interesting. it's a substance abuse only prison? makes sense if you're going to have drug courts to have drug prisons. i still think it would be a good idea to try rehab BEFORE making your son a convicted felon for life though. isn't that what ruined your friend's life forever?
interesting. it's a substance abuse only prison? makes sense if you're going to have drug courts to have drug prisons. i still think it would be a good idea to try rehab BEFORE making your son a convicted felon for life though. isn't that what ruined your friend's life forever?
i sent him to a boot camp first. it was only 30 days and meth addicts need 45 days.
interesting. it's a substance abuse only prison? makes sense if you're going to have drug courts to have drug prisons. i still think it would be a good idea to try rehab BEFORE making your son a convicted felon for life though. isn't that what ruined your friend's life forever?
my friend was in a federal prison. if you want the whole story;
a few months earlier he got off work early and found his wife in bed with some bloke. the guy was in ICU for weeks and will have to stay in a wheelchair the rest of his life. he also beat the hell out of 5 cops trying to subdue him (in 1989. no tazers etc) and put 2 of them in the hospital.
he plead to a felony and got time served because it was a crime of passion.
then he had to plea to burglery that he didn't do.
under those circumstances then being put in a prison where you constantly had to fight to keep from being raped; it messed him up bad.
my friend was in a federal prison. if you want the whole story;
a few months earlier he got off work early and found his wife in bed with some bloke. the guy was in ICU for weeks and will have to stay in a wheelchair the rest of his life. he also beat the hell out of 5 cops trying to subdue him (in 1989. no tazers etc) and put 2 of them in the hospital.
he plead to a felony and got time served because it was a crime of passion.
then he had to plea to burglery that he didn't do.
under those circumstances then being put in a prison where you constantly had to fight to keep from being raped; it messed him up bad.
ah, so it WASN'T just the conviction itself that ruined his life eh?
"you say stealing is not worth a human life yet we take that life when we put someone in prison. car theft gets you 5 to 10. after 10 years of isolation; how does one get out and resume life? especially with background checks being so common."
and here i thought being an ex-con was the same as being dead. you could have done your nephew a favor and shot him like horn did the thieves. it's the same as making him a felon, right?
45 days? Yikes. Meth must be some nasty shit. 45 days makes alcoholics look like pussies for complaining about their 1 to 2 weeks of withdrawal.
Meth addiction really doesn't every go away for many. People will be craving it years after they have been clean. Sometimes someone could go 3 or 4 years clean only to fall off the wagon again.
"you say stealing is not worth a human life yet we take that life when we put someone in prison. car theft gets you 5 to 10. after 10 years of isolation; how does one get out and resume life? especially with background checks being so common."
and here i thought a felony conviction inevitably ended someone's life and they were better off dead than an ex-con.
so you misunderstood. that's ok. some people are slower. let me explain it a different way. 5 years after moving here; i went back to visit. i didn't recognise the place. it was like i've never been there before. thant's what it's like coming out of prison. you're dropped in a world you don't recognise; with technology you know nothing about. you try to get a job but even mcdonalds does background checks so you go back to a life of crime.
Meth addiction really doesn't every go away for many. People will be craving it years after they have been clean. Sometimes someone could go 3 or 4 years clean only to fall off the wagon again.
i have a friend that's a nurse in a dialisis center and she said it could stay in the fat for decades.
so you misunderstood. that's ok. some people are slower. let me explain it a different way. 5 years after moving here; i went back to visit. i didn't recognise the place. it was like i've never been there before. thant's what it's like coming out of prison. you're dropped in a world you don't recognise; with technology you know nothing about. you try to get a job but even mcdonalds does background checks so you go back to a life of crime.
does that explain it better?
no. becos you still don't explain how the difficult transition to life outside prison is the same or even comparable to shooting them to death. which was the comparison you made.
no. becos you still don't explain how the difficult transition to life outside prison is the same or even comparable to shooting them to death. which was the comparison you made.
b/c i don't have any tollerance for criminals. i'd rather see them dead.
So I'd like to know HOW people think we could change this or fix this?
Seems to me that there's been an awful lot of emotive language and a whole bunch of understanding for dead burglars and not so much understanding for a guy that shot them seemingly within the law of his state.
I'm just wondering how people here expect this to change given that seemingly the only thing they are prepared to do is condemn Horn, (even though they don't know him) and seemingly the whole state of Texas (and it's not possible to know ALL of them.) I just can't see that working somehow. So any body got any bright ideas?
Just whinging and denouncing Horn that's easy to do. If everyone is as big a pacifist as they profess to be then seems odd to me the reaction of some people.
then why didn't you kill your ciminal drug addict son?
addictions are an illness. prior to my getting custody of my kids; their mother messed them up bad. in fact; CPS removed them from her home because of abuse. the oldest spent 2 months in cottonwood.
however; living where i do; if my son had broken into somebody's house or tried to rob somebody; i would expect him to get shot and i wouldn't cry over it saying it wasn't justified.
addictions are an illness. prior to my getting custody of my kids; their mother messed them up bad. in fact; CPS removed them from her home because of abuse. the oldest spent 2 months in cottonwood.
however; living where i do; if my son had broken into somebody's house or tried to rob somebody; i would expect him to get shot and i wouldn't cry over it saying it wasn't justified.
ah, so you see a difference between the crime of drug possession and robbery? what if horn didn't? who gets to make those calls?
i have a friend that's a nurse in a dialisis center and she said it could stay in the fat for decades.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was true. Meth is some of the nastiest stuff around and I fail to understand why many people, who know how bad it is prior to using, try it anyway.
I know if I had to do drugs Meth would be the one of last ones I picked.
and my point is it's a dangerous line to be trying to draw. maybe he says meth is so unpredictable anyone smoking it could turn violent in a second and he feared for his physical safety when your son looked at him with the crazy eyes. it could be argued. when you start allowing for joe citizen to shoot people based whatever he perceives to be happening regardless of its truth or reality, you're opening the door to some serious problems.
i understand it's the law, im saying it's bad policy and a bad law.
and my point is it's a dangerous line to be trying to draw. maybe he says meth is so unpredictable anyone smoking it could turn violent in a second and he feared for his physical safety when your son looked at him with the crazy eyes. it could be argued. when you start allowing for joe citizen to shoot people based whatever he perceives to be happening regardless of its truth or reality, you're opening the door to some serious problems.
i understand it's the law, im saying it's bad policy and a bad law.
doesn't that depend on the descresion of the judge?
As long as the law isn't written to try to force the judicial system into a certain outcome (mandatory minimums etc) and the judge is given the freedom to review facts could it not be considered a good law?
Clearly, shooting someone "because he gave me the eye" should be viewed as manslaughter or murder.
In this sense, this happens as the perpetrators are running away from the house after they have broken in and stolen something. The spirit of the law is to allow the owner to protect themself and thier own property because the police do not live at everyones house. Now if you want to say... Mr. Horn should not have killed the people who were running away and sue him for wrongful death I don't see a problem, but having not read the law I think as long as there is discresion (logic and reason from the judge given the facts of the case) it could be considered a good law. We don't really want the government to be on the side of protecting the criminal.
I'm all for fair trials and all, but our judicial systems wheels turn slowly. Provided the two dead perps in this case were ever caught, the merchandise would likely be long gone and they'd be let go due to lack of evidence.
I mean I guess we could have gun owners put warning labels on thier doors or something, but really... I don't feel bad for a dead burglar or robber... just don't do it. They essentially made a decision that ended in their death much like suicide. Ok so it's been said, "well is it worth someone dying for material possessions"... aparently to the two dead robbers... it was.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was true. Meth is some of the nastiest stuff around and I fail to understand why many people, who know how bad it is prior to using, try it anyway.
I know if I had to do drugs Meth would be the one of last ones I picked.
my ex was heavy into coke which is one of the reasons the state took them. her boyfriend was doing the abuse. i got them coming out of that enviornment. the 2 oldest were too far gone and needed drastic help. the other saw what was happening and stayed away from it. the youngest turned out to be my brother in laws child so there's no contact with him.
not true...you can only kill if its your shit and you feel your life was threatened..and that wasn't the case for redneck Horn. Now if my fellow Texans don't bring him up on charges...well thats another thing entirely...but he is guilty of murder....from the facts that I have.
not true...you can only kill if its your shit and you feel your life was threatened..and that wasn't the case for redneck Horn. Now if my fellow Texans don't bring him up on charges...well thats another thing entirely...but he is guilty of murder....from the facts that I have.
i understand that. i'm a CCW carrying arizonan so i know the laws and when i can pull the trigger. however; horn not being arrested on the spot means there's something we don't know. part of the story is missing. the police don't just let a murderer go until they decide to charge him.
i understand that. i'm a CCW carrying arizonan so i know the laws and when i can pull the trigger. however; horn not being arrested on the spot means there's something we don't know. part of the story is missing. the police don't just let a murderer go until they decide to charge him.
Yea its Texas Culture...but it doesn't mean he's not guilty...think the prosecutor has a few more days before they have to submit evidence to the grand jury. We'll probably know next week.
my friend was in a federal prison. if you want the whole story;
a few months earlier he got off work early and found his wife in bed with some bloke. the guy was in ICU for weeks and will have to stay in a wheelchair the rest of his life. he also beat the hell out of 5 cops trying to subdue him (in 1989. no tazers etc) and put 2 of them in the hospital.
he plead to a felony and got time served because it was a crime of passion.
then he had to plea to burglery that he didn't do.
under those circumstances then being put in a prison where you constantly had to fight to keep from being raped; it messed him up bad.
You see to be a bit hypocritical. If you are so disgusted with criminals, would put your own son in prison, and would understand if he was shot in the process of a robbery, then why would you have the person you are describing above live with you? The man put police officers in the hospital and crippled another guy all for banging his girl who was equally at fault.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
doesn't that depend on the descresion of the judge?
As long as the law isn't written to try to force the judicial system into a certain outcome (mandatory minimums etc) and the judge is given the freedom to review facts could it not be considered a good law?
Clearly, shooting someone "because he gave me the eye" should be viewed as manslaughter or murder.
In this sense, this happens as the perpetrators are running away from the house after they have broken in and stolen something. The spirit of the law is to allow the owner to protect themself and thier own property because the police do not live at everyones house. Now if you want to say... Mr. Horn should not have killed the people who were running away and sue him for wrongful death I don't see a problem, but having not read the law I think as long as there is discresion (logic and reason from the judge given the facts of the case) it could be considered a good law. We don't really want the government to be on the side of protecting the criminal.
I'm all for fair trials and all, but our judicial systems wheels turn slowly. Provided the two dead perps in this case were ever caught, the merchandise would likely be long gone and they'd be let go due to lack of evidence.
I mean I guess we could have gun owners put warning labels on thier doors or something, but really... I don't feel bad for a dead burglar or robber... just don't do it. They essentially made a decision that ended in their death much like suicide. Ok so it's been said, "well is it worth someone dying for material possessions"... aparently to the two dead robbers... it was.
you'll have to forgive him. he just talks goofy now and then.
this may not get as far as a judge. i think he'll go before a grand jury. they usually rubber stamp anything from the DA's office. that's been my experience. but like i said; horn not being arrested on the spot means there's something we don't know. texas has a law that you cannot shoot someone in the back. if they were running away; how could he not shoot them in the back? i didn't look where you're from but shooting someone in the back out west is a big no-no. i did have a warning label (i like that analogy) but it told perps that there were guns in the house. so if nobody is home; here's where you can get a gun.
i think it's a good law. people will abuse it because they abuse everything else; but they'll be punished for abusing it.
as for the dead guys; bury them; say some words over them; and let them rest. they took the risk. they knew the law. they paid the price.
So I'd like to know HOW people think we could change this or fix this?
Seems to me that there's been an awful lot of emotive language and a whole bunch of understanding for dead burglars and not so much understanding for a guy that shot them seemingly within the law of his state.
I'm just wondering how people here expect this to change given that seemingly the only thing they are prepared to do is condemn Horn, (even though they don't know him) and seemingly the whole state of Texas (and it's not possible to know ALL of them.) I just can't see that working somehow. So any body got any bright ideas?
Just whinging and denouncing Horn that's easy to do. If everyone is as big a pacifist as they profess to be then seems odd to me the reaction of some people.
What's to change? It is a law in Texas, a state that the majority of it's population wants to be its own country. Maybe that's the solution. Let them become their own nation. One less place that Southwest will have a never-ending layover in. Other than that, not much to do. Obviously the majority of people in Texas are accepting of this law. Aside from that, what can one do on here other than express their opinion on the matter and have a debate on the subject? Lastly, there is a great difference from pacifism and being against someone gunning down two thiefs in cold blood, to make it seem as there is no middle ground is absurd.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
You see to be a bit hypocritical. If you are so disgusted with criminals, would put your own son in prison, and would understand if he was shot in the process of a robbery, then why would you have the person you are describing above live with you? The man put police officers in the hospital and crippled another guy all for banging his girl who was equally at fault.
because i'd have killed the guy screwing my wife. my friend adored his wife. she was his life and he lived for her and his daughter. when he walked in that bedroom; it wasn't him anymore. in his mind his wife was being raped. he couldn't imagine her cheating on him. to him; he was beating a rapist. he'd never hit a cop on purpose. they walked in and he wanted to kill the rapist first.
i can understand that.
Comments
interesting. it's a substance abuse only prison? makes sense if you're going to have drug courts to have drug prisons. i still think it would be a good idea to try rehab BEFORE making your son a convicted felon for life though. isn't that what ruined your friend's life forever?
i sent him to a boot camp first. it was only 30 days and meth addicts need 45 days.
my friend was in a federal prison. if you want the whole story;
a few months earlier he got off work early and found his wife in bed with some bloke. the guy was in ICU for weeks and will have to stay in a wheelchair the rest of his life. he also beat the hell out of 5 cops trying to subdue him (in 1989. no tazers etc) and put 2 of them in the hospital.
he plead to a felony and got time served because it was a crime of passion.
then he had to plea to burglery that he didn't do.
under those circumstances then being put in a prison where you constantly had to fight to keep from being raped; it messed him up bad.
once again, what does a drill sergeant know about treating addiction?
ah, so it WASN'T just the conviction itself that ruined his life eh?
it never is. it's the entire situation.
how interesting.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4967587&postcount=44
"you say stealing is not worth a human life yet we take that life when we put someone in prison. car theft gets you 5 to 10. after 10 years of isolation; how does one get out and resume life? especially with background checks being so common."
and here i thought being an ex-con was the same as being dead. you could have done your nephew a favor and shot him like horn did the thieves. it's the same as making him a felon, right?
45 days? Yikes. Meth must be some nasty shit. 45 days makes alcoholics look like pussies for complaining about their 1 to 2 weeks of withdrawal.
Meth addiction really doesn't every go away for many. People will be craving it years after they have been clean. Sometimes someone could go 3 or 4 years clean only to fall off the wagon again.
so you misunderstood. that's ok. some people are slower. let me explain it a different way. 5 years after moving here; i went back to visit. i didn't recognise the place. it was like i've never been there before. thant's what it's like coming out of prison. you're dropped in a world you don't recognise; with technology you know nothing about. you try to get a job but even mcdonalds does background checks so you go back to a life of crime.
does that explain it better?
i have a friend that's a nurse in a dialisis center and she said it could stay in the fat for decades.
no. becos you still don't explain how the difficult transition to life outside prison is the same or even comparable to shooting them to death. which was the comparison you made.
b/c i don't have any tollerance for criminals. i'd rather see them dead.
Seems to me that there's been an awful lot of emotive language and a whole bunch of understanding for dead burglars and not so much understanding for a guy that shot them seemingly within the law of his state.
I'm just wondering how people here expect this to change given that seemingly the only thing they are prepared to do is condemn Horn, (even though they don't know him) and seemingly the whole state of Texas (and it's not possible to know ALL of them.) I just can't see that working somehow. So any body got any bright ideas?
Just whinging and denouncing Horn that's easy to do. If everyone is as big a pacifist as they profess to be then seems odd to me the reaction of some people.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
then why didn't you kill your ciminal drug addict son?
addictions are an illness. prior to my getting custody of my kids; their mother messed them up bad. in fact; CPS removed them from her home because of abuse. the oldest spent 2 months in cottonwood.
however; living where i do; if my son had broken into somebody's house or tried to rob somebody; i would expect him to get shot and i wouldn't cry over it saying it wasn't justified.
ah, so you see a difference between the crime of drug possession and robbery? what if horn didn't? who gets to make those calls?
I wouldn't be surprised if that was true. Meth is some of the nastiest stuff around and I fail to understand why many people, who know how bad it is prior to using, try it anyway.
I know if I had to do drugs Meth would be the one of last ones I picked.
texas says horn gets to.
and my point is it's a dangerous line to be trying to draw. maybe he says meth is so unpredictable anyone smoking it could turn violent in a second and he feared for his physical safety when your son looked at him with the crazy eyes. it could be argued. when you start allowing for joe citizen to shoot people based whatever he perceives to be happening regardless of its truth or reality, you're opening the door to some serious problems.
i understand it's the law, im saying it's bad policy and a bad law.
doesn't that depend on the descresion of the judge?
As long as the law isn't written to try to force the judicial system into a certain outcome (mandatory minimums etc) and the judge is given the freedom to review facts could it not be considered a good law?
Clearly, shooting someone "because he gave me the eye" should be viewed as manslaughter or murder.
In this sense, this happens as the perpetrators are running away from the house after they have broken in and stolen something. The spirit of the law is to allow the owner to protect themself and thier own property because the police do not live at everyones house. Now if you want to say... Mr. Horn should not have killed the people who were running away and sue him for wrongful death I don't see a problem, but having not read the law I think as long as there is discresion (logic and reason from the judge given the facts of the case) it could be considered a good law. We don't really want the government to be on the side of protecting the criminal.
I'm all for fair trials and all, but our judicial systems wheels turn slowly. Provided the two dead perps in this case were ever caught, the merchandise would likely be long gone and they'd be let go due to lack of evidence.
I mean I guess we could have gun owners put warning labels on thier doors or something, but really... I don't feel bad for a dead burglar or robber... just don't do it. They essentially made a decision that ended in their death much like suicide. Ok so it's been said, "well is it worth someone dying for material possessions"... aparently to the two dead robbers... it was.
my ex was heavy into coke which is one of the reasons the state took them. her boyfriend was doing the abuse. i got them coming out of that enviornment. the 2 oldest were too far gone and needed drastic help. the other saw what was happening and stayed away from it. the youngest turned out to be my brother in laws child so there's no contact with him.
i understand that. i'm a CCW carrying arizonan so i know the laws and when i can pull the trigger. however; horn not being arrested on the spot means there's something we don't know. part of the story is missing. the police don't just let a murderer go until they decide to charge him.
Yea its Texas Culture...but it doesn't mean he's not guilty...think the prosecutor has a few more days before they have to submit evidence to the grand jury. We'll probably know next week.
You see to be a bit hypocritical. If you are so disgusted with criminals, would put your own son in prison, and would understand if he was shot in the process of a robbery, then why would you have the person you are describing above live with you? The man put police officers in the hospital and crippled another guy all for banging his girl who was equally at fault.
"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!"
you'll have to forgive him. he just talks goofy now and then.
this may not get as far as a judge. i think he'll go before a grand jury. they usually rubber stamp anything from the DA's office. that's been my experience. but like i said; horn not being arrested on the spot means there's something we don't know. texas has a law that you cannot shoot someone in the back. if they were running away; how could he not shoot them in the back? i didn't look where you're from but shooting someone in the back out west is a big no-no. i did have a warning label (i like that analogy) but it told perps that there were guns in the house. so if nobody is home; here's where you can get a gun.
i think it's a good law. people will abuse it because they abuse everything else; but they'll be punished for abusing it.
as for the dead guys; bury them; say some words over them; and let them rest. they took the risk. they knew the law. they paid the price.
What's to change? It is a law in Texas, a state that the majority of it's population wants to be its own country. Maybe that's the solution. Let them become their own nation. One less place that Southwest will have a never-ending layover in. Other than that, not much to do. Obviously the majority of people in Texas are accepting of this law. Aside from that, what can one do on here other than express their opinion on the matter and have a debate on the subject? Lastly, there is a great difference from pacifism and being against someone gunning down two thiefs in cold blood, to make it seem as there is no middle ground is absurd.
"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!"
because i'd have killed the guy screwing my wife. my friend adored his wife. she was his life and he lived for her and his daughter. when he walked in that bedroom; it wasn't him anymore. in his mind his wife was being raped. he couldn't imagine her cheating on him. to him; he was beating a rapist. he'd never hit a cop on purpose. they walked in and he wanted to kill the rapist first.
i can understand that.