DemonKnight Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Its all good, I heard it was this guy that shot those dudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 This is a very unfortunate ruling and shows that GW's idiotic "yer either with us or against us" stance has permeated society. See, the gutless idiots who applaud this guys actions think that you either support the guy who did the shooting or the guys who got shot. When you look at it that way, you get another stupid B8M8 poll. Thing is, that's simply not the case. You can think the guys doing the robbery are f'ing guilty lowlifes and think the dude who shot them is a freaking psycho who's committed murder. All the "two less thugs on the street" preaching you want to do doesn't change the fact that this guy killed two guys that he simply did not need to kill. The increasingly poor economy and global uncertainty seems to point to the fact that we could be entering a period of very high tensions in the US. The last thing we need in this time is for every whack job with a gun to be empowered by this ruling to the extent that he feels he can go around and play judge, jury, and executioner. Stealing a TV is, quite simply, not punishable by death. Your point is well taken, but I can make a case against the last sentence of your argument. However, if the guys were running at the homeowner, he has every right to shoot, and no duty to retreat, IMO. But that's a big if. Each of us is born with only three qualities unique to us. Our time, our bodies and our minds. We trade our limited time, whether it be through physical labor or mental gymnastics, to others for money. We take that money and purchase food, shelter, and TV's. So the case I make is that stealing my posessions is stealing my life, and I am justified in taking life from one who would take it from me. Now I don't want to shoot someone over my TV, a car, whatever, so I stay insured. But I won't condemn this guy for it. Especially when the detective said at least one of the crooks was headed back at the old fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 It is a good thing....unless you are Christian and adhere to the thou shalt not kill deal....you know....that is sometimes an inconvenient rule!!!! LOL A more accurate translation of the original Hebrew would be don't murder, rather than don't kill. If you value your life or the lives of your family so little that you wouldn't kill to defend them, then you don't deserve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Your point is well taken, but I can make a case against the last sentence of your argument. However, if the guys were running at the homeowner, he has every right to shoot, and no duty to retreat, IMO. But that's a big if. Each of us is born with only three qualities unique to us. Our time, our bodies and our minds. We trade our limited time, whether it be through physical labor or mental gymnastics, to others for money. We take that money and purchase food, shelter, and TV's. So the case I make is that stealing my posessions is stealing my life, and I am justified in taking life from one who would take it from me. Now I don't want to shoot someone over my TV, a car, whatever, so I stay insured. But I won't condemn this guy for it. Especially when the detective said at least one of the crooks was headed back at the old fella. Having gone back and listened to the 911 call again (I hadn't heard it since the last time this story was discussed), I have a very hard time believing that he was ever in danger. Dude was safely in his house, and plainly said he was going to go out the window and shoot these guys, then did. While I don't choose to own a gun, I understand why people choose to and would not deny someone the ability to defend themselves with a gun. I have an extremely hard time believing that was the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Your point is well taken, but I can make a case against the last sentence of your argument. However, if the guys were running at the homeowner, he has every right to shoot, and no duty to retreat, IMO. I'm pretty sure he yelled "stop or I'll shoot", and then both guys ran straight at him backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I'm pretty sure he yelled "stop or I'll shoot", and then both guys ran straight at him backwards. Well, that explains it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 This whole argument is horsepoopy. The guy went out of his way, as in ran outside and shot them in the back, to kill these thugs. They were worthless scum, but he clearly murdered them unnecessarily by taking the law into his own hands...you know, texas style. Unbelievable ruling. Don't get me wrong, if anyone breaks into my house with my family inside, I am fully prepared for it and shots will be fired. Not the case here, not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Not sure how we can all make asssertions or assumptions about something that we do not know all the details. The case went before a grand jury for several days according to the article. They came back with a no bill based on everything that they were presented. On the face of it, it does appear sensational in that the old man did not have to go outside but did and shot down two burgulars in the back no less. But I have known people serving on grand juries (including my own father for a time) and their requirement of proof is far lower than a jury - they only have to decide if the facts warrant there being a trial and let a jury/judge determine guilt. They no-billed it and while it may comfort people somehow to think all Texans are rednecks who randomly shoot people without just cause or penalty, that is not the case. If any of you had all the information presented to the grand jury, then you could make your assumptions but you are castigating an old man based on incomplete information. And even he has been tramatized by what has happened. It was a tragedy 360 degrees. Back to your stereotypes, assumptions and agenda fulfillment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Stealing a TV is, quite simply, not punishable by death. I suggest you read what happened, cause it appears it is. Poor economy made someone sneak into our country and performed home burglaries? You lieberals are funny!!! If Horn killing them today, keeps them from killing someone down the road, is it worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 If he were my neighbor, I'd just tell the cops I asked him to watch my house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 There is no doubt in my mind that Horn went outside to stop them from stealing...not to kill them. What happened after that I defer my opinion to the detective who witnessed everything and the Grand Jury that reviewed the evidence. Would I have gone outside to protect neighbor's property...hell no. Would I love to have this guy as a neighbor...hell yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 There is no doubt in my mind that Horn went outside to stop them from stealing...not to kill them. What happened after that I defer my opinion to the detective who witnessed everything and the Grand Jury that reviewed the evidence. Would I have gone outside to protect neighbor's property...hell no. Would I love to have this guy as a neighbor...hell yes. What? Horn explicity said "I am gonna kill em"!!! That is what he said right before he went outside. Now...I would argue otherwise what his intent was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 What? Horn explicity said "I am gonna kill em"!!! That is what he said right before he went outside. Now...I would argue otherwise what his intent was. I'm not sure what Horn's intent was matters or not under Texas law given the totality of the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I'm not sure what Horn's intent was matters or not under Texas law given the totality of the circumstances. He said he was going outside to "kill em" and that is all I need to know. He didn't care where they were....he was going to shoot them and kill em....just listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 What? Horn explicity said "I am gonna kill em"!!! That is what he said right before he went outside. Now...I would argue otherwise what his intent was. He meant that as a joke...like "man, I'm gonna kill you in golf today." Seriously though, I didn't hear him say that on the 911 tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 He meant that as a joke...like "man, I'm gonna kill you in golf today." Seriously though, I didn't hear him say that on the 911 tape. The 911 guy warned him that if he went outside with the gun he might get shot. Then he said, "You wanna make a bet? I'm gonna kill 'em." Then, despite being told repeatedly that cops were on the way and the guy should just wait inside, he went outside. Told them to freeze and then shot right afterwards. In terms of self-defense, I have a hard time believing that two guys carrying bags of loot could have done anything in that very short period of time between when he told them "move and you're dead" and when he shot them that could be construed as threatening his safety. Needless to say, there was obviously other evidence brought to the trial that we're not privy to here. However, DMD, spare us all the BS. I, for one, am not painting every gun owner or Texan in any unfair light, merely anyone deranged enough to think this guy is some kind of hero. If that shoe fits you, well so be it. Ironic, of course, that one of the main talking points those who favor the sort of "justice" Horn brought on these guys is the fact that they'd likely be back out on the streets because our justice system sucks. Then, when this guy Horn is found not guilty, you go to the "well, if he was guilty, the jury would have found him guilty, so you guys must not know what you're talking about" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Needless to say, there was obviously other evidence brought to the trial that we're not privy to here. However, DMD, spare us all the BS. I, for one, am not painting every gun owner or Texan in any unfair light, merely anyone deranged enough to think this guy is some kind of hero. If that shoe fits you, well so be it. I do not consider him a hero nor does he himself. As I mentioned, he is very shaken by the entire ordeal and the people in his neighborhood all have signs in their yards that say "no comment". When the Grand Jury came back with a no-bill, he was visibly relieved, still overcome with what had happened and did not display a shred of "happiness" that he got away with something. It was a tragedy 360 degrees for all involved. My point was that whenever such events occur, people love to throw whatever their agenda is on top of it regardless of what the truth was - the truth that was presented over several days to a Grand Jury behind closed doors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I do not consider him a hero nor does he himself. As I mentioned, he is very shaken by the entire ordeal and the people in his neighborhood all have signs in their yards that say "no comment". When the Grand Jury came back with a no-bill, he was visibly relieved, still overcome with what had happened and did not display a shred of "happiness" that he got away with something. It was a tragedy 360 degrees for all involved. My point was that whenever such events occur, people love to throw whatever their agenda is on top of it regardless of what the truth was - the truth that was presented over several days to a Grand Jury behind closed doors. So was the 911 call not real? I mean, great, so the guy feels bad about what he did. Well, what he did was ignore the very specific instructions of a 911 operator to stay in his house. Dude absolutely brought this upon himself just like the two robbers brought what happened to them upon themselves. Now, I can understand being shaken by having to kill someone. I'm sure there are few who relish that notion even if they have to. That's the thing though, he didn't have to kill someone. Well, at least according to what he was saying on the phone. He made his motives entirely clear, that he didn't want to let these guys get away with stealing. Now, you can keep going to the grand jury said "X" that's fine but understand that this is a Grand Jury in Texas that was seriously between a rock and a hard place. Once again, there are far too many who think that you're either pro Mr. Horn or pro lowlife burglar scum. So, if they come back and call the guy guilty, people start freaking out. "Great, now we can't protect ourselves!", "He's only guilty of ridding the world of two scumbags!", etc. In this instance, following the letter of the law is not going to sit very well with many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 So was the 911 call not real? I mean, great, so the guy feels bad about what he did. Well, what he did was ignore the very specific instructions of a 911 operator to stay in his house. Dude absolutely brought this upon himself just like the two robbers brought what happened to them upon themselves. Now, I can understand being shaken by having to kill someone. I'm sure there are few who relish that notion even if they have to. That's the thing though, he didn't have to kill someone. Well, at least according to what he was saying on the phone. He made his motives entirely clear, that he didn't want to let these guys get away with stealing. Now, you can keep going to the grand jury said "X" that's fine but understand that this is a Grand Jury in Texas that was seriously between a rock and a hard place. Once again, there are far too many who think that you're either pro Mr. Horn or pro lowlife burglar scum. So, if they come back and call the guy guilty, people start freaking out. "Great, now we can't protect ourselves!", "He's only guilty of ridding the world of two scumbags!", etc. In this instance, following the letter of the law is not going to sit very well with many people. To be fair Detlef, the grand jury simply indicts...it does not determine guilt. That said....you are entirely correct. He said he was going to kill em...said stop or your dead...and a virtual one second later three straight shots that landed in the backs of his victims. This is cowboy justice. There is no need for this at all. Lets change the facts some and see if the result would change. Guy and gal are getting a divorce....in the settlement, the wife agreed to give back all the jewelry that his mother had given her upon death. However, after agreeing, soon to be ex-wife reneges. So, the guy breaks into his old house he is still paying for to get said jewelry. Mr. Horn is calling 911 and sees the dude leaving with loot. He goes outside and hollers what he hollered and then shot him....do we still have the same verdict? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 To be fair Detlef, the grand jury simply indicts...it does not determine guilt. That said....you are entirely correct. He said he was going to kill em...said stop or your dead...and a virtual one second later three straight shots that landed in the backs of his victims. This is cowboy justice. There is no need for this at all. Lets change the facts some and see if the result would change. Guy and gal are getting a divorce....in the settlement, the wife agreed to give back all the jewelry that his mother had given her upon death. However, after agreeing, soon to be ex-wife reneges. So, the guy breaks into his old house he is still paying for to get said jewelry. Mr. Horn is calling 911 and sees the dude leaving with loot. He goes outside and hollers what he hollered and then shot him....do we still have the same verdict? I think not. Is the boyfriend an illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 To be fair Detlef, the grand jury simply indicts...it does not determine guilt. That said....you are entirely correct. He said he was going to kill em...said stop or your dead...and a virtual one second later three straight shots that landed in the backs of his victims. This is cowboy justice. There is no need for this at all. Lets change the facts some and see if the result would change. Guy and gal are getting a divorce....in the settlement, the wife agreed to give back all the jewelry that his mother had given her upon death. However, after agreeing, soon to be ex-wife reneges. So, the guy breaks into his old house he is still paying for to get said jewelry. Mr. Horn is calling 911 and sees the dude leaving with loot. He goes outside and hollers what he hollered and then shot him....do we still have the same verdict? I think not. ...or these two thieves have been scoping out this nice, quiet neighborhood for days planning to break into a house when they know the owner is gone. Upon breaking and entering they find the 15 year old daughter babysitting her nephew. They decide, why not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Is the boyfriend an illegal? I am glad someone got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 ...or these two thieves have been scoping out this nice, quiet neighborhood for days planning to break into a house when they know the owner is gone. Upon breaking and entering they find the 15 year old daughter babysitting her nephew. They decide, why not... Why stop there? The two guys were monsters with horns and claws, they were both Al Qaeda terrorists with AIDS, and the girl was 8? I mean... if you're going to invent a nightmare, you might as well do it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSUChiefsTarheelFan Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 Is the boyfriend an illegal? Does the shooter know if the BF is an illegal just by looking at him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Why stop there? The two guys were monsters with horns and claws, they were both Al Qaeda terrorists with AIDS, and the girl was 8? I mean... if you're going to invent a nightmare, you might as well do it right. ...and they normally vote Republican but this time, maybe, just maybe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts