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.
i dont know, ive not been following the story.
yes, it would be different. he'd have seen a crime in progress with someone's life directly in danger and he'd have been directly saving their lives by firing in defense of someone's life. not the same as seeing 2 guys leaving a house with a stereo and shooting them for it. perhaps they hurt someone. perhaps they lived there and moved out. the point is he didn't know what was going on and that is NOT good enough to justify killing someone.
Yeah, we know that now, but did he know that then?
i would say, yes he did know that.
not once did he mention to the operator that his neighbour's were home or that they might be in danger. he said he was not going to let them(the burgalrs) get away.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
So there's a whole bunch of things he should have done? And the outcome is this is what he has done. I don't think it's unreasonable that he didn't listen to the operator when he was told not to leave the house. I'm not sure I'd always be able to put my faith in an emergency operator. Aside from the outcome and the 911 call do we know anything else about the guy? For instance had this happened to him before? Had there been a spate of home burglaries and home invasions in his area or had he experienced this before?
Did he know that no one was home next door?
So there's a whole bunch of things he should have done? And the outcome is this is what he has done. I don't think it's unreasonable that he didn't listen to the operator when he was told not to leave the house. I'm not sure I'd always be able to put my faith in an emergency operator. Aside from the outcome and the 911 call do we know anything else about the guy? For instance had this happened to him before? Had there been a spate of home burglaries and home invasions in his area or had he experienced this before?
Did he know that no one was home next door?
yes he knew they werent home.otherwise he would have mentioned them, don't you think?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yes, it would be different. he'd have seen a crime in progress with someone's life directly in danger and he'd have been directly saving their lives by firing in defense of someone's life. not the same as seeing 2 guys leaving a house with a stereo and shooting them for it. perhaps they hurt someone. perhaps they lived there and moved out. the point is he didn't know what was going on and that is NOT good enough to justify killing someone.
But can we be sure that his intent was to kill them or even that he's trying to justify it?
So there's a whole bunch of things he should have done? And the outcome is this is what he has done. I don't think it's unreasonable that he didn't listen to the operator when he was told not to leave the house. I'm not sure I'd always be able to put my faith in an emergency operator. Aside from the outcome and the 911 call do we know anything else about the guy? For instance had this happened to him before? Had there been a spate of home burglaries and home invasions in his area or had he experienced this before?
Did he know that no one was home next door?
a whole bunch of things he should have done? he called 911 and they told him police were on the way. im tired of people disrespecting my life by disobeying traffic laws. im gonna shoot the next guy who cuts me off, cos he might cause an accident next time he does it and i might be saving someone's life. i mean, i cant be sure, but you dont know if ive been in an accident before or if there has been a spate of deadly accidents from reckless driving lately, so you can't judge my actions.
i would say, yes he did know that.
not once did he mention to the operator that his neighbour's were home or that they might be in danger. he said he was not going to let them(the burgalrs) get away.
Well not mentioning to the operator that his neighbours were or weren't home and could be in danger doesn't mean that he knew one way or the other.
Just means he didn't mention it in that conversation. Could be a lot of reasons for that. Might not be either. And saying he was not going to let them get away doesn't mean that he intended to kill them.
But can we be sure that his intent was to kill them or even that he's trying to justify it?
he fired 3 shots into each i believe. hardly a warning. i believe he also said over the phone he was going to kill them before he'd let them get away.
i dont know whether or not he's trying to justify it, but i dont care. he was told to let the police handle it, he decided to act as judge and jury himself, and he can suffer the consequences. but then, im just a mushy east-coast liberal. i lack the balls of steel sported by real american heroes like john wayne, horn, and onelongsong.
a whole bunch of things he should have done? he called 911 and they told him police were on the way. im tired of people disrespecting my life by disobeying traffic laws. im gonna shoot the next guy who cuts me off, cos he might cause an accident next time he does it and i might be saving someone's life. i mean, i cant be sure, but you dont know if ive been in an accident before or if there has been a spate of deadly accidents from reckless driving lately, so you can't judge my actions.
Well not mentioning to the operator that his neighbours were or weren't home and could be in danger doesn't mean that he knew one way or the other.
Just means he didn't mention it in that conversation. Could be a lot of reasons for that. Might not be either. And saying he was not going to let them get away doesn't mean that he intended to kill them.
didn't say it did.
and i assure you my first concern would have been for my neighbours had they been home, not their damn DVD player or any other stuff that can easily be replaced.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
he mentioned repeatedly that they were stealing and getting away. somehow i feel like if someone were in danger and he knew it he'd have jumped at the chance to talk about his rationalizations for lethal force.
he fired 3 shots into each i believe. hardly a warning. i believe he also said over the phone he was going to kill them before he'd let them get away.
i dont know whether or not he's trying to justify it, but i dont care. he was told to let the police handle it, he decided to act as judge and jury himself, and he can suffer the consequences. but then, im just a mushy east-coast liberal. i lack the balls of steel sported by real american heroes like john wayne, horn, and onelongsong.
Do you feel better now?
Seriously there's no point disussing anything with you, it's like talking to a spoilt child.
and i assure you my first concern would have been for my neighbours had they been home, not their damn DVD player or any other stuff that can easily be replaced.
I know you didn't. I'm simply pointing it out.
And I'm not questioning what your motivations or concerns would be if in the same situation I'm simply trying to understand Horn's.
what's the difference between my decision and horn's?
you said "so there's a whole bunch of things he should have done?" i was asking what you meant by that. and then went on to show that it's pointless to act like the questions you asked (do we know him? was he fed up? had it happened before?) make a difference. they don't. if we're going to say the fact that he'd had enough excuses his killing people, then i can say i've had enough of reckless drivers endangering people so i can kill them.
he mentioned repeatedly that they were stealing and getting away. somehow i feel like if someone were in danger and he knew it he'd have jumped at the chance to talk about his rationalizations for lethal force.
Well maybe. But I'm not him so I've got no idea how he normally communicates.
That phone call is going to make some rather tidy evidence in court. He'd be better off just shooting the guy, and hoping that dead men don't speak somehow plays in his favor.
Or perhaps realize that his neighbors stereo and coin collection are not worth the jail time. A better weapon probably would have been a video camera, however, who knows how the retaliation thing will go.
I had to testify once for armed robbery (5 guys with guns). I actually recognized the one guy (seen him around before), and saw his face when his mask slipped down. His relatives were in the audience (court) and were writing everything down (i.e. names). I had to say and spell my first and last name for the record. I had to point right at the guy (chained to the other 4 guys in orange jump suits 10-15 feet away right in plain sight) and literally had to say say "that's the guy" I subsequently had to quit that job for fear of safety, and then moved shortly after. Honestly, the paranoia was not worth it. I still never know if one day it will come back to me.
messed up from a lot of angles this subject is,
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
And I'm not questioning what your motivations or concerns would be if in the same situation I'm simply trying to understand Horn's.
i know you weren't questioning my motivations or concerns, i was just pointing out that if horn's neighbours were home then his concern should primarily have been with them not their stuff, wouldnt you think? my contention is that he knew his neighbours weren't home therefore his focus was the burglars. wy he chose you ignore th emergency operator i don't know. but he did and he killed people. he has no justification that i can see for using lethal force. if you bring a weapon into a situation, my thinking is you intend to use that weapon.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well maybe. But I'm not him so I've got no idea how he normally communicates.
i do. i've got his actions and words in this scenario. until someone gives me a powerful reason to think otherwise, i see no reason to believe his communication skills are abnormal and vastly different from what we've seen and heard here.
what's to understand.
he was told NOT to go outside. he went outside and now people are dead by his hand. if he stayed inside his house, like he was advised, no one would be dead.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
what's the difference between my decision and horn's?
you said "so there's a whole bunch of things he should have done?" i was asking what you meant by that. and then went on to show that it's pointless to act like the questions you asked (do we know him? was he fed up? had it happened before?) make a difference. they don't. if we're going to say the fact that he'd had enough excuses his killing people, then i can say i've had enough of reckless drivers endangering people so i can kill them.
Meaning that clearly he should have stayed away, done what the operator told him, not gone outside with a loaded gun when he decided to ignore the operator, not fired, not fired too many times. A whole bunch of stuff obviously if this is the outcome.
But they do make a difference a lot of time in law. Surely you have extenuating circumstances? I'm just asking if they applied here and if that's the case pointing out that most likely his lawyer will utilize them in his defence.
And seeing as how you haven't killed reckless drivers even though you've had enough, wouldn't saying that you would be considered premeditation and therefore negate extenuating circumstances anyway?
NOPE!!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
0
Options
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,127
That phone call is going to make some rather tidy evidence in court. He'd be better off just shooting the guy, and hoping that dead men don't speak somehow plays in his favor.
Or perhaps realize that his neighbors stereo and coin collection are not worth the jail time. A better weapon probably would have been a video camera, however, who knows how the retaliation thing will go.
I had to testify once for armed robbery (5 guys with guns). I actually recognized the one guy (seen him around before), and saw his face when his mask slipped down. His relatives were in the audience (court) and were writing everything down (i.e. names). I had to say and spell my first and last name for the record. I had to point right at the guy (chained to the other 4 guys in orange jump suits 10-15 feet away right in plain sight) and literally had to say say "that's the guy" I subsequently had to quit that job for fear of safety, and then moved shortly after. Honestly, the paranoia was not worth it. I still never know if one day it will come back to me.
messed up from a lot of angles this subject is,
However, those dead men could speak. As they would say on I think it's CSI, if those men had bullet wounds in the back could make a difference. It may show that those men were running from an armed man and NOT posing a threat.
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)
That phone call is going to make some rather tidy evidence in court. He'd be better off just shooting the guy, and hoping that dead men don't speak somehow plays in his favor.
Or perhaps realize that his neighbors stereo and coin collection are not worth the jail time. A better weapon probably would have been a video camera, however, who knows how the retaliation thing will go.
I had to testify once for armed robbery (5 guys with guns). I actually recognized the one guy (seen him around before), and saw his face when his mask slipped down. His relatives were in the audience (court) and were writing everything down (i.e. names). I had to say and spell my first and last name for the record. I had to point right at the guy (chained to the other 4 guys in orange jump suits 10-15 feet away right in plain sight) and literally had to say say "that's the guy" I subsequently had to quit that job for fear of safety, and then moved shortly after. Honestly, the paranoia was not worth it. I still never know if one day it will come back to me.
messed up from a lot of angles this subject is,
Roland, couldn't you just supply your name and address for the court but not actually have to say it in the presence of the court?
I had a similar problem as a witness once and was threatened so I simply asked that I be able to supply my full name and address to the judge but not actually have to say it in the court where the guy and his cronies could hear it.
i know you weren't questioning my motivations or concerns, i was just pointing out that if horn's neighbours were home then his concern should primarily have been with them not their stuff, wouldnt you think? my contention is that he knew his neighbours weren't home therefore his focus was the burglars. wy he chose you ignore th emergency operator i don't know. but he did and he killed people. he has no justification that i can see for using lethal force. if you bring a weapon into a situation, my thinking is you intend to use that weapon.
Yeah, but who says that wasn't his concern? Are we just all ageeing he couldn't possibly have been concerned with his neighbours because he didn't mention it to the operator?
With regard to coming into the situation armed won't it depend on his intent?
Perhaps he did intend to use the weapon, but he may not have intended to shoot DEAD the burglars and even supposing he did, can we know for certain that he was aware that the family weren't home? Perhaps his rationale was that the neighbours were already inside dead?
Meaning that clearly he should have stayed away, done what the operator told him, not gone outside with a loaded gun when he decided to ignore the operator, not fired, not fired too many times. A whole bunch of stuff obviously if this is the outcome.
yeah, he had many chances to avoid this. but he didnt. tough shit for him. tougher shit for the people he murdered.
But they do make a difference a lot of time in law. Surely you have extenuating circumstances? I'm just asking if they applied here and if that's the case pointing out that most likely his lawyer will utilize them in his defence.
mitigating circumstances might get him a lighters sentence. they can't releive you of criminal guilt entirely. sure his lawyer will use them. with a little time i could come up with a great argument for why this guy is a hero. it would all be bullshit though.
And seeing as how you haven't killed reckless drivers even though you've had enough, wouldn't saying that you would be considered premeditation and therefore negate extenuating circumstances anyway?
yes, but it was a hypothetical. if i just up and did it, i rather doubt you'd be excusing it. or imagine this: a guy is fed up becos his wife is illegally abusing prescription meds as a result of post-partum. it is affecting her ability to care for their children. one day he's "had enough" and he stabs her to death. is he a hero? did she forfeit her right to a jury trial due to her breaking drug laws and child neglect laws? is he justified or excused for the murder becos what she was doing was illegal and he was caught up in the moment? drug abuse that causes child abuse seems a lot worse to me than burglary.
i do. i've got his actions and words in this scenario. until someone gives me a powerful reason to think otherwise, i see no reason to believe his communication skills are abnormal and vastly different from what we've seen and heard here.
So based solely on this incident you've got him all worked out?
what's to understand.
he was told NOT to go outside. he went outside and now people are dead by his hand. if he stayed inside his house, like he was advised, no one would be dead.
So we should all obey authority unquestioningly and if we don't and we end up in a situation because of it we've got no one to blame but ourselves?????
Yeah, but who says that wasn't his concern? Are we just all ageeing he couldn't possibly have been concerned with his neighbours because he didn't mention it to the operator?
With regard to coming into the situation armed won't it depend on his intent?
Perhaps he did intend to use the weapon, but he may not have intended to shoot DEAD the burglars and even supposing he did, can we know for certain that he was aware that the family weren't home? Perhaps his rationale was that the neighbours were already inside dead?
that is the point. how did he know and why didnt he say anything? if he knew, then he should have been calling in a much more serious crime than burglary. but he didnt. he just called in a burglary. why? becos he didnt know. do you have a better reason? one that's more logical? i'd love to hear it. if not, im sorry but what he suspects or thinks may have happened does not excuse him killing somebody. what if he was wrong? do we want to encourage people to shoot first and ask questions later? we are outraged when the police do it, why should we allow private citizens to do it?
Comments
i dont know, ive not been following the story.
yes, it would be different. he'd have seen a crime in progress with someone's life directly in danger and he'd have been directly saving their lives by firing in defense of someone's life. not the same as seeing 2 guys leaving a house with a stereo and shooting them for it. perhaps they hurt someone. perhaps they lived there and moved out. the point is he didn't know what was going on and that is NOT good enough to justify killing someone.
i would say, yes he did know that.
not once did he mention to the operator that his neighbour's were home or that they might be in danger. he said he was not going to let them(the burgalrs) get away.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So there's a whole bunch of things he should have done? And the outcome is this is what he has done. I don't think it's unreasonable that he didn't listen to the operator when he was told not to leave the house. I'm not sure I'd always be able to put my faith in an emergency operator. Aside from the outcome and the 911 call do we know anything else about the guy? For instance had this happened to him before? Had there been a spate of home burglaries and home invasions in his area or had he experienced this before?
Did he know that no one was home next door?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
yes he knew they werent home.otherwise he would have mentioned them, don't you think?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
But can we be sure that his intent was to kill them or even that he's trying to justify it?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
a whole bunch of things he should have done? he called 911 and they told him police were on the way. im tired of people disrespecting my life by disobeying traffic laws. im gonna shoot the next guy who cuts me off, cos he might cause an accident next time he does it and i might be saving someone's life. i mean, i cant be sure, but you dont know if ive been in an accident before or if there has been a spate of deadly accidents from reckless driving lately, so you can't judge my actions.
Well not mentioning to the operator that his neighbours were or weren't home and could be in danger doesn't mean that he knew one way or the other.
Just means he didn't mention it in that conversation. Could be a lot of reasons for that. Might not be either. And saying he was not going to let them get away doesn't mean that he intended to kill them.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
he fired 3 shots into each i believe. hardly a warning. i believe he also said over the phone he was going to kill them before he'd let them get away.
i dont know whether or not he's trying to justify it, but i dont care. he was told to let the police handle it, he decided to act as judge and jury himself, and he can suffer the consequences. but then, im just a mushy east-coast liberal. i lack the balls of steel sported by real american heroes like john wayne, horn, and onelongsong.
not necessarily.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Huh????
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
didn't say it did.
and i assure you my first concern would have been for my neighbours had they been home, not their damn DVD player or any other stuff that can easily be replaced.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
he mentioned repeatedly that they were stealing and getting away. somehow i feel like if someone were in danger and he knew it he'd have jumped at the chance to talk about his rationalizations for lethal force.
Do you feel better now?
Seriously there's no point disussing anything with you, it's like talking to a spoilt child.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
youre being pedantic jeanie.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I know you didn't. I'm simply pointing it out.
And I'm not questioning what your motivations or concerns would be if in the same situation I'm simply trying to understand Horn's.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
what's the difference between my decision and horn's?
you said "so there's a whole bunch of things he should have done?" i was asking what you meant by that. and then went on to show that it's pointless to act like the questions you asked (do we know him? was he fed up? had it happened before?) make a difference. they don't. if we're going to say the fact that he'd had enough excuses his killing people, then i can say i've had enough of reckless drivers endangering people so i can kill them.
Well maybe. But I'm not him so I've got no idea how he normally communicates.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
No. I'm just trying to gain some understanding.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Or perhaps realize that his neighbors stereo and coin collection are not worth the jail time. A better weapon probably would have been a video camera, however, who knows how the retaliation thing will go.
I had to testify once for armed robbery (5 guys with guns). I actually recognized the one guy (seen him around before), and saw his face when his mask slipped down. His relatives were in the audience (court) and were writing everything down (i.e. names). I had to say and spell my first and last name for the record. I had to point right at the guy (chained to the other 4 guys in orange jump suits 10-15 feet away right in plain sight) and literally had to say say "that's the guy" I subsequently had to quit that job for fear of safety, and then moved shortly after. Honestly, the paranoia was not worth it. I still never know if one day it will come back to me.
messed up from a lot of angles this subject is,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i know you weren't questioning my motivations or concerns, i was just pointing out that if horn's neighbours were home then his concern should primarily have been with them not their stuff, wouldnt you think? my contention is that he knew his neighbours weren't home therefore his focus was the burglars. wy he chose you ignore th emergency operator i don't know. but he did and he killed people. he has no justification that i can see for using lethal force. if you bring a weapon into a situation, my thinking is you intend to use that weapon.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i do. i've got his actions and words in this scenario. until someone gives me a powerful reason to think otherwise, i see no reason to believe his communication skills are abnormal and vastly different from what we've seen and heard here.
what's to understand.
he was told NOT to go outside. he went outside and now people are dead by his hand. if he stayed inside his house, like he was advised, no one would be dead.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Meaning that clearly he should have stayed away, done what the operator told him, not gone outside with a loaded gun when he decided to ignore the operator, not fired, not fired too many times. A whole bunch of stuff obviously if this is the outcome.
But they do make a difference a lot of time in law. Surely you have extenuating circumstances? I'm just asking if they applied here and if that's the case pointing out that most likely his lawyer will utilize them in his defence.
And seeing as how you haven't killed reckless drivers even though you've had enough, wouldn't saying that you would be considered premeditation and therefore negate extenuating circumstances anyway?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
However, those dead men could speak. As they would say on I think it's CSI, if those men had bullet wounds in the back could make a difference. It may show that those men were running from an armed man and NOT posing a threat.
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)
Roland, couldn't you just supply your name and address for the court but not actually have to say it in the presence of the court?
I had a similar problem as a witness once and was threatened so I simply asked that I be able to supply my full name and address to the judge but not actually have to say it in the court where the guy and his cronies could hear it.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Yeah, but who says that wasn't his concern? Are we just all ageeing he couldn't possibly have been concerned with his neighbours because he didn't mention it to the operator?
With regard to coming into the situation armed won't it depend on his intent?
Perhaps he did intend to use the weapon, but he may not have intended to shoot DEAD the burglars and even supposing he did, can we know for certain that he was aware that the family weren't home? Perhaps his rationale was that the neighbours were already inside dead?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
So based solely on this incident you've got him all worked out?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
So we should all obey authority unquestioningly and if we don't and we end up in a situation because of it we've got no one to blame but ourselves?????
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
that is the point. how did he know and why didnt he say anything? if he knew, then he should have been calling in a much more serious crime than burglary. but he didnt. he just called in a burglary. why? becos he didnt know. do you have a better reason? one that's more logical? i'd love to hear it. if not, im sorry but what he suspects or thinks may have happened does not excuse him killing somebody. what if he was wrong? do we want to encourage people to shoot first and ask questions later? we are outraged when the police do it, why should we allow private citizens to do it?