Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

Well maybe. But I'm not him so I've got no idea how he normally communicates.

i do. i've got his actions and words in this scenario. until someone gives me a powerful reason to think otherwise, i see no reason to believe his communication skills are abnormal and vastly different from what we've seen and heard here.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

No. I'm just trying to gain some understanding.

what's to understand.
he was told NOT to go outside. he went outside and now people are dead by his hand. if he stayed inside his house, like he was advised, no one would be dead.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

what's the difference between my decision and horn's?

you said "so there's a whole bunch of things he should have done?" i was asking what you meant by that. and then went on to show that it's pointless to act like the questions you asked (do we know him? was he fed up? had it happened before?) make a difference. they don't. if we're going to say the fact that he'd had enough excuses his killing people, then i can say i've had enough of reckless drivers endangering people so i can kill them.

Meaning that clearly he should have stayed away, done what the operator told him, not gone outside with a loaded gun when he decided to ignore the operator, not fired, not fired too many times. A whole bunch of stuff obviously if this is the outcome.

But they do make a difference a lot of time in law. Surely you have extenuating circumstances? I'm just asking if they applied here and if that's the case pointing out that most likely his lawyer will utilize them in his defence.

And seeing as how you haven't killed reckless drivers even though you've had enough, wouldn't saying that you would be considered premeditation and therefore negate extenuating circumstances anyway?

g under p

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That phone call is going to make some rather tidy evidence in court. He'd be better off just shooting the guy, and hoping that dead men don't speak somehow plays in his favor.

Or perhaps realize that his neighbors stereo and coin collection are not worth the jail time. A better weapon probably would have been a video camera, however, who knows how the retaliation thing will go.

I had to testify once for armed robbery (5 guys with guns). I actually recognized the one guy (seen him around before), and saw his face when his mask slipped down. His relatives were in the audience (court) and were writing everything down (i.e. names). I had to say and spell my first and last name for the record. I had to point right at the guy (chained to the other 4 guys in orange jump suits 10-15 feet away right in plain sight) and literally had to say say "that's the guy" I subsequently had to quit that job for fear of safety, and then moved shortly after. Honestly, the paranoia was not worth it. I still never know if one day it will come back to me.

messed up from a lot of angles this subject is,

However, those dead men could speak. As they would say on I think it's CSI, if those men had bullet wounds in the back could make a difference. It may show that those men were running from an armed man and NOT posing a threat.

Peace

Jeanie

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That phone call is going to make some rather tidy evidence in court. He'd be better off just shooting the guy, and hoping that dead men don't speak somehow plays in his favor.

Or perhaps realize that his neighbors stereo and coin collection are not worth the jail time. A better weapon probably would have been a video camera, however, who knows how the retaliation thing will go.

I had to testify once for armed robbery (5 guys with guns). I actually recognized the one guy (seen him around before), and saw his face when his mask slipped down. His relatives were in the audience (court) and were writing everything down (i.e. names). I had to say and spell my first and last name for the record. I had to point right at the guy (chained to the other 4 guys in orange jump suits 10-15 feet away right in plain sight) and literally had to say say "that's the guy" I subsequently had to quit that job for fear of safety, and then moved shortly after. Honestly, the paranoia was not worth it. I still never know if one day it will come back to me.

messed up from a lot of angles this subject is,

Roland, couldn't you just supply your name and address for the court but not actually have to say it in the presence of the court?
I had a similar problem as a witness once and was threatened so I simply asked that I be able to supply my full name and address to the judge but not actually have to say it in the court where the guy and his cronies could hear it.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

i know you weren't questioning my motivations or concerns, i was just pointing out that if horn's neighbours were home then his concern should primarily have been with them not their stuff, wouldnt you think? my contention is that he knew his neighbours weren't home therefore his focus was the burglars. wy he chose you ignore th emergency operator i don't know. but he did and he killed people. he has no justification that i can see for using lethal force. if you bring a weapon into a situation, my thinking is you intend to use that weapon.

Yeah, but who says that wasn't his concern? Are we just all ageeing he couldn't possibly have been concerned with his neighbours because he didn't mention it to the operator?
With regard to coming into the situation armed won't it depend on his intent?
Perhaps he did intend to use the weapon, but he may not have intended to shoot DEAD the burglars and even supposing he did, can we know for certain that he was aware that the family weren't home? Perhaps his rationale was that the neighbours were already inside dead?

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

Meaning that clearly he should have stayed away, done what the operator told him, not gone outside with a loaded gun when he decided to ignore the operator, not fired, not fired too many times. A whole bunch of stuff obviously if this is the outcome.

yeah, he had many chances to avoid this. but he didnt. tough shit for him. tougher shit for the people he murdered.

Jeanie wrote:

But they do make a difference a lot of time in law. Surely you have extenuating circumstances? I'm just asking if they applied here and if that's the case pointing out that most likely his lawyer will utilize them in his defence.

mitigating circumstances might get him a lighters sentence. they can't releive you of criminal guilt entirely. sure his lawyer will use them. with a little time i could come up with a great argument for why this guy is a hero. it would all be bullshit though.

Jeanie wrote:

And seeing as how you haven't killed reckless drivers even though you've had enough, wouldn't saying that you would be considered premeditation and therefore negate extenuating circumstances anyway?

yes, but it was a hypothetical. if i just up and did it, i rather doubt you'd be excusing it. or imagine this: a guy is fed up becos his wife is illegally abusing prescription meds as a result of post-partum. it is affecting her ability to care for their children. one day he's "had enough" and he stabs her to death. is he a hero? did she forfeit her right to a jury trial due to her breaking drug laws and child neglect laws? is he justified or excused for the murder becos what she was doing was illegal and he was caught up in the moment? drug abuse that causes child abuse seems a lot worse to me than burglary.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

i do. i've got his actions and words in this scenario. until someone gives me a powerful reason to think otherwise, i see no reason to believe his communication skills are abnormal and vastly different from what we've seen and heard here.

So based solely on this incident you've got him all worked out?

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

what's to understand.
he was told NOT to go outside. he went outside and now people are dead by his hand. if he stayed inside his house, like he was advised, no one would be dead.

So we should all obey authority unquestioningly and if we don't and we end up in a situation because of it we've got no one to blame but ourselves?????

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

Yeah, but who says that wasn't his concern? Are we just all ageeing he couldn't possibly have been concerned with his neighbours because he didn't mention it to the operator?
With regard to coming into the situation armed won't it depend on his intent?
Perhaps he did intend to use the weapon, but he may not have intended to shoot DEAD the burglars and even supposing he did, can we know for certain that he was aware that the family weren't home? Perhaps his rationale was that the neighbours were already inside dead?

that is the point. how did he know and why didnt he say anything? if he knew, then he should have been calling in a much more serious crime than burglary. but he didnt. he just called in a burglary. why? becos he didnt know. do you have a better reason? one that's more logical? i'd love to hear it. if not, im sorry but what he suspects or thinks may have happened does not excuse him killing somebody. what if he was wrong? do we want to encourage people to shoot first and ask questions later? we are outraged when the police do it, why should we allow private citizens to do it?

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

So based solely on this incident you've got him all worked out?

no. but i've got a pretty reasonable grasp of the circumstances and see nothing in these events to indicate any of the things you are imagining.

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

So we should all obey authority unquestioningly and if we don't and we end up in a situation because of it we've got no one to blame but ourselves?????

no. but we should should not shoot first and ask questions later.

Jeanie

g under p wrote:

However, those dead men could speak. As they would say on I think it's CSI, if those men had bullet wounds in the back could make a difference. It may show that those men were running from an armed man and NOT posing a threat.

Peace

CSI has a tricky habit of proving that even though it looks like someone was shot in the back that it's not always the case.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

Yeah, but who says that wasn't his concern? Are we just all ageeing he couldn't possibly have been concerned with his neighbours because he didn't mention it to the operator?
With regard to coming into the situation armed won't it depend on his intent?
Perhaps he did intend to use the weapon, but he may not have intended to shoot DEAD the burglars and even supposing he did, can we know for certain that he was aware that the family weren't home? Perhaps his rationale was that the neighbours were already inside dead?

well jeanie if his neighbours were his primary concern why did he not mention them? if one did not in fact know whether one's neighbours were home or not would one not err on the side of caution and assume that they were and mention them? if he thought his neighbours were already dead(even though they werent home) then surely he would have mentioned that to the operator, dont you think?

his intent was to stop the burglars. it was his intent to use his weapon to accomplish this. he did that and in doing so killed them.

g under p

Jeanie wrote:

CSI has a tricky habit of proving that even though it looks like someone was shot in the back that it's not always the case.

We shall see what the autopsy reports will show. BTW Sean Taylor appears to be responsive to doctors commands, however he has a long log way to go. He flatlined twice during surgery.

Peace

RolandTD20Kdrummer

g under p wrote:

However, those dead men could speak. As they would say on I think it's CSI, if those men had bullet wounds in the back could make a difference. It may show that those men were running from an armed man and NOT posing a threat.

Peace

Nothing worse than a dead man, than a undead man that you tried to make dead, but instead severely pissed off in the process! I'd be more than a bit worried and sleepless if I was this guy.

He might even end up having to pay money to this guy if he shot up his spine and he can't work. Forget about if he got paralyzed from it....$ouch$.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

So we should all obey authority unquestioningly and if we don't and we end up in a situation because of it we've got no one to blame but ourselves?????

where did i say that? and you know me better than that jeanie. this man knew what he was capable of before he set foot outside his house. he knew he had the capacity to shoot these men to stop them. therefore knowing that, he should have stayed inside as he was told to do by the emergency operator, who i am sure has been in this situation more times than this man has had to confront burglars.
and yes if someone tells us not to do something and we do it, who else is to blame for our actions but ourselves?

g under p

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Nothing worse than a dead man, than a undead man that you tried to make dead, but instead severely pissed off in the process! I'd be more than a bit worried and sleepless if I was this guy.

He might even end up having to pay money to this guy if he shot up his spine and he can't work. Forget about if he got paralyzed from it....$ouch$.

Way too many wrongs in the decision Mr. Horn made in confronting these men. He clearly could have made the choice to observe the situation from HIS house. He could have missed hit someone else or like you said paralyzed one or both of them.

Peace

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Jeanie wrote:

Roland, couldn't you just supply your name and address for the court but not actually have to say it in the presence of the court?
I had a similar problem as a witness once and was threatened so I simply asked that I be able to supply my full name and address to the judge but not actually have to say it in the court where the guy and his cronies could hear it.

Hindsight...I know argh. Honestly though how utterly irresponsible of them to even put me in that position. My safety for a few extra seconds of court time. I swear...sooo stupid,. #%##^!!!! Maddening when I think about how little I was thought of by the legal system at the time,

g under p

g under p wrote:

Way too many wrongs in the decision Mr. Horn made in confronting these men. He clearly could have made the choice to observe the situation from HIS house. He could have missed hit someone else or like you said paralyzed one or both of them.

Peace

Speakng of making a decision to get involved. Saturday night coming home from Thanksgiving traveling on busy 55 mph New York Ave in DC. I saw a guy in the inner lane of the 3 lane ave and I slowed and he stumbles into my middle lane and lays down in the middle of my lane 10 ft in front of my truck. If I left the scene he would have been easily been run over.

People were honking me but I put on my hazards got out and accessed the situation. He appeared to be unconscious and unresponsive but actually he was intoxicated. He spoke only Spanish, cars are whizing by and I told he's GOT get out of the street. Well, I got him to his feet then carefully walked him to the sidewalk where he collapsed.

I looked around for some help and there was a cop in his cruiser who appeared to be watching the whole thing. I hailed over and told him the situation and he said thanks he appreciated my assistance and I left.

Now I got involved mainly cause he was going to be killed if I hadn't moved him. Also, I had nowhere to go on that busy street. Mr. Horn got involved it appears cause he had a gun and maybe felt he had the upper hand and intended to make a difference with that weapon.

Would he have gotten involved had he NOT had a gun???

Peace