Joe Horn?

[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?

[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

[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?

[adios]

I'm guessing when this is all said and done he'll regret shooting those guys and will actually wish he'd have just ignored the whole situation to begin with and let them go on their merry way. When people usurp this kind of power from government, the government comes down hard and with a vengeance IMO.

[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.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
When people usurp this kind of power from government, the government comes down hard and with a vengeance IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute... Since when do the people get their authority from the Govt? It's my understanding that since the people created the Govt, then the Govt gets it's authority from the people. Not vice versa.

/hijack

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
When people usurp this kind of power from government, the government comes down hard and with a vengeance IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

White guy shoots a couple of Hispanics who were engaging in a nefarious activity in Tom DeLay country.

Something tells me this he's got a good chance of finding a sympathetic jury if he gets charged with something. If the DA decided to charge the guy with anything, I'd wager it's something less than murder (despite the fact it sounded rather premeditated and malicious), because I doubt there's any real hope for getting Horn convicted of murder. So I really don't think the government is going to come down on hard on him, if at all.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When people usurp this kind of power from government, the government comes down hard and with a vengeance IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

White guy shoots a couple of Hispanics who were engaging in a nefarious activity in Tom DeLay country.

Something tells me this he's got a good chance of finding a sympathetic jury if he gets charged with something. If the DA decided to charge the guy with anything, I'd wager it's something less than murder (despite the fact it sounded rather premeditated and malicious), because I doubt there's any real hope for getting Horn convicted of murder. So I really don't think the government is going to come down on hard on him, if at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll see what happens but I disagree. Don't know all the facts of the case yet though and we'll see what happens at a trial. Might be a good time to revisit this case and see what's presented at the trial.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When people usurp this kind of power from government, the government comes down hard and with a vengeance IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute... Since when do the people get their authority from the Govt? It's my understanding that since the people created the Govt, then the Govt gets it's authority from the people. Not vice versa.

/hijack

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently he thought he had authority from the government to shoot these guys.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently he thought he had authority from the government to shoot these guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, this is going to be a key point if this guy every gets charged and it goes to trial.

Horn's defense attorney will attempt to paint him as a good-Samaritan who was confused about the law, was scared/emotional, feared for his own safety, and made a completely understandable decision 'real' Americans can empathize with, even if it crossed a line.

I'm sure the prosecution will do just the opposite -- attempt to paint Horn as a wild-eyed vigilante who informed the dispatcher of his intent to kill the guys (rather than just try to deter them from robbing the house) and had multiple opportunities to reconsider his actions -- to contradict the defense's claim it was just a "heat of the moment" decision.

I suspect it will depend on whether or not the jury believes this guy was just a confused old man who behaved righteously and perhaps even had am ambiguous law on his side, or if they think he was a hothead cowboy with a gun looking for a reason to shoot some petty criminals who didn't deserve it and posed no physical threat to him.