RE: Texas shooting case heats up

RE: Texas shooting case heats up (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

laurell3 -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/5/2007 5:13:48 PM)
I agree. Garner is distinguishable from the facts of the current case given the property angle However, it would be interesting to see what the Supremes would say if this Texas statute were brought before them. I do kind of question whether his belief that deadly force was imminently necessary was reasonable and thus whether his acts really fit the statute at all. I also agree with the professor quoted that the nighttime requirement seems rather odd and archiac. The fact that his attorney is arguing something isn't really all that compelling. Defense attorneys argue many things that may or may not be true or even viable and that is their job.

Alumbrado -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/5/2007 8:35:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The difference I was pointing to is simple the police shot the man trying to flee when he was attempting an arrest Horn had an entirelyt diifferent motive the proterction of a 3rd parties property (as mentioned above not a duty of the police according to Warren v DC) Since the goals were different the law would most liekly be different to since the goal was to protect property vs to arrest. Again, it doesn't matter if the shooter in the Garner case was left handed, or Catholic, or male, or a police officer... the ruling was not crafted solely relevant to those actors, it was also relevant to Garner, and any other suspect in similar circumstances. The Court clearly established that the right to one's own life cannot be cancelled over nothing more than a non-violent, non threatening incident such as property crime. And that right to life applies to every US citizen (Texan or no), unless certain Constitutional hurdles are cleared. Just stealing a TV isn't one of those hurdles that permits deadly force. The standard taught in every police academy and law school in the country since 1985 is that deadly force is justified when there is a clear and imminent danger to life and limb. Supreme Court trumps cowboy legislation. The recent spate of 'castle' doctrine laws are precisely to create an apres Garner presumption that someone breaking into your home is reasonably believed to be there to hurt you and yours, because that is the threshold needed to authorize the use of deadly force. If the reading that stealing alone allows for street level administration of the death penalty were true, there would be no need such a legislated presumption. As far as the DC case, I have pointed out before that the police are under no particular onus to show up and prevent a crime in the Hollywood 'Protect and serve' sense. However, AFAIK, sworn LEOs are required to take action when a felony is committed in their presence. And I don't hate you, because I don't believe for a second that you are a lawyer...[:D]

FangsNfeet -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/5/2007 8:35:59 PM)
Taking the law into your on hands? Whatever happened to Citizen Arrest Rights? Unfortunatly, we can only shoot people who attack us. We must be fleeing the criminal and cornered with pulling the trigger being the only choice in self defense. If the thieves are running away, you are not allowed to shoot them in the back. Luckily, dead men have hard times telling tells. It'll be tough for a D.A. to win the case should charges be filed. Since the two men are dead, they can't say that they lunged forward to attack the guy with a shot gun. As far a Quanell X showing up, I get the feeling that he wouldn't have made a statement if the burglers had been white. Burglers are burglers. I'll shoot any burgler regardless of race, gender, or age. I'll sick my dogs on them as well.

Zensee -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/6/2007 12:33:36 AM)
Luck for Horn the cops had better discipline the he did. And it's a good thing the burglers didn't have guns or they could have shot Horn to prevent him from murdering them... Texas sounds like such a fucked up state. Z.

velvetears -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/6/2007 10:51:26 AM)
This whole story doesn't sound right. Horn had a shot gun and these men came into his yard? Sounds to me like they knew they were caught and Horn told them to come over, then just shot them. What person in their right mind would come at someone holding a shot gun? It just doesn't make sense, unless they were under some kind of threat. At any rate i can understand wanting to kill someone if they enter your house, even if they were only there to burglarize you. You don't know their intent and you and your loved ones could end up dead. But to want to shoot someone because they robbed my neighbors house? - morally i could not do it. Take a life to save a posession is just wrong.

popeye1250 -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/6/2007 11:46:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: velvetears This whole story doesn't sound right. Horn had a shot gun and these men came into his yard? Sounds to me like they knew they were caught and Horn told them to come over, then just shot them. What person in their right mind would come at someone holding a shot gun? It just doesn't make sense, unless they were under some kind of threat. At any rate i can understand wanting to kill someone if they enter your house, even if they were only there to burglarize you. You don't know their intent and you and your loved ones could end up dead. But to want to shoot someone because they robbed my neighbors house? - morally i could not do it. Take a life to save a posession is just wrong. And what person in their right mind would smash out a window in broad daylight and rob a house? You have to assume that anyone who would do something like that would be armed!

GoddessMine -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/6/2007 12:36:48 PM)
A person's life is valued less than a few shitty things that can be replaced? Love, GM

domiguy -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/6/2007 12:59:51 PM)
His life was never in danger....His possessions were not being stolen. He could have stayed indoors and avoided the whole confrontation. He should be charged. I enjoy littering in Texas.

farglebargle -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/6/2007 1:24:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessMine A person's life is valued less than a few shitty things that can be replaced? Love, GM Well, technically, there's no material dollar value assigned to any individual person. Whereas horses, and other property can be quite valuable.

kittinSol -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/6/2007 1:29:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessMine A person's life is valued less than a few shitty things that can be replaced? Love, GM Many human lives are cheap... and some are disposable. I hope he won't get away with it easily, but I'm not holding my breath.

popeye1250 -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/7/2007 1:26:19 PM)
Just heard on the News, would anyone care to guess the Immigration status of the two disceased burglers? Yup, Illegal Aliens! Just doing the burglaries Americans are too lazy to do.

Zensee -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/7/2007 1:40:44 PM)
Oh - illegals, eh? Guess it's ok to gun them down in the streets then. Z.

Petronius -> RE: Texas shooting case heats up (12/7/2007 4:24:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I saw that on the news tonight. They're going to have a real tough time indicting him as these two jamokes were in the commission of a felony when he shot them. And if they do the jury will be loaded with people like me who will vote "Not Guilty." No matter what your race is if you're going to rob someone's house there's a chance that you'll be shot dead. It's real simple, if you don't want to get shot don't try to rob people's houses! How's that for "civil rights?" There's an old saying about guys who present such a macho front that they step on their own prick. I was reminded of that when I read popeye's bragadaccio. As I understand the law, popeye's notion of why and how he'll shoot somebody dead has no standing at law. On the other hand having popeye cut loose with a firearm against people he has no right to shoot gives popeye's victims a real right: self defense. I'd have no problem voting "not guilty" for somebody who put a bullet in popeye's head under those circumstances, because they had a real right to do it. If you're going to shoot at people you have no right to shoot at then you give them the real right to shoot back.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

9.570313E-02