RE: Texas shooting case heats up

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Texas shooting case heats up

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Texas shooting case heats up

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/5/2007 5:13:48 PM

laurell3

Posts: 6577
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

I cannot be defined by moments in my life, but must be considered for by the entirety of my existence.

When you fail to consider that I am the best judge for what is right for me, all of your opinions become suspect to me.

(in reply to Archer)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/5/2007 8:35:42 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

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...

< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 12/5/2007 9:01:06 PM >

(in reply to Archer)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/5/2007 8:35:59 PM

FangsNfeet

Posts: 3758
Joined: 12/3/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

I'm Godzilla and you're Japan

(in reply to cyberdude611)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/6/2007 12:33:36 AM

Zensee

Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to FangsNfeet)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/6/2007 10:51:26 AM

velvetears

Posts: 2933
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Religion is for people who are scared of hell, Spirituality is for people who have been there

(in reply to Zensee)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/6/2007 11:46:38 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

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!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to velvetears)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/6/2007 12:36:48 PM

GoddessMine

Posts: 250
Joined: 9/27/2007
Status: offline

A person's life is valued less than a few shitty things that can be replaced?

Love,
GM

_____________________________

Pleasure of the Text? Pleasure of the Goddess, more like it.

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/6/2007 12:59:51 PM

domiguy

Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to GoddessMine)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/6/2007 1:24:10 PM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to GoddessMine)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/6/2007 1:29:30 PM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to GoddessMine)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/7/2007 1:26:19 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/7/2007 1:40:44 PM

Zensee

Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline

Oh - illegals, eh? Guess it's ok to gun them down in the streets then.

Z.

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Texas shooting case heats up - 12/7/2007 4:24:07 PM

Petronius

Posts: 289
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 33