Members burdizzos Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 No observer of that situation; two men smashing into a residence - could POSSIBLY guess at the motivation or desire of the perps.They could be looking to rape, kill, kidnap, torture - burn the house down. The perps were leaving when Mr. Horn engaged them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 I'm not defending the thieves' criminal act. You, on the other hand, are defending Joe Horn's criminal act, claiming that it is justified.There was no threat made to Mr. Horn and lethal force is illegal in that case.He left his home to engage the suspects and shot them both within ten seconds. Two seconds elapsed between his "warning" and the first shot. The thieves were not armed and Mr. Horn even said to the 911 operator that he was going out there to kill them.He was told repeatedly by the 911 operator not to go outside.Should all criminals receive the death penalty or should the punishment fit the crime? I said I agreed with the action, whether or not I'd do it myself is something else. I would have given them more time, but at his age and being outnumbered, I do not fault him for the actions taken. The police said wait. So, he was just supposed to stand there and watch as the robbery took place? You don't think they would have escaped before any sort of fuzz showed up? What was he going to do? Pursue them on foot? Not sure what the 5-0 are like in your area, but that sure as hell ain't gonna happen here. Also, knowing the Houston PD, they'd have shot the guys on sight anyhow! It may have not been the best way to rectify the situation, but again- it's their own faults for being there. If they'd have been shot and killed by the homeowner, they'd still be dead for home invasion, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It's not like they didn't know this risk going in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members neilster Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 People should consider themselves lucky if they have a neighbor like that. you wouldn't want to piss him off though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 I If they'd have been shot and killed by the homeowner, they'd still be dead for home invasion, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Don't be too sure about this, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 The perps were leaving when Mr. Horn engaged them. Right - and as an observer, you still have no idea what they have done, what they are capable of doing to you - or whether you have interrupted them... A very, very dangerous situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Derek5272 Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 If you listen to the second 911 call, after he shot them, he says they came in the front yard with him, and he had no idea what they were going to do. If that's the case, then I think he is 100% justified in shooting them. He goes out with a gun to confront them, warns them, and they come towards him. At his age, I don't think the two of them would have any trouble taking the gun away from him if he didn't shoot right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chrisebrooks06 Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 lol, well im in the uk, and we are arrested if we hit/ restrain or do anything to a robber, the criminal gets away with everything in this country and we get book thrown at us, i mean a mate of mine caught a shop lifter and restrained him, the police turn up 20 mins later the man gets a caution and my mate gets a warning stating that he could have been arrested for detaining him against his will, its a joke..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Derek5272 Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 lol, well im in the uk, and we are arrested if we hit/ restrain or do anything to a robber, the criminal gets away with everything in this country and we get book thrown at us, i mean a mate of mine caught a shop lifter and restrained him, the police turn up 20 mins later the man gets a caution and my mate gets a warning stating that he could have been arrested for detaining him against his will, its a joke..... Is it the same if they break into your home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 lol, well im in the uk, and we are arrested if we hit/ restrain or do anything to a robber, the criminal gets away with everything in this country and we get book thrown at us, i mean a mate of mine caught a shop lifter and restrained him, the police turn up 20 mins later the man gets a caution and my mate gets a warning stating that he could have been arrested for detaining him against his will, its a joke..... But at least you know that once they do make you a crimminal for protecting your stuff, you can get away with murder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Derek5272 Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 But at least you know that once they do make you a crimminal for protecting your stuff, you can get away with murder! As long as you avoid Sgt. Angle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 This event happened in Texas - the state which allows homeowners to shoot to kill if they confront a burglar. Clearly this was not sufficient deterrent for these two criminals. Now put yourself in that situation, with that background as the context, you being a 70 year old man walking outside in the dark. Couple that with the fact that they did not remain still, even at gunpoint. There is a very good chance they were moving towards the old man in order to disarm and quite possibly shoot him with his own gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 I'm not defending the thieves' criminal act. You, on the other hand, are defending Joe Horn's criminal act, claiming that it is justified. There was no threat made to Mr. Horn and lethal force is illegal in that case. He left his home to engage the suspects and shot them both within ten seconds. Two seconds elapsed between his "warning" and the first shot. A lot of ground can be covered in two seconds - that's more than enough time for someone to lunge into your personal space and become a very serious threat to your life. The number one rule when brandishing a weapon, is to secure that weapon. It sounds like the old man did just that, and in the process rid the world of 2 career scumbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members collinwho Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 This event happened in Texas - the state which allows homeowners to shoot to kill if they confront a burglar.Clearly this was not sufficient deterrent for these two criminals.Now put yourself in that situation, with that background as the context, you being a 70 year old man walking outside in the dark.Couple that with the fact that they did not remain still, even at gunpoint.There is a very good chance they were moving towards the old man in order to disarm and quite possibly shoot him with his own gun. Now imagine that you knew that there were thieves outside, and you saw them trying to leave. Continue imagining that you then willfully went outside with the intention of killing them, with the full knowledge that they were going away from you and your house, not towards it (he said something along the lines of "they are getting away with the loot"). Keep your imagination going, and consider that you then went outside and announced your presence. They then took off running AWAY from you (they were both shot in the back) and you choose to shoot them both anyways. I fully support defending yourself when needed, but even with limited evidence, this clearly wasn't self-defense. It may have been "future thief deterrent", but it definitely had nothing to do with him being threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 (they were both shot in the back) Actually one was shot in the side and the other in the chest. Still, the thieves were trying to get away when he went outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Derek5272 Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 Now imagine that you knew that there were thieves outside, and you saw them trying to leave. Continue imagining that you then willfully went outside with the intention of killing them, with the full knowledge that they were going away from you and your house, not towards it (he said something along the lines of "they are getting away with the loot"). Keep your imagination going, and consider that you then went outside and announced your presence. They then took off running AWAY from you (they were both shot in the back) and you choose to shoot them both anyways.I fully support defending yourself when needed, but even with limited evidence, this clearly wasn't self-defense. It may have been "future thief deterrent", but it definitely had nothing to do with him being threatened. I don't know where you see that they were both shot in the back. This is a quote from the news article in the OP: One shot struck one of the suspected burglars in the chest, and the other was struck on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members collinwho Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 Actually one was shot in the side and the other in the chest. Still, the thieves were trying to get away when he went outside. I should really re-read before I respond (I read this when it was very first posted, but hadn't gone back since, my memory must be going). Again, just to reiterate what has been said a couple times already. If it was a "dangerous situation" outside, he choose to go into that "dangerous situation". The thieves were leaving and he went out after them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 The funny thing is that lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Derek5272 Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 Now, I'm just curious here... I know there are different types of ammo for shotguns, and nothing I've read so far is really specific with it. If he had his gun loaded with the spray stuff that people use to deter bears from coming too close to houses out in the country, would it be possible for someone to get shot that close (article says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members allan grossman Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 If you listen to the second 911 call, after he shot them, he says they came in the front yard with him, and he had no idea what they were going to do. If that's the case, then I think he is 100% justified in shooting them. He goes out with a gun to confront them, warns them, and they come towards him. At his age, I don't think the two of them would have any trouble taking the gun away from him if he didn't shoot right away. But - one of the dead perps was found across the street and the other one was two houses away. Both perps were unarmed. Do you really think they came across the street to confront someone with a firearm? Joe said they were on his property in some pathetic attempt to keep from getting prosecuted for shooting people who *weren't* on his property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 This event happened in Texas - the state which allows homeowners to shoot to kill if they confront a burglar. I think this should be true in every state. If someone breaks into your house with the intent to steal your property (or cause you harm of course), you should have the right to shoot him/her. Home invasion is very serious, and is a line someone just shouldn't cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 I think this should be true in every state. If someone breaks into your house with the intent to steal your property (or cause you harm of course), you should have the right to shoot him/her. Home invasion is very serious, and is a line someone just shouldn't cross. Again, the potential loss of property is not reason to use deadly force on a person. If I were to shoot someone leaving my property for the mere fact that they had taken a guitar or whatever, I would be liable for the murder of that person. No material object is worth taking another's life over. If you've ever dealt with concealed carry/home defense laws in most states, you'll find that this is the case, and rightfully so, IMO. If an unarmed criminal enters your home with the sole purpose of making off with property, then you can certainly compel them to stop or leave with your gun, but you cannot and should not shoot them. Now if your life/limb/family are in danger, then that's a completely different story. I would not hesitate to use deadly force in those situations. If you're so shallow as to shoot someone because they're making off with your TV or whatever, though, then I question whether you're responsible enough to own a firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted November 19, 2007 Moderators Share Posted November 19, 2007 Now if your life/limb/family are in danger, then that's a completely different story. I would not hesitate to use deadly force in those situations. If you're so shallow as to shoot someone because they're making off with your TV or whatever, though, then I question whether you're responsible enough to own a firearm.Have you ever been robbed? If not then you don't quite understand the violation. Perhaps you have. Either way, you're right that shooting someone making off with the property is a little overboard. However, the threat of the use of force is a strong deterrent if it would be used more often. What's wrong with this case is it wasn't the man's own home, and they weren't in his yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 BOOM BOOM MANLINESS and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members allan grossman Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 I think this should be true in every state. If someone breaks into your house with the intent to steal your property (or cause you harm of course), you should have the right to shoot him/her. Home invasion is very serious, and is a line someone just shouldn't cross. Disagree. You shouldn't be allowed to use deadly force to protect property, only to protect people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted November 19, 2007 Members Share Posted November 19, 2007 Have you ever been robbed? If not then you don't quite understand the violation. Perhaps you have. Either way, you're right that shooting someone making off with the property is a little overboard. However, the threat of the use of force is a strong deterrent if it would be used more often. What's wrong with this case is it wasn't the man's own home, and they weren't in his yard. I know what it feels like-I have been robbed before, though indirectly. I also know that the property I would lose through such a situation is replaceable. Living years of my life in jail because I chose to shoot someone running away with my wallet is not replaceable time, and that person's life is not a replaceable item. If you're going to carry a weapon, you need to know the situations under which its operation is sanctioned. It seems that many in this thread do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.