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 police can't be everywhere at once. intelligent people know that. you either accept crime; or you do something about it. arizona was talking about leaving the union because the feds (in their contract) agreed to protect our borders and that wasn't being done. i'd like to see nevada leave the union too. nevada doesn't collect taxes; gambling and prostitution is legal; and we go against several federal laws. let's just leave and let the us had out it's foreign aid to us. give california back to mexico and cut them off. the state is sinking economically and soon; literally.
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.
My point being that if people are truly concerned about the two burglars, who as far as I can see are as responsible for their own deaths as the guy that shot them, if people truly believe this is a heinous crime and shouldn't happen then simply slagging off at Horn, who it appears was within the laws of the area he lives in, does seem to be an exercise in futility to me. I mean what's the point in getting all righteous about it and condeming him if you're only ever planning to be all righteous and condeming him? If you really believe this is a miscarriage of justice or even something that despite being with in the law is wrong, then simply slagging off about it and dismissing it as the law of the land isn't really doing much is it? And to say well it is the law of the land in Texas and the people are accepting of it so let's just let them become their own nation seems equally as apathetic to me. If you do believe in pacifism surely the thing to do here is try to understand all sides of the equation, work out why it's wrong, how it was able to happen in the first place and then formulate a plan to ensure it doesn't happen again?
To me that would make all the protestations and faux concern about the dead guys much more sincere. Because the way I see it all we have here is people doing the simplest thing. The easy thing. Appropriating blame, dismissing any responsibilty they have to effect change and basically being just as ineffective as what Horn was.
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.
ah, so criminals are only scum that deserve to die if you think their crime wasn't warranted? good system of justice. funny how he can make a bad decision, cripple one person, and assault several cops, and he's ok and deserves several second chances. but these guys stole some jewelry (maybe to feed the wife and children they adore, who knows?) and they deserve to die.
you're right. nothing hypocritical about that at all.
the police can't be everywhere at once. intelligent people know that. you either accept crime; or you do something about it. arizona was talking about leaving the union because the feds (in their contract) agreed to protect our borders and that wasn't being done. i'd like to see nevada leave the union too. nevada doesn't collect taxes; gambling and prostitution is legal; and we go against several federal laws. let's just leave and let the us had out it's foreign aid to us. give california back to mexico and cut them off. the state is sinking economically and soon; literally.
can we cut loose the south too? let them fight the a-rabs in the desert for jesus.
he took 2 criminals off the street and we don't have to pay to support them in jail. in my eyes; he saved future victims and also saved the taxpayers money. great job all around.
This is called American logic. It doesn't make sense anywhere else.
This is called American logic. It doesn't make sense anywhere else.
Actually I can think of quite a few areas of Australia where that logic would make sense to people AND in other parts of the Western world also. The only difference here is we don't have the guns. Oh no wait, the law abiding citizens don't really have guns.
A 63-year-old man allegedly shot a teenager in the hip after finding the boy in his backyard.
The Canberra man is due to face the ACT Magistrates Court today, charged with intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and possessing unauthorised firearms.
Police say the man found the 16-year-old in his Downer back yard about 2.30am yesterday and shot him.
Officers searched the man's home last night and allegedly found two unauthorised firearms and a large amount of ammunition.
A 63-year-old man allegedly shot a teenager in the hip after finding the boy in his backyard.
The Canberra man is due to face the ACT Magistrates Court today, charged with intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and possessing unauthorised firearms.
Police say the man found the 16-year-old in his Downer back yard about 2.30am yesterday and shot him.
Officers searched the man's home last night and allegedly found two unauthorised firearms and a large amount of ammunition.
The boy is being treated in hospital.
This happened in Cincinnati this past year I believe. Some kids were cutting acros a guy's lawn so he shot one of them in the back. I didn't follow up on the story, and I forget the outcome.
This happened in Cincinnati this past year I believe. Some kids were cutting acros a guy's lawn so he shot one of them in the back. I didn't follow up on the story, and I forget the outcome.
As stupid and ridiculous as the above story is, I don't see how that enters into the right to bear arms debate. People make stupid decisions everyday that harms others, and not all of them involve using a gun. There are laws for those stupid decisions that prosecute the offenders. A few paranoid idiots making tragic decisions have little to do with everyone else's right to own a gun (which I fully support).
And yes, I realize that the only use of a gun is to shoot something (thus taking away the "cars kill people too, so are we going to ban cars?" argument). I would respond to that by saying that the legal uses of guns are self defense, target shooting, collecting, and hunting game. Obviously, the paranoid 66 year old lernin' boys crossing his yard is outside of that and should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law (manslaughter or whatever, I'll leave the legalese to our lawyer friends).
ah, so criminals are only scum that deserve to die if you think their crime wasn't warranted? good system of justice. funny how he can make a bad decision, cripple one person, and assault several cops, and he's ok and deserves several second chances. but these guys stole some jewelry (maybe to feed the wife and children they adore, who knows?) and they deserve to die.
you're right. nothing hypocritical about that at all.
so now you're questioning the courts decision i see. the judge himself said HE would have reacted the same way. thus the sentence of time served; which was about 6 to 8 hours.
This happened in Cincinnati this past year I believe. Some kids were cutting acros a guy's lawn so he shot one of them in the back. I didn't follow up on the story, and I forget the outcome.
why is this here? has home invasion grown to include walking through a back yard? or maybe we're going to post all the gun crimes we can think of to offset this one texas law?
i expected it so i'll go back to bed.
Actually I can think of quite a few areas of Australia where that logic would make sense to people AND in other parts of the Western world also. The only difference here is we don't have the guns. Oh no wait, the law abiding citizens don't really have guns.
yes dear. only criminals in your country have guns. your government doesn't consider honest people responsable enough to own them.
so now you're questioning the courts decision i see. the judge himself said HE would have reacted the same way. thus the sentence of time served; which was about 6 to 8 hours.
yes. i'll question the hypocrisy of anyone (ie. YOU) who says criminals are scum and deserve to die then turns around and says a violent, drug-addcited, piece of shit who tried to kill someone becos he couldn't please his wife properly (ie. your buddy) just made a wee mistake in crippling someone and assaulting the police and doesn't deserve any punishment at all.
why is this here? has home invasion grown to include walking through a back yard? or maybe we're going to post all the gun crimes we can think of to offset this one texas law?
i expected it so i'll go back to bed.
so consensual sex in one's own house justifies lethal force eh? your buddy was totally ok in trying to kill someone who was banging his wife, but these guys nick a stereo and they should be shot? i just want to get your stance straight. unless, of course, you feel his wife was his property and he was just defending his property.
This is called American logic. It doesn't make sense anywhere else.
Not all Americans....large percentage realizes killing over stuff is moronic.
The local news here in Houston/Pasadena, where this happened, did a peice last night on the financial costs of killing a perp....several tens of thousands of dollars....first I was disqusted that they were attaching a dollar amount on pulling the trigger or not...but then realized that may be the only way to get through to "these" Americans.
Not all Americans....large percentage realizes killing over stuff is moronic.
The local news here in Houston/Pasadena, where this happened, did a peice last night on the financial costs of killing a perp....several tens of thousands of dollars....first I was disqusted that they were attaching a dollar amount on pulling the trigger or not...but then realized that may be the only way to get through to "these" Americans.
didn't they tell you HOW killing a perp costs several tens of thousands of dollars? it's absolutely rediculous. if i kill an intruder; AND i am within the law; WHY would compliance with the law cost me anything? if i am charged with anything; i get a public defender. it doesn't cost me; IT COSTS YOU.
on the other hand; how can you charge a citizen for complying with the law?
furthermore; if that is the case; why can't i sue the police for not protecting me if they are going to tie my hands?
if the government is going to try to stop me from protecting my self and my property; they'd better be prepared to protect me if/when the time comes; or face a lawsuit.
here in arizona a perp is killed every day. at least 1. no citizen has ever been charged with a crime; nor charged a fee for protecting themselves or their property.
i think you heard wrong or left out information in your post.
naw; the idiot would sit and watch his wife get raped.
ah, if a woman fucks any guy but her husband it is rape eh? cos woman just dont have sex becos they want to. you said your buddy found his wife cheating on him, not that he stumbled across his wife being raped. which is it? im anxious to see you clarify your views on this one and the contradiction in your stances. you can respond to fanch but cannot figure out a way to make sense of your own adopted views.
didn't they tell you HOW killing a perp costs several tens of thousands of dollars? it's absolutely rediculous. if i kill an intruder; AND i am within the law; WHY would compliance with the law cost me anything? if i am charged with anything; i get a public defender. it doesn't cost me; IT COSTS YOU.
on the other hand; how can you charge a citizen for complying with the law?
furthermore; if that is the case; why can't i sue the police for not protecting me if they are going to tie my hands?
if the government is going to try to stop me from protecting my self and my property; they'd better be prepared to protect me if/when the time comes; or face a lawsuit.
here in arizona a perp is killed every day. at least 1. no citizen has ever been charged with a crime; nor charged a fee for protecting themselves or their property.
i think you heard wrong or left out information in your post.
You want to use a public defender???
Civil Suit..you have to hire an attorney unless you want to represent yourself...good luck with that one.
And lets use Horn as an example...think he's going to not have any money leave his pocket? We are talking about this case...assure you he's hired an attorney. Guarantee the families of the victims he shot will sue him in civil court.
ah, if a woman fucks any guy but her husband it is rape eh? cos woman just dont have sex becos they want to. you said your buddy found his wife cheating on him, not that he stumbled across his wife being raped. which is it? im anxious to see you clarify your views on this one and the contradiction in your stances. you can respond to fanch but cannot figure out a way to make sense of your own adopted views.
go back and look. i said he walked in and saw his wife having sex with someone else. since he couldn't imagine her cheating on him; he assumed she was being raped. the judge and jury agreed. it seems only YOU have a problem with it.
yes dear. only criminals in your country have guns. your government doesn't consider honest people responsable enough to own them.
Actually it's not only the criminals. There are legally owned & registered guns.
Plenty of honest, repsonsible people own and use them. But we don't have the same "right to bear arms" written into our constitution as you do. Anyway, it's a long and convaluted set of laws but a lot of it is laid out here:
go back and look. i said he walked in and saw his wife having sex with someone else. since he couldn't imagine her cheating on him; he assumed she was being raped. the judge and jury agreed. it seems only YOU have a problem with it.
sounds to me like a shitty fabricated excuse cosigned by a redneck jury in a redneck state. i note you claim that's what he said he thought and that's what the jury believed. you don't say that's what was actually happening. very clever. maybe you did go to law school once. either that or you were a politician.
so, he THOUGHT his wife was being raped. but she wasn't, she was cheating. what he did was perfectly ok though? he didn't deserve any jailtime? i know you think petty thieves should be executed. why didn't your friend deserve punishment for assault and battery for attacking a person who committed no crime? this is exactly what i'm getting at. your boy claims he saw a rape, but he didnt. what if he'd killed the guy? should he be punished? now you've got a case where you can kill anyone you want as long as you can convince a jury you thought they were committing a crime. that seems wise to you?
You want to use a public defender???
Civil Suit..you have to hire an attorney unless you want to represent yourself...good luck with that one.
And lets use Horn as an example...think he's going to not have any money leave his pocket? We are talking about this case...assure you he's hired an attorney. Guarantee the families of the victims he shot will sue him in civil court.
there has never been a successful civil suit against a man shooting someone while in the commission of a crime. if horn has a good lawyer; HE could sue the families if they take action. they then take responsability for the victims actions and he can countersue for the anguish this has caused him.
furthermore; any intelligent adult has their assetts secured so they can't be sued. O.J. is a perfect example. all his ex's family got was attorney bills.
was she being raped? or did he just claim to think she was being raped? come on, i want to see how long you can keep dodging it. it's fun to see you try.
Actually it's not only the criminals. There are legally owned & registered guns.
Plenty of honest, repsonsible people own and use them. But we don't have the same "right to bear arms" written into our constitution as you do. Anyway, it's a long and convaluted set of laws but a lot of it is laid out here:
thanks love. i know your gun laws and restrictions. oz still has hope. imagine what will happen if only criminals had guns and the seas rise; compressing the residents into smaller and smaller areas. food will be scarse but those with the guns will eat. those without will die.
america has as many illegal guns brought over the border as it has legally imported/american made guns. without the second amendment; organized crime would rule the country. it does now for the most part. but as long as we have the right to protect ourselves; we can keep crime in check.
thanks love. i know your gun laws and restrictions. oz still has hope. imagine what will happen if only criminals had guns and the seas rise; compressing the residents into smaller and smaller areas. food will be scarse but those with the guns will eat. those without will die.
america has as many illegal guns brought over the border as it has legally imported/american made guns. without the second amendment; organized crime would rule the country. it does now for the most part. but as long as we have the right to protect ourselves; we can keep crime in check.
To be honest OLS I've already got a plan for that should it happen and I probably won't need a gun.
We have plenty of illegal guns and plenty of organized crime. Specially here in Melbourne. Our Gangland murders are starting to rival Chicagee in the 20s!
was she being raped? or did he just claim to think she was being raped? come on, i want to see how long you can keep dodging it. it's fun to see you try.
maybe you're one of those people who don't have any feelings. you surely aren't an attorney because you'd know that his reaction was based on what he saw and what he believed. he didn't have to wait and see if she was being raped nor did he have to wait for clairification. our justice system is based on an imaginary reasonable person. that person is represented by 12 jurors. decisions are based on what that imaginary reasonable person whould do; or how they would have reacted.
the decision was that a reasonable person would have reacted just as he did.
the civil case against him was thrown out even though the guy was paralysed. he acted appropriately to the situation.
Comments
the police can't be everywhere at once. intelligent people know that. you either accept crime; or you do something about it. arizona was talking about leaving the union because the feds (in their contract) agreed to protect our borders and that wasn't being done. i'd like to see nevada leave the union too. nevada doesn't collect taxes; gambling and prostitution is legal; and we go against several federal laws. let's just leave and let the us had out it's foreign aid to us. give california back to mexico and cut them off. the state is sinking economically and soon; literally.
My point being that if people are truly concerned about the two burglars, who as far as I can see are as responsible for their own deaths as the guy that shot them, if people truly believe this is a heinous crime and shouldn't happen then simply slagging off at Horn, who it appears was within the laws of the area he lives in, does seem to be an exercise in futility to me. I mean what's the point in getting all righteous about it and condeming him if you're only ever planning to be all righteous and condeming him? If you really believe this is a miscarriage of justice or even something that despite being with in the law is wrong, then simply slagging off about it and dismissing it as the law of the land isn't really doing much is it? And to say well it is the law of the land in Texas and the people are accepting of it so let's just let them become their own nation seems equally as apathetic to me. If you do believe in pacifism surely the thing to do here is try to understand all sides of the equation, work out why it's wrong, how it was able to happen in the first place and then formulate a plan to ensure it doesn't happen again?
To me that would make all the protestations and faux concern about the dead guys much more sincere. Because the way I see it all we have here is people doing the simplest thing. The easy thing. Appropriating blame, dismissing any responsibilty they have to effect change and basically being just as ineffective as what Horn was.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
ah, so criminals are only scum that deserve to die if you think their crime wasn't warranted? good system of justice. funny how he can make a bad decision, cripple one person, and assault several cops, and he's ok and deserves several second chances. but these guys stole some jewelry (maybe to feed the wife and children they adore, who knows?) and they deserve to die.
you're right. nothing hypocritical about that at all.
can we cut loose the south too? let them fight the a-rabs in the desert for jesus.
This is called American logic. It doesn't make sense anywhere else.
Actually I can think of quite a few areas of Australia where that logic would make sense to people AND in other parts of the Western world also. The only difference here is we don't have the guns. Oh no wait, the law abiding citizens don't really have guns.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Boy shot after entering backyard
November 29, 2007 - 11:07AM
A 63-year-old man allegedly shot a teenager in the hip after finding the boy in his backyard.
The Canberra man is due to face the ACT Magistrates Court today, charged with intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and possessing unauthorised firearms.
Police say the man found the 16-year-old in his Downer back yard about 2.30am yesterday and shot him.
Officers searched the man's home last night and allegedly found two unauthorised firearms and a large amount of ammunition.
The boy is being treated in hospital.
This happened in Cincinnati this past year I believe. Some kids were cutting acros a guy's lawn so he shot one of them in the back. I didn't follow up on the story, and I forget the outcome.
EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,,1736424,00.html
By Gawd, at'll lern 'em.
As stupid and ridiculous as the above story is, I don't see how that enters into the right to bear arms debate. People make stupid decisions everyday that harms others, and not all of them involve using a gun. There are laws for those stupid decisions that prosecute the offenders. A few paranoid idiots making tragic decisions have little to do with everyone else's right to own a gun (which I fully support).
And yes, I realize that the only use of a gun is to shoot something (thus taking away the "cars kill people too, so are we going to ban cars?" argument). I would respond to that by saying that the legal uses of guns are self defense, target shooting, collecting, and hunting game. Obviously, the paranoid 66 year old lernin' boys crossing his yard is outside of that and should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law (manslaughter or whatever, I'll leave the legalese to our lawyer friends).
so now you're questioning the courts decision i see. the judge himself said HE would have reacted the same way. thus the sentence of time served; which was about 6 to 8 hours.
why is this here? has home invasion grown to include walking through a back yard? or maybe we're going to post all the gun crimes we can think of to offset this one texas law?
i expected it so i'll go back to bed.
yes dear. only criminals in your country have guns. your government doesn't consider honest people responsable enough to own them.
yes. i'll question the hypocrisy of anyone (ie. YOU) who says criminals are scum and deserve to die then turns around and says a violent, drug-addcited, piece of shit who tried to kill someone becos he couldn't please his wife properly (ie. your buddy) just made a wee mistake in crippling someone and assaulting the police and doesn't deserve any punishment at all.
so consensual sex in one's own house justifies lethal force eh? your buddy was totally ok in trying to kill someone who was banging his wife, but these guys nick a stereo and they should be shot? i just want to get your stance straight. unless, of course, you feel his wife was his property and he was just defending his property.
She should have been frying up some meat, scrubbing toilets, etc or something, instead of letting some other dude hit it.
The local news here in Houston/Pasadena, where this happened, did a peice last night on the financial costs of killing a perp....several tens of thousands of dollars....first I was disqusted that they were attaching a dollar amount on pulling the trigger or not...but then realized that may be the only way to get through to "these" Americans.
didn't they tell you HOW killing a perp costs several tens of thousands of dollars? it's absolutely rediculous. if i kill an intruder; AND i am within the law; WHY would compliance with the law cost me anything? if i am charged with anything; i get a public defender. it doesn't cost me; IT COSTS YOU.
on the other hand; how can you charge a citizen for complying with the law?
furthermore; if that is the case; why can't i sue the police for not protecting me if they are going to tie my hands?
if the government is going to try to stop me from protecting my self and my property; they'd better be prepared to protect me if/when the time comes; or face a lawsuit.
here in arizona a perp is killed every day. at least 1. no citizen has ever been charged with a crime; nor charged a fee for protecting themselves or their property.
i think you heard wrong or left out information in your post.
naw; the idiot would sit and watch his wife get raped.
ah, if a woman fucks any guy but her husband it is rape eh? cos woman just dont have sex becos they want to. you said your buddy found his wife cheating on him, not that he stumbled across his wife being raped. which is it? im anxious to see you clarify your views on this one and the contradiction in your stances. you can respond to fanch but cannot figure out a way to make sense of your own adopted views.
Civil Suit..you have to hire an attorney unless you want to represent yourself...good luck with that one.
And lets use Horn as an example...think he's going to not have any money leave his pocket? We are talking about this case...assure you he's hired an attorney. Guarantee the families of the victims he shot will sue him in civil court.
go back and look. i said he walked in and saw his wife having sex with someone else. since he couldn't imagine her cheating on him; he assumed she was being raped. the judge and jury agreed. it seems only YOU have a problem with it.
Actually it's not only the criminals. There are legally owned & registered guns.
Plenty of honest, repsonsible people own and use them. But we don't have the same "right to bear arms" written into our constitution as you do. Anyway, it's a long and convaluted set of laws but a lot of it is laid out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
sounds to me like a shitty fabricated excuse cosigned by a redneck jury in a redneck state. i note you claim that's what he said he thought and that's what the jury believed. you don't say that's what was actually happening. very clever. maybe you did go to law school once. either that or you were a politician.
so, he THOUGHT his wife was being raped. but she wasn't, she was cheating. what he did was perfectly ok though? he didn't deserve any jailtime? i know you think petty thieves should be executed. why didn't your friend deserve punishment for assault and battery for attacking a person who committed no crime? this is exactly what i'm getting at. your boy claims he saw a rape, but he didnt. what if he'd killed the guy? should he be punished? now you've got a case where you can kill anyone you want as long as you can convince a jury you thought they were committing a crime. that seems wise to you?
there has never been a successful civil suit against a man shooting someone while in the commission of a crime. if horn has a good lawyer; HE could sue the families if they take action. they then take responsability for the victims actions and he can countersue for the anguish this has caused him.
furthermore; any intelligent adult has their assetts secured so they can't be sued. O.J. is a perfect example. all his ex's family got was attorney bills.
cook county; chicago; illinois.
was she being raped? or did he just claim to think she was being raped? come on, i want to see how long you can keep dodging it. it's fun to see you try.
thanks love. i know your gun laws and restrictions. oz still has hope. imagine what will happen if only criminals had guns and the seas rise; compressing the residents into smaller and smaller areas. food will be scarse but those with the guns will eat. those without will die.
america has as many illegal guns brought over the border as it has legally imported/american made guns. without the second amendment; organized crime would rule the country. it does now for the most part. but as long as we have the right to protect ourselves; we can keep crime in check.
To be honest OLS I've already got a plan for that should it happen and I probably won't need a gun.
We have plenty of illegal guns and plenty of organized crime. Specially here in Melbourne. Our Gangland murders are starting to rival Chicagee in the 20s!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
maybe you're one of those people who don't have any feelings. you surely aren't an attorney because you'd know that his reaction was based on what he saw and what he believed. he didn't have to wait and see if she was being raped nor did he have to wait for clairification. our justice system is based on an imaginary reasonable person. that person is represented by 12 jurors. decisions are based on what that imaginary reasonable person whould do; or how they would have reacted.
the decision was that a reasonable person would have reacted just as he did.
the civil case against him was thrown out even though the guy was paralysed. he acted appropriately to the situation.