I want this guy for my neighbor.

[NBVegita]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/30/burgla...g.ap/index.html

 

Turns out he's been vindicated of charges.

 

I for one am all for what he did.

 

As stated above, I want this guy for my neighbor.

[Bak]

your stuff is worth more than two non-violent criminal's lives? Wow your values suck.

 

Then again, it's hard to say what really happened. If they actually did confront him (what kind of idiot confronts a guy with a shotgun?), then he definitely has the right to defend himself, however I find it more likely he just shot them in the back like the article says, especially since he told the 911 operator he was going to kill them.

[Dav]

there was something similar to this in the UK several years ago.

 

A farmer was repeadley being robbed and gave a nice warning that the next time he would shoot the robbers.

 

Soon after he was arrested for shooting 2 men in the back after they ran away from his house after tring to rob it.

 

Difernece here is though the man was sentanced for murder I believe.

[AstroProdigy]

You do understand that condoning this action makes us worse than Saudi Arabia. At least they only chop hands off for robbery. If this happened in a state with sane people this man would be convicted like the murderer he is, but of course this happened in Texas.

 

Now I'm sure you may think this guy's bad!@#$%^&* now, but if he were actually your neighbor you'd change your tune. Mentally imbalanced idiots who look for excuses to shoot people aren't my cup of tea.

Edited July 1, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Bak]

additionally, what would happen if everyone acted like this? He shoots some criminals because he believes he's morally justified in doing so, and the the civil rights activists shoot him because they think he's a murderer. This guy's basically acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

[X`terrania]

Vegita, I don't understand? Maybe I'll invite you over to my house, and then gun you down right when you step foot on my property and I'll tell the proper authorities that you're a common thief and I was only protecting myself.

[AstroProdigy]

See Vegita has a strange fetish for conservative "wholesome" American values that he doesn't want to admit. It has to do with his upbringing which taught him to have utter contempt for anything that sounds like or can be related to socialist principles in any way and as a response to that he embraces insane conservative ideology and defends it at all costs. I find he needs to comes to grips with the problems he's had in his life as he's secretly very angry about it and has directed his anger at people he perceives game the system (with welfare) while he had to work hard. Until he gets past it he'll keep coming up with crazy posts like this one and will probably defend it indefinitely with posts like "prove it with a source, ok the link is biased I don't believe you, link a source again, I don't believe it link a source again, etc." which has become the standard of his posts. Edited July 1, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aileron]

Criminals aren't going to be stopped by a sudden pang of conscience. Sooner or later, someone has to use force. Having a citizen do it is just a more efficient process than waiting for law enforcement.

 

The 'conservative value' here is 'self-reliance', meaning the ability to look after yourself and keep yourself safe without requiring somebody else to protect you. The opposing for is 'dependence', meaning the need to require somebody else to provide a life saving service for you. 'Dependence' is how slaves are made out of men.

 

The problem is that in our society we are dependent on a lot of things, so no one notices a security dependence when we have, for example, an oil dependence. Case in point a state a dependence would add one more way for those in power to screw people.

[AstroProdigy]

I mean burglary is punishable by death in this country now so why not let private citizens take the law into their own hands? Give me a break; it's not like this guy made a citizens' arrest. He murdered two people. Of course murder is quite the sign of self reliance. You really prove yourself to be a man when you murder people who aren't threatening you with your gun. I don't like my neighbor so I'd better invite him over here so I can show him I'm self reliant in the back of the head. I don't need a government to do anything when I can go on a shooting spree myself. Better yet so it will be a crime I'll wait for his dog to !@#$%^&* on public property and then pick up my AK47 of justice.

 

Hey I don't want to depend on the government to put out fires it makes me a slave so let's put them out ourselves! You can't argue because that would be anti free markets which are always right! Why have a government at all? You need to invade Afghanistan after a terrorist attack? Why rely on the government go get a group of friends with guns and have at them!

 

Dependence is the only reason we have societies; you live on the fruits of an interdependent society every day. Without dependence you have a little something called anarchy. If you can't even accept the notion that we all need each other then why are you responding to any of these politically based threads? Politics is a result of dependence, which according to you is how slaves are made out of men. Why are you even using a computer? That was made by other people and the power is provided by others. Smash your computer and go out into the woods to live with nature because dependence is how slaves are made out of men. Oh no you'd be depending on nature then your only option now is to kill yourself so you won't be a slave to anything. Let's all do it actually.

 

The hypocrisy is amazing when people like you don't want the government getting involved when it suits you, but when you don't like abortions or gay marriage you expect the government to do something about it! You want to stop terrorist attacks? Ok let's depend on the government to do it for us and give them all the power they could ever want and be dependent on them to take care of everything, but oh no let's not let the government interfere when a guy murders two people for robbery.

 

P.S.: If NBVegita comes on saying that a society can exist without people depending on each other and then waits for an endless debate on it where he plays dumb and waits for me to cite things 20 times for every word then I'll make it easy and just not respond.

Edited July 2, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[PaRa$iTe]

Who was it again who said "A country is that which has a monopoly in legal violence"? (Or something like that, manual translation is hard)

[NBVegita]

A couple of things.

 

First off way to go with radical exaggerations. If you simply invited someone onto your property and shot them, you would be convicted of murder.

 

Second, this man was on the line with 911 for almost 9 minutes before he went out of his house to shoot the criminals who had just robbed his neighbors house and were now moving on to his property. As to if they were coming towards his house or not I cannot say.

 

And you saying that simply because you know someone with strongly apparent (as they just robbed tons of "loot" from your neighbor) malicious intent comes onto your property you're supposed to wait until they point a gun at you to shoot? !@#$%^&* that.

 

As for the criminals, I would say yes my possessions are worth more than two illegal immigrants lives who had already been deported from the U.S. once before for cocaine related charges and are now trying to take what I've worked hard for (amidst how many other charges). I have no compassion for criminals.

 

It's widely publicized knowledge that you are allowed to defend your property with guns in Texas, so yet again where I am supposed to feel bad for these criminals?

 

On a side note where have I ever stated that I don't believe a source and then asked for another? I have stated that a source is bias (as you have done to me) but I do not recall ever stating that I don't believe the source. When a source is bias it means they're only presenting one side of the story, or over exaggerating it, not falsifying it. If it was false information I would implicitly state it.

 

The hypocrisy is amazing when people like you don't want the government getting involved when it suits you, but when you don't like abortions or gay marriage you expect the government to do something about it! You want to stop terrorist attacks? Ok let's depend on the government to do it for us and give them all the power they could ever want and be dependent on them to take care of everything, but oh no let's not let the government interfere when a guy murders two people for robbery.

 

Ironically I'm pro choice, could honestly care less if gays and lesbians get married because it doesn't affect me one way or another if they call each other "domestic partners" or "married". I support the government working to stop terrorist attacks, but I don't support the Patriot act (even though it really doesn't cause the everyday Americans much harm I am opposed to the resolutions in it for what they represent) To go along with that I am 100% Pro Capitalism and Pro Free-Market and am quite proud that because of "dependencies" I can get just about anything I want to eat right at the grocery store (same goes for non-consumable products) But to go along with this statement I am 100% pro-gun and believe that it is an Americans right and duty to be the primary protector of his property. It is simply impossible for the police to completely protect you and your family.

 

Every time someone can see both sides of the fence they're labeled a close minded conservative. I've stated most of the above close to a dozen times in these forums. Yes I have conservative ideals. Yes I have liberal ideals. Yes the world is not black and white. Yes politics isn't either.

[Bak]

It's widely publicized knowledge that you are allowed to defend your property with guns in Texas, so yet again where I am supposed to feel bad for these criminals?

Because the law is the problem here. People's lives are worth more than property.

 

And he didn't shoot two illegal immigrants, one of which was deported 15 years ago for drugs; he shot two people he knew nothing about other than that they were non-violent criminals.

 

Also, it's not like the only response is going outside and shooting them in the back. He could go outside and yell at them and they'll leave, or point a gun and wait until they run away (and not shoot them the back when they're doing it), or fire a warning shot.

 

At some point, NBVegita, you've broken a law in your life. Thank God some self-reliant conservative didn't pull out his shotgun and shoot you for it.

[»Ducky]

I don't even see why this is an issue. He should be jailed for murder.

Shooting two people on a whim they would do him harm? That's total bull!@#$%^&* and everyone who is half sane should acknowledge it. Let's just shoot the next person that cuts through my yard.

This isn't justifiable in any way, shape or form.

No wonder this country can't make any social headway and evolve into something more than a war mongering conglomerate of disaster.

[NBVegita]

At some point, NBVegita, you've broken a law in your life. Thank God some self-reliant conservative didn't pull out his shotgun and shoot you for it.

 

The only way I've ever broken the law is for speeding, which has only happened on rare occasions, I've never even rolled a stop sign. As stated in prior posts I'm one of the few who actually drive the speed limit, mostly to save on gas mileage. I tend to follow the law being it is in fact the law. I've never stolen anything, hit anyone for any reason other than self defense, never tried any illegal drugs nor have I ever abused prescription drugs. I've never contemplated walking into someone's house and stealing their possessions.

 

People's lives are worth more than property.

 

What if what they steal ruins your life? Why should a criminal be able to abuse my rights, enter my property, steal my belongings and I should not be able to defend myself and my property from it? What the !@#$%^&* kind of idea is that? Honestly if someone is willing to do that to me, I have no concern for their life, because they obviously have no concern for mine.

 

Not in this particular example, but what if the intruder has a gun? What if I've got a wife and two kids? Yet again these vandals come into my house and I'm supposed to pray to god that they don't have weapons and aren't intending to !@#$%^&*ualt my family? They're already willing to break the law by entering my home and stealing my possessions how far are they willing to go? Am I willing to sit there and find out? !@#$%^&* no. As stated, the law in Texas is well known, !@#$%^&* we even know it up here. If you're willing to break the law by breaking into someones house when you know they have the right to shoot you if you do, it serves you right to get shot.

 

And he didn't shoot two illegal immigrants, one of which was deported 15 years ago for drugs; he shot two people he knew nothing about

 

Well it hit the news maybe 3-4 months ago where this wealthy family got robbed by two gentlemen. They followed instructions to a T, even drove with them to the bank and took money out of the ATM. The husband was critically injured and his wife and two daughters were brutally murdered. To top it off they burned the house down to cover their tracks.

 

"A court bail commissioner said Hayes and Komisarjevky each have rap sheets with more than 20 prior burglaries, and both were out of prison on parole"

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/24/home.invasion.ap/index.html

 

You're right, you don't know anything about the man(men) that just broke into your home.

 

I guess I'm not willing the roll the dice with the lives of my family like you are.

[Bak]

This discussion isn't about self-defense. The guys were unarmed and were not even going into this guys house (you mentioned they started moved on to his stuff, but the article didn't?). In either case, pointing a gun and having them run away scared prevents loss of property and protects your family

 

What if what they steal ruins your life?

There is nothing you could steal from me that would ruin my life. Sure I might be extremely inconvenienced for a few months, but I would eventually recover. When you shoot someone dead they can never recover from that. Hence, the punishment does not fit the crime.

 

Think about it this way, you were speeding and some nut saw you endangering the lives of everyone on the road by driving at speeds faster than what the road engineers recommend. His children walk on that street; you might have hit one of them. Why are you allowed to abuse his right to walk on the street safely? If you're willing to do that to him he has no concern for your life, since you obviously have no concern for his. Should he now be allowed to shoot you dead? This is the same line of reasoning you applied to the burglary case, almost verbatim.

 

I'm sure I could dig up a news story where some otherwise sane driver was speeding and hit and killed a child. Sure these stories do well at emotional appeals, but if you are looking for proof that cooperation with criminals is more dangerous than confrontation, you're going to want to use (fair and independently collected) statistics.

[JDS]

hmmm, well, the guy was pretty funny looking, and if hes crazy enough to shoot 2 robbers, then hes crazy enough to let me borrow his wife sometimes, i guess id want him as a neighbor too! Edited July 3, 2008 by JDS

[NBVegita]

I should have known you would have gone there with the speeding. The only time I've ever sped is on the interstate. Each time it was to keep up with the speed of traffic as to NOT cause an accident. I even slow down for school zones.

 

And for your speeding argument, unless this man happens to be sitting on his porch with a radar gun how is he to know if I'm doing 32 v 30? Second the road isn't his property. It is the cities property. Third doesn't he have a high powered rifle? By the time he registers that I'm speeding and picks up his gun, I'll be half way down the street. Hope he's a good shot. This law in Texas implicitly states that you are allowed to protect your own property with deadly force if you feel your life is in danger.

 

Got anymore terrible anologies?

 

There are lots of things that could effectively cause a major disaster in your life. Most definitely if you are poorer to begin with. Yet again why should I have concern for a person's life if they are attempting to take what I've worked very hard and trying to make my life difficult.

 

Also I notice how you strategically avoided the point I posted about not knowing a criminals intention(beyond burglary) when they enter your house.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/...e=mostpop_story

 

He shot them both on his yard, they had at least a crow bar and they were shot at a distance of 15 feet, or 5 yards, from the 61 year old Joe Horn. If they were walking towards Joe or he was walking towards them I don't know. But I do have to say it's very difficult for an overwieght 61 year old man to sneak up on anyone.

 

I reiterate, you may be willing the roll the dice with your families lives, but I sure as !@#$%^&* am not.

[darkhosis]

5 yards away and shot in the back? !@#$%^&*, they musta just saw the fat guy and not that shotgun and decided that shotgun > crowbar a little too late.. works for me.

[»Ducky]

Seriously, are you !@#$%^&*ing re!@#$%^&*ed Vegita or just dumb as bricks? The whole point wasn't about speeding at all. It was about breaking the law and someone punishing you for it despite anything you think should happen. !@#$%^&*, you know what? It doesn't even have to be you breaking the law.

 

Let's hope your kids don't decide to go corn someones house on Halloween with a concealed bag and find a pumpkin ball in their head because they were in someones yard with what "could have been a dangerous weapon for the murderers family but probably wasn't because he was a stupid redneck."

Actually.. I'm pretty much all for stupid people and anything they spawn dying so I'm going to agree with you, Vegita.

[NBVegita]

Seriously, are you !@#$%^&*ing re!@#$%^&*ed Vegita or just dumb as bricks? The whole point wasn't about speeding at all. It was about breaking the law and someone punishing you for it despite anything you think should happen. !@#$%^&*, you know what? It doesn't even have to be you breaking the law.

 

lol?

 

First off if you're going to use an analogy it must be a similar situation. The only vague similarity was that you're breaking the law. One is a minor infraction punishable with a fine, the other is a serious infraction punishable with jail time. That's like trying to say there's no difference between pushing somone and hitting them with a 2x4 with a nail in it.

 

Another point to go along with it is that there is a big difference between someone possibly speeding, which you won't be able to tell unless they're going extremely fast or are driving next to them, and somone breaking into your home. Or !@#$%^&* lets just !@#$%^&*ociate littering with grand theft auto, i mean they're both breaking the law right? Why don't we get the same punishment for both?

 

Don't be rediculous.

 

As for the kids corning a house, I will assume that is similar to egging a house. If you honestly feel that your life is in danger from a kid throwing eggs at your house then you need a mental evaluation and should not own a firearm. I will say, specially because of where I grew up, if I saw a teenage kid breaking into my house with what looked like a gun, I wouldn't hesitate a second.

[Bak]

Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."

 

Horn: "There' date=' one of them's getting away!

 

Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."

 

Horn: "They got a bag of loot."[/quote']

 

My point with the speeding story wasn't about the details of how one would go about shooting you for speeding, but rather about the idea of getting shot for breaking the law. You pointed out that this was "ridiculous" and that's the idea I was trying to convey. Just as it's ridiculous to shoot someone for speeding because of an incidental risk of injury, it's ridiculous to shoot someone for burglary of your neighbor's property. Now, I'm not saying if someone breaks into your home you're not justified in shooting them in the face (playing dice your family, as you say), but I'm talking about what appeared to happen in this specific case. They were taking stuff from his neighbor, police were on the way; they may have arrived in time, they may have not. Mr. Horn's life was NOT at risk by this. He wasn't rolling the dice with his family. He was just frustrated that they might get away, and decided that burglary is punishable by death.

[»Ducky]

As for the kids corning a house, I will assume that is similar to egging a house. If you honestly feel that your life is in danger from a kid throwing eggs at your house then you need a mental evaluation and should not own a firearm. I will say, specially because of where I grew up, if I saw a teenage kid breaking into my house with what looked like a gun, I wouldn't hesitate a second.

 

And this is why I think you have a few loose bolts.

These guys weren't endangering the guy who shot them. He wasn't threatened in any way.

He was on the phone telling someone he was going to shoot them. THAT IS PREMEDITATED HOMICIDE. MURDER.

 

This guy needs the mental evaluation and you right alongside him. And in the context of children getting shot. Who's to say I couldn't be afraid of what a kid might have in his bag. If I feel threatened, couldn't I just pop them in the face?

 

This guy was apparently justified in doing it because they could have had a concealed weapon.

[ThunderJam]

Astro has a way of taking a few simple statements, and taking to their far extreme and accusing the poster of something way beyond

their original intentions :/

 

For the record, I fall against NB's side on this, so dont accuse me of just bashing astro cuz im on the opposite side of the debate.

Edited July 3, 2008 by ThunderJam

[NBVegita]

For Bak,

 

The idea I stated was ridiculous was comparing a minor legal infraction to a major legal infraction and insinuating that there should be an equal penalty for both. In fact I do believe that

 

Or !@#$%^&* lets just !@#$%^&*ociate littering with grand theft auto, i mean they're both breaking the law right? Why don't we get the same punishment for both?

 

Exemplified that.

 

As I stated:

 

He shot them both on his yard, they had at least a crow bar and they were shot at a distance of 15 feet, or 5 yards, from the 61 year old Joe Horn. If they were walking towards Joe or he was walking towards them I don't know. But I do have to say it's very difficult for an overwieght 61 year old man to sneak up on anyone.

 

Neither of us were there, but that sure seems to me like they approached the man once he left his house. As for if he should or shouldn't have left his house I interpret it as a neighbor being concerned with his neighbors property. You say it was a crazy man trying to kill two people. It just so happens a grand jury agrees with my !@#$%^&*essment.

 

Horn: Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

 

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"

 

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the --- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

 

If you've ever known a redneck you know there is a big difference between saying you're going to shoot someone and actually shooting them. In this case he actually shot them. !@#$%^&* maybe he went outside to shoot them. Honestly, I say good riddance. If you're dumb enough to rob a house when you know the inhabitants can kill you for doing so, you deserve what you got. Yes this man wasn't an inhabitant of the house, but the law also does give your neighbor the right to protect your home as his own if you ask him to do so. Now they(that is the news) haven't asked the neighbor if he gave that permission or not so again not knowing everything I can't say.

 

Ducky,

 

This is twice now you've attempted to insult me to validate your argument. Please try to stay respectful even if you strongly disagree.

 

Now

 

These guys weren't endangering the guy who shot them. He wasn't threatened in any way.

 

Two guys who just robbed his neighbors house ended up on his property 5 yards away with crowbars. Yeah that isn't at all threatening. As stated above I view it as a good thing he left his house to stop a robbery. Not doing so is tantamount to seeing a group of kids beating on a younger kid and walking right by. As stated none of us were there so we won't know for sure.

 

And in the context of children getting shot. Who's to say I couldn't be afraid of what a kid might have in his bag. If I feel threatened, couldn't I just pop them in the face?

 

If you are that paranoid then you need a mental evaluation. There is a slight difference from two criminals with crowbars on your property and the aforementioned.

 

If you can't realize that then there is no point in continuing to arguing. Any argument can be countered irrationally with a radical situation.

 

Ultimately I feel that if you're going to invade someone's home that you should be prepared to pay the price with your life.

 

On a personal level I agree with him defending his neighbors property with our without any evidence of them approaching him in a threatening manner.

 

On a legal level a grand Jury agrees that these men encroached on this mans property, after robbing his neighbors and approached him in a manner where he believed his life was in danger.

[Bak]

It just so happens a grand jury agrees with my !@#$%^&*essment.

the law also does give your neighbor the right to protect your home as his own if you ask him to do so.

 

if the law said for you to jump off a bridge would you do it?

if a grand jury said the person who killed your entire family was free to go, would it make it right?

 

We never were talking about what the law says or whether this guy was convicted or not. The discussion is about SHOULD he have been convicted, and SHOULD the laws let you shoot someone robbing your neighbor's house. I was never trying to convince you that this man is now in jail for his crimes, or the law says what he did was murder. Pointing out what the law says isn't proof that the action is acceptable (even if the law's democratically enacted by a majority!). Likewise, pointing out that a jury didn't convict him doesn't prove that he shouldn't have been convicted.

 

As for if he should or shouldn't have left his house I interpret it as a neighbor being concerned with his neighbors property.

Ultimately I feel that if you're going to invade someone's home that you should be prepared to pay the price with your life.

This is the meat of the discussion. You feel burglary is punishable by death. That is your personal belief. A crazy man might have a personal belief that speeding or, with your example, littering, is punishable by death. Clearly we can't allow people to act on their personal beliefs alone or people may end up getting killed for things such as speeding or littering.

 

Hmm, after thinking a little more your side seems to make sense. We clearly can't use a personal standard for these sorts of things, so the only standard we have is what society agrees upon. If Texans agree this action is allowed then it should be allowed. However, if he were to come to my state and do this he would go to jail as it is against my society's standard. He seemed to even know about the property law while talking to the operator.

 

Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."

 

Dispatcher: "I understand."

 

I suppose the reason why this seems so wrong to me is that the law in Texas goes against my personal standard. However, if I applied that standard to other people, it would be no different than the gun-toting litter-hater shooting people dead for littering because that's HIS personal standard.