Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Vigilanteism and why people try to link us to it?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Maricopa, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    vigilante


    Main Entry:vig·i·lan·te
    Pronunciation:\ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\
    Function:noun
    Etymology:Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
    Date:1856
    : a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
    — vig·i·lan·tism \-ˈlan-ˌti-zəm\ noun



    I was wondering what the OC community thinks of being referred to as vigilantes? In the time I have been carrying a sidearm for my personal protection, I have been, and have seen the carrying movement labled a bunch of vigilantes by many anti' groups. Just because we carry, doesn't mean we are going to over steep he boundaries of law, and enact our own justice on anyone.


    What are some of everyones feelings on this?

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Its only vigilantism if self-defense is.

    I suppose instead of deploying deadly forcewhen somebody is shooting up the shopping mall you happen to be in, you could call the police and wait for the processes of law to take care of the situation. Although, you and people around you may be dead as a result.

    But then, in the United States, citizens have some authority to enforce law, make citizens arrest, and defendyourself with deadly forceso I suppose it is more properly considered alegalprocess of law to act in such a manner. So as long as your actionsare legal, it doesn't seem to measure up tovigilantism

    Vigilantism typically involves extrajudicial punishment which isunrelated to self-defense. While it would be punishing to be hit by a bullet, the intent of firing the bullet is not to punish, it is for self-preservation.

    Almost everyone alive would fight backin any waythey could if they felt it was their only option to avoid death or serious injury.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I'd say it breaks down like this:

    99% of the anti-gun remarks about vigilanteism and gun owners/carriers/OCers is just mindless propaganda, kind of like how they enjoy calling us cowboys and wanna-be cops and such. It's just a negative word that has a slight enough similarity to us that they feel they can use it to rally around us.

    The other 1% is honest concern for the "punishment" sentiment I see once in a while. Such as, shooting the fleeing beer thieves because stealing isn't right. Or, being glad that a "bad guy" is dead even when it is a bad shoot in which the "bad guy" did not instigate the shooting (see comments about the Mexican troops murdering a drug dealer in America). This is much more of a fine line, and we've discussed quite a bit where "self-defense" stops and "vigilanteism" begins.

    But overwhelmingly, yes, it's just name-calling. I don't think the anti's actually bring the concept of self-defense into the picture; they just associate gun=evil=gun=criminal=gun=vigilante=gun.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Anyone reading some of the posts here can easily get that idea.

    There is a situation where aman observes two men exiting his neighbors house who was out of town. He tells the 911 operator he is going to kill them. .. and he does!

    Members here then post ...

    "Good for Him!"

    "Way to go Joe!"

    "Thank you Mr. Horn for saving somone else from being victimized by these criminals."

    "Good shooting and a good ending. "

    "Congratulations Mr Horn.. our prayers for you were answered."
    It can be easily viewed by others that the members here enjoy instant justice bycitizens when lethal forcemay not have beennecessary.

    Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are my own anddo not representmy family, friends, or my employer in any manner.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sandy Springs, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Anyone reading some of the posts here can easily get that idea.

    There is a situation where aman observes two men exiting his neighbors house who was out of town. He tells the 911 operator he is going to kill them. .. and he does!

    Members here then post ...

    "Good for Him!"

    "Way to go Joe!"

    "Thank you Mr. Horn for saving somone else from being victimized by these criminals."

    "Good shooting and a good ending. "

    "Congratulations Mr Horn.. our prayers for you were answered."
    It can be easily viewed by others that the members here enjoy instant justice bycitizens when lethal forcemay not have beennecessary.

    Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here my my own anddo not representmy family, friends, or my employer in any manner.
    +1 there, I was worried that I was the only one whowas a bit uncomfortable with the Joe Horn situation. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy whena legal gun owner gets the benefit of the doubt over the criminals, but I certainly don't think this situation portrayed us in the best light.

    Just my $.02, cuz that's about what my opinion is worth.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    By this coming out, rest assured that this site and this movement has gotten everyone's attention.

    It is now a war of ideas and words.

    Vigilantism will only be the first salvo of words as this movement picks up speed and more momentum.

    We could counter this by saying that the detractors are: nanny staters, cringing hand wringers who sit on the side-walk rocking back and forth waiting for the government cheese to arrive, voted most likely to be a chalk-line, voted most likelyto be featured on a segment on America's Most Wanted--as a victim, or what??

    Any ideas?

    In a war of ideas and words you can't react--you have to be active and seem smarter that the fools attacking you.

    For example: there was a OC'r making a bank deposit--a potential robber in a ski mast came into the bank, and upon seeing the open display of the firearm turned and fled.

    Is this vigilantism? Not hardly.

    We are in an age of lawlessness and disorder. We are in an age where our children train on murder-simulators (Grand Theft Auto). We are in an age where the government and it's LEO's are completely incapable (and in many areas unwilling) to handleor respond to violent crimes in a timely or effective manner. Period.

    If vigilantism mean I won't be a chalk line--then I will be labeled a vigilante.

    ST

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I'm guessing Heller's finding of an individual right will close thatstupidity loophole.

    I wouldn't pay much attention to it. As all such emotional responses, it is by definition a diversion from reason.

    If you have to handle such an accusation, I would recommend going to the heart of the matter--personal protection/self-defense--and make the accuser justify his antipathy to the basic human right of self-defense.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    smash29 wrote:
    +1 there, I was worried that I was the only one whowas a bit uncomfortable with the Joe Horn situation. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy whena legal gun owner gets the benefit of the doubt over the criminals, but I certainly don't think this situation portrayed us in the best light.

    Just my $.02, cuz that's about what my opinion is worth.
    I'll give you six cents for that one. Maybe a dime if you'll give me moment to dig around under the car seats.

    You're on the mark in thinking it can be used against us, but that isn't saying much, because if they don't have a truth, the anti-self defense crowdjust makes up something. In fact all of their attacks are made up, or carefully twisted facts, and appeals to emotion. All those posters did is give them a brief break from their lying.

    What the anti-self defense crowd will"forget" to include is the information that Joe Horn came back on and said, "They came at me." Something that makes no sense as a lie. He was just earlier saying he was going to kill them, feeling totally justified in doing so, then comes back on the phone nervous and scared, saying they came at him. Why say that, if two seconds earlier you were convinced you were justified in just shooting them?A personwouldn't thinkhe needed the additional justification if he already thoughthe was justified.

    As to our guys, I just recognize that some people have some very strong feelings about defending property with lethal force, which I think is legal in Texas. Personally, I wouldn't, unless it was something critical to my survival.Foodduring Katrina, or my car during aterrorist strike with adirty bomb.

    So who are the anti-gunners to say their opinion is an absolute? Just becausesomebody dreams up a better philosophy, who are they to demand that everybody else recognize it no matter whether that person has ever really been exposedto the philosophy or had time to examineit and decideits value for themselves.If theywere really all that philosophically advanced, the anti-gunners would recognize this and be working like mad to educate as many people as they could, rather than using a better philosophy as a weaponto tearpeople down andput others at the mercy of criminals.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Foodduring Katrina, or my car during aterrorist strike with adirty bomb.

    Kinda off topic, but as far as I know from PBS, and some time spent at a nuclear power plant, a dirty bomb, unless you were REALLY close by would probably not harm you if you were only in that area for as long as it took you to jog or walk out, especially provided you shed your clothing and shower off when you got out of there. As far as I know, the main effect of a dirty bomb is destroying all of the property in the area that gets radioactive material on it, but not really killing or harming many people.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    As I have said before, the antis argue with emotion. Vigilante has an emotional connontation they are trying to exploit.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    Kinda off topic, but as far as I know from PBS, and some time spent at a nuclear power plant, a dirty bomb, unless you were REALLY close by would probably not harm you if you were only in that area for as long as it took you to jog or walk out, especially provided you shed your clothing and shower off when you got out of there. As far as I know, the main effect of a dirty bomb is destroying all of the property in the area that gets radioactive material on it, but not really killing or harming many people.
    Contaminated property is not destroyed property.

    Speaking in analogies, radioactive contamination is like poo on your shoe. The poo itself is contamination, scrape it off. The poo stink is like radiation, avoid it, bag it, don't sniff anymore than you must. Clean-up and use time, distance and shielding - ALARA.

  12. #12
    Regular Member BUBB4H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Centreville, VA, ,
    Posts
    165

    Post imported post

    Takezo wrote:
    We could counter this by saying that the detractors are: nanny staters, cringing hand wringers who sit on the side-walk rocking back and forth waiting for the government cheese to arrive, voted most likely to be a chalk-line, voted most likelyto be featured on a segment on America's Most Wanted--as a victim, or what??

    HAHAHAHAHA. That was classic. I happen to like GTA by the way.

    But I do agree about the Joe Horn thing. In fact, there was a thread here when this thing first kicked off and the majority of the posters did NOT agree that it was a good shooting. It seems that since he was cleared of any charges now people are congratulating him. Humans are goofy animals.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    About the topic, we are a committe, sort of, at least we are an organised group, and we have plans to suppress crime if it should happen in a situation that effects us where a cop isn't in the immediate area to take action. We here ARE vigilant in protecting ourselves and others. Seems to me we sort of fit the definition, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    dreamcro wrote:
    Iwas wondering what the OC community thinks of being referred to as vigilantes? In the time I have been carrying a sidearm for my personal protection, I have been, and have seen the carrying movement labled a bunch of vigilantes by many anti' groups. Just because we carry, doesn't mean we are going to over steep he boundaries of law, and enact our own justice on anyone.


    What are some of everyones feelings on this?
    OK. A firearm saves your life by threatening to end, or actually ending, your assailant's life. When you fire, you have realized that one of you will probably die if this situation is not drastically altered, and have made the decision that you want to survive it.

    Now, you have done so. Someone's dead. The antis then go "oh my god, he played judge and jury. What about the other guy? What did he do to deserve death?" because obviously he didn't kill you.

    In order to defend yourself for defending yourself, you first must have had no doubt whatsoever that, if you had not fired,you would have ended up in intensive care at least. The right to survive on its most basic levelis something even the antis recognize; hey, that's why they're so against your killing the other guy.

    That being established, you must then demonstrate that a gun is the only defense weapon that will, if used, reliably end the threat. About one guy in 10 is immune to pepper spray (and if you're downwind it's bad for both of you), and a taser or other stungun's usefulness is drastically reduced when the assailant is wearing thick clothing. In addition, dart-type tasers are one-shot deals; you miss, or are faced with two assailants, and it's over. Nobody is naturally immune to 9mm, it goes through most any clothing short of a bulletproof vest, and if your first shot's wide, you generally have at least five more chances as long as there is time to use them.

    So, you decided that a gun would be the only thing you could rely on, and when faced with an assailant who would not back down, you shot him. That is not being a vigilante; that is protecting your right to life. Who has the greater right to life; the criminal whom you would have executed anyway for felony murder, or the law abiding citizen who can now continue to be a productive member of society? And if they said you couldn't have known you were going to die, you tell them you were there facing him down; they weren't.

    Now, Horn's case involved property. He says, and the cop in the car across the street corroborated, that he only fired when the assailants crossed over onto his property moving toward him. However, he only confronted them because he felt it was wrong for them to commit burglary in front of him when he could do something about it. If he had shot them while they were hanging out the window, he'd probably be awaiting trial as they posed absolutely no danger to him personally; he would have been killing to prevent burglary of a third person who he had no duty to protect,and no interpretation of the TxPC justifies that. So, if you are in fearof loss oflife, you are virtually always justified in shooting to protect it. If you are in fear of loss of property, you better be damn sure it's worth it.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    dreamcro wrote:
    Iwas wondering what the OC community thinks of being referred to as vigilantes? In the time I have been carrying a sidearm for my personal protection, I have been, and have seen the carrying movement labled a bunch of vigilantes by many anti' groups. Just because we carry, doesn't mean we are going to over steep he boundaries of law, and enact our own justice on anyone.


    What are some of everyones feelings on this?

    Now, Horn's case involved property. He says, and the cop in the car across the street corroborated, that he only fired when the assailants crossed over onto his property moving toward him. However, he only confronted them because he felt it was wrong for them to commit burglary in front of him when he could do something about it. If he had shot them while they were hanging out the window, he'd probably be awaiting trial as they posed absolutely no danger to him personally; he would have been killing to prevent burglary of a third person who he had no duty to protect,and no interpretation of the TxPC justifies that. So, if you are in fearof loss oflife, you are virtually always justified in shooting to protect it. If you are in fear of loss of property, you better be damn sure it's worth it.
    not in texas, he could've shot them at anytime they were commiting property crime on his or anyone else's property. even if they were running away.

    i think its very important to be able to defend property with deadly force.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    Sheriff wrote:
    johnnyb wrote:
    ....he could've shot them at anytime they were commiting property crime on his or anyone else's property. even if they were running away.
    I have to disagree here. Even on the mean streets of Dodge City, you didn't shoot somebody in the back. You might grab them and lynch them, but you didn't shoot 'em in the back.
    you might not agree with it, but i believe it is legal in texas, and other states with similiar "castle" laws. someone prove me wrong if i am, but in the horn case they were shot in the back while fleeing his yard.



  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    Sheriff wrote:
    I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't think I could shoot somebody in the back unless I knew for a fact that they had just raped, robbed or killed one of my family members. Crimes against property should not carry the death penalty.
    it doesn't carry the death penalty, you will not be killed by the state for property crime.

    getting killed in the commission of a property crime is not a death sentence.


  18. #18
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Vigilantism was the choice of action when this country was founded.


    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    About the topic, we are a committe, sort of, at least we are an organised group, and we have plans to suppress crime if it should happen in a situation that effects us where a cop isn't in the immediate area to take action. We here ARE vigilant in protecting ourselves and others. Seems to me we sort of fit the definition, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
    And that's the issue right there.

    I carry a gun to stop a threat or threats to my life and health, or that of loved ones. And if that shooting happens to stop a murder in progress, or a rape in progress, then so be it. And if the aggressor dies as a result, I'm prepared to accept that. And perhaps, if I ever have to stop a threat in such a manner, it will send a message to other would-be assailants that armed citizens do not want to be the victims of violent crime.

    Others on here feel a bit differently, and will shoot to stop threats to the well-being of property as well. Without going into that argument, even this line of thinking does not involve seeking out crime. It's defense... of property.

    It's the punishment aspect that is seen as vigilanteism. I would say that the vast majority of us don't intend to punish, but just to protect life and property. This is why shooting in the back is such a contentious issue. If someone is committing a violent crime and decides to cease the attack and run away, the threat has ended, ending the justification for use of force to stop the attack. A shooting in this situation would be gratuitous and serve no legitimate purpose besides satisfying revenge. Just like property crime... if someone is running away with property, chances are that shooting the person will most likely destroy the property, either due to the impact of hitting the ground or the blood that is presumably leaking out of the thief. So, once again, revenge.

    There's a BS (IMO ) argument out there that shooting fleeing criminals will prevent future crime. Unfortunately, this fails to take into account the inability of the average person to instantly know the actions another person will take for the rest of his life. Sure, that beer thief might go run off and murder someone... or said beer theif might be scared sh*tless from getting drawn on and decide on more legitimate means of getting beer in the future. There are other issues as well, but I feel that I am digressing.

    At any rate, it's the attitude that gun owners take toward shooting. A bad guy's getting shot will indeed have an impact on crime. It's a matter of intent as to whether it is self-defense or vigilanteism.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    johnnyb wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    dreamcro wrote:
    Iwas wondering what the OC community thinks of being referred to as vigilantes? In the time I have been carrying a sidearm for my personal protection, I have been, and have seen the carrying movement labled a bunch of vigilantes by many anti' groups. Just because we carry, doesn't mean we are going to over steep he boundaries of law, and enact our own justice on anyone.


    What are some of everyones feelings on this?

    Now, Horn's case involved property. He says, and the cop in the car across the street corroborated, that he only fired when the assailants crossed over onto his property moving toward him. However, he only confronted them because he felt it was wrong for them to commit burglary in front of him when he could do something about it. If he had shot them while they were hanging out the window, he'd probably be awaiting trial as they posed absolutely no danger to him personally; he would have been killing to prevent burglary of a third person who he had no duty to protect,and no interpretation of the TxPC justifies that. So, if you are in fearof loss oflife, you are virtually always justified in shooting to protect it. If you are in fear of loss of property, you better be damn sure it's worth it.
    not in texas, he could've shot them at anytime they were commiting property crime on his or anyone else's property. even if they were running away.

    i think its very important to be able to defend property with deadly force.
    No. If you shoot someone fleeing from your own house with your stuff, that's legal. If you shoot someone fleeing from your house empty-handed, or fleeing from your neighbors' house laden or not, you are going to jail.
    § 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
    is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
    protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person
    if,
    under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
    actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
    or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
    (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
    interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
    criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property
    ; or
    (2) the actor reasonably believes that:
    (A) the third person has requested his protection
    of the land or property
    ;
    (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
    person's land or property; or
    (C) the third person whose land or property he
    uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
    or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
    You are allowed to PROTECT a third person's property, not RECOVER it. You are only allowed to shoot to recover your own stuff while in hot pursuit.


    And on Horn; he shot when the suspects advanced toward him on his property, or so he testified.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I'll say this about the TX law: I personally would never shoot anyone just for stealing my tires or whatever. But if I really needed a set of tires so bad I felt had to steal them, I would steal them in some state other than Texas...say, Maryland or New York maybe.

    But not New Jersey. I grew up in New Jersey, and regardless of the anti-gun laws I wouldn't be so foolish as to steal tires from there, either, you still might get shot, or even worse...we might not have "vigilantes" in Jersey, but we did have...other ways.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    "sweatshop" -
    misleading emotionally bagged slur for foreign manual/industrial labor, who are otherwise voluntarily employed at the shop in question / used by xenophobic labor unions and economic protectionists of all kinds

    "****** and pimps" -
    mainly derogatory terms for those engaged in the illegal market of selling sexual services.

    "druggie" -
    derogatory term for use against anyone who is a purchaser of certain drugs that certain people find offensive to their personal tastes / people who participate in the purchase of the same illegal products

    "vigilante" -
    a term for persons who like the 2 later examples bypass state prohibitions on the production of a good or service, in this case justice. And like the first term, is based mostly upon false premises about supposed evils of the practice (usually accompanied by the standard pleas for the 'need' for monopolies on the provision of law and justice) and is equally a bit of emotional heart-stringing

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    johnnyb wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    dreamcro wrote:
    Iwas wondering what the OC community thinks of being referred to as vigilantes? In the time I have been carrying a sidearm for my personal protection, I have been, and have seen the carrying movement labled a bunch of vigilantes by many anti' groups. Just because we carry, doesn't mean we are going to over steep he boundaries of law, and enact our own justice on anyone.


    What are some of everyones feelings on this?

    Now, Horn's case involved property. He says, and the cop in the car across the street corroborated, that he only fired when the assailants crossed over onto his property moving toward him. However, he only confronted them because he felt it was wrong for them to commit burglary in front of him when he could do something about it. If he had shot them while they were hanging out the window, he'd probably be awaiting trial as they posed absolutely no danger to him personally; he would have been killing to prevent burglary of a third person who he had no duty to protect,and no interpretation of the TxPC justifies that. So, if you are in fearof loss oflife, you are virtually always justified in shooting to protect it. If you are in fear of loss of property, you better be damn sure it's worth it.
    not in texas, he could've shot them at anytime they were commiting property crime on his or anyone else's property. even if they were running away.

    i think its very important to be able to defend property with deadly force.
    No. If you shoot someone fleeing from your own house with your stuff, that's legal. If you shoot someone fleeing from your house empty-handed, or fleeing from your neighbors' house laden or not, you are going to jail.
    § 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
    is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
    protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person
    if,
    under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
    actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
    or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
    (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
    interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
    criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property
    ; or
    (2) the actor reasonably believes that:
    (A) the third person has requested his protection
    of the land or property
    ;
    (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
    person's land or property; or
    (C) the third person whose land or property he
    uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
    or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
    You are allowed to PROTECT a third person's property, not RECOVER it. You are only allowed to shoot to recover your own stuff while in hot pursuit.


    And on Horn; he shot when the suspects advanced toward him on his property, or so he testified.
    thanks for the clearification

  24. #24
    Regular Member ODA 226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Etzenricht, Germany
    Posts
    1,598

    Post imported post

    After hearing the 911 tapes, I believe that Horn wanted to kill someone, saw the opportunity and did it. The only reason he "got away with murder" is because a police officer witnessed the event and testified on Horn's behalf.
    Bitka Sve Reava!
    B-2-10 SFG(A)/ A-2-11 SFG(A) 1977-1994

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Contaminated property is not destroyed property.

    Speaking in analogies, radioactive contamination is like poo on your shoe. The poo itself is contamination, scrape it off. The poo stink is like radiation, avoid it, bag it, don't sniff anymore than you must. Clean-up and use time, distance and shielding - ALARA.
    ALARA- Always Let Another Run Ahead...

    sorry, I just got finished with my Rad II training, and thought this was timed very well. as far as dirty6 bombs go, the problem is that in order to decontaminate everything, you've got to know that it is contaminated in the first place. A dirty bomb is simply that, it is a conventional bomb with nuclear radioactive isotopes added in. on a windy day, the particles released could possibly spread quite far. while the radiation levels wouldn't be enough on the outskirts of the contamination area, the public would be terrified. that's why terrorists want to use them. they are a tool of terror.

    As for joe Horn, I still congratulate the man.

    As for being a branded a vigilante, to anti's the very act of defending one's self is considered to be taking the law into your own hands, since their ideal response would be to lay down and be slaughtered like good little lambs.

    they want to call us vigilante's because they don't want to call themselves voluntary victims.

    IMHO

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •