CA - 911 call of man that shot and killed 2 people that were burglarizing the house next door

[HankT]

imported post

dngreer wrote:

I receive Glenn Beck's daily newsletter, and he included a link in the email for yesterday that had about a 10 minute video of this all happening. I don't have access to email right now, but maybe someone else has the link and can post it.

Here are some videos on the Fox 26 Houston site. It's pretty good at informing on what happened.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5103492&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Beck was talking about the Horn case for about a half hour yesterday.

He was talking to some other reporter who was complaining about how some of X's bodyguards had been previously seen openly carrying shotguns at times, while protecting X (not during the Joe Horn protest). Beck and the other guy concluded that was illegal but a TX listener/caller set them straight.

Beck actually made a completly false statement during the discussion: "open carry of guns is illegal."

I tried to call in to correct him but no dice. I did send him an e-mail with a quick summary of open carry, its legality in many places and directed him to the OCDO webite.

 

[dng]

imported post

Nice job, Hank! I actually like you for one post. :lol: Just kidding; there's been two or three other posts.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5349444.html

Dec. 4, 2007, 12:03AM
Columnist: In Horn case, self-defense isn't so clear

There seems to be some confusion here. Joe Horn is not a hero.
The Pasadena homeowner certainly had a chance to be a hero, but he gave up that opportunity as soon as he allowed fear, adrenaline, suburban angst, Old West entitlement or all of the aforementioned to overwhelm his ability to think rationally and consider the consequences of his actions.
Let's imagine, for a moment, that the whole ordeal had turned out differently, that after the 61-year-old computer consultant called 911 to report a burglary next door on that November afternoon, he had followed the dispatcher's advice and stayed safely inside his house.
He still could have provided descriptions of the bad guys and let police know which way they were fleeing. He could have stood guard, loaded shotgun in hand, just in case the burglars preyed on his house next.
The headlines could have portrayed him as vigilant rather than vigilante: "Homeowner helps nab burglars," or "Hometown hero praised for being good neighbor."

Ignored pleadingsMost importantly, Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston, would still be alive. But Horn didn't stay inside. He ignored the dispatcher's pleadings, grabbed his shotgun and charged out the front door to confront DeJesus and Ortiz, after uttering damning statements like "I'm not going to let them get away with it," and "I'm gonna kill them."
Horn's attorney and longtime friend Tom Lambright argues that his client acted in self-defense, that he thought he saw the alleged burglars lunging at him. Really? If the bad guys were armed only with a crowbar — the only weapon Horn mentions in the 911 call — would they really be lunging at a large man wielding a 12-gauge shotgun?
It will be up to a Harris County grand jury to decide whether Horn's actions were criminal.
Although a Texas law allows citizens to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property, some experts say the statute only applies to nighttime incidents.

Race muddies issueMeanwhile, Horn has had to flee to an undisclosed location to escape the media attention. And Quanell X and cohorts are staging protests outside his house in an attempt to brand him a racist. Horn's supporters, some armed with a fleet of revving motorcycles, staged a dueling demonstration over the weekend. I agree with the Horn supporters on one point: the race debate only muddies the issue. There's no reason to believe his actions were racially motivated.
But I am confounded by the rah-rah zeal with which some armchair vigilantes have celebrated Horn's actions. Some readers' comments on the Houston Chronicle Web site suggest the burglars "deserved what they got." Last time I checked, the penalty for burglary didn't include death.
At the demonstration, hundreds had signed the back of signs that seemed to suggest getting trigger-happy with a shotgun is as Texan as bluebonnets or the Lone Star flag.
"We're just citizens standing up for another citizen who chose to protect himself," said one demonstrator.
On some level, I understand the urge of residents overwhelmed and frustrated with crime to hold up Horn as a hero. He's the guy who fought back.
But Horn's isn't a clear case of self-defense. If it were, his name would be as unfamiliar to you as Gerald Lynn Southworth.
Southworth, a 60-year-old Porter property owner, also used his gun to fatally shoot someone he suspected of stealing. But Southworth's story a few days ago didn't grab national headlines. It was buried on Page B3 of this paper. Why? Because it appeared Southworth really was defending his own property.

Contrasting shootingsSouthworth had reported thefts from his address two days before and had stayed overnight to guard his property. The suspect was still lying on Southworth's lawn when authorities arrived. Still, these two men have something in common. When it was all over, neither seemed proud of what he'd done.
Horn was "devastated" and in need of a sedative after the shooting, Lambright said. A statement Horn issued said the killings would "weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life. My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased."
Southworth had to be taken to the hospital because of chest pains after the shooting.
"I am sorry as hell," Southworth told KTRK (Channel 13). "I just wished there had been another way to resolve this."
In Horn's case, there was a better way. He just refused to take it.
lisa.falkenberg@chron.com

Pretty much sums up my feelings on it...

 

[openryan]

imported post

"We're not out here because of race. We're out here because a man took the law into his own hands ... became judge, jury and executioner. That's what we're up against," Quanell X said. "(Horn) gunned those men down in cold-blooded murder."

Family and friends of the victims said all they want is justice.

"We know (DeJesus and Ortiz) were doing wrong. They deserve to go to jail, but don't deserve to be shot down here with no questions asked and nothing to defend themselves. Everybody has the right to go to the justice system. (Horn) was nobody to take that away from them," Stephanie Storey, one of the victim's girlfriend said.


Okay... that being said...

Say the home was occupied by the homeowner/family, and this was nighttime, or even daytime when it happened. Since the men were only there to rob them blind... if the family caught them in the act, should they have just called the police and let them run? If the house was occupied and the occupants shot these guys dead, would they still be calling for murder charges to be brought about? Probably not, and they wouldn't be there if these guys were white, I don't buy what they are saying. Another poor excuse to use a PTO day at work...

These people did deserve to be shot, but I don't know if Horn was the man for the job.

There argument is very weak. How is a homeowner supposed to know the intent of a burglar... and lets even say I am on Joe's side for a minute here... How is Horn supposed to know their intent once they walked out of the house towards him?

 

[expvideo]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Pretty much sums up my feelings on it...

You must have a lot more faith in the police than I do.

 

[HankT]

imported post

dngreer wrote:

Nice job, Hank! I actually like you for one post. :lol: Just kidding; there's been two or three other posts.

Can I have a source for that number? Or is it an untrue statement which is only your opinion?



P.S.I really love those clever either/or logical fallacies...

 

[dng]

imported post

:lol:

 

[hamourkiller]

imported post

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou071204_tnt_pasadenaburglars.69d89aae.html

This is an interesting twist to the story.





DPS was watching burglars shot by Horn

Even before their deaths prompted a series of heated debates about the use of deadly force, detectives at the Department of Public Safety had their eye on Diego Ortiz and Miguel Dejesus.

The two were shot and killed by Joe Horn, a Pasadena man who thought they were burglarizing his neighbor’s home last month.

According to a DPS memo obtained by 11 News, the department was investigating the use of Puerto Rican birth certificates by Colombians seeking to obtain Texas driver’s licenses.

Both Ortiz and Dejesus had applied for licenses. Dejesus listed his country of origin as Puerto Rico, but both men were Colombian.

Apparently, the DPS is investigating hundreds of immigrants who may have used illegal papers to get Texas licenses.

But that’s not all.

A much wider probe has been launched into an organized syndicate of Colombians who are engaged in illegal weapons sales and home break-ins – just like the one Ortiz and Dejesus were involved in last month in Pasadena.

That day, Joe Horn and a shotgun stood in the way of the suspected thieves, but in many instances the suspects have gotten away.

The ATF, ICE and DPS have reportedly formed a task force to bring the crime wave to an end.

The burglars are said to be very effective at what they do, conducting extensive surveillance on their targets before striking. Some of the suspects are extremely violent.

The investigations have already led to several arrests.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

hamourkiller wrote:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou071204_tnt_pasadenaburglars.69d89aae.html

This is an interesting twist to the story.





DPS was watching burglars shot by Horn

Even before their deaths prompted a series of heated debates about the use of deadly force, detectives at the Department of Public Safety had their eye on Diego Ortiz and Miguel Dejesus.

The two were shot and killed by Joe Horn, a Pasadena man who thought they were burglarizing his neighbor’s home last month.

According to a DPS memo obtained by 11 News, the department was investigating the use of Puerto Rican birth certificates by Colombians seeking to obtain Texas driver’s licenses.

Both Ortiz and Dejesus had applied for licenses. Dejesus listed his country of origin as Puerto Rico, but both men were Colombian.

Apparently, the DPS is investigating hundreds of immigrants who may have used illegal papers to get Texas licenses.

But that’s not all.

A much wider probe has been launched into an organized syndicate of Colombians who are engaged in illegal weapons sales and home break-ins – just like the one Ortiz and Dejesus were involved in last month in Pasadena.

That day, Joe Horn and a shotgun stood in the way of the suspected thieves, but in many instances the suspects have gotten away.

The ATF, ICE and DPS have reportedly formed a task force to bring the crime wave to an end.

The burglars are said to be very effective at what they do, conducting extensive surveillance on their targets before striking. Some of the suspects are extremely violent.

The investigations have already led to several arrests.

Oh my. Well, guess it's a good thing Horn took out those illegals... now let's give him a medal.

Let's see where this goes...

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

So Mr Horn took out 2 BGs suspected to be part of a large, ongoing crime ring including people who are very violent. I think that increases the liklihood that the BGs really did threaten Mr Horn and that the shooting was justified.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

So Mr Horn took out 2 BGs suspected to be part of a large, ongoing crime ring including people who are very violent. I think that increases the liklihood that the BGs really did threaten Mr Horn and that the shooting was justified.

Regardless of the veracity of that statement, it doesn't really matter, as Mr. Horn did not know that these men were part of an organized crime ring when he shot them. It's also not a valid defense for shooting a person because some people in their group (let that be defined as it may) are violent. I could go into hypotheticals, but those would ultimately be counterproductive. Essentially, while these facts may prove the idea that "society is better off without" these two guys, it does not supplement or detract from Mr. Horn's decision to use deadly force because, at the time, he had no way of knowing these things.

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

So Mr Horn took out 2 BGs suspected to be part of a large, ongoing crime ring including people who are very violent. I think that increases the liklihood that the BGs really did threaten Mr Horn and that the shooting was justified.

Regardless of the veracity of that statement, it doesn't really matter, as Mr. Horn did not know that these men were part of an organized crime ring when he shot them. It's also not a valid defense for shooting a person because some people in their group (let that be defined as it may) are violent. I could go into hypotheticals, but those would ultimately be counterproductive. Essentially, while these facts may prove the idea that "society is better off without" these two guys, it does not supplement or detract from Mr. Horn's decision to use deadly force because, at the time, he had no way of knowing these things.

imperialism2024No the earth is not about to open up and swallow us, but I do agree with you...as far as you go....

To me this answers one more question.

My current thoughts are as follows.

1. Joe Horn and others in his area were not happy that these types of things had been going on.

2. Joe Horn did the right thing when he called 911 and reported the burglary.

3. Joe Horn did the right thing to arm himself.

4. Joe Horn should have stayed in his home and reported the events that were happening from a safe vantage.

I think most of us would agree so far.

There are a lot of people who have a lot of big talk, when talk is cheep. I think most of Joe's talk BEFORE he went outside was just that big talk. I think he is a little man who wanted to feel BIG.

When Joe horn went outside, he didn't meet regular buglers. He met Columbian Nationals, possibly part of a violent ring that was involved in extensive illegal activities.

These guys ended up being shot in his yard facing him. This had always been troubling to me. This said that they had seen this old man with a shotgun and had still come toward him, as he said they did. What was their reason, it was not logical for them to do this. Bad guys see a man with a gun, and they run, that is how it is supposed to go, especially if they don't have guns.

To continue with how I see it now.

5. Joe Horn thought he would be a big man with his gun and they would run or give up and for all his talk, I don't think he really expected them to charge him, crowbars or not.

6. Joe Horn found himself facing not regular buglers, but desperate violent men who did the un-thinkable and charged the man with the gun.

7. At that point in time, I think he did what he had to do and shot, after placing himself in a position that he should not have.

8. We (the gun carrying private citizens) are not police, it is not our job to apprehend bad guys. We should be ready to defend ourselves or others who need defending, but we should tryand not needlessly place ourselves in a position that is truly dangerous.

9. Talking big on the phone was a stupid thing for Joe to do, and I still think it was a much shaken humbled Joe, who talked to 911 the second time. If they had gotrten to him, I think they would have killed him.

10. Protecting your home and life and the lives of others is good, but be careful what else you do if you are not a cop. I think that Joe Horn shot in self defense, but onlyafter he had put himself in a bad situation.



Tarzan

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Regardless of the veracity of that statement, it doesn't really matter, as Mr. Horn did not know that these men were part of an organized crime ring when he shot them. It's also not a valid defense for shooting a person because some people in their group (let that be defined as it may) are violent.

I disagree. An element of common law self-defense is 'be in reasonable fear of bodily harm.' The rumors even of violence in a neighborhood, violence incident to a particular criminal act and so on lends to the reasonableness of the actor's fear.

For a hypothetical removed from this incident, consider carjackings, known to be violent crimes lending support to the reasonableness of deadly force in response to an attempted carjacking.

Putting off the chattering claque, the 'reasonableness' is a matter for the trier of fact and not for them.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

So Mr Horn took out 2 BGs suspected to be part of a large, ongoing crime ring including people who are very violent. I think that increases the liklihood that the BGs really did threaten Mr Horn and that the shooting was justified.

Regardless of the veracity of that statement, it doesn't really matter, as Mr. Horn did not know that these men were part of an organized crime ring when he shot them. It's also not a valid defense for shooting a person because some people in their group (let that be defined as it may) are violent. I could go into hypotheticals, but those would ultimately be counterproductive. Essentially, while these facts may prove the idea that "society is better off without" these two guys, it does not supplement or detract from Mr. Horn's decision to use deadly force because, at the time, he had no way of knowing these things.

Imperialism, if your knee didn't jerk so hard all the time you might not be so distracted leading to better reading comprehension. You apparently focused entirely on the first sentence of my post. That was no more than a statement of fact combining the information from the 2 news stories.

Let me break down the 2nd sentence to help you out:
I think: That is a HUGE clue that this is going to be a statement of opinion and not fact

that increases the liklihood: Not a statement of an absolute but rather an opinion based on an assessment of the probability of occurence

that the BGs really did threaten Mr Horn: If someone is part of a group noted to have very violent members, and someone claims that a person who is part of that group acted in a violent or threatening manner, it is much more probable that such a claim is true, as opposed to the same claim being made about someone in the general population or a monastic order. Ie, the likliness of the veracity of Mr. Horn's account as to the burglars aggressing towards him increases dramatically with this new information.

and that the shooting was justified: A concluding opinion based on the facts of the first sentence and the strain of thought expressed in the second one.

So, now let's put that all together and re-word this a little for the victims of a liberal gov't school among us:

It is my opinion, that the fact that the men shot by Mr. Horn were part of a group known for both a crime wave and violence, greatly increases the liklihood that the two men did agress towards Mr. Horn as he claimed making him fear for his life thereby justifying, by the letter if not the spirit of the law, his shooting of the two in self-defense.

Mr. Horns' knowledge, or lack thereof, of their criminal association is moot and irrelevant as my comments had nothing to do with Mr. Horns' knowlege. It had entirely to do with the liklihood that the BGs history is consistent with the assertion by Mr Horn that they acted in an aggressive, threatening manner.

Now, it is my guess that 99.9% of the membership of this forum understood exactly what I meant the first time. I would usually not respond this strongly and would first postulate that the fellow member misread for a number of innocuous reasons and respond more gently, however, given the history of Imperialism's posts on this forum, I suspect that he either was being intentionally obtuse or purposefully argumentative.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

So Mr Horn took out 2 BGs suspected to be part of a large, ongoing crime ring including people who are very violent. I think that increases the liklihood that the BGs really did threaten Mr Horn and that the shooting was justified.

Regardless of the veracity of that statement, it doesn't really matter, as Mr. Horn did not know that these men were part of an organized crime ring when he shot them. It's also not a valid defense for shooting a person because some people in their group (let that be defined as it may) are violent. I could go into hypotheticals, but those would ultimately be counterproductive. Essentially, while these facts may prove the idea that "society is better off without" these two guys, it does not supplement or detract from Mr. Horn's decision to use deadly force because, at the time, he had no way of knowing these things.

imperialism2024No the earth is not about to open up and swallow us, but I do agree with you...as far as you go....

To me this answers one more question.

My current thoughts are as follows.

1. Joe Horn and others in his area were not happy that these types of things had been going on.

2. Joe Horn did the right thing when he called 911 and reported the burglary.

3. Joe Horn did the right thing to arm himself.

4. Joe Horn should have stayed in his home and reported the events that were happening from a safe vantage.

I think most of us would agree so far.

There are a lot of people who have a lot of big talk, when talk is cheep. I think most of Joe's talk BEFORE he went outside was just that big talk. I think he is a little man who wanted to feel BIG.

When Joe horn went outside, he didn't meet regular buglers. He met Columbian Nationals, possibly part of a violent ring that was involved in extensive illegal activities.

These guys ended up being shot in his yard facing him. This had always been troubling to me. This said that they had seen this old man with a shotgun and had still come toward him, as he said they did. What was their reason, it was not logical for them to do this. Bad guys see a man with a gun, and they run, that is how it is supposed to go, especially if they don't have guns.

To continue with how I see it now.

5. Joe Horn thought he would be a big man with his gun and they would run or give up and for all his talk, I don't think he really expected them to charge him, crowbars or not.

6. Joe Horn found himself facing not regular buglers, but desperate violent men who did the un-thinkable and charged the man with the gun.

7. At that point in time, I think he did what he had to do and shot, after placing himself in a position that he should not have.

8. We (the gun carrying private citizens) are not police, it is not our job to apprehend bad guys. We should be ready to defend ourselves or others who need defending, but we should tryand not needlessly place ourselves in a position that is truly dangerous.

9. Talking big on the phone was a stupid thing for Joe to do, and I still think it was a much shaken humbled Joe, who talked to 911 the second time. If they had gotrten to him, I think they would have killed him.

10. Protecting your home and life and the lives of others is good, but be careful what else you do if you are not a cop. I think that Joe Horn shot in self defense, but onlyafter he had put himself in a bad situation.

And that's really the key piece for me. This new evidence may prove that they would have charged him regardless of his having a gun. So, perhaps the evidence may help prove the facts of the case, but the evidence won't do anything to change the intent of the case. I agree that Mr. Horn may have definately been talking big, but there's really no way to know, unfortunately. It may very well have gone down as you described. Or Mr. Horn may have been angry and frustrated with the fact that there was crime in his neighborhood, and when he went outside to shoot the burglars, he imagined them to be coming toward him... when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, so to speak.

Fair assessment, though.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

imperialism2024No the earth is not about to open up and swallow us, but I do agree with you...as far as you go....

To me this answers one more question.

My current thoughts are as follows.

1. Joe Horn and others in his area were not happy that these types of things had been going on.

2. Joe Horn did the right thing when he called 911 and reported the burglary.

3. Joe Horn did the right thing to arm himself.

4. Joe Horn should have stayed in his home and reported the events that were happening from a safe vantage.

I think most of us would agree so far.

There are a lot of people who have a lot of big talk, when talk is cheep. I think most of Joe's talk BEFORE he went outside was just that big talk. I think he is a little man who wanted to feel BIG.

When Joe horn went outside, he didn't meet regular buglers. He met Columbian Nationals, possibly part of a violent ring that was involved in extensive illegal activities.

These guys ended up being shot in his yard facing him. This had always been troubling to me. This said that they had seen this old man with a shotgun and had still come toward him, as he said they did. What was their reason, it was not logical for them to do this. Bad guys see a man with a gun, and they run, that is how it is supposed to go, especially if they don't have guns.

To continue with how I see it now.

5. Joe Horn thought he would be a big man with his gun and they would run or give up and for all his talk, I don't think he really expected them to charge him, crowbars or not.

6. Joe Horn found himself facing not regular buglers, but desperate violent men who did the un-thinkable and charged the man with the gun.

7. At that point in time, I think he did what he had to do and shot, after placing himself in a position that he should not have.

8. We (the gun carrying private citizens) are not police, it is not our job to apprehend bad guys. We should be ready to defend ourselves or others who need defending, but we should tryand not needlessly place ourselves in a position that is truly dangerous.

9. Talking big on the phone was a stupid thing for Joe to do, and I still think it was a much shaken humbled Joe, who talked to 911 the second time. If they had gotrten to him, I think they would have killed him.

10. Protecting your home and life and the lives of others is good, but be careful what else you do if you are not a cop. I think that Joe Horn shot in self defense, but onlyafter he had put himself in a bad situation.



Tarzan

I absolutely agree Tarzan. Very well set out!

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

So Mr Horn took out 2 BGs suspected to be part of a large, ongoing crime ring including people who are very violent. I think that increases the liklihood that the BGs really did threaten Mr Horn and that the shooting was justified.

Regardless of the veracity of that statement, it doesn't really matter, as Mr. Horn did not know that these men were part of an organized crime ring when he shot them. It's also not a valid defense for shooting a person because some people in their group (let that be defined as it may) are violent. I could go into hypotheticals, but those would ultimately be counterproductive. Essentially, while these facts may prove the idea that "society is better off without" these two guys, it does not supplement or detract from Mr. Horn's decision to use deadly force because, at the time, he had no way of knowing these things.

Imperialism, if your knee didn't jerk so hard all the time you might not be so distracted leading to better reading comprehension. You apparently focused entirely on the first sentence of my post. That was no more than a statement of fact combining the information from the 2 news stories.

Let me break down the 2nd sentence to help you out:
I think: That is a HUGE clue that this is going to be a statement of opinion and not fact

that increases the liklihood: Not a statement of an absolute but rather an opinion based on an assessment of the probability of occurence

that the BGs really did threaten Mr Horn: If someone is part of a group noted to have very violent members, and someone claims that a person who is part of that group acted in a violent or threatening manner, it is much more probable that such a claim is true, as opposed to the same claim being made about someone in the general population or a monastic order. Ie, the likliness of the veracity of Mr. Horn's account as to the burglars aggressing towards him increases dramatically with this new information.

and that the shooting was justified: A concluding opinion based on the facts of the first sentence and the strain of thought expressed in the second one.

So, now let's put that all together and re-word this a little for the victims of a liberal gov't school among us:

It is my opinion, that the fact that the men shot by Mr. Horn were part of a group known for both a crime wave and violence, greatly increases the liklihood that the two men did agress towards Mr. Horn as he claimed making him fear for his life thereby justifying, by the letter if not the spirit of the law, his shooting of the two in self-defense.

Mr. Horns' knowledge, or lack thereof, of their criminal association is moot and irrelevant as my comments had nothing to do with Mr. Horns' knowlege. It had entirely to do with the liklihood that the BGs history is consistent with the assertion by Mr Horn that they acted in an aggressive, threatening manner.

Now, it is my guess that 99.9% of the membership of this forum understood exactly what I meant the first time. I would usually not respond this strongly and would first postulate that the fellow member misread for a number of innocuous reasons and respond more gently, however, given the history of Imperialism's posts on this forum, I suspect that he either was being intentionally obtuse or purposefully argumentative.

After cutting through your personal attacks... I'm sorry that I did specifically know your intent. I could go through and break down your originally quoted post to point out the language that you used to imply the reading of it that I took, but that would too easily digress into a personal attack.

 

[AbNo]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Regardless of the veracity of that statement, it doesn't really matter, as Mr. Horn did not know that these men were part of an organized crime ring when he shot them. It's also not a valid defense for shooting a person because some people in their group (let that be defined as it may) are violent. I could go into hypotheticals, but those would ultimately be counterproductive. Essentially, while these facts may prove the idea that "society is better off without" these two guys, it does not supplement or detract from Mr. Horn's decision to use deadly force because, at the time, he had no way of knowing these things.

So... you're not allowed to shoot someone that is threatening you, unless you KNOW for a fact that they are part of a violent group?

:?

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

AbNo wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

Regardless of the veracity of that statement, it doesn't really matter, as Mr. Horn did not know that these men were part of an organized crime ring when he shot them. It's also not a valid defense for shooting a person because some people in their group (let that be defined as it may) are violent. I could go into hypotheticals, but those would ultimately be counterproductive. Essentially, while these facts may prove the idea that "society is better off without" these two guys, it does not supplement or detract from Mr. Horn's decision to use deadly force because, at the time, he had no way of knowing these things.

So... you're not allowed to shoot someone that is threatening you, unless you KNOW for a fact that they are part of a violent group?

:?

Nope, I'm not saying that at all. Just because someone is part of a violent group doesn't make it any more justified that you shoot them. A threat is the same threat regardless of who it is coming from, as a general rule.

 

[openryan]

imported post

I saw this on O'reilly factor yesterday, kind of interesting. They make some decent points, but I don't agree with everything they say, and is more of a crime issue than an immigration issue. But I thought it was interesting nonetheless that these men were in the country illegally, I wonder if their girlfriends were as well...?

Here is the link to the video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Clm1OJl2D1Y

What do you think?