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

  • Author
    Posts
  • #55626

    Rommel
    Participant

    Lack of conviction is not a valid indicator of anything except that there was no conviction. I do not know if he broke any laws or not.

    @bazzz wrote:

    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.

    How silly of me. It appeared that you were ridiculing Deathbal for using the term hero.

    What do you know about this case that you aren’t sharing with the rest of us?

    #55627

    bazzz
    Participant

    If i am right he saw his neighbours house being robbed, called the police and then chose tho go after the bad guys with a shotgun.

    I disagree with that this is heroic.It may be well intentioned or brave to defend your neighbours house. Maybe it was not, as you say we cant conclude that from what we know. A hero is someone who is a great example.

    If one agrees with the shooting of those guys you may call him a hero. If you dont agree you wont allow him to be a hero, obviously i disagree with that moral justification.

    The term hero is used so often politically it has no real substantional value anymore. Sorry if i find it hard to take seriously.

    #55628

    Deathbal
    Participant

    He is a hero to many because so many stand by and do nothing. Maybe what he did was not heroic, but just the fact that he acted seems to be a rare thing. That may be why he is a hero to many.

    Just recently a woman was attacked in a subway. She made eye contact during the attack with 2 separate subway workers. Both pushed the panic button. That is all they did. Neither bothered to move to help. After the rape she then tried to sue as a result and lost. Because they did all they had to do. They were not required to do more. It is the job of the police. But now and then you do get people who will act.

    What happened in Texas was one of those cases. When two thieves are told to not move at gun point, YOU DO NOT MOVE! Sorry if I seem to be heartless regarding this case. But I see no bad side to the results of what happened. Two complete pieces of garbage are dead, and many many more law abiding citizens are safer for it.

    #55629

    bazzz
    Participant

    I see they were just garbage, less than human.

    But i dont live in the US so i dont know how unsafe it is over there.

    Where i live only criminals use guns to shoot each other, and i never feel unsafe. Maybe i am just very privileged.

    #55630

    parasti
    Participant

    Seriously, this thread bugs the hell out of me. It terrifies me to think of the environment that you have to grow up and live in to be so confused about simple rights and wrongs. In terms of “wrongness”, taking someone’s life is off the scale compared to robbing a house. If you have any doubt at all about it, you should be worried.

    #55631

    Rommel
    Participant

    Open Letter:

    There seem to be four immediate choices presented when one is forced to witness the commission of a crime :

    1. Do nothing at all and go about your business.
    2: Go about your business and notify the police.
    3: Notify the police and attempt to arrest the criminals if they try to abscond before the police arrive.
    4: Attempt to arrest the criminals immediately and then notify the police when time permits.

    The results from making choice # 1 or choice # 2 are the same in many cases. The police either arrive too late or never show up at all and the criminals get away, emboldened by their success.

    About the term hero: It’s continued misusage saddens me because it cheapens the memory of those (if there are any) that are actually deserving of the title. At times, the only fitting description seems to be that a hero is a type of sandwich.

    Definitions indicating a distinction of valor that is appreciated by both sides of a conflict do not seem to be warranted in many cases.

    Pat Tilmon – Hero?
    John Mc Cain – Hero?
    Jessica Lynch – Hero?
    Joe the Plumber – Hero?
    Joe Citizen doing his duty – Hero?

    Danny … Danny … ? I can’t seem to recall his last name. Danny is a hero to those he saved. It is their right to remember him as they see fit. The Vietnamese … I’m not sure what they thought of him or if they even saw him die. Most likely he was simply an invader in their country that got what he deserved.

    Both views are as equally right as they are equally wrong.

      Recent Edit : Danny Max Erwin – SP 4, Medic – First Cavalry Division

    Best wshes,

    Rommel

    #55632

    Chopper
    Participant

    Well stated Romme……and I wonder what some others here would do if they were in Mr Horns position and having to chose. Or….better yet, if it was their house….what would they want their neighbor to do?

    One thing that comes to my mind. What was this shogun loaded with?Is this an automatic shotgun or double barrel? Auto..you could put one in the air to show you’re serious. Double? Think I’d go for the legs…….of course this day and age,those dudes would probably sue HIM and win.

    And Bazz…apparently where you live only the “bad guys” have guns? And you feel safe?……That kinda sux. btw I don’t own a gun or even want one. But who are they gonna kill when they finish killing each other?

    But I know do this, humans don’t steal from other humans, period. I have a very low tolerance for a thief or robber. Either driven by greed,laziness or need for drugs…..they’re blood sucking low lifes trying to live off others.

    Thus, the comment above about human garbage I imagine. Please don’t make this racial issue….theives come in every color known.

    All in all…..maybe too much force, but they MADE their choice. Something that each of us grownups do everyday.

    You won’t see me cry over it some dumbazz running from Texan with a shotgun. Thats a very bad choice. [-X

    #55633

    bazzz
    Participant

    Thank you, i see your point.

    #55634

    Deathbal
    Participant

    Chop, I believe he was using a 12 gauge with buck shot, a basic riot gun. Perfect for defense.

    A lot of it depends on the situation and a lot of personal opinion. I respect all opinions. And apparently many states here in the US do as well. Here in NJ, I could not do what Joe Horn did. In fact, we are required to retreat if possible.

    I think most if not all police are not allowed to shoot a fleeing criminal no matter what he has done or may do in the future. Which is probably why these thieves continued to run after being confronted with a shotgun. They didn’t think he would shoot. From experience of course.

    Here in new jersey we are allowed to have weapons in our house only. Only criminals and police can carry outside. But if someone does break into my house, they need not steal anything, have any weapons or pose any threat. I would not take any chances. It would be foolish to do so. The problem I would have is that I would have to prove I could not run, and I feared for my life.

    #55635

    bazzz
    Participant

    And Bazz…apparently where you live only the “bad guys” have guns? And you feel safe?……That kinda sux. btw I don’t own a gun or even want one. But who are they gonna kill when they finish killing each other?

    It sucks? Why? Not because the homocide rate of 0.97 compared to the 5.6 of the US. The bad guys will never finish killing each other, hypothetically if all bad guys were killed the not so bad guys would become the bad guys. The guys with guns here are part of organised crime, crazy extremists or sometimes the wannabe gangstar who wants to impress his buddies. Police has guns but rarely they will be used.

    think most if not all police are not allowed to shoot a fleeing criminal no matter what he has done or may do in the future. Which is probably why these thieves continued to run after being confronted with a shotgun. They didn’t think he would shoot. From experience of course.

    Sounds like its the same here, cops arent allowed to shoot fleeing criminals unless they are armed or a threat to others. In the Netherlands we have relative high jailtimes for all violent crimes, even a sargent in our military got prosecuted after an incident in iraq where it wasnt sure if someone got shot at all. But dont worry he got off, there was no evidence for any wrongdoing.

    The reasoning here goes that violece is worse than theft. Shopkeepers got in trouble when they beat up shoplifers too much. I believe there was a case where an innocent woman got killed after some employees chased her.Wait, she was only a junky maybe she deserved it for being greedy lazy and bloodsucking.

    I`m very happy to live where i live, its not even close to great but there is little violence its relatively safe and noone i know got threatened by punks with guns. Im happy thats not part of society where i live.

    Dont get me wrong im not against guns, i have had fun shooting them. And back when i got drafted for military service it was one of the few good things, that and driving APCs.

    #55638

    Deathbal
    Participant

    Well here in the US criminals seem to gravitate to places with stricter gun laws.

    Better to rob an area where the probability of no gun resistance than an area that you know everyone has a gun. It is simple logic and they use it to their advantage.

    The stricter the laws, the more you give the criminal the advantage.

    Because first and foremost, people should not be robbing your house. Just because they are running away only means they pose no current threat. It does not mean they did not pose a threat previously (before they ran, maybe at the sight of a gun), or may pose a threat in the future.

    House invasions do happen in the US. The results are usually deadly. And in many cases occur in areas where it is very difficult to obtain a weapon.

    I live by one good rule. “Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one”.

    #55639

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @bazzz wrote:

    I see they were just garbage, less than human.

    What would call them then? I know they are human, does that give a special right to rob, rape and murder again because he was allowed to flee because he posed no current threat? Did they not pose a threat to anyone that may have been in that house?

    Always do we see the statistics on gun violence. But never do we see the statistics on how many crimes were prevented by guns. What Joe Horn did may be viewed by many as horrible since they were fleeing. Like many other career criminals they would have just committed some other crime if allowed to flee. It’s not like they would have turned a new leaf, got jobs and became good citizens.

    So this is why I like states with laws like these. It stops future atrocities and makes the area safer.

    #55640

    Chopper
    Participant

    Hey Bazz..where’s “here”?
    I’m curious. 🙂

    #55641

    bazzz
    Participant

    In the Netherlands we have relative high jailtimes…..

    #55642

    Raden
    Participant

    I think it was wrong of him to shoot if his intention was to kill. Or did he shoot with intention to maim them, and to slow their getaway attempt? If his intention was to hurt them so as to prevent them from escaping, maybe it wouldn’t be such an issue. He probably should have just shot them in the legs. Maybe he tried, but he missed and killed them instead. But with a shotgun, odds are, he will not just hit the legs, unless he was really up close.

    By killing them, he was dishing out justice (in some people’s minds), but did the crime merit that kind of punishment? True, he could not have been positively sure whether the 2 were just robbing or whether they had raped or killed his neighbours while in the process of robbing the place, …… but the fact that he could not have known, makes it clear that he had no right to kill them.

    Criminals deserve their punishment, but it is not up to the public to execute the punishment. Otherwise we’ll have vigilantes running about, handing out what they individually think is the appropriate punishment that should be meted out to whomever they think has done wrong in their eyes. That’s why we have the police, and the judicial system, whether the punishment is adequate or not depends on the lawmakers…. different states or countries have different laws, and adequate punishment in one country might not seem adequate in another…. ❗

    If the 2 dead guys (prior to being dead), had turned around and attacked Mr Horn in their attempt to escape, then, in my opinion, he has every right to defend his life, at any cost….but if I read the story right, he was in no danger himself, and the 2 got shot in their backs….

    I wouldn’t classify him as a hero, a hero’s actions would be something brave and honourable. True, to kill someone takes guts, but a crazy guy would do it too, and without even thinking twice about it, and there’s nothing honourable about shooting (unarmed?) men in the back.

    @deathbal wrote:

    Just recently a woman was attacked in a subway. She made eye contact during the attack with 2 separate subway workers. Both pushed the panic button. That is all they did. Neither bothered to move to help. After the rape she then tried to sue as a result and lost. Because they did all they had to do. They were not required to do mor……..

    If the two subway workers had done more, maybe not to the extent of killing the rapist, but intervening and attempting to save the woman, THAT would be heroic……

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 40 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.