fnord wrote:

Death or severe injury is an occupational hazard for criminals that should occur more often.

Indeed - At the risk of sounding as though I am siding with the Texas in-breds here, it doesn't seem that long ago that the Black Panthers came off as a rather respectable organization.  What's their point here:  "Brother got a right to whitey's property?"  Sadly, I - With each passing day - am coming more and more to under-stand Fnord's point of view (I'm not entirely excusing it at this point mind you; However, I am - In deed - beginning to understand it).

headkicker wrote:

Two wrongs don't make a right.  People are supporting the vigilante because he shot two negroes.  If he had shot two neighborhood kids who were white, it would be a different story.

Are you fucking new here?

Headkicker wrote:

He was not defending himself; he was not defending others; the police were on their way . . .

Or, so he was led to believe.  He was on the telephone long enough.  It's rather interesting that the local constables didn't arrive until there was a bit of "gun-play" (Because, "gun-play" sounds so much more fun than "Some Nigger got his ass shot").

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

headkicker wrote:

Two wrongs don't make a right.  People are supporting the vigilante because he shot two negroes.  If he had shot two neighborhood kids who were white, it would be a different story.

You could not be more wrong.  Race has no bearing on the decision of a person protecting family and property.  The right to life and liberty for home invaders ends at the doorway of their victims.  Gawd help us if the law ever requires us to second guess the intentions of a wild-eyed druggie climbing through our window.  "Well maybe he just plans to beat us and take our stuff rather than murder my family.  I wouldn't want to use excessive force and end up in prison if he only plans to rape my daughter and take my TV."

phreddy wrote:

You could not be more wrong.  Race has no bearing on the decision of a person protecting family and property.  The right to life and liberty for home invaders ends at the doorway of their victims.  Gawd help us if the law ever requires us to second guess the intentions of a wild-eyed druggie climbing through our window.  "Well maybe he just plans to beat us and take our stuff rather than murder my family.  I wouldn't want to use excessive force and end up in prison if he only plans to rape my daughter and take my TV."

He wasn't protecting his own home.  If they were in his home or on his property I'd have no problem with him shooting the intruders.

Do we have a duty to protect our neighbor's homes?  What if the neighbor was out of town and gave someone permission to be in the house?  Can I just shoot them because  they don't look like they belong in the neighborhood and they MIGHT be committing a crime?

Private citizens are not cops, and they shouldn't think they can act like cops.

Race was an issue in this case because he assumed he could shoot two niggers and get away with it.  He probably will.  Had it been two white kids from the neighborhood, even had they been breaking into the house, the reaction would have been much different.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Orange...don't let the hispanic names fool you.  They were black.

I don't think they actually were. I think the NBP people just claimed them is all. I believe they were actually mexican.

orangeplus wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Orange...don't let the hispanic names fool you.  They were black.

I don't think they actually were. I think the NBP people just claimed them is all. I believe they were actually mexican.

No, the article says they were black, and the photos that were released show them to be black...they were probably Dominicans or something, but they definitely had black features/hair and were not just dark hispanics.

headkicker wrote:

Private citizens are not cops, and they shouldn't think they can act like cops.

I don't think that I'd want to live in a country where I weren't free to sodomize my neighbor with a night-stick, thank you.

Headkicker wrote:

Well, you do live in Arizona.  Isn't it still run like the wild west in some parts?

Only in that we can basically abuse "wet-backs" in what-ever way might please us at the moment, and expect to "get off" with a verbal warning at most; But, over-time, a man develops needs beyond what - In time - slips into the arena of the mundane.

pALEPHx wrote:

I think his exchange with the 911 operator is damning enough to incur some form of punishment, even if hate-crime status won't attach. When directly advised by law enforcement not to do something--and in no personal, imminent danger--he elected to murder two people. Malicious intent may be shaky, so we can probably expect manslaughter. He was asked not to intercede; instructed to wait for police to arrive, and chose to do otherwise. Even if the trespassers (burglars live to remove the items) were similarly armed, he still defied direction not take matters into his own hands, which resulted in the unnecessary loss of life, and is vigilantism.

I don't think a 911 dispatcher giving advice over the phone is a lawfull order from a policeman. What would be next, reverse 911 calling  you and all your neighbors to stand at the window and place your hands in the circles before they respond to a call on your street.

Did you catch the part where Horn discusses with the dispatcher, who does not contradict him, that he knows the newly enacted TX law that allows him to do an armmed confrontation  with someone suspected of property crimes? Correct me if I am wrong, but he did not say he was going to shoot them. Even if he did the new law allows such intent in the case of burglary or criminal mischief after dark.

I think HKG is right, a case against him would hinge on whether the law can be interpreted to include your neighbor's property. If the burglars did cross over some portion of his neat suburban lawn and given the fact that he was aqquainted with his direct neighbor, and overshadowed by the detail that the burglers where outsiders rather than local kids, I wouldn't want to be a prosecuter facing the possibility of trial in front of a  jury pool from a sympathetic community.

I would never want to deny someone the right to protect themselves, but personnally I have little blind trust in the clear judgement of many of the people in my neighborhood to feel comfortable with them gunning down suspicious persons.

Heck I used to have to periodicly climb in my window when misplacing the key, the last thing I wanted was getting plugged in the butt by my looney neighbor.

Last edited by Johnny Rotten (2007-12-04 19:52:03)

headkicker_girl wrote:

Johnny Rotten wrote:

Heck I used to have to periodicly climb in my window when misplacing the key, the last thing I wanted was getting plugged in the butt by my looney neighbor.

And that's my fear...that this gives carte blanche to irresponsible behavior under the guise of, "I thought I was protecting my neighbor."

Exactlly. There has to be some accountability. Your right to be as irresponsible as you want ends when it could get me killed.

I am sympathetic to a point having lived in a number of communities plauged by property crime. Where the police don't do jack to stop it. To the point of even refusing to show up and investigate the scene of a client who lost 40 k in electronics. I was the second person on the scene, being called to assess the loss and saw where the theives had cut themselves, dripped blood,  and left likely usable fingerprints and forgotten some of their tools. But in that county they preffered to catch criminals in traffic stops and spent most of their time pursuing drug cases because a large percentage of their budget and all their overtime came from the proceedes of forfeiture. As the CA Gov had mandated that local police could keep what they catch. Which was done to cover 1990s CA budget shortfalls  so they would not have to allocate  money to local districts.

Last edited by Johnny Rotten (2007-12-04 20:33:59)

Does anyone have a link to the entire 911 recording?  I heard the bit on Fox tonight and it was pretty damning.  The only factor I saw in the shooter's favor was supposedly one of the perps was on the guy's lawn when he shot him.  If you don't know how particular we Texans are of our lawns go watch a few episodes of "King of the Hill".

Johnny Rotten wrote:

I don't think a 911 dispatcher giving advice over the phone is a lawfull order from a policeman

It does not carry the same weight, no, but it IS an attempt to dissuade him from acting illegally. Let's presume the 911 dispatcher was a random civilian. If someone hangin' around told you "You shouldn't go over to your neighbor's house and shoot people," then you'd probably, hopefully obey. The problem is, I suppose, that some people need to call upon complete strangers to have that interjection of conscience.

Johnny Rotten wrote:

Did you catch the part where Horn discusses with the dispatcher, who does not contradict him, that he knows the newly enacted TX law that allows him to do an armmed confrontation

There is no law that permits manslaughter.

Johnny Rotten wrote:

I think HKG is right

So do I, but I think we might be getting two different interpretations from the same 'truth.'

Johnny Rotten wrote:

...the last thing I wanted was getting plugged in the butt by my looney neighbor.

Then either you own a bigger gun, are more proficient with the weapon(s) you have. Or you need to move. Somehow, places like Japan and Britain have managed to survive without a right/obligation to possess side-arms. I have always felt that those who want such devices for hunting should have them. Anything less is about fearing other people like themselves.

And that would never happen, right?

Last edited by pALEPHx (2007-12-04 22:38:50)

Turns out the two perps were illegal aliens with criminal records.  That being the case the famouse "He needed killin" defense applies.

How do I shot immigrants?

I like kitties. They are cute.

Decadence wrote:

Zookie wrote:

Does anyone have a link to the entire 911 recording?

I just happened upon it.

Brave Neighbor Kills 2 Robbers 911 Call - Watch more free videos

Thanks Decadence that gave the wife and I a good chuckle! They came on his lawn.... Fuck em... they deserved it.. red and yellow, black and white fuckin thieves are in dead his sights... Joe Horn hates the thieves of the world ... do do doooo.

outhere wrote:

I'll cap your ass

No one has yet succeeded....  lobcock.

MSG Tripps wrote:

outhere wrote:

I'll cap your ass

No one has yet succeeded....  lobcock.

ain't fer lack of tryin'

outhere wrote:

These days you need only scribble a note on a post-it to rob a bank. No gun, knife or even a clinched fist. Society has been trained to run away from criminals, give them whatever they want, don't confront them or try to stop them. Run away and hide. Let the government protect you (or not).

People have turned into pussies at the urging of our own police and criminal justice system. Those pussy-people are as worthless as a vaginal blood fart.

What happens when the police can't stop crime?  Obviously, this was the case. The thieves in this case had a lengthy arrest record and a history of crime in the area.  They continued their criminal ways because they knew society was being fed this "be a pussy" philosophy, and they would likely get away with it as they have time and time again.

For the record, my hello kitty tippy-cup IS worth more than your life. I'll cap your ass if you try to steal it.

One old man did what the cops, and American justice system could not.  More power to him.

outthere, meet risk/reward assessment.  Risk/reward assessment, meet outthere.  I'll be perfectly happy to let you call me a pussy over the Internets and I'll also be happy to post the story of your stupid-ass attempt at stopping the bank robber on High-Street.org when you're dead.

outhere wrote:

For the record, my hello kitty tippy-cup IS worth more than your life. I'll cap your ass if you try to steal it.

So? We'll add one more knuckledragging loser to our over burdened prison slave population.

Yep, these here is the best of times, with human violence at record all time lows. Folk  no longer need do unto others before they're done unto them.

The risks of cooperative development are no longer out-weighed the rewards of crime, with notable exceptions where we've created chaos on purpose to squat on soveriegn states and suction steal their oil deposits.

Anymore, though, the state monopolizes violence in most of the world...

From last March:

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/ … public.pdf

Last edited by choad (2007-12-07 00:58:09)

flashing....  man, flashing....

outhere wrote:

The problem is, most criminals these days expect to be protected by the state and treated with sympathy and civility.

I think I've found the problem.  Outie lives in Lollipop Land.  I've heard that the police are much more sympathetic over yonder.

Zookie wrote:

And that goes for anyone violating the home of the guy next door who you barely know, right?

A mere technicality.  Seriously  though, although I doubt I would gun down someone breaking into my neighbor's home, I don't believe the shooter should be punished.  Home invasion should be right up there with rape and murder and anyone caught in the act should be fair game for the neighborhood watch.

phreddy wrote:

Zookie wrote:

And that goes for anyone violating the home of the guy next door who you barely know, right?

A mere technicality.  Seriously  though, although I doubt I would gun down someone breaking into my neighbor's home, I don't believe the shooter should be punished.  Home invasion should be right up there with rape and murder and anyone caught in the act should be fair game for the neighborhood watch.

Like I said, with that mentality someone will eventually shoot his neighbor's kid, and then the pendulum will swing in the other direction.