Zookie wrote:

I'm still divided on this one and need to have a clearer picture of the exact events though there probably won't ever be one unless a witness surfaces.

Well, as I said before, I'm fairly certain I would not have shot them, but they certainly do not deserve any quarter.  Unlike death sentences for murderers, which have no effect as a deterrent, armed (and trained) citizens in each home would give every burgler the willies.

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.

This wasn't a home invasion, this was a burglary.

Sorry Headkicker...  I like you lots and respect your opinion, but I think that shooting those guys sent out a pretty powerful message to would be criminals......   A person shouldn't be able to break into anybody's home and not have to worry about getting their fucking brains blown out.....

Dirckman wrote:

Sorry Headkicker...  I like you lots and respect your opinion, but I think that shooting those guys sent out a pretty powerful message to would be criminals......   A person shouldn't be able to break into anybody's home and not have to worry about getting their fucking brains blown out.....

Do you really think people who commit crimes think that far ahead?  I'll answer for you...they don't.  That's why the death penalty has never been a deterrent.

Last edited by headkicker_girl (2007-12-09 23:18:21)

Zookeeper wrote:

Your absolute statement is false on its face.  Clearly there are at least some who are dissuaded from engaging in murder due to the prospect of being put to death for it.  But for the death penalty to be a deterrent to the degree of significantly reducing the murder rate a significant number of people will have to be convinced that 1) if they commit murder they will be caught 2) if they are caught they will be convicted and 3) if they are convicted they will be sentenced to death.  Oh, and also 4) if they are sentenced to death they will actually be put to death.  We aren't even close to hitting on all four of those cylinders.

DING DING DING!  They have to actually believe they will be caught.  The fucking idiot who is breaking into your house doesn't think he's going to be caught by the police, the homeowner, or a vigilante neighbor.  Otherwise, he might pick another career choice.  The one thing all criminals have in common is the belief that they are smarter than the system and that the rules don't apply to them. 

Anyway, it'll be fun when the grieving girlfriends bring wrongful death lawsuits against mister vigilante on behalf of their bastard babies.  There's a good chance they'll prevail and he'll lose his home.  That's justice as far as I'm concerned.

phreddy wrote:

Either you aren't listening, or you refuse to get it.  If everyone of sound mind kept a weapon handy to deal with home invasions (or as Tojo calls them, burgleries), it would be a very strong deterrent because justice would be swift and deadly.  Every burgler would have to consider the odds of being killed in every breakin.  The death penalty is not a good deterrent because not only is justice slow coming, but the crime often involves passion that overrides the perp's common sense.

I can't believe rational people think that people who engage in an illegal enterprise for a living use rational thought to guide their actions.  How many criminals serve long sentences, get out of jail and immediately return to a life of crime?  If being locked away for years is not a deterent, I hardly think the possibility that someone might see you and might be armed is any more of a deterrent.

tojo2000 wrote:

Phreddy, you don't know the difference between a standard burglary and a home invasion, do you?  Here's a hint: nobody gets hurt or killed in a regular burglary unless the burglar gets shot in the back by some asshole neighbor, and non home invasion burglaries are by far the norm.

You're correct.  Most are unarmed.

What the fuck is wrong with Americans where they think that the theft of material things is worth the loss of anyone's life?  We're no better than the Muslims. Fuck, the Muslims will only cut off your hand for theft...they won't shoot you in the back with a shotgun.  Next  we'll be stoning women for adultery.

Tojo wrote:

Phreddy, you don't know the difference between a standard burglary and a home invasion, do you?  Here's a hint: nobody gets hurt or killed in a regular burglary unless the burglar gets shot in the back by some asshole neighbor, and non home invasion burglaries are by far the norm.

I see, so you and Headkicker are claiming the difference between a home invasion and a standard burglary is that in a home invasion the burgler assaults or kills the homeowner, whereas the standard burgler has a peaceful mission of simply stealing your stuff.  And then your twisted logic leads us to the conclusion that one should wait until the otherwise peaceful burgler attacks before one responds with force, because we wouldn't want to hurt the poor chap if he only wants our ipod. 

Headkicker wrote:

I can't believe rational people think that people who engage in an illegal enterprise for a living use rational thought to guide their actions.  How many criminals serve long sentences, get out of jail and immediately return to a life of crime?

Even you, no, especially you should know that the eminent threat of being shot and killed is the very best deterrent against a criminal.  Plus, as an added bonus, the ones who are not deterred never return to a life of crime.

phreddy wrote:

Tojo wrote:

Phreddy, you don't know the difference between a standard burglary and a home invasion, do you?  Here's a hint: nobody gets hurt or killed in a regular burglary unless the burglar gets shot in the back by some asshole neighbor, and non home invasion burglaries are by far the norm.

I see, so you and Headkicker are claiming the difference between a home invasion and a standard burglary is that in a home invasion the burgler assaults or kills the homeowner, whereas the standard burgler has a peaceful mission of simply stealing your stuff.  And then your twisted logic leads us to the conclusion that one should wait until the otherwise peaceful burgler attacks before one responds with force, because we wouldn't want to hurt the poor chap if he only wants our ipod. 

Headkicker wrote:

I can't believe rational people think that people who engage in an illegal enterprise for a living use rational thought to guide their actions.  How many criminals serve long sentences, get out of jail and immediately return to a life of crime?

Even you, no, especially you should know that the eminent threat of being shot and killed is the very best deterrent against a criminal.  Plus, as an added bonus, the ones who are not deterred never return to a life of crime.

No, you idiot.  Home invasion is when you burglarize someone's home while they're in the house.  Most burglars have absolutely no intention of running into you in the middle of the act.  Most are like these guys, who were only threatening someone's stuff.  Think of it as carjacking but s/car/house/.

Last edited by tojo2000 (2007-12-10 17:58:55)

Tojo wrote:

No, you idiot.  Home invasion is when you burglarize someone's home while they're in the house.

Tojo, you really are about as dumb as a box of rocks.  Let me say it slowly and very simply so you can get it.  If you are in the house when the burgler comes in, it is a home invasion.  This is the case whether the burgler knows you're there or not.  You, my thick headed friend would have me assume it is merely, and I'll quote you here, "a standard burglary" because they "..are by far the norm." 

I won't be responding to anymore of your pretzel logic on this issue.

phreddy wrote:

I see, so you and Headkicker are claiming the difference between a home invasion and a standard burglary is that in a home invasion the burgler assaults or kills the homeowner, whereas the standard burgler has a peaceful mission of simply stealing your stuff.  And then your twisted logic leads us to the conclusion that one should wait until the otherwise peaceful burgler attacks before one responds with force, because we wouldn't want to hurt the poor chap if he only wants our ipod.

Most home robberies are done by unarmed persons who simply want to steal your stuff.  Burglars don't want a confrontation.  They avoid houses with dogs, alarm systems and inhabitants.  They want to run in, grab your shit and leave.  Home invasions are rare.  The only cases I can think of involve organized groups trying to steal a particular object, where they actually have to intimidate the owner of the object to find out it's location.   In fact, when I was growing up, all the robberies in my neighborhood were committed by white teens who thought it was cool to cut a screen and break into someone's house and take stuff. 

phreddy wrote:

Even you, no, especially you should know that the eminent threat of being shot and killed is the very best deterrent against a criminal.  Plus, as an added bonus, the ones who are not deterred never return to a life of crime.

It not a deterrent because the criminal does not believe he is going to get shot...especially when you involve drugs...they are willing to take the risk.  No meth or crack head is going to decide that robbing your house is a bad idea when they are in search of a fix.

orangeplus wrote:

phreddy wrote:

I see, so you and Headkicker are claiming the difference between a home invasion and a standard burglary is that in a home invasion the burgler assaults or kills the homeowner, whereas the standard burgler has a peaceful mission of simply stealing your stuff.

Actually, that would be the fucking actual definition.

I don't trust that Wikipedia entry.  There's absolutely no mention of Chuck Norris in it.

phreddy wrote:

Tojo wrote:

No, you idiot.  Home invasion is when you burglarize someone's home while they're in the house.

Tojo, you really are about as dumb as a box of rocks.  Let me say it slowly and very simply so you can get it.  If you are in the house when the burgler comes in, it is a home invasion.  This is the case whether the burgler knows you're there or not.  You, my thick headed friend would have me assume it is merely, and I'll quote you here, "a standard burglary" because they "..are by far the norm." 

I won't be responding to anymore of your pretzel logic on this issue.

To quote a previous post of yours:
Zookie wrote:
And that goes for anyone violating the home of the guy next door who you barely know, right?

To which you replied:
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.

We were talking about a burglary and you used the term "home invasion".

MSG Tripps wrote:

You silly fucks are arguing semantics....   good luck with reality.

It always cracks me up when someone busts out with "it's just semantics."  It's the difference between defending someone's life and defending someone's VCR.  Can you explain how it is that semantics never matter, or are you saying that the difference doesn't change anything in this case?

Tojo wrote:

Did you miss the part that there was nobody in the house and the guy with the shotgun knew there was nobody in the house and he shot them not because they were coming at him or on his property but because they were getting away?

I can't be bothered to hunt it down at the moment; How-Ever, if I'm not mistaken, one of them was on his property.  Now, whether or not that was the one which he shot, or if the one which he shot was holding the crow-bar (Which could easily be considered a weapon) at the time . . .

DhallyLama wrote:

You silly fucks are arguing semantics....   good luck with reality.

You can claim that semantics mean nothing all that you want; But, it doesn't change the fact that they affect the way that most people view the world, and guide popular opinion.

Decadence wrote:

... How-Ever, if I'm not mistaken, one of them was on his property.  Now, whether or not that was the one which he shot, or if the one which he shot was holding the crow-bar (Which could easily be considered a weapon) at the time . . .

Not all the facts are determined yet. Not that there is some great dispute, but the reporting is not always clear.

The Pasadena PR Capt just did an interview where he laid out his version step by step. 

He said when Horn confronted the burglars he exited his home, and near the edge of his property leveled his shotgun at his shoulder and then  yelled "move or your dead". The burglars were 7 to 10 feet away at this moment. They spooked and immediately bolted away from him in opposite directions. Within a second or so Horn began firing. the next shot was fired quickly after.

This was witneesed by a responding plain clothes officer. Seeing a gun and shots he choose not to intervene until backup arrived.

No where did the chief say that Horn was charged or threatened. Although he was careful not to insinuate that Horn was reckless in pulling the trigger.

From the time Horn left his house to the shooting, the incident happened very quickly and at very close range. At 7 to 10 feet even someone jumping in surprise to run away might or might not be taken as menacing in the heat of the moment.

As a teen, the adults who taught me to shoot stressed that in the likely circumstances I might find myself in as a civillian a gun should never be brandished at a threat unless I intended to shoot. And if I shot I should shoot to kill.  They stressed that the descision had to made before I pulled out the gun. As such there was great responsibility that went along with that.

They made it clear that without proffesional training I was not a cop, not skilled in detaining someone, and that it was too dangerous to act as one.

Last edited by Johnny Rotten (2007-12-11 00:55:19)

tojo2000 wrote:

MSG Tripps wrote:

You silly fucks are arguing semantics....   good luck with reality.

It always cracks me up when someone busts out with "it's just semantics."

It always cracks me up when someone who is as chemically altered as Dhal says "good luck with reality"...

tojo2000 wrote:

Decadence wrote:

I can't be bothered to hunt it down at the moment; How-Ever, if I'm not mistaken, one of them was on his property.  Now, whether or not that was the one which he shot, or if the one which he shot was holding the crow-bar (Which could easily be considered a weapon) at the time . . .

They may have passed through his property at some point, the only thing I could find was that one of them was staring at his house from across the street.  In any case he did us all the favor of explaining himself before he went out and shot them.  He left the house and loaded his gun not because they were coming towards him, but because they were getting away.  He headed out to shoot them because they were exiting the window of the neighbor's house and he was afraid they would get away with it if he didn't kill them.

That last sentence is your supposition.  From his statements on the phone it was clear that he didn't intend to let them get away.  But that only means he was determined to confront them.  It doesn't necessarily mean he was determined to kill them.  It's a reasonable supposition that he believed that if he confronted them with a shot gun they would freeze and wait until the cops arrived.

The irony of the above is that the cops actually HAD arrived just as he shot.  A plain clothed officer had just pulled up when he exited the house and pointed his gun at the crooks.  It went down too fast for the cop to stop the shooting however.

Johnny Rotten wrote:

Keep your lamps trimmed and burning Dahl.

Way too easy. And not one of the best songs.

Put thoughts of them kind of weapons away.  No shit, leave them alone.

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2007-12-10 23:15:28)

outhouse wrote:

Let's all put our money where our mouths are.

Those in favor of home defense put a sign out in your yard announcing you are a gun owner and will defend your home and property.  Those opposed, put a sign up stating that you do not own a gun and will not harm anyone who breaks in.  Now we can all go to bed knowing we did the right thing.  Sleep tight!

Leaving behind the fact that if someone burglarizes my home I'll probably not be around, I haven't heard anyone in this thread say that people shouldn't be allowed to defend their home and property.  You didn't do your homework, did you?  Go read the original post (the background link) so you know what kind of situation we're discussing.  Then I'd be happy to hear any commentary you come up with.  I'll probably call you an idiot if you're as easy to bait as Phreddy, but I promise that I will read your post and consider it.

Zookeeper wrote:

From his statements on the phone it was clear that he didn't intend to let them get away.  But that only means he was determined to confront them.  It doesn't necessarily mean he was determined to kill them.  It's a reasonable supposition that he believed that if he confronted them with a shot gun they would freeze and wait until the cops arrived.

The irony of the above is that the cops actually HAD arrived just as he shot.  A plain clothed officer had just pulled up when he exited the house and pointed his gun at the crooks.  It went down too fast for the cop to stop the shooting however.

The Pasadena PR officer said that the plain clothes dectective was already parked out front and observed the 2 burglars walking together from the neighbor's house towards his car at the curb before Horn exited his home.

But though he arrived first he was responding as backup. He was watching the crime and waiting for the regular cops to make the arrest. Too bad the dispatcher either did not know that or did not choose to let Horn know. A few seconds after Horn stopped shooting and started talking on the phone the 911 dispatcher told him that plainclothes officers were outside and he should put the gun down and stay indoors.

Last edited by Johnny Rotten (2007-12-11 00:57:52)

outhere wrote:

tojo2000: "I'd be happy to hear any commentary you come up with."

hear this

*click *click *BOOM

They have a place for people like you.  It's called prison.

Johnny wrote:

But though he arrived first he was responding as backup. He was watching the crime and waiting for the regular cops to make the arrest. Too bad the dispatcher either did not know that or did not choose to let Horn know.

This thread just keeps on keeping on.  I was sure it would be dead by the time I got to work this morning.  In any case, Johnny brings up an interesting point that says a lot about the whole situation.  You cannot count on the police to defend you.  Remember Columbine and how the cops massed outside the school, drafted plans, skulked around behind tanks, and wrung their hands while people were dying inside?  Self defense means just that, defense of self.  You cannot count on anyone to do it for you.  (Please Tojam, you do not need to post another response stating that nobody was in the house being burgled.)  The responding cop didn't know that, yet he opted to sit in his car and watch.

Not to mention with the cop there, he endangered his own life, the cop might have shot him for fear he might shoot the cop since he was plainclothes, than a neighbor, fearing his life would have shot the plainclothes cop and been shot hisself by the responding uniform officers. It could have been one nice justified pile of corpses.