Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released

Heineken Helen

onelongsong wrote:

i thought about this overnight helen and i think the burglers decided that this STUFF they stole was worth risking their lives. pickle head misquoted me because the good samaritan law says you must give aid to someone in trouble.
when i see stories like this:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4981656&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.2.1
i feel it's a citizens duty to help. i'm trying to find another story i heard on the tele yesterday where a man knocked on a door; and forced his way in. he killed the elderly man and robbed the house; but there was a 10 year old girl in the house that locked herself in a closet or something which saved her life. i'll post it if i find it. it happened in phoenix.
that's why i take my stance. the police will tell you that their job is clean-up. they are rarely present when a crime is committed. if we all ignore crime; we only enable the criminals and fortify the message that crime is ok.

I agree with you totally. Criminality is getting completely out of control and people say 'oh that's terrible' and 'it's getting out of control' but once people start putting the power back in their OWN hands... that's when the debate starts? I just don't get it... it actually makes perfect sense to me to protect your stuff!

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

IN MY OPINION! And I'm not completely against the rest either... I often say that the only good thing about the north was the punishment beatings (not the stupid ones for say catholics and protestants going out... but ya know knee capping drug dealers or giving little fuckers terrorising the neighbourhoods a good beating to show them there's one law they're NOT above). I'm sorry but I'm one of those who believe in my own justice... but again: IN MY OPINION.

move to iran. they're good about that. they'll even lash you for getting raped. but, ya know, you gotta give up a few rights to be safe i guess.

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

someone who blatently thinks they're entitled to everything belonging to other people... well ya really don't know what they're capable of... they're obviously beyond giving a shit about others for a start... and like onelongsong said... if I saw some burglars coming out of my neighbours house... would it be completely unreasonable to think their lives COULD be in danger?

tht gives you the right to shoot them in cold blood? that you THINK they COULD be in danger?

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

he was using herion on the weekends and the dealer was paid to give him pure herion. he injected it; rolled his eyes back; and died.

but at least that was better than the few years in jail your friend got, right? cos your friend's live was OVER right?

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

and that's how a debate works.

you obviously have never even been inside a law school. it's called burden shifting. you make an utterly ridiculous and untenable contention, people rebut it by exposing how unreasonable and unworkable it is, then the onus is on you to provide logical or evidentiary support for your contention (i'm sorry, you probly don't know what onus means, it means burden), which it would then be up to the opposition to refute again or accept the contention.

you are utterly incapable of doing this. you're like a 7th grader. you make a wild accusation, then someone calls you on it, and you ignore it, change the subject and talk about something different. the fact that you've got one friend whose life was ruined by a false accusation of burglary is not evidence that it is ok to gun someone down for robbing a house next door. not legally or morally.

good samaritan laws require that if someone is capable of assisting someone whose life is in danger without risk to themselves, then they must give aid. a doctor cannot walk by a man choking and ignore him. a lifeguard can't keep tanning while someone is drowning. but a guy walking out of a someone's house with some trinkets does not mean the neighbor has to come outside and shoot him to death on the front lawn.

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

I agree with you totally. Criminality is getting completely out of control and people say 'oh that's terrible' and 'it's getting out of control' but once people start putting the power back in their OWN hands... that's when the debate starts? I just don't get it... it actually makes perfect sense to me to protect your stuff!

it wasn't HIS stuff. it was his neighbor's. what about shooting the guy in the leg so he couldn't get away?

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

but at least that was better than the few years in jail your friend got, right? cos your friend's live was OVER right?

you don't mess with us. it sent the message loud and clear. all the principles in this are dead so i can talk about it. my friend lost his wife and child over this. she moved on and kept his daughter from him. it did destroy his life. he was never the same.

Collin

Heineken Helen wrote:

I agree with you totally. Criminality is getting completely out of control and people say 'oh that's terrible' and 'it's getting out of control' but once people start putting the power back in their OWN hands... that's when the debate starts? I just don't get it... it actually makes perfect sense to me to protect your stuff!

I think there are other ways, more reasonable ways to protect your stuff, like an alarm system and a vault for your most valuable possessions.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

you don't mess with us. it sent the message loud and clear. all the principles in this are dead so i can talk about it. my friend lost his wife and child over this. she moved on and kept his daughter from him. it did destroy his life. he was never the same.

don't mess with us? so you DID have a hand in murdering the guy? now you're michael corleone too eh? was the message from the onelongsong family that mr informer sleeps with the fishes?

man, you're such a tough guy.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

it wasn't HIS stuff. it was his neighbor's. what about shooting the guy in the leg so he couldn't get away?

we're taught to disable someone you shoot their pelvis. the leg is too small of a target. when you're not shooting center mass to kill; the pelvis is the second choice.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

we're taught to disable someone you shoot their pelvis. the leg is too small of a target. when you're not shooting center mass to kill; the pelvis is the second choice.

then why didn't he do it eh? he was trained well enough to double tap but called in sick on pelvis day or something?

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

you obviously have never even been inside a law school. it's called burden shifting. you make an utterly ridiculous and untenable contention, people rebut it by exposing how unreasonable and unworkable it is, then the onus is on you to provide logical or evidentiary support for your contention (i'm sorry, you probly don't know what onus means, it means burden), which it would then be up to the opposition to refute again or accept the contention.

THIS IS NOT A LAW SCHOOL DEBATE. this is a message board and a discussion between people from everywhere. if you want a debate following the rules of debate; i'll get you some links and you can go there.

soulsinging wrote:

you are utterly incapable of doing this. you're like a 7th grader. you make a wild accusation, then someone calls you on it, and you ignore it, change the subject and talk about something different. the fact that you've got one friend whose life was ruined by a false accusation of burglary is not evidence that it is ok to gun someone down for robbing a house next door. not legally or morally.

tell me what i ignored and we'll address it now. (when i'm done feeding my animals)

soulsinging wrote:

good samaritan laws require that if someone is capable of assisting someone whose life is in danger without risk to themselves, then they must give aid. a doctor cannot walk by a man choking and ignore him. a lifeguard can't keep tanning while someone is drowning. but a guy walking out of a someone's house with some trinkets does not mean the neighbor has to come outside and shoot him to death on the front lawn.

and that's what i said.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

THIS IS NOT A LAW SCHOOL DEBATE. this is a message board and a discussion between people from everywhere. if you want a debate following the rules of debate; i'll get you some links and you can go there.



tell me what i ignored and we'll address it now. (when i'm done feeding my animals)



and that's what i said.

no, it isn't what you said. you said the good samaritan law meant this guy had to go outside and kill 2 people to protect his neighbor's dvd player.

you've yet to explain how someone going to jail for theft is as bad a fate as them being dead aside from your bullshit story about your poor framed friend whose life was ruined by a conviction. no shit sherlock. but if it were so damn bad, why didn't he commit suicide? nor have you told me what message you were sending by murdering the guy who informed on him and how that was justified.

Heineken Helen

soulsinging wrote:

move to iran. they're good about that. they'll even lash you for getting raped. but, ya know, you gotta give up a few rights to be safe i guess.

how does that go along with my opinion? My opinion is that anybody who hurts somebody physically or even financially or mentally. Well I'm kind of of the vigilante persuasion... it's pretty obvious by your chosen profession that we're not going to agree on this anyway. You're quoting laws... it's my opinion that certain laws should not be followed. I know it's a more extreme case but if someone rapes your sister are you the kind to wait for 'justice' to be done? Or would you rather swift and a more fair form of justice?

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

then why didn't he do it eh? he was trained well enough to double tap but called in sick on pelvis day or something?

did he know if the criminals were armed or not?
i don't know if he was trained. i use we as meaning those who take the CCW class in arizona. i explained that earlier. he was wise not to take the risk. home invasion is considered a ruthless crime by the law and carries a 15 to 20 year sentence. thus the new clarification as mentioned in the link.
the criminals were given the chance to stand still and not get shot. it was on the 911 tape. horn was prepared to hold the criminals until the police arrived. if not; he wouldn't have said "move and you die".

i think it's best if you stay back east. you can't seem to comprehend our style of justice.

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

how does that go along with my opinion? My opinion is that anybody who hurts somebody physically or even financially or mentally. Well I'm kind of of the vigilante persuasion... it's pretty obvious by your chosen profession that we're not going to agree on this anyway. You're quoting laws... it's my opinion that certain laws should not be followed. I know it's a more extreme case but if someone rapes your sister are you the kind to wait for 'justice' to be done? Or would you rather swift and a more fair form of justice?

i dont have a sister, but if i walked in on someone raping her i'd shoot them. her life is in danger. i'd not shoot them if i saw them leaving her house with her stereo. on the flipside, if my sister got raped and they thought they found the guy, i'd want a trial to find out. this is not the same scenario. the police were on their way and on the phone with the guy and told him not to shoot them. instead, he walked outside and gunned them down, not becos he thought anyone was in danger, but becos he thought they were getting away.

what about my scenario? onelongsong and i were having a heated debate, then he said he had to run. maybe he went to hurt my family. am i allowed to kill him just in case?

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

did he know if the criminals were armed or not?
i don't know if he was trained. i use we as meaning those who take the CCW class in arizona. i explained that earlier. he was wise not to take the risk. home invasion is considered a ruthless crime by the law and carries a 15 to 20 year sentence. thus the new clarification as mentioned in the link.
the criminals were given the chance to stand still and not get shot. it was on the 911 tape. horn was prepared to hold the criminals until the police arrived. if not; he wouldn't have said "move and you die".

i think it's best if you stay back east. you can't seem to comprehend our style of justice.

i can't comprehend the ignorance of your machismo is the problem. he had the drop on the guys. i thought they had their hands full of stolen goods? unless he's up againt billy the fuckin kid, he could have killed them if they went for guns. no need to do it upfront.

you never responded to my hypothetical. should i come out there and kill you becos you suddenly had to run last night and i thought maybe you were a threat to me or my family?

oh yeah, what message did you send by murdering your buddy's informer? or have you realized you're talking empty shit and trying to disown it, hoping i'll forget like you always do? or are you realizing you've got no justification for it? careful with your morphine bud, we'd hate for the same fate to befall you... karma can be a bitch.

Heineken Helen

soulsinging wrote:

i dont have a sister, but if i walked in on someone raping her i'd shoot them. her life is in danger. i'd not shoot them if i saw them leaving her house with her stereo. on the flipside, if my sister got raped and they thought they found the guy, i'd want a trial to find out. this is not the same scenario. the police were on their way and on the phone with the guy and told him not to shoot them. instead, he walked outside and gunned them down, not becos he thought anyone was in danger, but becos he thought they were getting away.

what about my scenario? onelongsong and i were having a heated debate, then he said he had to run. maybe he went to hurt my family. am i allowed to kill him just in case?

well if you catch him in your house with a bag full of your stuff then, by all means

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

no, it isn't what you said. you said the good samaritan law meant this guy had to go outside and kill 2 people to protect his neighbor's dvd player.

you've yet to explain how someone going to jail for theft is as bad a fate as them being dead aside from your bullshit story about your poor framed friend whose life was ruined by a conviction. no shit sherlock. but if it were so damn bad, why didn't he commit suicide? nor have you told me what message you were sending by murdering the guy who informed on him and how that was justified.

prove it. plain and simple. you're misquoting me so go back and prove where i said that. me thinks you have a comprehension problem. either that or you like to misquote me trying to get a rise out of me.

at the time; i lived near chicago. if you hurt me; you also hurt about a dozen other guys. the police wouldn't act so we did. one bloke was with the hells henchmen so we were always protected. greg wanted to send this message. i never once said it was justified. in fact; i wish he never told me about it. it was his death bed confession. that and other things. what he did was murder. the streets of chicago are a tough place. we did what we had to to survive. that incident was uncalled for. he should've just beat the guy. my friend was unbeaten when he boxed golden gloves. i've seen him take down some big guys with 1 punch.
the message was that you don't mess with us. i told you before.

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

well if you catch him in your house with a bag full of your stuff then, by all means

what do you think of iranian sharia law? is it ok to chop the hands off shoplifters?