Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Read this article about a shooting here in Houston....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5866865.html




Well? Justified shooting, or Vigilantism?

It's neither. Can't be self defense but I don't see it as murder. The man is protecting the neighborhood.

Seriously, we need people to be more apt to stick up for their own neighborhoods. Now in places where crime is scarce, people will say he is wrong, but in certain places IT IS NEEDED.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/tonymartin

reminds me of the Tony Martin case...he was senteced to several years in prison for defending his property against burglers who had robbed him 4 times in 6 months

In a legal sense it is vigilantism. Personally I think he was completely justified in shooting after the guy charged at him.

It's a hard one but I reckon it was a justifed action of self defence.

Justified 100%. Probably would've gotten away with the crime otherwise. Now they won't be pulling anymore of that shit.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Justified 100%. Probably would've gotten away with the crime otherwise. Now they won't be pulling anymore of that shit.

Theft isn't usually the kind of thing someone deserves to get killed over. The only thing that justifies what he did was that they attacked him.

Did you guys hear the 911 call? The operator repeatedly told him NOT to go outside.

Murder.

-AC

Definitely murder.

You break into a house in Texas, that is the risk you take. If I was the neighbor who's house was broken into, I would call the man a hero.

That shows the kind of person you are, then - someone who puts more worth in material possessions than a person's life.

You may well call him a hero, but it was not his business to take the law into his own hands and deal out a punishment completely unfit for the crime.

Maybe I am, I would shoot a criminal in my house if he so much as picked up a fork. Honestly I would shoot him just from breaking in. Now I wouldnt run out and shoot someone robbing another house, but I would get my gun and protect my family in case they turn their attention to me. I would have no sympathy for the criminals if I was this man's neighbor.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
That shows the kind of person you are, then - someone who puts more worth in material possessions than a person's life.

You may well call him a hero, but it was not his business to take the law into his own hands and deal out a punishment completely unfit for the crime. Indeed. I saw an interview with the guy this morning and he was all feeling bad and shit. The 911 operator clearly told him NOT to go outside. Dude said "you hear this?", and he racked home a shell in his shotgun, went outside and took the law into his own hands.

"I was fearing for my own life." crylaugh The man had a 12 guage SHOTGUN and the robbers were walking away with their arms full of shit.

He shot them in the back. The BACK.

Justice.

Originally posted by KidRock
Justice.

In what sense?

They did something "bad" and got "punished"? If we're being that retarded, yes.

They stole from someone else, never physically hurt anybody and never threatened hi. In retaliation, he shot and killed them with a shotgun.

That's not justice.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Read this article about a shooting here in Houston....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5866865.html




Well? Justified shooting, or Vigilantism?

Justifiable homocide. In TX and LA its perfectly legal to kill tresspassers. In MO its legal to kill a burglar but only if they're in your house. My father-in-law is from St. Louis; he was jokingly told by his dad growing up that if you kill a tresspasser, just be sure to drag him into the house.

Not to mention that they were shot in the back. Cold blood, anyone? What I cannot believe is that the shooter got off and is now considered a hero by many.

Justice is to be handed out by the police and our court systems, NOT by white trash with an itchy trigger finger.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Justifiable homocide. In TX and LA its perfectly legal to kill tresspassers. In MO its legal to kill a burglar but only if they're in your house. My father-in-law is from St. Louis; he was jokingly told by his dad growing up that if you kill a tresspasser, just be sure to drag him into the house.


You see people here with "tresspassers will be shot on sight" signs in their yard.

Originally posted by @st
You see people here with "tresspassers will be shot on sight" signs in their yard. Dude, this aint the Old West, the shooter is not Wyatt Earp and the robbers weren't Desperados. They were walking away with their loot and he shot them in the back, in cold blood.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. They either didn't know that that it was legal in TX, or acted anyways. Either way, they paid for it.

And with this case, I think racism had more to do with it then getting jacked.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
That shows the kind of person you are, then - someone who puts more worth in material possessions than a person's life.

You may well call him a hero, but it was not his business to take the law into his own hands and deal out a punishment completely unfit for the crime.

^ This kid gets banned like no one I've ever seen....

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
^ This kid gets banned like no one I've ever seen.... Doesn't change the fact that he is right on the money.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Doesn't change the fact that he is right on the money.

Actually he isn't because he acted within the law. His personal opinion doesn't trump a law.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen

You may well call him a hero, but it was not his business to take the law into his own hands and deal out a punishment completely unfit for the crime. Despite what I stated about it being justified, I actually have to agree with that.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Actually he isn't because he acted within the law. His personal opinion doesn't trump a law. Laws are changed every day, I believe this is one that needs to be changed.

I call it a loophole that was taken advantage of. Sure, according to the law it was justified, but that doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Laws are changed every day, I believe this is one that needs to be changed.

I call it a loophole that was taken advantage of. Sure, according to the law it was justified, but that doesn't make it right.

So are you writing to your congressman, or are you just sitting there complaining?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So are you writing to your congressman, or are you just sitting there complaining? Neither. I am merely viewing this as a case of cold blooded murder.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. They either didn't know that that it was legal in TX, or acted anyways. Either way, they paid for it.

And with this case, I think racism had more to do with it then getting jacked.


Of course they didnt know, they were illegal immigrants in the first place.

Originally posted by @st
Of course they didnt know, they were illegal immigrants in the first place. And now we get to it......what difference does that make?

None really, im just saying they probably didnt understand the law in this situation.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
And now we get to it......what difference does that make?

None, because they aren't exempt from local laws.

Originally posted by @st
None really, im just saying they probably didnt understand the law in this situation. Still, ignorance isn't an excuse.

Originally posted by @st
None really, im just saying they probably didnt understand the law in this situation.

Even if they did, I don't think that would've stopped them.

The guy says "I'm going out there to kill them" and ignores the 911 operator's demands, that clearly shows that his intent was to kill. It wasn't like they broke into his house; he had no idea if they were armed and he just shot out of fear. Dude loaded up, went outside, saw they weren't armed and fired.

I also highly doubt one of them charged him, but taking his word on it, I can see why he shot that one. The other guy though? Where's the justification in shooting a thief running away?

Dude murdered two guys, in the very least, it was manslaughter. Hero he is not.

Originally posted by chillybanana
Still, ignorance isn't an excuse.


Im not making an excuse, im was just pointing it out since their "awareness" was questioned.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hero he is not.

*Yoda voice*

Example-setter, he is.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
*Yoda voice*

Example-setter, he is.

What example? That you can murder one (or two) people and get away with it if you happen to live in a certain state(s)?

Originally posted by Robtard
What example? That you can murder one (or two) people and get away with it if you happen to live in a certain state(s)?

Its technically not murder. And yeah, that's it. Don't **** around in a place where you know that will happen. I have no sympathy for some one who gets hung in Thailand for drug-running. They should've known.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Its technically not murder. And yeah, that's it. Don't **** around in a place where you know that will happen. I have no sympathy for some one who gets hung in Thailand for drug-running. They should've known.

This first guy he killed, sure, that can be seen self-defense going on the premise that the thief charged and therefore threatened him. I personnally doubt it, but sure.

The second guy was shot in the back while running away, he never threatened the man or had a weapon, that is murder, in the very least manslaughter.

The difference though, that law in Thailand is set in place, getting executed on a lawn for stealing household goods in America (even TX) isn't. See?

Originally posted by Robtard

The difference though, that law in Thailand is set in place, getting executed on a lawn for stealing household goods in America (even TX) isn't. See?

What they have in common is that they both have the death penalty for nonviolent crimes. So people committing them, should take that into account.

This reminds me of what a comedian said...


When you enter Texas there should be a sign with a guy sitting in the electric chair saying '"Welcome to Texas, DONT **** UP".

Killing in self defense is not murder.

Picture a guy breaking into the house of let's say....mm...hmmm..BRUCE LEE! Yeah, a thief breaks into his house. Bruce is practicing his lethal kicks and the guy chargers him. Bruce kicks him and the guy dies.

It's not murder. Bruce isn't responsible for the other idiot's actions.

313




However, in all serious business...I can't call it. If I was in the same situation I would do everything in my power to protect my property and my family.

Originally posted by Robtard
The guy says "I'm going out there to kill them" and ignores the 911 operator's demands, that clearly shows that his intent was to kill. It wasn't like they broke into his house; he had no idea if they were armed and he just shot out of fear. Dude loaded up, went outside, saw they weren't armed and fired.

I also highly doubt one of them charged him, but taking his word on it, I can see why he shot that one. The other guy though? Where's the justification in shooting a thief running away?

Dude murdered two guys, in the very least, it was manslaughter. Hero he is not.

My feelings exactly. His intention was to shoot/kill them before he left the house. While I hate thieves, there's no justification for killing them. I dont care if he had shot them in the legs or an arm, incapacitate them. He is no hero.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In what sense?

They did something "bad" and got "punished"? If we're being that retarded, yes.

They stole from someone else, never physically hurt anybody and never threatened hi. In retaliation, he shot and killed them with a shotgun.

That's not justice.

-AC

To each their own then.

I have no problems with an illegal cocaine dealing house robbing immigrant getting killed.

Originally posted by Darth Vicious
My feelings exactly. His intention was to shoot/kill them before he left the house. While I hate thieves, there's no justification for killing them. I dont care if he had shot them in the legs or an arm, incapacitate them. He is no hero. VERY well said.

I dont think he needed to kill them, he could of just wounded them as mentioned previously. Now though, I see two less criminals in the world, and selfishly, two less in the area I live in. I have a hard time seeing a problem with that.

I wouldn't take chances wounding a criminal. He can still pull a weapon out and shoot back and even kill me. You can never take a risk with a criminal. Cops put criminals in handcuffs and they still fight back. If you're going to KO a guy make sure he's out for the count.

as much as i think that people should be encouraged more to take action against criminals and crime as it would make an effective deterent...there is such as thing as "excessive force" and this is a prime example of it

as for murder?...i dont think it was premeditated so no

Originally posted by jaden101
as much as i think that people should be encouraged more to take action against criminals and crime as it would make an effective deterent...there is such as thing as "excessive force" and this is a prime example of it

as for murder?...i dont think it was premeditated so no

He did say "I'm going out there to kill them" before he left his house, faced them and assessed the situation.

F*ck him. We need new judges, ones that actually can make a fair ruling. The man's intent was to murder two people. He should be getting assraped in jail right now.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
He should be getting assraped in jail right now.

According to Niko from GTA4, that is an American phenomenon, it doesn't happen in European jails.

Murder.

Good old Houston. How I miss my home city.

This is a very interesting case. Should the guy be considered a hero? Absolutely not. I don't agree with what he did. I think he should have stayed inside and guarded his own home. He could have easily gotten himself killed by doing what he did.

However, I have absolutely no sympathy for the guys that were killed, regardless of whether they were shot from the front or back. If they were out ruining other people's lives and making them live in fear by invading their homes, then they deserved what they got.

Originally posted by Robtard
According to Niko from GTA4, that is an American phenomenon, it doesn't happen in European jails.

I wouldn't take life lessons from him. Remember, he got b*tch slapped by Dimitri. That's pretty embarrassing.

Originally posted by Robtard
He did say "I'm going out there to kill them" before he left his house, faced them and assessed the situation. Right. Premeditated murder.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Right. Premeditated murder.

If you see someone getting beatin up in an alley by 2 people and you go down there and kill the 2 guys..is it premeditated murder?

Originally posted by KidRock
If you see someone getting beatin up in an alley by 2 people and you go down there and kill the 2 guys..is it premeditated murder?
No one was in any danger. They were thieves, not killers.

Originally posted by KidRock
If you see someone getting beatin up in an alley by 2 people and you go down there and kill the 2 guys..is it premeditated murder? Nope. But this guy didn't see a person being beat up, AND he had a damn shotgun.

He went out there planning to kill them, and he did.

Originally posted by KidRock
If you see someone getting beatin up in an alley by 2 people and you go down there and kill the 2 guys..is it premeditated murder?

That would probably be manslaughter, it is also an entirely different scenario; those scenarios factor in to what is murder, manslaughter and self-defense when someone is killed. See.

Originally posted by Robtard
That would probably be manslaughter, it is also an entirely different scenario; those scenarios factor in to what is murder, manslaughter and self-defense when someone is killed. See.

I see nothing wrong with what he did. I would hope my neighbors would do the same for me.

This guy was probably friends with his neighbors. He didn't know if they were in the house or not, he just saw two guys breaking into it. For all he knew, those two guys slit his neighbors throats, then grabbed the loot and hopped out the window. If he just let them stroll off........he could have very well been letting the murderers of his friends/neighbors just stroll off never to be seen again. He didn't know.........it's a bad position to be in for sure. He didn't put himself in that position, those committing the crime did. Their fault.

I have no sympathy for any criminal who is shot in the act of committing a crime. Catch somebody raping a woman, shoot him in the head........no loss for society.

I believe I would have acted similarly. If 2 people are willing to break into another person's home, knowing the owner may be inside and armed, they probably have brought a weapon of their own along to protect themselves from the armed owner during the commission of the crime and are prepared to use it. That's just common sense. I would take no chances.

I am a gun owner. If somebody breaks into my house, knowing I'm home or may be home, it's a safe bet they have brought their own gun along because they don't want to die when I catch them robbing me. I wake up and see them, they're shot.....no warning.

Your scenarios are entirely different than what happened here, apples to oranges.

As far as the "they could have killed his neighbors so he shot them", it's probably better to not shot people dead when in doubt.

how are they different?

guy witnessed two guys break into his neighbors home. They come out later with stolen items. He holds them at gunpoint, telling them not to move. They move, he shoots.

explain the difference........ would it have been justified if afterward the cops had checked the neighbors home to find them laying in the floor with their throats slit?......or should he still have allowed these guys to casually stroll away from the crimescene never to be seen again?

he didn't know so he did the right thing. He held them at gunpoint, waiting for the cops to arrive and sort it out. One charged him, so he shot him. The other attempted to run away, so he shot him. The criminals were caught and being detained at gunpoint, their own idiocy led to them being shot.

Unfortunately, that's wrong. Everyone supposedly makes mistakes. If they murdered someone, you still have to wonder if it's right to kill them. I almost think jail is cruel and unusual punishment. That sort of thinking doesn't nip it in the bud. Most crimes happen in a close situation that involves suicidal thinking. I think it's bad in a different way, in the way that's like Chicken Soup that tells you to hold on. Sometimes, it's important and the slug next to you is a worse crime. He may be so gay (regarding mood) he may not do the deed, but the world has gotten so much worse in certain give and take ways since 2005, it justifies true crime. People are always stopping me in my tracks for a sort of "Hollywood" test on where my place is. This is a stupid explanation and below a step one in solving the issue. A police should be nearby enough to handle it.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
how are they different?

guy witnessed two guys break into his neighbors home. They come out later with stolen items. He holds them at gunpoint, telling them not to move. They move, he shoots.

explain the difference........ would it have been justified if afterward the cops had checked the neighbors home to find them laying in the floor with their throats slit?......or should he still have allowed these guys to casually stroll away from the crimescene never to be seen again?

he didn't know so he did the right thing. He held them at gunpoint, waiting for the cops to arrive and sort it out. One charged him, so he shot him. The other attempted to run away, so he shot him. The criminals were caught and being detained at gunpoint, their own idiocy led to them being shot.

They weren't in his house, he knew they weren't armed and no one was being harmed at the moment that he knew of.

No, it wouldn't have. Killing them on a lawn wouldn't bring back the people they killed in that hypothetical scenario and they are entitled to be tried in a court despite being criminals, not this backyard justice.

Taking the mans word, I can see where he shot the first thief in self-defense. How is shooting the other guy who was running away justified? There was no threat. He also could have easily shot them in the leg, it's a shotgun, it's not like he would have missed at that close range.

That is besides the point that he said "I'm going to kill them" BEFORE he faced them and assessed the situation, he wanted to kill them regardless of the situation and he did, ergo it's murder.

My only opinion is that the burglars won't be burglarizing anyone else. As if the law was going to do something about it...

Then again, I also dislike the court system.

Obviously, since they're dead.

I think he had no right to shoot them. Besides we are only reading one account of the story.

Too many gung ho people in this country.

If that last bit is true then it was obviously self defense. Even more justifiable since it apparently happened on his front lawn.

Either way, he was found not guilty. So in the eyes of the law, obviously not murder.

Probably not entirely justifiable, he obviously made a mistake, which he admits freely in that article, but it's not something that warrants a punishment. It was a reaction brought about by confusion and fear.

Originally posted by BackFire
If that last bit is true then it was obviously self defense. Even more justifiable since it apparently happened on his front lawn.

Either way, he was found not guilty. So in the eyes of the law, obviously not murder.

Probably not entirely justifiable, he obviously made a mistake, which he admits freely in that article, but it's not something that warrants a punishment. It was a reaction brought about by confusion and fear. A "mistake?" Dude, he KILLED two men in cold blood, he planned it and saw it through. That is murder, NOT self defense.

They are dead, tag on the toe dead, and there is no bringing them back. All because some piece of white trash decided to take the law into his own hands.

I don't buy into the whole "fearing for my life" crapola. He had a 12 guage, what did he have to fear?

I'm not quite buying the idea that he went out with the pure intent to kill, despite what he said to the operator. Words and actions don't entirely match up. He didn't just walk out and start shooting at them. He told them to freeze, and then one of them charged him. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going to happen next. Had the guy not charged him, it sounds like he wouldn't have fired. That's all the makes it self defense. Had he gone out and just started firing without warning, I'd be right there with you, but that's not what he did.

There are different reactions to fear. Some people react by trying to halt the danger before it arrives, or by standing against it. And just because he had a gun doesn't mean that he wasn't afraid. Perhaps one of the guys had a gun too, he had no way of knowing. They just broke into someone's house and stole shit, they're not stand up citizens, they're criminals, and many criminals have guns. That's not a situations where you start assuming the best about people.

Personally, I'd consider this a gray area. He did wrong, but what he did was somewhat understandable, at the very least, I think.

Were there any witnesses that saw the guy charging him?

Nope. But it sounded like the cell phone was in the guy's pocket, so if he had just gone out and started shooting it would have been easy for the operator to debunk the claim.

No witnesses, no one to see him being "charged", how convenient.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
A "mistake?" Dude, he KILLED two men in cold blood, he planned it and saw it through. That is murder, NOT self defense.

They are dead, tag on the toe dead, and there is no bringing them back. All because some piece of white trash decided to take the law into his own hands.

I don't buy into the whole "fearing for my life" crapola. He had a 12 guage, what did he have to fear?

"One of the men, believed to be Torres, started to charge him, Horn said."


If this is true than it was reasonable, he doesn't have to be killed by some burglars.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No witnesses, no one to see him being "charged", how convenient.

How good that RJ knows all the facts of life and can tell that it never happened that way. How convenient.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"One of the men, believed to be Torres, started to charge him, Horn said."


If this is true than it was reasonable, he doesn't have to be killed by some burglars.



How good that RJ knows all the facts of life and can tell that it never happened that way. How convenient. Just saying that all we have to go on is the shooter's word whether or not they charged him.

It's not the facts of life, it's common sense. Who in their right mind is gonna charge a man with a 12 guage?

the important thing from this story is that two criminals will no longer be committing criminal acts agaisnt upstanding, law abiding citizens. You want to live in society, you follow the rules set forth to protect all citizens. You don't want to follow those rules, you don't get to live in the society. These two guys are no longer living in our society.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
the important thing from this story is that two criminals will no longer be committing criminal acts agaisnt upstanding, law abiding citizens. You want to live in society, you follow the rules set forth to protect all citizens. You don't want to follow those rules, you don't get to live in the society. These two guys are no longer living in our society.

Which is something a lot of people are conveniently ignoring.

edit

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It's not the facts of life, it's common sense. Who in their right mind is gonna charge a man with a 12 guage?
I think you'll find that people are genuinely stupid.

I'm not saying they did or did not charge Horn but I wouldn't put it past a person.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
the important thing from this story is that two criminals will no longer be committing criminal acts agaisnt upstanding, law abiding citizens. You want to live in society, you follow the rules set forth to protect all citizens. You don't want to follow those rules, you don't get to live in the society. These two guys are no longer living in our society. So.....commit a crime, get blown away by Joe Redneck? This is acceptable to you?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Only someone who is brain dead would charge a man with a shotgun.
I agree.

But still, people are stupid and what if they did charge him thinking that he was bluffing?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Dude, it was a shotgun. You ever had a gun drawn on you?
Nevermind.

I'm just trying to figure out why he would shoot them other than the fact that they were robbing his neighbor's house.

Their deaths are more unfortunate in the law's eyes than a petty charge on the man. You can't happen to kill someone in defense who wasn't going to kill you or someone else.

He might get a long year in jail and a relatively large fine for using arms to impersonate cruel and unusual punishment.

You only ask once if a life was in danger. If the man could plead that they were going to hurt someone, he'd be let off, though. I don't think you are allowed to shoot someone to keep them from running, but that's the issue. Supposedly, if you see them, the police will catch them. It's certainly not your fault if you don't shoot that they get away. Shooting implies lots of dangers as a civilian and amateur in arms. I think the police shoot them in the leg if they run.

If he wasn't sure, I think he'd be charged a fine and maybe less than half a year in jail, maybe even just a week or a day. If he just regrets ignorance, he might get a moderate charge.

He walked.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Because he is a trigger happy redneck who hates minorities? Texas is full of them.
I don't think the two robbers being illegal immigrants had anything to do with it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No witnesses, no one to see him being "charged", how convenient.

So guilty until proven innocent, then?

Like I said, in the article I believe it said that he left his cell phone on and had it in his pocket. So the operator would have heard the whole thing and could have pretty easily been able to tell if he was lying about it or not.

And yes, no one in their right mind would rush a guy with a shotgun. Is it really that outlandish that a couple of druggy criminals may not have made the reasonable decision?

Originally posted by BackFire
So guilty until proven innocent, then?

Like I said, in the article I believe it said that he left his cell phone on and had it in his pocket. So the operator would have heard the whole thing and could have pretty easily been able to tell if he was lying about it or not.

And yes, no one in their right mind would rush a guy with a shotgun. Is it really that outlandish that a couple of druggy criminals may not have made the reasonable decision? So now they were drugged up AND stupid?

Actually, "drugged up" = "stupid"

pfft

drugs are amazing

So is sex. Well, good sex...

put them together, it is what living is all about

Well good sex is my drug. I just had 4 good days of it. Now she is going back home...

Back to the creative writing and videogames...

fair enough, im just cracking jokes (possibly drug induced), drugs are definitely my drug.

thats sweet though man, I have a similar thing with my GF, we only see each other for a couple of days and it is mind blowing when we do

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So now they were drugged up AND stupid?

Likely. Criminals are usually straight edge, are they? And obviously they were stupid, hence why they broke into someone's house and then charged a guy with a gun.

You can play this game all you want, fact is, he's innocent until proven guilty. Burden of proof is on you if you're going to say that he went out and just started shooting without being provoked. It's his word vs no one's word, his word by default wins.

Originally posted by BackFire
Likely. Criminals are usually straight edge, are they? And obviously they were stupid, hence why they broke into someone's house and then charged a guy with a gun.

You can play this game all you want, fact is, he's innocent until proven guilty. Burden of proof is on you if you're going to say that he went out and just started shooting without being provoked. It's his word vs no one's word, his word by default wins.

do you think the man is justified, after being told not to exit the house by a police officer, if it is true they charged him? Why aren't the people who had the gun drawn on them by another civilian, not a peace officer, able to defend themselves? Its not like he was making a citizen's arrest

Originally posted by BackFire
Likely. Criminals are usually straight edge, are they? And obviously they were stupid, hence why they broke into someone's house and then charged a guy with a gun.

You can play this game all you want, fact is, he's innocent until proven guilty. Burden of proof is on you if you're going to say that he went out and just started shooting without being provoked. It's his word vs no one's word, his word by default wins. I LOVED you in Death Wish. haermm

Originally posted by inimalist
Its not like he was making a citizen's arrest

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know how to make a citizen's arrest?

Originally posted by inimalist


thats sweet though man, I have a similar thing with my GF, we only see each other for a couple of days and it is mind blowing when we do

I just dropped her off at the airport... Sigh, had to keep my man face on...

Originally posted by BackFire
Likely. Criminals are usually straight edge, are they?

Dudes is always doing crazy shit on the stock market. It's possible

Originally posted by chithappens
Just out of curiousity, does anyone know how to make a citizen's arrest?

oh, trying to remember from highschool law...

in Canada at least: You have to own the property, be given the right by the owner of the property, or maybe on public grounds. Then, just declare "you are under citizen's arrest" I think.

Originally posted by chithappens
I just dropped her off at the airport... Sigh, had to keep my man face on...

**** man, how far away does she live? Got any plans to move in with her or anything? You the man!

Originally posted by chithappens
Dudes is always doing crazy shit on the stock market. It's possible

i see what you did there

Originally posted by inimalist
do you think the man is justified, after being told not to exit the house by a police officer, if it is true they charged him? Why aren't the people who had the gun drawn on them by another civilian, not a peace officer, able to defend themselves? Its not like he was making a citizen's arrest

As said, leaving the house was a mistake, one that the man freely admits to. That part isn't justifiable, he shouldn't have done that.

But he did, and if it's true that one of the guys charged him after he had his gun pointed at them and told them not to move, then shooting them is justifiable, as at that point it becomes self defense. Had they not charged him, he likely wouldn't have shot. They charged him, in response, he shot them.

And you present these two thugs as if they're some kind of normal citizens. Like they were just walking down the street and the guy pulled a gun on them and told them to freeze. They were CRIMINALS, for all he knew, DANGEROUS criminals. They had just broken into his neighbors house, and for all he knew, they just murdered his neighbors. He went out and held a gun on them so they wouldn't flee and get away with what they did. He's completely justified in holding a gun to a couple of criminals so that they get arrested. The fact that they're criminals remove their right to defend themselves against a man who was scared for his own safety and defending the possibility that they might go after his house next.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, trying to remember from highschool law...

in Canada at least: You have to own the property, be given the right by the owner of the property, or maybe on public grounds. Then, just declare "you are under citizen's arrest" I think.



I have NEVER seen this happen. It's weird because I know about it but no one is actually bold enough to do it because "criminals" scare people, even if the criminals are vastly outnumbered.

Originally posted by inimalist


**** man, how far away does she live? Got any plans to move in with her or anything? You the man!




8 hour drive, 90 min flight from home.

When I go to school it's a 150 min drive and it's not even worth it to fly. We been together only about 6 weeks or so but I take her very seriously, hence my sig right now.

Originally posted by inimalist


i see what you did there

I honestly find it funny you can attempt to steal tens of millions of dollars and you get "imprisonment" in a luxury jail house for 18 months with about 6 months house arrest. Compare that to all the mandatory years that go into robbing a bank for far less money and it all begins to look weird. It must be because they were putting lives in danger!

Originally posted by BackFire
As said, leaving the house was a mistake, one that the man freely admits to. That part isn't justifiable, he shouldn't have done that.

But he did, and if it's true that one of the guys charged him after he had his gun pointed at them and told them not to move, then shooting them is justifiable, as at that point it becomes self defense. Had they not charged him, he likely wouldn't have shot. They charged him, in response, he shot them.

And you present these two thugs as if they're some kind of normal citizens. Like they were just walking down the street and the guy pulled a gun on them and told them to freeze. They were CRIMINALS, for all he knew, DANGEROUS criminals. They had just broken into his neighbors house, and for all he knew, they just murdered his neighbors. He went out and held a gun on them so they wouldn't flee and get away with what they did. He's completely justified in holding a gun to a couple of criminals so that they get arrested. The fact that they're criminals remove their right to defend themselves against a man who was scared for his own safety and defending the possibility that they might go after his house next.

I agree with all of this. (someone is going to nag something stupid anyway )

Originally posted by BackFire
As said, leaving the house was a mistake, one that the man freely admits to. That part isn't justifiable, he shouldn't have done that.

But he did, and if it's true that one of the guys charged him after he had his gun pointed at them and told them not to move, then shooting them is justifiable, as at that point it becomes self defense. Had they not charged him, he likely wouldn't have shot. They charged him, in response, he shot them.

And you present these two thugs as if they're some kind of normal citizens. Like they were just walking down the street and the guy pulled a gun on them and told them to freeze. They were CRIMINALS, for all he knew, DANGEROUS criminals. They had just broken into his neighbors house, and for all he knew, they just murdered his neighbors. He went out and held a gun on them so they wouldn't flee and get away with what they did. He's completely justified in holding a gun to a couple of criminals so that they get arrested. The fact that they're criminals remove their right to defend themselves against a man who was scared for his own safety and defending the possibility that they might go after his house next.

actually, I think we are thinking along the same lines...

though, I might argue that the warnings from the police officer that he may have been... negligent? He should be open to civil action from both families, and the one who didn't charge him should probably have pretty solid grounds.

The one that didn't charge him certainly may have a case. But obviously by the time he shot that one the situation had already exploded, plus the guy was running away. The guy's mind was probably going crazy with all the adrenaline flowing through him at that point, so I think most people would give him the benefit of the doubt. And he would probably be able to do a 'temporary insanity' kinda thing.

Originally posted by chithappens
I have NEVER seen this happen. It's weird because I know about it but no one is actually bold enough to do it because "criminals" scare people, even if the criminals are vastly outnumbered.

my buddy did it once when some kids stole something from the store he was working at, but the kids had stashed the goods

Originally posted by chithappens
8 hour drive, 90 min flight from home.

When I go to school it's a 150 min drive and it's not even worth it to fly. We been together only about 6 weeks or so but I take her very seriously, hence my sig right now.

congrats man, she sounds awesome, and I got a smile when I read her quote

Originally posted by chithappens
I honestly find it funny you can attempt to steal tens of millions of dollars and you get "imprisonment" in a luxury jail house for 18 months with about 6 months house arrest. Compare that to all the mandatory years that go into robbing a bank for far less money and it all begins to look weird. It must be because they were putting lives in danger!

I totally agree on that one. Defrauding thousands of people out of their pensions or corrupt trading is almost just what is expected. Its like the interview in Bowling for Columbine with the COPS guy. If they could get the CEO to run down the street topless, cracked out, and throwing their cell phone, people would be all for it.

Originally posted by BackFire
The one that didn't charge him certainly may have a case. But obviously by the time he shot that one the situation had already exploded, plus the guy was running away. The guy's mind was probably going crazy with all the adrenaline flowing through him at that point, so I think most people would give him the benefit of the doubt. And he would probably be able to do a 'temporary insanity' kinda thing.

we don't have temporary insanity up here

and, there is precedence, at least in Canada, that shooting a fleeing individual is not covered by law.

Originally posted by inimalist
my buddy did it once when some kids stole something from the store he was working at, but the kids had stashed the goods



Wow, that takes guts. Americans are pussies

Originally posted by inimalist

congrats man, she sounds awesome, and I got a smile when I read her quote


Yeah, she is great. Stubborn, but I need a little bit of that in my life. If my lady can't stand up for herself it would never work.

Speaking of sigs, I'm glad you got read of that Lil Wayne... he is a complete lame ass

Originally posted by inimalist



I totally agree on that one. Defrauding thousands of people out of their pensions or corrupt trading is almost just what is expected. Its like the interview in Bowling for Columbine with the COPS guy. If they could get the CEO to run down the street topless, cracked out, and throwing their cell phone, people would be all for it.

I can't understand the laws sometimes. The most heinous crimes (by this I mean in a utilitarian manner) have the least punishment in a lot of cases.

Originally posted by BackFire
The one that didn't charge him certainly may have a case. But obviously by the time he shot that one the situation had already exploded, plus the guy was running away. The guy's mind was probably going crazy with all the adrenaline flowing through him at that point, so I think most people would give him the benefit of the doubt. And he would probably be able to do a 'temporary insanity' kinda thing.

I don't think temporary insanity is necessary for his case. The assumption people are making in going against the guy is that a lot of others will follow suit and start shooting all robbers, but truthfully if a man runs at me I'm blowing his brain off. That simple. I'm not advocating killing when it is not necessary but this is not like a videogame where you aim at certain areas to wound; kill or be killed, no time to negotiate.

If anything, people should be more concerned about criminal activity itself and why people reach that point so it is not so prevelant.

Hero?

No.

Racist? Possibly. My bet would be that this gentleman harbors a slight racism towards the large influx/multiplication of the Latino peoples. 61 year old white male is trigger happy with a "minority"? Yeah, racism probably had a little bit to do with it. Again, "probably". There is the slight possibility ("listening" to the voice of reason, a la Roland) that racism had nothing to do with this.


I would consider him a hero if he beat the shit out of them when they entered his home or his neighbors home and the neighbors were home, or something similar. At 61 years old, you'd have to be a badass to be able to be able to do something like that. However, I would only consider it brave and heroic IF people were home at his neighbors residence or his own home. If I remember the audio clip, his neighbor was NOT home. If he walked over there and beat them senseless, knowing full well that his neighbors weren't home, then that would be unnecessary and morally wrong, imo.


In the end, he should of just waited on the police and used that shotgun only if they entered his premises. I'd be scared shitless myself partly because I don't want to kill someone and partly because I don't want to die...so yeah, I'd be trigger happy as well.

Originally posted by chithappens
Yeah, she is great. Stubborn, but I need a little bit of that in my life. If my lady can't stand up for herself it would never work.

yes, women need a strong backbone. I think my girlfriend is the cutest when she gets really angry at something on TV or whatever because it offends her feminist sensibilities. lol, that and I'm pretty strong willed also, so it'd be lame as hell if she didn't put up a fight.

Originally posted by chithappens
Speaking of sigs, I'm glad you got read of that Lil Wayne... he is a complete lame ass

lol, no, i hear that. Lollipop has a good beat, and the lyrics were actually kanye, so I didn't feel to bad about it.

its no "love in this club", granted

Originally posted by chithappens
I can't understand the laws sometimes. The most heinous crimes (by this I mean in a utilitarian manner) have the least punishment in a lot of cases.

the people whose lives that are destroyed in lost pensions and stock fraud get almost no justice. Multi billionaires spend, like you said, so little time in jail, whereas, god help you if you are a black guy caught selling meth.

I'll even give you that meth ruins lives. So any meth dealer, could have caused some serious misery, but nothing compared to millions of dollars removed from the expected income of workers or in the individuals bankrupted when investments go bust over fraud.

lol, I'm all for a war on corporate stock fraud

Originally posted by KidRock
Justice.

How do you shoot someone in the SIDE if they are "charging" you? Do the laws of physics like not apply to the shooter's yard?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
How do you shoot someone in the SIDE if they are "charging" you? Do the laws of physics like not apply to the shooter's yard?

When he saw the barrel of the shotgun as he was facing the guy, I'm guessing he had a profound "Oh shit!" moment. He then hit the breaks in an attempt to get the hell outta Dodge, but by then it was too late because the buckshot had already found its mark. He got hit as he was turning.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
When he saw the barrel of the shotgun as he was facing the guy, I'm guessing he had a profound "Oh shit!" moment. He then hit the breaks in an attempt to get the hell outta Dodge, but by then it was too late because the buckshot had already found its mark. He got hit as he was turning. "Charged" him while his hands were full of loot, charged a man holding a SHOTGUN, AND had time to have his "oh shit" moment?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
"Charged" him while his hands were full of loot, charged a man holding a SHOTGUN, AND had time to have his "oh shit" moment?

It takes less than a second to turn your torso to a side, especially with tons of adrenaline pumping through your veins. Add to that, you just got busted by the person you jacked and are about be fed a big dose of Texas justice.

More likely they were running AWAY at an angle to him and he unleashed said justice.

I was thinking about how the reason it's not custom to shoot robbers is that they would kill you.


Race

Regarding racism, people should have defined which countries are different races between the black/brown and white persons..

Europe
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x57/neatokitty11/Europe2.jpg

Asia
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x57/neatokitty11/Asia2.jpg

Oceana (Wiki)

Middle East (Wiki)

Everyone could care less that some countries are both Asia and Middle East or that Turkey is also Asia. I heard China is 92% out of Africa and Japan is Russian. I run across lots of people from odd countries who try to tell me my mixture makes me less white.

I do feel like the guys who were shot when you say they are illegal Latino immigrants. I meet a lot of people who are 1/2 South American or Spanish with light blond reddish brown or white blond streaked hair and slightly tanned to deep brown tanned skin. They aren't scrawny, either. The ones I see are all way chubby at some point. They did have medium more orange/red solid brown eyes, though. They're really popular and not really treated like a minority unless with someone who would be just English, German, French, etc.

There's a difference between being a home-cooked Amish and an ethnic aborigine Eurasian. There's a difference in being elite and "humble." There's a difference between all your choices and all the choices that were made for you.

This is always an issue, it seems. Sometimes, I see pictures maybe of a Filipino with white skin. (Filipina is the Philippines, which is Spanish, but with a lot of mixed people, supposedly.) Sometimes, I see a Filipina who looks Chinese or like an Islander. That special person usually fades back into the crowd, though.

I've been looking into these kinds of issues a lot.

Originally posted by demon-lllama
I've been looking into these kinds of issues a lot.

Is it so you can track down the indigo children?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is it so you can track down the indigo children? Yes. I am looking into it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
How do you shoot someone in the SIDE if they are "charging" you? Do the laws of physics like not apply to the shooter's yard?

Often, when charging, you turn your body to the side a bit so you can hit them with your shoulder.

Your grasping at straws here, quite silly, really.

Originally posted by BackFire
Often, when charging, you turn your body to the side a bit so you can hit them with your shoulder.

Your grasping at straws here, quite silly, really. I see. You charge people alot?

Whats silly is that dude committed murder but walked. He had a shotgun, no one, not even the biggest idiot in the universe, is gonna charge a guy with a shotgun, especially when their arms are full.

But I forgot, he gave the cops hos word they charged him, that's all that matters.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I see. You charge people alot?

Whats silly is that dude committed murder but walked. He had a shotgun, no one, not even the biggest idiot in the universe, is gonna charge a guy with a shotgun, especially when their arms are full.

But I forgot, he gave the cops hos word they charged him, that's all that matters. He failed to say he was in danger. He might had said he feared they would come to his house. There is the possibility he gets it in his record.

So I guess I can go out, shoot someone, and say I was fearing for my life, and I will walk.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So I guess I can go out, shoot someone, and say I was fearing for my life, and I will walk.

Please do try.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So I guess I can go out, shoot someone, and say I was fearing for my life, and I will walk.

just make sure to get the witnesses

You can't kill someone for being crazy!

Originally posted by demon-lllama
You can't kill someone for being crazy!

I am pretty sure you can kill someone for basically any reason.

You might not get away with it, though.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I see. You charge people alot?

Whats silly is that dude committed murder but walked. He had a shotgun, no one, not even the biggest idiot in the universe, is gonna charge a guy with a shotgun, especially when their arms are full.

But I forgot, he gave the cops hos word they charged him, that's all that matters.

Well, when I commit rape I have to knock them down, so yeah.

Obviously, the court disagrees with you. You're entitled to your opinion, but again, the idea you're parroting is that he's guilty until proven innocent, which is obviously wrong.

And you're wrong, of course it's possible that they charged. It's really not that out there, there are many stupid people out there doing stupid things. Charging someone with a gun has happened before, will happen again. You're presenting it as some kind of complete impossibility, even though it's happened before.

It was more than his word. The phone operator could have debunked it had it not be true. Also, do you think detectives weren't employed or something? They can inspect the grass and the dirt and see if there was the movement necessary to validate a person running forward at someone else.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, when I commit rape I have to knock them down, so yeah.

Obviously, the court disagrees with you. You're entitled to your opinion, but again, the idea you're parroting is that he's guilty until proven innocent, which is obviously wrong.

And you're wrong, of course it's possible that they charged. It's really not that out there, there are many stupid people out there doing stupid things. Charging someone with a gun has happened before, will happen again. You're presenting it as some kind of complete impossibility, even though it's happened before.

It was more than his word. The phone operator could have debunked it had it not be true. Also, do you think detectives weren't employed or something? They can inspect the grass and the dirt and see if there was the movement necessary to validate a person running forward at someone else. True, and they would find that to be false! (Indigo children read minds.) That definitely sounds like something that happens, either way. Why would they run at the man? They were committing suicide! Going out of the house to kill them is proof enough. The answer would be he knows it's not necessary and therefore would be charged more. You'd be lucky if they weren't murderers to not get it on a record.

Originally posted by demon-lllama
True, and they would find that to be false! (Indigo children read minds.)

I think it'd be pretty ****ing obvious if 95% of children born in the last 30 years could read minds.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think it'd be pretty ****ing obvious if 95% of children born in the last 30 years could read minds. Actually, I don't think they read minds, at all. Quite the opposite.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, when I commit rape I have to knock them down, so yeah.

Obviously, the court disagrees with you. You're entitled to your opinion, but again, the idea you're parroting is that he's guilty until proven innocent, which is obviously wrong.

And you're wrong, of course it's possible that they charged. It's really not that out there, there are many stupid people out there doing stupid things. Charging someone with a gun has happened before, will happen again. You're presenting it as some kind of complete impossibility, even though it's happened before.

It was more than his word. The phone operator could have debunked it had it not be true. Also, do you think detectives weren't employed or something? They can inspect the grass and the dirt and see if there was the movement necessary to validate a person running forward at someone else. The moment he told the operator what he was gonna do and went out to do it, he was in the wrong.

Do you even read posts? I've said that he was in the wrong. He was in the wrong going out against the operators warning.

BUT - When he went outside he didn't just start blasting. Again, had he done that, I'd be right there with you. He went out and told the offenders to freeze, then they charged him, so he fired. This stood up in court, so obviously there was something to back this up. If it was just empty rhetoric on his part it would have gotten him nowhere.

So yes, he was in the wrong, doesn't mean he's some cold blooded killer who went out with the intent to actually kill. Despite what he said to the operator.

Originally posted by BackFire
Do you even read posts? ...

So yes, he was in the wrong, doesn't mean he's some cold blooded killer who went out with the intent to actually kill. Despite what he said to the operator. I think he's a stupid VERMIT cold blooded killer. I'm guilty until proven innocent.

Originally posted by BackFire
Do you even read posts? I've said that he was in the wrong. He was in the wrong going out against the operators warning.

BUT - When he went outside he didn't just start blasting. Again, had he done that, I'd be right there with you. He went out and told the offenders to freeze, then they charged him, so he fired. This stood up in court, so obviously there was something to back this up. If it was just empty rhetoric on his part it would have gotten him nowhere.

So yes, he was in the wrong, doesn't mean he's some cold blooded killer who went out with the intent to actually kill. Despite what he said to the operator. It stood up in court because there were no witnesses, and all they had to go on is his word.

IMO, he went out there set to kill, whether they froze or not.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It stood up in court because there were no witnesses, and all they had to go on is his word.

IMO, he went out there set to kill, whether they froze or not. We have to take into account he's crazy and got nervous. He just said that's what he wanted to do, anyway. He certainly won't get a death sentence.. but he won't get like over a year in jail?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It stood up in court because there were no witnesses, and all they had to go on is his word.

IMO, he went out there set to kill, whether they froze or not.

Thank "God" your opinion is not the standard for any laws anywhere.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Thank "God" your opinion is not the standard for any laws anywhere. headbang

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, when I commit rape I have to knock them down, so yeah.

Strange. I don't like the violent rapes.

I like to hide under the bed. You can always tell when they are legitimately asleep based on how they breathe...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Strange. I don't like the violent rapes.

I like to hide under the bed. You can always tell when they are legitimately asleep based on how they breathe...

No you can't. You really can't. Besides half the time you run into hi-- her father as you're walking out of the room..

Originally posted by Evil Dead
the important thing from this story is that two criminals will no longer be committing criminal acts agaisnt upstanding, law abiding citizens. You want to live in society, you follow the rules set forth to protect all citizens. You don't want to follow those rules, you don't get to live in the society. These two guys are no longer living in our society.

While true in some respects, you fail to recognize that he killed the second thief (the one that didn't charge) for no reason than simple vendetta, which is a crime. Last time I checked, death wasn't the penalty for thievery.

Edit:
"Horn said he turned slightly to the right and fired toward the second man, Ortiz, who ran at a fast pace back in the direction of his neighbor's house. Torres remained in his yard and was walking back toward Horn. He fired a third shot."

The second thief was shot while running AWAY after seeing his partner take a round. Hard to imagine Horn was feeling threatened by a guy high-tailing it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No you can't. You really can't.

You can. 313

It takes practice and patience. Also, the snorers are the easiest...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Besides half the time you run into hi-- her father as you're walking out of the room..

I see what cha did there.

Originally posted by Robtard
While true in some respects, you fail to recognize that he killed the second thief (the one that didn't charge) for no reason than simple vendetta, which is a crime. Last time I checked, death wasn't the penalty for thievery.

Edit:
"Horn said he turned slightly to the right and fired toward the second man, Ortiz, who ran at a fast pace back in the direction of his neighbor's house. Torres remained in his yard and was walking back toward Horn. He fired a third shot."

The second thief was shot while running AWAY after seeing his partner take a round. Hard to imagine Horn was feeling threatened by a guy high-tailing it. Indeed. Even if the first guy "charged" him (I call bullshit there), why shoot the second guy who was running away?

Oh yeah, he felt "threatened".