I wasn't the only one who heard "September the first." But I wrote a lot more in that post. It was just an aside. You aren't really addressing those points, so

Yes, Devo. The Mexicans always provoke the whites in Texas! It is fact of life! (I'm joking. I am pretty sure you were too. I hope.)

Sass, you're all for battered women taking responsibility for shit and doing something about it. You're advocating this guy just sit there and watch a theft take place without doing something to stop it, when he's had no clear reassurance from the authorities they'll be able to do anything? All he's got after 8 minutes on the phone is "Officers are on the way just stay inside."

You look at how critical people have been about officials and their management of crises, and you honestly expect this particular person to be reassured by something as vague as that?

I can't believe some of you people. You're encouraging us to allow ourselves to be victimized.

Also, provoking. Dudes are robbing the house next door. Guy decides to go outside and stop it. How the fuck is going outside to stop something more provocative than the something one is going outside to stop? Further, he says "Move, you're dead."

Now, if a cop yells "Move and I'll shoot," and the perp moves, would you say the cop provoked him? Come on.

I'm criticizing the use of lethal force, and people contending that it was somehow justified. Nothing more.

Yes, "victimized." When the proper thing is to KILL! We all should know better. When someone steals your shit, you murder them.

I thought *I* had anger issues.

There are about a thousand and one ways of deterring thieves that don't involve any killing.

Makes you wonder why he chose to kill them then, don't it?

I imagine most of those ways involve some sort of specialized training. I'm pretty sure I could stop a thief with a shot gun though. Don't know how I'd do with hand to hand, or you know, a knife or any kind of target shooting, and running's out of the question, because I'm kind of out of shape, and I don't know how to throw a bolo, and even if they stood still, I probably couldn't tie the right kind of knot. I suppose lasso might work, if I had one, maybe I could throw shoes at them, but then, I'm kind of weak, and they'd probably just laugh. I guess I could dump water out the side window, and hope they slipped on the consequent mud. Or maybe I could have hid upstairs and dropped a brick on their heads as they walked underneath, if they did, but that might kill them via concussion, and if we're killing them anyway, a shotgun's more certain.

And Sass, we're running into differing paradigms again. I'm saying he didn't go out there expressly to kill. He went out there to stop a theft, and since they didn't stand still when he asked, and in fact may not have even run away but rather toward him, he didn't have many other options.

You're saying he went out there to kill them because they stole shit. Two different scenarios, with completely different ethical implications.

This discussion is pointless as long as we won't know exactly what happened when he step out. ~_~

He expressed to the operator that he had a shot gun and "would kill them."

He went out there with intent to kill. And he did.

He could have said "I am going to shoot them in the knee/arm/foot/other extremity to deter them until the police arrive." But he didn't. He said he'd kill them, and he did.

Look. I don't deny the guy was trying to do the right thing, and that the thieves were complete scumbags - you don't break and enter and steal peoples' shit. But you also don't die for it at the hands of some vigilante asshole with a shotgun. Both parties were wrong.

Actually there was a law passed in Texas on September first that extended the rights of people to protect their own and their neighbor's property.

So, umm, yeah, good job on giving this guy a civics lesson.



Edit: Also, do we know where he shot these guys? It seems like everyone's just assuming he walked outside and went BOOM HEADSHOT when he might have actually been intending to only stop them. Frankly, I don't think this guy really meant to kill them and his saying "Move and you're dead" and the stuff to the 911 operator is like when you're just standing there furious about something and say you're ready to kill someone. It was just his outrage at what was going on and not a real desire to kill him some mexicans. I don't think he'd have been half as frantic when he called 911 back after hanging up if he intended to kill them.

I don't live in Texas. How should I know.

(So he DID say September the FIRST. Thanks for that proof. =D)

But I thought the law worked only if the neighbor asked to have their property guarded. He said he didn't know those particular neighbors well. Not that I am making an argument of that. It's trivial.

This is the answer to all the shit that happens here.

It's Texas.

It doesn't have to sound like the correct way to handle something, or the correct legal thing to do, or even make a lick of sense.

It's Texas.

See, I agree with all that except for the KILLING part. You can still take a couple of hoodlums off the street if you blow one of his legs off instead of, you know, his HEAD.

That gets into that whole specialized training thing. If Horn isn't a fantastic marksman, and we're talking about a shotgun, then it's unreasonable to take it as far as shooting them, and then say that he should have shot them somewhere specific and non-lethal.

Well, if he went outside, as the original post said, to find himself head-to-head with them at about 10-12 feet of distance, he really didn't need to be any kind of a marksman to make a none lethal shot.

http://www.raborak.com/galerie/album...e_roy_bean.jpg

srsly great movie or greastest movie

There are just as many that do.

It's just like Home Alone. Lulz for everybody!

1) Probably when they intrude on the rights of others. The thieves have a right to life, but the homeowners and the man also have a right to security in their own living quarters.
2) It's a safe assumption to think the house was empty.
3) When it's apparent that the law has failed. If the burglars had gotten away, the police wouldn't have investigated. Anything other than murder rarely ever gets escalated. They'd have made some half-ass attempts to gather prints (which I'm sure the burglars were at least smart enough to not leave any), then go back to the donut shop.

Just curious, are you Pro-life, or Pro-choice?

And it's a shame that you can't grasp the concept that there are actually some people out there that deserve to die. Life is a dime a dozen. I could go and create a life right now if I wanted. So when somebody makes their life (arguably) worthless, I think it's reached the end of it's value.
If somebody disobeys an armed police officer severely, I believe he's allowed to pop a cap.

When I was robbed, I think the insurance was liberty mutual. I had nothing for 3 months. NOTHING. They left one TV. Which doesn't do any good when you don't have cable. When they did send the shit, they obviously couldn't replace my VGM or my Dreamcast or all the files I had on my computer, so you can't say you can replace anything.

You know, you really are a dumb little cunt, Zeph.

You're arguing a Judge Dredd mentality. You consider a life worthless when someone can make an argument for it? Well, you're a dumbass, and I think any contribution to the gene pool you could make would be detrimental to society as a whole, so I consider your life worthless.

Quick, come onto my lawn so I can blow your fucking head off. Please, I won't even be breaking any law if I yell, "Move you're dead!" first, will I? Sounds silly, doesn't it?

Did I mention Mr. Horn disobeyed a (assuming this) armed police officer? Dispatchers are sworn in after all. Am I allowed to pop a cap in Mr. Horn's ass? No. I'm not, because even though he acted with unnecessary and unreasonable force, he doesn't deserve a needle. He sure as hell doesn't deserve a medal either, though.

You're a bitter motherfucker who's celebrating the death of two men because you were robbed, and to top it off you have more holes in your argument than the US/Mexican border. Get the fuck over it and get some compassion. You know, the stuff I have for your parents.

And as for you Avalokiteshvara... well, I like you. But that's doesn't mean you're right.

Provoked deadly force? No. There's a long explanation of what, exactly, officers can and can't do, but I'm not going to get into it unless someone tries to call bullshit on me.

Nobody is advocating laying down and allowing thugs to walk all over you, what we're saying (what everyone should be saying) is that the force used was unreasonable and unnecessary. He killed two men for robbing a neighboor. That's the bottom line. He did something terrible with the intention of stopping something bad. Notice the choice of words, terrible versus bad.

The issue here is not the law, the issue is the morality of his actions. And, contrary to everything you grim reaper advocates seem to be forgetting is that the ends do not justify the means.

The end always justifies the means, because at the end of the day, your goal is to achieve the end.

Well, the man with the child was obviously stealing in an attempt to better the position of his wife and child. Feed them, clothe them, etc. I hope you rhyme better than you argue.