Further Proof That Texans Are Some Trigger-Happy Crackers

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?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate 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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

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.

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

Originally Posted by From the Article in the OP

"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to 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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

He also thinks something bad happened on "September the first." What the fuck.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Isn't this argument going a little too much into polar extremes? There's just way too much to assume that's unaccounted for.

Just say "it's texas", shrug your shoulders, and give it up.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Lacerta

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.

srsly great movie or greastest movie

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by neus

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

There are just as many that do.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

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."

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

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

1) When do the rights of individuals start/stop when committing a crime?
2) Did the man know the house wasn't occupied at that time by its owners?
3) When is it appropriate to step in and be the law?

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.

Originally Posted by Capo

Personally, I don't feel the loss of one's life is fair punishment for anything, but I can at least understand it in a select few instances.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

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

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Zephyrin

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.

A right that wasn't being violated. He LEFT his house to confront them. You can't just walk on your lawn and shoot random tresspassers.

Quote:

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.

Afraid you're mistaken there. We're a nation under the rule of law and we have systems for these things, not vigilante justice. That's anarchy.

Quote:

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

Completely irrelevant and there's no reason for Capo to answer that question.

Quote:

And it's a shame that you can't grasp the concept that there are actually some people out there that deserve to die.

And it's a shame you can't grasp that you're just a bitter little bitch who doesn't care about anyone else.

Quote:

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.

Your own damn fault for not having off-site backups. What if your apartment caught fire? Just burn a few damn DVDs and store them at a friend or relative's house.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

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.

Just because the ends justify the means doesn't mean that the means you use to get to that end do not have consequences.

And I'll rhyme circles around practically any emcee you can bring my way, kid.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

So has anyone established yet where on their body this old dude shot the two guys?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Those two men were probably desperate and reckless, but it's terrible that they died. Definitely don't think any kind of theft warrants a death penalty. I wonder if these two particular thieves knew what they were getting into; did they even stop to think that they might've died?

In Colorado (and Oklahoma I think), there's this law called "Make My Day", no joke. Don't know if this is the law that Texas uses too, but it petty much states that someone can use deadly force if their home/property is in danger. (and it's named after a line Clint Eastwood said D': )

Anyway, the article says that it was a neighbor's house that was being burglarized but, when Horn saw the two men near his own home, thought that his property was in danger too? (kinda half-assed question, since he DID say that he was going to kill 'em)

Also, a lot of people are saying after Horn told the thieves "move, you're dead", they provoked him, but isn't it possible that he was just a little trigger happy/jumpy? (maybe one of them coughed a bit...)

I mean, he shot the shotgun THREE TIMES.

For two men, ten or twelve feet away from the shooter, seems a bit excessive, doesn't it?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Actually, it's not titled the "Make My Day" law, it's just earned that nickname, and it's not exactly new. That particular statute became effective in Colorado in 1986, and it's pretty much just the Castle Doctrine on crack. It "provides homeowners with immunity from prosecution for force used against a person making an unlawful entry into the home."

And, again, it has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

I think it'd be cute to get someone who actually studies law to come in here and explain what the hell happened. (cough, bluemikey, cough)

FELIPE NO

Of course my argument is full of holes. I can't argue for the hell of it and always be right.

All in all, I think Horn's actions were wrong and illegal. But the deaths of the two men were not justified, but certainly not wrong. Fuck them.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

The end always justifies the means

Kinda funny to hear you quote Lenin. =j

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

I heard "Move you're dead" myself.

Also, didn't the article say something about how when he left the house, he found them in his yard, close to his house, facing him? No one's addressed that.

It's a little disheartening the way some people are mourning these thieves. They had families! So if if I'm stealing a bunch of shit, and I get blown away, but I've neglected to breed first, I'm less deserving of sympathy?

I can't really feel sorry for them. The idea that they'd violate someone's home like that. It's a little like rape to me.

I agree with you that that are committing a crime and should be punished for it, but like the 911 guy said no property is worth shooting someone over, much less taking their lives. I mean this COULD have been a whole other story if he hadn't shot them. True it could mean that the burglers get away and his neighbors lose some heirlooms and what not, but it could also mean that they get caught. Since they're Mexican and they're in Texas there's a pretty good chance they'll get locked up for a real long time. I mean the man lives in a white neighborhood and any minority will know that the police will be there in like 5 minutes tops. There's a really good chance they would have been caught.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Zephyrin

Of course my argument is full of holes. I can't argue for the hell of it and always be right.

All in all, I think Horn's actions were wrong and illegal. But the deaths of the two men were not justified, but certainly not wrong. Fuck them.

Awfully nice of you to pull a 180 turnaround regarding the legality and justification of Mr. Horn's actions.

Most amazing jew boots