Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

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.

as i suspected. nothing but a two-bit thug. your buddy got what he deserved when he went to prison. hopefully you will too.

you said this:
"so in short; you're taught to enable the criminals. this reminds me of a story where a woman was raped in an alley and nobody acted to help her although many people heard her screams. we now have laws that you are legally required to provide aid. i believe it's called the GOOD SAMARITAN LAW. i'll have to look it up but i can't do it today."
mentioned in the context of this discussion, what did you mean by it other than that this was required to provide aid by shooting these guys?

Heineken Helen

soulsinging wrote:

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

I'm not completely against it under certain circumstances... much like castration isn't a bad idea for repeat rapists.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

as i suspected. nothing but a two-bit thug. your buddy got what he deserved when he went to prison. hopefully you will too.

you said this:
"so in short; you're taught to enable the criminals. this reminds me of a story where a woman was raped in an alley and nobody acted to help her although many people heard her screams. we now have laws that you are legally required to provide aid. i believe it's called the GOOD SAMARITAN LAW. i'll have to look it up but i can't do it today."
mentioned in the context of this discussion, what did you mean by it other than that this was required to provide aid by shooting these guys?

i meant that the idots in the apartments should have called the police. NYC has strict gun laws and NY doesn't have a CCW program. it would have been illegal for ANYONE to interviene with a firearm.

you need to use some common sense here. instead of reading something into what i wrote then subsequently misquoting me; all you had to do was ask what i meant. it's that simple. if you walk away from a crime; how is that NOT enabling the criminals? if i knew everyone in your town would just walk away; and if i were a criminal; i'd have a hayday in your town. the same as when some illinois suburbs banned guns within city limits. the crime rate sored.

onelongsong

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm not completely against it under certain circumstances... much like castration isn't a bad idea for repeat rapists.

i agree with you. if we're not going to do anything about crime; just admitt it and learn to live with it. look at the per capita shoplifting rate in iran as compared to the us. when a system works; it should be used. i say castrate repeat sex offenders too. i became close with several rape victims when i worked with abused kids. their lives are never the same. if you walk away; you're giving that rapist the right to destroy an innocent persons life.
my dad wasn't home when his house was robbed. it's been almost 30 years and he's still not the same. it's easy for people who were never victims of crimes to side with the criminal. and maybe that's what it comes down to.

Heineken Helen

onelongsong wrote:

i agree with you. if we're not going to do anything about crime; just admitt it and learn to live with it. look at the per capita shoplifting rate in iran as compared to the us. when a system works; it should be used. i say castrate repeat sex offenders too. i became close with several rape victims when i worked with abused kids. their lives are never the same. if you walk away; you're giving that rapist the right to destroy an innocent persons life.
my dad wasn't home when his house was robbed. it's been almost 30 years and he's still not the same. it's easy for people who were never victims of crimes to side with the criminal. and maybe that's what it comes down to.

Yep, we give criminals WAY too many rights these days... if that burglar had fallen and hurt himself, he'd be able to rob even more from the neighbour. It's getting beyond control. Now soulsinging, I understand if we take the law into our own hands it's taking money from yours... and I'm sorry about that... but I'd rather my own kinda justice. I would favour a law where the victim decides the punishment.

blackredyellow

Heineken Helen wrote:

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?

but we're not talking about someone raping a loved one... of course the vast majority of us would either go into vigilante mode or think about going into vigilante mode... but someone stealing your neighbor's DVD player is worth the same vigilantism as someone raping somebody???? The guy goes outside, gets a good look or even a picture of the guys and the police can handle it, and the neighbors file a claim with their home owner's policy... No one has to die over it.

onelongsong wrote:

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".

Who knows what exactly happened, or even if they guys even moved... for al we know they could have dropped the bag and put their hands up and were shot anyway...

Heineken Helen

blackredyellow wrote:

but we're not talking about someone raping a loved one... of course the vast majority of us would either go into vigilante mode or think about going into vigilante mode... but someone stealing your neighbor's DVD player is worth the same vigilantism as someone raping somebody???? The guy goes outside, gets a good look or even a picture of the guys and the police can handle it, and the neighbors file a claim with their home owner's policy... No one has to die over it.

Who knows what exactly happened, or even if they guys even moved... for al we know they could have dropped the bag and put their hands up and were shot anyway...

But that's what I've been saying... we DON'T know! He sounds like the guy over here in Ireland who had been terrorised for long enough by thieves and had just simply had enough. Perhaps this neighbourhood was like that. The average neighbour would NOT go that far for you... so there must be more to the story. It sounds like this guy had every angle covered and had thought long and hard about it... you don't tend to plan what you're going to do in this situation unless it's something that's on your mind.

The police weren't gonna come on time... how many of us know of robbery stories? Now how many of those robbery stories have been solved? I'd say very few... police generally don't bother with stuff like that... they rarely even take prints from the cases I know about! I had my phone stolen once, I did some detective work, found out the guys name and where the police could find him AND a witness... do ya think I heard anything back? Nope. Now I know they have better things to be doing... but at the same time, if you're not gonna do anything about petty crime, you're clearing the way for much bigger crime. And if people get to the end of the tethers about police telling them they'll 'be in touch' sometimes it just gets to the stage where you think why bother?

mookie9999

Heineken Helen wrote:

and I'm sorry about that... but I'd rather my own kinda justice. I would favour a law where the victim decides the punishment.

Great decision. Nothing like a little anarchy and murder to make up for lost goods. :rolleyes:

Heineken Helen

mookie9999 wrote:

Great decision. Nothing like a little anarchy and murder to make up for lost goods. :rolleyes:

exactly! Well why should other people get to decide? Eh? Crime's done on me, I should pick the punishment... you'd be surprised how lenient I could be but I'd come up with something inventive to let the thief know exactly how much trouble he's caused.

mookie9999

onelongsong wrote:

it's easy for people who were never victims of crimes to side with the criminal. and maybe that's what it comes down to.

My cousin was kidnapped and murdered by a serial killer in 1984. I am not siding with the criminal you twat. The criminal should be punished to the full extent of the law for the crime that was committed. I've never seen (here in the states) murder/death penalty being issued for petty theft. Even the bible toting fucks who want an eye for an eye can't back up the itchy trigger finger defense that you want to back up this "good samritan" with.

mookie9999

Heineken Helen wrote:

you'd be surprised how lenient I could be but I'd come up with something inventive to let the thief know exactly how much trouble he's caused.

Therein lies the problem. Your leniency would have no bearings on what your neighbors idea of punishment might be. Once, as a child I asked my mom for a pack of life savers. She said no. I never put them back on the shelf and walked out with them. Once my mom realized this she sent me back in to explain what I had done and to return the item and apologize. Guess I'm lucky the store manager was feeling nice that day or else I could've taken one to the temple under Helen's rough justice.

soulsinging

mookie9999 wrote:

Therein lies the problem. Your leniency would have no bearings on what your neighbors idea of punishment might be. Once, as a child I asked my mom for a pack of life savers. She said no. I never put them back on the shelf and walked out with them. Once my mom realized this she sent me back in to explain what I had done and to return the item and apologize. Guess I'm lucky the store manager was feeling nice that day or else I could've taken one to the temple under Helen's rough justice.

yes, if the store manager had felt like it, should he have been allowed to execute you on the spot for the crime? i mean, hey, it's up to the victim right?

Heineken Helen

mookie9999 wrote:

My cousin was kidnapped and murdered by a serial killer in 1984. I am not siding with the criminal you twat. The criminal should be punished to the full extent of the law for the crime that was committed. I've never seen (here in the states) murder/death penalty being issued for petty theft. Even the bible toting fucks who want an eye for an eye can't back up the itchy trigger finger defense that you want to back up this "good samritan" with.

the law and 'justice' handed out just never seems to make sense to me. I mean there seems to be more thought put into how a jail sentence would affect the CRIMINAL than the harm he/she actually did. I read about so many brutal rape cases where, cos it's his first offense or cos he's 'really sorry' or whatever, that he gets a lighter sentence should something like that not be decided by the victim? It's getting to the stage here where judges are even complaining about victim impact reports and saying we should get rid of them :eek:

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

i agree with you. if we're not going to do anything about crime; just admitt it and learn to live with it. look at the per capita shoplifting rate in iran as compared to the us. when a system works; it should be used. i say castrate repeat sex offenders too. i became close with several rape victims when i worked with abused kids. their lives are never the same. if you walk away; you're giving that rapist the right to destroy an innocent persons life.
my dad wasn't home when his house was robbed. it's been almost 30 years and he's still not the same. it's easy for people who were never victims of crimes to side with the criminal. and maybe that's what it comes down to.

ive been the criminal. i was able to turn my life around. sometimes people make mistakes or poor decisions. it does not mean they deserve to die.

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

the law and 'justice' handed out just never seems to make sense to me. I mean there seems to be more thought put into how a jail sentence would affect the CRIMINAL than the harm he/she actually did. I read about so many brutal rape cases where, cos it's his first offense or cos he's 'really sorry' or whatever, that he gets a lighter sentence should something like that not be decided by the victim? It's getting to the stage here where judges are even complaining about victim impact reports and saying we should get rid of them :eek:

so if someone steals me lunch when i toss it in the fridge at school, i should be allowed to shoot them in the head if i found out who did it? i take my lunches very seriously. they stole it from me. and the punishment is up to me, right?

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

i meant that the idots in the apartments should have called the police. NYC has strict gun laws and NY doesn't have a CCW program. it would have been illegal for ANYONE to interviene with a firearm.

you need to use some common sense here. instead of reading something into what i wrote then subsequently misquoting me; all you had to do was ask what i meant. it's that simple. if you walk away from a crime; how is that NOT enabling the criminals? if i knew everyone in your town would just walk away; and if i were a criminal; i'd have a hayday in your town. the same as when some illinois suburbs banned guns within city limits. the crime rate sored.

becos nobody is advocating walking away. the dude had called the police and could identify the culprits. the point is, we have systems in place to deal with crime. they are not perfect. but they certainly seem preferable to allowing joe citizen to kill anyone they think might have broken a law without repercussion. why have police at all then?

mookie9999

soulsinging wrote:

so if someone steals me lunch when i toss it in the fridge at school, i should be allowed to shoot them in the head if i found out who did it? i take my lunches very seriously. they stole it from me. and the punishment is up to me, right?

If you had lox that day then, of course! That shit is expensive. If it was only turkey I think a beating to within an inch of their life would have been appropriate.

norm

some of the thoughts and potential actions expressed in this thread scare the living shit out of me.....

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

becos nobody is advocating walking away. the dude had called the police and could identify the culprits. the point is, we have systems in place to deal with crime. they are not perfect. but they certainly seem preferable to allowing joe citizen to kill anyone they think might have broken a law without repercussion. why have police at all then?

i just happen to agree with the law in this case. you happen to disagree with it. i'm not trying to change your opinion. instead i respect it.

we have police for clean up. criminals don't commit crimes in the presence of the police. the law doesn't say you can shoot anybody; it says in instances where your life is threatened OR someone elses; or in cases of home invasion; you can use deadly force.

why try to make things complicated?

onelongsong

cutback wrote:

some of the thoughts and potential actions expressed in this thread scare the living shit out of me.....

if you're not a criminal; it shouldn't.