Murderous justice?

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Keith No, "the vast majority of the crimes associated with this law do not carry the death penalty" but ultimately, since all laws are enforced at gunpoint, any crime can be escalated by a police officer to deadly force.

Completely incorrect. If a cop thinks you look suspicious and stops to talk to you and you place the cop in fear of immediate harm (attacking the cop and/or pulling out a gun for example), it's a completely new unrelated offense. You're not being executed period, and you're really not being killed because you looked suspicious. Saying so is a completely dishonest misrepresentation.

If a police officer attempts to stop you for jaywalking, and you run, the officer can pursue you. If you end up caught and fight him while he's trying to restrain you, he CAN shoot you.

No a police officer cannot legally shoot you for simply resisting arrest.

You may want nothing more than to be left alone, but, the escalation of the "crime" of jaywalking, could end up in your death.

Then maybe you shouldn't place a cop in fear of their life. Get this, most of them won't actually shoot you for anything less.

No one here is saying that they want to kill a kid for TPing their house.

Good and I'm not saying you do. I just don't think it should be perfectly legal for the piece of sh*t who doesn't share our view.

All they're saying is that, if they confront someone in such a situation, and things escalate for whatever reason, that the doubt should go to the person who was defending their property and their rights.

If someone escalates things to the point that you are in fear of your life, why does this not apply under previous self defense law / statutes? Why do you need a law that states that you don't need to fear for your life, only that someone be on your property and be in the process of committing, at minimum, criminal mischief or that they may be about to commit criminal mischief?

Or, if we could draw a parallel, I would be more justified in shooting a kid who has violated my property in the dark, if I perceived a threat, than a highly trained, professional law enforcement officer has in tasering a 20-something speeder, in the back, in broad daylight on the side of a busy highway.

You see, I have no problem with you exercising your right to defend yourself should you feel threatened in the dark. My problem is crafting an overly vague law that eliminates the need for such fear. That's fundamentally why it's no longer about self defense and is an excessive defense of property rights at the cost of human life. I am a strong proponent of equitable force. Harming one's property simply does not warrant lethal force.

No one has yet to explain why criminal mischief should be met with lethal force. Every attempt at an example used relates to a situation where something escalates or they feel threatened. Both of these are already covered as self defense.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaoss said: No a police officer cannot legally shoot you for simply resisting arrest

They can if they feel threatened, and can make that "accusation" stick to a jury.... much like and individual can.

Chaoss said: Then maybe you shouldn't place a cop in fear of their life.

Maybe cops shouldn't put me in fear of mine, at the direction and control of the corrupt government.

Chaoss said: Good and I'm not saying you do. I just don't think it should be perfectly legal for the piece of sh*t who doesn't share our view.

I smell a hint of elitism.....

Chaoss said: Why do you need a law that states that you don't need to fear for your life, only that someone be on your property and be in the process of committing, at minimum, criminal mischief or that they may be about to commit criminal mischief?

To focus on the fact a LAW HAS ALREADY BEEN BROKEN, by trespassing.

The trespasser had NO RIGHT to be there.

Chaoss said: No one has yet to explain why criminal mischief should be met with lethal force.

What happens when I call the cops?
They threaten to use lethal force, to gain compliance of the individual.

If blood is spilled, its just on someone elses hands.

Chaoss said: Every attempt at an example used relates to a situation where something escalates or they feel threatened. Both of these are already covered as self defense.

In an issue between a trespasser and a legal property owner, there is already an issue of law breaking that has occurred, so it shouldn't be made to be that both are on "equal ground" in the legal issue.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn They can if they feel threatened, and can make that "accusation" stick to a jury.... much like and individual can.

So you think that's just? Two wrongs make a right?

At least outside of Texas, it's not legal to just simply shoot them for engaging in criminal mischief. If someone presents a lie to get out of punishment and a jury believes it, it doesn't matter if its a cop or soccor mom. This still isn't justification that we should make their actions legal since they're going to get out of it anyway as you implied.

Maybe cops shouldn't put me in fear of mine, at the direction and control of the corrupt government.

Cops put you in fear for your life by ticketing you for jaywalking? Common...

Osborn we were discussing escalation as an apparent false characterization of the use of force. Keith was trying to attribute someone being executed for Jaywalking.

I smell a hint of elitism.....

If it's elitist to not want to give protection under the law to people who in the minority of gun owners actually want to shoot people over criminal mischief, than I'm an elitist. That's not my definition of elitism though.

To focus on the fact a LAW HAS ALREADY BEEN BROKEN, by trespassing. The trespasser had NO RIGHT to be there.

And I agree with that point. I just don't think you have the right to execute him for simply being there.

What happens when I call the cops? They threaten to use lethal force, to gain compliance of the individual. If blood is spilled, its just on someone elses hands.

No they don't threaten lethal force for criminal mischief, sorry.

If someone decides to do something stupid after the police have made contact that's a completely different offense unrelated to the initial one. Presupposing that someone committing criminal mischief is immediately going to jump into a violent act is completely 100% asinine.

In an issue between a trespasser and a legal property owner, there is already an issue of law breaking that has occurred, so it shouldn't be made to be that both are on "equal ground" in the legal issue.

In terms of the use of lethal force everyone should be on equal ground if no action has been taken to indicate the intent to harm an individual or those around them. Once more, criminal mischief does not imply intent to harm PERIOD.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaoss said: So you think that's just? Two wrongs make a right?

No! I think if there IS a benefit of the doubt, it should be tilted toward the property owner who is ALREADY a victim of one crime by the same said perpetrator.

I have a right to feel somewhat threatened just by the FACT that someone trespassed on my land without my permission, my knowledge or my knowing of their intent. I addressing the FACT that the property owner is ALREADY a victim of one crime, if this act happens on their property.

Chaoss said: At least outside of Texas, it's not legal to just simply shoot them for engaging in criminal mischief.

I would tend to agree, though I don't know specificly. I know "castle laws" are being passed in a lot of states right now, even here in Ohio.

I don't advocate shooting someone for anything other than perceived defense, with a damn good ability to produce justification for feeling threatened.

Chaos said: If someone presents a lie to get out of punishment and a jury believes it, it doesn't matter if its a cop or soccor mom.

I agree, and I have no idea what this has to do with me, as I have not said anything about lying.

Chaos said: This still isn't justification that we should make their actions legal since they're going to get out of it anyway as you implied.

Again, I am saying if there is benefit of the doubt, it SHOULD go to the victim, and the property OWNER is the victim if this happens on his property.

Chaos said: Cops put you in fear for your life by ticketing you for jaywalking? Common... Osborn we were discussing escalation as an apparent false characterization of the use of force. Keith was trying to attribute someone being executed for Jaywalking.

I know, I was reading along from the beginning.

The point is, there is a HUGE issue of distrust between government and many people right now, and oft times the policeman is the person between the government, and the people. I think Keith was on point in the points he made, and I agreed.

Police today, in general I believe, use force far to casually and without due regard of citizens rights far to often.

I have dealt with police many times, and far more often than not, there is a lack of respect from the officer regardless of my "reception" of them.

Are all cops bad? No, but in MY experience, more often than not, they have a hard-on for authority and a disrespect towards "civillians", to use their term.

Chaoss said: If it's elitist to not want to give protection under the law to people who in the minority of gun owners actually want to shoot people over criminal mischief, than I'm an elitist. That's not my definition of elitism though.

Nor mine, which explains my confusion of why you are attributing it to me.

Chaoss said: And I agree with that point. I just don't think you have the right to execute him for simply being there.

Nor do I.

I said the person who is ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW had better not make any threatening movements, or he could be the product of my reactionary defense, due to the fact they already put pressure on me by being on private land when it is not their right to be there.

What obligation do I have to assume they AREN'T there to cause me harm?

Chaoss said: No they don't threaten lethal force for criminal mischief, sorry.

They do if the suspect does not comply, and or resists or makes a "reasonably threatening" action to justify the use of force.

Its a matter of elevation, as was being discussed.

Chaoss said: If someone decides to do something stupid after the police have made contact that's a completely different offense unrelated to the initial one.

That decision will be based on whether or not the person in question believes justice can come from trusting or complying with police.

The same can be said when a trespasser comes across an armed property owner.

Chaoss said: Presupposing that someone committing criminal mischief is immediately going to jump into a violent act is completely 100% asinine.

Much like expecting all people to comply peacefully with police 100% of the time is completely assinine, which of course, could result in a shooting for something that started out over a jaywalking incident.

Chaoss said: In terms of the use of lethal force everyone should be on equal ground if no action has been taken to indicate the intent to harm an individual or those around them. Once more, criminal mischief does not imply intent to harm PERIOD.

It does not, but, being a property owner, I am much more leery and acute to threatening actions by a trespasser than a "law abiding citizen", or a "rights respecting citizen", so I again repeat, if it is a situation where doubt exists as to who is telling the truth in a jury trial, if I am on that jury, the benefit of the doubt would go to the property owner unless SUBSTANTIAL evidence to the contrary exists.

The fact is, criminal mischief is indicative of a lack of respect of rights, so if they don't respect my property rights, why would I think they would respect my right to life?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 At least outside of Texas, it's not legal to just simply shoot them for engaging in criminal mischief. If someone presents a lie to get out of punishment and a jury believes it, it doesn't matter if its a cop or soccor mom. This still isn't justification that we should make their actions legal since they're going to get out of it anyway as you implied.

Why not? It worked for the patrolman in Utah. He used "less-lethal" force to coerce submission from someone who obviously wasn't a threat, and got away with it by lying until the videos came out. And, then, he still got away with it.

Police are citizens just like the rest of us with no greater rights or priveleges than any other citizen. To think otherwise is to create a system of feudalism.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Why not? It worked for the patrolman in Utah. He used "less-lethal" force to coerce submission from someone who obviously wasn't a threat, and got away with it by lying until the videos came out. And, then, he still got away with it. Police are citizens just like the rest of us with no greater rights or priveleges than any other citizen. To think otherwise is to create a system of feudalism. Keith

So you think that unjust actions should be spelled out in the law so then there is no way to fight them?

Both actions are unjust but only one of them is protected verbatim.

Care to make a point that is actually relevant? A cop used a taser unjustly in Utah, so we should have a law in Texas allowing us to use a gun against random citizens without the fear of harm present in just about every other self defense statute in the country, so long as they are committing criminal mischief. Yeah that makes sense.

This isn't an issue about giving home owners the benefit of the doubt. It removes all doubt by making them unaccountable and their actions legal. The old way was about doubt. If you reasonably felt you were in danger a jury would decide whether or not they felt your use of force was justified.

Some people need to get past their ideology and look at the facts. Just because a law grants gun owners more rights does not make it just.

I wasn't even against the law itself, just for it being left so broad as to allow for far too many bad possibilities. But Oh no! we can't edit something to make it more reasonable.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I wasn't even against the law itself, just for it being left so broad as to allow for far too many bad possibilities. But Oh no! we can't edit something to make it more reasonable.

The fact is, Joe Horn DID NOT make a mistake. These were not innocent people. They were thugs with a violent history that had a penchant for sneaking into "your" home and stealing "your" sh*t.

Doing something like this in Texas and shooting, say for example, the paperboy, would land your ass in prison.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ruksak The fact is, Joe Horn DID NOT make a mistake. These were not innocent people. They were thugs with a violent history that had a penchant for sneaking into "your" home and stealing "your" sh*t. Doing something like this in Texas and shooting, say for example, the paperboy, would land your ass in prison.

I'm not talking about that case. I'm talking about the letter of the law that states that criminal mischief is an offense worthy of lethal force by a property owner. So no, a paperboy cannot be legally shot, but if you stiffed him on his collection, and he came back that night, tried to TP your house, and you shot him then, that would be perfectly fine under this far too vague law.

[Maryjane]

update on the Joe Horn case

Pasadena police say Horn shot 2 men in the back Both men were hit by shotgun blasts after entering Joe Horn's front yard By CINDY HORSWELL and ROBERT STANTON Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Pasadena protests collide The two burglary suspects killed by Pasadena homeowner Joe Horn were shot in the back after they ventured into his front yard, police disclosed Friday. In another twist, investigators revealed that a plainclothes Pasadena detective witnessed the Nov. 14 shootings after he pulled up in an unmarked car seconds before Horn fired three shots from his 12-gauge shotgun. The men, who had just burglarized Horn's neighbor's house, faced him from seven to 10 feet away when they ignored his order to "not move"or they would be dead, police said. The controversial shootings have outraged minority activists but also brought an outpouring of support for Horn. "We now have a summary documenting what we think happened," said Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett. "We will turn it over to the district attorney in a couple of weeks after we do an extensive review for quality control." The district attorney will then present the case to a grand jury to determine if any charges should be filed against Horn, 61, a computer consultant, who has claimed self-defense. The two men — Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 48 — collapsed and died not far from Horn's home on Timberline in a Pasadena neighborhood. Both were illegal immigrants from Colombia, authorities said. Torres had been deported to Colombia in 1999 after serving time for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Both were also using fake identification cards and aliases, and their backgrounds are now being scrutinized by federal authorities to determine if they were part of a Colombian fake ID and burglary ring, authorities said. On Friday, Corbett described the shooting scenario that had been pieced together so far. According to a transcript of Horn's 911 call, at 2 p.m., he became concerned that his next- door neighbor's home was being burglarized after hearing some glass break. The dispatcher repeatedly urges Horn to stay in his house but Horn states that he doesn't feel it's right to let the burglars get away. "Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn tells the dispatcher. "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going." The dispatcher replies: "Don't go outside." Then the tape records Horn warning someone: "Move and you're dead!" Two quick shots can be heard, followed by a pause and then a third shot. Corbett said the plainclothes detective, whose name has not been released, had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard. Corbett believes neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present. "It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (get-away driver). He ducked at one point." When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze. Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb. "The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy." Autopsy report The wounded man crossed the street, collapsed and died, authorities said. At the same time, the other man had turned and ran away from Horn. Horn swung his shotgun around after shooting the first man and fired at the second one after he entered the neighbor's yard, investigators said. He was hit in the back but continued running until collapsing a few hundred yards down the street, Corbett said. According to a final ruling, Ortiz died of shotgun wounds to his neck and torso, said Ellie Wallace, an investigator at the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office. The report said that Torres died of shotgun wounds to his torso and upper left extremity. Wallace could not confirm whether the men were shot in the back, saying the autopsy report only indicated they were shot in the torso. Neither suspect was armed, but one had a "center punch," a 6-inch pointed metal tool, in his pocket that might be used as a weapon, authorities said. Also, they were carrying a sack filled with more than $2,000 in cash and assorted jewelry believed taken in the burglary, police said. Self-defense claim Investigators believe a third person may have driven the men from Houston to the Pasadena neighborhood. Police could find no vehicle belonging to the pair parked in the area. On the 911 tape, Horn mentioned a new state law that allows residents to protect their own home from intruders. "This case is a little different," Corbett said. "We'll have to let the grand jury sort this one out." Horn's attorney, Charles T. Lambright, said his client fired in self-defense because he feared for his life. "One of them (suspects) moved and Joe thought he was coming towards him," Lambright said. "They were in such close proximity (to Horn) that they could be on top of him in half a second." The fact that a police officer witnessed the shooting but did not arrest Horn is further evidence that he acted in self-defense, he said. "You've got a trained police officer sitting there watching this, and he doesn't arrest Horn," Lambright said. "If the (plainclothes) officer thought it was not a righteous shooting, maybe the Pasadena Police Department would have arrested Mr. Horn for murder." Civil rights activist Quanell X said he would step up the call for a murder indictment against Horn, and questioned whether the Pasadena police should investigate the case. Quanell X said the shooting should be handled instead by the Texas Rangers and the FBI. "I don't trust the Pasadena Police Department," he said. "Why are they just now releasing the fact that an undercover officer witnessed the whole thing? This case stinks."

Pasadena police say Horn shot 2 men in back | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanks for the update.

[Chris]

This dude got off scott free.


I heard the 911 call and the guy is a lunatic -

discuss.

[Chris]

moving this thread to breaking news, even though its an old thread, its current news again.

[Aussie]

I cant believe the police officer just stood back and watched. Sounds like he had the same mentality as the shooter who was clearly out for vengeance. If he feared that greatly for his security to claim self-defense, then why did he put himself in that situation.

Police, guns, courts, all made redundant by the fact we never look at the root cause of these problems and what is leading people to steal in the first place. We spend billions on law enforcement and only a fraction on mental health for instance. As they say, prevention is better than cure.