sounds like people here have rewritten that law to include cutting people off in traffic. par for this board.
if you don't commit crimes; this really doesn't concern you. you don't get this worked up over those who do drive-bys or kill innocent people; you only worry about the innocent that kill criminals.
Bullshit! Generalized statement making mf! If we don't commit crimes this doesn't concern us? I guess it must concern you as you started this thread. Put aside your dislike for open minded folks (liberals to you) and I think you might be able to see the lack of rationale this guy showed. Earlier on you equated helping neighbors who are ill with shooting perps who stole from your neighbors. Talk about par for this board, and you wonder why people joke about when others have "had enough" relating shooting folks when they cut someone off?
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
bloodthirsty fucks? :rolleyes: nice debate style you got going on there
You're missing the point... I couldn't care less about the thieves... they set out to knowingly ruin somebody elses lives... from that moment on, they're straight off of my sympathy radar. That man did the rest of us a favour as far as I can see... 2 more scum wasters off of the street.
what if they weren't thieves and this guy was wrong? what if they were like prism said... helping out. what if they were reading gas meters? this time they weren't... but once you allow citizens to shoot anyone dead that they feel like shooting, the next person shot could be totally innocent. where does it stop?
ps. aren't you always in gun control threads saying americans are stupid for loving their guns?
i answered that question way back.
1) the legs are too small of a target. you'd have to hit the bone to really disable the guy.
2) the proper target would be to shoot the pelvis. BUT; some bleeding heart jury awarded a prisoner money from someone that shot them while they were committing the crime.
3) so; if you kill the criminal; the family can't come back and sue because he was in the commission of a felony.
**footnote:
if it is found that horn wrongfully shot the criminals; the family can THEN sue for wrongful death.
why don't we re-write the law then to dismiss civil claims brought when the plaintiff was committing a felony? if you can bar wrongful death claims like that, why not assault and battery?
Bullshit! Generalized statement making mf! If we don't commit crimes this doesn't concern us? I guess it must concern you as you started this thread. Put aside your dislike for open minded folks (liberals to you) and I think you might be able to see the lack of rationale this guy showed. Earlier on you equated helping neighbors who are ill with shooting perps who stole from your neighbors. Talk about par for this board, and you wonder why people joke about when others have "had enough" relating shooting folks when they cut someone off?
show a wee bit of intelligence and at least look at who started this thread. it surely wasn't me.
and the open minded people are those who accept the responsability to their communities. it's a mans responsability to protect women and children.
the open minded know that crimes are not committed in the presense of the police and that the police are only for clean-up and to aid the victim. (in addition to investigating the crime).
the open minded know that the police solve a small percentage of crimes.
and the open minded look at states like arizona where 80,000 people legally carry conceald weapons and in the history of the CCW program; not one of those people have committed a crime.
the "case" was told to the conceald weapons class. it was there that we were told to shoot to kill. never shoot to injure. and i'm sure you've seen several police shooting on the tele where 20 shots are fired and nobody is hit. i'm the only person i know that could make a leg shot. it's almost impossible to hit a moving target that small. i've got 40 years of practice.
he was not acting as lawman. he thought he was within the law. he called 911 and they never told him it only applies to his own house. and; out west we do things differently. we ARE our brothers keepers. we watch out for eachother. we protect eachother. that's why we have the gun laws we have.
ah, the utopia of western frontier life. one day, texas will become it's own damn country and we can stop having to deal with you people.
ps. concealed weapons class? is that your "legal training"? funny how for all your bragging, you have been utterly unable to ever... EVER give me a single citation to a case. NEVER. not once. do you even know how a case citation looks? now quick... get to wikipedia, make something up, and get back to me to disprove me. cos god knows you can't produce the cases you claim to "know" when i ask for them. probly cos you don't have time to retype them from the gun pamphlet.
you're here all the time. i figure you're some drop out blowing smoke. i'd love to have a battle of wits but i refuse to do it with an unarmed man.
i'm retired.
too retired to give a case citation?
you figure wrong. i'm at one of the nation's best law schools and doing just fine for myself. this is just for fun, humiliating no-substance shit-talkers like you.
show a wee bit of intelligence and at least look at who started this thread. it surely wasn't me.
and the open minded people are those who accept the responsability to their communities. it's a mans responsability to protect women and children.
the open minded know that crimes are not committed in the presense of the police and that the police are only for clean-up and to aid the victim. (in addition to investigating the crime).
the open minded know that the police solve a small percentage of crimes.
and the open minded look at states like arizona where 80,000 people legally carry conceald weapons and in the history of the CCW program; not one of those people have committed a crime.
My mistake. You didn't start the thread you have just permeated it with your drivel. Again I ask, what women and children was this hero protecting??? None other than his own braindead self who couldn't control killing not one, but two people in cold blood. I guess the community is much safer since this gun wielding nut is out there enforcing rough justice. I hope the wrong people never wander into his neighborhood to ask for directions.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
sounds like people here have rewritten that law to include cutting people off in traffic. par for this board.
if you don't commit crimes; this really doesn't concern you. you don't get this worked up over those who do drive-bys or kill innocent people; you only worry about the innocent that kill criminals.
it DOES concern me and i don't commit crimes. it concerns me becos this is my society and condoning vigilantism is dangerous. just becos i am not committing a crime doesn't mean i can't be shot by some eager beaver with a gun. you like personal stories... did you read prism's? her and her friend broke into their own house after being locked out. what if they'd been these perps and they're both dead becos this jackass decided to play mr. law? it does concern me becos now i don't just have to worry about criminals, i have to worry about over-eager citizens who feel entitled to judge what i'm doing and shoot me if THEY THINK it's illegal.
what if they weren't thieves and this guy was wrong? what if they were like prism said... helping out. what if they were reading gas meters? this time they weren't... but once you allow citizens to shoot anyone dead that they feel like shooting, the next person shot could be totally innocent. where does it stop?
ps. aren't you always in gun control threads saying americans are stupid for loving their guns?
sure; a meter reader is helping out by breaking into a house through a window and removing the homeowners posessions. i don't need that kind of help.
no; i'm in gun control threads saying that a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject. i stand up for the second amendment and a government that allows its citizens to own guns as the final checks and balance to keep the government in check.
U.S. vs. Miller, one of the few cases in this century where the Supreme Court ruled directly on a law in relation to the 2nd Amendment, is one in which a law, prohibiting the possession of a sawed-off shotgun, was upheld only because the weapon was not shown to be one which could serve the purposes of a well regulated militia.
Therefore, with very few exceptions, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals to possess arms suitable for war. Not only tools for hunting, or target practice, but tools for war. In light of this, it is clear that the outright ban on "assault weapons", and all outright firearms bans, are not constitutional.
sure; a meter reader is helping out by breaking into a house through a window and removing the homeowners posessions. i don't need that kind of help.
no; i'm in gun control threads saying that a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject. i stand up for the second amendment and a government that allows its citizens to own guns as the final checks and balance to keep the government in check.
U.S. vs. Miller, one of the few cases in this century where the Supreme Court ruled directly on a law in relation to the 2nd Amendment, is one in which a law, prohibiting the possession of a sawed-off shotgun, was upheld only because the weapon was not shown to be one which could serve the purposes of a well regulated militia.
Therefore, with very few exceptions, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals to possess arms suitable for war. Not only tools for hunting, or target practice, but tools for war. In light of this, it is clear that the outright ban on "assault weapons", and all outright firearms bans, are not constitutional.
we're not talking about gun control and the constitution. we're talking about vigilante justice. you said you had several cases about people's right to use lethal force without judge, jury, or trial to protect other people's property. are these cases you read about in your concealed carry/NRA classes? cos you certainly don't seem to have names or citations for them.
i've read us v. miller and you are correct about it. i'm a supporter of the second amendment and i'm pretty neutral about concealed carry. i've always said i'm not for more gun control, i'm for smarter gun control. blanket bans on types of guns are pretty worthless, imho. but we're not talking about gun control. my issue is this guy taking the law into his own hands and the dangerous precedent it sends with respect to the meter man or prism's friend (an example you ignored becos you didn't know how to deal with it i presume).
it DOES concern me and i don't commit crimes. it concerns me becos this is my society and condoning vigilantism is dangerous. just becos i am not committing a crime doesn't mean i can't be shot by some eager beaver with a gun. you like personal stories... did you read prism's? her and her friend broke into their own house after being locked out. what if they'd been these perps and they're both dead becos this jackass decided to play mr. law? it does concern me becos now i don't just have to worry about criminals, i have to worry about over-eager citizens who feel entitled to judge what i'm doing and shoot me if THEY THINK it's illegal.
prism did not say she was coming out of her house with a bag full of her posessions. if you read the original post; you will see that horn CALLED 911 WHEN SOMEONE BROKE INTO the house. he only kept them from getting away. if someone says to me: "move and you're dead"; you can bet i won't move. in addition; i don't recall prism living in texas where this law exists.
in addition to that; it was the people who elected the legislators and asked for this law.
i don't lock my house and i leave the keys in my truck. i don't live in fear so maybe that's the difference. if someone comes into my house; my dog will kill them long before i have a chance to. if i'm not home and someone comes onto my property; my neighbour will come over and see what they're doing.
i'm still waiting for an email address to send these case briefs to. you can easily set up a fake hotmail account just to receive them. you can use any name you want to set it up.
you're clearly full of hot air and me thinks it's time you go on my ignore list. i shouldn't be talking to anyone that calls a woman a "C" in anger.
prism did not say she was coming out of her house with a bag full of her posessions. if you read the original post; you will see that horn CALLED 911 WHEN SOMEONE BROKE INTO the house. he only kept them from getting away. if someone says to me: "move and you're dead"; you can bet i won't move. in addition; i don't recall prism living in texas where this law exists.
in addition to that; it was the people who elected the legislators and asked for this law.
i don't lock my house and i leave the keys in my truck. i don't live in fear so maybe that's the difference. if someone comes into my house; my dog will kill them long before i have a chance to. if i'm not home and someone comes onto my property; my neighbour will come over and see what they're doing.
i'm still waiting for an email address to send these case briefs to. you can easily set up a fake hotmail account just to receive them. you can use any name you want to set it up.
you're clearly full of hot air and me thinks it's time you go on my ignore list. i shouldn't be talking to anyone that calls a woman a "C" in anger.
no, prism said she and her friend broke into her house when she got locked out and her neighbor DID call the police thinking they were breaking in. what if this guy had been their neighbor and it was too dark for them to recognize each other? he yells freeze, they think they're being held up and panic and run, and they're dead.
you don't need to email me case briefs. all i need is the citation posted or pm'ed here and i can read the actual case myself on lexis or westlaw. methinks YOU are blowing hot air if you cannot simply list the citations. cmon "counselor," surely you know how to use a case citation? or do you not have those becos you only have the gun class pamphlet which summarizes what the NRA thinks the case says?
anyway, i'll come back to check later. right now, i have a final argument i need to get to writing and family to visit for the holiday.
neighbors house on monday...your house on tuesday...
That's a pretty small step away from being able to shoot anyone that looks at you funny.
"They were burglarizing my neighbor's house. I shot 'em, cuz they might get my house next."
Is not too different from
"We got in an argument over a cab and he was very loud. We've seen each other downtown before. I had to shoot him because he could come after me some day."
If we shot anyone that could conceivable harm us or our property...well I guess that overpopulation problem could be minimized.
As far as these burglars go, my father is a 30+ year probation officer his observation (anecdotal, but there is plenty of that going around) is that for every house burgalar that becomes a violent criminal, there are at least two that straighten themselves out.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
you figure wrong. i'm at one of the nation's best law schools and doing just fine for myself. this is just for fun, humiliating no-substance shit-talkers like you.
you should read "supreme court gun cases" released after 6 years of research.
you should read "supreme court gun cases" released after 6 years of research.
alberry v us
bean v us
that should keep you busy.
no citations? just names? if the book doesn't give a citation it's a lay guide, not a legal one. but i'll look into it when i take a break from writing my final argument and get back to you. these have to do with shoot-to-kill, self defense, and vigilantism right?
looks like the authors all have jd's. also looks like they are all pretty biased. also looks like they've written a "plain english" (from the cover) guide for the average joe to what they (as gun advocates) think you can get away with. this is not designed as a legal treatise, it's a layman's guide for gun nuts with a clear agenda. but i'll look at those cases anyway.
That's a pretty small step away from being able to shoot anyone that looks at you funny.
"They were burglarizing my neighbor's house. I shot 'em, cuz they might get my house next."
Is not too different from
"We got in an argument over a cab and he was very loud. We've seen each other downtown before. I had to shoot him because he could come after me some day."
If we shot anyone that could conceivable harm us or our property...well I guess that overpopulation problem could be minimized.
As far as these burglars go, my father is a 30+ year probation officer his observation (anecdotal, but there is plenty of that going around) is that for every house burgalar that becomes a violent criminal, there are at least two that straighten themselves out.
and here we have the difference between murder and killing. my guess is that horn will be prosecuted under the law that states it's illegal to shoot someone in the back. but he will also argue that 911 didn't tell him the new law doesn't apply in this case. it's not 911s place to offer legal advice; but if the opperator had said "that is murder"; and horn continued; it would be a different story. true; he was told to stay inside; but he chose to get involved. he cannot be ORDERED to stay in his house.
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.
no citations? just names? if the book doesn't give a citation it's a lay guide, not a legal one. but i'll look into it when i take a break from writing my final argument and get back to you. these have to do with shoot-to-kill, self defense, and vigilantism right?
looks like the authors all have jd's. also looks like they are all pretty biased. also looks like they've written a "plain english" (from the cover) guide for the average joe to what they (as gun advocates) think you can get away with. this is not designed as a legal treatise, it's a layman's guide for gun nuts with a clear agenda. but i'll look at those cases anyway.
are you the guy that wrote the review on amazon?
the move to "plain english" pleadings started 10 years ago and is accepted by most courts.
alberry v us deals with a man who shot someone crawling in his wifes window.
bean v us was decided in dec 2002. it's more interesting reading than anything else.
it's not my job to educate you. go buy a book and read like the rest of us had to. i haven't read "supreme court gun cases" but i'm told it deals with 12 high profile vigilante cases. i haven't processed orders for 2 days now because of this thread and i'm not going to spend any more time talking to people that won't take my research but also won't look it up on their own. this has become nothing more than a pissing contest.
23 states allow the carrying of conceald weapons. if you're a criminal; i suggest you find out which and commit your crimes in the states that don't.
as someone said earlier; this story didn't make the evening news in houston. because it's not news here. we shoot criminals here. out of the 80,000 CCW gun toting arizonans not one shooting has been deemed unjustified. in fact; medals of honor have been handed out. if you don't like it; stay east of the mississippi where only the criminals have guns.
peace-out
Here's the main problem with vigilante justice. The person taking the law into their own hands has a larger chance of making a mistake and doing the wrong thing than doing the right thing. If a un-uniformed officer had come running around the back of the house, there's a good chance bag pipes would be playing.
"I have a right to protect myself too, sir"
Someone tell me exactly what Horn was talking about when he said that to the operator? What was he protecting himself from?
"I'm sorry buddy"
Why was he apologizing? If he knew if was in the clear without any doubt in his head, what was the apology be for?
"You wanna make a bet, I'm gonna kill em"
So, it seems he had already made his mind up before he even went outside.
Not to mention the fact it was done during the day. When I first heard about the story I pictured it at night, giving horn the benefit of having night obscuring his view but in broad daylight. In texas, to protect your neighbors property WITH the use of deadly force, it has to be at night.
This man did not act within the laws of our current justice system. We have laws in place to stop the John Waynes from picking up a shotgun midday and deciding deadly force needed to be used. We have a police force and although they leave much to be desired they are what we have to rely on. The west is not a separate country. You do not have your own laws separate from the rest of the U.S. You do not have "your" law and the rest do not have "their" laws. We have "Our" laws, which prohibits shooting a burglar that didn't even rob your own private house in broad daylight.
What's that saying that people use if someone doesn't like something about the U.S?......
and here we have the difference between murder and killing. my guess is that horn will be prosecuted under the law that states it's illegal to shoot someone in the back. but he will also argue that 911 didn't tell him the new law doesn't apply in this case. it's not 911s place to offer legal advice; but if the opperator had said "that is murder"; and horn continued; it would be a different story. true; he was told to stay inside; but he chose to get involved. he cannot be ORDERED to stay in his house.
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.
thought about the operator saying something about if he shot he'd be in trouble..but that's not his place to do this..he's not an expert, so Horn won't be able to benefit from it.
which tells you how sick the human animal is....to think its somehow civilized or okay to kill someone for some silver is sick, twisted and really sad......worse than being an animal.
I want to be.....I want to be with...I want to be with an animaaaaaaal"
it's not my job to educate you. go buy a book and read like the rest of us had to. i haven't read "supreme court gun cases" but i'm told it deals with 12 high profile vigilante cases. i haven't processed orders for 2 days now because of this thread and i'm not going to spend any more time talking to people that won't take my research but also won't look it up on their own. this has become nothing more than a pissing contest.
If your making the claims (vigilante justice) it's not up to us to support and locate your conclusions that it's perfectly fine to blow away neighborhood thieves, it's up to you. As to the orders you haven't processed, I thought you were retired?
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
but he will also argue that 911 didn't tell him the new law doesn't apply in this case. it's not 911s place to offer legal advice; but if the opperator had said "that is murder"; and horn continued; it would be a different story. true;
Our law system (in continental Europe) has something called a fiction (don't know the English term if there is one) it's a deliberate destortion of reality, like this: nemo censetur ignorare legem. It means that you should assume everyone knows the law, because if not knowing the law excuses you from your crimes it would be a very easy defense method.
I don't know whether the American and/or Texan law system has something similar.
If your making the claims (vigilante justice) it's not up to us to support and locate your conclusions that it's perfectly fine to blow away neighborhood thieves, it's up to you. As to the orders you haven't processed, I thought you were retired?
baby this is retired. i forward orders to the meat packer and he ships them out. i don't call that work. i watch the buffalo eat. i hire someone to shear the llamas and angora goats and sell their wool. people pay me to let them hand feed all the different animals and take pictures. i don't call any of that work. i call what i have complete freedom. it took a lot of work to get here; but this is my childhhood dream. doing what i want when i want is retirement to me.
Our law system (in continental Europe) has something called a fiction (don't know the English term if there is one) it's a deliberate destortion of reality, like this: nemo censetur ignorare legem. It means that you should assume everyone knows the law, because if not knowing the law excuses you from your crimes it would be a very easy defense method.
I don't know whether the American and/or Texan law system has something similar.
you are correct. here we say:
"ignorance of the law is no excuse"
and i agree with that. in this case he had 911 on the phone. a simple "sir; that is illegal" would have saved 2 lives. it's hard to predict what a jury would conclude. i can pick 12 people from this thread who think they deserved what they got and aquit him. i can pick another 12 who would convict him of murder 1.
i'm interested to see how this plays out.
If your making the claims (vigilante justice) it's not up to us to support and locate your conclusions that it's perfectly fine to blow away neighborhood thieves, it's up to you. As to the orders you haven't processed, I thought you were retired?
the original post stated a law which allows homeowners to shoot home invaders. what more should i have to post? my conclusions are my opinion which i tried to state; then move on. however; i answered replies which i probably should have ignored. if you want to dig into the legal system; fine; do it. i gave it up when i had my aneurysm in 1986. if you want to compare NYC to texas; it's apples and oranges. you live in a totally different world. texas has an express lane for the death penalty. what applies to where i live would never apply in NYC. it's still like the 1880's here. if the residents of NYC were armed; you'd be shooting eachother. here; we're all armed and we don't have shootings. you are right as this applies in NYC. but you're discussing a subject set in a world you know little about.
if the residents of NYC were armed; you'd be shooting eachother. here; we're all armed and we don't have shootings. you are right as this applies in NYC. but you're discussing a subject set in a world you know little about.
Seems ironic seeing how this is exactly what we are talking about. A shooting. That's great that you're all armed. I have nothing against folks owning a gun, but when they use it like this jackyl (and according to you this isn't an isolated incident) then action must be taken. I'm interested as well in seeing how this plays out. As to what you said in an earlier post about the 911 operator having to say it was illegal, you really believe this would have stopped this guy? I doubt it.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
the original post stated a law which allows homeowners to shoot home invaders. what more should i have to post? my conclusions are my opinion which i tried to state; then move on. however; i answered replies which i probably should have ignored. if you want to dig into the legal system; fine; do it. i gave it up when i had my aneurysm in 1986. if you want to compare NYC to texas; it's apples and oranges. you live in a totally different world. texas has an express lane for the death penalty. what applies to where i live would never apply in NYC. it's still like the 1880's here. if the residents of NYC were armed; you'd be shooting eachother. here; we're all armed and we don't have shootings. you are right as this applies in NYC. but you're discussing a subject set in a world you know little about.
This man did not act within the laws of our current justice system. We have laws in place to stop the John Waynes from picking up a shotgun midday and deciding deadly force needed to be used. We have a police force and although they leave much to be desired they are what we have to rely on. The west is not a separate country. You do not have your own laws separate from the rest of the U.S. You do not have "your" law and the rest do not have "their" laws. We have "Our" laws, which prohibits shooting a burglar that didn't even rob your own private house in broad daylight.
.
23 states gave me the authority to carry a conceald weapon and use deadly force. 27 states did not. so obviously WE DO HAVE DIFFERENT LAWS.
if you're interested in case law where the supreme court upholds vigilante justice; i reccomended the book "supreme court gun cases". i'm not your daddy and i'm not going to read it to you. horn was not arrested. he may be but enough doubt remains as to whether he acted within the law. it's up to the DA to decide what to charge him with; and then up to a jury to decide if he's guilty of any offence.
here's the link to my states CCW page on the state police website. http://www.azdps.gov/ccw/default.asp
maybe it'll give you more information about how OUR LAWS ARE DIFFERENT. gun laws vary from state to state. and so does the use of deadly force.
Last night I had to break into my own house after locking myself out. It was very dark and foggy out. To any of my neighbors I'm sure it looked like breaking and entering. What if I had been shot dead when I left the house 10 minutes later by my neighbor with an itchy trigger finger?
Now in most cases when you see someone break into a house its because they are buglers, but unless you are a cop then you shouldn't do a damn thing other then call 911 because you still don't know what the situations is. That is why we arrest and investigate crimes not gun down criminals in the act. Everyone should listen to cops when they say to let them handle dangerous situations. That is there job.
Also you risk harming yourself when you use vigilante justice. What if one of the buglers was armed and shot Horn dead first? Is it worth dying to protect some of your stuff or even worse your neighbors? Just call the cops and tell them what they see. You will still be considered a great neighbor if you do this.
A good cop never wants to shoot someone while this Horn guy took this as an opportunity to kill another human and he seemed excited about it. I think he should be locked up for this reason.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Comments
Bullshit! Generalized statement making mf! If we don't commit crimes this doesn't concern us? I guess it must concern you as you started this thread. Put aside your dislike for open minded folks (liberals to you) and I think you might be able to see the lack of rationale this guy showed. Earlier on you equated helping neighbors who are ill with shooting perps who stole from your neighbors. Talk about par for this board, and you wonder why people joke about when others have "had enough" relating shooting folks when they cut someone off?
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
what if they weren't thieves and this guy was wrong? what if they were like prism said... helping out. what if they were reading gas meters? this time they weren't... but once you allow citizens to shoot anyone dead that they feel like shooting, the next person shot could be totally innocent. where does it stop?
ps. aren't you always in gun control threads saying americans are stupid for loving their guns?
why don't we re-write the law then to dismiss civil claims brought when the plaintiff was committing a felony? if you can bar wrongful death claims like that, why not assault and battery?
don't hold your breath. onelongsong is a cowboy "lawyer"... he doesn't need cases. he's like walker, the texas ranger... he makes his own damn laws!
show a wee bit of intelligence and at least look at who started this thread. it surely wasn't me.
and the open minded people are those who accept the responsability to their communities. it's a mans responsability to protect women and children.
the open minded know that crimes are not committed in the presense of the police and that the police are only for clean-up and to aid the victim. (in addition to investigating the crime).
the open minded know that the police solve a small percentage of crimes.
and the open minded look at states like arizona where 80,000 people legally carry conceald weapons and in the history of the CCW program; not one of those people have committed a crime.
ah, the utopia of western frontier life. one day, texas will become it's own damn country and we can stop having to deal with you people.
ps. concealed weapons class? is that your "legal training"? funny how for all your bragging, you have been utterly unable to ever... EVER give me a single citation to a case. NEVER. not once. do you even know how a case citation looks? now quick... get to wikipedia, make something up, and get back to me to disprove me. cos god knows you can't produce the cases you claim to "know" when i ask for them. probly cos you don't have time to retype them from the gun pamphlet.
too retired to give a case citation?
you figure wrong. i'm at one of the nation's best law schools and doing just fine for myself. this is just for fun, humiliating no-substance shit-talkers like you.
My mistake. You didn't start the thread you have just permeated it with your drivel. Again I ask, what women and children was this hero protecting??? None other than his own braindead self who couldn't control killing not one, but two people in cold blood. I guess the community is much safer since this gun wielding nut is out there enforcing rough justice. I hope the wrong people never wander into his neighborhood to ask for directions.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
it DOES concern me and i don't commit crimes. it concerns me becos this is my society and condoning vigilantism is dangerous. just becos i am not committing a crime doesn't mean i can't be shot by some eager beaver with a gun. you like personal stories... did you read prism's? her and her friend broke into their own house after being locked out. what if they'd been these perps and they're both dead becos this jackass decided to play mr. law? it does concern me becos now i don't just have to worry about criminals, i have to worry about over-eager citizens who feel entitled to judge what i'm doing and shoot me if THEY THINK it's illegal.
sure; a meter reader is helping out by breaking into a house through a window and removing the homeowners posessions. i don't need that kind of help.
no; i'm in gun control threads saying that a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject. i stand up for the second amendment and a government that allows its citizens to own guns as the final checks and balance to keep the government in check.
U.S. vs. Miller, one of the few cases in this century where the Supreme Court ruled directly on a law in relation to the 2nd Amendment, is one in which a law, prohibiting the possession of a sawed-off shotgun, was upheld only because the weapon was not shown to be one which could serve the purposes of a well regulated militia.
Therefore, with very few exceptions, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals to possess arms suitable for war. Not only tools for hunting, or target practice, but tools for war. In light of this, it is clear that the outright ban on "assault weapons", and all outright firearms bans, are not constitutional.
we're not talking about gun control and the constitution. we're talking about vigilante justice. you said you had several cases about people's right to use lethal force without judge, jury, or trial to protect other people's property. are these cases you read about in your concealed carry/NRA classes? cos you certainly don't seem to have names or citations for them.
i've read us v. miller and you are correct about it. i'm a supporter of the second amendment and i'm pretty neutral about concealed carry. i've always said i'm not for more gun control, i'm for smarter gun control. blanket bans on types of guns are pretty worthless, imho. but we're not talking about gun control. my issue is this guy taking the law into his own hands and the dangerous precedent it sends with respect to the meter man or prism's friend (an example you ignored becos you didn't know how to deal with it i presume).
prism did not say she was coming out of her house with a bag full of her posessions. if you read the original post; you will see that horn CALLED 911 WHEN SOMEONE BROKE INTO the house. he only kept them from getting away. if someone says to me: "move and you're dead"; you can bet i won't move. in addition; i don't recall prism living in texas where this law exists.
in addition to that; it was the people who elected the legislators and asked for this law.
i don't lock my house and i leave the keys in my truck. i don't live in fear so maybe that's the difference. if someone comes into my house; my dog will kill them long before i have a chance to. if i'm not home and someone comes onto my property; my neighbour will come over and see what they're doing.
i'm still waiting for an email address to send these case briefs to. you can easily set up a fake hotmail account just to receive them. you can use any name you want to set it up.
you're clearly full of hot air and me thinks it's time you go on my ignore list. i shouldn't be talking to anyone that calls a woman a "C" in anger.
no, prism said she and her friend broke into her house when she got locked out and her neighbor DID call the police thinking they were breaking in. what if this guy had been their neighbor and it was too dark for them to recognize each other? he yells freeze, they think they're being held up and panic and run, and they're dead.
you don't need to email me case briefs. all i need is the citation posted or pm'ed here and i can read the actual case myself on lexis or westlaw. methinks YOU are blowing hot air if you cannot simply list the citations. cmon "counselor," surely you know how to use a case citation? or do you not have those becos you only have the gun class pamphlet which summarizes what the NRA thinks the case says?
anyway, i'll come back to check later. right now, i have a final argument i need to get to writing and family to visit for the holiday.
That's a pretty small step away from being able to shoot anyone that looks at you funny.
"They were burglarizing my neighbor's house. I shot 'em, cuz they might get my house next."
Is not too different from
"We got in an argument over a cab and he was very loud. We've seen each other downtown before. I had to shoot him because he could come after me some day."
If we shot anyone that could conceivable harm us or our property...well I guess that overpopulation problem could be minimized.
As far as these burglars go, my father is a 30+ year probation officer his observation (anecdotal, but there is plenty of that going around) is that for every house burgalar that becomes a violent criminal, there are at least two that straighten themselves out.
you should read "supreme court gun cases" released after 6 years of research.
alberry v us
bean v us
that should keep you busy.
no citations? just names? if the book doesn't give a citation it's a lay guide, not a legal one. but i'll look into it when i take a break from writing my final argument and get back to you. these have to do with shoot-to-kill, self defense, and vigilantism right?
looks like the authors all have jd's. also looks like they are all pretty biased. also looks like they've written a "plain english" (from the cover) guide for the average joe to what they (as gun advocates) think you can get away with. this is not designed as a legal treatise, it's a layman's guide for gun nuts with a clear agenda. but i'll look at those cases anyway.
are you the guy that wrote the review on amazon?
and here we have the difference between murder and killing. my guess is that horn will be prosecuted under the law that states it's illegal to shoot someone in the back. but he will also argue that 911 didn't tell him the new law doesn't apply in this case. it's not 911s place to offer legal advice; but if the opperator had said "that is murder"; and horn continued; it would be a different story. true; he was told to stay inside; but he chose to get involved. he cannot be ORDERED to stay in his house.
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.
the move to "plain english" pleadings started 10 years ago and is accepted by most courts.
alberry v us deals with a man who shot someone crawling in his wifes window.
bean v us was decided in dec 2002. it's more interesting reading than anything else.
it's not my job to educate you. go buy a book and read like the rest of us had to. i haven't read "supreme court gun cases" but i'm told it deals with 12 high profile vigilante cases. i haven't processed orders for 2 days now because of this thread and i'm not going to spend any more time talking to people that won't take my research but also won't look it up on their own. this has become nothing more than a pissing contest.
23 states allow the carrying of conceald weapons. if you're a criminal; i suggest you find out which and commit your crimes in the states that don't.
as someone said earlier; this story didn't make the evening news in houston. because it's not news here. we shoot criminals here. out of the 80,000 CCW gun toting arizonans not one shooting has been deemed unjustified. in fact; medals of honor have been handed out. if you don't like it; stay east of the mississippi where only the criminals have guns.
peace-out
"I have a right to protect myself too, sir"
Someone tell me exactly what Horn was talking about when he said that to the operator? What was he protecting himself from?
"I'm sorry buddy"
Why was he apologizing? If he knew if was in the clear without any doubt in his head, what was the apology be for?
"You wanna make a bet, I'm gonna kill em"
So, it seems he had already made his mind up before he even went outside.
Not to mention the fact it was done during the day. When I first heard about the story I pictured it at night, giving horn the benefit of having night obscuring his view but in broad daylight. In texas, to protect your neighbors property WITH the use of deadly force, it has to be at night.
This man did not act within the laws of our current justice system. We have laws in place to stop the John Waynes from picking up a shotgun midday and deciding deadly force needed to be used. We have a police force and although they leave much to be desired they are what we have to rely on. The west is not a separate country. You do not have your own laws separate from the rest of the U.S. You do not have "your" law and the rest do not have "their" laws. We have "Our" laws, which prohibits shooting a burglar that didn't even rob your own private house in broad daylight.
What's that saying that people use if someone doesn't like something about the U.S?......
Oh yea, Love it or Leave it.
That includes the justice system.
I want to be.....I want to be with...I want to be with an animaaaaaaal"
If your making the claims (vigilante justice) it's not up to us to support and locate your conclusions that it's perfectly fine to blow away neighborhood thieves, it's up to you. As to the orders you haven't processed, I thought you were retired?
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
Our law system (in continental Europe) has something called a fiction (don't know the English term if there is one) it's a deliberate destortion of reality, like this: nemo censetur ignorare legem. It means that you should assume everyone knows the law, because if not knowing the law excuses you from your crimes it would be a very easy defense method.
I don't know whether the American and/or Texan law system has something similar.
naděje umírá poslední
baby this is retired. i forward orders to the meat packer and he ships them out. i don't call that work. i watch the buffalo eat. i hire someone to shear the llamas and angora goats and sell their wool. people pay me to let them hand feed all the different animals and take pictures. i don't call any of that work. i call what i have complete freedom. it took a lot of work to get here; but this is my childhhood dream. doing what i want when i want is retirement to me.
you are correct. here we say:
"ignorance of the law is no excuse"
and i agree with that. in this case he had 911 on the phone. a simple "sir; that is illegal" would have saved 2 lives. it's hard to predict what a jury would conclude. i can pick 12 people from this thread who think they deserved what they got and aquit him. i can pick another 12 who would convict him of murder 1.
i'm interested to see how this plays out.
the original post stated a law which allows homeowners to shoot home invaders. what more should i have to post? my conclusions are my opinion which i tried to state; then move on. however; i answered replies which i probably should have ignored. if you want to dig into the legal system; fine; do it. i gave it up when i had my aneurysm in 1986. if you want to compare NYC to texas; it's apples and oranges. you live in a totally different world. texas has an express lane for the death penalty. what applies to where i live would never apply in NYC. it's still like the 1880's here. if the residents of NYC were armed; you'd be shooting eachother. here; we're all armed and we don't have shootings. you are right as this applies in NYC. but you're discussing a subject set in a world you know little about.
Seems ironic seeing how this is exactly what we are talking about. A shooting. That's great that you're all armed. I have nothing against folks owning a gun, but when they use it like this jackyl (and according to you this isn't an isolated incident) then action must be taken. I'm interested as well in seeing how this plays out. As to what you said in an earlier post about the 911 operator having to say it was illegal, you really believe this would have stopped this guy? I doubt it.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
way to ignore my post.
23 states gave me the authority to carry a conceald weapon and use deadly force. 27 states did not. so obviously WE DO HAVE DIFFERENT LAWS.
if you're interested in case law where the supreme court upholds vigilante justice; i reccomended the book "supreme court gun cases". i'm not your daddy and i'm not going to read it to you. horn was not arrested. he may be but enough doubt remains as to whether he acted within the law. it's up to the DA to decide what to charge him with; and then up to a jury to decide if he's guilty of any offence.
here's the link to my states CCW page on the state police website.
http://www.azdps.gov/ccw/default.asp
maybe it'll give you more information about how OUR LAWS ARE DIFFERENT. gun laws vary from state to state. and so does the use of deadly force.
Now in most cases when you see someone break into a house its because they are buglers, but unless you are a cop then you shouldn't do a damn thing other then call 911 because you still don't know what the situations is. That is why we arrest and investigate crimes not gun down criminals in the act. Everyone should listen to cops when they say to let them handle dangerous situations. That is there job.
Also you risk harming yourself when you use vigilante justice. What if one of the buglers was armed and shot Horn dead first? Is it worth dying to protect some of your stuff or even worse your neighbors? Just call the cops and tell them what they see. You will still be considered a great neighbor if you do this.
A good cop never wants to shoot someone while this Horn guy took this as an opportunity to kill another human and he seemed excited about it. I think he should be locked up for this reason.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)