Joe Horn called 911 when he saw two large black men breaking in to his neighboors house. He was on line with 9/11 for about five minutes and grew increasingly agitated throughout the course of the call. By the end, with no police having arrived yet he decided to take the law into his own hands. He ran out with a shotgun and killed both burglars. You hear him cock his shotgun and yell, "Move, you're dead!" Bang, bang, bang. Check out the audio
http://rackjite.com/graphics/joehorn2.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA__Shw5x90
What really makes this interesting is that under Texas's new homestead law (which Mr. Horn referenced during the 9/11 call), he'll probably get off without even being charged. Or, if he is charged, I'd wager he won't do any time. Here's the story and a transcript.
The 911 call came from a Pasadena, Texas resident, who alerted police to two burglary suspects on a neighbor's property. Before he hung up, two men were dead by his hand.

Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun.

"I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.

"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this --."

Shortly after, Horn said he sees one suspect was standing in front of his house, looking at it from the street.

"I don't know if they're armed or not. I know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with. ... Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood."

He gets more agitated. The dispatcher asks if he can see the suspects but they had retreated into the target's house, out of view: "I can go out the front [to look], but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."

"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?" the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK?"

"I don't want to," Horn said, "but I mean if I go out there, you know, to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?

"No, I don't want you to go out there, I just asked if you could see anything out there."

The dispatcher asks if a vehicle could be seen; Horn said no. The dispatcher again says Horn should stay inside the house.

Almost five minutes into the call, police had not arrived.

"I can't see if [the suspects are] getting away or not," Horn said.

Horn told the dispatcher that he doesn't know the neighbors well, unlike those living on the other side of his home. "I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something, because I know them very well," he said.

Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?"

Horn: "Yes?"

Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there."

Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."

Dispatcher: "I understand."

Horn: "I have a right to protect myself ..."

Dispatcher: "I'm ..."

Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon."

Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..."

Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "

Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..."

Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this --. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"

Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."

Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"

Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."

Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!

Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."

Horn: "They got a bag of loot."

Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.

Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"

Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."

Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."

Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."

On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.

"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.

Then Horn is back on the phone:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."
http://cbs5.com/national/joe.horn.shoots.2.570499.html

How did you miss it?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73973

In the act of breaking into his own home...no problem, blast away at will.

Breaking into a neighbours house...no, let the cops handle it.

Doesn't bother me at all. Bet no one will be breaking into houses in his neighborhood anytime soon.
Unless they're armed, of course.

By the way, was it a slip of the keyboard naming this thread 9/11 rather than 911?
Want me to correct the title or do you have some kind of subtle thing going on?

Doesn't bother me at all. Bet no one will be breaking into houses in his neighborhood anytime soon.
Unless they're armed, of course.

By the way, was it a slip of the keyboard naming this thread 9/11 rather than 911?
Want me to correct the title or do you have some kind of subtle thing going on?Yes, that was a slip up. Go ahead and fix it. I guess I've gotten used to writing 911 that way.

In the act of breaking into his own home...no problem, blast away at will.

Breaking into a neighbours house...no, let the cops handle it.

So you want us, members of society, to be islands among the many? We have no responsibility toward others in the society? We should never help anyone with anything? Keep to ourselves, fuck everyone else?

Baron Max

One of the great things about American justice is that you can break the law and still be acquitted. All you have to do is appeal to the jury's emotions in the right way. When this is over, Mr. Horn will likely owe a debt of gratitude to all the "liberal do-gooders" (and their trial lawyers) who have fought so hard to make sure that's so.

One of the great things about American justice is that you can break the law and still be acquitted. All you have to do is appeal to the jury's emotions in the right way. When this is over, Mr. Horn will likely owe a debt of gratitude to all the "liberal do-gooders" (and their trial lawyers) who have fought so hard to make sure that's so.You're talking about jury nullification which has existed since before the founding of our republic.

Doesn't bother me at all. Bet no one will be breaking into houses in his neighborhood anytime soon.
Unless they're armed, of course.

Heh. Yeah.

Why is it such a bad thing that these people were shot while robbing someone's house? I don't really understand the position that we should just bend over for a bunch of people who want to rob us. (I have vigrous conversations with a german friend of mine about these things all the time.)

He sure didn't give em much time after mumbling "Move and your dead".

I did like the part where the operator warns him he's gonna get shot if he walks out the door with a gun..."Ya wanna make a bet?". You gotta be worthy of a Darwin award to be a robber in Texas - comon. Fucking hair triggers.

You gotta be worthy of a Darwin award to be a robber in Texas - comon.

Heh. Yeah. But you gotta love rednecks. I was reading something about fighter pilots in WWII, and it turned out the best gunners were rednecks, because they understood how to lead birds when you're shooting at them.

He did seemed a little trigger happy. Maybe it would of bettered the situation if he shot them in the leg or something (that would have taught them a lesson), but killing them is a bit over the top

He did seemed a little trigger happy. Maybe it would of bettered the situation if he shot them in the leg or something (that would have taught them a lesson), but killing them is a bit over the top
Shooting someone in the leg is for cowboy movies. In reality, you aim for center of mass.

I don't blame that dude for one nanosecond.

He did seemed a little trigger happy.

Aparently you don't know very many rednecks...

In reality, you aim for center of mass.


Like where???

Like where???

Torso = center mass.

I did like the part where the operator warns him he's gonna get shot if he walks out the door with a gun..."Ya wanna make a bet?".

That was kinda funny, it was the accent and all. I think he was itching to kill someone and was just waiting for an excuse.

That was kinda funny, it was the accent and all. I think he was itching to kill someone and was just waiting for an excuse.

By that time, with the 911 operator being such an ass, I'm sure he wanted to shoot her instead!! She was basically saying, "Let the criminals escape ...we'll never catch them, but you shouldn't catch them either. We need more criminals on our streets."

Baron Max

That was kinda funny, it was the accent and all. I think he was itching to kill someone and was just waiting for an excuse.
Did you listen to the recording? He was getting more and more agitated and frustrated with the lack of police response. If he were trigger happy, he'd have shot someone in the first 60 years of his life!

Torso = center mass.

But wouldn't be more likely to result in death? The reason i said shoot them in the leg is because that would keep them stationery until the police came.

But wouldn't be more likely to result in death? The reason i said shoot them in the leg is because that would keep them stationery until the police came.
Yes, but when you shoot someone, your concern is preserving your own life, not theirs. So you shoot in the torso because it's the easiest shot and the most likely to bring them down.

A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home was cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463889/

um can i ask a question?

it may seem stupid but how do we even know if they were actually breaking into the nabors house?

I ask because i have had to break into my own house on occasion (i lost my car keys at the beach so had to get a lift home to get the spare and the house keys were locked in the car) so it could well be that they were there for an innocent purpose

They were on their way out. And there does come a point when your neighbors should know a bit about you and who you expect to be around your house.

At least, that's how it is on this side of the Pacific.

Some people really want to shoot someone. And every once in a while, someone gives them an excuse.

Besides, it doesn't really matter. A jury, in the United States, is supposed to be of your peers. And in Texas, if you can prove that "the sumbitch had it comin'" without actually saying the words, a jury of your peers will send you on your way.

I wouldnt expect my nabors to know who my friends are. I would expect them to call the police if someone who wasnt normally around the house came around but i wouldnt want them SHOT. cop rocks up,
Cop: "sir is there a reason your at this house"
Guy: "yes officer, my friend asguard asked me to get this crowbar for him to do some work at my house"
Cop: "can you prove that"
Guy: "sure i can, hang on i will give him a ring"
*phone rings*
Me: "hey mate wheres that crowbar"
Guy: "cops want to make sure i wasnt robbing your house"
ect

There are ALOT of reasons someone could be going in and out of a house, the naborly thing is to call the cops and make sure, NOT SHOOT THEM.

what if it was her new BF\s?

I'm glad the Grand Jury cleared him. It's nice to know that there is some sanity in the world, where you aren't punished for simply defending your own or your friend's property.

What a retard, he should go to jail for a long time. First of all he wasn't defending his life or anyone else's life, which is the only reason to kill someone. Secondly, they were coming out of the neighbor's house, away from any potential victim. Thirdly, he could not percieve any threat to anyone, only to their probably worthless crappy TV or whatever. He committed murder. Admittedly I have little sympathy for a criminal thief, but that doesn't make it OK to kill them.

Hopefully the thieves will learn from this and start shooting when they see anything moving.

Just in case they might be shot at.

Ryokan, a Zen master, lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening a thief visited the hut only to discover there was nothing in it to steal.

Ryokan returned and caught him. “You may have come a long way to visit me,” he told the prowler, “and you shoud not return emptyhanded. Please take my clothes as a gift.”

The thief was bewildered. He took the clothes and slunk away.

Ryokan sat naked, watching the moon. “Poor fellow, ” he mused, “I wish I could give him this beautiful moon.”

But wouldn't be more likely to result in death? The reason i said shoot them in the leg is because that would keep them stationery until the police came.

Shotgun with buckshot to the leg? Good way to nail the femoral artery without much effort.

Hell blast away. Protect yours and those around you, it's human decency.

i listened to this on the news last night, and he was eager to shoot them, he wanted to shoot, he didnt give them much of a chance to stop what they were doing (i know the chances of that happening is rare) but he was just so keen to kill someone, he wasnt getting more and more agitated he was getting himself pumped up to shoot them, it is not the citizens jobs to extract justice onto people.

he had a shinny gun and wanted to use the thing. He should go to jail!

i listened to this on the news last night, and he was eager to shoot them, he wanted to shoot, he didnt give them much of a chance to stop what they were doing (i know the chances of that happening is rare) but he was just so keen to kill someone, he wasnt getting more and more agitated he was getting himself pumped up to shoot them, it is not the citizens jobs to extract justice onto people.

he had a shinny gun and wanted to use the thing. He should go to jail!

So what if he wanted to shoot? So what if he was eager to shoot? All that is a moot point when these two criminals decided to practice their profession in this neighborhood.

Horn would have been charged with a crime if his actions had been criminal. A grand jury decided. A jury of people, not just one prosecutor deciding the matter.

So what if he wanted to shoot? So what if he was eager to shoot? All that is a moot point when these two criminals decided to practice their profession in this neighborhood.

Horn would have been charged with a crime if his actions had been criminal. A grand jury decided. A jury of people, not just one prosecutor deciding the matter.

it was criminal it was murder.

in my opinion that is.

This is what happens when you got a country who are obsessed with guns.

it was criminal it was murder.

in my opinion that is.

This is what happens when you got a country who are obsessed with guns.

And this is what happens when you obsessively disarm the general law abiding population:

"This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league. Five years after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html

And this is what happens when you obsessively disarm the general law abiding population:

"This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league. Five years after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html

then they need to deal with it accordingly, do away with guns and then the rate of accidental shootings will reduce aswell

then they need to deal with it accordingly, do away with guns and then the rate of accidental shootings will reduce aswell

Deal with it like this? (from same article):

"Meanwhile, much of rural Britain is without a police presence. And the statutes meant to protect the people have been vigorously enforced against them. Among the articles people have been convicted of carrying for self defence are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper."

Deal with it like this? (from same article):

"Meanwhile, much of rural Britain is without a police presence. And the statutes meant to protect the people have been vigorously enforced against them. Among the articles people have been convicted of carrying for self defence are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper."

anyone carrieing a weapon should be fined and persistant offenders should be giving prison time

anyone carrieing a weapon should be fined and persistant offenders should be giving prison time

:) A fork can be a weapon. Back to eating with your fingers I guess. Nothing but cold sausages on the menu.

If I were a bugler and knew in advance that I was taking a chance by going to steal something from someone, then the real problem is that those who don't know what type of risks they may take while doing something against the law, shouldn't be viewed as those who really give a shit about anyone else's lives or property so why should we give them any more interest than they give us?

So now the penalty for burglary is death. No one can argue that their life was in danger. So the penalty for burglary is death.

If I see Mr. Horn is cheating on his taxes, I am going to blow his ass to kingdom come.

I will not call the IRS. I will just start shooting.

I mean the other night some guys crawled out of a window of my neighbors house. I could have shot their son for sneaking out to get laid. I mean I didn't know it was their son who is 17, but it's his own fault for not using the front door. If you sneak, you pay the price.

The other day I shot my neighbor's best friend. I thought she was stealing her car, but it was a loaner. Well, you damn well better let all your neighbors know who you loan your cars to, especially if you loan that car to a black person.

I feel so much anger at the smug, violent people here.

Why don't you move to Saudi Arabia so you can watch people have their arms chopped off or their heads. Your sense of justice does not belong anywhere that has moved on from the Middle Ages.

So now the penalty for burglary is death. No one can argue that their life was in danger.
Fleeing felons do risk the penalty of death. Home invaders do risk the penalty of death. So yes, you commit a serious crime you do risk the penalty of death depending on your location.



I feel so much anger at the smug, violent people here.

Maybe your anger would be best directed at the criminals committing acts that put law abiding citizens at risk. It may only be STUFF to you, but I worked hard for my stuff.


Why don't you move to Saudi Arabia so you can watch people have their arms chopped off or their heads. Your sense of justice does not belong anywhere that has moved on from the Middle Ages.

Criminals should be aware of the penalty they may face should they choose to commit a crime. They want to prey upon law abiding persons, then their next of kin may read in the paper a jury of your peers found the death that resulted was no crime.

So now the penalty for burglary is death. No one can argue that their life was in danger. So the penalty for burglary is death.


http://www.dumbcriminals.com/other/gun-closet/

tell me thats not funny

Fleeing felons do risk the penalty of death. Home invaders do risk the penalty of death. So yes, you commit a serious crime you do risk the penalty of death depending on your location.Obviously they risk death. It is still immoral. It is beyond an eye for an eye. If you are a danger to the lives of others and police need to shoot that is one thing. That untrained citizens can now decide what is a crime, how serious the threat is and when to fire, is just stupid. I mean, why bother training police?

Maybe your anger would be best directed at the criminals committing acts that put law abiding citizens at risk. It may only be STUFF to you, but I worked hard for my stuff.My anger is not limited to the anger I feel at the shooter in this case or the grand jury, I am also angry at criminals. Just because people piss me off does not mean they should die. They put my life at risk or someone else's or there is no good way to know if they are putting that life in risk, that's one thing. This was clearly a crime against property.

Now average citizens without training can think: hey, I'll be a cool cop-like figure and decide when a crime is being committed and when it is right to shoot etc.

:) A fork can be a weapon. Back to eating with your fingers I guess. Nothing but cold sausages on the menu.

yes it can be, if its carried has a weapon, if someone is walking down the road at 2 in the morning with a fork in they're pocket you can gaurantee that they havent just come from a bring your own fork party!

Obviously they risk death. It is still immoral. It is beyond an eye for an eye. If you are a danger to the lives of others and police need to shoot that is one thing. That untrained citizens can now decide what is a crime, how serious the threat is and when to fire, is just stupid. I mean, why bother training police?

Untrained citizens? Joe Horn hit his targets. That aside, he also faced a grand jury. There is a risk to a citizen that what they do may result in charges against them. Given the options, I would rather have the freedom to make a choice to defend rather than the absolute of "wait for the cops".


My anger is not limited to the anger I feel at the shooter in this case or the grand jury, I am also angry at criminals. Just because people piss me off does not mean they should die. They put my life at risk or someone else's or there is no good way to know if they are putting that life in risk, that's one thing. This was clearly a crime against property.
And bank robbery is just a crime against property, but bank robbers face the risk of being taken down. I never claimed people should die because they piss me off. Burglery is a serious crime. Dont take my stuff. Period.


Now average citizens without training can think: hey, I'll be a cool cop-like figure and decide when a crime is being committed and when it is right to shoot etc.

We should be so lucky.

Criminals should be aware of the penalty they may face should they choose to commit a crime. They want to prey upon law abiding persons, then their next of kin may read in the paper a jury of your peers found the death that resulted was no crime.
Once it became obvious that Enron officials were destroying pension funds of hardworking employees, should 'concerned' citizens have been allow to enter the offices with shotguns to meet out justice since these officials were committing felonies. And if you commit a felony, you should know you are risking death.

Oh, and if you concerned about where it happens the vigilanties could wait out in the parking lot or where the cars exit the lot and enter public roads.

yes it can be, if its carried has a weapon, if someone is walking down the road at 2 in the morning with a fork in they're pocket you can gaurantee that they havent just come from a bring your own fork party!
OH NO!! Its the Forking Police

Once it became obvious that Enron officials were destroying pension funds of hardworking employees, should 'concerned' citizens have been allow to enter the offices with shotguns to meet out justice since these officials were committing felonies. And if you commit a felony, you should know you are risking death.

Oh, and if you concerned about where it happens the vigilanties could wait out in the parking lot or where the cars exit the lot and enter public roads.

Wow. I bet you have really bad nightmares.

Joe Horn was on his own property. The criminals came from the house they had broken into and onto his property. If they would have listened to him, they would still be alive, burdening the legal systems with trials and appeals and then the wait in custody as they are shipped back to columbia (they were illegals).

One simple grand jury and its over. Joe Horn saved texas a bunch of tax dollars.

Untrained citizens? Joe Horn hit his targets. That was a very telling misinterpretation on your part. Think for a moment what training I meant.

That aside, he also faced a grand jury. There is a risk to a citizen that what they do may result in charges against them. Given the options, I would rather have the freedom to make a choice to defend rather than the absolute of "wait for the cops".
1) you are saying he should not have been at risk
2) he was not defending. he was punishing. they were running away.


And bank robbery is just a crime against property, but bank robbers face the risk of being taken down. Sure, if they are armed or it is not clear if they are armed because they are in a building with innocent people. It is reasonable to assume the people in the bank are in danger.


I never claimed people should die because they piss me off. Burglery is a serious crime. Dont take my stuff. Period.They weren't taking his stuff.

Housesitters, cleaning services, visiting relatives....etc.
beware.

We should be so lucky. Wow, I guess you don't drive much. You clearly have no idea how poor people's judgement can be with machines that can kill but were not made expressly for that purpose.

We should not be so lucky.

Burglery is a serious crime. No one is denying that. First you assume that I don't get angry at criminals, a group that includes the shooter in this case, but certainly includes burglars. Now you seem to think if I have trouble with death as the punishment for a crime I don't think it is a serious crime. Actually I think a numbers of years in a prison where you stand a good chance of being raped and are scared pretty much the whole time is serious punishment FOR A NON-VIOLENT CRIME. How strange that I am not clapping my hands at a literal overkill.

Wow. I bet you have really bad nightmares.
You completely sidestepped my point. Should the felons I mentioned also have been confronted at gunpoint and if, scared, they turned and ran, been shot to death?

You completely sidestepped my point. Should the felons I mentioned also have been confronted at gunpoint and if, scared, they turned and ran, been shot to death?

The only felons you mentioned were the Enron execs. Fact is if they had tried to flee they would have been fleeing felons as the possibility existed that they could die for it.

Stop dealing with your imagined scenarios and stick to the reality situations. Theres plenty of that to go around.

The only felons you mentioned were the Enron execs. Fact is if they had tried to flee they would have been fleeing felons as the possibility existed that they could die for it.

Stop dealing with your imagined scenarios and stick to the reality situations. Theres plenty of that to go around.
It was a real situation. No police would have pointed shotguns at them in the dark and blown them away if they ran. I wanted to see if you could really live up to your philosophy and treat all felons the same way: tax evaders, for example. I don't know who you are or where you sit in society, but I wanted to see if perhaps your morality only applies in certain cases, but when the felon in question seem 'other' than you, you don't care if the punishment goes way beyond the crime. You may be consistant about this, but it is quite reasonable to probe in discussions of ethics to see if the person's moral stance is consistant.

Let me know if you figure out the training I mentioned above.

My sense is you are heartless enough to not give a shit about the disproportionate punishment. But there are practical results of letting people think they can run out on their lawns or into hallways and decide they know when and who to shoot.

Justice in the 'new' system:
DWI - instead of throwing down a spiked chain police sharpshooters put a rifle shell through the drunks brain on empty parts of the road. (it should be noted that a drunk driver is, unlike the men the shotgun toting vigilante killed, a threat to human life)

Even three strikes laws make a distinction between violent felonies and other felonies.

It was a real situation. No police would have pointed shotguns at them in the dark and blown them away if they ran. I wanted to see if you could really live up to your philosophy and treat all felons the same way: tax evaders, for example. I don't know who you are or where you sit in society, but I wanted to see if perhaps your morality only applies in certain cases, but when the felon in question seem 'other' than you, you don't care if the punishment goes way beyond the crime. You may be consistant about this, but it is quite reasonable to probe in discussions of ethics to see if the person's moral stance is consistant.
You keep changing the scenario... Now its a dark office. Tax evaders? Enron people were not tax evaders. The reality is the only people who would know if someone was a tax evader (besides the evader) is the accountant (who possibly may not know) or the IRS. Data privacy and all that goes with it.

Consistent? Your scenarios are either so vague they are not really worth the attempt to address them, or so unrelated (or dare I say farfetched) that consistent could not be applied. Besides, its not about ethics (your probe of someones moral stance). If you dont want to shoot a burgler then dont. Wait for the police. You dont want to own a gun, fine by me. Ethical enough for you?


Let me know if you figure out the training I mentioned above.

You dont think being able to hit your target is important?

My sense is ...

"Shrug*

hey why not shoot little 5 year olds who steal a lolly from a store, after all they are DANGIOUS CRIMINALS
What a load of crap

this was murder pure and simple

Joe Horn was on his own property. The criminals came from the house they had broken into and onto his property. If they would have listened to him, they would still be alive, burdening the legal systems with trials and appeals and then the wait in custody as they are shipped back to columbia (they were illegals).


Ok. They came onto his property and he says, threatened him. Now here's the thing I don't understand. Why did he shoot both in the back as they attempted to flee down the street (by Horn's own words to the dispatcher)? After all, if they threatened him, they'd have to be close enough and/or facing him to pose a threat. But they were running down towards the street, away from him.

Exactly what did he say to them that they didn't listen to? Here is something from the OP's quote that belies what you are attempting to convey:

Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."

On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.

"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.

Then Horn is back on the phone:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

So what exactly didn't they listen to? He does not appear to have told them to stop. All he said was "Boom! You're dead!". Then the shots are heard. I am assuming from all reports that they were fleeing? Even Horn stated to the dispatcher when he returned inside his house that "he almost run down the street". So they should have listened and somehow survived when he said "Boom! You're dead!"? But then, he shot them straight away.

How exactly is someone fleeing down towards the street, with his back to Horn, a threat to Horn?

Tell me, do you think the police would have opened fire on two fleeing robbers? Or would they have attempted to chase them instead? I wonder, how many robbers do police shoot in the back as they attempt to flee and pose no danger or threat to anyone in the immediate surround?

One simple grand jury and its over. Joe Horn saved texas a bunch of tax dollars.
That says more about the society than you may want to deal with at this present time.

I guess now you can just shoot anyone you catch in the middle of a crime (no matter what that crime happens to be), as a dollar saver.

Hell, I guess I should be thankful I don't live in Texas. Otherwise my neighbour could have shot me dead after I had to break into my own house when my two year old accidentally locked me out as I was hanging out the washing. Said neighbour would have been justified in shooting me in the back a few minutes later when I was taking the rubbish out in a large rubbish bag (with my keys now in my hand).:rolleyes:

i was thinking the same thing bells. We had just moved in so my nabors didnt know me very well. Thankfull the one to my right did because he let me climb over his back fence to get into my back yard (my house is like a fortrus from the front and if i had to break in from my yard it would have ment going OVER the house)

I made a thread about the american system a while ago asking if the senario in Oceans 11 was plausable. The scean where the casino guy is telling them about the 3 top robbery atemps and he gets to the number one and the guy runs out of the casino with some money only to be gunned down from behind by the security guards. I was TOLD that was pure fiction and if that really happened they would be charged with murder. I guess not?

You keep changing the scenario... That's right. I am testing your morality using different situations.
Tax evaders? Enron people were not tax evaders. I am quite sure they were tax evaders, but actually I was bringing up another example. A tax evader is stealing services, it can easily be a felony and it is not fair to us hard working tax payers. Should one be shot if an angry citizen sees him walking to his car and he runs?

The reality is the only people who would know if someone was a tax evader (besides the evader) is the accountant (who possibly may not know) or the IRS. Data privacy and all that goes with it. You have got to be kidding. 1) people blab about themselves 2) you can see under the table stuff all around you in certain fields - restaurants for example.

Consistent? Your scenarios are either so vague they are not really worth the attempt to address them, or so unrelated (or dare I say farfetched) that consistent could not be applied. Besides, its not about ethics (your probe of someones moral stance). If you dont want to shoot a burgler then dont. Wait for the police. You dont want to own a gun, fine by me. Ethical enough for you? Nowhere did I complain that I would be forced to shoot people so this made no sense.

Since you can't seem to answer I don't know if you think felonies in general should be treated as shoot to kill situations.


You dont think being able to hit your target is important?

You know, it's scary that you think the only training people get around guns is how to aim them and perhaps load them. Police are trained in WHAT SITUATIONS DEADLY FORCE IS POTENTIALLY OK. And generally someone needs to be in danger. Even then, much as I can be critical of police, they tend not to shoot people unless they think someone is in immediate physical danger. This is the training they have. They also get training in how to talk someone down and how to pursue, which that fat violent criminal probably was incapable of.

You also fail to address the practical issue. Let's say this guy made a good call. I don't agree, but let's say....Now people have the idea that they can rush out with guns and stop people not simply from committing crimes, but from escaping. This means they get to determine that what is happening across the street is in fact a crime, something they will make mistakes about, ask any police dispatcher, and after that mistaken homicides. If you are defending yourself or someone in harm's way that is one thing. Other than that leave it to the professionals.

Oh, I could tell his tooth was absessed so I just went for it.

Besides any person with the slightest integrity knows that shooting someone in the back who is unarmed is cowardly shit. Kind of thing that used to get your grave spat on.

Ok. They came onto his property and he says, threatened him. Now here's the thing I don't understand.

So what exactly didn't they listen to? He does not appear to have told them to stop. All he said was "Boom! You're dead!". Then the shots are heard. I am assuming from all reports that they were fleeing? Even Horn stated to the dispatcher when he returned inside his house that "he almost run down the street". So they should have listened and somehow survived when he said "Boom! You're dead!"? But then, he shot them straight away.

How exactly is someone fleeing down towards the street, with his back to Horn, a threat to Horn?

Tell me, do you think the police would have opened fire on two fleeing robbers? Or would they have attempted to chase them instead? I wonder, how many robbers do police shoot in the back as they attempt to flee and pose no danger or threat to anyone in the immediate surround?

I guess now you can just shoot anyone you catch in the middle of a crime (no matter what that crime happens to be), as a dollar saver.

Hell, I guess I should be thankful I don't live in Texas. Otherwise my neighbour could have shot me dead after I had to break into my own house when my two year old accidentally locked me out as I was hanging out the washing. Said neighbour would have been justified in shooting me in the back a few minutes later when I was taking the rubbish out in a large rubbish bag (with my keys now in my hand).:rolleyes:

First Horn said "MOVE [an] you're DEAD".

Horn knew the law well enough to know he was within his rights to protect his neighborhood. He spoke of that on the phone also.

Doesnt matter what I think police would have done. I dont flee from police. I wouldnt take the chance nor do I want to pay the penalty for fleeing a police officer.

Try to twist it any way you want, but Horn did NOT shoot his neighbor. Horn had met his neighbor and there was no doubt (in Horns assessment and in reality) these people were not members of the neighborhood. Thats the fact.

You go and shoot the wrong person, in the wrong circumstance, you can be charged with a crime. That part of the reality too.

Justice can be a balancing act. In this particular case, two criminals made several decisions that resulted in their absence from society.

That's right. I am testing your morality using different situations.

Besides any person with the slightest integrity knows that shooting someone in the back who is unarmed is cowardly shit. Kind of thing that used to get your grave spat on.

So lets wonder a bit about your morality.

So if Horn had shot them in the face, you'd feel better about it?

First Horn said "MOVE [an] you're DEAD".



Where does it say that in the transcript?

What he did do was ignore a direct order from a person who works for the local law enforcement. The dispatcher advised him and then ordered him to stay in his home. He refused several times. Instead, he basically advised the dispatcher that he was going to "not let them get away with this". The dispatcher repeatedly ordered him to stay inside his house. Again, he kept telling the dispatcher that he was going to go outside and stop them. The sound of his shotgun is then heard being cocked on the tape, he tells the dispatcher he is going to go outside, then all that is heard is his shouting "Boom! You're dead!" and then several gun shots. All of which hit the assailants in the back as they attempted to flee away from him. Please tell me, what kind of threat does someone pose if they are running away from you? In short, he took the law into his own hands and decided to be their judge, jury and executioner.

Horn knew the law well enough to know he was within his rights to protect his neighborhood. He spoke of that on the phone also.
Yes, he did know the law. Which shows a level of premeditation. As the dispatcher informed him, goods aren't worth killing someone over. But he ignored the dispatchers repeated pleas and orders to stay inside his house. He is not within his right to protect his neighbourhood. He is not a police officer entrusted with that duty. He decided he would be the neighbourhood protector and has killed two people as they attempted to flee from him for a few items that were in a bag of loot that were stolen from his neighbour's home. As I said above, he decided that he would be their judge, jury and executioner and he did so long before he stepped out of his home.

As the legislator who wrote the castle doctrine states:

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "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."
http://cbs5.com/national/joe.horn.shoots.2.570499.html


Doesnt matter what I think police would have done. I dont flee from police. I wouldnt take the chance nor do I want to pay the penalty for fleeing a police officer.

He is not a police officer, though. He was a man who disobeyed and ignored direct orders from a law enforcement dispatcher to not leave his house and to not shoot anyone. Tell me, do you often ignore orders from people from your local law enforcement? If they tell you not to leave your house, would you ignore them and do it anyway? Because on top of shooting two men in the back, that's what Mr Horn decided to do. And here you are saying you wouldn't flee from the police, but you are saying Horn did a good thing in ignoring orders from the police to not leave his house and shoot.

Would you flee from a strange man with a shotgun who thought you weren't where you were supposed to be? I know I would without hesitation.

Try to twist it any way you want, but Horn did NOT shoot his neighbor. Horn had met his neighbor and there was no doubt (in Horns assessment and in reality) these people were not members of the neighborhood. Thats the fact.
Who is trying to twist anything? I was merely commenting that I am glad I don't live in Texas, because if I did and I was unfortunate enough to have some psycho like Horn living next door to me, I could very well have been shot and killed after I had to break into my own house after getting locked out by my 2 year old who was still inside the house and becoming distressed when he realised I could not get back inside to him and his baby brother.

You go and shoot the wrong person, in the wrong circumstance, you can be charged with a crime. That part of the reality too.
And? If my neighbour thought I was a criminal, he could very well have gotten away with it. After all, if you can get away with shooting a fleeing person in the back that posed no threat to you whatsoever (because when someone is running away from you, the threat is deemed to be over) because they were running away from you, I really have to wonder whether my neighbour would have been charged with a crime.

Justice can be a balancing act. In this particular case, two criminals made several decisions that resulted in their absence from society.
And now you have one individual who has decided he can take the law into his own hands and execute people because they robbed his neighbour's house, roaming free. I bet it gives his neighbours some comfort. Lets just hope none of them ever get locked our of their house or car at night. Tell me, do you think your TV or watch is enough to kill someone over? How about your neighbour's TV or watch?

Think about it.

I just got to say that looking over and over again this thread and at those magnificent good-natured faces...well I feel deeply happy that I never met either the burglars or the man who shot them...deeply happy.

bells that castle law in and of itself scares the shit out of me. I know i could well be going into someones house without there direct permission (or even knowlage) and the thought of some nutcase shoting first and asking questions latter scares me. It does happen anyway but at least here people know that the right to self defence ONLY aplies to direct threat to PEOPLE which does lower the chances somewhat. Still i have herd stories of ambos shot by vietnarm vets who rolled on there call direct buttons in there sleep and didnt wake up to answer dispatch.

I also have to wonder if you could get away with shooting a cop under that legislation. Cop goes to exicute a warrent on a drug dealers house, walks through the front door and gets shot by either the dealer or the 12 guage rigged up to shot the first person through the front door. Now he could well argue that he didnt KNOW they were cops and as such had the right to defend his property.

That being said this case is even WORSE than that (if thats possable) they were LEAVING, running away infact. It sickens me to think that the DPP couldnt even get this case to TRIAL let alone get a conviction on it. leaving aside this case in paticular what is this going to inspire?

Is the next person going to be someone like us breaking into there OWN house, is it going to be a race crime descised as this where a black person who has the AUDACITY to buy in a ritch white area gets shot because "ops sorry officer, i thought he was breaking in"

So if Horn had shot them in the face, you'd feel better about it?

I think *I* would. I can see letting Horn walk if he felt his life was in danger (even if he contributed to that by going outside to confront the criminals). As the story stands, it still seems that he might have been fearing for his life notwithstanding that he shot them in the back...but some part of me has to wonder at that.

If he thought he was in danger, then I'm glad he's a free man. If he thought, "they're getting away!" then he should spend some time in prison. The death penalty has its place, but for a single judge, jury and executioner to exact vigilante justice on them for a non-capital offense send a bad signal.

Had they been shot in the face, my doubts about the self-defense aspects would be somewhat allayed relative to their having been shot in the back.

bells that castle law in and of itself scares the shit out of me. I know i could well be going into someones house without there direct permission (or even knowlage) and the thought of some nutcase shoting first and asking questions latter scares me.

While tragedies do happen (like the Hattori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori) incident), the general point of castle law is that a homeowner shouldn't be second guessed about decisions made in a difficult situation. I can see the merit behind that. I do prefer the duty to retreat, but mostly because it seems like common sense that if I and my family can escape without risk, that we do so, and because I o not imagine people ever would go out of their way to second guess me if I happened to feel there was a risk.

I have always imagined that some (perhaps "much") of the support for Castle Doctrine comes from people who believe, whether they admit it openly or not, that killing in defense of property is justified (as many do).

see thats just the point, there IS no clarity issue in the homicide act (actually i think its the crimes act but you get the idea). The right to defend the life of someone else or the right to defend YOURSELF are written VERY plainly into law. The only clarity issue is wether you have a right to defend pets (bells can probably answer that), ie if someone is torchering say a dog do you have the right to take all nessary steps to protect that dog or any other pet or animal for that matter.

You DONT however have a right to kill your partner because he\she is threatning to break your TV, you DONT have the right to kill even JW because they come onto your property and you CERTAINLY dont have a right to kill emergency service workers because they have broken into your house.

Put it this way, how would the case have gone if one of those 2 was an under cover cop because cops WILL paticipate in crimes against property?

see thats just the point, there IS no clarity issue in the homicide act (actually i think its the crimes act but you get the idea). The right to defend the life of someone else or the right to defend YOURSELF are written VERY plainly into law. The only clarity issue is wether you have a right to defend pets (bells can probably answer that), ie if someone is torchering say a dog do you have the right to take all nessary steps to protect that dog or any other pet or animal for that matter.

You DONT however have a right to kill your partner because he\she is threatning to break your TV, you DONT have the right to kill even JW because they come onto your property and you CERTAINLY dont have a right to kill emergency service workers because they have broken into your house.

Put it this way, how would the case have gone if one of those 2 was an under cover cop because cops WILL paticipate in crimes against property?

On the other side, though, different states have different rules. In New York, I have no doubt Horn would have had a harder time, since John White was convicted, even though his claim of feeling threatened seems more plausible:

John White shooting (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/nyregion/28shoot.html)

see that one seems to be justified so why was he convicted?

i really dont get the US, it makes apsolutly no sence to me. you have the cop beating of a black man (cant think of the name of the guy, really famous) where the cops get off, you have deaths in custody ON VIDEO TAPE and the cops a couple of months if convicted, you have incidents like the horn case and the nut doesnt even get tried and then you have a clear cut (going by your atical) case of self defence and the guy gets convicted.

What is it with the US????????

then they need to deal with it accordingly, do away with guns and then the rate of accidental shootings will reduce aswell

Actually no, get rid of legal guns and accidental shooting will probably stay just the same. Criminals are damn clumsy sometimes.

anyone carrieing a weapon should be fined and persistant offenders should be giving prison time

Oh yeah, real smart. Did you know that the human head can be used as an effective bludgeoning weapon. Any length of string, wire or cloth can as well.

Obviously they risk death. It is still immoral. It is beyond an eye for an eye. If you are a danger to the lives of others and police need to shoot that is one thing. That untrained citizens can now decide what is a crime, how serious the threat is and when to fire, is just stupid. I mean, why bother training police?

Actually in the good ole USA Police actually haven't a single power or privilaige that the average law abiding citizen doesn't have. You can arrest and ticket lawbreakers if you find them and fill out the paperwork. Hell, I once told a cop he had to fix-it ticket himself for his busted taillight. He thanked me for the warning and filled out the ticket and had me sign it. Police are just the professional version of what we all should be doing, keeping each other safe.

My anger is not limited to the anger I feel at the shooter in this case or the grand jury, I am also angry at criminals. Just because people piss me off does not mean they should die. They put my life at risk or someone else's or there is no good way to know if they are putting that life in risk, that's one thing. This was clearly a crime against property.

Well, he obviously felt threatened as well. And damn it maybe that property was essential to his neighbor's profession, comfort, or even life. The Grand Jury said he was justified, so he is. End of story.

Now average citizens without training can think: hey, I'll be a cool cop-like figure and decide when a crime is being committed and when it is right to shoot etc.

Well most people have a functioning braincell or two and wait untill they know what the hell is going on. I don't know about you, but I can tell when someone is beating the hell out of a woman. I don't know about you but i tend to tell someone to dial 911 while I reducate the ruffian a bit. Never had a cop cite me for stopping the beating, even when I busted the one guys jaw. In fact the officers once bought my next round!

i really dont get the US, it makes apsolutly no sence to me. you have the cop beating of a black man (cant think of the name of the guy, really famous) where the cops get off, you have deaths in custody ON VIDEO TAPE and the cops a couple of months if convicted, you have incidents like the horn case and the nut doesnt even get tried and then you have a clear cut (going by your atical) case of self defence and the guy gets convicted.

What is it with the US????????


The Rodney King case. The first trial was a travesty of justice, and was thrown out. The second time it was done properly and they were all convicted and LA had to pay Mr. King a handsome sum. .

even Innocence Project has a scary flip side, the fact that there are so many people convicted in the US that a system like this is NESSARY and that the court's apeals proccess cant handle it is a scary thought

Bells:

Where does it say that in the transcript?


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/19/acd.01.html

"Move, you're dead."

Horn saw two criminals committing a felony and entering his property. He is well within his rights to place them under citizen's arrest, and shoot them if they don't comply (which they clearly didn't, as they attempted to break and run). This is confirmed by the grand jury clearing him.

The lesson here? Don't rob people in Texas. But feel free to do so in Australia, because Australians are unarmed and don't have the right to defend their property, or that of their neighbour.

MH, you have a right to defend YOURSELF you dont have the right to shoot someone in the back.

As i said what would have happened if it was an under cover cop? that guy would be on death row thats what

Asguard:

MH, you have a right to defend YOURSELF you dont have the right to shoot someone in the back.


Well, in Texas apparently you do have the right to shoot someone in the back, in certain circumstances.

But I think what you're actually trying to say is that people 'shouldn't' have the right to shoot someone in the back. I disagree. Such a thing needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.


As i said what would have happened if it was an under cover cop? that guy would be on death row thats what


Why would an undercover cop be climbing out the window along with another person, with a bag of swag over his shoulder? Why would an undercover cop run from a citizen he tells him to 'freeze', instead of showing his badge?

Asguard, I'll say this. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. From everything that's been reported, those two men were behaving like sneak thieves, so it was more than reasonable for Horn to assume that they were indeed thieves, and place them under arrest.

You guys missed all the lol in the news when his neighborhood got protested by a hate group known as the New Black Panther Party who claimed that the only reason he shot the two criminal aliens was because they were black...

From everything that's been reported, those two men were behaving like sneak thieves, so it was more than reasonable for Horn to assume that they were indeed thieves, and place them under arrest.

(Boldface accent added.)

Except that he didn't, did he?

I think it's striking how Mr. Horn kept changing his story. He's gotta protect himself. He's goin' out there 'cause he's not gonna let 'em get away with it. One almost ran down the street. They came into his yard.

At no point does it sound like a clean shoot.

But, hell, that's Texas for you.

• • •


First Horn said "MOVE [an] you're DEAD"

And where did you get that? It's not on the recording.

Oh look a bigoted liberal is back to running its mouth, but hell that's liberals for ya.

Joe Horn never changed his story. He watched those criminals go up to his neighbor's house, break into it, and come out with stolen property. They then ran into his property. He told them to stop or that he'd shoot them. When they didn't stop, he shot them. The police weren't going to stop them, and the criminals could easily come back another day for his own house.

Tiassa:

Except that he didn't, did he?


He told them not to move, or he'd shoot. Or did you skip over that part in your zeal to bitch at me, as is your want?

Bells:


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/19/acd.01.html

"Move, you're dead."

Horn saw two criminals committing a felony and entering his property. He is well within his rights to place them under citizen's arrest, and shoot them if they don't comply (which they clearly didn't, as they attempted to break and run). This is confirmed by the grand jury clearing him.


Which makes me question what society is coming to that it is deemed acceptable to shoot someone who is fleeing in the back because of a few possessions that belongs to someone else.

From that transcript, he had no intention of making a citizen's arrest or making them stop. His sole intention was to kill them if your link is anything to go by:

911 OPERATOR: You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think.

HORN: You want to make a bet? I'm going to kill them.

911 OPERATOR: OK? Stay in the house.

He ignored 13 demands from the dispatcher to stay inside his house:

On September 1, Texas strengthened a law giving civil immunity to people who defend themselves with deadly force, not only in their homes, but in their cars and workplaces. But this was a neighbor's house, and the 911 operator warned Horn 13 times during the call to stay inside his home.

So it's acceptable to disobey the orders of law enforcement personnel? Even after he was apparently warned that there were plain clothed police officers in the area?

He had -- warned repeatedly not to use his -- not to go out and use his gun. He's told that these there -- there are non-uniform, there are plainclothes officers in the area. And he takes a shotgun out there, which sprays, you know, shot all over the place.

----------------------------------------------------

KING: You mentioned the -- the operator at the top. The operator was one cool customer.

TOOBIN: Right.

KING: He repeatedly said, don't go out is there, sir, repeatedly said, there are police officers out there, repeatedly said, don't get your gun. Do not do it.



That's acceptable, is it?

Here is the thing and others just don't seem to understand. Yes, he is allowed to defend himself against a threat. But tell me, do you think they were threatening him as they attempted to run away from him? They weren't running towards him. They were running away from him. He shot them in the back as they tried to flee. So how exactly is their running in away from him threatening to his self and property? By his own words in the transcript posted by madant in the OP, he admitted they were trying to run down towards the road, again, away from him. They ceased being a threat when they turned and ran.

His sole intention from his words to the dispatcher and from his actions was to kill them. And he did so. Now just what kind of precedent will this set? The Castle Doctrine is supposed to mean protecting yourself, your family, your own property, car and business. They posed no threat to any of those that belonged to Mr Horn since they were running away from him when he shot them in the back.

As the commentator in your own link states. It's Texas. You can't really expect anything better.

I wonder though whether the public would have been as forgiving if it were police officers who shot a fleeing suspect in the back when said suspect posed no threat to himself or anyone else in the immediate area.

Tiassa:

I think it's striking how Mr. Horn kept changing his story. He's gotta protect himself. He's goin' out there 'cause he's not gonna let 'em get away with it. One almost ran down the street. They came into his yard.


None of those assertions contradict each other.

Bells:

So it's acceptable to disobey the orders of law enforcement personnel?


In some cases, yes. For example, if a law enforcement personnel tells you to bend over so that they can explore your anal cavity with their penis, then it's acceptable to disobey their order.


From that transcript, he had no intention of making a citizen's arrest or making them stop.


Doing an Orleander again, Bells? It's stated in the transcript that he told the burglars not to move, or he'd shoot. Hence he was attempting to make them stop. What he said prior to that out of anger when he watched them break into a house is irrelevant, in light of his behaviour afterwards. The burglars had an opportunity to surrender and come quietly, they didn't. Tough shit for them.

Joe Horn never changed his story.

Oh, look. A misanthrope is back to his usual spew. But, hell, that's misanthropy for you.

Joe horn did change his story. He expressed repeatedly an interest in his own self-defense. Then he changed his expression to vigilantism.

He also stated that one was "in the front yard over there" and that the other was running down the street. In the next sentence, he said had no choice because they came into his front yard. Why would the one who he shot—while allegedly in his own front yard—be down in the front yard "over there" at the neighbor's house?

It's like that old South Park episode: "He's comin' right for us!"

So, yeah. You're right. He didn't change his story. Disparate conditions represent exactly the same thing, don't they? Protecting yourself from imminent threat is exactly the same as going outside to confront someone, isn't it? His front yard is exactly the same place as his neighbor's, isn't it?

Easy enough to reconcile, right? Tell me, should we call that Texas logic?

Oh look a bigoted liberal is back to running its mouth, but hell that's liberals for ya.

Joe Horn never changed his story. He watched those criminals go up to his neighbor's house, break into it, and come out with stolen property. They then ran into his property. He told them to stop or that he'd shoot them. When they didn't stop, he shot them. The police weren't going to stop them, and the criminals could easily come back another day for his own house.

So in other words, Horn decided to take the law into his own hands, be the judge, jury and executioner of two fleeing suspects? Right..

Why even bother with the police? Why did he bother to call the police at all? After all, he said right from the start he was going to kill them. Why did he call them? Did he want confirmation that what he was about to do was ok? Tell me, is it ok to disobey the orders of law enforcement personnel? Is it ok to shoot two fleeing suspects in the back as they attempt to run away from you because they appeared to have stolen something from your neighbour's house?

Would you shoot someone in the back as they were running away from you and call it self defense? Would you kill someone who stole a DVD from your neighbour's house for example? Would you shoot that person in the back?

Bigoted liberals go out of their way to make excuses for criminals.

If they ever see a criminal violating their property, they simply just gather up all of their stuff that they can so that the criminal can have an easier time.

If I saw some piece of shit break into my neighbor's house, and the police weren't there by the time those same criminals were coming towards my house, then you are damn right that I'd do whatever I could to them if they didn't stop immediatly when I told them to.

He told them not to move, or he'd shoot.

Not what it sounds like to me. Explain the full stop in his words on the tape. Don't tell me what a CNN transcript says. Tell me what he says. And punctuate it, please.

Or did you skip over that part in your zeal to bitch at me, as is your want?

Waaah! Poor you!

:rolleyes:

Bells:

Which makes me question what society is coming to that it is deemed acceptable to shoot someone who is fleeing in the back because of a few possessions that belongs to someone else.


You ever been robbed, Bells? Every had your place broken into, strange people rifling through your stuff?

How about repeatedly? Ever had the cops say to you 'Well, there's nothing we can do?", while cautioning you that defending your property with force against armed thugs could lead to criminal charges, as well as civil lawsuits? Ever seen worthless pieces of shit walk off with your possessions which you no doubt spent hours working at a shitty job to afford? Ever fear that if your dog bites an intruder, it could be put down by a bunch of bureaucrats? Ever fear that if you get in their way (unarmed, of course, because Australians are so fucked up they don't have weapons to defend themsleves) you might get bashed and/or raped?

Oh, and yeah, this is a bit of an 'emotional appeal', but it's also an experience my relatives and friends who live in the rougher areas of Melbourne and the suburbs are forced to face. Trying to simplify the crime of thieves to 'Oh, yeah, so what they walk off with a bit of your stuff, ha ha, just get it replaced.' is bullshit.

The fact that they are expected to turn the other cheek while law enforcement sits on their hands, which further confirms in my mind that cops don't want to protect and serve, they only want to harass and search and get a pay check. At the end of the day, the only person you can usually rely on is yourself. In this particular case, the man getting thieved from could rely on someone other than himself: His neighbour.

People who steal from honest people deserve to be locked up. And if they refuse to come quietly, then blow those motherfuckers away, post-haste.

Tiassa most likely pulls out the lube whenever someone breaks into his house. Don't want to inconvience the criminals in any way.

Not what it sounds like to me. Explain the full stop in his words on the tape. Don't tell me what a CNN transcript says. Tell me what he says. And punctuate it, please.


Why would I do that, when the transcript from CNN already does it for me?

I repeat: "Move, you're dead."


Waaah! Poor you!

:rolleyes:

Never miss an opportunity to bash me, hey Tiassa? It's almost like you seek me out. Scary.

Lepustimidus: You ever been robbed, Bells? Every had your place broken into, strange people rifling through your stuff?

Angrybellsprout: Tiassa most likely pulls out the lube whenever someone breaks into his house.

The problem with both of these points is that Mr. Horn's home was not the one broken into.

Lepus, maybe you wouldn't feel people were bitching at you if you bothered to put up an honest argument once in a while.


.... while cautioning you that defending your property with force against armed thugs could lead to criminal charges, as well as civil lawsuits?

(1) Now that's a different situation than the one we're discussing, eh?

(2) Maybe Australians really are, as you put it, fucked up. I mean, hell, you're not allowed to defend yourselves? Jesus, people would be out in the streets tearing shit up if anyone tried to pass that kind of law in the United States.

Why would I do that, when the transcript from CNN already does it for me?

What, do you want me to guess? Because listening to a recording is beyond your capabilities?

Shouldn't you be out looking for threads to lock because they dare to show how bogus your feminist bullshit is Tiassa?

Shouldn't you be out showing how stupid you are when you don't even understand what the terms public domain or copypasta mean?

You've already been proven to be full of bull in this thread already, may as well move along.

Also, 6:51 is even further proof that you're full of crap, as if anyone didn't already know that, and that there was a distinct pause between the words move and you're.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

Tiassa:

What, do you want me to guess? Because listening to a recording is beyond your capabilities?


At the moment, yes. I'm on speeds that are lower than 28K dial up, so listening to the audio is quite difficult.

In some cases, yes. For example, if a law enforcement personnel tells you to bend over so that they can explore your anal cavity with their penis, then it's acceptable to disobey their order.

Huh? Is that what the dispatcher advised Mr Horn over the phone? No. He told him to not leave his house and to not take his gun out of the house to shoot the burglars. The dispatcher told him that 13 times. Are you saying that is akin to having someone stick their doodle in your bunghole?


Doing an Orleander again, Bells? It's stated in the transcript that he told the burglars not to move, or he'd shoot. Hence he was attempting to make them stop. What he said prior to that out of anger when he watched them break into a house is irrelevant, in light of his behaviour afterwards. The burglars had an opportunity to surrender and come quietly, they didn't. Tough shit for them.

So you're disregarding his repeated comments about "this isn't right".. "I'm going to kill them"? You're putting that down to emotion? I think his behaviour leading up to the shooting says a lot about his true intention. The fact that he ignored the dispatcher 13 times about not going outside is telling. Or are you saying we should just ignore all the actions of a criminal leading up to a crime because it's just not relevant? Say if someone says he's going to kill a family of 5 then goes out and does it, we should just ignore the fact that it was premeditated? Is that what you're saying? That comments made about what you plan to do are somehow irrelevant when what you have done and planned to do is killed someone?

He didn't give them a chance to come quietly. Tell me, would you come quietly to a fat guy who is not a police officer who's pointing a shotgun at you? Did he even do that? Having heard the call and having read several different transcript of that call, CNN is the only one stating that he said "stop or I'll shoot".

You ever been robbed, Bells? Every had your place broken into, strange people rifling through your stuff?

Why do you need to know that?

Was it Horn's house who was being broken into? No. It was the neighbour's house.

How about repeatedly? Ever had the cops say to you 'Well, there's nothing we can do?", while cautioning you that defending your property with force against armed thugs could lead to criminal charges, as well as civil lawsuits? Ever seen worthless pieces of shit walk off with your possessions which you no doubt spent hours working at a shitty job to afford? Ever fear that if your dog bites an intruder, it could be put down by a bunch of bureaucrats? Ever fear that if you get in their way (unarmed, of course, because Australians are so fucked up they don't have weapons to defend themsleves) you might get bashed and/or raped?

Heh. You are allowed to defend yourself as the situation warrants MH. Or didn't you know that? Reasonable force. If you stab someone in the back as they are running away from you, and then try to claim self defense, then that wouldn't pass. Because someone running away from you no longer poses a threat to you. Or don't you get that?

But here's the thing. Horn was not being threatened (people running away from you aren't exactly a threat). Nor was his property. It was his neighbour's house that was being broken into. Hell, he must really covet his neighbour's possession to ignore a police dispatcher's orders to remain in his house even after he was advised that there were plain clothed officers in the area (according to your link). You'd shoot someone over someone else's 'stuff'?

Oh, and yeah, this is a bit of an 'emotional appeal', but it's also an experience my relatives and friends who live in the rougher areas of Melbourne and the suburbs are forced to face. Trying to simplify the crime of thieves to 'Oh, yeah, so what they walk off with a bit of your stuff, ha ha, just get it replaced.' is bullshit.
I lived in inner city Melbourne, I also lived in Dandenong as well as Noble Park (went to school in Noble Park actually). What exactly is your point?

I was there when the gangs first starting making inroads. I used to catch the train from Noble Park to Dandenong and then walk down Hammond Road to get to our house in Dandenong South.. alone.. This was during the time when gangs were fighting each other.. the gangs in Noble Park were always trying to kill the one's in Dandenong and vice versa. You try walking through the tunnel under Dandenong station at 5pm in the evening in winter when it's already dark.. So ya, your emotional appeal doesn't wash with me MH. I have been there and seen enough to make your hair fall out in horror.

The fact that they are expected to turn the other cheek while law enforcement sits on their hands, which further confirms in my mind that cops don't want to protect and serve, they only want to harass and search and get a pay check. At the end of the day, the only person you can usually rely on is yourself. In this particular case, the man getting thieved from could rely on someone other than himself: His neighbour.
What exactly are you on about?

Are you still discussing Horn or your family who live in inner city Melbourne? If someone breaks into your house and poses a deadly risk to you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself as the situation sees fit. The threat must be direct.. that means if the person is running away from you, they are no longer a threat to you. You wouldn't be charged and jailed from defending yourself, family or your home from an intruder intent on harming or killing you. So what exactly are you on about?

Are you suggesting we just get rid of police officers and let people seek out their own justice country and western style?

People who steal from honest people deserve to be locked up. And if they refuse to come quietly, then blow those motherfuckers away, post-haste.
Of course. So next time a kid steals a lolly from a store, shoot the little 'motherfucker' in the head. Is that how you want to play it?

Tiassa:

The problem with both of these points is that Mr. Horn's home was not the one broken into.


Way to miss the clue train, chump. The trick is to read my post BEFORE commenting on it.

Shouldn't you be out looking for threads to lock because they dare to show how bogus your feminist bullshit is Tiassa?

You know damn well what you need to do. I'm happy to leave it closed.

Shouldn't you be out showing how stupid you are when you don't even understand what the terms public domain or copypasta mean?

You know damn well what you need to do. I'm happy to leave it closed.

You've already been proven to be full of bull in this thread already, may as well move along.

Also, 6:51 is even further proof that you're full of crap, as if anyone didn't already know that, and that there was a distinct pause between the words move and you're.

Just to reiterate what I requested of Lepus:

Explain the full stop in his words on the tape. Don't tell me what a CNN transcript says. Tell me what he says. And punctuate it, please.

And the quote I was given in return?

"Move, you're dead."

No full stop.

It would seem that you and I agree on something: that there was a distinct pause between the words move and you're.

But you don't really care about that, eh?

I also find it interesting that CBS reported that what Mr. Horn said was "Boom!" and not "Move". I've been trying to hear the "v" in move, and it's just not there.

And the third shot suggests, by its delay, that he fired at someone running away from him. Because it would be a difficult proposition that, after shooting someone's partner, the other would rush the guy with the gun. If the other was armed, he certainly didn't shoot back.

And, still, that has to be one hell of a shotgun to knock the one guy all the way back into the neighbor's yard. You know, just like in Hollywood.

• • •


Way to miss the clue train, chump. The trick is to read my post BEFORE commenting on it.

Oh, right. Get indignant and leave us guessing.

Are you referring to dumb shit—

The fact that they are expected to turn the other cheek while law enforcement sits on their hands, which further confirms in my mind that cops don't want to protect and serve, they only want to harass and search and get a pay check. At the end of the day, the only person you can usually rely on is yourself. In this particular case, the man getting thieved from could rely on someone other than himself: His neighbour.

—like this?

Do you actually have a point, or are you just getting in your daily dose of misanthropy?

Of course you are happy to keep anything pointing out how bogus your propaganda is locked. Then again what else can we expect from a simpleton who can't figure out what the terms public domain and copypasta mean?

Simply because there was a pause between the two words move and you're doesn't mean that they weren't warned. In fact is would suggest that there was time to say and in between the two words, especially since the recording system wasn't the most ideal to catch every word that he could say.

Simply because there was a pause between the two words move and you're doesn't mean that they weren't warned.

What the hell are you talking about?

Mod Hat — A time and place for everything


Of course you are happy to keep anything pointing out how bogus your propaganda is locked. Then again what else can we expect from a simpleton who can't figure out what the terms public domain and copypasta mean?

You know, all you had to do was send me a private message asserting that yes, you are the original author of the list posted the other day at the teen forum (http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-yaaisop-support-a.html). That would have taken care of the plagiarism issue. But then you would need to explain how your creation is representative of feminism, and that, admittedly, would probably take more work than you're willing to put in.

So you can either work the route you've been offered, or just shut up about it and deal with it on your own.

Easy enough?

Good.

Bells:

Huh? Is that what the dispatcher advised Mr Horn over the phone? No.


Yeah. So? You asked me: "So it's acceptable to disobey the orders of law enforcement personnel?", and I responded with the answer: "Yes, sometimes it is, depending on the order." and then gave an example to demonstrate.


He told him to not leave his house and to not take his gun out of the house to shoot the burglars. The dispatcher told him that 13 times. Are you saying that is akin to having someone stick their doodle in your bunghole?


Nope, where did I say that? Again, I was merely demonstrating that it in some instances, you would be quite justified in disobeying law enforcement personnel. But even then, you're assuming that that the dispatcher has actual legal authority, when in actual fact they don't.


So you're disregarding his repeated comments about "this isn't right"..


He says 'This isn't right' in regards to the notion of allowing crooks to flee with his neighbour's property. How is that a big deal? I don't think it's right, either. In my humble opinion, only career criminals would think that 'it's right' that those two thieves could enter someone's home, steal their stuff, and then slink into the night (and yes, it was actually day, but I like that expression).


"I'm going to kill them"? You're putting that down to emotion?


Yes. If I saw crooks stealing from my neighbour, I'd feel a little outraged as well. As the protagonist pointed out during '12 angry men', saying "I'm going to kill you/them." doesn't actually mean you're necessarily going to kill them.


I think his behaviour leading up to the shooting says a lot about his true intention.


I think his demanding that the criminals stop, instead of just opening fire without a prior warning, says a lot about his true intention. I'm not forensic pathologist, but the fact that they were shot in the back sort of suggests that they didn't stop, but instead tried to flee. Guess they didn't think he'd shoot them. Guess they thought he was bluffing. Guess they were wrong. ;)


The fact that he ignored the dispatcher 13 times about not going outside is telling.


What does it tell us, exactly? That he doesn't think it's right that thieves should be able to just slip into the night with a sack of his neighbour's swag over their back? That he's a man of action, instead of a wimpy passive crybaby that is doted on by liberals such as yourself?


Or are you saying we should just ignore all the actions of a criminal leading up to a crime because it's just not relevant?


They should be taken into consideration, but what is actually said and occurs at the crime scene takes precedence. If the suspect is heard screaming 'I'll kill the bastard!' before the murder, and then the crime scene shows that he actually acted in self defense, then we assume self-defense.


Say if someone says he's going to kill a family of 5 then goes out and does it, we should just ignore the fact that it was premeditated? Is that what you're saying?


Nope. But if someone screams in a fit of anger that they are going to kill a family of five, and then that we have a recording of that particular individual killing the family of five when they break into his home, and he warns them to back off BEFORE opening fire, then we assume it wasn't premeditated.


He didn't give them a chance to come quietly.


He told them to stop. They didn't, they ran.


Tell me, would you come quietly to a fat guy who is not a police officer who's pointing a shotgun at you?


Not if I was a thief, and didn't think the fat guy had it in him to fire. If I were innocent, I'd probably start ranting, trying to explain to him that I was just helping his neighbour pack, or whatever. In fact, if I were guilty, I'd be standing petrified. I doubt I'd be stupid enough to bolt... you can't outrace a bullet.


Did he even do that? Having heard the call and having read several different transcript of that call, CNN is the only one stating that he said "stop or I'll shoot".


Hardly.


Why do you need to know that?

Was it Horn's house who was being broken into? No. It was the neighbour's house.


Exactly. Think on it Bells.

To help you, an analogy. If you saw your neighbour's daughter getting raped and beaten, would you just sit there and go "Ahh, what's the big deal, it ain't happening to me, hehehe!", or would you attempt to intervene? If you had a gun, would you use it to defend her life? Or would you just let things be, allow the rapist to have his way, and then run off into the sunset?

And yes, I'm aware that what occurred with Horn wasn't rape. But your "Ah, it wasn't it's property, so why did he care?" argument isn't very realistic. When good men (and women!) see an injustice occuring in front of them, they feel they need to intervene.


Heh. You are allowed to defend yourself as the situation warrants MH. Or didn't you know that? Reasonable force.


Reasonable force is a nonsenscial concept. If someone enters your property unbidden, the last thought floating through your mind is "Hmm, how do I neutralize the threat with the least available force?" It could be that the chap in your house at 3am just wants to steal your chinaware, but personally, I don't see why I should take the risk of waiting to find out.

And then, I should also be entitled to defend my property and belongings with force. The fact that the government doesn't allow me to do so reeks. It opens up a can of worms where a crook can enter your house unarmed, declare that he isn't there to harm you but to simply take your stuff, and you can't lay a hand on him as he cleans the place out.


If you stab someone in the back as they are running away from you, and then try to claim self defense, then that wouldn't pass.


Strawman.


Because someone running away from you no longer poses a threat to you. Or don't you get that?


I never made the above assertion, so again, Strawman.


You'd shoot someone over someone else's 'stuff'?


If it were necessary to apprehend them, then yeah, I would. 'Stuff' can be quite valuable. And in my eyes, people who need to take other people's hard earned 'stuff' are worth a bullet.


[snip]
So ya, your emotional appeal doesn't wash with me MH. I have been there and seen enough to make your hair fall out in horror.


If you have lived for so long in these crime ridden areas, why are you so forgiving with criminals? I thought someone who lived in Nobel Park would be a little more sympathetic with hard working civilians who are repeat victims of crime.


If someone breaks into your house and poses a deadly risk to you,


'Deadly risk'? By which you mean, when the bullet is flying towards your head? It's a bit too late then, isn't it?

The rest of your post is more straw, especially the comment about the kid. So yeah, snip.

Tiassa:

Are you referring to dumb shit—


I was a little confused when I read the above. I thought that 'dumb shit' was a little too harsh a term to use when referring to yourself.

But seriously, read that 'dumb shit' again, and then read what I wrote in response to Bells here:


Exactly. Think on it Bells.

To help you, an analogy. If you saw your neighbour's daughter getting raped and beaten, would you just sit there and go "Ahh, what's the big deal, it ain't happening to me, hehehe!", or would you attempt to intervene? If you had a gun, would you use it to defend her life? Or would you just let things be, allow the rapist to have his way, and then run off into the sunset?

And yes, I'm aware that what occurred with Horn wasn't rape. But your "Ah, it wasn't it's property, so why did he care?" argument isn't very realistic. When good men (and women!) see an injustice occuring in front of them, they feel they need to intervene.

If they saw their neighbor's daughter being raped, they'd just go and fetch some lube.

Don't want to discomfort the rapist by having him suffer from friction on his penis...

Where does it say that in the transcript?

http://www.texascriminaldefense.com/comments/March08/03a.htm

lepustimidus also posted a link to a different transcript.


What he did do was ignore a direct order from a person who works for the local law enforcement. The dispatcher advised him and then ordered him to stay in his home. He refused several times. Instead, he basically advised the dispatcher that he was going to "not let them get away with this". The dispatcher repeatedly ordered him to stay inside his house. Again, he kept telling the dispatcher that he was going to go outside and stop them. The sound of his shotgun is then heard being cocked on the tape, he tells the dispatcher he is going to go outside, then all that is heard is his shouting "Move! You're dead!" and then several gun shots. All of which hit the assailants in the back as they attempted to flee away from him. Please tell me, what kind of threat does someone pose if they are running away from you? In short, he took the law into his own hands and decided to be their judge, jury and executioner.

A 911 operator cannot order anyone to stay in their home anymore than you can order your neighbor to stay in their home.

The criminals disregarded the law. If they hadnt moved, they wouldnt be dead.


Yes, he did know the law. Which shows a level of premeditation. As the dispatcher informed him, goods aren't worth killing someone over. But he ignored the dispatchers repeated pleas and orders to stay inside his house. He is not within his right to protect his neighbourhood. He is not a police officer entrusted with that duty. He decided he would be the neighbourhood protector and has killed two people as they attempted to flee from him for a few items that were in a bag of loot that were stolen from his neighbour's home.
Premeditation? It shows the man pays at least some attention to the legislative efforts that affect him. Joe Horn did not break into anyones home and watched a crime being committed from his own residence. The perps came onto his property after committing this crime. It was reasonable for Joe Horn to assume their intent was criminal.


Tell me, do you often ignore orders from people from your local law enforcement? If they tell you not to leave your house, would you ignore them and do it anyway? Because on top of shooting two men in the back, that's what Mr Horn decided to do. And here you are saying you wouldn't flee from the police, but you are saying Horn did a good thing in ignoring orders from the police to not leave his house and shoot.

Actually, on my own property, I have ignored requests from law enforcement to stay in my house. But they should have told me they were looking for a murderer. I probably wouldnt have told them "run at her and see" when they asked me if my dog bites.


Would you flee from a strange man with a shotgun who thought you weren't where you were supposed to be? I know I would without hesitation.
If I had just committed a burglery I would have surrendered and not moved. What would have gone through my head would be "damn, I am busted". I know there would be a serious chance I would be shot. Besides, these two criminals were NOT supposed to be there.


Who is trying to twist anything? I was merely commenting that I am glad I don't live in Texas, because if I did and I was unfortunate enough to have some psycho like Horn living next door to me, I could very well have been shot and killed after I had to break into my own house after getting locked out by my 2 year old who was still inside the house and becoming distressed when he realised I could not get back inside to him and his baby brother.

Thats what you imagine. Reality is Joe Horn did not shoot his neighbor, and you've never been shot at by your neighbor.


And? If my neighbour thought I was a criminal, he could very well have gotten away with it. After all, if you can get away with shooting a fleeing person in the back that posed no threat to you whatsoever (because when someone is running away from you, the threat is deemed to be over) because they were running away from you, I really have to wonder whether my neighbour would have been charged with a crime.

Scoff... Of course your neighbor would have been charged with a crime.


And now you have one individual who has decided he can take the law into his own hands and execute people because they robbed his neighbour's house, roaming free. I bet it gives his neighbours some comfort. Lets just hope none of them ever get locked our of their house or car at night. Tell me, do you think your TV or watch is enough to kill someone over? How about your neighbour's TV or watch?

Think about it.

I have thought about it. I think criminals should wonder if stealing that tv, or watch is worth dying for.

Lets look at this logically,

If a petty thief stole your plants and tap fittings would it be ok to shoot him?
What about if you saw someone trying to break into your car as you were returning would you shoot them?
what about someone who crashed into your car and then drove off without stopping?
what about someone who cut you off?
what about someone you saw speeding?
What about if a girl told you this person raped her? would that be "self defence" to go shoot the person a week after the incident?

the first two actually happened to me, plants that PB had bought me for our aniversary, the tap fitting for the front tap and the back pannel off my car were all stolen. I did make a police report but oviously they couldnt do anything.

When i picked up my new car from my parents and was driving it back to adelaide i stoped in the city (melbourne) to go to the toilet. I was walking back to my car and there was a divi van parked behind it and i thought "shit i parked in a no parking zone, great". I got to my car to find the cops going though a backpack so i said to them "you guys scared me, i thought i had parked in the wrong spot". The cop turns to me and says "is this your car sir" and i nerviously reply "yes". He then tells me they saw someone trying to break into the boot but they caught him. I spent the next hour waiting at the police station to be interviewed (they had a busy morning) and then half an hour giving a statement. To be honest i was more pissed off about the time than the fact the guy had tried to steal it.

So dont tell me i have no experiance with theft, there is no way in HELL i would have shot the basted. I would have hid behind the courner and called the cops and if he ran (and i felt safe) i MIGHT have chaced him down and tackled him. Under NO circumstances would i have MURDERED him because thats what it is.

As for the cops commiting burglery of course they do those sorts of crime, they are alowed to paticipate in crimes against property to advance an undercover case, its quite plasable they helped rob a house in order to prove themselves to a gang to collect evidence of bigger crimes.


THANK GOD I LIVE IN AUSTRALIA:D

I was a little confused when I read the above. I thought that 'dumb shit' was a little too harsh a term to use when referring to yourself.

Explains a lot about what's wrong with you and your posts.