:golf claps: ^^
This is a discussion on Man Shoots Burglars: PASADENA, TX: MERGED within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by robere Sometimes on this forum people speak one way of handling a situation,then when it happens, it's different. How often do we ...
From my reading of this thread and others, I think most of us agree that Mr. Horn, regardless of whether or not his actions were legal, clearly expressed his intent to kill these guys long before there was any chance that he could have feared for his life, and that is a problem. On the other hand, most have had no problem with the idea that a couple of guys who willfully broke the law are no longer available for that kind of work.
I'd suspect that this is a disconnect that most of us have and that we are continually struggling with, whether we admit it or not. And since the threshold regarding when it is no longer acceptable to simply be a good witness is different for each of us, different scenarios are going to illicit different responses, even from the same people. I think this just shows how hard some of these issues are to deal with for many of us, and also that most of us are actively thinking about such things. The more we think, the more we learn, and be better we'll be able to handle situations that might arise.
Hopefully this will be academic for everyone reading this, and none of us will have to worry about anything worse than being "made" at Thanksgiving dinner. But I suspect the things we think about when reading these discussions are going to be of real benefit to at least a few of us over the course of our lives.
So let the debate rage on! So long as we are learning as we go, and not just reacting in a knee-jerk way, then it is worth the time it takes to read and respond. At least that's what I think...
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had a right to choose: his own." - John Galt, from Atlas Shrugged
Didn't I read some good advice on this forum about just how far you should go for someone other than family or loved one? Be ready to risk your welfare, wealth and freedom to protect another person let alone that person's property. I don't remember a warning from the shooter other than "you're dead!" He may get off but I think I would rather have taken my chances calling the police and remaining in my home as I was not in any danger.
So if one of us good guys catches the criminals "in the act", they just walk? I believe this discusion has been great! I firmly believe that if we make our bed, we will have to lie in it."I prefer to make my bed to be a peaceful, safe place and not one I have to cower in and if it is necessary to do what Mr. Horn did, so be it. The criminals were caught in the act. Bet that neighborhood is on the "Don't go there" list for the other criminals in that area so much has been accomplished.
Peace and contentment, as freedom, isn't cheap and if it is paid for with the blood of criminals, then things haven't really changed since society began.
Once again, the jury pool sees these rulings and as long as we, as good citizens, continue to speak publicly and praise these rulings, the jury pool can and will be affected and they will be the ones who will be passing judgement on us if we are in a situation such as this.
We have momentum and are winning and we all know how people like to hover around a winner, so we should go with it.
We are ALL tired of the justice system. I think most are venting their frustrations in this thread. I'm frustrated too. But I'm sure not going to go out with a gun and confront 2 robbers at my neighbors house saying ' I'm going to kill them".
I own a gun for my protection and my families protection, "if our life is threatened. "
Distinguishing between when it (lethal force) is necessary and not is a sign of our humanity. Without the ability to make that distinction, we are no better than the worst of our species.
Besides, what you're talking about was rooted in racism, not in response to actual crime. What I'm advocating is going full-bore after actual criminals, not using ridiculous excuses to be able to simply randomly execute those of a particular race that we don't like or something.
And yes, although the guy said he was going out there to kill them; but that's not proof he actually would have if they had not threatened him by advancing on him. We'll never know if he would have declined to shoot if they had just dropped everything and run away. The fact is, what he said to 911 is academic: whether he'd said it or not, he went out there and was threatened and responded in defense.
Lot's of neighborhood burglaries happen in sprees, committed by the same people. It's very possible that Mr. Horn could have found himself the victim of a burglary some days down the line. Maybe he might have come home to surprise them and been killed. Who knows? There's more at risk than just the neighbor's stuff. Remember when Peter Parker smugly said it was "not his problem" when the robber ran past him with that guy's money? And then the same guy he let go ended up killing his uncle.If someone broke in my house while I'm home, yes I will use deadly force. But to go to a neighbors house ,( that he really doesnt even know to beat all ) and go murder 2 people.
I'd like to borrow an old Texas saying, and modify it a bit:
"He who messes with the bull... gets Mr. Horn."
It sounds like what you're saying is we should reject what works in favor of what we've been accepting all this time even though that doesn't work.
I'm pretty tired of people championing the notion of doing nothing, and letting it be someone else's responsibility to make sure that good triumphs; of people talking of the virtue of leaving bad guys around to prey further; and of speaking as though the good guys have "no right" to make sure that evil does not win. I say we have EVERY RIGHT -- and PARTICULARLY when we see that those we have put in charge are FAILING MISERABLY.
It's not much of a choice. How long do we have to tolerate failure before we are justified in taking over the reigns for those who are failing us all?
If that's the way you want it, I hope your neighbors dont ask me to feed their cat and not tell you I'm gonna be there. Maybe we should adopt the laws of Iran. Now there's a civil society.
Been away for a while - interesting developments. A few points:
Brazil - Yes, there are certain cities (well, neighborhoods, really) that have high crime rates. But guess what else there is a LOT of here? Extra-judicial killings by the police. Shooting the criminals in the head, right in their homes, doesn't seem to be having much deterrent effect...why would the possibility of a death sentence somewhere down the road? I support the death penalty, but don't kid yourself into believing that is a real deterrent. In all the criminal interviews I've read, there is one common thread: the criminal doesn't expect to get caught, ever, period. So no threatened punishment will deter them, as they don't think they will ever be punished at all.
Two - We are a nation of laws. We don't get to pick and choose which ones we like, which ones we'll ignore, and which ones we (as normal citizens) will distribute punishment for. I don't like the criminality that exists here any more than anyone else, but having seen several other justice systems up close and personal, I can say without reservation that ours is MUCH better than any other one I know of. It's often slow, often lenient, and sometimes just flat-out fails...but it's the best anyone has been able to come up with. By advocating straight-up vigilantism, you are advocating CRIMINAL acts - which, in some of your stated views, means I should be able to execute you on the spot if I witness it.
Last edited by OPFOR; November 28th, 2007 at 01:20 PM.
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
I agree with much that you have said. It is true that the criminal mind never thinks that they will get caught and their arrogant mindset makes them do stupid things that make them get caught. After 30 years as a LEO, I have seen what you speak of.
I don't "advocate straight up vigilantism." I do advocate doing the right thing. What if a LEO had been the one that was standing in Mr. Horns' shoes and he failed to take action? Would he be filed on for "dereliction of duty"? It is a given that the criminals have no respect for laws and law enforcement so why is it that good, honest taxpaying citizens have to sit idly by and cower in their homes instead of doing what a police officer would do in the same situation?
If Horn had been a LEO he would then very likely be compelled by law if not his employment contract to investigate and intercede. For most police a police is a police 24x7, on or off the clock. That scenario though would be wholly different than actuality.
In actuality Horn was not a police. He was a citizen, a regular Joe Blow like me and most.
Citizens are not asked nor encouraged to sit idly by and cower in their homes. We civilian non-LEO citizens are encouraged to dial 911 and be as good a witness as is 1) Safe and 2) Practical. Same applies to cases of fire. You don't go running into a house to 'save' it and property when no humans are in direct danger armed with ones hose from the backyard and/or an ABC fire extinguisher picked up from WalMart. What is proper and sensible and smart is to dial 911, provide as most accurate information as at all possible, and let the professionals arrive on scene to do the job to a high level without Joe Blow interceding to muck up the project.
Horn was doing great and excellent as a non-police civilian citizen up until the point where he made the choice to walk out his door and purposefully go to where he knew there was danger (on his own property) and to deputize himself so as to apply his own street justice toward what he judged to be two criminals. He acted foolishly, selfishly, and as by definition a 'vigilante'.
In America under American law vigilante action and vigilantism is not endorsed, advocated, nor lawful and is normally deemed to be a crime and criminal.
One entry found.
vig·i·lan·te Listen to the pronunciation of vigilante
Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
— vig·i·lan·tism Listen to the pronunciation of vigilantism \-ˈlan-ˌti-zəm\ noun
Source - http://m-w.com/dictionary/vigilante
Exceptions though do occur such as apparently is the case in Texas.