Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

that's big talk until it's your loot. my dad had over $20,000 in jewelry alone taken during a home robbery.

horn called the police. the police couldn't respond fast enough. they never do. the law makes us shoot them dead because if you disable them by shattering their pelvis; they can come back to sue you.
if the law says you can shoot home invaders; then he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be prosecuted. he told them to stand still; they didn't comply; and got shot. taking the phone out with him was a good move. it proves he didn't just shoot; he warned them first.
good job horn!

somehow i knew you'd be here. you got here before i could ask if this was, in fact, you. you think the victim's family can't sue him for his vigilantism?

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

somehow i knew you'd be here. you got here before i could ask if this was, in fact, you. you think the victim's family can't sue him for his vigilantism?

no; they can't. he was in the commission of a felony. he knew the law and took the risk.

soulsinging

chopitdown wrote:

maybe he should have tried a warning shot first.

or shot them in the foot after the warning? man, so many stories just make me drool to start practicing law. i cant wait to sue rednecks like this dude for every cent he has.

NoK

Heineken Helen wrote:

If I caught someone stealing my hard earned stuff... or my neighbour's hard earned stuff... well I don't know exactly how I'd react. I couldn't let them get away if I had a means to stop them... it would just kill me. The cops weren't close... they would have got away had he not done something... and why should they get away with somebody elses stuff, that they think they should just TAKE? IMO thieves are scum, the lowest of the low and whatever way we can get them off the streets, well that's what we should do. Fuck em!

What about shooting them in the leg? And since people will argue that he might of not had a good shot. It seems that he took them by surprise and therefore could have worked for a better shot and not went straight for the kill.

NoK

soulsinging wrote:

or shot them in the foot after the warning? man, so many stories just make me drool to start practicing law. i cant wait to sue rednecks like this dude for every cent he has.

Damn you beat me to it.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

no; they can't. he was in the commission of a felony. he knew the law and took the risk.

so that justifies execution by third party?

last i checked, there was a constitutional right to trial by a jury of peers and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. getting gunned down by the neighbor in cold blood violates both of those rights. funny how when it comes to the second amendment, you shit a brick if anyone impinges on it; when it comes to you first amendment right to call people nigger, you're all about the constitution; but those other amendments just don't matter much do they?

onelongsong

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

They shouldn't have been allowed to get away with it. No one is arguing that. I just think Horn was in the wrong by pulling the trigger three times, when he didn't even have to pull it once. Personally, I don't think someone gives up the right to life (even if it is in prison) when they steal something.

we are taught to DOUBLE TAP when using deadly force. in this case he should have pulled the trigger 4 times. one shot to the first target; 2 shots to the second; then another to the first. evidently he was a good shot and the first was dead by the time he got back to him.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

we are taught to DOUBLE TAP when using deadly force.

that's the point. why was he using deadly force? there's nothing here to suggest he was in physical danger or his life was at risk. he essentially just acted as judge, jury, and executioner, and decided to kill two people without trial.

NoK

soulsinging wrote:

that's the point. why was he using deadly force? there's nothing here to suggest he was in physical danger or his life was at risk. he essentially just acted as judge, jury, and executioner, and decided to kill two people without trial.

What if they were pranking their friend?

Vedderlution_Baby

Heineken Helen wrote:

If I caught someone stealing my hard earned stuff... or my neighbour's hard earned stuff... well I don't know exactly how I'd react. I couldn't let them get away if I had a means to stop them... it would just kill me. The cops weren't close... they would have got away had he not done something... and why should they get away with somebody elses stuff, that they think they should just TAKE? IMO thieves are scum, the lowest of the low and whatever way we can get them off the streets, well that's what we should do. Fuck em!

The guy had plenty of time to assess the situation. It's not like he went into his room, saw someone with his stuff and acted on impulse. He was on the phone with a dispatcher that repeatedly told him to stay inside, it wasn't worth killing someone over, or getting him self killed over. He did something alright. He killed them. We're not going to agree on this. Possessions do not equal life to me, so I do not think getting thieves off the streets by shooting them dead is a efficient and proper way to do it.

Vedderlution_Baby

Good thing one of those un-uniformed officers didn't come running from behind the house after them huh?

soulsinging

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Good thing one of those un-uniformed officers didn't come running from behind the house after them huh?

or pulled up at that moment. they see a dude with a gun executing 2 people on the front lawn, i wonder who they're going to point their guns at?

Heineken Helen

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

The guy had plenty of time to assess the situation. It's not like he went into his room, saw someone with his stuff and acted on impulse. He was on the phone with a dispatcher that repeatedly told him to stay inside, it wasn't worth killing someone over, or getting him self killed over. He did something alright. He killed them. We're not going to agree on this. Possessions do not equal life to me, so I do not think getting thieves off the streets by shooting them dead is a efficient and proper way to do it.

You give up your rights when you ignore the law IMO... why should we pick and choose which laws should protect us and which laws we can take the piss out of? Also, a lot of neighbourhoods are terrorised by these scum...there's a good chance this wasn't the first time... the man seemed pretty prepared.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

so that justifies execution by third party?

last i checked, there was a constitutional right to trial by a jury of peers and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. getting gunned down by the neighbor in cold blood violates both of those rights. funny how when it comes to the second amendment, you shit a brick if anyone impinges on it; when it comes to you first amendment right to call people nigger, you're all about the constitution; but those other amendments just don't matter much do they?

what about the right to protect life and property? maybe you recall that a felons rights are "modified". what about when a cop kills someone? do cops have different rights than other people? you may remember that we hung people for stealing horses or cattle. you may not know that if someone steals my horse; it's the same as car theft because it's my "mode of transportation". the legal wording for car theft is:
THEFT; MODE OF TRANSPORTATION.
you people back east do things differently but that's what it is here.

onelongsong

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

The guy had plenty of time to assess the situation. It's not like he went into his room, saw someone with his stuff and acted on impulse. He was on the phone with a dispatcher that repeatedly told him to stay inside, it wasn't worth killing someone over, or getting him self killed over. He did something alright. He killed them. We're not going to agree on this. Possessions do not equal life to me, so I do not think getting thieves off the streets by shooting them dead is a efficient and proper way to do it.

perfect; now we can agree to disagree. you gave your opinion of the law and i respect that. the criminals were given a chance to "freeze" and that's in line with the law.
my opinion is that criminals will think twice about stealing in that neighbourhood now.
can we be friends now?

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

You give up your rights when you ignore the law IMO... why should we pick and choose which laws should protect us and which laws we can take the piss out of? Also, a lot of neighbourhoods are terrorised by these scum...there's a good chance this wasn't the first time... the man seemed pretty prepared.

no, you don't give up your rights. otherwise we would not have trials. we would not have appeals. we would not have due process, the 5th amendment, juries, etc. if you gave up your rights, you're back to the days of lynch mobs and hanging unpopular folks from trees becos you think they're doing something wrong and enough of your fellows agree.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

what about the right to protect life and property? maybe you recall that a felons rights are "modified". what about when a cop kills someone? do cops have different rights than other people? you may remember that we hung people for stealing horses or cattle. you may not know that if someone steals my horse; it's the same as car theft because it's my "mode of transportation". the legal wording for car theft is:
THEFT; MODE OF TRANSPORTATION.
you people back east do things differently but that's what it is here.

back east? im from ohio dude.

where in the constitution is "right to protect life and property"? show me. i'd love to see it.

i do remember that we hung people for stealing. i also remember dueling was common. but guess what? things have changed. deal with it. what the hell does car theft have to do with anything at issue here?

Vedderlution_Baby

onelongsong wrote:

we are taught to DOUBLE TAP when using deadly force. in this case he should have pulled the trigger 4 times. one shot to the first target; 2 shots to the second; then another to the first. evidently he was a good shot and the first was dead by the time he got back to him.

Double Tap? I don't remember that part of Red Dawn. Must be on the super special edition dvd passed out by the government.

Collin

soulsinging wrote:

back east? im from ohio dude.

where in the constitution is "right to protect life and property"? show me. i'd love to see it.

i do remember that we hung people for stealing. i also remember dueling was common. but guess what? things have changed. deal with it. what the hell does car theft have to do with anything at issue here?

Besides his life wasn't in danger and and it wasn't even his property.

Collin

Heineken Helen wrote:

He wasn't threatened? Don't gimme that... they rob one house and get away, it will be yours next :(

And since when is stuff worth human lives? Would it be okay if a store owner shot a teenage kid because he stole a candy bar? No? What if he stole two? Or a dvd player?