• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

Travis said:
On the other hand he might have been a real robber. But one that only intended to rob, not harm. When you start sending bullets through walls to protect your stuff you have now put your whole family in greater danger. The robber, who never would have escalated things before, might now pull his own gun to try and save his own life. And, panicked, starts wildly sending bullets through the walls. Maybe into a child's room.

Way to go. You turned a robbery into a heartbreaking family tragedy.
Click to expand...

I have a question about your example. Why does the robber who explicitly intends not to harm anyone, and who would "never escalate things," have a gun with him?
 
RandFan said:
That sure is the way it seems to me.
Click to expand...
And the cop on the scene, (who is required to know the Garner legal standard, and sign off on a use of force statement every time he qualiifies with his weapon) why didn't he shoot Horn to stop this murder?

CT is that way.
 
Kestrel said:
The 911 call shows rather clearly that he went outside intending to kill. Just another idiot out to prove he is a real man Texas style. :boggled:
Click to expand...

I am increasingly of the opinion that Texas should not only be allowed to secede, but strongly encouraged to do so. Except Austin. Austin is good, the rest needs to go.
 
luchog said:
I am increasingly of the opinion that Texas should not only be allowed to secede, but strongly encouraged to do so. Except Austin. Austin is good, the rest needs to go.
Click to expand...

Austin is an island of sanity in a sea of rednecks.
 
RandFan said:
If I was a burglar I damn sure would advance toward a guy with a shotgun. Certainly nothing to be skeptical of there. Who wouldn't?
Click to expand...

Me. If I were a burglar, I'd drop the swag and flee or stop and comply. Does a criminal have a legal right to use - or threaten to use - force to further his or her crime?
 
Cylinder said:
Me. If I were a burglar, I'd drop the swag and flee or stop and comply.
Click to expand...

An agressive move would be heading straight for the guy with the shotgun. If you read about this case, that isn't what the burglar was doing. The burglars actions were consistent with making a run for it, perhaps to where his car was parked.

Is there any evidence that the first burglar even saw Joe Horn before he opened fire?
 
Kestrel said:
An agressive move would be heading straight for the guy with the shotgun. If you read about this case, that isn't what the burglar was doing. The burglars actions were consistent with making a run for it, perhaps to where his car was parked.

Is there any evidence that the first burglar even saw Joe Horn before he opened fire?
Click to expand...

Does that matter? What matters is the course of events from Joe Horns perspective. (he is the one that needs to justify his self defense)

He is standing in his front yard. Two guys come running out of the house, one straight for him. He aims, prepares to fire, it is my understanding that at this time the guy running at him swerves away, but is shot in the process.

I am sorry, but it sounds like a stressful situation where a person saw someone coming at them and took aim and fired in a series of motions that corresponded to the burglar swerving away.

Sad really, when I imagine myself in this situation I would prefer to have some cover to be behind so that I would not feel so threatened, but without the ability to see the situation it is rather hard to fully comprehend the events in question.

Good thing the detective just sat in his car and watched it all happen . . .

It seems to me that most people who want Joe Horn arrested come from a position of thinking, well the robber probably did not mean to charge Joe, was not actually trying to attack him, just run away and was unfortunate in the direction he choose. We feel sorry for the burglar for these reasons, then we think, well Joe Horn did not NEED to go outside, so that means this unfortunate situation is Joe Horns fault.

The problem with that logic is you are assuming you understand the burglars intentions, you assume that Joe Horn standing in his front yard was doing something wrong, and you assume the law cares about your feelings on the matter vs the facts.
If you read about this case, that isn't what the burglar was doing.
Click to expand...
I have read it, and your interpretation is not meaningful. What matters is if he did indeed run at Mr Horn. The physical act is what matters not your interpretation of the burglars intent. Was it reasonable for Joe Horn to see that act as an aggressive move. The court said it was.
 
Last edited:
Xulld said:
Does that matter? What matters is the course of events from Joe Horns perspective. (he is the one that needs to justify his self defense)

He is standing in his front yard. Two guys come running out of the house, one straight for him. He aims, prepares to fire, it is my understanding that at this time the guy running at him swerves away, but is shot in the process.

I am sorry, but it sounds like a stressful situation where a person saw someone coming at them and took aim and fired in a series of motions that corresponded to the burglar swerving away.

Sad really, when I imagine myself in this situation I would prefer to have some cover to be behind so that I would not feel so threatened, but without the ability to see the situation it is rather hard to fully comprehend the events in question.

Good thing the detective just sat in his car and watched it all happen . . .

It seems to me that most people who want Joe Horn arrested come from a position of thinking, well the robber probably did not mean to charge Joe, was not actually trying to attack him, just run away and was unfortunate in the direction he choose. We feel sorry for the burglar for these reasons, then we think, well Joe Horn did not NEED to go outside, so that means this unfortunate situation is Joe Horns fault.

The problem with that logic is you are assuming you understand the burglars intentions, you assume that Joe Horn standing in his front yard was doing something wrong, and you assume the law cares about your feelings on the matter vs the facts.
I have read it, and your interpretation is not meaningful. What matters is if he did indeed run at Mr Horn. The physical act is what matters not your interpretation of the burglars intent. Was it reasonable for Joe Horn to see that act as an aggressive move. The court said it was.
Click to expand...
That appears to be what the grand jury found compelling enough to reject the very low bar for indictment.
 
These aren't misbehaving children. They aren't good people who are just temporarily misbehaving and need a good talking to.

These are criminals who have knowingly decided to risk their lives to steal other people's hard earned money and possessions. In the USA, you know full well that you are betting your life if you try to rob people. Why shouldn't they have to pay up if they lose the bet? They made the bet, not their victims.

These are people who have decided to put other people's lives at risk, without a care. They don't give a damn about your life, as long as they can take your stuff and sell it on the street for 10 cents on the dollar, or use your car to rob some other poor soul.

They risk the lives of the public, and police officers all the time, at will. They sure don't care what happens as a result of their crimes, as long as they don't get caught.

Not sure if we should care all that much when they lose at "You bet your life!".
 
Cylinder said:
Me. If I were a burglar, I'd drop the swag and flee or stop and comply. Does a criminal have a legal right to use - or threaten to use - force to further his or her crime?
Click to expand...
Doesn't address my point. I'm criticizing the unlikely scenario that two guys are going to approach a man with a shotgun pointed in their direction.
 
Xulld said:
The problem with that logic is you are assuming you understand the burglars intentions, you assume that Joe Horn standing in his front yard was doing something wrong, and you assume the law cares about your feelings on the matter vs the facts.
Click to expand...

Actually Joe Horn wasn't standing in his front yard. He was inside his house talking to 911, when he said “You want to make a bet? I’m going to kill them” followed by “Well here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going”. Joe Horn then ran out his front door and fired his shotgun almost immediately.

It's absolutely clear that Joe Horn went out his front door with the intent of killing the burglars.
 
LTC8K6 said:
These aren't misbehaving children. They aren't good people who are just temporarily misbehaving and need a good talking to.

These are criminals who have knowingly decided to risk their lives to steal other people's hard earned money and possessions. In the USA, you know full well that you are betting your life if you try to rob people. Why shouldn't they have to pay up if they lose the bet? They made the bet, not their victims.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean that they deserve to be summarily executed.

The principle that I and most people, even those who agree with SYG should be, that you have the right to save your life. Even those who agree with SYG, and believe that you have a right to protect your property and not retreat, if you point a shotgun at two thieves and they begin to flee it's not okay to play judge jury and executioner. It's just not. You might disagree and that's fine. I know of one other poster on this forum who believes in summary executions and cruel and unusual punishment. There is nothing I can do about that. He is entitled to his opinion. But understand that your arguments are not going to convince those of us who do feel it's a tragedy and would really rather never to have to do that. Even if they support SYG.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
That doesn't mean that they deserve to be summarily executed.
Click to expand...

He didn't say that. At no point did he say "If they have surrendered, been disarmed and rendered harmless, they should get a bullet in the back of the head".

In fact, no one has said that.

You are arguing from an emotional position and it is leading you to exaggerate others stance (whether weaver or isosceles).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom