Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released

[waste gate]

Listen
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5538780


PASADENA, TX) - A dramatic 911 call from the Pasadena man who allegedly shot and killed two men accused of burglarizing his neighbor has been released. The dispatcher tried to talk him out of it.
At about 2pm Wednesday, Joe Horn called 911 from inside his Pasadena home. He says he saw two men break into his neighbor's house. Horn tells police that he is armed with a shotgun.

"Hurry up, man. Catch these guys, will ya? I ain't gonna let them go, I'm gonna be honest with ya," said Horn on the 911 call. "I'm not gonna let them go. I'm not gonna let them get away with this (expletive)."

Horn and the dispatcher spent more than seven minutes on the phone, much of that with the dispatcher trying to convince Horn not to go outside.

"I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot," said Horn.

"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?" responded the dispatcher. "It's not worth shooting someone over this."

"I don't want to, but if I go out there to see what the hell is going on, what choice do I have?" said Horn.

"I don't want you to go out there. I asked if you could see anything out there," said the dispatcher.

Horn tells the dispatcher that he understands his rights and even makes reference to the September 1 expansion that gives homeowners greater protection from prosecution should they choose to confront someone breaking into their home.
Before he can be convinced otherwise, Horn tells police he sees the burglars coming out of his house.

"He's coming out of the window right now," said Horn to the 911 dispatcher. "I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window."

"Don't, don't , don't go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?" said the dispatcher.

"(Expletive), they just stole something," said Horn to the dispatcher. "I'm sorry. I ain't gonna let them get away with this. They got a bag of something. I'm doing it."
The dispatcher can't stop Horn, who takes the phone with him as he goes outside.

"Move, you're dead," Horn, who took the phone outside with him, could be heard saying to the suspects.

Then three gunshots could be heard. Horn admits later on the 911 call that he did, in fact, fire those shots. The names of the two men shot have not yet been released pending identification and notification of their next of kin. Horn has not been arrested or charged with any crime. A police investigation is still underway. This case likely will end up in the hands of a Harris County grand jury.

[Jimbuna]

I can appreciate how peoples emotions and sense of injustice can be aroused at times like this, but I've gotta say, I'm bloody glad we don't have these types of laws in the UK :nope:

[waste gate]

Six minutes on the phone with 911 and no police response. At seven minutes the police show up.


Once again when seconds count the police will be there in a few minutes!!

[elite_hunter_sh3]

GOOD FOR HIM!!
Finally. A story with a true rightful happy ending. This is exactly what every household should be like today. Armed and ready to protect your family. I'm sorry this family had to endure this. I'm sure they've lost much of their sense of peace. I feel nothing for the criminals. They took the risk for the easy money. They got what they deserved.

Texas was the most recent state to pass the "Castle Doctrine" law, behind Florida, Mississippi, and Georgia.You heard him tell the douchebag 911 operator the law changed in September. It states that if there is a percieved threat on your property you have right to use deadly force. The man explained they had a krowbar and were invading his neighbor's home. He also stated they ran onto his property. Case closed.

fyi they beat the stepson with baseball bats till they thought he was dead (he is still alive but in a coma)

[RickC Sniper]

He said several times he has or had no choice but he had many choices.

You don't kill someone unless you are threatened physically.

Common sense is becoming a rare thing I guess.

This is very sad.

[SUBMAN1]

I'm taking a nuetral stance on this one. Both sides have arguments here, and I don't agree with the action taken, and I don't agree with inaction. Catch 22 on this one.

-S

[elite_hunter_sh3]

it is legal to use lethal force to stop a felony in progress. In addition the neighbor could have been home and the old fellow may have had legitimate fear for their life/lives.

"So if any of my neighbors who are good friends (I have several) are being burglarized you can take a strong guess the situation will end the same

Same here if I'm in public and an armed robbery, rape, deadly attack or such is going on I can pull my legally carried weapon and blast the perp. One has to be on the ball and very aware of what is actually going on (not immediate impressions) and what the law allows"
from a person who lived nearby the incident.

Quote:
"Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."
:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:

Quote:
The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection.

[RickC Sniper]

Yes, it is legal. But is it right?

For all this guy knew no one had been hurt.

[Tchocky]

I can't get over the idea of shooting two people dead over a bag, when the police are already on the way.

Look at his first sentences. He wants to perform his own style of justice.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

WRONG, the stepson was brutally beaten...

"Prosecutors said homeowner Shannon Edmonds opened fire Dec. 7 after three young men rampaged through the Clearlake house demanding marijuana and brutally beat his stepson. Rashad Williams, 21, and Christian Foster, 22, were shot in the back. Hughes fled."

http://home.knology.net/news/read.php?id=15657702&ps=1011&lang=en&_LT=HOME_USNWC01L1_UNEWS

[waste gate]

Yes, it is legal. But is it right?

For all this guy knew no one had been hurt.

Mr. Horn told the burglars to stop. They didn't.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

shame he didnt blast the third criminal, should be charged with murder of his 2 fellow criminal buddies and attempted murder of the stepson who was inside... i say execution or life in jail...:yep:

[waste gate]

I can't get over the idea of shooting two people dead over a bag, when the police are already on the way.

Look at his first sentences. He wants to perform his own style of justice.

Come on Tchocky, you aren't even in favor of self defense. This should at least act as a lesson as to how long it takes police to respond to a situation where seconds count. Don't you think?

BTW although I'm not fully versed in Texas law, he was performing Texas justice based on laws constituted by duly elected Texas legislators.

[CCIP]

Finally. A story with a true rightful happy ending.
Are you nuts? :huh:

Two people dead is a happy ending?!

They definitely did the wrong thing and should have been punished for it, but you know, this is way out of proportion for what they did. I don't neccesarily disagree with taking action and trying to stop the robbery, but 1) to me it seems rather like the guy was trigger-happy; 2) in any case, even if you forgive the shooter, you just can't call this a good and just thing! If this is justice, then we've just established a precedent for lethal penalties for petty crimes - and that's downright dangerous. You know, people really screw up their lives sometimes, but there's no reason why the punishment for them shouldn't offer a chance for rehabilitation afterward. We're sure leaving that option open for them here, huh...

Otherwise, hey, let's just screw this "fair trial" thing and start shooting everyone who does anything remotely illegal! Hardened criminals and stupid kids who got tangled up in a wrong crowd alike. After all, a bag of stuff is more valuable.

[Tchocky]

Come on Tchocky, you aren't even in favor of self defense. This isn't a self-defense situation. What I can't empathise with is a menatl state that values one bag of a neighbour's property than the lives of two people , and the weight of their deaths on your conscience.
This should at least act as a lesson as to how long it takes police to respond to a situation where seconds count. Don't you think? Er, no.
If the police are going to be late, then tough ****. It's not worth killing over. I can't imagine myself preferring to have killed someone than to see my neighbour missing his DVD player.

EDIT - just saw CCIP's post. +1, etc :)

[Steel_Tomb]

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...the scum got what they deserved IMHO. Even though the crime was commited against a neighbours property, Mr Horn did the right and honorable thing. He defended the property of a neighbour and a friend...good job mate! It often seems that the law is on the side of the criminals in the UK...remember Tony Martin? He shot dead two people after they invaded his property...now hes serving a prison sentance, while the surviving robber has sued him numerous times for pathetic little reasons such as he can't perform with his lass because he was shot in the leg...or some stupid reason.

Just my 2 cents!

[Tchocky]

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...the scum got what they deserved IMHO.
Is this just for burglary, or can we shoot people for parking violations?

[waste gate]

If one doesn't steal one doesn't die. Seems easy doesn't it.

I have no problem with what Mr. Horn did. He followed the law. This is a nation of laws, or at least it used to be.

[waste gate]

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...the scum got what they deserved IMHO.
Is this just for burglary, or can we shoot people for parking violations?

No, Steel_Tomb said:

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...

Not the petty crime you would like to make it.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Finally. A story with a true rightful happy ending.
Are you nuts? :huh:

Two people dead is a happy ending?!

They definitely did the wrong thing and should have been punished for it, but you know, this is way out of proportion for what they did. I don't neccesarily disagree with taking action and trying to stop the robbery, but 1) to me it seems rather like the guy was trigger-happy; 2) in any case, even if you forgive the shooter, you just can't call this a good and just thing! If this is justice, then we've just established a precedent for lethal penalties for petty crimes - and that's downright dangerous. You know, people really screw up their lives sometimes, but there's no reason why the punishment for them shouldn't offer a chance for rehabilitation afterward. We're sure leaving that option open for them here, huh...

Otherwise, hey, let's just screw this "fair trial" thing and start shooting everyone who does anything remotely illegal! Hardened criminals and stupid kids who got tangled up in a wrong crowd alike. After all, a bag of stuff is more valuable.

and what would happen if they stayed alive????, they would go on to kill the stepson, then proceed to commit more crimes later on, try to kill someone or kill someone and you forfit your human rights... thats the way it sould be

[Happy Times]

If someone invades my home he does it with the risk of loosing his life. Im not saying i will automatically shoot to kill, but that is a real possibility. Especially if they dont follow the instructions i give them.

[CCIP]

and what would happen if they stayed alive????, they would go on to kill the stepson, then proceed to commit more crimes later on, try to kill someone or kill someone and you forfit your human rights... thats the way it sould be

1) Where are you getting the idea that they would do more harm if they stayed alive, especially killing someone - that's really a bad, bad assumption. It's imaginable, but not provable in any way.

2) I believe in human rights, but I also believe that some human rights are more important than others. To me the human right to life is more important then the right to property. Property can be replaced or compensated for to a person that lost it; life cannot be replaced and compensation for it will never be more than symbolic. Likewise, I consider modern notions of justice and fair trial to be more important to a healthy society than the supposed "sacredness" of property. A society that lets petty crimes go unpunished is in for trouble and needs more efficient response methods, but a society that values property above life is just rotten.

[Tchocky]

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...the scum got what they deserved IMHO. Is this just for burglary, or can we shoot people for parking violations?
No, Steel_Tomb said:

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...

Not the petty crime you would like to make it.
Well it could certainly be construed as invading your property (driveway), and threatening your loved ones (does this model of human rights apply to those who live alone?). But that's silly and beside the point.

Steel-Tomb & elite's interesting ideas concerning human rights don't mean much, thankfully, because no respectable government shares them. Sadly there are a lot of nasty countries in the world who think this way.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

1.)
if criminals commit a crime and get away with it , they have a good chance of doing it again..., and they ALMOST killed the grand parent's stepson.... imagine what they would do to their next victim???, shoot to kill, better having no criminals in this world then to let them run off.

2. well did you read the part where they beat the living daylights out of their stepson?? leaving him with severe head trauma, even causing BRAIN DAMAGE...., those criminals automatically lose their rights for attempting to kill the stepson,

[elite_hunter_sh3]

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...the scum got what they deserved IMHO. Is this just for burglary, or can we shoot people for parking violations?
No, Steel_Tomb said:

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...

Not the petty crime you would like to make it. Well it could certainly be construed as invading your property (driveway), and threatening your loved ones (does this model of human rights apply to those who live alone?). But that's silly and beside the point.

Steel-Tomb & elite's interesting ideas concerning human rights don't mean much, thankfully, because no respectable government shares them. Sadly there are a lot of nasty countries in the world who think this way.

when someone breaks into your house ready to steal whatever is of value and murder your family what will you do?? call the cops and wait till they come a few minutes later while you are being shot at.( hope that never happens), you will think differently...

[HunterICX]

and what would happen if they stayed alive????, they would go on to kill the stepson, then proceed to commit more crimes later on, try to kill someone or kill someone and you forfit your human rights... thats the way it sould be

Ehm,

what the hell are you talking about?
its about a Neighbour in pasadena Texas shooting 2 burglas as they robbed something

so why the hell do you bring up a case about a homeowner in N.California shooting and killing 2 black people after they beat the stepson and 1 escaped
really elite, what are you talking about?

get your news straight first.

[Letum]

and what would happen if they stayed alive????, they would go on to kill the stepson, then proceed to commit more crimes later on

...stepson?

I have a good friend who is now a truly honest gentleman as well as a avid
subsimmer who visits this forum.

In his youth he engaged in petty theft.

He now has a respectable job, a wife and child.

If you could have justifyed shooting my friend as he ran away from a crime scene all
those years ago, then you would have made the world a poorer place. Further more,
there would be little to say against shooting him now.

You can no judge someone on their future actions.


*edit* and what CCIP said.

[Chock]

It sounds like he wanted to shoot them regardless of what was going on, and that does seem unecessary. Even so, I've not much sympathy for the thieves who got shot, as even though what the guy did was over the top and probably unecessary, they put themselves in the position which brought about that act, so that's their tough luck. The simple fact is, if they had not been breaking and entering and stealing stuff in the first place, they'd not have been shot by him, and since they know that what they were doing was wrong, but they still did it, then they must have known that what happened to them was always a possibility.

I can understand frustration at reporting this kind of thing and the cops taking ages to turn up to a crime in progress, as I have had the same thing happen to me, where they took almost three hours to do something about it, but six minutes to respond is not actually that bad, the police can't be everywhere.

:D Chock

[elite_hunter_sh3]

oops, must have gotten a mixup :oops:

between this
http://cbs11tv.com/texaswire/TX--BurglaryShooting/resources_news_html

and this
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SUCO401&show_article=1&catnum=0

[waste gate]

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...the scum got what they deserved IMHO. Is this just for burglary, or can we shoot people for parking violations?
No, Steel_Tomb said:

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...

Not the petty crime you would like to make it.
Well it could certainly be construed as invading your property (driveway), and threatening your loved ones (does this model of human rights apply to those who live alone?). But that's silly and beside the point.

Steel-Tomb & elite's interesting ideas concerning human rights don't mean much, thankfully, because no respectable government shares them. Sadly there are a lot of nasty countries in the world who think this way.

Again you try to minimize peoples judgement as to a threat. Beyond that the cocept of self-defense has existed for millenia. So yes someone who lives alone not only can but has a duty to protect him/herself.

[SUBMAN1]

In my opinion the moment someone decides that they have a right to invade your property, and pose a possilbe threat to your loved ones, thier human rights are forefit...the scum got what they deserved IMHO. Even though the crime was commited against a neighbours property, Mr Horn did the right and honorable thing. He defended the property of a neighbour and a friend...good job mate! It often seems that the law is on the side of the criminals in the UK...remember Tony Martin? He shot dead two people after they invaded his property...now hes serving a prison sentance, while the surviving robber has sued him numerous times for pathetic little reasons such as he can't perform with his lass because he was shot in the leg...or some stupid reason.

Just my 2 cents!+2 for this post. It is right on.

In the perfect world, people wouldn't need to defend ones life/limb/property, but Utopia is about as far away now as it can possbily get too. The 1950's is probably as close to Utopia as one is ever going to get without re-wiring the human brain, but if you re-wire the human brain, you are also no longer human, so this idea is out. Welcome to the 2000's. Buy a gun. You're gonna need one.

-S

[waste gate]

It sounds like he wanted to shoot them regardless of what was going on, and that does seem unecessary. :D Chock

Then why did he call the police and wait six/seven minutes. If the man really wanted to take justice into his own hands, he'd have just waited until they emerged from the house and shot them witout warning.

As the call shows he did niether.

[Letum]

Again you try to minimize peoples judgement as to a threat. Beyond that the cocept of self-defense has existed for millenia. So yes someone who lives alone not only can but has a duty to protect him/herself.

There is self defense, and there is shooting two men trying to exscape your neighbors property.


The self defense option is usualy to remain unseen or leave the area.

[Happy Times]

Again you try to minimize peoples judgement as to a threat. Beyond that the cocept of self-defense has existed for millenia. So yes someone who lives alone not only can but has a duty to protect him/herself.

There is self defense, and there is shooting two men trying to exscape your neighbors property.


The self defense option is usualy to remain unseen or leave the area.

Do i understand that you think it is better to run away or hide if something like this happens?

[waste gate]

Again you try to minimize peoples judgement as to a threat. Beyond that the cocept of self-defense has existed for millenia. So yes someone who lives alone not only can but has a duty to protect him/herself.

There is self defense, and there is shooting two men trying to exscape your neighbors property.


The self defense option is usualy to remain unseen or leave the area.

Too much mixing I think. In this case (Mr. Horn of Pasedina, TX)we aren't talking self defense but defense of property which is a legal action in the state of Texas as of September.

[Letum]

Do i understand that you think it is better to run away or hide if something like this happens?

Yes, it is usually most effective method of defense, especially when the threat is not immanent.

If the threat is immanent, but not premeditated, then compliance is usually the best defense.


Deterrence and punishment are the jobs assigned to the police and courts.

[waste gate]

Do i understand that you think it is better to run away or hide if something like this happens?

Yes, it is usually most effective method of defense, especially when the threat is not immanent.

If the threat is immanent, but not premeditated, then compliance is usually the best defense.


Deterrence and punishment are the jobs assigned to the police and courts.


Are you really willing to give up your right to life to the police and the courts?

[Tchocky]

Then why did he call the police and wait six/seven minutes. If the man really wanted to take justice into his own hands, he'd have just waited until they emerged from the house and shot them witout warning.

As the call shows he did niether.
Look at his first sentences, he definitely wants to shoot these guys. All the call seems to do is let the police know about what he wants to do.

[RickC Sniper]

If they attempt to enter my house I'll protect my family and property, lethally if necessary. I have that right and I consider it my duty to my family.

But Mr Horn shot two people over a bag of stolen goods. He was in no danger. No one was in any danger.

He was a vigilante. He was legally right under the law but I cannot condone his actions. Way, way overboard.

[waste gate]

Then why did he call the police and wait six/seven minutes. If the man really wanted to take justice into his own hands, he'd have just waited until they emerged from the house and shot them witout warning.

As the call shows he did niether.
Look at his first sentences, he definitely wants to shoot these guys. All the call seems to do is let the police know about what he wants to do.

So you are now saying that calling the authorities was the wrong thing for him to do? He certainly didn't run outside immediately. He waited six minutes.

Again I come back to the fact that when seconds count, one cannot count on the police.

[Chock]

Then why did he call the police and wait six/seven minutes. If the man really wanted to take justice into his own hands, he'd have just waited until they emerged from the house and shot them witout warning. As the call shows he did niether.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he shot the thieving gits, serves them right as far as I'm concerned, but the call shows that he also did not obey the requests and instructions of the police despatcher, who repeatedly told him not to do it, that sounds to me like his mind was made up.

:D Chock

[Yahoshua]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/th000_0044.jpg

Read the Texas Penal codes 9.41/ 9.42/ 9.43/ and all of 9.51.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf#page=62


He's in the right to defend his neighbors property as defined in S. 9.43 as he is witnessing the theft of his neighbors property; S. 9.42 also supports his position.

S. 9.51/ 2/ B Is a kicker though. This section allows him to make a Citizen Arrest, but he has to follow the same procedure as all other LEOs' do. Since he wasn't able to make the actual arrest, he's still in the clear as the burglars were attempting to leave the area with the stolen property. But as we have it, Sub S. C of that same code allows for the course of action that Mr. Horn took to be legal.

So two scumbags are gone and we can all go back to our daily lives. There's not much else to it.

[Happy Times]

Do i understand that you think it is better to run away or hide if something like this happens?

Yes, it is usually most effective method of defense, especially when the threat is not immanent.

If the threat is immanent, but not premeditated, then compliance is usually the best defense.


Deterrence and punishment are the jobs assigned to the police and courts.

I and most people i know here would call that living under a yoke with no rights and only responsibilities.

Im not going to put my life in the hands of criminals. I am not going to leave my home to be ravaged by criminals. The goverment is there for me, im not here for the goverment.

[Tchocky]

So you are now saying that calling the authorities was the wrong thing for him to do? Er, no. That's not what i'm saying at all. I've no idea where you got that from.

He's told by the dispatch not to do anything, then tells the dispatch what he's going to do. After 90 seconds he states "I'm not going to let them get away with this". The dispatch hasn't said what police are on the way, or how long they will take, but this guy has already decided to disobey him.

[RickC Sniper]

Yes we all know his action was legal.


Where has common sense gone? Let's give storeclerks guns so they can shoot suspected shoplifters right in the shopping mall.

[CCIP]

As for the stepson story, I actually wouldn't disagree with you too much.

The charges against the remaining guy there are based on a pretty weird law, but as far as the self-defense right - that was justified. Beating someone half-dead is a pretty good sign those guys had no regard for life. I think the last guy should be charged with attempted murder and some variation of criminal stupidity leading to death(s) though.

[Yahoshua]

Where has common sense gone? Let's give storeclerks guns so they can shoot suspected shoplifters right in the shopping mall.

Could you define common sense for us? And I certainly wouldn't mind all store clerks being armed (so long as they are properly trained), but shooting on mere suspicion would be illegal.:D

[waste gate]

So you are now saying that calling the authorities was the wrong thing for him to do? Er, no. That's not what i'm saying at all. I've no idea where you got that from.

He's told by the dispatch not to do anything, then tells the dispatch what he's going to do. After 90 seconds he states "I'm not going to let them get away with this". The dispatch hasn't said what police are on the way, or how long they will take, but this guy has already decided to disobey him.

Most dispatchers are not law enforcement officers in the US, and have no law enforcement authority. Either way his actions were within his rights and his duty under the law.

[Letum]

Do i understand that you think it is better to run away or hide if something like this happens?
Yes, it is usually most effective method of defense, especially when the threat is not immanent.

If the threat is immanent, but not premeditated, then compliance is usually the best defense.


Deterrence and punishment are the jobs assigned to the police and courts.

Are you really willing to give up your right to life to the police and the courts?

That makes no sense?!

Im talking about the best way to preserve my life.
Starting gun fights, however one sided, is not the best way to stay alive when
compared to the alternatives.

[waste gate]

Do i understand that you think it is better to run away or hide if something like this happens?
Yes, it is usually most effective method of defense, especially when the threat is not immanent.

If the threat is immanent, but not premeditated, then compliance is usually the best defense.


Deterrence and punishment are the jobs assigned to the police and courts.

Are you really willing to give up your right to life to the police and the courts?

That makes no sense?!

Im talking about the best way to preserve my life.
Starting gun fights, however one sided, is not the best way to stay alive when
compared to the alternatives.

Then how would you justify this statement: Deterrence and punishment are the jobs assigned to the police and courts.
or deny the statements sentiment?

[Letum]

Then how would you justify this statement: Deterrence and punishment are the jobs assigned to the police and courts.
or deny the statements sentiment?


I still don't really see your logic, if there is any.

How am I giving up my "right to life" by letting the police arrest people?

[waste gate]

Then how would you justify this statement: Deterrence and punishment are the jobs assigned to the police and courts.
or deny the statements sentiment?


I still don't really see your logic, if there is any.

How am I giving up my "right to life" by letting the police arrest people?

You give it up by letting it be known that you will not deter the crime.

These folks aren't afraid of the police or the courts. Six months in the can? Big deal.

[porphy]

I heard the whole tape, Mr. Horn is not right in his head. I would hate to have him as my neighbour.


Porphy

[waste gate]

I heard the whole tape, Mr. Horn is not right in his head. I would hate to have him as my neighbour.


Porphy

I'd like to have him as my neighbor. He'd look out for me and I for him. The message needs to be sent that criminal activity will not be tolerated and we won't wait for the police.

[Letum]

Then how would you justify this statement: Deterrence and punishment are the jobs assigned to the police and courts.
or deny the statements sentiment?

I still don't really see your logic, if there is any.

How am I giving up my "right to life" by letting the police arrest people?
You give it up by letting it be known that you will not deter the crime.

These folks aren't afraid of the police or the courts. Six months in the can? Big deal.

If that was the case then you would exspect to see more crime per person in say, the UK, than America, right?

Prision pop. per 100,000 persons for 2001
USA: 689
UK:129
EU avg: 89

If a criminal thinks he might be up against a armed, aggresive opponent it will not
put him off, it will just make him more likely to be more armed and agressive him self.

[Happy Times]

If a criminal thinks he might be up against a armed, aggresive opponent it will not
put him off, it will just make him more likely to be more armed and agressive him self

You understand that if this is true, people will want to buy more guns.

[waste gate]

Then how would you justify this statement: Deterrence and punishment are the jobs assigned to the police and courts.
or deny the statements sentiment?

I still don't really see your logic, if there is any.

How am I giving up my "right to life" by letting the police arrest people?
You give it up by letting it be known that you will not deter the crime.

These folks aren't afraid of the police or the courts. Six months in the can? Big deal.

If that was the case then you would exspect to see more crime per person in say, the UK, than America, right?

Prision pop. per 100,000 persons for 2001
USA: 689
UK:129
EU avg: 89

If a criminal thinks he might be up against a armed, aggresive opponent it will not
put him off, it will just make him more likely to be more armed and agressive him self.

How many of those in US jails are there because our law enforcement and courts, as lousy as they are, are better than the UK?

And even given that I refuse to give my life to allow those systems to some how protect me.

[Letum]

How many of those in US jails are there because our law enforcement and courts, as lousy as they are, are better than the UK?


Are you serious? :doh:
That would make US police over 530% more effective than the police of any European country.

[waste gate]

How many of those in US jails are there because our law enforcement and courts, as lousy as they are, are better than the UK?


Are you serious? :doh:
That would make US police over 530% more effective than the police of any European country.

And yet you allow the existance of the police to feel safe? False safety man.

[Tchocky]

I heard the whole tape, Mr. Horn is not right in his head. I would hate to have him as my neighbour.


Porphy
I'd like to have him as my neighbor. He'd look out for me and I for him. The message needs to be sent that criminal activity will not be tolerated and we won't wait for the police.
Example from the last 24 hours - last night I was locked out of my house, due to forgetting my keys. Dummkopf.
So I climbed up over the back wall, and squeezed in the kitchen window. It was painful and not too quick, but I was in. I'd prefer to have someone call the police, and go through the embarrassment and hassle of explaining my situation, than have a neighbour shoot me.

[porphy]

I heard the whole tape, Mr. Horn is not right in his head. I would hate to have him as my neighbour.


Porphy
I'd like to have him as my neighbor. He'd look out for me and I for him. The message needs to be sent that criminal activity will not be tolerated and we won't wait for the police.

Of course you would like him as your neighbour. As long you guys don't live next to my house I would feel quite secure. I think Mr. Horn showed in plain view that he is a loose gun, literary.

[waste gate]

I heard the whole tape, Mr. Horn is not right in his head. I would hate to have him as my neighbour.


Porphy
I'd like to have him as my neighbor. He'd look out for me and I for him. The message needs to be sent that criminal activity will not be tolerated and we won't wait for the police.

Of course you would like him as your neighbour. As long you guys don't live next to my house I would feel quite secure. I think Mr. Horn showed in plain view that he is a loose gun, literary.

Look out for the criminal with the knife, club, fist, foot. There are many ways to hurt or even kill a person. As hard as you might think it is. A fiearm is ultimately the great equalizer.

[Letum]

I heard the whole tape, Mr. Horn is not right in his head. I would hate to have him as my neighbour.


Porphy
I'd like to have him as my neighbor. He'd look out for me and I for him. The message needs to be sent that criminal activity will not be tolerated and we won't wait for the police.
Of course you would like him as your neighbour. As long you guys don't live next to my house I would feel quite secure. I think Mr. Horn showed in plain view that he is a loose gun, literary.
Look out for the criminal with the knife, club, fist, foot. There are many ways to hurt or even kill a person. As hard as you might think it is. A fiearm is ultimately the great equalizer.


Firearms usualy give the advantage to the person who gets ready to shoot first.
Unless you are allways on a knife edge, the it is usualy the criminal who points the
gun first because he is the only person who knows there will be a crime in advance.

[waste gate]

I heard the whole tape, Mr. Horn is not right in his head. I would hate to have him as my neighbour.


Porphy
I'd like to have him as my neighbor. He'd look out for me and I for him. The message needs to be sent that criminal activity will not be tolerated and we won't wait for the police.
Of course you would like him as your neighbour. As long you guys don't live next to my house I would feel quite secure. I think Mr. Horn showed in plain view that he is a loose gun, literary.
Look out for the criminal with the knife, club, fist, foot. There are many ways to hurt or even kill a person. As hard as you might think it is. A fiearm is ultimately the great equalizer.


Firearms usualy give the advantage to the person who gets ready to shoot first.
Unless you are allways on a knife edge, the it is usualy the criminal who points the
gun first because he is the only person who knows there will be a crime in advance.


Well that flys in the face of 'the criminal only wants your property' argument. Now you begin to realize that they may want your life also? If so six minute respnose by the police is your death.

If only I'd had some way to fight back.

[Letum]

Well that flys in the face of 'the criminal only wants your property' argument. Now you begin to realize that they may want your life also? If so six minute respnose by the police is your death.

If only I'd had some way to fight back.

The only reason a criminal would want you life is:

1) Premeditated murder. He/She has a grudge agaist you.

2) He thinks he has to kill you first incase you have a gun.

In England we only have the first, wich is part of the reason our hommoside rates
are far below that of the US.

[RickC Sniper]

I heard the whole tape, Mr. Horn is not right in his head. I would hate to have him as my neighbour.


Porphy
I'd like to have him as my neighbor. He'd look out for me and I for him. The message needs to be sent that criminal activity will not be tolerated and we won't wait for the police.
Of course you would like him as your neighbour. As long you guys don't live next to my house I would feel quite secure. I think Mr. Horn showed in plain view that he is a loose gun, literary.
Look out for the criminal with the knife, club, fist, foot. There are many ways to hurt or even kill a person. As hard as you might think it is. A fiearm is ultimately the great equalizer.


Firearms usualy give the advantage to the person who gets ready to shoot first.
Unless you are allways on a knife edge, the it is usualy the criminal who points the
gun first because he is the only person who knows there will be a crime in advance.


Well that flys in the face of 'the criminal only wants your property' argument. Now you begin to realize that they may want your life also? If so six minute respnose by the police is your death.

If only I'd had some way to fight back.


If they are a physical threat to you then you are justified in using extreme measures. Mr Horn had no such situation.

Common Sense. Use it if you have it.

[waste gate]

Well that flys in the face of 'the criminal only wants your property' argument. Now you begin to realize that they may want your life also? If so six minute respnose by the police is your death.

If only I'd had some way to fight back.

The only reason a criminal would want you life is:

1) Premeditated murder. He/She has a grudge agaist you.

2) He thinks he has to kill you first incase you have a gun.

In England we only have the first, wich is part of the reason our hommoside rates
are far below that of the US.

How do you know that? Please, some of those statistics of yours would be appropriate. Even if that were the case ( I don't think you can prove your thesis) it doesn't preclude anyones right to defend ones self or property with a firearm.

[Letum]

some of those statistics of yours would be appropriate.

Murders Per 100,000 for 1999 (US) and 1997(UK)

USA: 5.70 (3.72 with guns (inc.))
UK: 1.41 (0.11 with guns (inc.))

The avaliability of firearms is one of sevral important factors that effect murder rates in a country.
other factors include economic growth, population dispersal, policeing effectiveness etc.

[waste gate]

some of those statistics of yours would be appropriate.

Murders Per 100,000 for 1999 (US) and 1997(UK)

USA: 5.70 (3.72 with guns (inc.))
UK: 1.41 (0.11 with guns (inc.))

The avaliability of firearms is one of sevral important factors that effect murder rates in a country.
other factors include economic growth, population dispersal, policeing effectiveness etc.

............. How many lives were saved by use of firearms in each country?

[Letum]

some of those statistics of yours would be appropriate.

Murders Per 100,000 for 1999 (US) and 1997(UK)

USA: 5.70 (3.72 with guns (inc.))
UK: 1.41 (0.11 with guns (inc.))

The avaliability of firearms is one of sevral important factors that effect murder rates in a country.
other factors include economic growth, population dispersal, policeing effectiveness etc.
............. How many lives were saved by use of firearms in each country?

You mean lives saved by killing people? :rotfl:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

criminals are not people... :yep:

[Onkel Neal]

If they are a physical threat to you then you are justified in using extreme measures. Mr Horn had no such situation.

Common Sense. Use it if you have it.

Yeah, I have to agree. If these guys were breaking into his house, I would back him in using deadly force. But he cannot deputize himself and cut loose with a 12 gauge. Hell, for all he knows, that could easily be the son of the homeowner who locked himself out. He's going to end up in trouble over this.

[Jimbuna]

Well that flys in the face of 'the criminal only wants your property' argument. Now you begin to realize that they may want your life also? If so six minute respnose by the police is your death.

If only I'd had some way to fight back.

The only reason a criminal would want you life is:

1) Premeditated murder. He/She has a grudge agaist you.

2) He thinks he has to kill you first incase you have a gun.

In England we only have the first, wich is part of the reason our hommoside rates
are far below that of the US.

Good post Letum :up:

Allow me to add a point 3) Criminals in the UK are aware that in the main, British Police Officers are unarmed. However, any report of activity that includes the use of firearms is ALWAYS counterracted with the likelihood of an armed response.
British society is far less tolerant of firearms than our American cousins.

[Tchocky]

criminals are not people... :yep:
Ever broken a law?

[Happy Times]

Well that flys in the face of 'the criminal only wants your property' argument. Now you begin to realize that they may want your life also? If so six minute respnose by the police is your death.

If only I'd had some way to fight back.

The only reason a criminal would want you life is:

1) Premeditated murder. He/She has a grudge agaist you.

2) He thinks he has to kill you first incase you have a gun.

In England we only have the first, wich is part of the reason our hommoside rates
are far below that of the US.

Good post Letum :up:

Allow me to add a point 3) Criminals in the UK are aware that in the main, British Police Officers are unarmed. However, any report of activity that includes the use of firearms is ALWAYS counterracted with the likelihood of an armed response.
British society is far less tolerant of firearms than our American cousins.

Police officers being unarmed, with british crime rates, is a crime itself towards the citizens.

[Jimbuna]

Well that flys in the face of 'the criminal only wants your property' argument. Now you begin to realize that they may want your life also? If so six minute respnose by the police is your death.

If only I'd had some way to fight back.

The only reason a criminal would want you life is:

1) Premeditated murder. He/She has a grudge agaist you.

2) He thinks he has to kill you first incase you have a gun.

In England we only have the first, wich is part of the reason our hommoside rates
are far below that of the US.

Good post Letum :up:

Allow me to add a point 3) Criminals in the UK are aware that in the main, British Police Officers are unarmed. However, any report of activity that includes the use of firearms is ALWAYS counterracted with the likelihood of an armed response.
British society is far less tolerant of firearms than our American cousins.

Police officers being unarmed, with british crime rates, is a crime itself towards the citizens.

In that sir.....we both agree :yep:

[August]

The only reason a criminal would want you life is:

1) Premeditated murder. He/She has a grudge agaist you.

2) He thinks he has to kill you first incase you have a gun.

or

3) He doesn't want to leave you alive to testify against him later.

[Happy Times]

The only reason a criminal would want you life is:

1) Premeditated murder. He/She has a grudge agaist you.

2) He thinks he has to kill you first incase you have a gun.

or

3) He doesn't want to leave you alive to testify against him later.

4) He gets scared

5)He kills you by accident

I think its scary people will just hope for the best, it only natural to show aggressiveness when invaded and assaulted. Do you also take a beating when someone attacks you? This is the real world, goverment isnt the solution to everything. In the end, you can rely 100% only in yourself and people close to you.
I dont care what the criminal thinks, and not going to find out, i will take the initiative and attack. And im not only talking, ive really done this. The instincts should be there for everyone but maybe some have lost them. Its just that life can still hit you in the face in our civilized societies.

[Letum]

The only reason a criminal would want you life is:

1) Premeditated murder. He/She has a grudge agaist you.

2) He thinks he has to kill you first incase you have a gun.
or

3) He doesn't want to leave you alive to testify against him later.
4) He gets scared

5)He kills you by accident


Those are not reasons why he would want to kill you.

[RedMenace]

criminals are not people... :yep:
Oh wow.

I guess the parking violation I recieved last Wednesday has forfeit me as a person?:roll:

Anyway, if my neighbor shot two kids to save my DVD player, I'd move. Immediately.

[SteminDemon13]

criminals are not people... :yep:
Oh wow.

I guess the parking violation I recieved last Wednesday has forfeit me as a person?:roll:

Anyway, if my neighbor shot two kids to save my DVD player, I'd move. Immediately.

YOU GOT A PARKING TICKET!? You bad Bad Man! :rotfl:
You are still a person, just the meter maid keeping you down.

[Happy Times]

The only reason a criminal would want you life is:

1) Premeditated murder. He/She has a grudge agaist you.

2) He thinks he has to kill you first incase you have a gun.
or

3) He doesn't want to leave you alive to testify against him later.
4) He gets scared

5)He kills you by accident


Those are not reasons why he would want to kill you.

No, but reasons why you could get killed anyway.
Theres probably more and makes you think twice giving your own or familys life in their hands.

[Letum]

Theres probably more and makes you think twice giving your own or familys life in their hands.


That's a little like saying I have given my life into the hands of the motorway
maintenance companies because I trust them to fill in potholes instead of driving round
with a shovel and some hot bitchumen in the van so I can fill in pot holes my self.

[Happy Times]

Theres probably more and makes you think twice giving your own or familys life in their hands.


That's a little like saying I have given my life into the hands of the motorway
maintenance companies because I trust them to fill in potholes instead of driving round
with a shovel and some hot bitchumen in the van so I can fill in pot holes my self.

The word little works for me.

[Letum]

Theres probably more and makes you think twice giving your own or familys life in their hands.

That's a little like saying I have given my life into the hands of the motorway
maintenance companies because I trust them to fill in potholes instead of driving round
with a shovel and some hot bitchumen in the van so I can fill in pot holes my self.
The word little works for me.

In what way is the analogy not apt?

[Happy Times]

Theres probably more and makes you think twice giving your own or familys life in their hands.

That's a little like saying I have given my life into the hands of the motorway
maintenance companies because I trust them to fill in potholes instead of driving round
with a shovel and some hot bitchumen in the van so I can fill in pot holes my self.
The word little works for me.

In what way is the analogy not apt?

Its like waiting for them to come fix the pot holes in your own drive way. Not going to happen.

[Stealth Hunter]

He said several times he has or had no choice but he had many choices.

You don't kill someone unless you are threatened physically.

Common sense is becoming a rare thing I guess.

This is very sad.

If you have broken into my home, and I am frightened, I'll shoot you dead. Pure and simple.

Stay out, don't rob/burglarize me and we won't have any trouble.

[Jimbuna]

He said several times he has or had no choice but he had many choices.

You don't kill someone unless you are threatened physically.

Common sense is becoming a rare thing I guess.

This is very sad.

If you have broken into my home, and I am frightened, I'll shoot you dead. Pure and simple.

Stay out, don't rob/burglarize me and we won't have any trouble.

The level of action should be proportionate to the threat. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Stealth Hunter]

My property, my stuff, my rules, my life. <--- All on the line

If you're a stranger in my home at 3 AM robbing me and I've got a gun, you'll get shot. Simple and to the point.

[Jimbuna]

My property, my stuff, my rules, my life. <--- All on the line

If you're a stranger in my home at 3 AM robbing me and I've got a gun, you'll get shot. Simple and to the point.

PM me your address and I'll make sure I give yours a miss. My dad warned me how good Old Crusty was with a gun :lol:

;)

[Fish]

it is legal to use lethal force to stop a felony in progress. In addition the neighbor could have been home and the old fellow may have had legitimate fear for their life/lives.

"So if any of my neighbors who are good friends (I have several) are being burglarized you can take a strong guess the situation will end the same

Same here if I'm in public and an armed robbery, rape, deadly attack or such is going on I can pull my legally carried weapon and blast the perp. One has to be on the ball and very aware of what is actually going on (not immediate impressions) and what the law allows"
from a person who lived nearby the incident.

Quote:
"Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."
:arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:

Quote:
The Texas Penal Code says a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection.

Maybe legal, but not human! :down:

[baggygreen]

I'd probably tail them in his situation - hell, i know i would, i've done it before.

If it'd been my house they broke into, they wouldnt be walking out. I dont own a gun, but i'm handy enough with myself to make sure they're detained til the coppers arrived.

Course, to do that would involve laying a hand on them, then put me at risk of being charged for assault....

I understand the reasons for having laws - you're screwed without em. butt too often the law is followed too exactly. Now before people go getting all jumpy on that, what i mean is that a home invader caught in the act and 'assaulted' is treated by the law the same way an innocent old granny would be, if set upon by a gang. Laws need to be changed to say that rights become null and void if engaged in a criminal act, imho

[Jimbuna]

I'd probably tail them in his situation - hell, i know i would, i've done it before.

If it'd been my house they broke into, they wouldnt be walking out. I dont own a gun, but i'm handy enough with myself to make sure they're detained til the coppers arrived.

Course, to do that would involve laying a hand on them, then put me at risk of being charged for assault....

I understand the reasons for having laws - you're screwed without em. butt too often the law is followed too exactly. Now before people go getting all jumpy on that, what i mean is that a home invader caught in the act and 'assaulted' is treated by the law the same way an innocent old granny would be, if set upon by a gang. Laws need to be changed to say that rights become null and void if engaged in a criminal act, imho

They used to say "An Englishmans home is his castle"
Not anymore I'm afraid :nope:
If someone burgles your house and you give them a good going over, be prepared to self harm yourself (black eye, bust lip etc). Your only mitigation can be self defence :yep:

[RickC Sniper]

It will be interesting to follow up this case and see what happens. It sure has raised emotions on both sides.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5303222.html

From that article:
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect their own property to stop an arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent someone committing such a crime at night from escaping with the property.
But the person using deadly force must believe there is no other way to protect their belongings and must suspect that taking less drastic measures could expose themselves or others to serious danger.
A state senator who authored a law passed this year giving Texans stronger rights to defend themselves with deadly force said he did not believe the legislation he spearheaded would apply to the Pasadena case, based on the sketchy facts that have emerged so far.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican, said the so-called castle doctrine law he wrote doesn't apply to people protecting their neighbors' property.
The measure "is not designed to have kind of a 'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," Wentworth said. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

[swifty]

This is definitely an interesting case. I suspect it will come down to state of mind. I grew up in a carbon copy neighborhood in Katy TX, just west of Houston. The biggest incident I can remember happening there was when one neighbor shot and killed 2 pit bulls that had escaped and were attacking his next door neighbor's dog. The police charge him with discharging a firearm in public. The DA later dropped charges, for one being ridiculous and two there was no way he could win.

After seeing the neighborhood it was quite clear they did not belong so it was premeditated and not a crime of opportunity. With these crimes often burglars) will hit multiple houses in the area. Because of this I would be worried my home might be next and would want to stop them before they would come after me.

If you want here is a map where the incident occurred:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?wip=2&v=2&style=r&rtp=~&&msnurl=home.aspx?%26redirect%3dfalse&msnculture=en-US#JnE9eXAuNzQxOCt0aW1iZXJsaW5lK2RyaXZlK3Bhc2FkZW5 hK3R4JTdlc3N0LjAlN2VwZy4xJmJiPTUzLjc0ODcxMDc5Njg5O SU3ZS0yMC4zMDI3MzQzNzUlN2UtMTAuNDAxMzc3NTU0NTQzNiU 3ZS0xNDAuMDA5NzY1NjI1

[Fish]

How many of those in US jails are there because our law enforcement and courts, as lousy as they are, are better than the UK?


Are you serious? :doh:
That would make US police over 530% more effective than the police of any European country.

And yet you allow the existance of the police to feel safe? False safety man.

I for one feel very safe here. :up:
You have laws in Texas we had in the middle ages. :nope:

[Letum]

My property, my stuff, my rules, my life. <--- All on the line

If you're a stranger in my home at 3 AM robbing me and I've got a gun, you'll get shot. Simple and to the point.
PM me your address and I'll make sure I give yours a miss. My dad warned me how good Old Crusty was with a gun :lol:

;)


If he PMs me his address then I will make sure I also bring a gun to rob him and shoot first.
After all, if he is armed then there is no point in taking chances, right?


As for "My property, my stuff"; to (bluntly) paraphrase Plato's Socrates:
The virtuous man can not be harmed by the loss of his "property and stuff" because
the only thing that matters to him is his virtue and that can not be taken or harmed.

It is my view that Stealth Hunter is more concerned about his "property and stuff" than he is about doing the right and virtous thing.

[waste gate]

My property, my stuff, my rules, my life. <--- All on the line

If you're a stranger in my home at 3 AM robbing me and I've got a gun, you'll get shot. Simple and to the point.
PM me your address and I'll make sure I give yours a miss. My dad warned me how good Old Crusty was with a gun :lol:

;)


If he PMs me his address then I will make sure I also bring a gun to rob him and shoot first.
After all, if he is armed then there is no point in taking chances, right?


As for "My property, my stuff"; to (bluntly) paraphrase Plato's Socrates:
The virtuous man can not be harmed by the loss of his "property and stuff" because
the only thing that matters to him is his virtue and that can not be taken or harmed.

It is my view that Stealth Hunter is more concerned about his "property and stuff" than he is about doing the right and virtous thing.

Virtue, Virtue? Virtue is what gets people killed. No one will ever consider one virtuous if they died when they didn't have to, stupid perhaps. Be it over property or ones own life. If property is of enough value to steal it certainly of enough value to defend.
Like any use of force, overwhelming force wins regardless of virtue.

[Letum]

My property, my stuff, my rules, my life. <--- All on the line

If you're a stranger in my home at 3 AM robbing me and I've got a gun, you'll get shot. Simple and to the point.
PM me your address and I'll make sure I give yours a miss. My dad warned me how good Old Crusty was with a gun :lol:

;)

If he PMs me his address then I will make sure I also bring a gun to rob him and shoot first.
After all, if he is armed then there is no point in taking chances, right?


As for "My property, my stuff"; to (bluntly) paraphrase Plato's Socrates:
The virtuous man can not be harmed by the loss of his "property and stuff" because
the only thing that matters to him is his virtue and that can not be taken or harmed.

It is my view that Stealth Hunter is more concerned about his "property and stuff" than he is about doing the right and virtous thing.
Virtue, Virtue? Virtue is what gets people killed. No one will ever consider one virtuous if they died when they didn't have to, stupid perhaps. Be it over property or ones own life. If property is of enough value to steal it certainly of enough value to defend.
Like any use of force, overwhelming force wins regardless of virtue.


Wahhhh!?

You don't think moral virtue is important?!

No wonder you want to shoot other people. :huh:

[Venatore]

Two ships sunk for three shots, hell give him the Iron Cross !

[Happy Times]

My property, my stuff, my rules, my life. <--- All on the line

If you're a stranger in my home at 3 AM robbing me and I've got a gun, you'll get shot. Simple and to the point.
PM me your address and I'll make sure I give yours a miss. My dad warned me how good Old Crusty was with a gun :lol:

;)


If he PMs me his address then I will make sure I also bring a gun to rob him and shoot first.
After all, if he is armed then there is no point in taking chances, right?


As for "My property, my stuff"; to (bluntly) paraphrase Plato's Socrates:
The virtuous man can not be harmed by the loss of his "property and stuff" because
the only thing that matters to him is his virtue and that can not be taken or harmed.

It is my view that Stealth Hunter is more concerned about his "property and stuff" than he is about doing the right and virtous thing.

Heh, but in Platos republic criminals wouldnt get the other cheak, they would get hit hard.

[Letum]

Heh, but in Platos republic criminals wouldnt get the other cheak, they would get hit hard.

I must disagree!
Whilst he is certinaly of the view that criminals must be punished in order for them to
change, there is no discription of how this should be done in the republic.

He talks about the reformation of criminals, certinaly not the killing of them with out trial.

The only real crime and punishment dialouge is the punishment of the tyrent Ardiaeus, and
that occurs in Hades.

[RamRod]

The use of the word criminal implies one that has been caught tried and convicted. A perpetrator implies one attempting or suspected of committing a crime and has not been caught. These were unlucky perpetrators. As previous posters suggested, they knew the risks before committing the crime. Mr. Horn broke the law in that Texas law does not authorize the use of deadly force to protect your neighbor’s home. Luckily our fine justice system in Texas also compliments itself with common sense. My meaning here is that a police officer friend told me yesterday that the Grand Jury has no-billed Mr. Horn. His only punishment will be his conscience.
Let other perps take a lesson from their more unfortunate colleagues.