I feel like charles bronson sometimes myself
Cold and wormy?God Save the Queen wrote:
I feel like charles bronson sometimes myself
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
only on weekends
neighbors are people, not objects...he would have to be defending PEOPLE, not a couch.lowing wrote:
I never said this guy shot those 2, in personal self defense, the closest I came was he was defending his neighbors and neighborhood.
PLEASE try and differentiate between inanimate objects and people from now on.....
i know, you big bad ass you.lowing wrote:
I am saying, I don't give a rats ass that these to thugs were taken out during a robbery, regardless as to who pulled the trigger.
well you fooled the fuck out of me!lowing wrote:
I am not trigger happy,
i dont...in fact i have said that...i just dont think that shooting people in the back is the way to do it.lowing wrote:
and I am sorry if you think defending your home, yes, including your possessions is wrong.
no, i agree that your ignorance and inexperience could very well lead you to shooting one of your own family members.lowing wrote:
I do not. We agree to disagree. Please feel free to let anyone walk into yuor home as long as they do not threat your body, and do as they please. I think differently.
i will not let anyone "do as they please". but since i wont agree with you, you have to take it to the extreme....fair enough.
then you take that POS taurus and you put as many over powered rounds into them as you need too.....lowing wrote:
In Georgia, I have the right to defend my home, my family, my property and even "others" with the use of deadly force without fear of prosecution.
(speaking of lack of experience)
no, i was born where you live......not for me.lowing wrote:
I am sorry that you live in a state that values criminals over law abiding citizens, maybe you would consider moving to a state that is feed up with pandering to such people.
two....and i dont care what it means to you.lowing wrote:
The fact that you have seen a gunshot wound means nothing to me....It is not a deterrent to protecting my domain.
you have proven your uselessness to responsible gun owners.
this is the most rediculous reponse tree I have ever read.Parker wrote:
neighbors are people, not objects...he would have to be defending PEOPLE, not a couch.lowing wrote:
I never said this guy shot those 2, in personal self defense, the closest I came was he was defending his neighbors and neighborhood.
PLEASE try and differentiate between inanimate objects and people from now on.....i know, you big bad ass you.lowing wrote:
I am saying, I don't give a rats ass that these to thugs were taken out during a robbery, regardless as to who pulled the trigger.well you fooled the fuck out of me!lowing wrote:
I am not trigger happy,
i dont...in fact i have said that...i just dont think that shooting people in the back is the way to do it.lowing wrote:
and I am sorry if you think defending your home, yes, including your possessions is wrong.
no, i agree that your ignorance and inexperience could very well lead you to shooting one of your own family members.lowing wrote:
I do not. We agree to disagree. Please feel free to let anyone walk into yuor home as long as they do not threat your body, and do as they please. I think differently.
i will not let anyone "do as they please". but since i wont agree with you, you have to take it to the extreme....fair enough.then you take that POS taurus and you put as many over powered rounds into them as you need too.....lowing wrote:
In Georgia, I have the right to defend my home, my family, my property and even "others" with the use of deadly force without fear of prosecution.
(speaking of lack of experience)
no, i was born where you live......not for me.lowing wrote:
I am sorry that you live in a state that values criminals over law abiding citizens, maybe you would consider moving to a state that is feed up with pandering to such people.two....and i dont care what it means to you.lowing wrote:
The fact that you have seen a gunshot wound means nothing to me....It is not a deterrent to protecting my domain.
you have proven your uselessness to responsible gun owners.
You do not counter anything...you insult.....worthless.........go hit the bong one more time and try again
i know, if i was told that my reckless inexperience could get my family killed, that would probably be my response as well......lowing wrote:
this is the most rediculous reponse tree I have ever read.
You do not counter anything...you insult.....worthless.........go hit the bong one more time and try again
every line you have typed in this thread speaks of ignorance regarding this subject, and the respect for human life.
you dont deserve anymore real responses from me.
now go change into your hero outfit, take that POS taurus you put so much faith in, and execute some fucking criminals!
lol, all he needs is lowings bandanna!
Last edited by Parker (2008-07-02 21:24:49)
It was never a criminal jury that saw the incident. First, a Grand Jury has to look at the evidence and decide if the state is even going to prosecute the case. Here in Texas, a Grand Jury is formed by 23 citizens from the county where the possible crime was commited. They decide if the state has enough admissable evidence to attempt to prosecute.B.Schuss wrote:
most likely ? I bet may ass it was. I'd also bet a lot of money that no naturalized colombians were on the jury.imortal wrote:
Well, here in the US, all crimes get taken before a Grand Jury who decides if it should be procecuted. In this case, they decided not to try to prosecute.B.Schuss wrote:
where did I actually say that it is ok to rob other people ? Come on. I clearly said that those two were criminals.
But the punishment for burglary ain't death, and it was not Mr Horn's job to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, either.
He took the law in his own hands, shot two people that had done him no harm in the back, and gets to walk off free.
What kind of justice is that ?
Nobody said the situation was perfect. Back in my Criminal Justice days in college (back in the early '90s) by professor told us about to local crimes (local then was northern Georgia). One was a man and wife taking a college fratertaty hostage at gunpoint and forcing them to clean his lawn (that the same fraternity toilet-papered). Another was a man having sex with his 13 year old daughter.
Granted, this was only by anecdote, but in both cases, the Grand Jury declined to send an indicment.
Was it a factor that these two men were illegal aliens? Most likely.
Just for a second, let's imagine the two burglars weren't illegal aliens from colombia, but sons of respectable US citizens, maybe Senators, or Ministers. Would the outcome have been the same ? You be the judge.. ( sic)
As much as I admire the US for letting 12 people un-knowledgable of legal matters, randomly pulled of the street, decide the fate of the accused, I really believe a case like this shows the flaws in that system.
The fact of the matter is, these two men are now dead because Mr Horn made a conscious decision to kill them. Of course he said he was acting in self defense. He knew quite well that was his only chance of getting away with killing two people. How someone can act in self defense by shooting two people running away from him in the back though, is something only the Grand Jury knows....
I agree that there was most likely a bit of "good ol' boy" politics at work here. I simply decline to attempt to state it as a fact, since I was not there.
How about if it was an illegal alien at home watching a couple upstanding white citizens break in? (oh, and if the illegal alien had a gun, it would automatically be a felony- ignore that for the purposes of the example) Would he be convicted? Oh, and even if he weren't, would he be deported?
Are you sure you inhaled deep enough, because your responses to what was posted is still kinda useless.....How about one more try.Parker wrote:
i know, if i was told that my reckless inexperience could get my family killed, that would probably be my response as well......lowing wrote:
this is the most rediculous reponse tree I have ever read.
You do not counter anything...you insult.....worthless.........go hit the bong one more time and try again
every line you have typed in this thread speaks of ignorance regarding this subject, and the respect for human life.
you dont deserve anymore real responses from me.
now go change into your hero outfit, take that POS taurus you put so much faith in, and execute some fucking criminals!
Every line I have typed in this threat speaks of the approval of dead criminals over dead law abiding citizens. They speak of a determination NOT to LET MYSELF get robbed, instead of huddling in a closet.
You call me trigger happy, yet I have never even pointed a gun at another person. You call me inexperienced, when he only expereince you can gain is if you actually killed someone.
I have respect for human life, LAW ABIDING human life, free of threats by criminals. Tough shit if you do don't like that.
I never claimed to be a bad ass, I only claim I will defend my domain. Even a goddamn dog would do that. So stop your crack induced delussions that anyone is claiming to be a superhero.
I never said I want to execute criminals, I said if they get killed while attempting harm on an innocent person so be it.
So if you wanna continue this discussion along the lines of what I actually post, feel free, if not, I am sure you have some sort of drug induced comma you would rather experience, so go knock yourself out
Here lies the crux. We who hold the opposing argument generally define this as physical i.e. tangible, where you apparently consider the harm done by missing property necessary to warrant a lethal response.lowing wrote:
Are you sure you inhaled deep enough, because your responses to what was posted is still kinda useless.....How about one more try.Parker wrote:
i know, if i was told that my reckless inexperience could get my family killed, that would probably be my response as well......lowing wrote:
this is the most rediculous reponse tree I have ever read.
You do not counter anything...you insult.....worthless.........go hit the bong one more time and try again
every line you have typed in this thread speaks of ignorance regarding this subject, and the respect for human life.
you dont deserve anymore real responses from me.
now go change into your hero outfit, take that POS taurus you put so much faith in, and execute some fucking criminals!
Every line I have typed in this threat speaks of the approval of dead criminals over dead law abiding citizens. They speak of a determination NOT to LET MYSELF get robbed, instead of huddling in a closet.
You call me trigger happy, yet I have never even pointed a gun at another person. You call me inexperienced, when he only expereince you can gain is if you actually killed someone.
I have respect for human life, LAW ABIDING human life, free of threats by criminals. Tough shit if you do don't like that.
I never claimed to be a bad ass, I only claim I will defend my domain. Even a goddamn dog would do that. So stop your crack induced delussions that anyone is claiming to be a superhero.
I never said I want to execute criminals, I said if they get killed while attempting harm on an innocent person so be it.
So if you wanna continue this discussion along the lines of what I actually post, feel free, if not, I am sure you have some sort of drug induced comma you would rather experience, so go knock yourself out
P.S. A lol-ed at a "drug induced comma"
see, when lowing cant win a debate with me, he likes to point out that i smoke weed....which he uses to try and invalidate my arguments.
ill skip my thoughts on his poor parenting to invalidate his.
ALL the weed that i smoke, and i STILL have more experience regarding this issue....AND i can spell
they actually let people like you own guns?
fucking LOL!
ill skip my thoughts on his poor parenting to invalidate his.
ALL the weed that i smoke, and i STILL have more experience regarding this issue....AND i can spell
^^^^^^^THE SINGLE MOST IGNORANT STATEMENT IN THIS THREAD ^^^^^^lowing wrote:
You call me inexperienced, when he only expereince you can gain is if you actually killed someone.
they actually let people like you own guns?
fucking LOL!
Last edited by Parker (2008-07-02 21:43:43)
Given the choice between 'experience' and intelligence and an education its not hard to see which is more useful.You call me inexperienced, when he only expereince you can gain is if you actually killed someone.
Fuck Israel
Let's assume, though, that you have a death ray and a stun ray. Both are perfect, and never fail. The stun ray will stun the intruder long enough for police to arrive. Which do you use?DBBrinson1 wrote:
I don't know about the epic P/L debate raging on here, but if someone comes in my house without my[families] permission ie. intruder, I'll kill them.
why is it that in some states, the DA decides wether to press charges, and in others, a Grand Jury does ? Wouldn't you normally want a person experienced in legal matters to make that decision ?imortal wrote:
It was never a criminal jury that saw the incident. First, a Grand Jury has to look at the evidence and decide if the state is even going to prosecute the case. Here in Texas, a Grand Jury is formed by 23 citizens from the county where the possible crime was commited. They decide if the state has enough admissable evidence to attempt to prosecute.B.Schuss wrote:
most likely ? I bet may ass it was. I'd also bet a lot of money that no naturalized colombians were on the jury.imortal wrote:
Well, here in the US, all crimes get taken before a Grand Jury who decides if it should be procecuted. In this case, they decided not to try to prosecute.
Nobody said the situation was perfect. Back in my Criminal Justice days in college (back in the early '90s) by professor told us about to local crimes (local then was northern Georgia). One was a man and wife taking a college fratertaty hostage at gunpoint and forcing them to clean his lawn (that the same fraternity toilet-papered). Another was a man having sex with his 13 year old daughter.
Granted, this was only by anecdote, but in both cases, the Grand Jury declined to send an indicment.
Was it a factor that these two men were illegal aliens? Most likely.
Just for a second, let's imagine the two burglars weren't illegal aliens from colombia, but sons of respectable US citizens, maybe Senators, or Ministers. Would the outcome have been the same ? You be the judge.. ( sic)
As much as I admire the US for letting 12 people un-knowledgable of legal matters, randomly pulled of the street, decide the fate of the accused, I really believe a case like this shows the flaws in that system.
The fact of the matter is, these two men are now dead because Mr Horn made a conscious decision to kill them. Of course he said he was acting in self defense. He knew quite well that was his only chance of getting away with killing two people. How someone can act in self defense by shooting two people running away from him in the back though, is something only the Grand Jury knows....
I agree that there was most likely a bit of "good ol' boy" politics at work here. I simply decline to attempt to state it as a fact, since I was not there.
How about if it was an illegal alien at home watching a couple upstanding white citizens break in? (oh, and if the illegal alien had a gun, it would automatically be a felony- ignore that for the purposes of the example) Would he be convicted? Oh, and even if he weren't, would he be deported?
on the other point, if the illegal alien was smart, he'd call the police, follow the advice of the dispatcher not to put himself or anybody else in danger, maybe take pictures and be done.
However, it is very likely that the illegal might not call the police at all, to avoid drawing unnecessary attention to himself and his legal status.
There are many possible outcomes to that situation. To have someone die, though, is one of the worst, and should avoide dby all means, if possible.
As I said before, not even a cop would have had the right to shoot these burglars under those circumstances. If ind it sad that the authorities seem to have more regard for human life ( even the life of criminals ) than regular citizens.
No one deserves to die for burglary.
well if he used a stun ray how could justice prevail? jeezeZombieVampire! wrote:
Let's assume, though, that you have a death ray and a stun ray. Both are perfect, and never fail. The stun ray will stun the intruder long enough for police to arrive. Which do you use?DBBrinson1 wrote:
I don't know about the epic P/L debate raging on here, but if someone comes in my house without my[families] permission ie. intruder, I'll kill them.
On one hand I agree that the threat of being executed while trying to rob someone will put allot of robbers off.
If someone robbed me I would get enough satisfaction out of a conviction or a few bumps and scrapes.
Suppose I would ask myself why society has created people who feel the need to rob and steal. Our TVs and papers are filled with shinny toys and consumables. We are a world of consumers. People have to have them. Most of us run the wheel all our lives in order to covet said shine consumables. Others don't. I don't know who I feel for the most.
If someone was running away with my entire wealth and possession's on there back it wouldn't justify me killing them. But then again I put a higher price on human life, no matter how wretched, over consumables and possession's.
If someone robbed me I would get enough satisfaction out of a conviction or a few bumps and scrapes.
Suppose I would ask myself why society has created people who feel the need to rob and steal. Our TVs and papers are filled with shinny toys and consumables. We are a world of consumers. People have to have them. Most of us run the wheel all our lives in order to covet said shine consumables. Others don't. I don't know who I feel for the most.
If someone was running away with my entire wealth and possession's on there back it wouldn't justify me killing them. But then again I put a higher price on human life, no matter how wretched, over consumables and possession's.
And the fact that he shot them in the back... so I doubt he feared for his live at that moment.m3thod wrote:
Why is this not pre meditated murder. He quite clearly informed the dispatcher that he had a shotgun and was going to kill them. He went out with the clear intention of killing the 2 dudes...SenorToenails wrote:
I don't know if it has been mentioned, here is something to confirm self-defense.Pierre wrote:
There's a difference: if someone comes into my house I have the right to defend myself, and I will, and no court will convict me. OTOH in this case there is no question of selfdefence hence the guy should be convicted.
Mr. Lambright reiterated that Mr. Horn believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them out of fear for his life when they came into his yard and threatened him.
The Grand Jury system is a leftover from British Common Law, even though the British themselves got rid of the concept. wiki. What actually makes up a Grand Jury varies from state to state. The District Attorney does make the descision to prosicute, but takes the evidence to the grand jury, who will issue an indictment. That indictment is what actually gets someone to criminal court.B.Schuss wrote:
why is it that in some states, the DA decides wether to press charges, and in others, a Grand Jury does ? Wouldn't you normally want a person experienced in legal matters to make that decision ?
I realize my illegal alien example was weak, but I was tired.
Upon further review. From the Austin American Statesmen. Just so you know Texas is not filled with idiots and imbiciles:
Remember also that Texas law does not require a person to attempt to retreat from danger. Even though he placed himself in that situation.Austin American Statesmen wrote:
Grand jurors had to consider two issues in the case: the intentional killing of another person and whether the killing was justified either by self-defense or the defense of property, Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters.
"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town. It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.
Frank Ortiz, a member of the local League of United Latin American Citizens chapter, said he hopes federal authorities investigate the case further.
"That's amazing that they would no-bill him with so much evidence against him," Ortiz told the Houston Chronicle in Monday's online edition. "This was no more than a vigilante."
Last edited by imortal (2008-07-03 04:32:59)
but that's insane....with that argument, you can basically justify killing anyone, just by saying you felt you were in mortal danger. In this case, the only other possible witnesses are dead. No one really knows if they actually approached him, or threatened him in any way. Did the jury have nothing to say about the fact that both were shot in the back ? Or the fact that he acted against the advice of the 911 operator ? Or that fact that he explicitly told the operator that he was going to get his gun and kill them ? ( at least that's what supposedly happened ).imortal wrote:
Remember also that Texas law does not require a person to attempt to retreat from danger. Even though he placed himself in that situation.
The more I think about it, the more I am terrified by your legal system...
Actually, it wasn't that they threatened him, but rather that Texas law gives you the right to degend a neighbours property with lethal force.
Or so I heard.
Or so I heard.
yeah, but only if he had been explicitly told by his neighbour to do so, i.e. keep an eye on his property.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Actually, it wasn't that they threatened him, but rather that Texas law gives you the right to degend a neighbours property with lethal force.
Or so I heard.
Like they say: don't mess with texas.
Burglary does not warrant death - has there been an update on any form of conviction? Unless his neighbour pulls him out of this, I can't see it ending good for him ... I'd say it's ironic but there are two dead people over this.
You speak of experience yet you never share what it is.Parker wrote:
see, when lowing cant win a debate with me, he likes to point out that i smoke weed....which he uses to try and invalidate my arguments.
ill skip my thoughts on his poor parenting to invalidate his.
ALL the weed that i smoke, and i STILL have more experience regarding this issue....AND i can spell^^^^^^^THE SINGLE MOST IGNORANT STATEMENT IN THIS THREAD ^^^^^^lowing wrote:
You call me inexperienced, when he only expereince you can gain is if you actually killed someone.
they actually let people like you own guns?
fucking LOL!
Yeah I am irresponsible and inexperienced and a shitty parent, yet with all of this that you suppose, I am not the one mixing illegal drugs, and weapons in my life along with my kids, and you are proud of it....... Really good parenting skills there buddy.
I have posted clearly and rationally what my position is on this topic
Also, if you are going to correct my spelling and grammar as part of your argument, at least make sure yours is correct would you?
Yup they let people like me own guns, law abiding citizens...............bet you wish you could say that.
lmao just watched cnn, the guy was found not guilty.