said "that is murder"; and horn continued; it would be a different story. true;

    Our law system (in continental Europe) has something called a fiction (don't know the English term if there is one) it's a deliberate destortion of reality, like this: nemo censetur ignorare legem. It means that you should assume everyone knows the law, because if not knowing the law excuses you from your crimes it would be a very easy defense method.

    I don't know whether the American and/or Texan law system has something similar.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    mookie9999 wrote:
    If your making the claims (vigilante justice) it's not up to us to support and locate your conclusions that it's perfectly fine to blow away neighborhood thieves, it's up to you. As to the orders you haven't processed, I thought you were retired?

    baby this is retired. i forward orders to the meat packer and he ships them out. i don't call that work. i watch the buffalo eat. i hire someone to shear the llamas and angora goats and sell their wool. people pay me to let them hand feed all the different animals and take pictures. i don't call any of that work. i call what i have complete freedom. it took a lot of work to get here; but this is my childhhood dream. doing what i want when i want is retirement to me.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    Our law system (in continental Europe) has something called a fiction (don't know the English term if there is one) it's a deliberate destortion of reality, like this: nemo censetur ignorare legem. It means that you should assume everyone knows the law, because if not knowing the law excuses you from your crimes it would be a very easy defense method.

    I don't know whether the American and/or Texan law system has something similar.

    you are correct. here we say:
    "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
    and i agree with that. in this case he had 911 on the phone. a simple "sir; that is illegal" would have saved 2 lives. it's hard to predict what a jury would conclude. i can pick 12 people from this thread who think they deserved what they got and aquit him. i can pick another 12 who would convict him of murder 1.
    i'm interested to see how this plays out.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    mookie9999 wrote:
    If your making the claims (vigilante justice) it's not up to us to support and locate your conclusions that it's perfectly fine to blow away neighborhood thieves, it's up to you. As to the orders you haven't processed, I thought you were retired?

    the original post stated a law which allows homeowners to shoot home invaders. what more should i have to post? my conclusions are my opinion which i tried to state; then move on. however; i answered replies which i probably should have ignored. if you want to dig into the legal system; fine; do it. i gave it up when i had my aneurysm in 1986. if you want to compare NYC to texas; it's apples and oranges. you live in a totally different world. texas has an express lane for the death penalty. what applies to where i live would never apply in NYC. it's still like the 1880's here. if the residents of NYC were armed; you'd be shooting eachother. here; we're all armed and we don't have shootings. you are right as this applies in NYC. but you're discussing a subject set in a world you know little about.
  • mookie9999
    mookie9999 Posts: 4,677
    onelongsong wrote:
    if the residents of NYC were armed; you'd be shooting eachother. here; we're all armed and we don't have shootings. you are right as this applies in NYC. but you're discussing a subject set in a world you know little about.


    Seems ironic seeing how this is exactly what we are talking about. A shooting. That's great that you're all armed. I have nothing against folks owning a gun, but when they use it like this jackyl (and according to you this isn't an isolated incident) then action must be taken. I'm interested as well in seeing how this plays out. As to what you said in an earlier post about the 911 operator having to say it was illegal, you really believe this would have stopped this guy? I doubt it.
    "The leads are weak!"

    "The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"

    "What's your name?"

    "FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
  • Vedderlution_Baby
    Vedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
    onelongsong wrote:
    the original post stated a law which allows homeowners to shoot home invaders. what more should i have to post? my conclusions are my opinion which i tried to state; then move on. however; i answered replies which i probably should have ignored. if you want to dig into the legal system; fine; do it. i gave it up when i had my aneurysm in 1986. if you want to compare NYC to texas; it's apples and oranges. you live in a totally different world. texas has an express lane for the death penalty. what applies to where i live would never apply in NYC. it's still like the 1880's here. if the residents of NYC were armed; you'd be shooting eachother. here; we're all armed and we don't have shootings. you are right as this applies in NYC. but you're discussing a subject set in a world you know little about.



    way to ignore my post.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

    This man did not act within the laws of our current justice system. We have laws in place to stop the John Waynes from picking up a shotgun midday and deciding deadly force needed to be used. We have a police force and although they leave much to be desired they are what we have to rely on. The west is not a separate country. You do not have your own laws separate from the rest of the U.S. You do not have "your" law and the rest do not have "their" laws. We have "Our" laws, which prohibits shooting a burglar that didn't even rob your own private house in broad daylight.


    .

    23 states gave me the authority to carry a conceald weapon and use deadly force. 27 states did not. so obviously WE DO HAVE DIFFERENT LAWS.
    if you're interested in case law where the supreme court upholds vigilante justice; i reccomended the book "supreme court gun cases". i'm not your daddy and i'm not going to read it to you. horn was not arrested. he may be but enough doubt remains as to whether he acted within the law. it's up to the DA to decide what to charge him with; and then up to a jury to decide if he's guilty of any offence.
    here's the link to my states CCW page on the state police website.
    http://www.azdps.gov/ccw/default.asp
    maybe it'll give you more information about how OUR LAWS ARE DIFFERENT. gun laws vary from state to state. and so does the use of deadly force.
  • Its Evolution Baby
    Its Evolution Baby Posts: 849
    Last night I had to break into my own house after locking myself out. It was very dark and foggy out. To any of my neighbors I'm sure it looked like breaking and entering. What if I had been shot dead when I left the house 10 minutes later by my neighbor with an itchy trigger finger?

    Now in most cases when you see someone break into a house its because they are buglers, but unless you are a cop then you shouldn't do a damn thing other then call 911 because you still don't know what the situations is. That is why we arrest and investigate crimes not gun down criminals in the act. Everyone should listen to cops when they say to let them handle dangerous situations. That is there job.

    Also you risk harming yourself when you use vigilante justice. What if one of the buglers was armed and shot Horn dead first? Is it worth dying to protect some of your stuff or even worse your neighbors? Just call the cops and tell them what they see. You will still be considered a great neighbor if you do this.

    A good cop never wants to shoot someone while this Horn guy took this as an opportunity to kill another human and he seemed excited about it. I think he should be locked up for this reason.
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • Vedderlution_Baby
    Vedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
    onelongsong wrote:
    23 states gave me the authority to carry a conceald weapon and use deadly force. 27 states did not. so obviously WE DO HAVE DIFFERENT LAWS.
    if you're interested in case law where the supreme court upholds vigilante justice; i reccomended the book "supreme court gun cases". i'm not your daddy and i'm not going to read it to you. horn was not arrested. he may be but enough doubt remains as to whether he acted within the law. it's up to the DA to decide what to charge him with; and then up to a jury to decide if he's guilty of any offence.
    here's the link to my states CCW page on the state police website.
    http://www.azdps.gov/ccw/default.asp
    maybe it'll give you more information about how OUR LAWS ARE DIFFERENT. gun laws vary from state to state. and so does the use of deadly force.



    Obviously you don't know about your own laws. The texas law, when describing the use of deadly force when protecting property, says it is allowed at night and when the actor reasonably believes the property cannot be recovered any other way. main problem, this happened in broad daylight. I know each state has different laws you old bag of gas, I was talking about you keep saying "well, out here we got our own brand of justice!" like you can go around dropping people at will just because you think they did something wrong that wronged you and that the whole town would form a lynch mob. that's what I was talking about.
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    Its Evolution Baby wrote:
    A good cop never wants to shoot someone while this Horn guy took this as an opportunity to kill another human and he seemed excited about it. I think he should be locked up for this reason.

    Interesting. I am not going to pretend to get in Horn's head and say that I know that he took this as the opportunity to kill, but I can see how one thinks it does seem to lean that way. Because he called 911 first, I don't think he thought "cool, I get to shoot these guys." I suspect it was more being so focused on not letting them get away that he was willing to be cavalier about taking a couple of lives. Of course, it appears that 40 to 50% on this thread would be equally cavalier about it (though I think in the situation, some may be less trigger happy than they think while praising this guy).
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    mookie9999 wrote:
    Seems ironic seeing how this is exactly what we are talking about. A shooting. That's great that you're all armed. I have nothing against folks owning a gun, but when they use it like this jackyl (and according to you this isn't an isolated incident) then action must be taken. I'm interested as well in seeing how this plays out. As to what you said in an earlier post about the 911 operator having to say it was illegal, you really believe this would have stopped this guy? I doubt it.

    i think it would have given the police grounds to arrest him on the spot; being told he was about to commit a crime. in my eyes; he did commit a crime. especially if they dropped the bag. at that point their crime was only tresspass and you can't use deadly force for a tresspass crime. unless there's an order of protection involved.
    that's why i've been saying that i want to see how this plays out. there's so many variables. day or night has nothing to do with it. several carjackings have ended with the carowner shooting the carjacker yet no charges have ever been filed against them. (in phoenix) many during the day.
    that's why i don't want to argue. it's ultimately in the hands of a jury.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    Interesting. I am not going to pretend to get in Horn's head and say that I know that he took this as the opportunity to kill, but I can see how one thinks it does seem to lean that way. Because he called 911 first, I don't think he thought "cool, I get to shoot these guys." I suspect it was more being so focused on not letting them get away that he was willing to be cavalier about taking a couple of lives. Of course, it appears that 40 to 50% on this thread would be equally cavalier about it.

    to some people; killing doesn't mean a thing. look at the gangs that require you to kill a stranger to be accepted into the gang. but for most; it's a traumatic thing. doc holiday cried when he killed his first man. it's not easy to kill and you never forget it. it haunts you for life. IMO; horn will commit suiside if not prosecuted. i don't mean to get into his head but the stats say he will. unless you know that you did it to save your life; it eats away at you.
  • Uncle Leo
    Uncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    onelongsong wrote:
    to some people; killing doesn't mean a thing. look at the gangs that require you to kill a stranger to be accepted into the gang. but for most; it's a traumatic thing. doc holiday cried when he killed his first man. it's not easy to kill and you never forget it. it haunts you for life. IMO; horn will commit suiside if not prosecuted. i don't mean to get into his head but the stats say he will. unless you know that you did it to save your life; it eats away at you.

    I don't disagree with that at all. For Horn, killing was the easy part. Dealing with it will be tough. Only a sociopath has an easy time killing and dealing with it for their first victim and I don't know how many people get desensitized if they frequently kill.

    Reminds me of "True Romance" when the organized crimal said he threw up the first time and now just likes to see the expressions change.

    Anyway, I don't know whether he wanted to KILL them or not, but I think he was so caught up in the moment that he did not really think of the implications. Afterward--yeah, I am sure it's gonna be rough and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he's had a lot of food not stay down.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    onelongsong wrote:
    you are correct. here we say:
    "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
    and i agree with that. in this case he had 911 on the phone. a simple "sir; that is illegal" would have saved 2 lives. it's hard to predict what a jury would conclude. i can pick 12 people from this thread who think they deserved what they got and aquit him. i can pick another 12 who would convict him of murder 1.
    i'm interested to see how this plays out.

    Two lives could have been saved if he simply listened to this: "Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK? It's not worth shooting someone over this. I don't want you to go out there. Don't, don't , don't go out the door."

    And I'm not a fan of jury trials.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    I don't disagree with that at all. For Horn, killing was the easy part. Dealing with it will be tough. Only a sociopath has an easy time killing and dealing with it for their first victim and I don't know how many people get desensitized if they frequently kill.

    Reminds me of "True Romance" when the organized crimal said he threw up the first time and now just likes to see the expressions change.

    Anyway, I don't know whether he wanted to KILL them or not, but I think he was so caught up in the moment that he did not really think of the implications. Afterward--yeah, I am sure it's gonna be rough and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he's had a lot of food not stay down.

    you are correct. i explained it wrong. thank you for the correction.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Could you have guessed that I would say none of them deserve any of it?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    Two lives could have been saved if he simply listened to this: "Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK? It's not worth shooting someone over this. I don't want you to go out there. Don't, don't , don't go out the door."

    And I'm not a fan of jury trials.

    good point. i'm on the fence because i'm close with my neighbours and i'd go (and have) check it out if something is wrong. i have another neighbour i wouldn't bother looking twice.

    please understand that i've said several times that i think he committed a crime. just as in most debates; i take the extreem side to get the debate rolling; and sometimes heated. except for **; i think this debate went well.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Could you have guessed that I would say none of them deserve any of it?

    yes; and i'd expect pages of research to back it up. :)
    did you get my apology?

Categories