news
Two points:
I never want to be involved in a fair fight, firefight or otherwise. If there's going to be a fist fight, I'll bring a knife, and if it's a knife fight, I'll bring a shotgun. If my vehicle collides with another, I hope to Hell that mine is the larger, heavier built of the two.
This may just be a part of living where I do, but when my neighbor goes somewhere for a missions trip, or up to New York state to visit family, he tells me, only half jokingly, that if I see anyone over there that shouldn't be, doing things they shouldn't be doing, to shoot them. In a situation like this, I would have done just that. And it would have been done in such a way to minimize the chance for them to counter my attack. Ideally, they would never know what hit them, and they would never see a jail cell, courtroom, or even the inside of an ambulance. I also expect and believe that my neighbors would do the same for me.
There is no such thing as a fair fight -- only ones where you win or lose.
If it's worth fighting for...it's worth fighting dirty for.
1) They were burgularizing his NEIGHBOR'S home, not his home.
2) If you hear the 911 call, he is clearly in no danger.
•An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited.
•The intruder must be acting illegally – i.e., the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties.
•The occupant(s) of the home (any innocent person legally inside the home) must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant(s) of the home.
•The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony.
•The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force.
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court is going to get a hold of this one.
Besides, from what I read, he only went out and got them because they had gotten to his property, and he actually was defending himself. He was never intentionally looking to shoot and kill them.
Listen to the 911 clip and judge for yourself. He went outside and confronted them after they were leaving his neighbor's house.
•The occupant(s) of the home (any innocent person legally inside the home) must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant(s) of the home. He had no clue. They were illegal immigrants, unemployed, and they were burglarizing someone else's home. Not just alone, but there were two of them, and they decided to get on his property as well. That's enough for an old man to think something's wrong.
•The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony. He saw them. Check.
•The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force. This is up for the debate, but the OR factor comes into play since he didn't instigate their intrusion on his own property.
In the beginning of the clip he says (while they are still in his neighbors house) "
"I have my shot gun, you want me to get 'em?"
He goes on to say, "I'm telling you, I'm not going to let them get away with this."
Later he says, "I'm going to shoot them" (even though he says several times he can't see where they are).
He also mentions that "You know the laws have changed since Sept. 1" This was after Texas adopted the Castle Doctrine which does not cover a neighbors home.
"Oh, they're coming out of the window and they stole something, that's it"
Then comes out of his house. He only says they were coming in his yard AFTER he got back on the phone and said he shot them. He probably said this to save his own ass. He knew he had to be threatened on his property to legally shoot them.
AT NO TIME WAS JOE HORN EVER THE "OCCUPANT OF THE HOME" . Sorry, no dice. I don't believe he was scared one bit. He was more pissed off because those guys were committing a crime next door. Unless they were walking backwards into his yard my guess is they were fleeing when he shot them.
As it is, I've not seen any article actually listing the locations of the bodies when they were found. This one has the closest, but it simply stated that they ran from the house to a block, which could have very well meant they passed through his yard.
We don't know yet, or at least what's presented here sure hasn't shown it, so that argument doesn't really work, and in fact it's the location of the bodies that is the reason I've not yet decided where I stand on the issue (I'm only arguing what's presented, not arguing what was right or wrong). However, I've already talked about my issues with people using deadly force.
And I think if you're an old man and you just witnessed a burglary, you'd probably be a little scared. People with guns tend to be very fearful, if nothing else than afraid they're going to seriously break the law and cause themselves much more damage than they'd intended. That's part of why a lot of people try and talk with others to just calm down and whatnot when they have a gun, and tell them they don't really want to shoot anyone.
And given the desperation in his voice and how quickly he said that they had gotten onto his yard, I find it interesting he'd have been able to spout off a lie like that. Maybe they didn't get on his yard and he misjudged them, but I think in his own perception, however correct it was, that he saw them trample onto his property at some point. It's easy to come up with a lie on the spot, but to spit it out at the right time (it's not like he was out there for several minutes. We heard the shots and then he came right back on).
Yeah, he sounded terrified on the phone. NOT
"I got my shot gun. You want me to get 'em?" "I'm not going to let them get away with this." He said that in the very beginning of the phone call. He ran out of the house and shot them. Yeah, he was a poor scared old man. Give me a break. He wanted to shoot them so he shot them.
But this is turning into an emotional argument where subjectivity reigns.
Also the ammendment Texas made to the Castle Doctrine Law is if your neighbor asks you to watch their property while they are out, you can use deadly force. In the tape he admitted that he did NOT know the people who lived in that house. He only knew they were Vietnamese.
I'm gonna shut up, it's useless.
I am interested in other points of view which is why I pointed out that your statement contradicts Horn's own words as heard on the tape (but you, in your great interest in truth, had not heard it, you instead said you didn't have to, you read an article and had no other source to back up any of your comments).
I looked into all this when it took place last year and the initial debates began - Texas law (btw : the use of deadly force in this instance is only applicable to a NIGHTTIME crime), constitutional issues, suspect's background, Horn's actions. New information I sought, did you? Autopsy results and the fact that the shooting was witnessed by a police detective on-scene (both bits of info just released this week), further constitutional debates surrounding the "castle law', and people who choose to believe illegals have no rights in this country.
How was anything taken "out of context"? You incorrectly imply that the castle doctrine in some states extends to a neighbor's property, it does not :
and in Texas :
The legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill says it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926991/posts
Some lawyers (not judges) have raised an issue that an absentee homeowner asking a neighbor to watch his house might raise the potential that it can be used as a defense, but that is conjecture, not legal opinion, and has NOT been argued in court. Besides, there is no evidence that I have read that Horn knew his neighbors well and certainly not that they were absent for an extended period and asked him to look after their home. (besides, those are parts of the use of force statutes, not the castle doctrine).
You also incorrectly imply he went outside to confront them when he saw them on his lawn. He did not. He went outside blindly and was surprised by them. HE had the weapon which means at that point, HE is the aggressor, any movement by them that others want to portray as them "about to attack him", is moot, their actions could now be explained as being done in self defense (and yes, the counter agument to that is that they were trespassing, and so THEN you can argue the Castle Doctrine except I'm pretty sure TRESPASSING isn't considered in the list of felonies that justify shooting).
But alas, he did not know they were there, he thought they were next door, and according to his own words, he was going outside, with a readied shotgun to "kill 'em".
There are police videos of his interview, at his house, hours after the shooting, had you bothered to do more than "read an article" you would have learned all that. He stepped outside, saw them standing (or more likely walking) by his front yard tree, and he immediately raised his weapon, ordered them to freeze, and within 2 seconds shot them. Clearly surprised by a man with a gun, they turned (the first guy according to Horn "jumped") and ran. Where they fell is inconsequential, he shot them in his own front yard and "tresspassing" is not a capital crime, even in Texas, unless accompianied by the threat of violence or another felony.
Interesting that someone who gets so many facts wrong, when challenged, then defends themself with "you don't understand" and "you have an agenda". Kind of like what I might here from who? A 3rd grader?
Agenda? Yeah, its called facts and truth, try it some time.
I said stuff that started with "I didn't need to hear that tape..." It was in direct response to the comment concerning "I'm gonna kill 'em" because, as I stated, that quote was already in the article I read. Your comment was taken as it was--a direct response of an earlier statement regarding his intent on killing others, and because the article I had read had already stated that comment, I didn't need to hear it a second time with his voice.
Now you've gotten into things irrelevant to our own discussion and bringing in new elements in the same context as my saying you've taken things out of context, which, grammatically, implies a link (if sentence A and sentence B are in the same paragraph, there is a link implied with one another).
As for new information, you've taken that out of context, too. I was referring to your needing to post "it's useless" at 4:34 PM when I had already said that I had listened to the tape at 4:10 PM. Everything else you've brought in is irrelevant to the context that was originally intended. You had 24 minutes to browse through anything else I had said.
That's arguing from emotion, which you've been doing since you decided to jump back in to commenting to me after saying you were done. Not interested.
which is sentence A and which is sentence B or doesn't clairty matter to you?
IF you read the comment "I'm going to kill 'em" in the article, WHY did you state that he did not intend to kill them? Are you psychic?
You are looking at the times of the posts? Get a life, I've responded to fire calls and put together a memorial post, run to the post office and posted photos on-line to a commercial website - sorry, but I am not tethered to this laptop as you apparently are.
You cant redefine "out of context". sorry, if its wrong, its wrong no matter what the context and several of your comments were flat out wrong.
As in the "he didn't intend to kill them" comment, YOU write with suppositions. YOU give your own conceieved intent to other peoples actions, whether it is Joe Horn shooting someone or me being interested in the truthfulness of someone posting in this thread. So, I look at fact, you make assumptions. Which one of those sounds like arguing from emotion?
I never said I was done with this subject, I said I was not going to pursue your comment that you didn't need to hear the actual event because you had read an article about it. But you chose to make an issue of it by responding with insults.
Now I am done with it. Anyone want to take bets he can't le it die?
XD You seem to think I care whether or not it dies in the first place.
And you don't really understand what "arguing from emotion" is. It's like you're in high school and you don't actually know what's being said. You're just isolating sentences from where they are and giving them new contexts.
And I guess I completely missed where I ever intended on being objective at all.
You're entertaining to me, which is why I've been continuing this. I enjoy nonsensical wastes of time when I wind up with nothing to do at the moment.
Loud out loud.
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
One of the arguments against the idea of rights for illegal aliens is the wording of
the Constitution itself. People focus on use of the words “the people” in the
Constitution, and say this means it applies only to citizens. The courts have
disagreed with this approach, as cited in Johnson v. Eisentrager, (339 U.S. 763,
771(1950)) where the court said, "in extending constitutional protections beyond
the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's
presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act."
True, the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants
http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/
Illegal Alien Sues NYPD
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/alien-sues-saying-nypd-called-in-feds/73898/
DEPORTED Illegal Alien Files Federal Lawsuit Against NJ Township
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080702/NEWS/807020389
But if you notice, it says nothing about Civil Rights
Even illegal aliens are granted most of the rights under the US Constitution as are citizens :
Civil Rights Law is the area of law protecting those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection.
http://www.statelawyers.com/Practice/Practice_Detail.cfm/PracticeTypeID:18
If there were more "isolationists" maybe we wouldn't have 21MILLION plus Illegal Immigrants in this country sucking the lifeblood out of it!! If they were contributing to the country, fine, but they don't. Every one of them is 'using" $10,000 in welfare benefits - do the math! If you're too lazy... it's $210,000,000,000!!! Do you know what Mexico's #1 source of income is - money sent back to Mexico by the 21 MILLION Illegal Alien motherfuckers!!! Fuck them all, when they have a green card stating "US citizen", then the'll have the rights of the land!!!!!!
We need 10.5 million Joe Horns.
I dont give a FUCK about your numbers or other nonsense, the simple, basic issue is that you are wrong, illegal immigrants DO have the protection of much of the US constitution whether you like it or not. ITS WHY WE CAME HERE. its the only way we ensure that the government doesn't abuse its power and fuck over anyone else who comes here. now go back to your fundraising to sink the statue of liberty.
game over.
