I am not even talking about Mr. Horn or his culpability. I am talking about the people who started the whole chain of events. Let's not forget that.mikeyb118 wrote:
The risks of stealing are irrelevant to the culpability of Mr Horn's actions.usmarine2005 wrote:
No..you are getting into legal stuff and that is not what I am talking about.
I will put it this way then.
FACT : Don't try and steal and you will most likely not get shot in the back.
..........and I am calling the man that broke that chain a hero!!!!!!!!!!!usmarine2005 wrote:
I am not even talking about Mr. Horn or his culpability. I am talking about the people who started the whole chain of events. Let's not forget that.mikeyb118 wrote:
The risks of stealing are irrelevant to the culpability of Mr Horn's actions.usmarine2005 wrote:
No..you are getting into legal stuff and that is not what I am talking about.
I will put it this way then.
FACT : Don't try and steal and you will most likely not get shot in the back.
When was he ever at risk of being hurt or killed by two guys running away?lowing wrote:
Maybe if YOU were the one having your hard earned money stolen, money you use to support YOUR family then maybe YOUR opinion would be different. Maybe when you work for something you will not feel like just letting some felon take it from you without a fight. Maybegolgoj4 wrote:
Why is it I hope everyone here who thinks they deserved to get shot in the back is on the receiving end of something similar? Oh yeah, because they are the real douches. The OP had a good point, yet so many here seem to think that death was appropriate. Maybe if you were the one dealing with an armed nut, your opinion would be different.
This poor criminal shit never ceases to amaze me. You do realize it was the CRIMINALS that deserve to get hurt or killed during the commitment of a felony and NOT the victims RIGHT??
I hate people who try to turn other people into victims.
Funny your 20/20 hindsight perspective on events after the fact are uncanny. Perhaps you could use your gift to inform would be thieves burglars and robbers that they might get shot if they try and fuck with the wrong family.mikkel wrote:
When was he ever at risk of being hurt or killed by two guys running away?lowing wrote:
Maybe if YOU were the one having your hard earned money stolen, money you use to support YOUR family then maybe YOUR opinion would be different. Maybe when you work for something you will not feel like just letting some felon take it from you without a fight. Maybegolgoj4 wrote:
Why is it I hope everyone here who thinks they deserved to get shot in the back is on the receiving end of something similar? Oh yeah, because they are the real douches. The OP had a good point, yet so many here seem to think that death was appropriate. Maybe if you were the one dealing with an armed nut, your opinion would be different.
This poor criminal shit never ceases to amaze me. You do realize it was the CRIMINALS that deserve to get hurt or killed during the commitment of a felony and NOT the victims RIGHT??
Well experts can prove what bullet was fired first )Turquoise wrote:
Now, you're talking...TheAussieReaper wrote:
If you shoot someone in the back, you just fire a 2nd shot into the air soon after. Witnesses will say they heard two shots fired. When you give your statement to authorities, you say you fired into the air as a warning shot. Told them not to move. And then they took off, resulting in your 2nd (lethal) shot.
So does the law provide death as a punishment for theft?lowing wrote:
This poor criminal shit never ceases to amaze me. You do realize it was the CRIMINALS that deserve to get hurt or killed during the commitment of a felony and NOT the victims RIGHT??
No.
It sure as hell seems to in some cases now doesn't. I sure am glad I am not YOUR kid looking to you for protection against a home invader. Jesus Christ!mcminty wrote:
So does the law provide death as a punishment for theft?lowing wrote:
This poor criminal shit never ceases to amaze me. You do realize it was the CRIMINALS that deserve to get hurt or killed during the commitment of a felony and NOT the victims RIGHT??
No.
Hindsight? Are you grasping at straws here, or are you seriously suggesting that it's only possible to deduce with hindsight that people running for their lives aren't posing an immediate threat to you? It takes some serious cognitive deficiency to arrive at that kind of conclusion.lowing wrote:
Funny your 20/20 hindsight perspective on events after the fact are uncanny. Perhaps you could use your gift to inform would be thieves burglars and robbers that they might get shot if they try and fuck with the wrong family.mikkel wrote:
When was he ever at risk of being hurt or killed by two guys running away?lowing wrote:
Maybe if YOU were the one having your hard earned money stolen, money you use to support YOUR family then maybe YOUR opinion would be different. Maybe when you work for something you will not feel like just letting some felon take it from you without a fight. Maybe
This poor criminal shit never ceases to amaze me. You do realize it was the CRIMINALS that deserve to get hurt or killed during the commitment of a felony and NOT the victims RIGHT??
The fact that protestors are at his house is just rediculious. I really hope the court lets this guy go. If they dont Ill have to fucking protest because those accusations are fucking bullshit.
I guess as opposed to the FOR SIGHT required to understand that if you try and burglarize a house you might get fuckin shot??mikkel wrote:
Hindsight? Are you grasping at straws here, or are you seriously suggesting that it's only possible to deduce with hindsight that people running for their lives aren't posing an immediate threat to you? It takes some serious cognitive deficiency to arrive at that kind of conclusion.lowing wrote:
Funny your 20/20 hindsight perspective on events after the fact are uncanny. Perhaps you could use your gift to inform would be thieves burglars and robbers that they might get shot if they try and fuck with the wrong family.mikkel wrote:
When was he ever at risk of being hurt or killed by two guys running away?
Good riddance.
Hail to all gun owners who stand in defiance of victimization by the criminal element. You are all indeed, heroes!!!
With regards to the Texes Penal Code, there is no classification of theft as a Capital Felony - only 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree felonies, as well as misdemeanor theft.lowing wrote:
It sure as hell seems to in some cases now doesn't.
As such, the highest level of punishment UNDER LAW allowed is:
Please highlight the word death from the selected passage above.Texas Penal Code wrote:
§ 12.32. FIRST DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An
individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the first degree shall be
punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life or
for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years.
(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged
guilty of a felony of the first degree may be punished by a fine not
to exceed $10,000.
might wanna look up justifiable homicide, self defense breaking home invasion etc.... see how many are thrown in jail for defending their hearth and home. ESPECIALLY in TEXAS.mcminty wrote:
With regards to the Texes Penal Code, there is no classification of theft as a Capital Felony - only 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree felonies, as well as misdemeanor theft.lowing wrote:
It sure as hell seems to in some cases now doesn't.
As such, the highest level of punishment UNDER LAW allowed is:Please highlight the word death from the selected passage above.Texas Penal Code wrote:
§ 12.32. FIRST DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An
individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the first degree shall be
punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life or
for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years.
(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged
guilty of a felony of the first degree may be punished by a fine not
to exceed $10,000.
here this will get ya started.. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/j059.htm last sentence
I wouldnt bet on it, that guy on the phone sounded slighty deranged.usmarine2005 wrote:
No..you are getting into legal stuff and that is not what I am talking about.
I will put it this way then.
FACT : Don't try and steal and you will most likely not get shot in the back.
He mighta been, but he at least was minding his own business until the criminals showed up. 2 less worthless fuckers we need to take care of with tax dollars in the penal system. I love it.Vilham wrote:
I wouldnt bet on it, that guy on the phone sounded slighty deranged.usmarine2005 wrote:
No..you are getting into legal stuff and that is not what I am talking about.
I will put it this way then.
FACT : Don't try and steal and you will most likely not get shot in the back.
You are hilarious. The OP's case revolves around a man leaving his property to committ homocide. There was absolutely no justification. None. To say he was defending his home is totaly bullshit.lowing wrote:
might wanna look up justifiable homicide, self defense breaking home invasion etc.... see how many are thrown in jail for defending their hearth and home. ESPECIALLY in TEXAS.
here this will get ya started.. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/j059.htm last sentence
And the last sentence?
The guy was in NO DANGER until he confronted the criminals. Even then, as THEY RAN AWAY they still presented no danger. He had no reason to "defend himself".A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defence.
Oh now you wanna go to the original OP................See, you said that the law provided no justification for the death penalty for robbery, I showed that it did in the form of self defense, usually used during an home invasion attempt or a car jacking.mcminty wrote:
You are hilarious. The OP's case revolves around a man leaving his property to committ homocide. There was absolutely no justification. None. To say he was defending his home is totaly bullshit.lowing wrote:
might wanna look up justifiable homicide, self defense breaking home invasion etc.... see how many are thrown in jail for defending their hearth and home. ESPECIALLY in TEXAS.
here this will get ya started.. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/j059.htm last sentence
You have lead me to believe that anyone breaking into a home does not deserve or should not be SHOT in the attempt by the defending family. Is this correct or not. Or are you going to back peddle away from yor previous posts?
I guess that would depend on how threatened HE felt, NOT how threatened YOU think he should have felt.mcminty wrote:
You are hilarious. The OP's case revolves around a man leaving his property to committ homocide. There was absolutely no justification. None. To say he was defending his home is totaly bullshit.lowing wrote:
might wanna look up justifiable homicide, self defense breaking home invasion etc.... see how many are thrown in jail for defending their hearth and home. ESPECIALLY in TEXAS.
here this will get ya started.. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/j059.htm last sentence
And the last sentence?The guy was in NO DANGER until he confronted the criminals. Even then, as THEY RAN AWAY they still presented no danger. He had no reason to "defend himself".A private individual will, in many cases, be justified in committing homicide, while acting in self-defence.
I was always there.lowing wrote:
Oh now you wanna go to the original OP.
I wish him 1st degree murder charges. That'll teach him.
Please hightlight the passage where this penal code was referring to this specific case. I ask since we agree that HE wasn't the one being robbed, so I assumed you meant, generally speaking, that there are no provisions for the death penalty.mcminty wrote:
With regards to the Texes Penal Code, there is no classification of theft as a Capital Felony - only 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree felonies, as well as misdemeanor theft.lowing wrote:
It sure as hell seems to in some cases now doesn't.
As such, the highest level of punishment UNDER LAW allowed is:Please highlight the word death from the selected passage above.Texas Penal Code wrote:
§ 12.32. FIRST DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT. (a) An
individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the first degree shall be
punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life or
for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years.
(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged
guilty of a felony of the first degree may be punished by a fine not
to exceed $10,000.
Be sure to roll up your pant legs, ya don't wanna get them caught in the chain as you back peddle.
I'll try and do this real nice and simple, cause it's like trying to debate against a brick wall.
In the OP:
There was no clear and present danger to himself or his property during the initial phase of what happened. The robbers were at a different property - they had nothing to do with him. A claim of justafiable homocide (re: self-defence) should be nulled by the fact that he:
a. Discussed his plan with the emergency services to confront the robbers, AND KILL THEM.
b. He shot the robbers as they RAN AWAY.
In the OP:
There was no clear and present danger to himself or his property during the initial phase of what happened. The robbers were at a different property - they had nothing to do with him. A claim of justafiable homocide (re: self-defence) should be nulled by the fact that he:
a. Discussed his plan with the emergency services to confront the robbers, AND KILL THEM.
b. He shot the robbers as they RAN AWAY.
You know you can't really backpeddle on a bike? They don't do "reverse".lowing wrote:
Be sure to roll up your pant legs, ya don't wanna get them caught in the chain as you back peddle.
Just thought i'd point that out.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I will be even simpler,...........YOU left the OP when you started quoting Texas penal codes. You were not specific to the OP. You were intentionally pointing out that robbery IN GENERAL does not warrant the death penalty. In the post you wrote, ( that I quoted) you said nothing of the orginal OP only TEXAS LAW with regards to crime and punishment of robbers.mcminty wrote:
I'll try and do this real nice and simple, cause it's like trying to debate against a brick wall.
In the OP:
There was no clear and present danger to himself or his property during the initial phase of what happened. The robbers were at a different property - they had nothing to do with him. A claim of justafiable homocide (re: self-defence) should be nulled by the fact that he:
a. Discussed his plan with the emergency services to confront the robbers, AND KILL THEM.
b. He shot the robbers as they RAN AWAY.
Ok but TECHNICALLY, you do not have to go in reverse in order to peddle backwards. If ya ever find yourself off of the couch or away from your XBOX 360, get on 10 speed and give it a whirl.FatherTed wrote:
You know you can't really backpeddle on a bike? They don't do "reverse".lowing wrote:
Be sure to roll up your pant legs, ya don't wanna get them caught in the chain as you back peddle.
Just thought i'd point that out.