Dramatic 911 call from right before shooting released

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Is this just for burglary, or can we shoot people for parking violations?

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.

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Are you nuts?

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]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

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]

Originally Posted by waste gate

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

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]

Originally Posted by elite_hunter_sh3

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.

Chock

[elite_hunter_sh3]

oops, must have gotten a mixup

between this
http://cbs11tv.com/texaswire/TX--Bur...rces_news_html

and this
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=0

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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.