Joe Horn and Texas Law

onelongsong

Derrick wrote:

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

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.

onelongsong

Jeanie wrote:

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.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

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.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

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.

fanch75

soulsinging wrote:

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.

callen

soulsinging wrote:

can we cut loose the south too? let them fight the a-rabs in the desert for jesus.

thats pretty funny....and have to say...I know alot of fellow texans that believe just this....

callen

searchlightsoul wrote:

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.

onelongsong

callen wrote:

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.

onelongsong

fanch75 wrote:

She should have been frying up some meat, scrubbing toilets, etc or something, instead of letting some other dude hit it.

naw; the idiot would sit and watch his wife get raped.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

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.

callen

onelongsong wrote:

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.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

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.

Jeanie

onelongsong wrote:

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

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?

onelongsong

callen wrote:

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.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

sounds to me like a shitty fabricated excuse cosigned by a redneck jury in a redneck state.

cook county; chicago; illinois.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

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.

onelongsong

Jeanie wrote:

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

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.

Jeanie

onelongsong wrote:

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!

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

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.