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.
Obviously you don't know about your own laws. The texas law, when describing the use of deadly force when protecting property, says it is allowed at night and when the actor reasonably believes the property cannot be recovered any other way. main problem, this happened in broad daylight. I know each state has different laws you old bag of gas, I was talking about you keep saying "well, out here we got our own brand of justice!" like you can go around dropping people at will just because you think they did something wrong that wronged you and that the whole town would form a lynch mob. that's what I was talking about.
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.
Interesting. I am not going to pretend to get in Horn's head and say that I know that he took this as the opportunity to kill, but I can see how one thinks it does seem to lean that way. Because he called 911 first, I don't think he thought "cool, I get to shoot these guys." I suspect it was more being so focused on not letting them get away that he was willing to be cavalier about taking a couple of lives. Of course, it appears that 40 to 50% on this thread would be equally cavalier about it (though I think in the situation, some may be less trigger happy than they think while praising this guy).
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
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.
i think it would have given the police grounds to arrest him on the spot; being told he was about to commit a crime. in my eyes; he did commit a crime. especially if they dropped the bag. at that point their crime was only tresspass and you can't use deadly force for a tresspass crime. unless there's an order of protection involved.
that's why i've been saying that i want to see how this plays out. there's so many variables. day or night has nothing to do with it. several carjackings have ended with the carowner shooting the carjacker yet no charges have ever been filed against them. (in phoenix) many during the day.
that's why i don't want to argue. it's ultimately in the hands of a jury.
Interesting. I am not going to pretend to get in Horn's head and say that I know that he took this as the opportunity to kill, but I can see how one thinks it does seem to lean that way. Because he called 911 first, I don't think he thought "cool, I get to shoot these guys." I suspect it was more being so focused on not letting them get away that he was willing to be cavalier about taking a couple of lives. Of course, it appears that 40 to 50% on this thread would be equally cavalier about it.
to some people; killing doesn't mean a thing. look at the gangs that require you to kill a stranger to be accepted into the gang. but for most; it's a traumatic thing. doc holiday cried when he killed his first man. it's not easy to kill and you never forget it. it haunts you for life. IMO; horn will commit suiside if not prosecuted. i don't mean to get into his head but the stats say he will. unless you know that you did it to save your life; it eats away at you.
to some people; killing doesn't mean a thing. look at the gangs that require you to kill a stranger to be accepted into the gang. but for most; it's a traumatic thing. doc holiday cried when he killed his first man. it's not easy to kill and you never forget it. it haunts you for life. IMO; horn will commit suiside if not prosecuted. i don't mean to get into his head but the stats say he will. unless you know that you did it to save your life; it eats away at you.
I don't disagree with that at all. For Horn, killing was the easy part. Dealing with it will be tough. Only a sociopath has an easy time killing and dealing with it for their first victim and I don't know how many people get desensitized if they frequently kill.
Reminds me of "True Romance" when the organized crimal said he threw up the first time and now just likes to see the expressions change.
Anyway, I don't know whether he wanted to KILL them or not, but I think he was so caught up in the moment that he did not really think of the implications. Afterward--yeah, I am sure it's gonna be rough and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he's had a lot of food not stay down.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
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.
Two lives could have been saved if he simply listened to this: "Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK? It's not worth shooting someone over this. I don't want you to go out there. Don't, don't , don't go out the door."
I don't disagree with that at all. For Horn, killing was the easy part. Dealing with it will be tough. Only a sociopath has an easy time killing and dealing with it for their first victim and I don't know how many people get desensitized if they frequently kill.
Reminds me of "True Romance" when the organized crimal said he threw up the first time and now just likes to see the expressions change.
Anyway, I don't know whether he wanted to KILL them or not, but I think he was so caught up in the moment that he did not really think of the implications. Afterward--yeah, I am sure it's gonna be rough and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he's had a lot of food not stay down.
you are correct. i explained it wrong. thank you for the correction.
Could you have guessed that I would say none of them deserve any of it?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Two lives could have been saved if he simply listened to this: "Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK? It's not worth shooting someone over this. I don't want you to go out there. Don't, don't , don't go out the door."
And I'm not a fan of jury trials.
good point. i'm on the fence because i'm close with my neighbours and i'd go (and have) check it out if something is wrong. i have another neighbour i wouldn't bother looking twice.
please understand that i've said several times that i think he committed a crime. just as in most debates; i take the extreem side to get the debate rolling; and sometimes heated. except for **; i think this debate went well.
yes; and i'd expect pages of research to back it up.
did you get my apology?
I think so. No need to apologize though. I don't even remember what happened.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
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.
THIS is why we have juries? what about the dead guys? don't we have juries to determine if THEY were guilty of a crime and decide an appropriate punishment for them? the whole point of this thread is that it is bullshit that horn gets a jury for completely denying those criminals their day in court in front of a jury becos he had "had enough" and decided to serve as judge, jury, and executioner all on his own.
i'll read those 2 cases tomorrow. and don't act like you're doing research for me. you claimed a constitutional right to lethal force in protection of the property of third parties. i asked you to back it up.
i'm aware of plain english pleadings. but court opinions are legal opinions. those guys wrote a huge layman's guide to the second amendment by and for gun advocates. which is why i wanted to read the scotus decisions myself, not the authors' biased take on those opinions. i don't care to read the book myself becos i don't care enough about gun rights one way or the other to slog through 600 pages of it. but i am curious, like i said, about this right to kill people over your neighbor's property.
you should read "supreme court gun cases" released after 6 years of research.
alberry v us
bean v us
that should keep you busy.
you might wanna check these cases again and give me a citation. according to lexis and westlaw, they do not exist. no case with a party name "alberry v. us" has ever been decided by the supreme court. there is a case called "bean v. us" which was denied review by scotus many times before receiving a decision having to do with a gun dealer being stripped of his ability to possess firearms after a conviction for important ammunition illegally.
THIS is why we have juries? what about the dead guys? don't we have juries to determine if THEY were guilty of a crime and decide an appropriate punishment for them? the whole point of this thread is that it is bullshit that horn gets a jury for completely denying those criminals their day in court in front of a jury becos he had "had enough" and decided to serve as judge, jury, and executioner all on his own.
i'll read those 2 cases tomorrow. and don't act like you're doing research for me. you claimed a constitutional right to lethal force in protection of the property of third parties. i asked you to back it up.
i'm aware of plain english pleadings. but court opinions are legal opinions. those guys wrote a huge layman's guide to the second amendment by and for gun advocates. which is why i wanted to read the scotus decisions myself, not the authors' biased take on those opinions. i don't care to read the book myself becos i don't care enough about gun rights one way or the other to slog through 600 pages of it. but i am curious, like i said, about this right to kill people over your neighbor's property.
no; i claimed a constitutional right to use deadly force; as you put it; vigilante justice. the original post cited a law in texas which allows deadly force for home invasions. to the best of my knowledge; that law only exists in texas. it is up to the texas legislators to clarify if it includes a neighbours home.
the "third party vigilantism" i was referring to was that if i see a woman getting raped for example; and i fear for her life; i can use deadly force and kill the attacker. i was given a medal because some gang members ambushed a cop. i drew my weapon and fired on the gang members. the news reports said i saved the cops life.
the alberry case was decided in i believe 1910. he shot someone sneeking into his wifes window at night and shot him. the court upheld his right to use deadly force to protect his wife.
the bean case wasn't heard because bean drafted his own pleadings. the case was about bean; who inadvertently had LEGAL ammunition in his vehicle when he tried to cross the mexican border. although the ammunition was perfectly legal for him to posess in the us; all ammunition is illegal in mexico. bean was refused his rights based on the mexican arrest and he was attempting to get his rights reinstated.
as to juries; the dead guys gave up their right to a jury trial when they broke the law. had they been caught by a government entity; they would have had a jury trial; save any plea bargins. but just as when a cop shoots someone and it's deemed justifiable; that person gave up the right to a jury trial. otherwise cops wouldn't be allowed to shoot anyone.
no; i claimed a constitutional right to use deadly force; as you put it; vigilante justice. the original post cited a law in texas which allows deadly force for home invasions. to the best of my knowledge; that law only exists in texas. it is up to the texas legislators to clarify if it includes a neighbours home.
the "third party vigilantism" i was referring to was that if i see a woman getting raped for example; and i fear for her life; i can use deadly force and kill the attacker. i was given a medal because some gang members ambushed a cop. i drew my weapon and fired on the gang members. the news reports said i saved the cops life.
the alberry case was decided in i believe 1910. he shot someone sneeking into his wifes window at night and shot him. the court upheld his right to use deadly force to protect his wife.
the bean case wasn't heard because bean drafted his own pleadings. the case was about bean; who inadvertently had LEGAL ammunition in his vehicle when he tried to cross the mexican border. although the ammunition was perfectly legal for him to posess in the us; all ammunition is illegal in mexico. bean was refused his rights based on the mexican arrest and he was attempting to get his rights reinstated.
as to juries; the dead guys gave up their right to a jury trial when they broke the law. had they been caught by a government entity; they would have had a jury trial; save any plea bargins. but just as when a cop shoots someone and it's deemed justifiable; that person gave up the right to a jury trial. otherwise cops wouldn't be allowed to shoot anyone.
in case one, they were invading his home. case two has nothing to do with any of this.
you do not give up your right to a jury trial when you break the law. otherwise there would never be jury trials at all, becos their only purpose is to try people who broke the law. police are allowed to shoot only in very particular instances and they are subject to close scrutiny when they do it. yes, it is up to texas to go over this law, but i think this gyu's going to be hard pressed to convince any sane jury that after calling the cops and being told not to go outside, he went out and killed 2 men who were in SOMEONE ELSE's house. deadly force is subject to very careful scrutiny and i'd be shocked if it is allowed in circumstances like this.
in case one, they were invading his home. case two has nothing to do with any of this.
you do not give up your right to a jury trial when you break the law. otherwise there would never be jury trials at all, becos their only purpose is to try people who broke the law. police are allowed to shoot only in very particular instances and they are subject to close scrutiny when they do it. yes, it is up to texas to go over this law, but i think this gyu's going to be hard pressed to convince any sane jury that after calling the cops and being told not to go outside, he went out and killed 2 men who were in SOMEONE ELSE's house. deadly force is subject to very careful scrutiny and i'd be shocked if it is allowed in circumstances like this.
i had those 2 cases at hand. i'm not doing research for you. if someone believes they're in imminent danger; they can use deadly force. if they see someone else in imminent danger; they can use deadly force. we've gone through this entire thread and evidently; nobody knows what home invasion is. home invasion means someone is IN THE HOUSE. if nobody is home; it's burglery. the texas law allows for deadly force only in home invasions. what horn interupted was a burglery.
i wanted to see how educated people actually are. now you know the difference.
i cant believe you two are still yanking each other's chains over this.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
Options
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,127
Now let's take a look at the case of Washington Redskins player Sean Taylor. It appears in this case this was a home invasion, someone broke in Sean heard it, grabbed a machete and confronted the intruder.
Shot fired he appears to get hit in the head and is in grave condition at the moment. This is what's being reported on the DC news stations. Here's the story on AOL @ Sean Taylor.
Maybe if Mr. Horn was next door his use of deadly force could have been used in this Sean Taylor case.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
i had those 2 cases at hand. i'm not doing research for you. if someone believes they're in imminent danger; they can use deadly force. if they see someone else in imminent danger; they can use deadly force. we've gone through this entire thread and evidently; nobody knows what home invasion is. home invasion means someone is IN THE HOUSE. if nobody is home; it's burglery. the texas law allows for deadly force only in home invasions. what horn interupted was a burglery.
i wanted to see how educated people actually are. now you know the difference.
precisely. horn didn't see anyone in imminent danger. he went galloping in john wayne style to a situation he knew nothing of, and murdered 2 people. and that's wrong. period.
0
Options
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,127
Now let's take a look at the case of Washington Redskins player Sean Taylor. It appears in this case this was a home invasion, someone broke in Sean heard it, grabbed a machete and confronted the intruder.
Shot fired he appears to get hit in the head and is in grave condition at the moment. This is what's being reported on the DC news stations. Here's the story on AOL @ Sean Taylor.
Maybe if Mr. Horn was next door his use of deadly force could have been used in this Sean Taylor case.
Peace
Check that, it appears he was shot in the leg and incurred a wound to the femur artery and lost a great amount of blood. Which appear to have led to possible brain damage. Eight days earlier his home appeared to be have been broken into, nothing was stolen and no one was home.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Check that, it appears he was shot in the leg and incurred a wound to the femur artery and lost a great amount of blood. Which appear to have led to possible brain damage. Eight days earlier his home appeared to be have been broken into, nothing was stolen and no one was home.
Peace
So can I ask a question?
What if the guy Horn was this guy Taylor's neighbour and he hadn't shot and killed the burglars last week and now they'd come and shot Taylor during the home invasion? I'm just curious to compare the two scenarios.
What if the guy Horn was this guy Taylor's neighbour and he hadn't shot and killed the burglars last week and now they'd come and shot Taylor during the home invasion? I'm just curious to compare the two scenarios.
then assault and battery. whatever. they'd have been charged and given a trial for the crime they were arrested for committing. they'd not have been summarily executed for whatever crime a nosey neighbor imagined they were committing.
then assault and battery. whatever. they'd have been charged and given a trial for the crime they were arrested for committing. they'd not have been summarily executed for whatever crime a nosey neighbor imagined they were committing.
Have they been arrested?
If Horn had been coming to the aid of Taylor and had shot the offenders in the process this would make it different? Better somehow? He'd still be a "nosey neighbour" and he'd still have shot someone.
you know all this supposition is irrelevant. horn was coming to nobody's aid. HE put himself into the situation and this is the end result. no stuff is EVER worth a human life.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you know all this supposition is irrelevant. horn was coming to nobody's aid. HE put himself into the situation and this is the end result. no stuff is EVER worth a human life.
Yeah, we know that now, but did he know that then?
Comments
Obviously you don't know about your own laws. The texas law, when describing the use of deadly force when protecting property, says it is allowed at night and when the actor reasonably believes the property cannot be recovered any other way. main problem, this happened in broad daylight. I know each state has different laws you old bag of gas, I was talking about you keep saying "well, out here we got our own brand of justice!" like you can go around dropping people at will just because you think they did something wrong that wronged you and that the whole town would form a lynch mob. that's what I was talking about.
Interesting. I am not going to pretend to get in Horn's head and say that I know that he took this as the opportunity to kill, but I can see how one thinks it does seem to lean that way. Because he called 911 first, I don't think he thought "cool, I get to shoot these guys." I suspect it was more being so focused on not letting them get away that he was willing to be cavalier about taking a couple of lives. Of course, it appears that 40 to 50% on this thread would be equally cavalier about it (though I think in the situation, some may be less trigger happy than they think while praising this guy).
i think it would have given the police grounds to arrest him on the spot; being told he was about to commit a crime. in my eyes; he did commit a crime. especially if they dropped the bag. at that point their crime was only tresspass and you can't use deadly force for a tresspass crime. unless there's an order of protection involved.
that's why i've been saying that i want to see how this plays out. there's so many variables. day or night has nothing to do with it. several carjackings have ended with the carowner shooting the carjacker yet no charges have ever been filed against them. (in phoenix) many during the day.
that's why i don't want to argue. it's ultimately in the hands of a jury.
to some people; killing doesn't mean a thing. look at the gangs that require you to kill a stranger to be accepted into the gang. but for most; it's a traumatic thing. doc holiday cried when he killed his first man. it's not easy to kill and you never forget it. it haunts you for life. IMO; horn will commit suiside if not prosecuted. i don't mean to get into his head but the stats say he will. unless you know that you did it to save your life; it eats away at you.
I don't disagree with that at all. For Horn, killing was the easy part. Dealing with it will be tough. Only a sociopath has an easy time killing and dealing with it for their first victim and I don't know how many people get desensitized if they frequently kill.
Reminds me of "True Romance" when the organized crimal said he threw up the first time and now just likes to see the expressions change.
Anyway, I don't know whether he wanted to KILL them or not, but I think he was so caught up in the moment that he did not really think of the implications. Afterward--yeah, I am sure it's gonna be rough and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he's had a lot of food not stay down.
Two lives could have been saved if he simply listened to this: "Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK? It's not worth shooting someone over this. I don't want you to go out there. Don't, don't , don't go out the door."
And I'm not a fan of jury trials.
naděje umírá poslední
you are correct. i explained it wrong. thank you for the correction.
good point. i'm on the fence because i'm close with my neighbours and i'd go (and have) check it out if something is wrong. i have another neighbour i wouldn't bother looking twice.
please understand that i've said several times that i think he committed a crime. just as in most debates; i take the extreem side to get the debate rolling; and sometimes heated. except for **; i think this debate went well.
yes; and i'd expect pages of research to back it up.
did you get my apology?
I think so. No need to apologize though. I don't even remember what happened.
THIS is why we have juries? what about the dead guys? don't we have juries to determine if THEY were guilty of a crime and decide an appropriate punishment for them? the whole point of this thread is that it is bullshit that horn gets a jury for completely denying those criminals their day in court in front of a jury becos he had "had enough" and decided to serve as judge, jury, and executioner all on his own.
i'll read those 2 cases tomorrow. and don't act like you're doing research for me. you claimed a constitutional right to lethal force in protection of the property of third parties. i asked you to back it up.
i'm aware of plain english pleadings. but court opinions are legal opinions. those guys wrote a huge layman's guide to the second amendment by and for gun advocates. which is why i wanted to read the scotus decisions myself, not the authors' biased take on those opinions. i don't care to read the book myself becos i don't care enough about gun rights one way or the other to slog through 600 pages of it. but i am curious, like i said, about this right to kill people over your neighbor's property.
you might wanna check these cases again and give me a citation. according to lexis and westlaw, they do not exist. no case with a party name "alberry v. us" has ever been decided by the supreme court. there is a case called "bean v. us" which was denied review by scotus many times before receiving a decision having to do with a gun dealer being stripped of his ability to possess firearms after a conviction for important ammunition illegally.
no; i claimed a constitutional right to use deadly force; as you put it; vigilante justice. the original post cited a law in texas which allows deadly force for home invasions. to the best of my knowledge; that law only exists in texas. it is up to the texas legislators to clarify if it includes a neighbours home.
the "third party vigilantism" i was referring to was that if i see a woman getting raped for example; and i fear for her life; i can use deadly force and kill the attacker. i was given a medal because some gang members ambushed a cop. i drew my weapon and fired on the gang members. the news reports said i saved the cops life.
the alberry case was decided in i believe 1910. he shot someone sneeking into his wifes window at night and shot him. the court upheld his right to use deadly force to protect his wife.
the bean case wasn't heard because bean drafted his own pleadings. the case was about bean; who inadvertently had LEGAL ammunition in his vehicle when he tried to cross the mexican border. although the ammunition was perfectly legal for him to posess in the us; all ammunition is illegal in mexico. bean was refused his rights based on the mexican arrest and he was attempting to get his rights reinstated.
as to juries; the dead guys gave up their right to a jury trial when they broke the law. had they been caught by a government entity; they would have had a jury trial; save any plea bargins. but just as when a cop shoots someone and it's deemed justifiable; that person gave up the right to a jury trial. otherwise cops wouldn't be allowed to shoot anyone.
in case one, they were invading his home. case two has nothing to do with any of this.
you do not give up your right to a jury trial when you break the law. otherwise there would never be jury trials at all, becos their only purpose is to try people who broke the law. police are allowed to shoot only in very particular instances and they are subject to close scrutiny when they do it. yes, it is up to texas to go over this law, but i think this gyu's going to be hard pressed to convince any sane jury that after calling the cops and being told not to go outside, he went out and killed 2 men who were in SOMEONE ELSE's house. deadly force is subject to very careful scrutiny and i'd be shocked if it is allowed in circumstances like this.
i had those 2 cases at hand. i'm not doing research for you. if someone believes they're in imminent danger; they can use deadly force. if they see someone else in imminent danger; they can use deadly force. we've gone through this entire thread and evidently; nobody knows what home invasion is. home invasion means someone is IN THE HOUSE. if nobody is home; it's burglery. the texas law allows for deadly force only in home invasions. what horn interupted was a burglery.
i wanted to see how educated people actually are. now you know the difference.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Shot fired he appears to get hit in the head and is in grave condition at the moment. This is what's being reported on the DC news stations. Here's the story on AOL @ Sean Taylor.
Maybe if Mr. Horn was next door his use of deadly force could have been used in this Sean Taylor case.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
precisely. horn didn't see anyone in imminent danger. he went galloping in john wayne style to a situation he knew nothing of, and murdered 2 people. and that's wrong. period.
Check that, it appears he was shot in the leg and incurred a wound to the femur artery and lost a great amount of blood. Which appear to have led to possible brain damage. Eight days earlier his home appeared to be have been broken into, nothing was stolen and no one was home.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
So can I ask a question?
What if the guy Horn was this guy Taylor's neighbour and he hadn't shot and killed the burglars last week and now they'd come and shot Taylor during the home invasion? I'm just curious to compare the two scenarios.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
they'd have had a TRIAL for murder.
Whose murder?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
the shooters would be tried for the murder of taylor.
But he's not dead yet.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
then assault and battery. whatever. they'd have been charged and given a trial for the crime they were arrested for committing. they'd not have been summarily executed for whatever crime a nosey neighbor imagined they were committing.
Have they been arrested?
If Horn had been coming to the aid of Taylor and had shot the offenders in the process this would make it different? Better somehow? He'd still be a "nosey neighbour" and he'd still have shot someone.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yeah, we know that now, but did he know that then?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
he should have. he was told by the operator not to leave the house and told them he was going to shoot someone becos they were getting away.