Texan shoots burglars in cold blood - no charges pressed

garysher · 12-19-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indago

CNN — LOU DOBBS TONIGHT — Aired December 18, 2007 — 19:00 ET

LAMBRIGHT: Well obviously Mr. Horn has a right to be in his yard. If he believes they're trying to do him harm, especially serious bodily injury or death, he has a right to respond with deadly force.

PILGRIM: How does he feel about the whole incident?

LAMBRIGHT: He wished it never happened. He would like to go back and when he heard the glass breaking, not do anything.

That would have been the reaction of any civilised person.

fxashun · 12-19-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

You sound like that granny character when she keeps trying to justify abortion and skirt around the moral issue by saying an unborn child is only a ZEF or whatever!

Nobody questions the fact that the burglars shouldn't have been there but the question remains whether this nutcase Horn should have slaughtered them both to get some kind of perverse thrill under the pretext of trying to protect his neighbour's property.

I know the difference between right and wrong. But if that were MY neighbor, and I had MY shotgun, I would have done the same thing. As a person who has lost belongings and the piece of mind that my home is secure in a burglary, I see the value in making sure those criminals don't get away to create more problems for other people.

I was trained to kill people. And I'm a damn good shot at taxpayers expense. Rob my home(or my neighbor's) at your own peril.

Katczinsky · 12-19-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

You sound like that granny character when she keeps trying to justify abortion and skirt around the moral issue by saying an unborn child is only a ZEF or whatever!

Nobody questions the fact that the burglars shouldn't have been there but the question remains whether this nutcase Horn should have slaughtered them both to get some kind of perverse thrill under the pretext of trying to protect his neighbour's property.

Maybe it was just that good old fashioned Southern hospitality.

It's sad enough that the culture of hedonism prevails whereby people attempt to frantically find false gratification in the impermanence of material pleasure, but perhaps it takes an American and a Texan to truly value property over human life. I thought forgiveness was a virtue (Christian no doubt), but this is taking two steps backward (actually, four steps, two for each person murdered over property).

sgtdmski · 12-19-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Where does the law state that a citizen HAS to shoot at unarmed burglars in order to follow the law?

He was not in jeopardy and could just as easily have left it to the police as they had pleaded with him to do, instead of taking two lives - an action that even he feels severe remorse for.

Just because one has a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do, and this law seems to encourage vigilante "justice".

Yet you were the one who called him a criminal and a redneck. Yet as I have shown he was not a criminal. He actually followed the letter of the law. The police did not tell him what to do, but rather a dispatcher, who is not a officer of law enforcement. He took two lives, of course he feels remorse, as would I, however, if the two individuals had not been committing a crime in the first place this would not have happened. Once again, ignorance of the law plays an important part. If the criminals, for that is what they were. had not known they could be killed as a result of their actions, again it is not a defense. However, considering how laws such as this make such headlines, I doubt that was the case. Therefore, they knew that if they risked the action of burglary, they faced the possiblility of death, however, they went ahead and committed the crime anyway. Liek it or not, they got exactly what they deserved.

Although this law may encourage vigilante justice in your opinion, it also serves to protect society, the exact job of the law. Like it or not, the Courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to protect an individual person, therefore, the only persons who can take that responsibility are one's self and one's neighbors.

So tell me, once again if the police are not responsible for our protection then who is???? Like it or not, the Constitution says we have a right to be secure in our homes. If the police cannot provide that security then who is going to provide it????

dmk

sgtdmski · 12-19-2007, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Maybe it was just that good old fashioned Southern hospitality.

You're damn skippy it was good ole Southern Hospitality. Where your neighbor is part of your own family. Thank God for the South.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

It's sad enough that the culture of hedonism prevails whereby people attempt to frantically find false gratification in the impermanence of material pleasure, but perhaps it takes an American and a Texan to truly value property over human life. I thought forgiveness was a virtue (Christian no doubt), but this is taking two steps backward (actually, four steps, two for each person murdered over property).

No the four steps backwards were the ones taking by the criminals in not remembering the Golden Rule, do unto others, or love thy neighbor. Obviously they did neither. Nice try, but religion has no place in this argument. Argue the law, oh that's right you can't because it actually shows your wrong.

dmk

Katczinsky · 12-19-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

You're damn skippy it was good ole Southern Hospitality. Where your neighbor is part of your own family. Thank God for the South.

Until they touch your things...

Quote:

No the four steps backwards were the ones taking by the criminals in not remembering the Golden Rule, do unto others, or love thy neighbor. Obviously they did neither. Nice try, but religion has no place in this argument. Argue the law, oh that's right you can't because it actually shows your wrong.

dmk

The criminals were indeed taking steps backward, but stealing isn't as morally objectionable as killing. Obviously if these guys were caught stealing, they should have been persecuted under the law, but they don't deserve the death penalty. Arguing the law is exactly what I'm doing. Enforcing the law is supposed to provide order and justice. Justice is about setting the scales equal. Killing in response to theft of property is not justice; it's murder.

Likewise, just because it may be the letter of the law in Texas that someone caught stealing can be shot on sight, does not make it right. Surely you can agree upon the premise that the letter of the law is not a revealed objective source for morality. Just because it's legal for abortion does not make abortion necessarily right.

indago · 12-20-2007, 02:41 AM

Katczinsky wrote:

Quote:

Obviously if these guys were caught stealing, they should have been persecuted under the law, but they don't deserve the death penalty.

They weren't shot for stealing. They were shot for their actions after they were confronted by a man with a shotgun. They knew they had committed a crime, and they were caught in the act. They should have dropped their loot and put up their hands and surrendered. Unfortunately, they died.

DavidHenry · 12-20-2007, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

You sure are on about Jews. Do you miss your foreskin that much?

I'm UNCUT sweetcheeks

DavidHenry · 12-20-2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Not according to the law. Once again you give the criminals your support while you ignore what the law actually states.
So according to the law, Mr Horn is not a criminal as you have repeatedly called him but rather a law-abiding citizen
dmk

Yes, but Gary's agenda is to cast the innocent as criminals, and make us dependent upon an inefficient policeforce, ideally culminating with a total gun ban, so that only the crims and the cops will have weapons to maximize their chances of success in their respective endeavours.

DavidHenry · 12-20-2007, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Nobody questions the fact that the burglars shouldn't have been there but the question remains whether this nutcase Horn should have slaughtered them both to get some kind of perverse thrill under the pretext of trying to protect his neighbour's property.

Yep, ole Joe's been waiting 60 odd years to get him some suburban road kill.
You're becoming more and more ridiculous as it dawns on you how stupid your position is.........did ole Joe drink their blood as well Gary?