Who was preventing them from entering “the area,” and how?
I am of course merely speculating here as I doubt we can ever know the answer.
I suspect that Horn was a law abiding citizen and prided himself on that and would not ever be a law breaker (in any serious sense). He was also a self-styled vigilante watching over his neighborhood and deemed himself a good man for doing so and was respected in the community for it.
When you look at the 911 transcript he starts clearly reciting his rights under the law and how his rights had been expanded by the law we are all discussing here a few months earlier. He was crystal clear on precisely where the lines were drawn.
Now this situation presents itself and he sees his chance. Chance to be a do-gooder. Chance to be a hero. Chance to be a vigilante. Chance to exercise his new found rights after years of what he (probably) viewed as onerous gun restrictions. The transcript shows him chomping at the bit to go after the burglars barely being restrained by dispatch. When the burglars appeared to be about to get away and (as far as he knew) no police is sight he acted. The transcript again shows him explicitly saying he would not let those guys get away.
Such is my armchair psych profile anyway.
Yes. That is the question. Thank you for restating it for us. However, the fact that you admit that this is the question-something that can be discussed, where different people may have differing opinions as to where the line is drawn between “prison” and “child dismemberment”, simply reaffirms what I have been saying in this thread: The answer is not “obvious”.
- If Horn’s mere presence had the situation contained, why did he have to open fire? 2) While your scenario may seem plausible in TV fiction, I doubt it would work all that well in real life. Unless you can demonstrate that twhat you claim is standard police procedure for a single plainclothes officer facing a complicated situation involving multiple potential threats, I’ll have to reject your claim that what I said is ‘nonsense’.
You realize, of course, that that makes no sense whatsoever.
OMG! You actually believe that the police are: a) there to protect you and b) a deterrence to criminals???!? :eek: :eek:
If it pisses you off, live in a jurisdiction where the Joe Horns of the world can not legally shoot criminals, or work to change the laws so that what he did is illegal. COnvince enough people to support your position, and the problem is solved (from your POV). Gun control has worked wonders in DC, I feel totally safe walking through any part of the city at any time.
That’s all right?!? I don’t know who this dispatcher is, but it’s not her stuff the guys are getting away with! This pisses me off.
I don’t know about you all, but I work hard for the few little things that I have, and all of my neighbors do as well. I don’t have $2,000 to replace the things around my house and it is total bullshit that I, or my neighbors should have to stand and watch while some douchebag walks away with it.
Was the dispatcher, the police, or the DA going to pony up the $2k for this guy’s stuff? Good for Joe Horn. Too bad more people don’t care about their neighborhoods…
No I don’t. Please explain it to me.
There is no politically valid or constitutional form of gun control that would have prevented this. Joe Horn used a 12 gauge shotgun; if you were to try to strictly control those you’ll get even all the gun owners who support many forms of gun control outraged (ie “Nobody needs an assault weapon to hunt so I don’t care if they ban those. They’ll never come after my deer rifle or my duck shotgun.”). And thanks to the recent decision in *DC vs. Heller, it is now Supreme Court precedent that the Second Amendment protects the right to use firearms to defend your home.
About the only arguement that I think could be reasonably be made here is that the law allowing deadly force to defend property when there is no danger to human life should be reconsidered.
There’s a difference between murder and robery
ETA:
That’s what I meant. There is no need for that law to exist on the books. It’s essentially a license to kill once someone has stolen something from you. That’s fucked up. It’s some Wild-West law that has no reason being on the books now.
Just because something can be expressed as a question doesn’t mean the answer’s not obvious.
And yet neither you nor Frank has chosen to state exactly what this “obvious” answer is, why the answer is so “obvious”, and what’s wrong with people who draw the line at a different place than your “obvious” answer. Also, I think if enough people chime in with differing opinions on where to draw that line and debate the subject, then it proves that the answer is NOT “obvious”. It may in fact be obvious to you, but honest debate between reasoned individuals with differing opinions makes it clear that there is no objective “obvious” answer.
Suppose the dispatcher had said “Well do what you have to do” and Horn had gone outside, aimed his shotgun, and one of the burglars had drawn a 9mm and shot him straight through the head- which could easily have happened. That’s why he said “that’s okay… don’t go outside”.
Youtube of the 911 Call (in which he describes the men as black). At this point they were bleeping Horn’s name and address- now of course they’re all common knowledge.
The dispatcher was trying to keep Horn from getting killed. No one knew what was going on out there and since Horn wasn’t in danger, it makes sense to protect people first and stuff second.
There’s this thing called homeowner’s insurance and they even have a thing called full replacement value so that your $2,000 worth of stuff gets replaced…minus deductable if you have one.
Sorry, I can’t get behing shooting some guy in the back, over property that should have be covered under a halfway decent homeowner’s insurance.
“I’ve got your deductible… right here!” <BLAM> <BLAM>
What value would that be and to whom is it valued?
Certainly worth more than a human life or two.
I attended the Pasadena Independent School District although I didn’t live within the boundaries of that fine city. At the time, Houston schools were segregated; Pasadena’s were all White (& Mexican).
A search turned up this reminiscence:
I’ll consult my book on Pasadena history at home; it was my mother’s & I haven’t read it. Will also look for more references.
Please note: Pasadena is considerably more diverse nowadays. (Years ago, I was glad to hear that a Black man had danced with a White woman at Gilley’s & was not lynched in the parking lot.) The protesters seen on Houston TV were not all identified as Pasadenians. Some may have been shipped in from (shiver) Vidor.
Answer the question asked.