Bells:
Huh? Is that what the dispatcher advised Mr Horn over the phone? No.
Yeah. So? You asked me: "So it's acceptable to disobey the orders of law enforcement personnel?", and I responded with the answer: "Yes, sometimes it is, depending on the order." and then gave an example to demonstrate.
He told him to not leave his house and to not take his gun out of the house to shoot the burglars. The dispatcher told him that 13 times. Are you saying that is akin to having someone stick their doodle in your bunghole?
Nope, where did I say that? Again, I was merely demonstrating that it in some instances, you would be quite justified in disobeying law enforcement personnel. But even then, you're assuming that that the dispatcher has actual legal authority, when in actual fact they don't.
So you're disregarding his repeated comments about "this isn't right"..
He says 'This isn't right' in regards to the notion of allowing crooks to flee with his neighbour's property. How is that a big deal? I don't think it's right, either. In my humble opinion, only career criminals would think that 'it's right' that those two thieves could enter someone's home, steal their stuff, and then slink into the night (and yes, it was actually day, but I like that expression).
"I'm going to kill them"? You're putting that down to emotion?
Yes. If I saw crooks stealing from my neighbour, I'd feel a little outraged as well. As the protagonist pointed out during '12 angry men', saying "I'm going to kill you/them." doesn't actually mean you're necessarily going to kill them.
I think his behaviour leading up to the shooting says a lot about his true intention.
I think his demanding that the criminals stop, instead of just opening fire without a prior warning, says a lot about his true intention. I'm not forensic pathologist, but the fact that they were shot in the back sort of suggests that they
didn't stop, but instead tried to flee. Guess they didn't think he'd shoot them. Guess they thought he was bluffing. Guess they were wrong.
The fact that he ignored the dispatcher 13 times about not going outside is telling.
What does it tell us, exactly? That he doesn't think it's right that thieves should be able to just slip into the night with a sack of his neighbour's swag over their back? That he's a man of action, instead of a wimpy passive crybaby that is doted on by liberals such as yourself?
Or are you saying we should just ignore all the actions of a criminal leading up to a crime because it's just not relevant?
They should be taken into consideration, but what is actually said and occurs at the crime scene takes precedence. If the suspect is heard screaming 'I'll kill the bastard!' before the murder, and then the crime scene shows that he actually acted in self defense, then we assume self-defense.
Say if someone says he's going to kill a family of 5 then goes out and does it, we should just ignore the fact that it was premeditated? Is that what you're saying?
Nope. But if someone screams in a fit of anger that they are going to kill a family of five, and then that we have a recording of that particular individual killing the family of five when they break into his home, and he warns them to back off BEFORE opening fire, then we assume it wasn't premeditated.
He didn't give them a chance to come quietly.
He told them to stop. They didn't, they ran.
Tell me, would you come quietly to a fat guy who is not a police officer who's pointing a shotgun at you?
Not if I was a thief, and didn't think the fat guy had it in him to fire. If I were innocent, I'd probably start ranting, trying to explain to him that I was just helping his neighbour pack, or whatever. In fact, if I were guilty, I'd be standing petrified. I doubt I'd be stupid enough to bolt... you can't outrace a bullet.
Did he even do that? Having heard the call and having read several different transcript of that call, CNN is the only one stating that he said "stop or I'll shoot".
Hardly.
Why do you need to know that?
Was it Horn's house who was being broken into? No. It was the neighbour's house.
Exactly. Think on it Bells.
To help you, an analogy. If you saw your neighbour's daughter getting raped and beaten, would you just sit there and go "Ahh, what's the big deal, it ain't happening to me, hehehe!", or would you attempt to intervene? If you had a gun, would you use it to defend her life? Or would you just let things be, allow the rapist to have his way, and then run off into the sunset?
And yes, I'm aware that what occurred with Horn wasn't rape. But your "Ah, it wasn't it's property, so why did he care?" argument isn't very realistic. When good men (and women!) see an injustice occuring in front of them, they feel they need to intervene.
Heh. You are allowed to defend yourself as the situation warrants MH. Or didn't you know that? Reasonable force.
Reasonable force is a nonsenscial concept. If someone enters your property unbidden, the last thought floating through your mind is "Hmm, how do I neutralize the threat with the least available force?" It could be that the chap in your house at 3am just wants to steal your chinaware, but personally, I don't see why I should take the risk of waiting to find out.
And then, I should also be entitled to defend my property and belongings with force. The fact that the government doesn't allow me to do so reeks. It opens up a can of worms where a crook can enter your house unarmed, declare that he isn't there to harm you but to simply take your stuff, and you can't lay a hand on him as he cleans the place out.
If you stab someone in the back as they are running away from you, and then try to claim self defense, then that wouldn't pass.
Strawman.
Because someone running away from you no longer poses a threat to you. Or don't you get that?
I never made the above assertion, so again, Strawman.
You'd shoot someone over someone else's 'stuff'?
If it were necessary to apprehend them, then yeah, I would. 'Stuff' can be quite valuable. And in my eyes, people who need to take other people's hard earned 'stuff' are worth a bullet.
[snip]
So ya, your emotional appeal doesn't wash with me MH. I have been there and seen enough to make your hair fall out in horror.
If you have lived for so long in these crime ridden areas, why are you so forgiving with criminals? I thought someone who lived in Nobel Park would be a little more sympathetic with hard working civilians who are repeat victims of crime.
If someone breaks into your house and poses a deadly risk to you,
'Deadly risk'? By which you mean, when the bullet is flying towards your head? It's a bit too late then, isn't it?
The rest of your post is more straw, especially the comment about the kid. So yeah, snip.
