Pasadena police say Horn shot 2 men in the back - More on the 'Hero'

Originally posted by skibtz

Of course Mr Horn knew what kind of men they were before he murdered them right?

They were breaking into homes. Home invasions are very serious offenses. That gives you a really good insight into the character of these individuals and how dangerous they are to this society right?

These thieves have no idea who is home when they are breaking into homes. Since everyone is so big on hypothetical questions that give these guys the benefit how about if there was a mother and a baby in this house at the time? How about if it was a teenage girl in the house? Does a neighbor get to shoot these guys yet or is that still not good enough?

It was just big news here in the USA when "Burglars" broke into a house that they thought was empty only to find an NFL football player at home. The "Thieves" shot and killed Sean Taylor, an NFL safety who played for the Washington Redskins, all because he had the bad luck of being in his own house at the wrong time.

sports.espn.go.com...

Thank god that house was empty at the time. But what if it wasn't empty?

reply to post by orangetom1999

Good point.

Something that came into my mind when reading about material goods being replaceable was the fact that people do have things of sentimental value or passed down to them that really cannot be replaced. Even money doesn't make up for those losses.

I realize a life is different but this is the reason laws a made for protecting property. Possessions cost us part of our life to gain them.

While the rest of you debate this topic & it's consequences..
How about a couple of you geniuses get together to rob MY neighbors house first and then try crossing the yard to my front door- and then be caught in the act BY ME, while waiting for the local police act in uniform or in plain clothes. There is a very good chance that you too might end up on a cold slab on the coroner's table.

What do you think the outcome would be very much different? I actually have the RIGHT to carry a loaded shotgun on my property, and a licence to shoot whatever is in season. If I just happened to be carrying a loaded shotgun through my yard, and saw thieves on my property, do you really think I would just make a phone call & then wait?

Hmmm... let me think...
The value of safety of my family & right to be protect my property from thieves... or the value of putting a couple of $2 shot shells to use.

The think is, thieves & criminals have to accept as part of their profession the reality that the citizens that they will be robbing from MIGHT take justice into their own hands in a way that will probrably be quite a bit more violent of an ending than the peace officer might act on. Unfortunetly though, most criminals KNOW that the public won't act to stop them, and the police will merely catch them peacefully & let them back out in a year or two... not much of a deterrent in my mind. A better deterrent would be the very real possibility of unpredictable justice by a well armed public to keep you from robbing them.

Soooo... who want to step up and make that attempt to rob MY HOUSE??
Maybe if you were real lucky, I would just taser the # out of you, tie you down & hatchet off your hands before letting you go. Now wouldn't that be better?

T.S.

Originally posted by SkiFreak
Soooo... who want to step up and make that attempt to rob MY HOUSE??

I just tried to get in your window but it's locked tight!

Most personal property can be replaced..... most..... but the real damage is to a persons sense of security. Even if there was no physical attack involved having your home invaded and being robbed is devastating

It IS possible that the plain clothes watched happily while two CRIMINALS were taken down by Horn.

I know plenty of cops that hate arresting criminals like these guys just to watch them get out of jail the next day only to turn around and commit more crimes and (in some cases) kill people.


Naturally, the cops wouldn't be able to say this. However, that doesn't make it NOT true.


Of course, it doesn't make it true either. Just speculation.


Either way, I'm proud of the "redneck devil".



Jasn

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

Good point.

Something that came into my mind when reading about material goods being replaceable was the fact that people do have things of sentimental value or passed down to them that really cannot be replaced. Even money doesn't make up for those losses.

I realize a life is different but this is the reason laws a made for protecting property. Possessions cost us part of our life to gain them.

Thank Goodness someone gets it. Thanks RoadGravel,

I was begining to dispair that no one got it at all. I greatly appreciate your post.

MY occupation requires that I stow or dicipline my emotions in order to accomplish the tasks assigned to me. It is no different for farming, firefighting, tractor trailer hauling, etc etc. Even what some of us think in nursing ...can be fraught with hazards. I never thought of this till I dated two nurses...they both told me how often they were around highly infected peoples ... and tending to them before they were properly diagnosed and quarantined. Think of what might happen if as a nurse you stuck yourself with a needle just used on a infected patient?? We often take so much for granted in the occupations of others and the risks they face.

My take is that if these two persons had any diciplines at all they would be occupied in another profession than burgulary. Not difficult to figure out.

Quite correct Roadgravel...our posessions take part of our lives/diciplines to accumulate or gain them. Well said.

Ironic isnt it ...that people tend in posts like this to diminish the risks/lives of people earning the goods ..while placing high value on the lives of those stealing the same goods from others...and to cover this facet up they engage in legalism ...rather than this line of thought.


Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

Good point.

Something that came into my mind when reading about material goods being replaceable was the fact that people do have things of sentimental value or passed down to them that really cannot be replaced. Even money doesn't make up for those losses.

Indeed!


When I was younger, our house was broken into while my parents were at work (and I was at the nursery) and the pieces of trash stole my aunt's wedding band and broke the pot that she made that it sat in.

My aunt had been shot only a month and a half before that and she was the best friend my mom had.


Those were the ONLY two things that she had left of my aunt's and they were gone because some scum decided to break into the house. They probably pawned it for 20 bucks.

How much do you think it was worth to my mom?



That was 23 years ago and my mom STILL cries about it when she gets to thinking about it.





But hey, we live in an age where the criminals are the victims right?

PATHETIC!


Jasn

reply to post by zerotime


I hear what you are saying zerotime but I think it is a case of focusing on the case in hand.

The case will focus on Mr Horn and his actions on that day. Not on the past of the two victims.

For instance, a gunman walks into a store. Shoots and kills the guy working behind the counter, takes the money and leaves.

The gunman is aprehended and now faces robbery and murder charges.

However, it later transpires that the man working behind the counter is on the FBI's most wanted list for Murder. A $2m dollar reward is also up for grabs.

The simple fact of the matter is that the gunman will be sentenced for robbery and murder despite the fact that he has done the FBI a favour. He can also expect to miss out on the $2m reward.


On seperate note, this issue has nothing to do with rednecks and immigrants. It has nothing to do with rapists or gun-totting burglars.

It has everything to do with an armed man who went out of his way to shoot two unarmed men from behind.

That is what the prosectution will be looking to attack and it is also what Mr Horn will have to defend.

reply to post by SimiusDei


Well thanks to MR. Horn these two criminals are not the victims and are where they belong. (" six feet under"). Just another two humans added to the Darwin Awards.

Anybody in a criminal life style should get out of it while they're still alive and able to function as a productive citizen.



[edit on 12/9/2007 by Solarskye]

Originally posted by Solarskye
Anybody in a criminal life style should get out of it while they're still alive and able to function as a productive citizen.[edit on 12/9/2007 by Solarskye]

Do you not think that a once productive citizen who has been drawn in to a criminal lifestyle actually has no way to return?

How easy is it for a convicted criminal to get a home and a job?

reply to post by skibtz


Around here, it's pretty easy.


Every job I have ever worked at I have been joined by many convicted criminals.


Hell, the last job I worked at, which was a VERY VERY professional job, almost 80% of the employees had been convicted of several felonies.


No, I wasn't one of them.


Never been arrested in my life.


J

reply to post by SimiusDei


This Site says otherwise.

Also, the .pdf linked at the bottom of the page paints a very grim picture indeed.

From the site:

Civil Rights

“Equal rights” does not apply to convicted felons in Texas. According to the Texas Constitution, felons are not equal under Texas law. The law ensures a felon can never exercise many of the rights that other people have to participate in our democratic government or access any degree of political power.

Housing

In determining eligibility for public housing, federal law gives local public housing agencies the ability to deny housing to virtually anyone with a criminal background.

Private landlords can, and usually do, refuse to rent to felons. Even felons raising children are usually limited to the worst part of town to find an apartment because no other landlord will rent to them.

Employment

Texas does not prohibit discrimination by employers based on a criminal record. Employers in Texas usually ask job applicants about arrests and convictions, and almost always refuse to employ felons regardless of individual circumstance or business necessity.

Education

Federal and state law discourages felons from obtaining higher education. Federal law states that students convicted of a drug-related offense are ineligible for grants, loans and work assistance. This federal barrier cannot be altered by the states.

Food etc.

The 1996 federal welfare law prohibits anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from receiving federally funded food stamps and cash assistance(also known as TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). This is a lifetime ban-- even if someone has completed his or her sentence, overcome an addiction, been employed but got laid off, or earned a certificate of rehabilitation

[edit on 9/12/2007 by skibtz]

[edit on 9/12/2007 by skibtz]

well way i look at it if these fools hadn't been in our country illegally they would still be alive and kicking in their native colombia

reply to post by skibtz


Well, since I said "around here", I couldn't possibly care less about what that site says.

I was merely stating a fact as I know it.



Considering the fact that I have worked many jobs in several states and it has been the exact same everywhere I have been, I'm willing to give experience the benefit of the doubt.



Jasn

reply to post by SimiusDei


Yeah.

You're probably right SimiusDei.

Maybe we should all stop referencing organisations that quote governement statistics and start using the numbers and the wisdom of SimiusDei.

Deny ignorance?

[edit on 9/12/2007 by skibtz]

reply to post by Perplexed


The likelihood of my scenario is greater given the fact that there was an undercover police officer there who could have tagged them while they escaped.

Ok then I guess in your estimation it would be acceptable that the next time you walk out of a Wal-Mart and the alarm accidentally goes off that it would be ok for security to shoot at you?
After all property is in danger…
[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]

What a Maroon! Your 'analogy' reeks of Stupidity!

Survey Says!

Results

Should the Pasadena man who shot two alleged thieves be prosecuted?


Yes, he broke the law when he shot the men.
25.96% 1262 votes


No, he did the right thing.
69.55% 3381 votes


I don't know.
4.30% 209 votes


4861 Total Votes

Link to Survey Results

Be sure to vote yourself.
This forum is the most civil I've seen pertaining to this case. Go ATS!

Sroll down to vote on Survey

Edit~added link to vote

[edit on 12/9/2007 by a3Dme]

[edit on 12/9/2007 by a3Dme]

I ask you, when/if the current laws change and you are no longer entitled to bear arms, will you put them down? Will you remove them from your homes?

NOBODY who Legally owns guns will EVER Surrender them until every Illegal Gun is impounded and the lawbreakers punished.

Good luck with THAT!

Therefore... your "laws" will not change

Besides.. the Enemy IS Coming... and I DOUBT It will be Foreign.....