According to the testimony, he did order them to stop (I have no idea if they spoke any English of not) and at least one did charge at him - that’s when he dropped them both. The one that charged him was shot with the first and third shots.
Charged him running backwards? They were both shot in the back.
Not to mention is it remotely usual to charge someone pointing a shotgun at you? If the person holding the gun was restraining himself from pulling the trigger charging him seems a guaranteed way to force him to pull the trigger.
I agree completely. I’ve never understood the logic that crack and smack addicts are either going to one day wake up and say “I’m over it today, I’m going to go get a real job and turn my life around” or that a stay in prison will make them come out clean, sober, and a productive member of society.
Ask their families and friends.
That confused me as well. Here’s a quote from the police report
I’m sure they were model citizens away from their “job” :rolleyes:
Correction, future burglary’s have ceased.
Nope, I think that’s wrong. If I shoot another human being my ultimate goal isn’t to kill them it’s to stop them from engaging in whatever behavior caused me to shoot them. Ie. I’m shooting them to stop them from physically assaulting me, attempting to rob me, etc. I wouldn’t be shooting to kill them I’d be shooting to stop them.
It might seem like I’m splitting hairs here but I think there’s a distinction to be made between shooting someone for the expressed purpose of killing them and shooting them to stop them from doing something.
Marc
I am admittedly not a gun user so help walk me through this.
-
Horn tells them to stop.
-
One guy runs towards Horn.
-
Guy angles away from Horn sufficiently to have his back facing Horn.
-
Horn decides now is a good time to shoot (not when he was being “charged”).
-
Horn shoots him again for good measure.
-
Other guy does not charge Horn and is apparently moving away, back towards Horn.
-
Horn shoots that guy in the back.
Sorry but I am still missing it but maybe I am misunderstanding. Why wouldn’t Horn shoot when he was being rushed? By the time he does shoot it would be clear the guy was no longer charging Horn. And the other guy apparently never charged or threatened Horn so Horn shot him.
Where’s the afraid for his own safety part again?
Sounds like quibbling to me. In other discussions I have asked things to the effect of, “Why not use a .22? If I was shot by a .22 I’d stop.” The answer usually is something like, “Nowhere near powerful enough…may not cause enough damage to stop someone. You need bigger guns.” The implication being cause so much damage in one shot to guarantee person cannot harm you.
Then they advise to not go for the leg shot “wound the guy” route but to prefer to aim for the torso as it is the biggest target. Lots of important parts in there plus powerful weapon…
Well, you may not “intend” to kill the guy but it seems a fair bet you will pull it off anyway and certainly you know it is a distinct possibility.
Without having scale layouts or actual film, it is almost impossible to interpret how any of their actions may have seemed in real time.
End result is still the same - if they hadn’t been robbing the neighbor’s house, they would still be kicking.
If he did not shoot them ,they would be in jail. End result.
That’s a temporary result instead on end result. They were convicted felons, so they had already been in jail, and released…
The only ones that benefits are the criminals, for the rest of the world its not the best outcome.
This is a hijack but as an aside does the US generally release illegal immigrants from prison back into the US general population? I’d think they’d be deported. Maybe they were and came back…I dunno.
They do get deported, which they had already been.
Hey, while you’re here, could you shoot me (heh) an answer to my question from post 82 ?
Thanks!
I understand that. It doesn’t change the fact that my entire reason for shooting someone would be to stop them from harming me.
Marc
If by “harm” you mean physical harm I’m behind you 100%.
If by “harm” you mean shooting someone who took your iPod then no.
I don’t put Joe on a pedestal. It’s obvious that many different options could have been taken. However, I still don’t have a problem with scum that are breaking into peoples houses running the risk of this being the potential outcome. It’s not pretty, but neither is the crime wave that many neighborhoods find themselves mired in.