The Use of Deadly Force

[Corinthian]

Yes. The old man did the right thing. We'd be a lot better off if more criminals sucked on shotguns instead of went to prison.

[mimartin]

Are you saying he was right to disregard the police dispatcher? What if it would have been a real police officer on the phone with him, would it be all right to violate the officer’s instructions too? Are you are also saying it is all right for Mr. Horn to violate the Texas state law as Samuel Dravis wrote below? What laws if any should we follow and how do we know when to follow them?

[Corinthian]

I don't think it was wrong for him to ignore the police dispatcher's orders, because the orders would result in his neighbor being successfully robbed. Now, the cops may have eventually caught them, but that's no guarantee. Besides, like I said, they were scum. The human gene pool is better without them.

[Ray Jones]

I don't think it was wrong for him to ignore the police dispatcher's orders, because the orders would result in his neighbor being successfully robbed. Now, the cops may have eventually caught them, but that's no guarantee.

That leaves the question, why call the police and talk to the dispatcher in the first place, then?

 

Besides, like I said, they were scum.

And you base that statement on what fact exactly?

 

The human gene pool is better without them.

Oh, yeah. You're not the first human carrying such ideas. Thumbs up, you have truly learned from what human history tells us.

[Corinthian]

1: Because calling the police alerted them to come out to the scene. Presumably, he didn't go out there with the intention of killing them both, but they both attempted to flee. He was probably going out there with the intention of forcing them to remain there until the police arrived.

 

2: They were thieves.

 

3: I'm a firm proponent of mandatory sterilization of certain members of the populace. Slugs are effective as well.

[mimartin]

1: Because calling the police alerted them to come out to the scene. Presumably, he didn't go out there with the intention of killing them both, but they both attempted to flee. He was probably going out there with the intention of forcing them to remain there until the police arrived.

If someone pointed a shot gun at you and said “Boom you dead” what would you do stand there or run? He could have said freeze or your dead, but he choice boom your dead. Not the best words for stopping someone. Sound like he watched to many Arnold Schwarzenegger to me. Mr. Horn stated his intention to the dispatcher before he ever went out side by saying if he goes outside they are dead.

 

2: They were thieves.[/Quote]Yes, they were thieves, not murders. Mr. Horn had no fear for his life if he would have done as instructed and stayed inside his own home.

 

3: I'm a firm proponent of mandatory sterilization of certain members of the populace. Slugs are effective as well.

And just who would decide who got sterilized and who didn’t? You would trust the government with that type of power?

[Corinthian]

If someone pointed a shotgun at me at near-point blank range and said just about anything, I'd put my hands up.

 

Thieves tend to be more than capable of also killing people. It's not that uncommon for someone to be killed in their own home. They sometimes call it a robbery gone bad.

 

The Courts, obviously.

[mimartin]

Thieves tend to be more than capable of also killing people. It's not that uncommon for someone to be killed in their own home. They sometimes call it a robbery gone bad.

It not uncommon for a family member to kill a person either, so why can’t we go blasting away at anyone we want. He was not being robed. He was not in any danger he did not put his own self into against the advice of a trained professional. He did not say freeze or I’ll shoot, instead he chose to be Rambo and yell boom you are dead.

 

Those thefts had no respect for anyone’s personal property or they would not have been stealing. They deserved to pay for their crimes just not with their lives.

 

Mr. Horn seems to either not value human life or he over values material things. No material thing is worth a human life even these scumbags. They could have gotten older and wiser while learning to respect people and people’s property, but Mr. Horn never gave them that chance.

[Tommycat]

It not uncommon for a family member to kill a person either, so why can’t we go blasting away at anyone we want. He was not being robed. He was not in any danger he did not put his own self into against the advice of a trained professional. He did not say freeze or I’ll shoot, instead he chose to be Rambo and yell boom you are dead.

Best argument available: A criminal already shows a disrespect for the law. By displaying that disrespect for the law it is reasonable that they would take it even further. Many criminals actually live by the code of "No witnesses" meaning: If someone sees them comitting a crime, they have to kill them in order to prevent that person from identifying them. At least that's what I heard most often when I was in...

 

Those thefts had no respect for anyone’s personal property or they would not have been stealing. They deserved to pay for their crimes just not with their lives.

Maybe, but we do not know how far they would have taken it. How many lives are ruined when someone violates your home.

 

Mr. Horn seems to either not value human life or he over values material things. No material thing is worth a human life even these scumbags. They could have gotten older and wiser while learning to respect people and people’s property, but Mr. Horn never gave them that chance.

Yes and they could have learned to invade a person's home and kill the occupants. They could have become even more violent criminals. They could have waited until you get the insurance check and replace everything and robbed the place again. That in turn increases everyone's insurance rates in the area, which in turn can mean the difference between eating a full meal, and only eating a meager meal. It can also mean the difference between having a home and being homeless.

[mimartin]

Maybe, but we do not know how far they would have taken it. How many lives are ruined when someone violates your home.[/Quote] I've been buggerized. My life was not ruined. I was upset, felt violated, but I was not ruined by any means. Cost me $500.00 deductible and I got new stuff.

 

Yes and they could have learned to invade a person's home and kill the occupants. They could have become even more violent criminals. They could have waited until you get the insurance check and replace everything and robbed the place again. That in turn increases everyone's insurance rates in the area, which in turn can mean the difference between eating a full meal, and only eating a meager meal. It can also mean the difference between having a home and being homeless.

I'm not saying you can’t protect your home and yourself. I saying taking a gun and going next door to shoot a couple people after a POLICE DISPATCHER told him to stay in his home where he was safe is stupid and against the Texas State Law.

 

And yes we don’t know what would have become of them. Your example is just as likely as mine, but Mr. Horn did not in any not have any more right to take that away from them than they would have taking it away from him.

[Tommycat]

I've been buggerized. My life was not ruined. I was upset, felt violated, but I was not ruined by any means. Cost me $500.00 deductible and I got new stuff.

Meh good point, I'm talking more or less about how a child would feel after their home has been burglarized, it truly affects them much deeper than it affects an adult. At any rate, I'm not a big fan of this specific use of force.

 

I'm not saying you can’t protect your home and yourself. I saying taking a gun and going next door to shoot a couple people after a POLICE DISPATCHER told him to stay in his home where he was safe is stupid and against the Texas State Law.

I believe I have already stated that I don't agree with this specific one as the man did not feel threatened, and it appears did not follow the proper guidelines for use of deadly force. I was merely offering side comments with a differing view.

 

And yes we don’t know what would have become of them. Your example is just as likely as mine, but Mr. Horn did not in any not have any more right to take that away from them than they would have taking it away from him.

Actually having served time, I can say it is more likely that my scenario would play out. But Then again, I turned out fine. They could as well. They could very well have been driven to criminal acts by extreme situations. Poverty can do cruel things to people. Some people will find the lure all too easy. As was my case, they may have had extenuating circumstanses which led them to attempt theft.

 

Of course the best argument against this has little to do with criminal rights. Ignore the criminal acts for a bit and focus on what if's. For example, Perhaps a homeowner while on vacation to Fiji, decides to live there permanently. He calls on a relative to sell off his furnature, and belongings, save a few odd things he's going to come back for(kid's pictures). Oops forgot to tell the neighbor about it. Now the neighbor thinking he's doing good shoots the suspected robber. And now you see why the Texas Law exists. To me that is a much stronger case than the well being of criminals with criminal intent.

[mimartin]

Ignore the criminal acts for a bit and focus on what if's. For example, Perhaps a homeowner while on vacation to Fiji, decides to live there permanently. He calls on a relative to sell off his furnature, and belongings, save a few odd things he's going to come back for(kid's pictures). Oops forgot to tell the neighbor about it. Now the neighbor thinking he's doing good shoots the suspected robber. And now you see why the Texas Law exists. To me that is a much stronger case than the well being of criminals with criminal intent.

That is a very good point and one I did have in the back of my mind. I have friends in and around Houston and I have access to the keys to two of their homes. Usually if their not home I stay in my car, but say I get there and I have to us the restroom. I really would not like to get shot over taking a pee

[Web Rider]

Ignore the criminal acts for a bit and focus on what if's. For example, Perhaps a homeowner while on vacation to Fiji, decides to live there permanently. He calls on a relative to sell off his furnature, and belongings, save a few odd things he's going to come back for(kid's pictures). Oops forgot to tell the neighbor about it. Now the neighbor thinking he's doing good shoots the suspected robber. And now you see why the Texas Law exists. To me that is a much stronger case than the well being of criminals with criminal intent.

 

That's not a very likly scenario though. First, if a relative shows up at the house, they're not going to look very suspicious while doing so, namely by pulling up in broad daylight in a very obvious manner, like parking a normal car in the driveway. Second, it's also very unlikly that they're going to be hauling away your valuables. OK, maybe you said your Aunt Jo could have your TV. Well, given that you showed up in daylight, aren't wearing a mask, and aren't acting suspicious, your neighbor isn't very likly to shoot you.

 

Now, if you were acting very suspicious, like wearing all black and showing up at the house at midnight, and going in through the back door or a window instead of using the key I(the owner of the house), gave you or told you where to find, and so on, well, your neighbor has good reason to shoot first and ask questions second.

 

Not to mention if you are selling off somebody's stuff, you're likly going to have a yard sale or private auction, in which case LOTS of people would show up to the house and the gun-toting neighbor would stop by and ask "what the heck's goin' on?" and in which case you would inform them.

[Tommycat]

Well something similar happened with me and my neighbor. They went on vacation, and asked me to watch their house. While they were away, a brother in law came and was taking a few things from their house. Naturally I called the police, as I had never seen the brother in law before, and took him for a burgler. They questioned him, released him, and even helped him get some things into the truck. Apparently my neighbor had told the brother in law it was ok to come and get the pool table and a few other odds and ends from the house. He mistakenly forgot to notify the person watching his house(namely me). Oh And here in AZ, Moving heavy things is generally done at night. Especially in the summer months. It's that whole 115+ degree thing.

 

Proper gun safety is imperative though. Even had I confronted this person, the first thing is stating clearly and in a loud voice, "Stop!" If they refuse, you say in a clear and loud voice "Stop or I will shoot" Failure to follow those steps can lead to someone dieing that shouldn't have. The key though is IF you contact the police before you confront them, you MUST follow their instructions.

[Web Rider]

of course, my neighbor, who I discussed this with about half an hour ago, agreed that the best thing to say is "stop!" or "stop or I'll shoot!" and if of course, you're not a burglar, you'll stop and not start running away or something.

[Ray Jones]

and if of course, you're not a burglar, you'll stop and not start running away or something.

Or, as the normal human beings we all are, try to instinct-ish escape from that situation. I don't think we can put "he runs when I say stop or I shoot" equal to "he's a criminal".

 

So, when I got trained for sentry, one thing we learned is if we have to, we must not necessarily shoot to kill, but to stop a man.

[Tommycat]

That would be why it is part of responsible gun ownership.

 

I have no problem with neighbors being tough on crime. Nor do I have a problem with neighbors shooting bad guys. I DO have a problem with trigger happy gun owners who are willing to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Web Rider]

Or, as the normal human beings we all are, try to instinct-ish escape from that situation. I don't think we can put "he runs when I say stop or I shoot" equal to "he's a criminal".

 

So, when I got trained for sentry, one thing we learned is if we have to, we must not necessarily shoot to kill, but to stop a man.

 

but killing people is alot easier to do on purpose and on accident. "wounding" shots are much harder.

 

But no, I think that if somebody said "stop, i've got a gun!" or "stop or I'll shoot!" given they wern't the police, and you wern't doing anything wrong, you'd probly drop whatever you were carrying if you were carrying something, and you'd say something like "No, wait!"

 

thus you're acknowledgement that you heard them and not wanting to be shot, and the fact that you said something, means you aren't trying to be sneaky or something.

[Ray Jones]

but killing people is alot easier to do on purpose and on accident. "wounding" shots are much harder.

Really? Well, with some shotgun, maybe, but basically non lethal shots are not that hard at all: just aim low. Warning shots are somewhat helpful sometimes too.

 

But no, I think that if somebody said "stop, i've got a gun!" or "stop or I'll shoot!" given they wern't the police, and you wern't doing anything wrong, you'd probly drop whatever you were carrying if you were carrying something, and you'd say something like "No, wait!"

And you base that assumption on what fact?

 

Moreover, how would you know that the person with the gun is not someone criminal trying to rob you?

 

thus you're acknowledgement that you heard them and not wanting to be shot, and the fact that you said something, means you aren't trying to be sneaky or something.

Really? Mimicking certain behaviour is something humans can do really good. I don't think we can put "he doesn't run when I say stop or I shot" equal to "he's not a criminal". Plus, I think *nobody* wants to get shot so...

[mimartin]

Mr. Horn made the paper again today. Let the spin began, both sides are doing their best in this story. Houston Paper

A couple stories from outside the Houston area about the shooting.

AP

LA Times

[Web Rider]

Really? Well, with some shotgun, maybe, but basically non lethal shots are not that hard at all: just aim low. Warning shots are somewhat helpful sometimes too.

because, in short, legs are narrow and moving quickly, while the torso is large and a relativly stable target(when compared to arms or legs). Not to mention people on drugs are likly to just keep on going, even if shot in the leg.

 

And you base that assumption on what fact?

 

Moreover, how would you know that the person with the gun is not someone criminal trying to rob you?

How does the honest citizen know you're not a criminal? We could go back and forth on this, and really it's all just instinct. I'd probly drop whatever I was doing and yell "dont shoot!" if I was doing nothing wrong. If I was, I'd try and be quiet and not say anything.

 

Really? Mimicking certain behaviour is something humans can do really good. I don't think we can put "he doesn't run when I say stop or I shot" equal to "he's not a criminal". Plus, I think *nobody* wants to get shot so...

 

And a criminal who doesn't want to get shot when present with that fact will A: run away and get shot

B: surrender.

 

In short I have little doubt that these new stories would read: "Well armed man does nothing while criminals rob neighbor." And somebody would be trying to get him on charges for being an accessory to the crime by not doing anything about it.

[Ray Jones]

because, in short, legs are narrow and moving quickly, while the torso is large and a relativly stable target(when compared to arms or legs).

With proper training no problem. In fact, I'd rather have to shoot twice or more to stop a man, instead of killing him when not necessary.

 

Not to mention people on drugs are likly to just keep on going, even if shot in the leg.

But he will get slower and thus is easier to hit with another bullet.

 

We could go back and forth on this, and really it's all just instinct. I'd probly drop whatever I was doing and yell "dont shoot!" if I was doing nothing wrong. If I was, I'd try and be quiet and not say anything.

Well, simple, ask the people around you to get a slight feeling for what they would do.

 

And a criminal who doesn't want to get shot when present with that fact will A: run away and get shot

B: surrender.

© pull a gun and shoot first (D) run away and not get shot (E) play he would surrender and then ignite a mini atom bomb.

 

In short I have little doubt that these new stories would read: "Well armed man does nothing while criminals rob neighbor." And somebody would be trying to get him on charges for being an accessory to the crime by not doing anything about it.

In fact it is more like the normal citizen is not obligated to do more than calling the cops.

[Darth333]

Well, simple, ask the people around you to get a slight feeling for what they would do.

And even then, what they say is not necessarily what they would do. When you have a gun pointed at you for real, you don't really think: you get an adrenaline boost and instinct kicks in. I've been caught in such a situation once and I was too shocked to say anything, the maid went hysteric shouting "Dios mio! Dios mio!" (Oh my god), one of my friends tried to run away, his brother froze in place (like me) and my mom stayed calm and managed to calm the guy with the gun (we were playing soccer and the balloon went out of the courtyard and hit the guy's car ).

 

And a criminal who doesn't want to get shot when present with that fact will A: run away and get shot

But I see no reason to shoot a guy that is running away...obviously my life would not be indanger if he's running away and to me human life > TV, dvd, etc...

 

Meh good point, I'm talking more or less about how a child would feel after their home has been burglarized, it truly affects them much deeper than it affects an adult.

From personal experience, I found that adults tend to worry more. I guess the reaction of the child depends a lot on how the people around react though.

 

We'd be a lot better off if more criminals sucked on shotguns instead of went to prison.

[...]

Besides, like I said, they were scum. The human gene pool is better without them.

I have worked with quite a few people who had commited grave crimes (including manslaughter) and several of them have taken their lives in hand and are involved in their communities and even try to help others through social programs (such as suicide prevention in one of the cases that comes to my mind).

[Ray Jones]

And even then, what they say is not necessarily what they would do. When you have a gun pointed at you for real, you don't really think: you get an adrenaline boost and instinct kicks in. I've been caught in such a situation once and I was too shocked to say anything, the maid went hysteric shouting "Dios mio! Dios mio!" (Oh my god), one of my friends tried to run away, his brother froze in place (like me) and my mom stayed calm and managed to calm the guy with the gun.

My point exactly - five people, four different reactions.

 

But I see no reason to shoot a guy that is running away...obviously my life would not be indanger if he's running away

Another great point anyway.

[John Galt]

Yeah... I would never shoot to wound, it's inhumane.