Damn safe, as long as you’re a law biding citizen
Vigilantes don’t always get it right.
This case is like a Tom Wolfe story come to life.
There is nothing “obvious” about it. While it is certainly easy to blow the following statement all out of proportion (and I have no doubt that someone will attempt to do so), a world where law abiding citizens defend their lives and property (and perhaps even their neighbor’s lives and property) with force (even deadly force) against worthless fucking criminals and thieves would very quickly be a world with a whole lot less assault and burglary, and that world wouldn’t be a worse place at all.
Because no one ever misses their targets? Or gets nervous and jumpy when they’re adrenaline is pumping?
ALWAYS - Neither do the cops for that matter
The bottom line is still if they hadn’t been breaking the law, they would still be alive.
If our criminal justice system had seen fit to deport illegal immigrant felons back to their home country, they would still be alive…or at least would not have been breaking into a home in Houston.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? It seems to me quite counter-intuitive for several reasons. Firstly, using deadly force is an assualt in itself, so it drives up the assault rate by definition. Secondly, if criminals believe that they will encounter citizens willing to use force, it motivates the criminals to arm themselves and to use violence more readily. Thirdly, killing people can have indirect consequences, none of which are good. For example, if you kill the father of a child, you’d greatly increase the odds that the child will become a criminal upon growing up. By contrast, I do not see how killing criminals will reduce the number of assaults or burglaries.
There are multiple “bottom lines” here. Another one being: if Joe Horn hadn’t decided to go off the handle and shoot them for stealing his neighbor’s stuff, they would still be alive.
Not so much, considering that at least one of them had already been deported once.
It is obvious, to all but the most twisted sociopaths. This guy was not defending his life, or anybody’s life.
Clearly, in this case that is not true. Joe was found to be acting within the letter of the law.
Well, maybe the child won’t have a dirt bag criminal for a father figure to look up to and pattern their life after. Maybe they’ll actually have a chance to grow up in a household of law biding citizens instead.
Maybe there is not an infinite number of criminals…
I really don’t like people who break laws I think are valid, like robbery and assault. I can accept individuals who take action when the state is slow to act or incapable.
I would have indicted and cheerfully convicted Mr. Horn in any state without the death penalty.
And no doubt would still be up to their thieving ways
A perfect example of how weak our border control is.
So that’s another reason they needed killin’ ?
I said nothing of the kind. I merely implied that our weak border control allowed this dirt bag to return to the US and resume his criminal ways.
I was using the English-language definition of assault, not the legal definition in Texas. If it looks like an assault and it walks like an assault and it quacks like an assault then it is an assault.
Possible but highly unlikely, wouldn’t you agree? With no father, the child is now in a broken household, and is less likely to complete his education. He will need to find some community to take part in, and a gang is a likely choice.
Obviously there is not, yet for some reason crimes continue to occur despite our brave ctizenry bravely shooting unarmed men in the back.
It appears (from the story) that they would have been caught. And then, due to the laws of Texas, upon conviction, they would not have been executed.
Huh. Go figure.
Were his actions legal even as the law is written?
Let’s say someone is robbing your house in Texas (pretend you live there) and you come home and see them running out of the house away from you. Under texas law you are free to shoot them in the back?
If yes then I guess his actions were legal. However, I do not think it would be twisting the law to get an indictment and then let it be decided at trial with all the evidence laid out.
That said we can certainly argue here if the Texas law is too permissive. Certainly seems that way to me and apparently, after this incident, even the original author of the law says it was not intended to cover a situation like this. I would expect the Texas legislature will be tightening up the language of that law soon(ish).
It is sick. Horn wanted to kill them. He went out of his way to do it. He was told not to. The cops were there. He did it anyway.
Yea, the more I think about it the more I agree the Texas law should be rewritten to be a lot less permissive. I mean, not every thief is a Colombian career criminal. I (and I imagine a decent number of other dopers) went through a phase of petty crime involving a certain amount of theft and/or destruction of other peoples property when I was a teenager. Certainly not something to be proud of, but I don’t think I deserved to have my head blown off for it either.
One wonders if Mr Horn would’ve got off as easily if he’d blown away a couple of local teens committing the same crime instead of a pair of illegal immigrants with prior records. I mean, its not like he stopped to interview them before deciding to shoot. I suspect he was actually pretty lucky that his targets turned out to be who they were instead of someone even slightly more sympathetic.
I would think it even more likely that with either of these father figures, the kid would be doomed to a life of crime and gang membership. I’m just sure either one of these fine upstanding citizens were patiently working with their kids every night making sure their homework and chores were done and that they were in bed at a decent hour :rolleyes: