Pasadena police say Horn shot the 2 men in the back

[Peikko 1,575]

What does it matter if I am safe or not? I have quite clearly stated that in my opinion this guy was acting on his personal intepretation of the new law. I haven't said he's some evil gun toting madman who deserves to hang.

Regarding the 'what if's', that's my whole point, this case is a landmark in the possible intepretation of this new law, that's what I am saying. What's so hard to grasp about that? Doesn't it bother you that the lines might become more fuzzy, that it might be more difficult to prosecute other homicides that you personally might view as culpable homicide?

[natty bumppo 297]

What does it matter if I am safe or not? I have quite clearly stated that in my opinion this guy was acting on his personal intepretation of the new law. I haven't said he's some evil gun toting madman who deserves to hang.

Regarding the 'what if's', that's my whole point, this case is a landmark in the possible intepretation of this new law, that's what I am saying. What's so hard to grasp about that? Doesn't it bother you that the lines might become more fuzzy, that it might be more difficult to prosecute other homicides that you personally might view as culpable homicide?

please post the "new law" with links for everyone to view

[cmartyn 0]

I will help out and post a link to the "new law", known as the Licence to Murder law, which basically says, if you feel threatened, then blast away.

Texas is just the latest of 16 states to pass this type of law. The NRA aka the gun manufacturers lobby have been pushing congress for this type of legislation because it will sell more guns. (My Opinion obviously).

The law that the NRA is pushing goes way beyond self defense. Instead of using deadly force as a last resort, they want to make it the first option, no questions asked. This law would guarantee that. whether it was a misunderstanding or not, whether the antagonize was armed or not, whether the shooter accidentally hits an innocent bystander or not, this law would completely clear anyone who pulled a trigger because they "felt threatened" from any civil or criminal responsibility. If a someone accidentally shot a child because they thought an unarmed man was threatening them, this law would allow them to walk away free and clear.

Here is the link to a summary of the bill that was passed. They call it the Castle Doctrine, after ancient Roman or British law to try and make it sound quaint I guess. In any case, I wouldn't let your kids ride their bikes across your neighbors lawn in Texas.

http://www.gunlaws.com/TXBills2007/SB378%20Summary.html

And here is a link I found for you on the Texas website.

http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/billChapter/searchProc.cfm

Edited December 9, 2007 by cmartyn

[natty bumppo 297]

I will help out with a post a link to the "new law", known as the Licence to Murder law, which basically says, if you feel threatened, then blast away.

Texas is just the latest of 16 states to pass this type of law. The NRA aka the gun manufacturers lobby have been pushing congress for this type of legislation because it will sell more guns.

The law that the NRA is pushing goes way beyond self defense. Instead of using deadly force as a last resort, they want to make it the first option, no questions asked. This law would guarantee that. Whether it was a misunderstanding or not, whether the antagonize was armed or not, whether the shooter accidentally hits an innocent bystander or not, this law would completely clear anyone who pulled a trigger because they "felt threatened" from any civil or criminal responsibility. If a someone accidentally shot a child because they thought an unarmed man was threatening them, this law would allow them to walk away free and clear.

Here is the link to a summary of the bill. They call it the Castle Doctrine, after ancient Roman or British law to try and make it sound quaint I guess. In any case, I wouldn’t let your kids ride their bikes across your neighbors lawn.

http://www.gunlaws.com/TXBills2007/SB378%20Summary.html

And here is a link I found for you on the Texas website.

http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/billChapter/searchProc.cfm

Thanks

So the message to criminals is ... it's dangerous to break the law and threaten someone. It could be terminal so don't do it.

the second link ... what's the bill number? Its a rather long list.

[cmartyn 0]

Its SB-378. Not exactly what the NRA was hoping for.

And MAN that site is slow.. You have to click it with a drawl..

[natty bumppo 297]

Its SB-378. Not exactly what the NRA was hoping for.

And MAN that site is slow.. You have to click it with a drawl..

what's the beef with the NRA? It's a bill ...

And the slur comment with the "drawl" ... I have one word for you ....

[peejay 327]

I will help out and post a link to the "new law", known as the Licence to Murder law, which basically says, if you feel threatened, then blast away.

Texas is just the latest of 16 states to pass this type of law. The NRA aka the gun manufacturers lobby have been pushing congress for this type of legislation because it will sell more guns. (My Opinion obviously).

The law that the NRA is pushing goes way beyond self defense. Instead of using deadly force as a last resort, they want to make it the first option, no questions asked. This law would guarantee that. whether it was a misunderstanding or not, whether the antagonize was armed or not, whether the shooter accidentally hits an innocent bystander or not, this law would completely clear anyone who pulled a trigger because they "felt threatened" from any civil or criminal responsibility. If a someone accidentally shot a child because they thought an unarmed man was threatening them, this law would allow them to walk away free and clear.

Here is the link to a summary of the bill that was passed. They call it the Castle Doctrine, after ancient Roman or British law to try and make it sound quaint I guess. In any case, I wouldn't let your kids ride their bikes across your neighbors lawn in Texas.

http://www.gunlaws.com/TXBills2007/SB378%20Summary.html

And here is a link I found for you on the Texas website.

http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/billChapter/searchProc.cfm

What? Free and clear? You never heard of civil lawsuits? Negligent homicide?

Anyway...I didn't see anything in the legislation that states that people can spray lead with an AK-47 with abandon, kill half of their neighbors, and walk away Scot free. Aren't you being a bit presumptuous here? That is far from what these laws intend.

To me, what the law is intended to do is codify that a property owner or those acting on behalf of the property owner can use force to prevent the theft of their property. They do not have to retreat. Why should anyone have to run from a thief or stand by idly and watch crooks pick them clean?

Some people are whining that taking a life over property isn't worth the price. How about...is it worth gambling your life to take something that doesn't belong to you? How about putting the blame where it really belongs...with the thugs.

You don't even have to use a gun! If it takes a baseball bat, your fists, a crowbar, pipe wrench, etc., etc. A property own is not required to retreat and can use force prevent theft of their property. Lots of bad things happen when a property owner confronts a criminal. Life isn't always pretty or pleasant...is it? It's a part of the price they pay to live the life of a thug. An occupational hazard. What you sow is what you reap.

But if you want to wait 6 to 30 minutes for the cops to show up and protect your interests...party on. Nobody is forcing you to buy a gun or to live in the 16 barbaric states that allow this sort of thing.

[Scott & Lai 12]

I will help out and post a link to the "new law", known as the Licence to Murder law, which basically says, if you feel threatened, then blast away.

Texas is just the latest of 16 states to pass this type of law. The NRA aka the gun manufacturers lobby have been pushing congress for this type of legislation because it will sell more guns. (My Opinion obviously).

The law that the NRA is pushing goes way beyond self defense. Instead of using deadly force as a last resort, they want to make it the first option, no questions asked. This law would guarantee that. whether it was a misunderstanding or not, whether the antagonize was armed or not, whether the shooter accidentally hits an innocent bystander or not, this law would completely clear anyone who pulled a trigger because they "felt threatened" from any civil or criminal responsibility. If a someone accidentally shot a child because they thought an unarmed man was threatening them, this law would allow them to walk away free and clear.

Here is the link to a summary of the bill that was passed. They call it the Castle Doctrine, after ancient Roman or British law to try and make it sound quaint I guess. In any case, I wouldn't let your kids ride their bikes across your neighbors lawn in Texas.

http://www.gunlaws.com/TXBills2007/SB378%20Summary.html

And here is a link I found for you on the Texas website.

http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/billChapter/searchProc.cfm

What? Free and clear? You never heard of civil lawsuits? Negligent homicide?

Anyway...I didn't see anything in the legislation that states that people can spray lead with an AK-47 with abandon, kill half of their neighbors, and walk away Scot free. Aren't you being a bit presumptuous here? That is far from what these laws intend.

To me, what the law is intended to do is codify that a property owner or those acting on behalf of the property owner can use force to prevent the theft of their property. They do not have to retreat. Why should anyone have to run from a thief or stand by idly and watch crooks pick them clean?

Some people are whining that taking a life over property isn't worth the price. How about...is it worth gambling your life to take something that doesn't belong to you? How about putting the blame where it really belongs...with the thugs.

You don't even have to use a gun! If it takes a baseball bat, your fists, a crowbar, pipe wrench, etc., etc. A property own is not required to retreat and can use force prevent theft of their property. Lots of bad things happen when a property owner confronts a criminal. Life isn't always pretty or pleasant...is it? It's a part of the price they pay to live the life of a thug. An occupational hazard. What you sow is what you reap.

But if you want to wait 6 to 30 minutes for the cops to show up and protect your interests...party on. Nobody is forcing you to buy a gun or to live in the 16 barbaric states that allow this sort of thing.

I've always considered the idea that you must retreat from an assailant or robber to be an abomination. Someone who wishes to do you harm of body or property should not have legal assurance of being able to do so in safety.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Aren't we assuming here that the homeowner will make the right decision all of the time?

[Caladan 19]

I will help out and post a link to the "new law", known as the Licence to Murder law, which basically says, if you feel threatened, then blast away.

Texas is just the latest of 16 states to pass this type of law. The NRA aka the gun manufacturers lobby have been pushing congress for this type of legislation because it will sell more guns. (My Opinion obviously).

The law that the NRA is pushing goes way beyond self defense. Instead of using deadly force as a last resort, they want to make it the first option, no questions asked. This law would guarantee that. whether it was a misunderstanding or not, whether the antagonize was armed or not, whether the shooter accidentally hits an innocent bystander or not, this law would completely clear anyone who pulled a trigger because they "felt threatened" from any civil or criminal responsibility. If a someone accidentally shot a child because they thought an unarmed man was threatening them, this law would allow them to walk away free and clear.

Here is the link to a summary of the bill that was passed. They call it the Castle Doctrine, after ancient Roman or British law to try and make it sound quaint I guess. In any case, I wouldn't let your kids ride their bikes across your neighbors lawn in Texas.

http://www.gunlaws.com/TXBills2007/SB378%20Summary.html

And here is a link I found for you on the Texas website.

http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/billChapter/searchProc.cfm

What? Free and clear? You never heard of civil lawsuits? Negligent homicide?

Anyway...I didn't see anything in the legislation that states that people can spray lead with an AK-47 with abandon, kill half of their neighbors, and walk away Scot free. Aren't you being a bit presumptuous here? That is far from what these laws intend.

To me, what the law is intended to do is codify that a property owner or those acting on behalf of the property owner can use force to prevent the theft of their property. They do not have to retreat. Why should anyone have to run from a thief or stand by idly and watch crooks pick them clean?

Some people are whining that taking a life over property isn't worth the price. How about...is it worth gambling your life to take something that doesn't belong to you? How about putting the blame where it really belongs...with the thugs.

You don't even have to use a gun! If it takes a baseball bat, your fists, a crowbar, pipe wrench, etc., etc. A property own is not required to retreat and can use force prevent theft of their property. Lots of bad things happen when a property owner confronts a criminal. Life isn't always pretty or pleasant...is it? It's a part of the price they pay to live the life of a thug. An occupational hazard. What you sow is what you reap.

But if you want to wait 6 to 30 minutes for the cops to show up and protect your interests...party on. Nobody is forcing you to buy a gun or to live in the 16 barbaric states that allow this sort of thing.

If someone kills my child because he was sure my kid was a criminal, when it was just that my kid had just locked himself out and was coming over to ask to use the phone I don't want to have to file a wrongful death lawsuit. I want that to be a crime. Wouldn't you? OJ Simpson killed his wife, everyone thinks. Were people happy just with the wrongful death decision? Anyone feel justice was done? Saying adjudicating murder isn't the domain of the state seems off.

I have no problem otherwise with the law if it allows criminal prosecution if the valiant homeowner turns out to be wrong under some sort of reasonable person standard.

And it seems that the law does have this standard. My worry is how well it would be adjudicated. It's not out of sympathy for thugs. It's the worry that the law, if Horn is right, seems to allow me to defend anyone else's property as if it were my own. That doesn't seem right, not because I don't believe in self-defense, but because I don't think as a general rule I am in a good position to determine what is going on with my neighbor's property. I know if the guys loading the TV into their car at my house are thugs or nice people who bought my old TV on craigslist. I'm not in a position to know that about my neighbor, and so the law shouldn't extend me automatic reasonableness. (This doesn't mean I couldn't protect my neighbor if I so wanted. It just means that I'd have to overcome a higher burden of proof to show I was reasonable in firing.)

What the law does is create a presumption of reasonableness on behalf of the shooter. I don't think there should be a presumption of reasonableness when it's not the shooter's own property.

The text of the bill seems not to support Horn's actions, as the law says that the 'actor' may 'act' to defend the 'actor's' property, not everyone else's. And in Horn's case, again, he was not in immediate danger if he was sitting there calling 911 calmly asking if he could go shoot people.

[peejay 327]

Aren't we assuming here that the homeowner will make the right decision all of the time?

Neither do the courts...neither do the cops...neither do our politicians...neither does anyone else in the whole wide world. Life ain't perfect and never will be. Life ain't fair and never will be. Life is not civilized and hasn't changed much in that regard throughout history. Nothing is guaranteed 125%.

Most of the time I see the same people here picking everything apart in minute detail with "what ifs" to the point that nothing would ever be done, get done, or any problem ever solved. I could think of a multitude of reasons not to do a damned thing. That's not what most people are about. After all...it's easier to do nothing and whine about it later or complain and do nothing. Humankind has survived because most of us don't sit around idely with our thumbs up our arses waiting for providence to come to the rescue.

The question should really be about "risk vs. reward". There were lots of naysayers when licensed concealed carry permits for law abiding citizens were allowed and the positives have far outweighed the negatives. The victimizers are running scared rather than those that sat passively waiting to be a victim like sitting ducks in a barrel.

That is certainly rewarding. I'm no sitting duck nor do I ever wish to be.

[Caladan 19]

It's not playing what ifs, peejay. It's actually reading the text of the law which does NOT sanction Horn's actions.

And there's nothing wrong with considering alternatives when the option on the table is 'if someone gets murdered, they can just sue for money!!!'

[peejay 327]

It's not playing what ifs, peejay. It's actually reading the text of the law which does NOT sanction Horn's actions.

And there's nothing wrong with considering alternatives when the option on the table is 'if someone gets murdered, they can just sue for money!!!'

Last time I heard...murder was against the law. Who is advocating murder?

As far as Horn goes...I never said the guy was 100% right, but he isn't a murderer either. Would you feel any better about it if the 2 thugs crawled out of his window before he shot them? Probably not.

IMO Horn should get, at most, a probated sentence aqnd I really don't think he deserves even that given my limited knowledge of the facts. I'll wait and see how this plays out in the system though.

Edited December 9, 2007 by peejay

[natty bumppo 297]

If someone kills my child because he was sure my kid was a criminal, when it was just that my kid had just locked himself out and was coming over to ask to use the phone I don't want to have to file a wrongful death lawsuit. I want that to be a crime. Wouldn't you? OJ Simpson killed his wife, everyone thinks. Were people happy just with the wrongful death decision? Anyone feel justice was done? Saying adjudicating murder isn't the domain of the state seems off.

I have no problem otherwise with the law if it allows criminal prosecution if the valiant homeowner turns out to be wrong under some sort of reasonable person standard.

And it seems that the law does have this standard. My worry is how well it would be adjudicated. It's not out of sympathy for thugs. It's the worry that the law, if Horn is right, seems to allow me to defend anyone else's property as if it were my own. That doesn't seem right, not because I don't believe in self-defense, but because I don't think as a general rule I am in a good position to determine what is going on with my neighbor's property. I know if the guys loading the TV into their car at my house are thugs or nice people who bought my old TV on craigslist. I'm not in a position to know that about my neighbor, and so the law shouldn't extend me automatic reasonableness. (This doesn't mean I couldn't protect my neighbor if I so wanted. It just means that I'd have to overcome a higher burden of proof to show I was reasonable in firing.)

What the law does is create a presumption of reasonableness on behalf of the shooter. I don't think there should be a presumption of reasonableness when it's not the shooter's own property.

The text of the bill seems not to support Horn's actions, as the law says that the 'actor' may 'act' to defend the 'actor's' property, not everyone else's. And in Horn's case, again, he was not in immediate danger if he was sitting there calling 911 calmly asking if he could go shoot people.

Appears the kid needs to learn manners. be non threatening when asking, and also to not attempt B&E while asking to use the phone. Also one would hope the neighbors would already know the kid ... unless the kid is a recluse. A kid walking up a sidewalk to ask for use of a phone should not be a threatening situation.

There is also common sense in situations.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Aren't we assuming here that the homeowner will make the right decision all of the time?

Neither do the courts...neither do the cops...neither do our politicians...neither does anyone else in the whole wide world. Life ain't perfect and never will be. Life ain't fair and never will be. Life is not civilized and hasn't changed much in that regard throughout history. Nothing is guaranteed 125%.

Most of the time I see the same people here picking everything apart in minute detail with "what ifs" to the point that nothing would ever be done, get done, or any problem ever solved. I could think of a multitude of reasons not to do a damned thing. That's not what most people are about. After all...it's easier to do nothing and whine about it later or complain and do nothing. Humankind has survived because most of us don't sit around idely with our thumbs up our arses waiting for providence to come to the rescue.

The question should really be about "risk vs. reward". There were lots of naysayers when licensed concealed carry permits for law abiding citizens were allowed and the positives have far outweighed the negatives. The victimizers are running scared rather than those that sat passively waiting to be a victim like sitting ducks in a barrel.

That is certainly rewarding. I'm no sitting duck nor do I ever wish to be.

I don't have anything against legitimate self-defence in specific circumstances. I do think though that as far as property defence goes - once you step off your own property and go looking for trouble, you're in Charles Bronson Death Wish country.