I haven’t seen pictures of the deceased.
I do know a number of Columbians, though, and they range the gamut from people that would not have looked out of place at an Aryan Nation gathering to people that would fit in nicely at a Nation of Islan rally.
Are you saying that these Columbians, specifically, looked black?
On edit: now I see your post where, in the call, he describes them as black. Question answered.
I think the question is this:
Regardless of your stance on gun control, do you think it’s fair to shoot people when you’re not in personal danger? I think you’d have problems even in the pro-gun community to agree that it is in your rights to shoot someone for stealing something. It’s called insurance, as previously mentioned. We don’t need to kill robbers anymore.
I think its perfectly fine to shoot people to defend my property, im very iffy on my neighbors property though. Too much room for error in that. I’m anti gun and mostly very liberal but i have a very hard time convincing myself that its wrong to shoot at criminal caught in the act. Every post i’ve read in this thread that says anything like “human life is more important than stuff” pretty much leaves me with a feeling of “not that life and not my stuff”.
This Texan has no intention of ever buying a gun. (I agree with the Late Great Molly Ivins, who said that if anybody ever wanted to shoot her, they’d have to bring their own gun.)
However, I know quite a few guys who own shotguns. One even collects them, even though he hasn’t shot at anything living since his boyhood bird-hunting. None of them have ever killed any human beings with those weapons. (Some are vets–but they used different guns then.)
Joe Horn himself has said he regretted the killings. He’s become a hero to some really scary guys (check the 'net). But you can’t call back bullets. (Or buckshot.)
So you feel that murder is an appropriate penalty for theft?
They were what most people would describe as black.
Maybe if Ivins hadn’t felt that way she’d still be alive. She could have blown the cancer away.
I have had to aim a loaded gun at a person before. It is not a comfortable feeling at all knowing that “all you have to do is/squeeze your little finger” to kill. I honestly don’t think most people would come to it as easily as Joe Horn did.
No, im actually against the death penalty. In this case we are not talking about punishment though. If someone breaks into my house and tries to take my dvd player i would shoot them because i’d like to keep my dvd player, not because they are evil people who deserve to die. I don’t own guns though so thats a very unlikely situation, beating the shit out of them with a baseball bat seems more probable.
I agree that this is the core question. I think it’s fair to shoot people when you’re in personal danger, or to help someone else in personal danger. After that it becomes less defensible.
That’s the way I feel about it. Just because someone is doing something illegal doesn’t mean they should cease to have the right to not get shot.
What Joe Horn did wasn’t murder. Someone executed by the death penalty isn’t murdered either. Murder has a legal definition, in GD I would appreciate if you would stick to using the term properly instead of using it to emotionally bolster a weak argument.
I didn’t read all posts, but I wanted to make a couple remarks anyway.
To those who say: *the world is a safer place now that criminals may think twice about burglary, lest they meet with another shotgun toting Joe Horn. *
Criminals are criminals for a reason. They need money, and if burglary is less of an option, then the number of muggings wil rise, or any other crime. But the amount of crimes stays the same. While the number of accidentally shot drunk key-forgetting housemates might rise.
Secondly, I don’t think burglars in general will be targeting stranger’s homes of people so down on their luck that all the robbers can take away is food stamps. So the argument:“Not everybody can afford to get robbed and still feed their family the next day” doesn’t hold up, IMHO.
To those who say: "Joe Horn feels bad about it", that is not how I read it. I read it as that he fears retaliation and public scorn. Not the same thing.
By the way, I don’t know if putting Joe Horn on trial will generate necessarily more public debate on the ethics of this shooting then already takes place. If determining the rights and wrongs of this is the issue, public debate might do just as good a job as another grand jury.
I need money and I’m not a criminal.
Well now the solution presents itself. (Stay out of Texas, though; I understand Canadians are much nicer to burglars.)
You’re proving my point. 
I’m sorry, what?? Do you have a cite to back up the idea that the crime level remains constant?
It’s not reasonable to believe that it is OK to take a life to protect property. Property can be replaced.
No, but do you have a cite for the opposite idea? I doubt there has been much research done on the economic thoughts of small time criminals. “Please sir, we’re doing a scientific survey. Can you tell me how much prison time would deter you enough from the average mugging to get you to shift your activities to breaking and entering?”
It’s just logical. Criminals, once they regard criminal activity as a viable option to get money, will think economically and try to get the best buck for the least effort and the least danger.
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree.
Now, let’s set the terms: I absolutely agree that it’s wrong to take a life to protect property. But I recognize that other reasonable people may feel differently.
The protection of personal property as “self-defense” has a long pedigree in our legal thinking. In this Staff Report, I mention the Roman Twelve Tables, included in which was the idea that an attack on property constituted a personal attack on its owner. People who have blithely discussed insurance above without acknowledging that deductibles may themselves be quite high, and claims against insurance often result in higher premiums or even cancellation. I would like to live in a world in which a property owner says, “I am willing to suffer a financial loss in order to save the life of the miscreant that’s robbing me,” because this is, to my mind, the noble and right thing to do. But I don’t believe that our legal system should compel such sacrifice from everyone. A person should be free to defend his property with deadly force, if the people of his state decide that’s how they wish to live. That’s what self-governance is all about.
It’s an awful, terrible decision to make, one that will weigh on the soul of the man that pulls the trigger. But we cannot be said to live in a free society when we forbid people from choosing to go to hell, if they wish the journey.
You’re choosing between two outcomes here: one in which Persons A and B are both alive and Person B has a DVD player, and one in which Person A has a DVD player and Person B has been killed. Do you really want to argue that the second outcome is preferable?
I don’t think the insurance argument holds water. Insurance doesn’t make stolen stuff magically reappear, it just changes the identity of the victim.
My deductible is $1k. Why should I have to stand there and watch some dickhead walk away with what amounts to $1k of my cash?