Guns Laws Protect Murderer - Page 13

thewise1 · 07-06-2008, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Like I said though, it's a minor point. He told the 911 operator that he was going to kill them, so that was his intention prior to going outside, not to stop and detain, but to kill them.

Only after the operator told him they were going to kill him... context is everything

thewise1 · 07-06-2008, 05:58 PM

Actually I just reread the transcript and I don't see where he said he's gonna kill them, or wants to kill them.

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"

One could even argue that the dispatcher told him his life was in danger if he walks outside the house.

Donkey® · 07-06-2008, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

B&E has death penalty associated with it if the resident decides to you legally defend himself and his property. It is legal to react with greater force than an assailant to defend your life and your property. I imagine that it's pretty self-evident why it ought to be legal for people to be able to use deadly force against assailants, but I'm willing to clear that up for you if you want.

And in THIS singular situation/scenario...NONE of what you stated was present.

Donkey® · 07-06-2008, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Wait, it's actually not clear that there was no warning.

"Move, you're dead" is what most of the transcripts say. The news transcripts that say otherwise have that part of the transcript replaced by commentary. Ex:

Man Kills Suspects While On Phone With 911, Two Men Shot In Texas By Joe Horn Who Saw Suspects Leaving Neighbor's House - CBS News

"Boom, you're dead" doesn't even make sense, but "Move, you're dead" does make sense based on the context.

So what? Let's say he said in clear Spanish "hey, if you move an inch I am going to shove this shotgun up your asses". It STILL does NOT give him any right to kill those two people like he did. Period.

7960 · 07-06-2008, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Actually I just reread the transcript and I don't see where he said he's gonna kill them, or wants to kill them.

You need to listen to the audio. He said it.

7960 · 07-06-2008, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

One could even argue that the dispatcher told him his life was in danger if he walks outside the house.

No, the dispatcher told him he would be in danger if he went outside to confront the burglars.

Like someone said, context is everything.

thewise1 · 07-07-2008, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

No, the dispatcher told him he would be in danger if he went outside to confront the burglars.

Like someone said, context is everything.

umm, that's what I said, paraphrased

thewise1 · 07-07-2008, 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So what? Let's say he said in clear Spanish "hey, if you move an inch I am going to shove this shotgun up your asses". It STILL does NOT give him any right to kill those two people like he did. Period.

So don't defend your belongings or those you were entrusted with... other people disagree with you

7960 · 07-07-2008, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

umm, that's what I said, paraphrased

no, you said "Only after the operator told him they were going to kill him" trying to justify him going out to meet the threat.

he was perfectly safe in his house. there was no threat UNTIL he went outside.

thewise1 · 07-07-2008, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

no, you said "Only after the operator told him they were going to kill him" trying to justify him going out to meet the threat.

he was perfectly safe in his house. there was no threat UNTIL he went outside.

No, actually I wasn't trying to justify that he went outside in that post. I was saying that the operator implied that there would be danger to his life if he went outside.

Because he did go outside, one could at least argue that there was danger to his life and thus he was justified in shooting. Is he not allowed to go outside now because of thieves?

7960 · 07-07-2008, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

No, actually I wasn't trying to justify that he went outside in that post. I was saying that the operator implied that there would be danger to his life if he went outside.

Because he did go outside, one could at least argue that there was danger to his life and thus he was justified in shooting. Is he not allowed to go outside now because of thieves?

remember the riots in LA in '92 after the rodney king verdict?

police were warning people not to go there because it wasn't safe.

are you saying if I ignored them and brought my gun to LA then I could have gotten out of my car and declared "I FEEL UNSAFE!" and just started killing people?

thewise1 · 07-07-2008, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

remember the riots in LA in '92 after the rodney king verdict?

police were warning people not to go there because it wasn't safe.

are you saying if I ignored them and brought my gun to LA then I could have gotten out of my car and declared "I FEEL UNSAFE!" and just started killing people?

If it's not safe to go outside on your own property because there are thieves that will kill you if you do, couldn't I argue that he was defending his property and life by going outside to confront them?

To me, the idea that I have to stay inside while someone invades my property and that of my neighbors - especially when my neighbor asked me to keep an eye on it - is ludicrous.

7960 · 07-07-2008, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

If it's not safe to go outside on your own property because there are thieves that will kill you if you do,

they weren't on his property until AFTER he went outside to confront them

thewise1 · 07-07-2008, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

they weren't on his property until AFTER he went outside to confront them

Right, so he's not even allowed to roam his own property freely because that confrontation could result in trespassers' death...

Yeah that's gonna fall under agree to disagree I guess

7960 · 07-07-2008, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Right, so he's not even allowed to roam his own property freely because that confrontation could result in trespassers' death...

it's not like he was out in his garden and they approached him. according to his words he went and got his gun intending to confront them, then went outside and confronted them intending to kill them.

if I'm in my lane on the highway and see someone 200' ahead in a different lane starting to drift across the highway, even if I stayed in my lane it would be wrong for me to speed up to get next to them to instigate a crash.