Joe Horn?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/agree ... does it matter to you if they were in his yard at that point as he states on the later 911 call?

[/ QUOTE ]

These guys were apparently unarmed. If some unarmed people are trespassing on this guy's property, does he have the right to shoot them? I sure hope not, but I suppose I'll plead ignorant to Texas state law on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

law =/= right

I don't have a huge deal of sympathy for people breaking and entering however I don’t think that it's moral to kill at zero range people who are ostensibly unarmed. The mentality of someone who goes out of his way to look for someone to shoot (not that that necessarily happened in this case) is a very very disturbing one.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
law =/= right

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was. Since we're talking about the facts of the case, what the guy is allowed to do in the state of Texas to stop a crime, etc., then state law is relevant. I'm not saying "zomg the state law says X, therefore he is morally bound to X".

Do you guys have to ACtard up every thread?

[GoodCallYouWin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
law =/= right

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was. Since we're talking about the facts of the case, what the guy is allowed to do in the state of Texas to stop a crime, etc., then state law is relevant. I'm not saying "zomg the state law says X, therefore he is morally bound to X".

Do you guys have to ACtard up every thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

So pointing out that law != morality is ACtarding? You yourself imply that you understand law != morality in this very post, does that mean you are ACtarding?

[DVaut1]

I say: "Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction or authority to threaten deadly force on his neighbor's property, and the guy who wrote the Texas law (see post above) never intended the law to function like that.

Just because Horn says "you move, your dead" and the guys move anyway doesn't give Horn carte blanche to fire away."

neblis says: "but what if the guys were on his property, does that matter?"

I say: "I don't know Texas state law"

tomdemaine says: "law != right"

This is total ACtarding. Yeah, I get it tom, law != right; when I note that Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction and authority to threaten deadly force, it's pretty clear I'm doing so in the context of what the law allows. tom just wanted to ACtard up the thread by making a point I never disagreed with ('law != right') in the hopes someone would take the bait and start engaging him in the ACtard argument he desperately wanted to have, ie., pretty much a repeat of the entire history of this forum for about the last 2 years.

Cue the "zomg ACists just want to talk about the 'interesting' philosophy behind this, some of us don't care what the law is, stop being soooooo mean" whines from the AC crowd and their associated sycophants.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
I say: "Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction or authority to threaten deadly force on his neighbor's property, and the guy who wrote the Texas law (see post above) never intended the law to function like that.

Just because Horn says "you move, your dead" and the guys move anyway doesn't give Horn carte blanche to fire away."

neblis says: "but what if the guys were on his property, does that matter?"

I say: "I don't know Texas state law"

tomdemaine says: "law != right"

This is total ACtarding. Yeah, I get it tom, law != right; when I note that Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction and authority to threaten deadly force, it's pretty clear I'm doing so in the context of what the law allows. tom just wanted to ACtard up the thread by making a point I never disagreed with ('law != right') in the hopes someone would take the bait and start engaging him in the ACtard argument he desperately wanted to have, ie., pretty much a repeat of the entire history of this forum for about the last 2 years.

Cue the "zomg ACists just want to talk about the 'interesting' philosophy behind this, some of us don't care what the law is, stop being soooooo mean" whines from the AC crowd and their associated sycophants.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
I say: "Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction or authority to threaten deadly force on his neighbor's property, and the guy who wrote the Texas law (see post above) never intended the law to function like that.

Just because Horn says "you move, your dead" and the guys move anyway doesn't give Horn carte blanche to fire away."

neblis says: "but what if the guys were on his property, does that matter?"

I say: "I don't know Texas state law"

tomdemaine says: "law != right"

This is total ACtarding. Yeah, I get it tom, law != right; when I note that Joe Horn doesn't have the jurisdiction and authority to threaten deadly force, it's pretty clear I'm doing so in the context of what the law allows. tom just wanted to ACtard up the thread by making a point I never disagreed with ('law != right') in the hopes someone would take the bait and start engaging him in the ACtard argument he desperately wanted to have, ie., pretty much a repeat of the entire history of this forum for about the last 2 years.

Cue the "zomg ACists just want to talk about the 'interesting' philosophy behind this, some of us don't care what the law is, stop being soooooo mean" whines from the AC crowd and their associated sycophants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, tee off on me much?

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
These guys were apparently unarmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

after the fact this may be apparent.

But if I point a gun at a robber and say "you move your dead" and he does anything but put his hands straight up in the air. /end robber