Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Gun control
| Re: Gun control [message #337730 is a reply to message #337727] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 13:58   |
|
|
| R315r4z0r |
I see it like this... the government has every right to restrict civil liberties ONLY IF the consent of the people it governs is involved.
For example, if I was to propose the licensing of heavy weapons to the government and you were to propose that it was a bad idea to do that, the government could chose to go either way regardless of what the Constitution says because the idea was proposed by an individual that is under the government's 'rule.'
However, if the government one day said that they are putting a restriction on heavy weapons with no prior warning, than THAT is unconstitutional because the people's say was not involved. It would also be unconstitutional if they instated such a law regardless if the majority of the people voted against it.
So in order for it to be proposed and looked at without it being unconstitutional is if it is proposed by the people. And in order for it to fall through and be instated it needs to be approved by the people. The government is just there to mediate the people's wants.
The Constitution is not a rule book, it is merely a guide line. Things said in the Constitution should never be taken with the fullest seriousness because things in the Constitution can be changed by the will of the people. That is why basing an argument on something that is said in the Constitution is quite pointless (as it can be changed with a simple proposal and vote).
|
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
America is a REPUBLIC. We're not a democracy. We don't follow mob rule. Our government wasn't created so things could be done the way the people wanted to at that time.
The Constitution is a document stating what the government CANNOT take away from its citizens. EVER. AT ANY POINT IN TIME. PERIOD. It IS to be taken 100% seriously. Anything less destroys the integrity of the document. You can't just pick and choose what's relevant to the nation at that time. It's that kind of clumsy, irresponsible bullshit that brought us the Patriot Act.
The Bill of Rights were written as Amendments to the Constitution SO THEY COULD NEVER BE CHANGED.
Oh, and I expect NukeIt to write a 10 page essay on why what you just said is wrong on so many different levels. What you said pissed me off too much for me to formulate a long reply. NukeIt seems to have more patience and tolerance than I do.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Fri, 27 June 2008 14:05] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337735 is a reply to message #337389] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 14:53 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Actually, I'm still trying to process this line:
| Quote: |
The Constitution is not a rule book, it is merely a guide line.
|
Have you ever had one of those moments when something gives you such a colossal mind-fuck that your entire train of thought derails and then explodes? I just had one. I can't bring myself to respond to anything else; it has become the only thing worth talking about in this thread.
This is the United States of America. The Constitution isn't just a rule book, you ignorant fool, it is the highest law in the land. Amendments may be added or repealed (while we're on that, the Bill of Rights is an exception- it is a necessary part of the document and to be messed with at our peril), but the basic document itself may only be altered or replaced by an overwhelming majority vote. We're talking change on such a massive scale that it has only been affected twice in the entire history of our nation- the Articles of Confederation were brought into effect following the Revolution, and only a few years later the Constitution was laid down. That's it; never since. The Constitution has not been altered since 1787. Changing that document at this point in time would be exactly the same thing as dissolving the USA and founding a whole new fucking nation. The Constitution is America. One does not exist without the other.
Just for your information, since you seem to be so ill-informed: the validity of every single law in this country is determined based on whether or not it is permitted by the Constitution. Every single one from the lowliest parking ordinance to who is allowed to vote. The Supreme Court was established for the sole purpose of interpreting the Constitution to determine which laws are valid and which are not, and any law may be challenged and struck down if the Court finds it un-Constitutional. Whether a law may be justified by the Constitution isn't just relevant to the issue, it is an absolutely essential detail. It is the issue. The Constitution is and has been the driving force behind emancipation, desegregation, womens' suffrage, age of consent, firearms legislation, and every other significant social or legal issue in this country for the past two and a half centuries... not to mention the Civil War.
And here's the clincher: Law as laid down in the Constitution exists not to regulate and restrict the People, but to restrict the government. In point of fact, the only part of the entire Constitution which acts against the people rather than against the government is Amendment #18- which was repealed as un-Constitutional by Amendment #21. The very first words in the Constitution are "We The People." Not "We the Congress," not "We the Supreme Court Justices," not "We the States," and certainly not "We the Executives." I suggest you find a copy and read it some time; you obviously understand neither its purpose nor its content. Here's a link to get you started- if you've got the courage to change your mind.
The Constitution is the ultimate Law in the United States of America. It is always relevant, it should always be taken seriously, and it is the will of the People.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
[Updated on: Fri, 27 June 2008 14:56] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337738 is a reply to message #337420] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 15:10 |
w0dka
Messages: 181
Registered: March 2006
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
........................................
Why you need a gun?
For self defence?
mhm you want to take out your gun when someone is holding his gun right into your face?
If there is a full gunban then the criminal probaly have a gun and you not. But why this is better? He don't need to kill you. He knows that he won't get a shot in the back the second he's fleeing.
Police job is easier. Just arrest everyone with a gun and ask why hes got one. Two days ago they blocked a few street because someone in the city was seen with a gun. K it was a replica but hey, police reacted and cleared situation.
To rescue USA?
Sure thing. If you're big airforce, you're nuclear arsenal, or the biggest army in the world don't stop a intruder a few million with shotguns and pistol armed patriots will do it. You should ban hollywood films.
Kill-Kill-Kill i just hear "I kill this motherfucker" ...
whats happend to the good old Lets-meet-and-talk-about? Ort the please-dont-kill-me-here-is-all-my-money-insurance-will-pay-me-anyway
Thanks.
[Updated on: Fri, 27 June 2008 15:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337742 is a reply to message #337498] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 15:48 |
w0dka
Messages: 181
Registered: March 2006
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 19:47 |
Any handgun defense course will teach you that there are only two targets worth shooting for- center of mass, or the head. Center of mass because, if you are using a larger caliber weapon (in practice, pretty much anything bigger or punchier than a .380 ACP), there is a very good chance that a CoM shot will put your target on the ground unless they are either Superman or so whacked out on drugs that they keep coming anyway. Head, because as we all know there is absolutely no chance of the criminal firing back if they are dead. The standard FBI/law enforcement training target lacks arms and legs for exactly this reason: a nonlethal shot is an ideal, not a reality.
|
I'm surprised. in Germany our police is trained for only non lethal shots for arms, legs... And even that only as a last option if the target is a danger to life. And we don't have problems with guns 
And you're scenario:
the criminals who want to rob something in USA would he REALLY think he rob someone unarmed? Well if i'm a criminal in the USA i will shot the shopkeeper, take the money and flee. Why? If he is alive he will maybe shot me the same second i lower my gun for fleeing or taking the money. He will call the police and help them find me. Armed robery is a serios business. And i can't life for eternity from robing 100 bucks. I need to steal more. Next robery? So why to worry about death toll? If i kill 22 shopkeepers and get caught i will get executed. I kill one and i will get executed. So whats is stoping me from killing everyone i didn't like/in my way after the first one?
Now thesame situation in Germany.
i want to rob a bank. Wait i don't have a weapon I can buy one at black market. cool. Maybe police find me. Got a weapon now. go to the bank. All employes and guests raise their hands. Be frigthened but don't play hero. they know their money is covered by insurance.
See the difference?
| cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 17:36 |
Even if gun ownership DIDN'T make people safer (which can easily be proven that it HAS), it certainly hasn't created any more violence, and thus has no reason to be banned.
|
I want to see that proof.
| cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 25 June 2008 12:44 |
Then you completely ignore the simplest of arguments: Guns don't kill people. A properly functioning, high-powered rifle cannot kill people.
Face it, just about anything can be used as a murder weapon. I can kill people with my car. I can kill people with knives. I can kill people with scissors. I can kill people with my bare hands. I can kill people with a pen. I can kill people with my car keys. I can kill people with a chair. I can kill people with a toaster. I can kill people with a glass bottle. I can kill people with a golf club. I can kill people with a baseball bat. I can kill people with a plastic bag. I can kill people crowbar. I can kill people with a pillow. I think you guys get the point. If not, I'll name some more later.
|
just asking? How many people you see killing someone with scissors?Sure. Possible. but not real. Also its quite more difficult to aim for roper organs with a scissor, train yourself to kill someone with bare hands. But just holding a assaultfrilfe in the general direction of a victim and pull the trigger = easy kill.
Oh and i want to see someone robbing a bank with a pillow.
Or defending his family from this bad thief ... with a pillow.
You really think that hitting someone with something 2-3times and he'is death. Wrong the human body is not that easy killable. You get really bad injured. Maybe but you survive. A gunshotwithout fast medical threatment in the Torso kill you.
Thanks.
[Updated on: Fri, 27 June 2008 16:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337747 is a reply to message #337680] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 16:52 |
 |
sadukar09
Messages: 2812
Registered: May 2007
Location: Ottawa,Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| sadukar09 wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 07:08 |
I find it amusing that Canada has lower gun related deaths than U.S. and has almost as high gun per capita. (In case you want to source, it's here.)
The data I want to point out is this, "Firearm Homicide" the U.S. have 3.72 x100,000 rate, while Canada have 0.72x100,000. This is 14 year old data, but the more accurate 2008 data would probably reflect the same thing.
Edit: Scroll to the bottom, and see a graph of gun related deaths.
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
|
I will go back to this post...
| Quote: |
[19:16:48] <APBBR> @ryan3k: THE ENFIELD DEFIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BECAUSE THE BULLETS INSTANTLY HIT THEIR TARGETS LOL
[19:16:52] <APBBR> @ryan3k: CHRONO TECHNOLOGY IN TEH BULLETS
|
| Quote: |
[22:48]<APBBR> @V0LK0V: AOL COMING UR WAI K
[22:48] <APBBR> Host: Quitting due to Westwood Online connection loss.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337749 is a reply to message #337738] |
Fri, 27 June 2008 17:58 |
|
|
| w0dka |
Police job is easier. Just arrest everyone with a gun and ask why hes got one.
|
Wow, I'm done talking to you. If you can't respect the concept of privacy and to NOT be treated as a criminal when you're NOT impeding on the rights of others, then there's no use trying to debate this. I've tried and failed to get this concept through the heads of people like you. It just isn't worth the time and effort.
NukeIt, so I see your feelings on his Constitution comment are essentially the same as mine. Too aggravating and dumbfounding to even wrap your mind around.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337823 is a reply to message #337389] |
Sat, 28 June 2008 08:31 |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
w0dka, no offense, but get your head out of your ass, please.
America and Germany are two different countries. I know people from Germany, and they have a very different mentality of things. It's a universal thing there usually. You just can't compare European countries' laws, that usually are long-standing ones, with America's laws. You just can't.
Now, as for NukeIt's post- I agree. I'm sick and fucking tired of a few douchebags in congress or somesuch getting it in their head that because some people want something changed, they have the power to do so.
A politician's power in the United States should not be one that is allowed to change the constitution. Rather, it should be a position that simply gives them the ability to decide whether or not a specific law should be passed or not by abiding by the constitution.
Something like "The right to bear arms" should be obvious as to what it means. No, it doesn't mean you can have genetic implants to change your arms to that of a bear's (As badass as that'd be).
It means you should be able to carry weapons. A politicians duty should not be one to decide if that should be removed. It should be one to decide how to make it work in todays society. For example, they should simply question how exactly it should be worked out so gun related deaths can go down, while keeping the rights of its law abiding citizens. Should a criminal be allowed to keep a gun? Should a person with mental illnesses be allowed to keep a gun? Things like that should be questioned. Not "Should we allow guns atall or not?".
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337826 is a reply to message #337389] |
Sat, 28 June 2008 08:49 |
|
|
Cabal, the issue wasn't whether or not guns were to be allowed, it was WHO got to have them. It was argued that the founding fathers intended only for a "well regulated militia" to have and bear arms, and not the people. Although, it clearly says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337831 is a reply to message #337389] |
Sat, 28 June 2008 09:06 |
|
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Yeah, I couldn't quite find the exact words for it, but that's sort of what I meant, for the general public.
Good thing it's allowed now, though.
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337914 is a reply to message #337735] |
Sat, 28 June 2008 18:47 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 17:53 |
Have you ever had one of those moments when something gives you such a colossal mind-fuck that your entire train of thought derails and then explodes? I just had one. I can't bring myself to respond to anything else; it has become the only thing worth talking about in this thread.
|
Actually, yes. Just now reading your post. I read the first line and wanted to point out that I said it WASN'T a rule book. I tried to read the rest of your post but I couldn't concentrate on it cause the first line. It seemed you started going off on a tangent anyway.
The Bill of Rights is just that a list of rights not rules. Rules are put in place to give limitations, not grant abilities and rights. Having the right to freedom, press, speech, religion, ect, is not something I would consider a "rule." Having the right to bear arms isn't a rule either.
The Constitution, like I said, is NOT A RULE BOOK. It is a guideline on how to run the country in which rules are BASED from. The Constitution isn't the "highest law of the land" it is the backbone behind the law of the land. For example, a rule can be made as long as the Constitution supports it. If the Constitution doesn't support it, then the rule is not enforced. The same way dollar bills need to back backed up by silver and gold. Without the gold, the paper is worthless.
But anyway, going back to what I said before about it being a guideline... because it is a guideline, we can sway away from it as much as we want except when we cross it and what we do becomes unconstitutional. For example, punishments for crimes can be dealt with anyway seen fit, but if the punishment is seen as undeserving or cruel and unusual, then there is a problem.
However, this is all besides the point. This is why I hate politics so much. It goes from a simple discussion to a debate on why and why not something can or cannot be done. We should be instating and enforcing what is best for the country, not what is best outlined in the Constitution. This is why political parties fail. I mean they original started out healthy, but now everything is divided because of stupid disagreements. Instead of labeling people on what they like and what you don't, we should all be looking at what is best for the country, for the people. I've seen so many people not vote for a president that supported what they thought might be good for the country just because they were of a different party than them. It's pointless, I tell you.
erhm... but I went off on a tangent this time.. forget what I said, this thread's discussion is gone and I've lost interest. You can reply to my post, but don't expect me to reply back to yours (unless you specifically request I do, in which case I might think about it.)
Also btw, to the person who said America wasn't a democracy but a republic. No, it is neither. It is a Democratic-Republic, taking the best interests of both systems and combining it into something unique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #337939 is a reply to message #337914] |
Sat, 28 June 2008 23:15 |
|
|
| R315r4z0r |
The Bill of Rights is just that a list of rights not rules. Rules are put in place to give limitations, not grant abilities and rights. Having the right to freedom, press, speech, religion, ect, is not something I would consider a "rule." Having the right to bear arms isn't a rule either.
The Constitution, like I said, is NOT A RULE BOOK. It is a guideline on how to run the country in which rules are BASED from. The Constitution isn't the "highest law of the land" it is the backbone behind the law of the land. For example, a rule can be made as long as the Constitution supports it. If the Constitution doesn't support it, then the rule is not enforced. The same way dollar bills need to back backed up by silver and gold. Without the gold, the paper is worthless.
But anyway, going back to what I said before about it being a guideline... because it is a guideline, we can sway away from it as much as we want except when we cross it and what we do becomes unconstitutional. For example, punishments for crimes can be dealt with anyway seen fit, but if the punishment is seen as undeserving or cruel and unusual, then there is a problem.
However, this is all besides the point. This is why I hate politics so much. It goes from a simple discussion to a debate on why and why not something can or cannot be done. We should be instating and enforcing what is best for the country, not what is best outlined in the Constitution. This is why political parties fail. I mean they original started out healthy, but now everything is divided because of stupid disagreements. Instead of labeling people on what they like and what you don't, we should all be looking at what is best for the country, for the people. I've seen so many people not vote for a president that supported what they thought might be good for the country just because they were of a different party than them. It's pointless, I tell you.
erhm... but I went off on a tangent this time.. forget what I said, this thread's discussion is gone and I've lost interest. You can reply to my post, but don't expect me to reply back to yours (unless you specifically request I do, in which case I might think about it.)
Also btw, to the person who said America wasn't a democracy but a republic. No, it is neither. It is a Democratic-Republic, taking the best interests of both systems and combining it into something unique.
|
You do understand that the Constitution and the Amendments were written to limit the powers of government, right? Therefore, it HAS to be a rule book. The Amendments aren't saying, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms should probably not be infringed upon." It says it SHALL NOT be infringed upon. There's no room in that phrasing for there to be any "guideline". That was written as a direct COMMAND towards the government to not take away that right.
THEN in the 10th Amendment, it states that the powers NOT granted to Congress already nor prohibited to the States, are given to the States and the people. Again, there's no, "maybe you should let the States handle it." It was a direct command telling the federal government to back the fuck off.
Guidelines usually imply some leeway in how to deal with things. Our Amendments were written with such strong language that it's meant to be taken 100% seriously and followed to its fullest extent.
Our founding fathers knew fucking damn well what a powerful government would do. That is why the Constitution was written in the first place. These men were incredibly brilliant. They knew what they were dealing with in terms of tyrannical governments. They knew what was best left in the hands of the people. To tell me that we should regard their document, the foundation of our nation, as merely a guideline is an insult to them.
Please understand the founding fathers knew what they were talking about. I don't know if I can ever stress this enough. What they have said about powerful governments and the consequences of that has rang true. These things were said 200 years ago. Human nature doesn't change. The quest for power and the greed of money is universal and timeless. To regard the Constitution as something that merely guides us in the right direction, but ultimately should give way to what the people believe is foolish.
I don't know how this has anything to do with political parties, but I will agree with you completely. People are stuck with stupid alliances, and they won't waiver. It's why I hate the two party system. My mom mentioned she's heard a lot of people saying they won't vote this year. I shake my head at this unpatriotic act. If they truly cared that much, they'd vote for someone they actually agree with.
As far as America now being a Democratic-Republic, yeah, and that's unfortunate. It wasn't meant to be nearly this democratic. I really do wish Senators were back to being appointed by the States.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #338089 is a reply to message #337389] |
Sun, 29 June 2008 12:47 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
R315r4z0r, I am bound to agree with you on one thing: this thread's discussion is dead. The longer it goes on, the dumber it gets.
ids48, please go read a history book before you embarrass yourself further. I didn't think anybody could top the sheer mind-numbing ignorance of the whole "Constitution isn't law" bit, but you've somehow managed it.
Thread over; leave it to the rats. It's only gonna get worse from here.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #338557 is a reply to message #338552] |
Wed, 02 July 2008 12:32 |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Wed, 02 July 2008 15:00 |
| Quote: |
I shake my head at this unpatriotic act. If they truly cared that much, they'd vote for someone they actually agree with.
|
Heh, the unfortunate thing is you need there to be a party you agree with first.
If you don't agree with any of the options, its hard to want to vote for any one of them.
|
You can write-in someone's name. Plus, there's so many different candidates from so many different parties. Whether someone gets one vote or 10 million votes, voting for someone you believe in is important. If not, you only feed into the complacency that America is full of.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #338734 is a reply to message #337914] |
Thu, 03 July 2008 10:48 |
|
|
I just found this quote...
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. -- Thomas Jefferson
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gun control [message #338774 is a reply to message #337389] |
Thu, 03 July 2008 15:32 |
 |
Memphis
Messages: 227
Registered: January 2005
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
HOUSTON (AP) — The cha-chick of a shell entering a shotgun's chamber rattled through the 911 line just before Joe Horn stepped out his front door.
Horn, 61, had phoned police when he saw two men break into his neighbor's suburban Houston home through a window in broad daylight. Now they were getting away with a bag of loot.
"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."
"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered. "I'm going to kill them."
He did.
Admirers, including several of his neighbors, say Horn is a hero for killing the burglars, protecting his neighborhood and sending a message to would-be criminals. Critics call him a loose cannon. His attorney says Horn just feared for his life.
Prosecuting Horn could prove difficult in Texas, where few people sympathize with criminals and many have an almost religious belief in the right to self-defense. The case could test the state's self-defense laws, which allow people to use deadly force in certain situations to protect themselves, their property and their neighbors' property.
Horn was home in Pasadena, about 15 miles southeast of Houston, on Nov. 14 when he heard glass breaking, said his attorney, Tom Lambright. He looked out the window and saw 38-year-old Miguel Antonio DeJesus and 30-year-old Diego Ortiz using a crowbar to break out the rest of the glass.
He grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun and called 911, Lambright said.
"Uh, I've got a shotgun," he told the dispatcher. "Uh, do you want me to stop them?"
"Nope, don't do that," the dispatcher responded. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"
Horn and the dispatcher spoke for several minutes, during which Horn pleaded with the dispatcher to someone to catch the men and vowed not to let them escape. Over and over, the dispatcher told him to stay inside. Horn repeatedly said he couldn't.
When the men crawled back out the window carrying a bag, Horn began to sound increasingly frantic.
"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said as a shell clicked into the chamber. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."
A few seconds passed.
"Move," Horn can be heard saying on the tape. "You're dead."
Boom.
Click.
Boom.
Click.
Boom.
Horn redialed 911 and told the dispatcher what he'd done.
"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."
Lambright said Horn had intended to take a look around when he left his house and instead came face to face with the burglars, standing 10 to 12 feet from him in his yard.
Horn is heavyset and middle-aged and would have been no match in a physical confrontation with the two men, who were young and strong, Lambright said. So when one or both of them "made lunging movements," Horn fired in self-defense, he said.
Family members of the two shooting victims have made few public statements.
Diamond Morgan, Ortiz's widow, who has an 8-month-old son with him, told Houston television station KTRK that she was stunned by Horn's statements on the 911 tape. "It's horrible," she said. "He was so eager, so eager to shoot."
The Associated Press could not find a telephone listing for Morgan.
The case brought back memories of Bernard Goetz, the New Yorker whom some hailed as a folk hero after he shot four teenagers he said were trying to rob him when they asked for $5 on a subway in 1984.
Goetz was cleared of attempted murder and assault charges but convicted of illegal possession of the gun he used to shoot the youths. He served 8 1/2 months in jail and was ordered by a jury to pay $43 million to one of the teenagers he shot.
Pasadena police were still investigating Monday and planned to present their findings to Harris County prosecutors within the next two weeks, police spokesman Vance Mitchell said. From there, it is expected to be presented to a grand jury. In the meantime, Horn remains uncharged.
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they could otherwise be killed. In some cases, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbors' property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.
At issue is whether it was reasonable for Horn to fear the men and whether his earlier threats on the 911 call showed he planned to kill them no matter what, said Fred C. Moss, who teaches criminal law at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
|
A prime example of a situation being made worse because of someone possessing a gun. I think guns encourage vigilante behavior which is what I think happened here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 16 09:46:57 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01360 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
