joe horn?

[sailor]

as heard on o&a this morning, joe horn (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP3OsajRB6BM1On6y5d66X8hodrwD91KVCD00) (not the nfl receiver) called 911 to report his neighbor's house being burglarized. after being on the line for a few minutes he noticed the suspected intruders leaving the premises, took his shotgun outside, called for the suspects to freeze...and when they didn't comply, shot and killed them.

the show seemed torn on the issue. jimmy thinking the guy was a bloodlusty vigilante, anthony seeming to think he was a good neighbor, and opie being wishy-washy.

what do you think of joe horn's motives?

[A.J.]

I think the man is a hero.

[Dougie Brootal]

I think the man is a hero.

SSWE.

[pennington]

I agree Opie is wishy-washy. I think there are consequences when you break into someone's house and take things that aren't yours. I also think when someone with a gun tells you to stop, you stop. Although it's not something I would do, the man did the right thing.

Unfortunately now will come the inevitable civil law suits.

[Epschtein]

i completely disagree with jimmy that the guy only called police to cover himself, if he wanted to just blast them he never would have called, then he could have said anything he wanted after the fact - i thought they pointed a gun at me, they were trying to look into my house after they came out, etc...

i think the guy genuinely wanted the cops to get there and catch them, and at the same time i would bet he was thinking (i know i would be) that they would be back for his house, or someone elses house, or worse if they encountered someone during a robbery, and decided he just couldnt let them walk away.

i would react very similarly, the thing is once he goes out there with the gun he just about has to shoot them, its night and he doesnt know if they are armed, he cant be firing warning shots or aiming for the legs because then if they are armed he is the one that ends up dead.

the odds of him saying freeze and them throwing their arms up and obeying everything he says are very low.

dont break into other peoples houses and you wont get shot at. i can live with that.

[Epschtein]

pennington, im pretty sure they were illegal aliens, i dont think they have any standing to sue. a judge could possibly grant it to their families but the chances of that would be pretty slim i imagine.

[sailor]

i agree with ep. if he just wanted to kill them he could have laid in wait and shot them as they walked out the door. he could have said he ran out as soon as he saw them and there was no time to call.

[booster11373]

If this is the one I think it is, the 911 operator pleaded with the guy to stay in his home because police were on the way and the last thing needed was a guy standing on the street with a gun while police who where all ready going into an unknown situation (like most police responces)

[Furtherman]

The man should be given a medal made with the gold fillings in the burglar's teeth.

[ScottFromGA]

more americans should do this. Would keep the hoodlums from causing trouble.

This man is a hero in my eyes.

[DoubleJ]

I don't know much about the case, but it seems to me that his motives should be a secondary issue. The real question to me is whether his use of force was justified even if you assume that he had nothing but pure intentions when he confronted the burglars. I am inclined to say that he responded excessively. Was he justified in feeling that his life was being threatened? The state law may allow for other justifications, but that is the only scenario that I would personally accept. He shot them in the back. That pretty clearly shows that his life was not being threatened at that moment. One could say that he thought they were going to get weapons. If you follow that line of reasoning, then he was going to shoot them for anything unless they stood still. It was unwise to confront them if that was his mindset. Whatever. I know little about the case, and I've already thought about it more than I intended. I was just surprised that so many people around the country seem to be on his side.

[Midkiff]

Fuck 'em. They would have come back later to rob his house too.

[PhishermanEto]

The man should be given a medal made with the gold fillings in the burglar's teeth.

QFT

[RAAMONE]

i'm actually kinda with Ant on this...which i'm usually not

i dont know if it was legal but either way 2 illegal immigrant criminals are gone...if you dont wanna get shot...then dont do illegal things

[HBox]

You don't kill some one over a petty crime like robbery. No one was in danger, they stole shit that can be replaced. He wasn't in danger either, he shot them in the back. This is overkill.

[RAAMONE]

You don't kill some one over a petty crime like robbery. No one was in danger, they stole shit that can be replaced. He wasn't in danger either, he shot them in the back. This is overkill.

oh yeah i definatly agree...i guess what i'm sayin is that 2 criminals somewhere got shot and it has nothing to do with me so whatever

[Recyclerz]

While I have limited sympathy for the guys who got killed in this instance, I still believe it sets a bad precedent for this society. For every instance like this where the bad guys get shot and nobody else gets hurt we're going to have at least one incident where some innocent kid gets killed like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

Is crime really so out of control in most of this country that we give the OK for anyone who has a legal firearm to decide for him/herself who needs killing? I believe if someone breaks into your home or if you or someone you see is in imminent physical danger then you can kill somebody & I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Other than that, I say we're paying the cops anyway so let them do their job, without the fear that under-trained, armed amateurs are competing with them to catch the bad guys.

[Fezticle98]

It's all great until one of these morons shoots an innocent person. Let's leave law enforcement to the professionals.

If he had been shot by the burglars, it would have been a much more valuable lesson. Way to escalate the situation, moron.

[TheMojoPin]

I have little sympathy for he criminals, but the guy that shot them is a nutjob and should be locked away.

[JPMNICK]

my only problem with the case was that they were shot in the back

i have no problem with the not guilty verdict though

[pennington]

We also have t remember this is Texas we're talking about.

Years ago, someone I know visited a friend in Texas and was going to lock the doors of his car in their driveway. The guy's wife said you don't need to lock anything around there and pointed to a shot gun that was over the door.

[DarkHippie]

There's no excuse for killing an unarmed man

[sailor]

There's no excuse for killing an unarmed man

just to watch him die?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N5Ts4M3irWM&hl=en"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N5Ts4M3irWM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Kevin]

He seems to be auditioning for the Dallas Cowboys, really hard.

[Foster]

There's no excuse for killing an unarmed man

I'm not thrilled with this guys actions, but there is no way to tell in most situations if a person is unarmed or not. If you feel your life is in danger by someone breaking into your house then you have to protect yourself.
In other words yes there are excuses for killing unarmed men.

[Sarge]

Listening to this morning I found myself leaning more towards Jimmy's opinion. While I don't think the guy called the police to cover himself, I do think that he intended to kill the 2 burglars regardless. He tells the 9-1-1 operator "I'm going to kill them". He also shot them in the back, while running away from him. He also put himself in that position, he took his weapon, watched them commit a burglary, then left his home which was not threatened and confronted the burglars with deadly force. You have to keep in mind that this was strictly a crime against property, he knew his neighbors weren't home. The only thing he did right was call the police, and stay on the phone providing information throughout the incident. I know it is Texas, but still it seems a little out there. If he did that in Jersey he would be in jail.

[sailor]

(not the nfl receiver)

He seems to be auditioning for the Dallas Cowboys, really hard.
R.I.F.


http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/bokmal.gif

[zildjian361]

he should have stayed in his house but they should not have been b&e sorry:wallbash::thumbdown:`

[TheMojoPin]

I'm not thrilled with this guys actions, but there is no way to tell in most situations if a person is unarmed or not. If you feel your life is in danger by someone breaking into your house then you have to protect yourself.
In other words yes there are excuses for killing unarmed men.

Nobody was breaking into his house.

And he shot these guys in the back.

[Friday]

Listening to this morning I found myself leaning more towards Jimmy's opinion. While I don't think the guy called the police to cover himself, I do think that he intended to kill the 2 burglars regardless. He tells the 9-1-1 operator "I'm going to kill them". He also shot them in the back, while running away from him. He also put himself in that position, he took his weapon, watched them commit a burglary, then left his home which was not threatened and confronted the burglars with deadly force. You have to keep in mind that this was strictly a crime against property, he knew his neighbors weren't home. The only thing he did right was call the police, and stay on the phone providing information throughout the incident. I know it is Texas, but still it seems a little out there. If he did that in Jersey he would be in jail.

QFT x one million.

there was no solid reason for him to confront and shoot the men.

[Kevin]

R.I.F.


http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/bokmal.gif

Yea, had to make the joke anyway...

[NewYorkDragons80]

There's no excuse for killing an unarmed man
I wouldn't go that far, but Jimmy was 100% right this morning on O&A. There shouldn't be legal protection for using deadly force on non-violent criminals on someone else's property. If that isn't vigilante justice, I don't know what is. The guy isn't guilty of murder or even manslaughter, but he should've gotten some time.

[DarkHippie]

I wouldn't go that far, but Jimmy was 100% right this morning on O&A. There shouldn't be legal protection for using deadly force on non-violent criminals on someone else's property. If that isn't vigilante justice, I don't know what is.

I really want my vigilantes to be more like batman.

[scottinnj]

You don't kill some one over a petty crime like robbery. No one was in danger, they stole shit that can be replaced. He wasn't in danger either, he shot them in the back. This is overkill.

I disagree with that point, although Jimmy was right that this guy was chomping at the bit to go shoot these guys. But Jimmy's conclusions although correct, are based on wrong assumptions, IMO.

By that point I would have gone out there too, with no visible police presence after waiting on the phone for almost 10 minutes. That dude was mad, and ready to go by that time, getting all pumped up on anger waiting for cops that didn't come. But Jimmy was right, when he left the house, it was to kill.

My house was broken into while my wife and I lived in Topeka Kansas. Twice. Once while she was home, the robbers went into the basement, and she shot through the floor to scare them off.

The second time, no one was home-so it's just a petty crime right? Wrong. The robbers maced my dog, hogtied her feet and mouth with duct tape kicked the shit out of her and threw her in the bathroom then robbed the house. They took some jewelry, cash and my wife's computer. The jewelry was just costume, not worth much, but the cash was there to pay the rent when one of us got home. That money was about 1/4 of our combined take home pay, back then that was a shitload to us. Our neighbor had been broken into, and some real jewelry was taken. Family heirlooms, rings and pocketwatches that had been passed down from their family, and irreplaceable pictures of their elders in the pocketwatches and one necklace that was a locket. So to me this saying that "property can be replaced" is bullshit when it comes to items like that.

We recovered my wife's computer at a local hock shop, which was good, because she was going to nursing school at the time and had a lot of work on it that she needed to have to do her schooling. Sorry, but IMO, that type of information is worth shooting over when you are living on a tight budget, you were able to buy the computer from a friend who gave you a break, and have invested a ton of money in the tuition.

When I first heard about this story last year, I thought about my neighbor and yeah, 911 would have been called, but by my wife or one of my kids while I went over there to stop them while the robbers were still in the house. My neighbors are from the Dominican Republic, and Louis and Maria work full-time at the casino in Atlantic City, then go do a home based business of cleaning offices at night. Maria's father is fighting cancer, but still helps them with the family business during the day and weekends. They have worked very hard for everything they have, so lifting a TV may not be a big deal to you or me, but it is to them. The jewelry they have is not much, but what they have they have worked for to give each other on anniversaries and birthdays, and it is very personal to them, and again, irreplaceable on an emotional level.

I may not have shot the burglars in the street like Joe Horn did, but I definetly would have done something to stop what was going on while the cops were coming.

Joe Horn is not a hero, but I wouldn't indict him if I were on the grand jury, and if I were the neighbor, definetly would have appreciated what he did.

And in the end, two dead scumbags will never rob again.

[scottinnj]

Nobody was breaking into his house.

And he shot these guys in the back.

You guys have seen too many westerns, and bought into the "you're a coward if you shoot 'em in the back" stereotype.

1. You gotta shoot 'em somewhere.

2. The back makes a good target. If you miss, you're just a bad shot.

[jauble]

You guys have seen too many westerns, and bought into the "you're a coward if you shoot 'em in the back" stereotype.

1. You gotta shoot 'em somewhere.

2. The back makes a good target. If you miss, you're just a bad shot.

Its not a cowardice issue a shot to the back indicates that they were trying to flea and therefore possibly not a threat to the shooter...so basically thats where the question of is this a criminal act comes about.

[scottinnj]

Sorry, I forgot my "wakka wakka" again. I was joking.

Yes, in a case like this, you have to know where the victim was and what he was doing and what direction he was moving in to determine if "self defense" was warranted for the defense.

So................WAKKA WAKKA! :clap: :clap:

Buuuuut, a back shot is good-if the perp doesn't die, his spine is shattered, so he won't be a threat anyway.

KIDDING! KIDDING!!!!

[Epschtein]

I do think that he intended to kill the 2 burglars regardless.

so if the police were parked around the corner and were there 5 seconds after this guy called you still think he was going to run out and shoot them?

of course not, he gave the poice a chance to respond and if they couldnt get there in time he was going to shoot them, i hope my neighbor would do the same and i know i would.

stop being irrational, if this guy had premeditated murder in mind the last thing he would do is call 911.

[THE-DRE]

1. The 911 operator told this guy to stay inside.
2. he would have been just fine if he stayed in his house
3. The killings were premeditated, he told the 911 operator he was going to "kill 'em"
4. The cops had arrived on the scene
5. He was not a cop
6. He was aware that his neighbor was not at home at the time of the robbery
7. He killed two people who had not taken anything from him

[Jaysin]

fuck everyone who thinks those pieces of shit didn't get what they had coming to them.
if some fucks stole my family photos, heirlooms, rent money, shit just about anything, i would praise anybody who shot the fuckers anywhere, anytime. fuck little jimmy, i have lost all respect for that spineless little polesmoker!

[Jaysin]

Its not a cowardice issue a shot to the back indicates that they were trying to flea and therefore possibly not a threat to the shooter...so basically thats where the question of is this a criminal act comes about.

not in texas. flee or not, you steal a mans stuff, u get what's coming to ya.

[scottinnj]

1. The 911 operator told this guy to stay inside.
2. he would have been just fine if he stayed in his house
3. The killings were premeditated, he told the 911 operator he was going to "kill 'em"
4. The cops had arrived on the scene
5. He was not a cop
6. He was aware that his neighbor was not at home at the time of the robbery
7. He killed two people who had not taken anything from him

1. the 911 operator is not a law enforcement official.

2. the robbers could have just as easily ran into his house had law enforcement arrived.

3. A pre-meditated kill is not necessarily murder. Like Ant said, when you shoot, you shoot to kill, not wound.

4. one cop, who was undercover, and did not arrive with sirens and lights-that is what I would have expected if I were waiting for police.

5. you don't have to be a cop to justify a shooting.


6. Castle defense is in effect in Texas.


7. He killed two scumbags that took his peace of mind and violated his neighbor's property. again if he did nothing, who's to say the robbers wouldn't go to his house next, or come back the next day?

[PapaBear]

6. Castle defense is in effect in Texas.
Castle Defense (http://loneranger2008.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/texas-castle-doctrine-the-law-word-for-word/)

1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force or deadly force was used unlawfully and with force entered, or attempted to enter, the actor’s home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; unlawfully and with force removed, or attempted to remove, the actor from the home, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or was committing or attempting to commit certain serious crimes;

It looks to me, that defense would only apply if they had robbed the shooter's house.

I agree that they dug their own grave by committing the crime, but this guy is just as guilty. I say he's a criminal who happened to get rid of two other criminals.

[jauble]

Horn: 'I would never advocate anyone doing what I did' (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5866865.html)

Interview with Joe Horn

[HBox]

I think the most telling thing on today's show was when they asked Kenny about this story and he, with all of his stories from when he was a cop, thought this guy went too far.

[scottinnj]

I say he's a criminal who happened to get rid of two other criminals.

I wouldn't go that far, but your explanation of the Castle Defense is a good point. Plus someone today on the show said "good samaritan" law, but he did his legal duty by calling 911.

Personally I wouldn't have gone out and shot the guys, but I would have been armed, and I would have attempted to stop them until the cops arrived, and only shoot unless someone fired at me or if I saw a gun being raised towards me.

He was wrong going out there blasting away, but again, I wouldn't indict him though.

[scottinnj]

fuck little jimmy, i have lost all respect for that spineless little polesmoker!



SHADDUP.

[PapaBear]

Horn: 'I would never advocate anyone doing what I did' (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5866865.html)

Interview with Joe Horn
Not the real Joe Horn? FUCK!

So... If a really nice guy gets pissed off when someone illegally cuts him off on the highway, and he freaks out and rams the offender into a telephone pole, it's OK. As long as you feel bad about it later, you're in the clear. Rage and fear can make criminal actions understandable, but it doesn't make them right. This guy is a murderer who could have easily shot the wrong people in a slightly different situation.

[Jaysin]

SHADDUP.

no

[scottinnj]

SHADDUP.

no


yes, and now.

[Jaysin]

yes, and now.

no and never.

[Jaysin]

Not the real Joe Horn? FUCK!

So... If a really nice guy gets pissed off when someone illegally cuts him off on the highway, and he freaks out and rams the offender into a telephone pole, it's OK. As long as you feel bad about it later, you're in the clear. Rage and fear can make criminal actions understandable, but it doesn't make them right. This guy is a murderer who could have easily shot the wrong people in a slightly different situation.

that is a really awful analogy. but here is one of my own, say those people robbing that house had killed the owners, and joe horn did nothing and they got away. the fact of the matter is, the man knew they were robbers, and he dealt with the situation the way i would hope my neighbor would if my place was being robbed.....although ny is so pussified liberal that the thieves have more rights than the homeowners protecting what they worked hard for.

[Friday]

SHADDUP.

no

yes, and now.

no and never.

someone really should be here to tell you two how 'immature' and 'juvenile' you are being. :bye: :tongue:

[Jaysin]

someone really should be here to tell you two how 'immature' and 'juvenile' you are being. :bye: :tongue:
lemme guess, thats your job? :-P

[PapaBear]

that is a really awful analogy. but here is one of my own, say those people robbing that house had killed the owners, and joe horn did nothing and they got away. the fact of the matter is, the man knew they were robbers, and he dealt with the situation the way i would hope my neighbor would if my place was being robbed.....although ny is so pussified liberal that the thieves have more rights than the homeowners protecting what they worked hard for.
Here's another analogy. Say those people had a "deal gone wrong" with the homeowner. For instance: The homeowner owed them money. They made a criminal decision to steal from him to get what they felt was owed to them. At this point, we're talking about a bunch of shit heads that have nothing to do with Joe Horn. Horn goes out there and takes the law in his own hands, and shoot at them. But some little kid happened to be around and got hit too.

This old fuck should have stayed the hell out of it. He wasn't in danger. He should have let the situation play out after he called 911. There are way too many possible variables, in a thing like this, that don't require a freaked out old guy with a shot gun taking the law into his own hands.

He admitted that he acted in a way that wasn't in his nature. A trained cop would have been fired and or convicted, if he shot these guys. Police (in almost all cases) don't just shoot people, because they don't want them to get away.

[Jaysin]

Here's another analogy. Say those people had a "deal gone wrong" with the homeowner. For instance: The homeowner owed them money. They made a criminal decision to steal from him to get what they felt was owed to them. At this point, we're talking about a bunch of shit heads that have nothing to do with Joe Horn. Horn goes out there and takes the law in his own hands, and shoot at them. But some little kid happened to be around and got hit too.

This old fuck should have stayed the hell out of it. He wasn't in danger. He should have let the situation play out after he called 911. There are way too many possible variables, in a thing like this, that don't require a freaked out old guy with a shot gun taking the law into his own hands.

He admitted that he acted in a way that wasn't in his nature. A trained cop would have been fired and or convicted, if he shot these guys. Police (in almost all cases) don't just shoot people, because they don't want them to get away.

police don't shoot people because they are treated like the criminals more often than not for doing so, nor do they want to do the paperwork or deal with all the investigations, this i know because my best friend in the world was on many a special crime unit on 125th and now trains cops anti terrorist tactics. he could have legally shot quite a few perps in his time and didn't. now, who is to say that those same perps didn't get out of jail due to some scumbag lawyer and commit worse crimes and hurt innocent people. sure joe horn could have been wrong, he wasn't. two guys robbed a house right near me, one of them was a famous actor, you may have seen him in a bronx tale, an off duty cop tried to stop them from robbing a neighbor and was killed for his troubles. so frankly fuck the people that joe horn shot. they were scum, and now they aren't. i wish there were stats on how many criminals get out of jail early, or from lawyers lying lips, or a missigned paper from a cop.
and how many innocent families lose loved ones due to this scum being put back out there, how many rapists get out early and rape more women and kids? you hear it every day. and the pacifist approach doesn't work. the system is fucked. blah blah blah maybe someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off of the streets! seriously though, joe redneck done good!

[sailor]

Nobody was breaking into his house.

And he shot these guys in the back.

if you re-read the posts, i believe foster wasn't being a joe horn advocate, but was arguing against DH's assertion that there is no situation where it would ever be ok to shoot an unarmed man. your arguing the facts of this case doesn't mesh with his points which were based on hypothetical examples.

[ScottFromGA]

not in texas. flee or not, you steal a mans stuff, u get what's coming to ya.

use to work in the old days. Crime wasn't up and the people controlled their own law.


crime rates highest its ever been and with prices of stuff going up...it'll get worse. Pretty soon, its gonna get to where people are being held up or even killed at the gas pump over fuel. Inside grocery stores, your gona walk out and people are gonna be waiting on you to take your food. Wheres the law gonna be then when your having this done to you? This man did what he had to do to insure they wouldn't steal anymore.....

if they went back to the ol "eye for an eye" method of law......these hoodlums would stop running the streets.

Back in the 70's and 80's, the city I live in had a Mayor that issued a "Shoot to Kill" law to protect yourself from criminals. Any business owner could have a gun and if he felt he was being threatened, he had all right to open fire. I wish I lived in those days.....people didn't fuck with you cause they knew they would get their ass blown away if you tried to steal! Simple solution, DONT STEAL and you won't be killed!


heres his wikipedia....he had views I liked and views that aren't correct, but all in all he was a damn good mayor and he kept the city straight. When he left office, the law was abolished and crime rate went back up. Proof that allowing the citizens to protect their stuff or anyone elses stuff keeps criminals from stealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Thompson_(Georgia_politician)

[Reynolds]

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PHO/AAHJ090_8x10~Joe-Horn-Posters.jpg

[K.C.]

Here's my thing:

The guy did the right thing by trying to help his neighbor out...people can say, "well, he should have just minded his business," but you have to commend the guy for actually seeing a crime, and confronting the burglars.

I'm not sure most people would do that.


Now, should he have killed them?

There's no way to really know for sure if they were aggressive towards him, or threatening him, or a potential danger to him. But I will say this much:

-Both of the robbers were illegal immigrants, and one had a prior drug conviction. These guys HAD to have known that if the police or authorities got a hold of them, they're doing jail time then deportation.

So while there's no way to know for sure how much, if at all, they threatened this guy, I don't think his representation of the story is far-fetched. Seems plausible.


Now the one hang up is that he shot them in the back, which would suggest that at the moment he shot them, they weren't acting aggressive towards him, unless he thought one might be pulling a gun.

I don't know if a weapon was found on the bodies, but even if one wasn't, I think it's an acceptable defense of his actions if he thought the guys could pull one...cops use the 'he made a sudden move' defense all the time.

[foodcourtdruide]

How could we consider other nations barbaric when some of us believe that the death penalty is merited for robbery?

[jonyrotn]

Even in New York State, as liberal as we're supposed to be..
We allow for the use of deadly physical force in defense of another's life or PROPERTY..

Would I kill someone to save my neighbor's DVD player?

Not a chance.. :smile:

[K.C.]

How could we consider other nations barbaric when some of us believe that the death penalty is merited for robbery?

Nobody (or at least nobody who's sane) is saying that.

If this was only a case of robbery, Joe Horn caught the guys, they showed no hostility, and he shot them...then yes, the guy is a bloodthirsty maniac.

The question is whether or not these guys presented a threat to him. I honestly don't know the answer to that question.

So I'm going to reserve passing judgment on either side of the issue for the time being.


But I laid out a couple ways how this guy got to this point, that I think would be understandable defenses.

[TheMojoPin]

crime rates highest its ever been

You completely made this up.

Violent crime and property crime rates are generally hovering at or below 1970's and/or 1960's levels. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States)

That's actually a very well-cited and sourced page. There hasn't been a major study of crime in the U.S. since 2006, hence the numbers going up to 2005, but there aren't any trends that indicate any kind of dramatic upswing. Criminal acts in general have been on a steady decline since the 90's.

[DOHO@HOME]

If more people did what Joe did we would have alot less crime going on.
To many look the other way and allow crime to spread throughout our nation.

[TheMojoPin]

If more people did what Joe did we would have alot less crime going on.
To many look the other way and allow crime to spread throughout our nation.

Not shooting someone isn't "looking the other fucking way."

[Jujubees2]

If more people did what Joe did we would have alot less crime going on.
To many look the other way and allow crime to spread throughout our nation.

If you mean calling the police when they see something suspicious, then I agree.

If you are talking about blowing someone away for stealing a TV then you are 100% wrong. It won't reduce crime it will just bring us back to the wild west days with shootouts in the backyard.

[foodcourtdruide]

Nobody (or at least nobody who's sane) is saying that.

If this was only a case of robbery, Joe Horn caught the guys, they showed no hostility, and he shot them...then yes, the guy is a bloodthirsty maniac.

The question is whether or not these guys presented a threat to him. I honestly don't know the answer to that question.

So I'm going to reserve passing judgment on either side of the issue for the time being.


But I laid out a couple ways how this guy got to this point, that I think would be understandable defenses.

I agree with you KC. If this guy felt he was in danger then by all means, excessive force is merited. However, what I'm reading in some posts above (I should have been clear, not yours) is this notion of: "He got these criminals off the street, give him a medal!"

And that is a barbaric way of thinking. It ignores our concept of law and uses vigilante justice to handle socieities most complex problems.

[Sarge]

so if the police were parked around the corner and were there 5 seconds after this guy called you still think he was going to run out and shoot them?

of course not, he gave the poice a chance to respond and if they couldnt get there in time he was going to shoot them, i hope my neighbor would do the same and i know i would.

stop being irrational, if this guy had premeditated murder in mind the last thing he would do is call 911.

How am I being irrational? You made my point with your response. He had a PLAN, that if the police did not show up that he was going to leave his home, and confront the burglars, with deadly force if necessary . The fact that he apparently shot them in the back, as they were fleeing from him would also suggest that he was not trying to subdue them until the police arrived, but that as he stated to the 9-1-1 operator, he was going to "kill them. If the police had shown up, and took the actors into custody, he would not have had to act on his plan, but it would still have been premeditated just not acted on.

[DarkHippie]

if they went back to the ol "eye for an eye" method of law......these hoodlums would stop running the streets.



Not to change the subject, but I really wish people would reread Leviticus. That line is taken out of context. The verse after describes the monetary restitution for various crimes, so its more like '20 sheep for an eye, 5 lambs for a tooth'

[CofyCrakCocaine]

There's two ways to see this. The Joe Horn way, or the Kitty Genovese way. Both ways blow, and result in someone dying. They both happen based upon witness assumptions that color whether they'll act or not. For Genovese, the assumption was that the cops had already been called and were on their way so no one did anything. Joe Horn, well we already know. When you read it as cold hard facts in a news story, it's very easy to make hindsight judgements, such as "jesus christ she was screaming bloody hell, why did no one call" and "for fuck's sake they were running away from him". No one knows for sure what it was like to actually be there except that fat guy and that dead girl's neighbors.

Personally, I think Joey went overboard blasting the two guys in the back (i also think the neighbors who let Genovese get butchered while they dragged their lawn chairs onto their balconies so they could enjoy the show ought to be tossed off said balconies). But that's just my opinion- it's devoid of factual knowledge.

When your blood's pumping like that, I'd imagine it's hard not to make a shitty stupid decision. There isn't much time for introspection when you're conceivably walking into a firefight. He didn't have the benefits of police training so far as I know of the guy, and there's many cops out there who would have made similar decisions.

I wouldn't rank him as a criminal simply because if he were a criminal, he sure as shit wouldn't think to be on 9-11 yelling for paramedics to arrive after kindly shooting those two fellows in the back (kind of him, I know). I don't know of too many criminals who call the cops in the first place either.

[underdog]

Not to change the subject, but I really wish people would reread Leviticus. That line is taken out of context. The verse after describes the monetary restitution for various crimes, so its more like '20 sheep for an eye, 5 lambs for a tooth'

Wait, wait, WAIT.

Something out of the Bible has been taken out of context?

I am shocked, sir. Shocked.

[scottinnj]

Wait, wait, WAIT.

Something out of the Bible has been taken out of context?

I am shocked, sir. Shocked.

Earl's been talking about the earth's birthday again?

"Pease Hoad."

[scottinnj]

someone really should be here to tell you two how 'immature' and 'juvenile' you are being. :bye: :tongue:

Only you can Friday. All others are beneath me. Especially Gvac.

[A.J.]

if they went back to the ol "eye for an eye" method of law......these hoodlums would stop running the streets.

Not to change the subject, but I really wish people would reread Leviticus. That line is taken out of context. The verse after describes the monetary restitution for various crimes, so its more like '20 sheep for an eye, 5 lambs for a tooth'

It also derives from the concept of "lex talionis" from the Code of Hammurabi.