Pasadena police say Horn shot the 2 men in the back

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

I hope you never need the assistance of another to protect you/ yours and that someone who could have protected for you doesn't just sit back and munch on pizza and beer while watching the entertinment at your house. After all ... the neighbor also has zero obligation to report or dial 911.

[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.

I hope you never need the assistance of another to protect you/ yours and that someone who could have protected for you doesn't just sit back and munch on pizza and beer while watching the entertinment at your house. After all ... the neighbor also has zero obligation to report or dial 911.

I hear you. But something tells me you don't mean the "never" and "doesnt" part.

Besides, I live in a Neighbourhood Watch community.

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

I hope you never need the assistance of another to protect you/ yours and that someone who could have protected for you doesn't just sit back and munch on pizza and beer while watching the entertinment at your house. After all ... the neighbor also has zero obligation to report or dial 911.

I hear you. But something tells me you don't mean the "never" and "doesnt" part.

Besides, I live in a Neighbourhood Watch community.

Mind reader now??

Oh sorry ... projecting your words onto others again

[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.

I hope you never need the assistance of another to protect you/ yours and that someone who could have protected for you doesn't just sit back and munch on pizza and beer while watching the entertinment at your house. After all ... the neighbor also has zero obligation to report or dial 911.

I hear you. But something tells me you don't mean the "never" and "doesnt" part.

Besides, I live in a Neighbourhood Watch community.

Mind reader now??

Oh sorry ... projecting your words onto others again

Well you set a good example to follow. As usual of course its only bad when I do it.

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

I hope you never need the assistance of another to protect you/ yours and that someone who could have protected for you doesn't just sit back and munch on pizza and beer while watching the entertinment at your house. After all ... the neighbor also has zero obligation to report or dial 911.

I hear you. But something tells me you don't mean the "never" and "doesnt" part.

Besides, I live in a Neighbourhood Watch community.

Mind reader now??

Oh sorry ... projecting your words onto others again

Well you set a good example to follow. As usual of course its only bad when I do it.

Nice try ...

you're the one placing words ... just look up ...

Edited December 9, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BTW - how is your research coming?

[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!!!'

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.

You were saying that if someone were shot by a homeowner defending his property, the homeowner should not be charged, even in the event that he was mistaken, and the family could seek justice via a wrongful death suit. If I've misunderstood you, fine, but wrongful death civil suits are not a replacement for criminal prosecution when it's warranted.

I am not saying, by the way, that it would be wrong for a neighbor to go to a neighbor's assistance. Or that assisting a neighbor by shooting a thug should result in a murder charge. This is strictly a legal argument about reasonableness and the burden of proof, and I think it should be higher on one's neighbor's property than it would be on one's own. So the idea being that if you're going to charge onto your neighbor's property and start firing, you better be damned sure you've read the situation properly (in a way you wouldn't need to prove you were certain, were it your own home.)

[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.

You were saying that if someone were shot by a homeowner defending his property, the homeowner should not be charged, even in the event that he was mistaken, and the family could seek justice via a wrongful death suit. If I've misunderstood you, fine, but wrongful death civil suits are not a replacement for criminal prosecution when it's warranted.

I am not saying, by the way, that it would be wrong for a neighbor to go to a neighbor's assistance. Or that assisting a neighbor by shooting a thug should result in a murder charge. This is strictly a legal argument about reasonableness and the burden of proof, and I think it should be higher on one's neighbor's property than it would be on one's own. So the idea being that if you're going to charge onto your neighbor's property and start firing, you better be damned sure you've read the situation properly (in a way you wouldn't need to prove you were certain, were it your own home.)

I never said that. It was cmartyn several posts back that asserted that Texas law is a license to murder. It isn't and never was intended to be. It doesn't give a homeowner license to shoot children riding a bicycle in the homeowner's yard. Come on...lets get real here. Anytime anyone (including a cop) kills anyone for any reason it is a very serious matter and should be. It isn't something to be taken lightly. Every case is unique and comes with different circumstances. If someone shoots a kid that breaks into their own house because they lost their house key...the good samaritan shooter would most probably be in for major legal sanctions and likely prison.

There is no way every law can be written for every individual case. The point here is the intent of the law. IMO I think Texas law in Horn's case is probably 90% that he was justified in the action he took. I think it is highly improbable that a jury of his peers would convict him of anything. The district attorney probably realizes that fact and will not waste the taxpayers money pursuing a wild goose chase. And I doubt that the FBI or the US Justice Department will buy into Quanell X's wild allegations either. Google up "Quanell X" some time and look into that idiot's background.

[cmartyn 0]

My use of the term license to murder is derived from the fact that prior to the new law he would be guilty of murder, now he is probably not. This law is not new, and there are a lot of interesting cases that have completed in Florida where people have shot their neighbors and patrons during verbal exchanges. Some of these cases seem to be murderous to me. It’s not that big of a stretch to come up with the term. Hence why its so popular when describing these laws. These laws are designed to head off civil and criminal prosecution. Apparently a lot of gun owners want to cap someone and don’t feel they should have to answer for it. It’s the attitude of the gun lobby that is dangerous and what led me to my second, albeit not very detailed comment about the kids on bikes. E.g. If your neighbors kids are bugging the ###### out of you, just cap em and say “I thought they had a knife!” The cops are supposed to shrug their shoulders? I don’t know, it may sound preposterous but after reading a few Florida cases it’s hardly that far fetched.

[natty bumppo 297]

My use of the term license to murder is derived from the fact that prior to the new law he would be guilty of murder, now he is probably not. This law is not new, and there are a lot of interesting cases that have completed in Florida where people have shot their neighbors and patrons during verbal exchanges. Some of these cases seem to be murderous to me. It’s not that big of a stretch to come up with the term. Hence why its so popular when describing these laws. These laws are designed to head off civil and criminal prosecution. Apparently a lot of gun owners want to cap someone and don’t feel they should have to answer for it. It’s the attitude of the gun lobby that is dangerous and what led me to my second, albeit not very detailed comment about the kids on bikes. E.g. If your neighbors kids are bugging the ###### out of you, just cap em and say “I thought they had a knife!” The cops are supposed to shrug their shoulders? I don’t know, it may sound preposterous but after reading a few Florida cases it’s hardly that far fetched.

TX isn't Florida ... and please support your comment with links. It makes the conversation easier for others to follow and review.

It's all about gun owners isn't it ... who needs a gun to defend? There are so many other tools to use ....

Edited December 10, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[mawilson 2,133]

But he didn't shoot the cop...did he? And if pigs had wings they would fly.

If they had wings, it would be much harder to shoot them.

Edited December 10, 2007 by mawilson

[Jason-Sasha 1]