This topic contains 38 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Rommel 8 years, 6 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #6835

    Deathbal
    Participant

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

    This is an 8 minute 911 call. At around 5 minutes it gets interesting. It amazes me how laws can vary from state to state in the US. regarding this incident.

    Long story short. A man shoots and kills two unarmed thieves in the back after warning them to not move. The two thieves were leaving his neighbors house with a bag of loot.

    As a result, this man was not charged.

    Opinions?

    #55612

    yusuf
    Participant

    he killed 2 men?

    firstly, hurting or beating someone for robbery or theft is unjustified least to say killing someone.. i mean where did all the philosophy of common people about terrorism go? what are they thinking? (referring to people who support the accused) ..

    whats terrorism if what he did was justified, or morally right? id like to ask that man how did he sleep that night?

    #55613

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Deathbal:

    I am only vaguely familiar with this case but having been involved in a similar incident, I found it interesting when it occurred. Since you asked for opinions I will start by revealing my position on Joe before commenting on the video. I was pleased that Joe didn’t cop a plea and that he wasn’t convicted. Furthermore, I’d be more than happy to have Joe for a neighbor.

    @deathbal wrote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

    This is an 8 minute 911 call. At around 5 minutes it gets interesting. It amazes me how laws can vary from state to state in the US. regarding this incident.

    Long story short. A man shoots and kills two unarmed thieves in the back after warning them to not move. The two thieves were leaving his neighbors house with a bag of loot.

    As a result, this man was not charged.

    Opinions?

    My take on the dispatcher and video :

    After 2 minutes and 30 seconds of seemingly endless questions from the dispatcher, Joe indicates that he is scared. The dispatcher appeared to have immediately understood the code Joe was using and it’s obvious ramifications. That is when you hear the dispatcher exclaim “What!?” Joe repeats the sentence, clearly, calmly and verbatim. “This scary … ” (I just stated a legal defense, you better hurry). It is, after all, the best hand in the game. Joe had just tossed his cards on the table. He was all in.

    Over 2 and half minutes had elapsed, yet, it appeared that no one had been dispatched to the scene. At 2 minutes and 40 seconds the 911 dispatcher tells someone, “The guys are in the house. This guy has a shotgun and if we don’t get there he’s going to go shoot their asses.” He should have rightly told the someone else that at 1 minute and 30 seconds. Immediately after Joe laid out the scene and indicated that he was armed and wasn’t letting the burglars escape.

    Instead another full minute elapsed while the dispatcher nonchalantly asked for information that could have easily been relayed to the officers after they were dispatched. The most important question, regarding the urgency of the officers dispatchment, wasn’t asked until 4 minutes and 48 seconds had elapsed. “Ain’t nobody home that you know of is there?” The dispatcher asked the color of the house before asking if anyone was known to be home. Someone that might have been being beaten to death by these thugs.

    For a general statement that should cover the majority, if not all, of the states :

    If a police officer witnesses the commission of a felony or has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a felony, the officer may use whatever force is required to effect an arrest of the suspect. Although lethal force may prevent charges from being placed, it is allowable in order to prevent a suspect from fleeing.

    Example : Bank robbers don’t have to fire a shot or even have weapons, they only have to run.

    In the case of a citizen effecting an arrest, the above should be the only defense required. Lethal force is allowed in order to stop a suspected felon from fleeing. However, the first line of defense is generally self defense, with fleeing felon statutes and good Samaritan statues as good possible fall back positions.

    All a person has to do win on self defense, is convince the jury (or judge) that they had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm. The fact that the person that was injured or killed was unarmed does not eliminate them from being a threat or prevent someone from having a reasonable fear of being killed or harmed by them.

    The number of times that the dispatcher told Joe not to go outside is a red herring and is irrelevant to the case. The dispatcher had no legal authority over Joe. Therefore, he could not legally compel Joe to abandon his duty to try to effect a citizens arrest after witnessing the commission of a crime.

    Red herrings can be very deceptive. Especially the ones that look like Cracker Jacks, they seldom, if ever, produce anything worthwhile.

    Recent Edit : I should have qualified my example better and said most bank robbers or petty bank robbers. The best ones can be prevented from running by paying them a huge bonus to stay on and help balance the books.

    Best wishes,

    Rommel

    #55614

    pastor of muppets
    Participant

    I raise my glass to Joe and hope he moves in next door to me. Our police forces are already spread too thin if you listen to the call the guys had time to get in the house look around get what they wanted and then left before a cop arrived on scene. These guys I’m sure would have noted that and bragged about it amongst their friends. Then the neighborhood would become a target for more burglaries, rapes, assaults or everything else you can imagine. Not to mention the mental duress the homeowner’s would go through wondering if the criminals would come back. I would love to find out how long it was until another crime was committed on this block or IF another crime was committed on this block. Joe defended what his neighbor had earned from some free loading lawless punks, he tried to do it the right way by calling the police first and as rommel said stating that he was armed and scared. Too many times people will defend the idiots that put themselves on the wrong side of the law knowing the risk full well and will attack the citizen that was just trying to protect what he (or in this case his neighbor) had worked for.

    #55615

    BOY
    Participant

    Very strange call to listen to. If all the events are true then I say that Mr Horn is my friend. People should learn not to steal from people, especially when the neighbors are guarding the house.

    #55616

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    premeditated murder. that man should be locked up for life. what would drive otherwise relatively intelligent people to suggest thats even close to acceptable? you people are crazy.

    (thats a rhetorical question. no need to answer).

    cant have people coveting your neighbours house, ‘specially if theyre black ; )

    #55617

    yusuf
    Participant

    i have to agree with laptop .. people in US are going bonkers and paranoid .. they are in desparate need of a psychatrist .. saving someones property? by murder?

    there are two major reasons i believe why he was freed,
    first, the 2 men were illegal imigrants .. –
    second, they were black – (in any case they are humans)

    truely us is *#@%ed up in terms of politics and international affairs, but they are also *#@%ed up internally ..

    i mean lets suppose someone plays a prank to go into someones house and play decoy for fun, and we have a neighbour like MR. Joe, well hell kill the comman man , maybe even a young kid ..

    he should be locked up as he clearly is a potential future threat.. iam sure hed kill more people if he saw them immoral in by his ethical judgement.

    #55618

    BigBear
    Participant

    AFAIC, shooting unarmed ppl in the back is murder regardless of the circumstances.

    #55619

    bazzz
    Participant

    @bigbear wrote:

    AFAIC, shooting unarmed ppl in the back is murder regardless of the circumstances.

    Only in civilised parts of the world, the rest of the world the one with the most guns is right.

    #55620

    bazzz
    Participant

    How do you teach them anything when they die? I suppose you meant setting an example, like the gallow, the guillotine and the stoning of people.

    I suppose in some minds the need of public executions has a positive effect on society by striking fear in the hearts of people so they will stay on the right track. And wont have dissenting view or challenge authority. Pretent to believe what is the preferred view dictated by the most scary guy.

    I suppose there are many ways of interpretating history.

    #55621

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hidee Ho Neighbors :

    Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought the discussion that Deathbal requested was about uniform state laws or the lack thereof and also the video that he linked. If you want to intelligently discuss the specifics of the case, you need much more information than the video alone is able to provide.

    Then again … well … er … never mind.

    Also, I misquoted Joe in my initial post. He said, “This is scary …” not “This scary …”

    Later Taters,

    Rommel

    #55622

    Deathbal
    Participant

    Actually the reason he wasn’t even charged had nothing to do with their legal status or race. It had everything to do with the state of Texas and it’s “Castle” law.

    Castle laws vary from state to state. Many of them do allow you to use deadly force to protect property.

    These were two grown adults that did not respect our border laws to begin with. Then were breaking into people’s houses. One has to wonder what laws they do respect. Why defend them? What if someone were home? What will these two do in the future if allowed to escape?

    I support Joe Horn. To me, any shot, head, leg, in the back, is a good shot when it’s a thief. Plus lets not forget, he gave them a warning before he shot them. They continued to run. Why?

    I just see no positives to letting them escape. I see no reason to allow them to escape. They robbed a house and were told to stay still. They did not and were shot.

    In the future, my suggestion to thieves is to come up here to the northeast. States like New Jersey, New York, and many others have thief rights.

    Joe Horn is a hero to me. If he came into the Pagan bar i go to, he wouldn’t have to pay for a drink for the rest of his life.

    #55623

    bazzz
    Participant

    Wow, and i thought a hero should be an example for our little children. But i suppose vigilante justice is whats needed, what a hero indeed for showing how its done.

    Hee-Haw!!! Lets ride and shoot us some bad guys!

    #55624

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Bazzz :

    As stated initially, I don’t know enough of the details about this case to discuss it intelligently. That is why I kept my comments to the linked video.

    You make it sound like this man caught a couple of kids stealing apples from the neighbors tree, had them under control and then executed them. If that is not the way it went down, I can make no sense of what you are trying to say.

    If an injustice was done to the criminals, then providing specific points of law that were ignored or violated seems to be a more reasonable argument than simply hurling insults that are not backed by substantiated charges.

    Hoping to hog you soon,

    Rommel

    #55625

    bazzz
    Participant

    You are quite right, he dint get convicted- therefore he didnt do anything against the law.I suppose thats how many think of this and similar situations, personally i feel it has not the right scope.

    I was merely ridiculing the moral justification. I am sorry if you feel its something else.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 40 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.