911 Tape: Man Kills Two Burglars

[cosmictraveler]

If I were a bugler and knew in advance that I was taking a chance by going to steal something from someone, then the real problem is that those who don't know what type of risks they may take while doing something against the law, shouldn't be viewed as those who really give a shit about anyone else's lives or property so why should we give them any more interest than they give us?

 

[Simon Anders]

So now the penalty for burglary is death. No one can argue that their life was in danger. So the penalty for burglary is death.

If I see Mr. Horn is cheating on his taxes, I am going to blow his ass to kingdom come.

I will not call the IRS. I will just start shooting.

I mean the other night some guys crawled out of a window of my neighbors house. I could have shot their son for sneaking out to get laid. I mean I didn't know it was their son who is 17, but it's his own fault for not using the front door. If you sneak, you pay the price.

The other day I shot my neighbor's best friend. I thought she was stealing her car, but it was a loaner. Well, you damn well better let all your neighbors know who you loan your cars to, especially if you loan that car to a black person.

I feel so much anger at the smug, violent people here.

Why don't you move to Saudi Arabia so you can watch people have their arms chopped off or their heads. Your sense of justice does not belong anywhere that has moved on from the Middle Ages.

 

[milkweed]

So now the penalty for burglary is death. No one can argue that their life was in danger.

Fleeing felons do risk the penalty of death. Home invaders do risk the penalty of death. So yes, you commit a serious crime you do risk the penalty of death depending on your location.

I feel so much anger at the smug, violent people here.

Maybe your anger would be best directed at the criminals committing acts that put law abiding citizens at risk. It may only be STUFF to you, but I worked hard for my stuff.

Why don't you move to Saudi Arabia so you can watch people have their arms chopped off or their heads. Your sense of justice does not belong anywhere that has moved on from the Middle Ages.

Criminals should be aware of the penalty they may face should they choose to commit a crime. They want to prey upon law abiding persons, then their next of kin may read in the paper a jury of your peers found the death that resulted was no crime.

 

[kenworth]

So now the penalty for burglary is death. No one can argue that their life was in danger. So the penalty for burglary is death.

http://www.dumbcriminals.com/other/gun-closet/

tell me thats not funny

 

[Simon Anders]

Fleeing felons do risk the penalty of death. Home invaders do risk the penalty of death. So yes, you commit a serious crime you do risk the penalty of death depending on your location.

Obviously they risk death. It is still immoral. It is beyond an eye for an eye. If you are a danger to the lives of others and police need to shoot that is one thing. That untrained citizens can now decide what is a crime, how serious the threat is and when to fire, is just stupid. I mean, why bother training police?

Maybe your anger would be best directed at the criminals committing acts that put law abiding citizens at risk. It may only be STUFF to you, but I worked hard for my stuff.

My anger is not limited to the anger I feel at the shooter in this case or the grand jury, I am also angry at criminals. Just because people piss me off does not mean they should die. They put my life at risk or someone else's or there is no good way to know if they are putting that life in risk, that's one thing. This was clearly a crime against property.

Now average citizens without training can think: hey, I'll be a cool cop-like figure and decide when a crime is being committed and when it is right to shoot etc.

 

[lucifers angel]

A fork can be a weapon. Back to eating with your fingers I guess. Nothing but cold sausages on the menu.

yes it can be, if its carried has a weapon, if someone is walking down the road at 2 in the morning with a fork in they're pocket you can gaurantee that they havent just come from a bring your own fork party!

 

[milkweed]

Obviously they risk death. It is still immoral. It is beyond an eye for an eye. If you are a danger to the lives of others and police need to shoot that is one thing. That untrained citizens can now decide what is a crime, how serious the threat is and when to fire, is just stupid. I mean, why bother training police?

Untrained citizens? Joe Horn hit his targets. That aside, he also faced a grand jury. There is a risk to a citizen that what they do may result in charges against them. Given the options, I would rather have the freedom to make a choice to defend rather than the absolute of "wait for the cops".

My anger is not limited to the anger I feel at the shooter in this case or the grand jury, I am also angry at criminals. Just because people piss me off does not mean they should die. They put my life at risk or someone else's or there is no good way to know if they are putting that life in risk, that's one thing. This was clearly a crime against property.

And bank robbery is just a crime against property, but bank robbers face the risk of being taken down. I never claimed people should die because they piss me off. Burglery is a serious crime. Dont take my stuff. Period.

Now average citizens without training can think: hey, I'll be a cool cop-like figure and decide when a crime is being committed and when it is right to shoot etc.

We should be so lucky.

 

[Simon Anders]

Criminals should be aware of the penalty they may face should they choose to commit a crime. They want to prey upon law abiding persons, then their next of kin may read in the paper a jury of your peers found the death that resulted was no crime.

Once it became obvious that Enron officials were destroying pension funds of hardworking employees, should 'concerned' citizens have been allow to enter the offices with shotguns to meet out justice since these officials were committing felonies. And if you commit a felony, you should know you are risking death.

Oh, and if you concerned about where it happens the vigilanties could wait out in the parking lot or where the cars exit the lot and enter public roads.

 

[milkweed]

yes it can be, if its carried has a weapon, if someone is walking down the road at 2 in the morning with a fork in they're pocket you can gaurantee that they havent just come from a bring your own fork party!

OH NO!! Its the Forking Police

 

[milkweed]

Once it became obvious that Enron officials were destroying pension funds of hardworking employees, should 'concerned' citizens have been allow to enter the offices with shotguns to meet out justice since these officials were committing felonies. And if you commit a felony, you should know you are risking death.

Oh, and if you concerned about where it happens the vigilanties could wait out in the parking lot or where the cars exit the lot and enter public roads.

Wow. I bet you have really bad nightmares.

Joe Horn was on his own property. The criminals came from the house they had broken into and onto his property. If they would have listened to him, they would still be alive, burdening the legal systems with trials and appeals and then the wait in custody as they are shipped back to columbia (they were illegals).

One simple grand jury and its over. Joe Horn saved texas a bunch of tax dollars.

 

[Simon Anders]

Untrained citizens? Joe Horn hit his targets.

That was a very telling misinterpretation on your part. Think for a moment what training I meant.

That aside, he also faced a grand jury. There is a risk to a citizen that what they do may result in charges against them. Given the options, I would rather have the freedom to make a choice to defend rather than the absolute of "wait for the cops".

1) you are saying he should not have been at risk
2) he was not defending. he was punishing. they were running away.

And bank robbery is just a crime against property, but bank robbers face the risk of being taken down.

Sure, if they are armed or it is not clear if they are armed because they are in a building with innocent people. It is reasonable to assume the people in the bank are in danger.

I never claimed people should die because they piss me off. Burglery is a serious crime. Dont take my stuff. Period.

They weren't taking his stuff.

Housesitters, cleaning services, visiting relatives....etc.
beware.

We should be so lucky.

Wow, I guess you don't drive much. You clearly have no idea how poor people's judgement can be with machines that can kill but were not made expressly for that purpose.

We should not be so lucky.

Burglery is a serious crime.

No one is denying that. First you assume that I don't get angry at criminals, a group that includes the shooter in this case, but certainly includes burglars. Now you seem to think if I have trouble with death as the punishment for a crime I don't think it is a serious crime. Actually I think a numbers of years in a prison where you stand a good chance of being raped and are scared pretty much the whole time is serious punishment FOR A NON-VIOLENT CRIME. How strange that I am not clapping my hands at a literal overkill.

 

[Simon Anders]

Wow. I bet you have really bad nightmares.

You completely sidestepped my point. Should the felons I mentioned also have been confronted at gunpoint and if, scared, they turned and ran, been shot to death?

 

[milkweed]

You completely sidestepped my point. Should the felons I mentioned also have been confronted at gunpoint and if, scared, they turned and ran, been shot to death?

The only felons you mentioned were the Enron execs. Fact is if they had tried to flee they would have been fleeing felons as the possibility existed that they could die for it.

Stop dealing with your imagined scenarios and stick to the reality situations. Theres plenty of that to go around.

 

[Simon Anders]

The only felons you mentioned were the Enron execs. Fact is if they had tried to flee they would have been fleeing felons as the possibility existed that they could die for it.

Stop dealing with your imagined scenarios and stick to the reality situations. Theres plenty of that to go around.

It was a real situation. No police would have pointed shotguns at them in the dark and blown them away if they ran. I wanted to see if you could really live up to your philosophy and treat all felons the same way: tax evaders, for example. I don't know who you are or where you sit in society, but I wanted to see if perhaps your morality only applies in certain cases, but when the felon in question seem 'other' than you, you don't care if the punishment goes way beyond the crime. You may be consistant about this, but it is quite reasonable to probe in discussions of ethics to see if the person's moral stance is consistant.

Let me know if you figure out the training I mentioned above.

My sense is you are heartless enough to not give a shit about the disproportionate punishment. But there are practical results of letting people think they can run out on their lawns or into hallways and decide they know when and who to shoot.

 

[Simon Anders]

Justice in the 'new' system:
DWI - instead of throwing down a spiked chain police sharpshooters put a rifle shell through the drunks brain on empty parts of the road. (it should be noted that a drunk driver is, unlike the men the shotgun toting vigilante killed, a threat to human life)

Even three strikes laws make a distinction between violent felonies and other felonies.

 

[milkweed]

It was a real situation. No police would have pointed shotguns at them in the dark and blown them away if they ran. I wanted to see if you could really live up to your philosophy and treat all felons the same way: tax evaders, for example. I don't know who you are or where you sit in society, but I wanted to see if perhaps your morality only applies in certain cases, but when the felon in question seem 'other' than you, you don't care if the punishment goes way beyond the crime. You may be consistant about this, but it is quite reasonable to probe in discussions of ethics to see if the person's moral stance is consistant.

You keep changing the scenario... Now its a dark office. Tax evaders? Enron people were not tax evaders. The reality is the only people who would know if someone was a tax evader (besides the evader) is the accountant (who possibly may not know) or the IRS. Data privacy and all that goes with it.

Consistent? Your scenarios are either so vague they are not really worth the attempt to address them, or so unrelated (or dare I say farfetched) that consistent could not be applied. Besides, its not about ethics (your probe of someones moral stance). If you dont want to shoot a burgler then dont. Wait for the police. You dont want to own a gun, fine by me. Ethical enough for you?

Let me know if you figure out the training I mentioned above.

You dont think being able to hit your target is important?

My sense is ...

"Shrug*

 

[Asguard]

hey why not shoot little 5 year olds who steal a lolly from a store, after all they are DANGIOUS CRIMINALS
What a load of crap

this was murder pure and simple

 

[Bells]

Joe Horn was on his own property. The criminals came from the house they had broken into and onto his property. If they would have listened to him, they would still be alive, burdening the legal systems with trials and appeals and then the wait in custody as they are shipped back to columbia (they were illegals).

Ok. They came onto his property and he says, threatened him. Now here's the thing I don't understand. Why did he shoot both in the back as they attempted to flee down the street (by Horn's own words to the dispatcher)? After all, if they threatened him, they'd have to be close enough and/or facing him to pose a threat. But they were running down towards the street, away from him.

Exactly what did he say to them that they didn't listen to? Here is something from the OP's quote that belies what you are attempting to convey:

Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."

On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.

"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.

Then Horn is back on the phone:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."​

So what exactly didn't they listen to? He does not appear to have told them to stop. All he said was "Boom! You're dead!". Then the shots are heard. I am assuming from all reports that they were fleeing? Even Horn stated to the dispatcher when he returned inside his house that "he almost run down the street". So they should have listened and somehow survived when he said "Boom! You're dead!"? But then, he shot them straight away.

How exactly is someone fleeing down towards the street, with his back to Horn, a threat to Horn?

Tell me, do you think the police would have opened fire on two fleeing robbers? Or would they have attempted to chase them instead? I wonder, how many robbers do police shoot in the back as they attempt to flee and pose no danger or threat to anyone in the immediate surround?

One simple grand jury and its over. Joe Horn saved texas a bunch of tax dollars.

That says more about the society than you may want to deal with at this present time.

I guess now you can just shoot anyone you catch in the middle of a crime (no matter what that crime happens to be), as a dollar saver.

Hell, I guess I should be thankful I don't live in Texas. Otherwise my neighbour could have shot me dead after I had to break into my own house when my two year old accidentally locked me out as I was hanging out the washing. Said neighbour would have been justified in shooting me in the back a few minutes later when I was taking the rubbish out in a large rubbish bag (with my keys now in my hand).

 

[Asguard]

i was thinking the same thing bells. We had just moved in so my nabors didnt know me very well. Thankfull the one to my right did because he let me climb over his back fence to get into my back yard (my house is like a fortrus from the front and if i had to break in from my yard it would have ment going OVER the house)

I made a thread about the american system a while ago asking if the senario in Oceans 11 was plausable. The scean where the casino guy is telling them about the 3 top robbery atemps and he gets to the number one and the guy runs out of the casino with some money only to be gunned down from behind by the security guards. I was TOLD that was pure fiction and if that really happened they would be charged with murder. I guess not?

 

[Simon Anders]

You keep changing the scenario...

That's right. I am testing your morality using different situations.

Tax evaders? Enron people were not tax evaders.

I am quite sure they were tax evaders, but actually I was bringing up another example. A tax evader is stealing services, it can easily be a felony and it is not fair to us hard working tax payers. Should one be shot if an angry citizen sees him walking to his car and he runs?

The reality is the only people who would know if someone was a tax evader (besides the evader) is the accountant (who possibly may not know) or the IRS. Data privacy and all that goes with it.

You have got to be kidding. 1) people blab about themselves 2) you can see under the table stuff all around you in certain fields - restaurants for example.

Consistent? Your scenarios are either so vague they are not really worth the attempt to address them, or so unrelated (or dare I say farfetched) that consistent could not be applied. Besides, its not about ethics (your probe of someones moral stance). If you dont want to shoot a burgler then dont. Wait for the police. You dont want to own a gun, fine by me. Ethical enough for you?

Nowhere did I complain that I would be forced to shoot people so this made no sense.

Since you can't seem to answer I don't know if you think felonies in general should be treated as shoot to kill situations.

You dont think being able to hit your target is important?

You know, it's scary that you think the only training people get around guns is how to aim them and perhaps load them. Police are trained in WHAT SITUATIONS DEADLY FORCE IS POTENTIALLY OK. And generally someone needs to be in danger. Even then, much as I can be critical of police, they tend not to shoot people unless they think someone is in immediate physical danger. This is the training they have. They also get training in how to talk someone down and how to pursue, which that fat violent criminal probably was incapable of.

You also fail to address the practical issue. Let's say this guy made a good call. I don't agree, but let's say....Now people have the idea that they can rush out with guns and stop people not simply from committing crimes, but from escaping. This means they get to determine that what is happening across the street is in fact a crime, something they will make mistakes about, ask any police dispatcher, and after that mistaken homicides. If you are defending yourself or someone in harm's way that is one thing. Other than that leave it to the professionals.

Oh, I could tell his tooth was absessed so I just went for it.

Besides any person with the slightest integrity knows that shooting someone in the back who is unarmed is cowardly shit. Kind of thing that used to get your grave spat on.