Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

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

I think so. No need to apologize though. I don't even remember what happened.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

this is why we have juries. the jury will decide if this is murder or justified. it certainly isn't murder if horn didn't fully understand the law. in fact; he wasn't charged with anything yet. so as i've said over and over; let's see how this plays out.

THIS is why we have juries? what about the dead guys? don't we have juries to determine if THEY were guilty of a crime and decide an appropriate punishment for them? the whole point of this thread is that it is bullshit that horn gets a jury for completely denying those criminals their day in court in front of a jury becos he had "had enough" and decided to serve as judge, jury, and executioner all on his own.

i'll read those 2 cases tomorrow. and don't act like you're doing research for me. you claimed a constitutional right to lethal force in protection of the property of third parties. i asked you to back it up.

i'm aware of plain english pleadings. but court opinions are legal opinions. those guys wrote a huge layman's guide to the second amendment by and for gun advocates. which is why i wanted to read the scotus decisions myself, not the authors' biased take on those opinions. i don't care to read the book myself becos i don't care enough about gun rights one way or the other to slog through 600 pages of it. but i am curious, like i said, about this right to kill people over your neighbor's property.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

you should read "supreme court gun cases" released after 6 years of research.

alberry v us
bean v us

that should keep you busy.

you might wanna check these cases again and give me a citation. according to lexis and westlaw, they do not exist. no case with a party name "alberry v. us" has ever been decided by the supreme court. there is a case called "bean v. us" which was denied review by scotus many times before receiving a decision having to do with a gun dealer being stripped of his ability to possess firearms after a conviction for important ammunition illegally.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

THIS is why we have juries? what about the dead guys? don't we have juries to determine if THEY were guilty of a crime and decide an appropriate punishment for them? the whole point of this thread is that it is bullshit that horn gets a jury for completely denying those criminals their day in court in front of a jury becos he had "had enough" and decided to serve as judge, jury, and executioner all on his own.

i'll read those 2 cases tomorrow. and don't act like you're doing research for me. you claimed a constitutional right to lethal force in protection of the property of third parties. i asked you to back it up.

i'm aware of plain english pleadings. but court opinions are legal opinions. those guys wrote a huge layman's guide to the second amendment by and for gun advocates. which is why i wanted to read the scotus decisions myself, not the authors' biased take on those opinions. i don't care to read the book myself becos i don't care enough about gun rights one way or the other to slog through 600 pages of it. but i am curious, like i said, about this right to kill people over your neighbor's property.

no; i claimed a constitutional right to use deadly force; as you put it; vigilante justice. the original post cited a law in texas which allows deadly force for home invasions. to the best of my knowledge; that law only exists in texas. it is up to the texas legislators to clarify if it includes a neighbours home.
the "third party vigilantism" i was referring to was that if i see a woman getting raped for example; and i fear for her life; i can use deadly force and kill the attacker. i was given a medal because some gang members ambushed a cop. i drew my weapon and fired on the gang members. the news reports said i saved the cops life.

the alberry case was decided in i believe 1910. he shot someone sneeking into his wifes window at night and shot him. the court upheld his right to use deadly force to protect his wife.
the bean case wasn't heard because bean drafted his own pleadings. the case was about bean; who inadvertently had LEGAL ammunition in his vehicle when he tried to cross the mexican border. although the ammunition was perfectly legal for him to posess in the us; all ammunition is illegal in mexico. bean was refused his rights based on the mexican arrest and he was attempting to get his rights reinstated.

as to juries; the dead guys gave up their right to a jury trial when they broke the law. had they been caught by a government entity; they would have had a jury trial; save any plea bargins. but just as when a cop shoots someone and it's deemed justifiable; that person gave up the right to a jury trial. otherwise cops wouldn't be allowed to shoot anyone.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

no; i claimed a constitutional right to use deadly force; as you put it; vigilante justice. the original post cited a law in texas which allows deadly force for home invasions. to the best of my knowledge; that law only exists in texas. it is up to the texas legislators to clarify if it includes a neighbours home.
the "third party vigilantism" i was referring to was that if i see a woman getting raped for example; and i fear for her life; i can use deadly force and kill the attacker. i was given a medal because some gang members ambushed a cop. i drew my weapon and fired on the gang members. the news reports said i saved the cops life.

the alberry case was decided in i believe 1910. he shot someone sneeking into his wifes window at night and shot him. the court upheld his right to use deadly force to protect his wife.
the bean case wasn't heard because bean drafted his own pleadings. the case was about bean; who inadvertently had LEGAL ammunition in his vehicle when he tried to cross the mexican border. although the ammunition was perfectly legal for him to posess in the us; all ammunition is illegal in mexico. bean was refused his rights based on the mexican arrest and he was attempting to get his rights reinstated.

as to juries; the dead guys gave up their right to a jury trial when they broke the law. had they been caught by a government entity; they would have had a jury trial; save any plea bargins. but just as when a cop shoots someone and it's deemed justifiable; that person gave up the right to a jury trial. otherwise cops wouldn't be allowed to shoot anyone.

in case one, they were invading his home. case two has nothing to do with any of this.

you do not give up your right to a jury trial when you break the law. otherwise there would never be jury trials at all, becos their only purpose is to try people who broke the law. police are allowed to shoot only in very particular instances and they are subject to close scrutiny when they do it. yes, it is up to texas to go over this law, but i think this gyu's going to be hard pressed to convince any sane jury that after calling the cops and being told not to go outside, he went out and killed 2 men who were in SOMEONE ELSE's house. deadly force is subject to very careful scrutiny and i'd be shocked if it is allowed in circumstances like this.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

in case one, they were invading his home. case two has nothing to do with any of this.

you do not give up your right to a jury trial when you break the law. otherwise there would never be jury trials at all, becos their only purpose is to try people who broke the law. police are allowed to shoot only in very particular instances and they are subject to close scrutiny when they do it. yes, it is up to texas to go over this law, but i think this gyu's going to be hard pressed to convince any sane jury that after calling the cops and being told not to go outside, he went out and killed 2 men who were in SOMEONE ELSE's house. deadly force is subject to very careful scrutiny and i'd be shocked if it is allowed in circumstances like this.

i had those 2 cases at hand. i'm not doing research for you. if someone believes they're in imminent danger; they can use deadly force. if they see someone else in imminent danger; they can use deadly force. we've gone through this entire thread and evidently; nobody knows what home invasion is. home invasion means someone is IN THE HOUSE. if nobody is home; it's burglery. the texas law allows for deadly force only in home invasions. what horn interupted was a burglery.

i wanted to see how educated people actually are. now you know the difference.

catefrances

i cant believe you two are still yanking each other's chains over this.

g under p

Now let's take a look at the case of Washington Redskins player Sean Taylor. It appears in this case this was a home invasion, someone broke in Sean heard it, grabbed a machete and confronted the intruder.

Shot fired he appears to get hit in the head and is in grave condition at the moment. This is what's being reported on the DC news stations. Here's the story on AOL @ Sean Taylor.

Maybe if Mr. Horn was next door his use of deadly force could have been used in this Sean Taylor case.

Peace

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

i had those 2 cases at hand. i'm not doing research for you. if someone believes they're in imminent danger; they can use deadly force. if they see someone else in imminent danger; they can use deadly force. we've gone through this entire thread and evidently; nobody knows what home invasion is. home invasion means someone is IN THE HOUSE. if nobody is home; it's burglery. the texas law allows for deadly force only in home invasions. what horn interupted was a burglery.

i wanted to see how educated people actually are. now you know the difference.

precisely. horn didn't see anyone in imminent danger. he went galloping in john wayne style to a situation he knew nothing of, and murdered 2 people. and that's wrong. period.

g under p

g under p wrote:

Now let's take a look at the case of Washington Redskins player Sean Taylor. It appears in this case this was a home invasion, someone broke in Sean heard it, grabbed a machete and confronted the intruder.

Shot fired he appears to get hit in the head and is in grave condition at the moment. This is what's being reported on the DC news stations. Here's the story on AOL @ Sean Taylor.

Maybe if Mr. Horn was next door his use of deadly force could have been used in this Sean Taylor case.

Peace

Check that, it appears he was shot in the leg and incurred a wound to the femur artery and lost a great amount of blood. Which appear to have led to possible brain damage. Eight days earlier his home appeared to be have been broken into, nothing was stolen and no one was home.

Peace

Jeanie

g under p wrote:

Check that, it appears he was shot in the leg and incurred a wound to the femur artery and lost a great amount of blood. Which appear to have led to possible brain damage. Eight days earlier his home appeared to be have been broken into, nothing was stolen and no one was home.

Peace

So can I ask a question?

What if the guy Horn was this guy Taylor's neighbour and he hadn't shot and killed the burglars last week and now they'd come and shot Taylor during the home invasion? I'm just curious to compare the two scenarios.

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

So can I ask a question?

What if the guy Horn was this guy Taylor's neighbour and he hadn't shot and killed the burglars last week and now they'd come and shot Taylor during the home invasion? I'm just curious to compare the two scenarios.

they'd have had a TRIAL for murder.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

they'd have had a TRIAL for murder.

Whose murder?

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

Whose murder?

the shooters would be tried for the murder of taylor.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

the shooters would be tried for the murder of taylor.

But he's not dead yet.

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

But he's not dead yet.

then assault and battery. whatever. they'd have been charged and given a trial for the crime they were arrested for committing. they'd not have been summarily executed for whatever crime a nosey neighbor imagined they were committing.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

then assault and battery. whatever. they'd have been charged and given a trial for the crime they were arrested for committing. they'd not have been summarily executed for whatever crime a nosey neighbor imagined they were committing.

Have they been arrested?

If Horn had been coming to the aid of Taylor and had shot the offenders in the process this would make it different? Better somehow? He'd still be a "nosey neighbour" and he'd still have shot someone.

catefrances

you know all this supposition is irrelevant. horn was coming to nobody's aid. HE put himself into the situation and this is the end result. no stuff is EVER worth a human life.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

you know all this supposition is irrelevant. horn was coming to nobody's aid. HE put himself into the situation and this is the end result. no stuff is EVER worth a human life.

Yeah, we know that now, but did he know that then?

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

Yeah, we know that now, but did he know that then?

he should have. he was told by the operator not to leave the house and told them he was going to shoot someone becos they were getting away.