The Saga Of Joe Horn: Texas Man Cleared In Shotgun Shootings
D. Spencer Hines
Another Victory In The Continuing Battle Of The Right To Bear And USE
Firearms In The U.S.A.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas man cleared of shooting suspected burglars
By JUAN A. LOZANO
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
1 July 2008
HOUSTON -- Ever since he fatally shot two men he suspected of burglarizing
his next-door neighbor's home, 62-year-old Joe Horn has been both praised
and vilified for his actions.
Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to
kill the intruders. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but a
defiant Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the
back.
Some community activists wanted Horn to face charges for the deaths.
Supporters of the retired grandfather said what he did was justified under
the law.
After listening to evidence in the case, including testimony from Horn
himself, a grand jury on Monday cleared him of the shootings.
"He wasn't acting like a vigilante. He didn't want to do it," said Tom
Lambright, Horn's attorney.
Lambright said Horn was not a "wild cowboy" who took the law into his own
hands after he saw the two suspected burglars, with bags in hand, crawling
out of windows from his neighbor's home on Nov. 14 in the Houston suburb of
Pasadena. The neighbor was out of town at the time.
Instead, Horn was a frightened retiree who tried to defend his neighbor's
property and when the two men came onto his yard and threatened him, Horn
defended himself, Lambright said.
"He was scared. He was in fear of his life," he said.
Grand jurors had to consider two issues in the case: the intentional killing
of another person and whether the killing was justified either by
self-defense or the defense of property, Harris County District Attorney
Kenneth Magidson told reporters.
"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's
conduct," Magidson said. "The grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of
deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."
Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is
reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances,
people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbor's property; for
example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while
he's out of town. It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was
burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.
Frank Ortiz, a member of the local League of United Latin American Citizens
chapter, said he hopes federal authorities investigate the case further.
"That's amazing that they would no-bill him with so much evidence against
him," Ortiz told the Houston Chronicle in Monday's online edition. "This was
no more than a vigilante."
Horn did not speak with reporters on Monday.
A large red sign with the words "No Trespass" on it blocked the path to his
front door and a handwritten sign on the door said "Please no media," "No
Trespassing" and "Do not knock or ring bell." A couple of neighbors also had
signs on their doors asking media to leave them alone.
A few police cars patrolled the area near Horn's home.
The two suspected burglars, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz,
30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to
Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.
The city of Pasadena, where protesters and defenders of Horn engaged in
counter-demonstrations, pledged to keep its police force staffed enough to
protect its citizens.
Keith Hampton, a Houston attorney not connected with the case, said he
didn't expect Horn to be indicted. "This is a real conservative county," he
said. "A lot of folks in Houston and Harris County are saying this man was
doing a good thing."
In the 911 call, a dispatcher urges Horn to stay inside his house and not
risk lives.
"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."
After the shooting, he redialed 911.
"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."
Nigel Brooks
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Hrick.45$AB3...@eagle.america.net...
Not so fast there - Apparently US Rep Sheila Jackson Lee has now weighed in
on the case.
*********************************************************************
"U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee on Sunday called for congressional hearings to
investigate what she calls ''the many downfalls" of the Harris County
judicial system.
Recent incidents, including a grand jury's decision not to indict a Pasadena
man who shot and killed two men suspected of burglarizing his neighbor, have
brought into question whether the system is fair and unbiased, she said.
Jackson Lee said she plans to bring the congressional hearings to Houston in
the next couple of weeks.
The hearings, for example, will assess how the evidence in the Joe Horn case
was presented to the grand jury. Jackson Lee questioned why the case did not
go to trial.
Jackson Lee said the federal government has an obligation to look into these
matters because they deal with civil rights issues. Also, the jail and the
district attorney's office both receive federal funding through the state,
she said."
*****************************************************************************
1. The case did not go to trial because a Harris County Grand Jury, after
considering all of the evidence including the testimony of Mr. Horn and a
Police Officer who witnessed the shooting - decided that Horn was justified
in using deadly force.
2. Sheila Jackson Lee does not even represent the citizens of the City of
Pasadena which lies in the Congressional District 29 of Rep. Gene Green.
3. Civil Rights Issues???????? - Was it a civil rights issue because Joe
Horn is white and the two dead crooks were black?
4. A day after white Joe Horn shot and killed the two black crooks, another
Harris County man fatally shot an individual who was burglarizing his home -
Damone Barone told investigators that he awakened at 2:30 am to the sound of
glass shattering. Barone discovered Steven Dunbar crawling through a
shattered window and shot and killed him. Does Sheila Jackson Lee rise to
the defense of Dunbar demanding that the case go to trial???? Of course
not - both Barone and Dunbar were black and Jackson Lee only sees a problem
in the Horn shooting - but clearly both Horn and Barone were acting in
accordance with the law.
Nigel Brooks
redc1c4
actually, the two dead criminals in this case were both illegal Hispanics....
redc1c4,
not that race should matter when a criminal is killed while committing a crime.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Tiglath
> Bravissimo!
>
Bullshit.
No property that fits in two bags is worth two young lives.
I doubt very much that the two men confronted by an old man WITH A
SHOTGUN, went on to threaten him.
That the old man set out to "kill" the burglars is also disturbing.
This case does much to impede the progress of legislation to allow the
fair and judicious use of guns.
Lethal force is justified only when facing lethal force, not to stop a
thief from taking your, or your neighbor's, laptop.
Not the only thing wrong with Texas either...
Nigel Brooks
"redc1c4" <red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote in message
news:487459C8...@drunkenbastards.org.ies...
They were Hispanic only because they were Colombian Nationals - Their skin
color was black.
And their skin color is the reason for the outrage from Sheila Jackson Lee
and the other rabble rousing clowns.
Had they been Latinos or White - no-one would have given a shit.
Nigel Brooks
Had they been
Tiglath
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:Hrick.45$AB3...@eagle.america.net...
> Barone discovered Steven Dunbar crawling through a
> shattered window and shot and killed him.
Completely different situation. Shooting someone breaking into your
home is amply justified, you don't have to wait until he threatens you
directly, it may be too late then.
But the other case is completely different. The two crooks were
LEAVING a neighbor's house and posing no danger whatsoever to the
shooter. If they had been assaulting or raping someone the shooting
would be justified but not for just stealing things.
ONE tooth for ONE tooth, not the whole fucking head for one tooth.
Nigel Brooks
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:08b88cb1-8111-415e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 7, 2:08 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> Bravissimo!
>>
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
> No property that fits in two bags is worth two young lives.
>
> I doubt very much that the two men confronted by an old man WITH A
> SHOTGUN, went on to threaten him.
The Grand Jury believed otherwise, and the testimony of the eyewitness - a
Police Officer, and the testimony of Mr. Horn supported that conclusion.
> That the old man set out to "kill" the burglars is also disturbing.
>
> This case does much to impede the progress of legislation to allow the
> fair and judicious use of guns.
Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Each State decides what constitutes the allowable use of Deadly Force. Guns
are only a means of application. If you are justified in using Deadly Force
under the State Law - you are justified in using a hammer, knife, rock, or a
gun to apply that Deadly Force.
> Lethal force is justified only when facing lethal force, not to stop a
> thief from taking your, or your neighbor's, laptop.
Perhaps in your mind or your State of Residence - but most certainly not in
Texas or many other States.
> Not the only thing wrong with Texas either...
Feel free to stay away from the Great State of Texas - I'm sure you won't be
missed.
Thankfully, the good citizens of Texas don't have to go along with your view
of what constitutes the justifiable use of deadly force.
Whether you like it or not, deadly force is justified in the Great State of
Texas not only to prevent death or serious bodily injury, but also to
prevent the commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery,
theft during the nighttime etc etc.
And that's the law old son.
Nigel Brooks
Nigel Brooks
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:fe3971d5-0582-4c0a...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
The point is that Jackson Lee would never have bothered about it if it were
a black on black or white on white killing. She is weighing in because of
her perception that racism was involved. She now seeks to initiate a
Congressional Investigation and look into what evidence was presented to the
Grand Jury.
Something that is clearly outside of her purview. Grand Jury proceedings
are secret and she has no right whatsoever to evaluate the evidence that was
presented by the DA. As a matter of fact Ken Magidson - the acting DA is
actually on loan from the US Attorney's Office. Knowing the way he is - I
have every confidence that if he had felt there was anything wrong with the
decision of the Grand Jury, he'd have done something about it.
The fact is that given the circumstances, and after reviewing the testimony
of the eyewitness Police Office and Horn himself - a Texas Grand Jury
decided to No Bill Mr. Horn.
Case Closed
Nigel Brooks
D. Spencer Hines
Thank God For Texas & Texicans.
Not Wusswumps They...
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6dkf06F...@mid.individual.net...
D. Spencer Hines
And let the word go out to all burglars in Texas.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6dkg0fF...@mid.individual.net...
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:fe3971d5-0582-4c0a...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 10:14 am, "Nigel Brooks" <nbro...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:Hrick.45$AB3...@eagle.america.net...
>
> >> Barone discovered Steven Dunbar crawling through a
> >> shattered window and shot and killed him.
>
> > Completely different situation. Shooting someone breaking into your
> > home is amply justified, you don't have to wait until he threatens you
> > directly, it may be too late then.
>
> > But the other case is completely different. The two crooks were
> > LEAVING a neighbor's house and posing no danger whatsoever to the
> > shooter. If they had been assaulting or raping someone the shooting
> > would be justified but not for just stealing things.
>
> > ONE tooth for ONE tooth, not the whole fucking head for one tooth.
>
> The point is that Jackson Lee would never have bothered about it if it were
> a black on black or white on white killing. She is weighing in because of
> her perception that racism was involved.
If THAT is the point I'm not interested. I've no time for perceived
racism and political correctness bullshit.
The killing was criminal Horn should stand trial for murder.
If Texas law allows to take life to defend property as I believe it
does, then Texas need be put on trial.
John Mianowski
...
> The killing was criminal Horn should stand trial for murder.
>
> If Texas law allows to take life to defend property as I believe it
> does, then Texas need be put on trial.
Having personally sat on the grand jury & heard all of the evidence,
you're in a position to make that determination, no doubt.
JM
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:08b88cb1-8111-415e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 7, 2:08 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> >> Bravissimo!
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> > No property that fits in two bags is worth two young lives.
>
> > I doubt very much that the two men confronted by an old man WITH A
> > SHOTGUN, went on to threaten him.
>
> The Grand Jury believed otherwise, and the testimony of the eyewitness - a
> Police Officer, and the testimony of Mr. Horn supported that conclusion.
>
> > That the old man set out to "kill" the burglars is also disturbing.
>
> > This case does much to impede the progress of legislation to allow the
> > fair and judicious use of guns.
>
> Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
>
> Each State decides what constitutes the allowable use of Deadly Force.
Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The fact that a
state CAN decide when to allow deadly force, doesn't mean at all that
the decision is moral.
Allowing death as retribution for stealing property has a fixed moral
value irregardless of where is being practiced.
You obviously have no ideas of what constitutes fair punishment.
The fact that disproportionate punishment is made legal in some states
does not make it proportionate or moral.
Learn the difference.
Life is not sacred but to allow killing for thieving is ridiculous.
Are you aware that people most of the world call "barbarians" and
"medieval" only chopped the thief's hand?
Do the math.
>
> > Lethal force is justified only when facing lethal force, not to stop a
> > thief from taking your, or your neighbor's, laptop.
>
> Perhaps in your mind or your State of Residence - but most certainly not in
> Texas or many other States.
------------------- Cordon sanitaire ----------------------
Moral relativism at its best.
>
> > Not the only thing wrong with Texas either...
>
> Feel free to stay away from the Great State of Texas - I'm sure you won't be
> missed.
What's so great about valuing life so low?
> Thankfully, the good citizens of Texas don't have to go along with your view
> of what constitutes the justifiable use of deadly force.
>
Ah, but you shall change. You've been slaying people brutally for
minor crimes for much too long, and the more your moral deformity gets
exposed the sooner you will be embarrassed into putting some
civilization into your arcane laws at long. You are an embarrassing
-- and lethal -- national curiosity. Enjoy while it lasts.
> Whether you like it or not, deadly force is justified in the Great State of
> Texas not only to prevent death or serious bodily injury, but also to
> prevent the commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery,
> theft during the nighttime etc etc.
>
> And that's the law old son.
>
Not need to re-state WHAT IS. I have been aware of it for a long
time, and made fun of it many times in these precincts as well, as the
archives can show. Don't confuse what is with what ought to be.
The civilized world is a good place to start to get a clue of what I'm
talking about.
And... I am not your son... Thank God.
Nigel Brooks
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:a22a0ea7-4d59-47e8...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The killing was criminal Horn should stand trial for murder.
Not according to a Harris County Grand Jury, who heard the evidence, heard
the law as it relates to justifiable use of deadly force - and determined
that there was no evidence to support an indictment for homicide.
> If Texas law allows to take life to defend property as I believe it
> does, then Texas need be put on trial.
>
The Texas Penal Code provides for the justifiable use of deadly force under
certain circumstances including the protection of property and in order to
prevent the theft of property at nighttime.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
Your comment that Texas needs to be put on trial is ridiculous.
Under our system of jurisprudence, laws may be changed in a number of ways.
By the legislature, or by the Courts on a finding that they are
unconstitutional. The People of the State of Texas have every right to amend
the law through their elected representative if they so desire. In fact,
the People of the State of Texas have further defined their right to use
Deadly Force in protection of their property as recently as this year - when
the Castle Doctrine took effect in law. Now under the law a citizen has no
responsibility to retreat prior to using deadly force.
So exactly in what judicial jurisdiction do you propose putting Texas on
trial?
Nigel
Tiglath
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:27:56 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
>
> Perhaps then it is a good thing you weren't on the Grand Jury, you
> don't understand the law.
>
I am sure they have no trouble getting jurors to condone the shooting
of brown people.
I understand the law well enough. It sucks.
> >That the old man set out to "kill" the burglars is also disturbing.
>
> He set-out to stop them, then they we
>
Can't you read?
===============
"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 shot them both in the back. Enough said.
You people who think that's all right must have much unexamined
psychological baggage.
Take another look and good luck.
Tiglath
The evidence is OUT in case you didn't notice.
They were not attacking him.
Horn shot them BOTH in the back, after telling 911 he was going to
kill them.
If you find any of this exculpatory or other piece that is show it.
> JM
Tiglath
The evidence is OUT in case you didn't notice.
!Jones
<nbr...@msn.com> wrote:
>Perhaps in your mind or your State of Residence - but most certainly not in
>Texas or many other States.
Texas has always had very liberal laws regarding when someone could be
killed and for what offence... arguably the most liberal in the world.
Back in about '75, I witnessed a shooting at the taxicab garage where
I worked... one driver staggered in drunk with a gun in his belt
looking for the other driver who stole his business. Driver #2 was
contacted by radio and told to stay clear, the police were on the way.
Driver #2 drove in from several blocks away to confront driver #1...
who had forgotten to load his gun (thereby winning my nomination for
the Darwin Award)... and killed him. You guessed it! Self defense,
of course... it happened in Texas.
There is simply no requirement that your target be a threat to you,
that you try to retreat, that any life is threatened at all... you may
literally shoot a 12 year-old kid for stealing your hubcap under some
conditions and suffer only the recoil of the gun. In this case, the
police were actually on the scene and witnessed the shooting.
It defies logic that he, at the very least, wouldn't face a jury of
his peers. But, then... he only shot a couple of niggers and Houston
positively *reeks* of magniloa blossoms!
Jones
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:a22a0ea7-4d59-47e8...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The killing was criminal Horn should stand trial for murder.
>
> Not according to a Harris County Grand Jury, who heard the evidence, heard
> the law as it relates to justifiable use of deadly force - and determined
> that there was no evidence to support an indictment for homicide.
>
> > If Texas law allows to take life to defend property as I believe it
> > does, then Texas need be put on trial.
>
> The Texas Penal Code provides for the justifiable use of deadly force under
> certain circumstances including the protection of property and in order to
> prevent the theft of property at nighttime.
>
>
> Your comment that Texas needs to be put on trial is ridiculous.
>
> Under our system of jurisprudence, laws may be changed in a number of ways.
> By the legislature, or by the Courts on a finding that they are
> unconstitutional. The People of the State of Texas have every right to amend
> the law through their elected representative if they so desire. In fact,
> the People of the State of Texas have further defined their right to use
> Deadly Force in protection of their property as recently as this year - when
> the Castle Doctrine took effect in law. Now under the law a citizen has no
> responsibility to retreat prior to using deadly force.
>
> So exactly in what judicial jurisdiction do you propose putting Texas on
> trial?
>
> Nigel
Hilarious.
This fellow thinks that just because some guys with law degrees and
cowboy hats wrote down that it is fine to kill people for thieving,
that alone makes it all right.
Along with your laws at issue one can mention laws that permit honor
killings, female circumcision, and the laws of Indonesia for drug
traffic.
They are all abominations that give "LAW" a bad name.
A law that degrades human life so low that it can be taken to save a
television that's being stolen is a bad law.
If I have to explain that to you, it means several things most of them
unflattering, but mostly that decent people should avoid Texas.
Tiglath
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:40:00 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam "Nigel Brooks"
>
Don't these people want to secede the Union?
I vote yes.
And wrap that wall for Mexico around Texas as well...
Raymond O'Hara
===============================================================
the point is stealing a TV is not a death offense.
Raymond O'Hara
===================================================================================
texas has opened the door to vigilante-ism and lynch mobs.
Raymond O'Hara
it wasn't his property.
shooting people who stole a neighbors TV is not a good public policy.
Raymond O'Hara
==============================================
all the grand jury saw was that a white man killed two "niggers"
Byron DelaBeckwith was cleared by a grand jury too{at first} it took a
federal civil rights case decades later to get medgar evens family justice.
John Mianowski
Not up to me; I'm not the one making the claim.
It's a basic principle of law that, whomever makes the claim must
provide the evidence to support it. The one who claims that an act
was murder is the one who must furnish evidence of such claim. That's
how it works in court, at least in TX.
JM
Tiglath
> "Nigel Brooks" <nbro...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6dkj5eF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
> >news:a22a0ea7-4d59-47e8...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> The killing was criminal Horn should stand trial for murder.
>
> > Not according to a Harris County Grand Jury, who heard the evidence, heard
> > the law as it relates to justifiable use of deadly force - and determined
> > that there was no evidence to support an indictment for homicide.
>
> >> If Texas law allows to take life to defend property as I believe it
> >> does, then Texas need be put on trial.
>
> > The Texas Penal Code provides for the justifiable use of deadly force
> > under certain circumstances including the protection of property and in
> > order to prevent the theft of property at nighttime.
>
>
> > Your comment that Texas needs to be put on trial is ridiculous.
>
> > Under our system of jurisprudence, laws may be changed in a number of
> > ways. By the legislature, or by the Courts on a finding that they are
> > unconstitutional. The People of the State of Texas have every right to
> > amend the law through their elected representative if they so desire. In
> > fact, the People of the State of Texas have further defined their right to
> > use Deadly Force in protection of their property as recently as this
> > year - when the Castle Doctrine took effect in law. Now under the law a
> > citizen has no responsibility to retreat prior to using deadly force.
>
> > So exactly in what judicial jurisdiction do you propose putting Texas on
> > trial?
>
> > Nigel
>
> it wasn't his property.
> shooting people who stole a neighbors TV is not a good public policy.
Those are the incidents mostly responsible for the international
perception that the U.S. is Dodge City.
There are many states where self-defense and gun laws have struck a
fair balance. I happen to live in one of them. If you fear for your
life or the life of others you are justified to use deadly force.
And you get wiggle room too, especially in one's home. You shoot a
home intruder, the police will mop up for you. But if a guy takes my
laptop and runs to the garden, no longer being a threat, I cannot
shoot him in the back to get my computer back. And rightly so.
Have Texans not heard of home contents insurance? I admit that
recounting how you filed a claim with Allstate isn't as sexy a tale as
telling how you blew the perp away and blood and lung spattered over
the rose bushes. That's true. But that's what armadillos and other
varmint are for. They can enjoy killing them too... at least a
little.
Tiglath
The claim is made, read it again. I ask again. What part of the
evidence I base my claim on you find insufficient or exculpatory?
D. Spencer Hines
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6dkj5eF...@mid.individual.net...
> In fact, the People of the State of Texas have further defined their right
Nigel Brooks
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:5f685bc0-623f-4956...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 2:40 pm, "Nigel Brooks" <nbro...@msn.com> wrote:
>> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:08b88cb1-8111-415e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 7, 2:08 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> >> Bravissimo!
>>
>> > Bullshit.
>>
>> > No property that fits in two bags is worth two young lives.
>>
>> > I doubt very much that the two men confronted by an old man WITH A
>> > SHOTGUN, went on to threaten him.
>>
>> The Grand Jury believed otherwise, and the testimony of the eyewitness -
>> a
>> Police Officer, and the testimony of Mr. Horn supported that conclusion.
>>
>> > That the old man set out to "kill" the burglars is also disturbing.
>>
>> > This case does much to impede the progress of legislation to allow the
>> > fair and judicious use of guns.
>>
>> Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
>>
>> Each State decides what constitutes the allowable use of Deadly Force.
>
> Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The fact that a
> state CAN decide when to allow deadly force, doesn't mean at all that
> the decision is moral.
Moral? Who decides what is moral? That is a ridiculous statement.
What you might consider moral could possibly be considered repugnant by
others.
The test is whether or not the law is Constitutional - and the Texas Statute
which provides for the use of Deadly Force to protect property is
Constitutional.
> Allowing death as retribution for stealing property has a fixed moral
> value irregardless of where is being practiced.
Another ridiculous statement. The statute does not "allow death as
retribution for stealing property" - it allows an individual to use deadly
force to prevent its theft.
> You obviously have no ideas of what constitutes fair punishment.
Fair punishment is prescribed by the statute also.
> The fact that disproportionate punishment is made legal in some states
> does not make it proportionate or moral.
>
> Learn the difference.
You are obviously the one who does not understand the difference? There is
a difference between what the Statute calls for as a punishment on
conviction for burglary and what the Statute allows an individual to do to
prevent the theft of property or burglary.
> Life is not sacred but to allow killing for thieving is ridiculous.
>
> Are you aware that people most of the world call "barbarians" and
> "medieval" only chopped the thief's hand?
>
> Do the math.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > Lethal force is justified only when facing lethal force, not to stop a
>> > thief from taking your, or your neighbor's, laptop.
>>
>> Perhaps in your mind or your State of Residence - but most certainly not
>> in
>> Texas or many other States.
>
> ------------------- Cordon sanitaire ----------------------
>
> Moral relativism at its best.
>
>
>>
>> > Not the only thing wrong with Texas either...
>>
>> Feel free to stay away from the Great State of Texas - I'm sure you won't
>> be
>> missed.
>
> What's so great about valuing life so low?
>
>
>> Thankfully, the good citizens of Texas don't have to go along with your
>> view
>> of what constitutes the justifiable use of deadly force.
>>
>
> Ah, but you shall change. You've been slaying people brutally for
> minor crimes for much too long, and the more your moral deformity gets
> exposed the sooner you will be embarrassed into putting some
> civilization into your arcane laws at long. You are an embarrassing
> -- and lethal -- national curiosity. Enjoy while it lasts.
And just how does an outsider such as yourself propose to require the State
of Texas to change it's laws to satisfy you?
>> Whether you like it or not, deadly force is justified in the Great State
>> of
>> Texas not only to prevent death or serious bodily injury, but also to
>> prevent the commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery,
>> theft during the nighttime etc etc.
>>
>> And that's the law old son.
>>
>
> Not need to re-state WHAT IS. I have been aware of it for a long
> time, and made fun of it many times in these precincts as well, as the
> archives can show. Don't confuse what is with what ought to be.
> The civilized world is a good place to start to get a clue of what I'm
> talking about.
Ought to be? According to whom?
Don't confuse what you deem to be appropriate with what the people of the
State of Texas have decided to deem appropriate.
Nigel Brooks
Nigel Brooks
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:3oadk.84$AB3...@eagle.america.net...
It's in Section 9.31(e) of the Texas Penal Code: http://tinyurl.com/2u9x57
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section."
Here's a news account of the Bill signing last year
http://tinyurl.com/yod8uo
Nigel Brooks
Tiglath
>
> it wasn't his property.
It doesn't matter in Texas. See below.
Here is the Texas law in all its "glory." Thanks to Nigel Brooks for
the link.
---------------------------------------------
PENAL CODE
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
[...]
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and [ <<--- IMPORTANT "and" ]
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
[...]
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes
that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor
or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
----------------------------
The following section makes clear that this applies whether it's your
property or a third party's.
It's unbelievable to see in the 21st century a state in the West with
a code that allows the homicide of a fleeing burglar.
Note that although the property could be recovered by other means (3-
A), i.e. the police, because trying to snatch the property being
stolen might be risky you can use deadly force (3-B).
It's more than murder excused, it's murder dignified.
I'll be very happy to see the people of Texas and similar places
ceasing to be the reptilian brain of America, and join the country’s
cerebral cortex to the north and down the coasts.
Tiglath
> Please show us the full statute.
> --
> DSH
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Vires et Honor
>
>
> news:6dkj5eF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > In fact, the People of the State of Texas have further defined their right
> > to use Deadly Force in protection of their property as recently as this
> > year - when the Castle Doctrine took effect in law. Now under the law a
> > citizen has no responsibility to retreat prior to using deadly force.
What's so great about your property?
Don't you know that if you lose one of your toys the Chinese will make
you another one. And the insurance company might even pay for it?
It will probably be a better model than the one you lost.
The dead burglar is another matter, he'll stay dead.
Preface to Lesson 1 of The Art of Living Along Other Homo Sapiens
Sapiens.
James Hogg
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>Please show us the full statute.
Always willing to help the computer-handicapped, I found this in
Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code:
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor
knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a
peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest
or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or
clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably
believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or
attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 2, eff. September 1,
2007.
§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's
use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent
commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault,
aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 3, eff. September 1,
2007.
When this was still only a Bill, it was full of sexist language, using
only the pronoun "he". That has been replaced by a non-sexist "the
actor" in the final version of the amendment to the Act. Even in this
matter, then, the Texas legislators showed that they could be
politically correct (which must horrify a conservative misogynist like
you).
For more, see:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm
Hint: you move the "mouse" to place the "cursor" over the "link"
(that's the underlined bit above) and click on the left button. That
will take you to what is called a "website" with the full text of the
Texas Constitution.
HTH
JH
James Hogg
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>Please show us the full statute.
J A
>
>
> "redc1c4" <red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote in message
> news:487459C8...@drunkenbastards.org.ies...
>> Nigel Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Hrick.45$AB3...@eagle.america.net...
>>> > Bravissimo!
>>> >
>>> > Another Victory In The Continuing Battle Of The Right To Bear And USE
>>> > Firearms In The U.S.A.
>>> >
>>> > DSH
>>> > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>>> > Vires et Honor
>>> >
>>> > Texas man cleared of shooting suspected burglars
>>> > By JUAN A. LOZANO
>>> > ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
>>> > 1 July 2008
>>> >
>>> > HOUSTON -- Ever since he fatally shot two men he suspected of
>>> > burglarizing
>>> > his next-door neighbor's home, 62-year-old Joe Horn has been both
>>> > praised
>>> > and vilified for his actions.
>>> >
>>> > Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going
>>> > to
>>> > kill the intruders. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside,
>>> > but
>>> > a
>>> > defiant Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both
>>> > in
>>> > the
>>> > back.
>>> >
>>> > Some community activists wanted Horn to face charges for the deaths.
>>> > Supporters of the retired grandfather said what he did was justified
>>> > under
>>> > the law.
>>> >
>>> > After listening to evidence in the case, including testimony from Horn
>>> > himself, a grand jury on Monday cleared him of the shootings.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Not so fast there - Apparently US Rep Sheila Jackson Lee has now weighed
>>> in
>>> on the case.
>>>
>>> *********************************************************************
>>> "U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee on Sunday called for congressional
>>> hearings to
>>> investigate what she calls ''the many downfalls" of the Harris County
>>> judicial system.
>>>
>>> Recent incidents, including a grand jury's decision not to indict a
>>> Pasadena
>>> man who shot and killed two men suspected of burglarizing his neighbor,
>>> have
>>> brought into question whether the system is fair and unbiased, she said.
>>>
>>> Jackson Lee said she plans to bring the congressional hearings to
>>> Houston in
>>> the next couple of weeks.
>>>
>>> The hearings, for example, will assess how the evidence in the Joe Horn
>>> case
>>> was presented to the grand jury. Jackson Lee questioned why the case did
>>> not
>>> go to trial.
>>>
>>> Jackson Lee said the federal government has an obligation to look into
>>> these
>>> matters because they deal with civil rights issues. Also, the jail and
>>> the
>>> district attorney's office both receive federal funding through the
>>> state,
>>> she said."
>>>
>>> *****************************************************************************
>>>
>>> 1. The case did not go to trial because a Harris County Grand Jury,
>>> after
>>> considering all of the evidence including the testimony of Mr. Horn and
>>> a
>>> Police Officer who witnessed the shooting - decided that Horn was
>>> justified
>>> in using deadly force.
>>>
>>> 2. Sheila Jackson Lee does not even represent the citizens of the City
>>> of
>>> Pasadena which lies in the Congressional District 29 of Rep. Gene Green.
>>>
>>> 3. Civil Rights Issues???????? - Was it a civil rights issue because
>>> Joe
>>> Horn is white and the two dead crooks were black?
>>>
>>> 4. A day after white Joe Horn shot and killed the two black crooks,
>>> another
>>> Harris County man fatally shot an individual who was burglarizing his
>>> home -
>>> Damone Barone told investigators that he awakened at 2:30 am to the
>>> sound of
>>> glass shattering. Barone discovered Steven Dunbar crawling through a
>>> shattered window and shot and killed him. Does Sheila Jackson Lee rise
>>> to
>>> the defense of Dunbar demanding that the case go to trial???? Of course
>>> not - both Barone and Dunbar were black and Jackson Lee only sees a
>>> problem
>>> in the Horn shooting - but clearly both Horn and Barone were acting in
>>> accordance with the law.
>>>
>>> Nigel Brooks
>>
>> actually, the two dead criminals in this case were both illegal
>> Hispanics....
>>
>> redc1c4,
>> not that race should matter when a criminal is killed while committing a
>> crime.
>> --
>
>
> They were Hispanic only because they were Colombian Nationals - Their skin
> color was black.
> And their skin color is the reason for the outrage from Sheila Jackson Lee
> and the other rabble rousing clowns.
>
> Had they been Latinos or White - no-one would have given a shit.
Probably true, but the 911 tapes reveal a real eagerness on this guy's part
to go out there and kill somebody.
>
> Nigel Brooks
>
> Had they been
Tiglath
>
> > Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The fact that a
> > state CAN decide when to allow deadly force, doesn't mean at all that
> > the decision is moral.
>
> Moral? Who decides what is moral? That is a ridiculous statement.
You coming out in a history newsgroup, try a little history
yourself.
Unjustified killing has been deemed to be immoral since the Code of
Hammurabi.
It's one of the Ten Commandments. Being next to The Bible Belt, you
would think Texans would know that one at least.
A more recent clue is that the OVERWHELMING majority of penal codes in
the United States do not allow deadly force to protect property.
Is that a big enough clue to find out who decides what is moral?
If not travel to the Old World and see if any European countries or
other so-called civilized countries like Japan or Australia permit the
killing of a fleeing burglar.
If that is not enough I can't help you.
>
> What you might consider moral could possibly be considered repugnant by
> others.
>
Perhaps in some controversial issue, but not on homicide. That is
perhaps the most elementary and secure ethical principle in the
history of human morality. Most societies, even ancient, considered
killing people an act that needs justification.
Under your law you are allowed to kill a burglar that may have not
stolen anything. If he heard noises and split empty handed you can
shoot him in the back with impunity, he is "fleeing a burglar."
It's recklessness of the worst kind. Shameful.
> The test is whether or not the law is Constitutional - and the Texas Statute
> which provides for the use of Deadly Force to protect property is
> Constitutional.
>
Where does the Constitution dictate the bounds for your laws to
protect property?
> The statute does not "allow death as
> retribution for stealing property" - it allows an individual to use deadly
> force to prevent its theft.
>
A distinction without difference from the burglar's point of view.
What is utterly ridiculous is that you continue to defend the notion
that it is righteous to kill a person to stop him or her from taking a
few trinkets from your home.
Only a heart devoid of any sense of justice can contrive such a notion
into law and only people with no sense of justice can agree with it.
> > The fact that disproportionate punishment is made legal in some states
> > does not make it proportionate or moral.
>
> > Learn the difference.
>
> You are obviously the one who does not understand the difference? There is
> a difference between what the Statute calls for as a punishment on
> conviction for burglary and what the Statute allows an individual to do to
> prevent the theft of property or burglary.
>
I am not talking about post-conviction punishment, but the punishment
that constitutes being shot summarily with a shotgun for the
commission of what is not a capital crime. A crime-prevention act
that amounts to a death sentence when the criminal, had he survived,
would be punished only with a prison sentence. You may as well
sentence burglars to death.
It's astonishing that a fellow American can't see the evident
disproportion.
>
> And just how does an outsider such as yourself propose to require the State
> of Texas to change it's laws to satisfy you?
>
First, I am not a complete outsider, Texas is part of my country. I
share the disgrace by association.
Second, I already told you how. Your betters in our country and other
countries, I among them here, will expose your callousness and
embarrass Texans enough times to eventually make you want to join
civilized society.
The Internet is already helping.
>
> > Not need to re-state WHAT IS. I have been aware of it for a long
> > time, and made fun of it many times in these precincts as well, as the
> > archives can show. Don't confuse what is with what ought to be.
> > The civilized world is a good place to start to get a clue of what I'm
> > talking about.
>
> Ought to be? According to whom?
>
The vast majority of the states of the union you belong to, for
starters. Duh!
> Don't confuse what you deem to be appropriate with what the people of the
> State of Texas have decided to deem appropriate.
If the Fair Readers didn't know better, they could read your sentence
as meaning that what Texas deems appropriate is the prevalent moral
standard and what I deem appropriate is the oddity, when in fact the
contrary is true, writ large.
J A
> Let's hope so...
>
> And let the word go out to all burglars in Texas.
Why don't we extend all this "right to kill" stuff to white color crime?
For instance there are a lot of poor people who have lost their homes
becasue of the mortgage frauds.
That Countrywide CEO Angelo whatshisname would look good after a 12 gauge
thankyou.
Raymond O'Hara
"J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
news:IZSdnQ4zC_SS1OjV...@earthlink.com...
you can only shoot people poorer than yourself.
D. Spencer Hines
It seems quite reasonable.
DSH
----------------------------------------
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6dkr7vF...@mid.individual.net...
D. Spencer Hines
Bravissimo!
Is this even tougher than the Texas statute?
I particularly like this part:
"(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place
where he or she has a right to be."
No duty to retreat anywhere.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
------------------------------------------------
503.080 Protection of property.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is
justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately
necessary to prevent:
(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony
involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant
to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his
possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he
acts; or
(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable
property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose
protection he acts.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is
justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the
person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a
claim of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony
involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant
to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building
in his possession.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place
where he or she has a right to be.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 5, effective July 12, 2006. --
Created1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 33, effective January 1, 1975.
-------------------------------------------
<http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/503-00/080.pdf>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine>
D. Spencer Hines
Bravissimo!
Is this even tougher than the Texas statute?
I particularly like this part:
"(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place
where he or she has a right to be."
No duty to retreat anywhere.
Not just in the home...
Or vehicle.
Tiglath
> Kentucky Castle Doctrine Statute
>
> Bravissimo!
>
> Is this even tougher than the Texas statute?
No it is not, it appears.
I don't see a provision allowing deadly force on fleeing burglars.
Only against those:
"Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other
felony involving the use of force [...]"
Not burglaries involve the use of force. Smart burglars checked for
unlatched windows and unlocked doors before breaking and entering.
Nigel Brooks
> On Jul 9, 5:53 pm, "Nigel Brooks" <nbro...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The fact that a
>> > state CAN decide when to allow deadly force, doesn't mean at all that
>> > the decision is moral.
>>
>> Moral? Who decides what is moral? That is a ridiculous statement.
>
> You coming out in a history newsgroup, try a little history
> yourself.
>
> Unjustified killing has been deemed to be immoral since the Code of
> Hammurabi.
Give me a break - The Code of Hammurabi provides for the execution of a
person who steals from a temple or from a court. It also provides for the
execution of anyone who receives the stolen property. The code also
provides for execution of an individual who steals an animal and is unable
to pay for it.
In fact the code is full of provisions which allow the execution for theft,
breaking into a house, and other minor infractions.
> It's one of the Ten Commandments. Being next to The Bible Belt, you
> would think Texans would know that one at least.
What do the Ten Commandments have to do with Texas law? You might as well
cite the laws in the Koran too - they are just as unimportant.
> A more recent clue is that the OVERWHELMING majority of penal codes in
> the United States do not allow deadly force to protect property.
Another illogical argument. Each State has an absolute right to decide
which laws are appropriate for itself. As long as those laws meet the
Constitutional test, then what the other States think is immaterial.
> Is that a big enough clue to find out who decides what is moral?
Majority decides? I don't think so. There are 50 States that have equal
rights to administer their own laws. If you want a system where the
majority rules - do away with the States, their legislatures, and have a
federal system where everything is run out of Washington D.C.
> If not travel to the Old World and see if any European countries or
> other so-called civilized countries like Japan or Australia permit the
> killing of a fleeing burglar.
I can't really say that I'm the least bit interested in adopting the legal
system or morals of the "Old World, Europe or Japan" - in the last century,
those countries have been responsible for much of the death and destruction
on this planet. Their petty squabbles have cause 2 world wars which killed
millions, their Colonial aspirations have enslaved more millions and
exploited the countries which they conquered.
Many of the problems in the world today are a direct result of the "morals"
of the "Old World and Europe"
No thanks
Nigel Brooks
> If that is not enough I can't help you.
>
>
>
>>
>> What you might consider moral could possibly be considered repugnant by
>> others.
>>
>
> Perhaps in some controversial issue, but not on homicide. That is
> perhaps the most elementary and secure ethical principle in the
> history of human morality. Most societies, even ancient, considered
> killing people an act that needs justification.
Rubbish - Most societies, even ancient allowed for the killing of a person
for inconsequential infractions. Just look at the Code of Hammurabi,
Leviticus, The Koran etc etc etc.
> Under your law you are allowed to kill a burglar that may have not
> stolen anything. If he heard noises and split empty handed you can
> shoot him in the back with impunity, he is "fleeing a burglar."
>
> It's recklessness of the worst kind. Shameful.
Why don't you start a burglars union and petition for burglars rights?
>> The test is whether or not the law is Constitutional - and the Texas
>> Statute
>> which provides for the use of Deadly Force to protect property is
>> Constitutional.
>>
>
> Where does the Constitution dictate the bounds for your laws to
> protect property?
>
>
>
>
>
>> The statute does not "allow death as
>> retribution for stealing property" - it allows an individual to use
>> deadly
>> force to prevent its theft.
>>
>
> A distinction without difference from the burglar's point of view.
Who cares about the burglars point of view - if you don't want to get shot
by a homeowner protecting his property - then stay the fuck out of it.
> What is utterly ridiculous is that you continue to defend the notion
> that it is righteous to kill a person to stop him or her from taking a
> few trinkets from your home.
And what you defend is the right of an individual to come onto my property
without hinderance and steal those trinkets - you are nuts.
> Only a heart devoid of any sense of justice can contrive such a notion
> into law and only people with no sense of justice can agree with it.
>
Rubbish
>> > The fact that disproportionate punishment is made legal in some states
>> > does not make it proportionate or moral.
>>
>> > Learn the difference.
>>
>> You are obviously the one who does not understand the difference? There
>> is
>> a difference between what the Statute calls for as a punishment on
>> conviction for burglary and what the Statute allows an individual to do
>> to
>> prevent the theft of property or burglary.
>>
>
> I am not talking about post-conviction punishment, but the punishment
> that constitutes being shot summarily with a shotgun for the
> commission of what is not a capital crime. A crime-prevention act
> that amounts to a death sentence when the criminal, had he survived,
> would be punished only with a prison sentence. You may as well
> sentence burglars to death.
Sorry can't do that - the penalty for burglary in the State of Texas is
State Prison on conviction. Now if we were to adopt your Code of Hammurabi.
> It's astonishing that a fellow American can't see the evident
> disproportion.
>
It's astonishing that you fail to understand that each State has a right to
make it's own laws.
>> And just how does an outsider such as yourself propose to require the
>> State
>> of Texas to change it's laws to satisfy you?
>>
>
> First, I am not a complete outsider, Texas is part of my country. I
> share the disgrace by association.
As far as the laws of Texas are concerned you are a complete outsider until
such time as you step foot in the State. When you do so - you may be
assured of the same protections and rights that those of us who chose to
live here have.
> Second, I already told you how. Your betters in our country and other
> countries, I among them here, will expose your callousness and
> embarrass Texans enough times to eventually make you want to join
> civilized society.
Actually most Texans would find you rather irritating but totally
inconsequential. Certainly not a "better".
> The Internet is already helping.
>
>
>>
>> > Not need to re-state WHAT IS. I have been aware of it for a long
>> > time, and made fun of it many times in these precincts as well, as the
>> > archives can show. Don't confuse what is with what ought to be.
>> > The civilized world is a good place to start to get a clue of what I'm
>> > talking about.
>>
>> Ought to be? According to whom?
>>
>
> The vast majority of the states of the union you belong to, for
> starters. Duh!
Duh backatcha - 10th Amendment
>> Don't confuse what you deem to be appropriate with what the people of the
>> State of Texas have decided to deem appropriate.
>
> If the Fair Readers didn't know better, they could read your sentence
> as meaning that what Texas deems appropriate is the prevalent moral
> standard and what I deem appropriate is the oddity, when in fact the
> contrary is true, writ large.
What the citizens of the State of Texas deem appropriate for themselves is
none of your business unless you decide to move to the State and get
involved in the process.
Nigel Brooks
Justin Case
On Jul 7, 10:14 am, "Nigel Brooks" <nbro...@msn.com> wrote:
> messagenews:Hrick.45$AB3...@eagle.america.net...
> Barone discovered Steven Dunbar crawling through a
> shattered window and shot and killed him.
Completely different situation. Shooting someone breaking into your
home is amply justified, you don't have to wait until he threatens you
directly, it may be too late then.
But the other case is completely different. The two crooks were
LEAVING a neighbor's house and posing no danger whatsoever to the
shooter. If they had been assaulting or raping someone the shooting
would be justified but not for just stealing things.
ONE tooth for ONE tooth, not the whole fucking head for one tooth.
So, what does one do? Let anyone carry away their belongings?
Justin Case
Did this fellow know these thieves were black and if so, was that the reason
he shot them?
>
>
>
>
Justin Case
"Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2sednZH9Gp2Qg-jV...@rcn.net...
Obviously the Grand Jury disagrees with your conclusion. If personal
disagreement is justification for overturning the results of a legal process
then Bill Clinton would be right back in court and we still Gore/Bush thing
would have us without a sitting elected president.
J A
"Justin Case" <Thin...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:qXedk.1753$zv7...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
He saw them and called in to 911, and told the operator he was going to
shoot them.
About the only real world justification that he had for shooting them is
the daylight brazenness of entering a home and obviously dragging out booty
in the shooter's neighberhood, implying an aggressive disregard for law,
people and property that could well escalate, then or later.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Tiglath
> "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Not surprising. Texas law makes those killings lawful.
THAT is the problem, for those who haven't caught on yet.
D. Spencer Hines
Let The Perpetrator Of Crime Beware.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
---------------------------------------------
<http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/055.PDF>
503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied
vehicle
Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of
death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using
defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily
harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process
of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a
dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or
was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the
dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that
an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or
had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) of this section does not
apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be
in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as
an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for
protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of
no contact against that person;
(b) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is
otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the
person against whom the defensive force is used;
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity
or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an
unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer,
as defined in KRS 446.010, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling,
residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and
the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable
law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the
person entering or attempting to enter was a peace officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked
in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat
and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,
including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to
do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another
or to prevent the commission of a felony involving
the use of force.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a
person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so
with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Created 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 2, effective July 12, 2006.
D. Spencer Hines
Tiglath
Not necessarily. You can use non-lethal force if you are so inclined
and the odds are good, and if he escalates and threatens your life or
limb THEN you shoot him, but not before. Or you take note their
description and call the cops. if cops respond timely there is a good
chance that they will be caught.
Or you can try being a Christian if you claim to be one. Don't you
guys remember Jesus saying that if a thief steals from you let him
keep your things, maybe he needs the stuff more than you do.
What's the big deal with property anyway. There is NOTHING I possess
that's worth a human life, and I have a lot of good stuff. Is your
watch worth more than a human life?
Again, haven't you heard about home insurance? They will replace
your watch a few days later.
What's your justification for killing for property? Property is
sacred but life is not?
It's unfuckingbelievable that I have to point this out to people who
appear to live in Western civilization.
Tiglath
> "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1937df86-93c0-43c1...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 9, 5:53 pm, "Nigel Brooks" <nbro...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The fact that a
> >> > state CAN decide when to allow deadly force, doesn't mean at all that
> >> > the decision is moral.
>
> >> Moral? Who decides what is moral? That is a ridiculous statement.
>
> > You coming out in a history newsgroup, try a little history
> > yourself.
>
> > Unjustified killing has been deemed to be immoral since the Code of
> > Hammurabi.
>
> Give me a break - The Code of Hammurabi provides for the execution of a
> person who steals from a temple or from a court. It also provides for the
> execution of anyone who receives the stolen property. The code also
> provides for execution of an individual who steals an animal and is unable
> to pay for it.
>
> In fact the code is full of provisions which allow the execution for theft,
> breaking into a house, and other minor infractions.
>
You don't read very well do you? None of the killings you mention in
Hammurabi's Code are unjustified. Not for a moment I suggested that
ancients had punishments less severe than those in our times. THE
POINT was that thousands of years ago there was a moral system that
while having a different sense of justice, tried to regulate the
killing of people and deemed killing without justification
illegal.
You asked who defines what is moral -- a most revealing question --
and I gave you one of the earliest examples.
Hopefully we have become a more merciful people than the ancients and
we have been adding value to human life, so that only the most heinous
crimes merit capital punishment, and the more philosophically advanced
states and countries don't even have capital punishment at all. Texas
for some reason trails badly in valuing life. Can you explain why?.
> > It's one of the Ten Commandments. Being next to The Bible Belt, you
> > would think Texans would know that one at least.
>
> What do the Ten Commandments have to do with Texas law? You might as well
> cite the laws in the Koran too - they are just as unimportant.
>
You asked "Who decides what is moral?" Remember?
Hammurabi and the Ten Commandments are part of the answer. Try to
keep up.
> > A more recent clue is that the OVERWHELMING majority of penal codes in
> > the United States do not allow deadly force to protect property.
>
> Another illogical argument. Each State has an absolute right to decide
> which laws are appropriate for itself. As long as those laws meet the
> Constitutional test, then what the other States think is immaterial.
>
You have no idea of what logic, logical, and illogical mean. Take a
course. There is nothing illogical in saying that a state that
values life well below other similar states in the same country is a
bad thing.
More importantly, can you articulate what is that sets Texans apart
from the rest of Americans, and from the rest of humanity that they
have the dire need to shoot burglars that are running away and pose no
threat?
What constitutional test are you talking about? Spell it out.
If I remember correctly everything that the Constitution doesn't
specifically regulate is left to the states to do so.
The fact that Constitution enable states to enact their penal code
doesn't mean that all state laws are just and good. Learn the
difference.
> > Is that a big enough clue to find out who decides what is moral?
>
> Majority decides? I don't think so.
Actually in effect it does. Laws reflect the will of the majority
within a group. Some issues are still being worked out like the
death penalty. Believe it or not it does matter that most of the
world is going in the direction of abolishing the death penalty. The
bigger the majority the more discomfort for the dissenting minority.
It comes to a point that the minority is universally scorned for its
backwardness and toes the line. Texas has a similar sort of process
in its future concerning its barbaric laws.
>There are 50 States that have equal
> rights to administer their own laws.
So what? When there is a bad law it is seen by all as a bad law. No
matter where.
Unwittingly you show how self-conscious you are of your backward penal
code. "Fortress Texas needs no one to tell what it's appropriate."
Texas is inside America on planet Earth, and no matter how much you
posture you are susceptible to public opinion. Most of your country
is telling you it's high time you boys come down from the hills.
It's subtle for now, jokes, allusions, eye-rolls, but you already
stick out like a sore thumb in the community of civilized states and
it's doing you no favors.
> > If not travel to the Old World and see if any European countries or
> > other so-called civilized countries like Japan or Australia permit the
> > killing of a fleeing burglar.
>
> I can't really say that I'm the least bit interested in adopting the legal
> system or morals of the "Old World, Europe or Japan" - in the last century,
> those countries have been responsible for much of the death and destruction
> on this planet. Their petty squabbles have cause 2 world wars which killed
> millions, their Colonial aspirations have enslaved more millions and
> exploited the countries which they conquered.
>
You are catching up fast with George Bush.
Geopolitics and war have nothing to do with a bad penal code. If I
remember correctly The Old World was first, well before Texas, to
stand up to German Imperialism and arrogance. The deaths that ensued
had nothing to do with the penal codes of France, England, Spain,
etc.
> Many of the problems in the world today are a direct result of the "morals"
> of the "Old World and Europe"
>
Hmmm. The time when the Old World had questionable morals. I guess
you are referring to imperialism and colonial policies, Texas was a
wilderness. It took no time for Texas to partake in the bad morals
of the Old World and when embraced slavery. So it seems you've
always been trailing in human rights. More importantly, CURRENTLY
the Old World no longer has the death sentence, never mind allowing
citizens to kill to protect property. Texas, on the other hand, seems
to always lead in executions and curiously thinks it's righteous to
shoot fleeing burglars in the back
You have the right to make any laws you wish, same as China, Sudan, or
Zimbabwe do. But that is far from all there is to it, as some day
you may begin to suspect.
>
> >> What you might consider moral could possibly be considered repugnant by
> >> others.
>
> > Perhaps in some controversial issue, but not on homicide. That is
> > perhaps the most elementary and secure ethical principle in the
> > history of human morality. Most societies, even ancient, considered
> > killing people an act that needs justification.
>
> Rubbish - Most societies, even ancient allowed for the killing of a person
> for inconsequential infractions. Just look at the Code of Hammurabi,
> Leviticus, The Koran etc etc etc.
All you can say is that their justifications for killing differ from
the justification we need today. AGAIN, THE POINT was that even then
at the dawn of civilization an effort was made to justify
killing.people. Which shows that taking life has a long history of
being serious business and at the core of legal codes.
One would think that millennia later civilized people would not
condone shooting burglars in the back to protect property the shooter
didn't own, or did not even know the value of. Not in Texas...
>
> > Under your law you are allowed to kill a burglar that may have not
> > stolen anything. If he heard noises and split empty handed you can
> > shoot him in the back with impunity, he is "fleeing a burglar."
>
> > It's recklessness of the worst kind. Shameful.
>
> Why don't you start a burglars union and petition for burglars rights?
>
Lost for words? Inappropriate lame humor is no good answer.
I chose to live in a place where the law allows a citizen to defend
himself yet defines justifiable homicide in ways that don't make a
mockery out of human life and bring condemnation.
>
> >> The statute does not "allow death as
> >> retribution for stealing property" - it allows an individual to use
> >> deadly
> >> force to prevent its theft.
>
> > A distinction without difference from the burglar's point of view.
>
> Who cares about the burglars point of view - if you don't want to get shot
> by a homeowner protecting his property - then stay the fuck out of it.
>
It's your name Jesse James?
> > What is utterly ridiculous is that you continue to defend the notion
> > that it is righteous to kill a person to stop him or her from taking a
> > few trinkets from your home.
>
> And what you defend is the right of an individual to come onto my property
> without hinderance and steal those trinkets - you are nuts.
>
Ah... Here comes the strawman.
When I see you misrepresenting my position so comically in order to
attack it, I know I am onto a good thing.
You'll be a better person the day you learn that people should not use
deadly force unless facing the gravest extreme. Which is usually
lethal force offered to them or some danger that makes them fear for
their life or the life of others.
If you use deadly force in a less dire circumstance you are morally
little better than an animal.
> > Only a heart devoid of any sense of justice can contrive such a notion
> > into law and only people with no sense of justice can agree with it.
>
> Rubbish
>
>
A gratuitous rebuttal that can be denied just as gratuitously.
> > It's astonishing that a fellow American can't see the evident
> > disproportion.
>
> It's astonishing that you fail to understand that each State has a right to
> make it's own laws.
>
An irrelevant point. Having the right to enact bad laws doesn't make
them good laws.
You are an embarrassment to your fellow-countrymen. You should
secede so that your crappy laws don't stink up the rest of the
country. Then we could invade you and teach you more civilized ways
and get all that oil and cattle back.
A well-worth Home Improvement.
>
> > First, I am not a complete outsider, Texas is part of my country. I
> > share the disgrace by association.
>
> As far as the laws of Texas are concerned you are a complete outsider until
> such time as you step foot in the State.
Not so. There is more to laws than their jurisdiction. There is for
instance the disgrace and bad reputation bad laws of a state can bring
on to fellow union members. You are part of a union, if by your
barbaric customs you besmirch it you shall be called on it. Most of
the country is laughing at your strange uncouth ways already in case
you have not noticed. Neither Texas nor Texans conjure up much that
is good outside Texas you should know, much as there are many decent
individuals among you, who aren't too happy about the image the
majority has carved for the state.
> When you do so - you may be
> assured of the same protections and rights that those of us who chose to
> live here have.
>
That won't be necessary, but thanks.
> > Second, I already told you how. Your betters in our country and other
> > countries, I among them here, will expose your callousness and
> > embarrass Texans enough times to eventually make you want to join
> > civilized society.
>
> Actually most Texans would find you rather irritating but totally
> inconsequential. Certainly not a "better".
>
I don't even find you and Texas irritating. I don't plan to be a
fleeing burglar in you state any time soon. No worries.
I find you immorally trigger-happy. And I am not alone.
It's not my task to change Texas, only to tell you how it will be
changed. It won't be quick, it won't be pleasant.
>
> >> Don't confuse what you deem to be appropriate with what the people of the
> >> State of Texas have decided to deem appropriate.
>
> > If the Fair Readers didn't know better, they could read your sentence
> > as meaning that what Texas deems appropriate is the prevalent moral
> > standard and what I deem appropriate is the oddity, when in fact the
> > contrary is true, writ large.
>
> What the citizens of the State of Texas deem appropriate for themselves is
> none of your business
Unfortunately misconception as long as you are part of the United
States and you continue to embarrass most of the other 49.
D. Spencer Hines
Virginia is a terrible laggard.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine>
States with a Stand-your-ground Law
No duty to retreat anywhere.
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can (August 2007).
Alabama
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat")
Oklahoma §21-1289.25
South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
Texas
Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
States with a Castle Law
No duty to retreat if in the home.
Alaska
Colorado (Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly
physical force against an intruder.)
Connecticut
Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete
safety.")
Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another
crime within home; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, seems to have
incorporated the castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law.)
Massachusetts
Michigan (more recent law--Act 309 of 2006--does not relieve duty to retreat
"unless [deadly force is] necessary to prevent imminent death;" this
represents no change from common law, which does not require retreat unless
it can be safely done)
Missouri (Extends Castle Doctrine to one's vehicle)
Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September
8th, 2008. Section 2901.09
New Jersey ("Statues" link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statues 2C:3-4,
retreat required outside home if actor knows he can avoid necessity of
deadly force in complete safety, etc.)
North Carolina
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Wyoming
States with weak Castle Law
The duty to retreat is not removed, but deadly force may be used to end
invasion of home without presence of immediate lethal threat.
Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry;
duty to retreat not specifically removed)
Illinois (Use of deadly force is justified if defending a home from
"tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
Kansas (§ 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling. A person is
justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it
appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to
prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his
dwelling.)
Minnesota (Homicide justified to prevent the commission of a felony in the
home)
Montana (Deadly force justified to prevent felony in the home)
Utah
Washington
States with no known Castle Law
Iowa (Law does not require retreat from home, but may require retreat within
the home)
Pennsylvania (Relevant statute not found; "Stand your ground" legislation
pending[17])
Virginia
NB: Above sections provide detailed finding for 36 states only. Some sources
list 16 states as having "Stand your ground laws" [18][19]; but review of
the statues does not make it clear that all listed states have eliminated
the duty to retreat outside the home.
Nigel Brooks
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:ea98951e-39ef-4450...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Not according to the Grand Jury.
Case Closed.
Nigel Brooks
Nigel Brooks
It's rather difficult explaining things to one who is unable to understand
the difference between what a Statute provides as punishment for a crime,
and what a Statute allows an individual to do to defend himself, his
property, or the property of others.
You seem to be very confused. The right to use deadly force is not a
punishment.
Nigel Brooks
Sharky
Is it just me or does this muppet "Tiglath" reminds you of a certain old
turd who used to post here? Same circular logic, same fake moral outrage,
and same ridiculous arguments. About the only thing different is that he
seems to be using English as a first language.
!Jones
<te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>Don't these people want to secede the Union?
>
>I vote yes.
>
>And wrap that wall for Mexico around Texas as well...
Texas was the only state that was actually recognized as a sovereign
nation when it joined the US... California was sort of independent;
however, California residents had to declare independence from Mexico
before they could become a state. The Republic of California never
established diplomatic relations with other world powers; Texas did
so.
When Texas became a state, the US didn't get a great bargain at the
time; the state retained all public land; thus, there exists no
federal land in Texas besides military bases and US court houses.
Further, there was a hot war going on with the Comanches, who refused
to pledge allegiance and made piss-poor slaves.
Many historians (very unpopular ones, in Texas) point out that it was
the issue of slavery that brought Santa Ana to the gates of the Alamo;
they argue that the Mexican government was quite willing to negotiate
any other issue besides slavery, which was flatly unconstitutional in
Mexico and could not be compromised. Others say that the war was over
a six-pounder at Gonzales; however, by October, 1835, when the
shooting commenced, the lines had all pretty well been drawn and, from
the Mexican perspective, they were all about slavery, not a cannon.
If we recognized that, then we'd have to redefine the terms in our
fight for "freedom", would we not?
Jones
!Jones
<nbr...@msn.com> wrote:
>You seem to be very confused. The right to use deadly force is not a
>punishment.
The idea of self defense is common law. It's like marriage... we have
a body of law that we have written trying to define exactly what it is
and is not; however, it's like nailing jelly to the wall. No law
created it... it exists within the very fabric of life and is
universally accepted in all societies. It's a much greater leap to
suggest that these concepts mean the same thing to all people.
IMO, we, in the US and particularly in Texas, are fairly promiscuous
as to what we're willing to accept as "self defense". In the
particular case under discussion, the person who fired the shots was
clearly beyond that which I would accept. First of all, he left the
safety of his home in armed pursuit, this in direct defiance of a
lawful police order which he heard and understood; second, the police
were actually on the scene and would easily have arrested the alleged
burglars. Had the police officers summarily shot the suspects, they'd
have gone to jail, I assure you. On the other hand, they'd have been
quite justified to have fired upon the man wielding the shotgun.
That person simply took justice into his own hands... it was a lot of
things; however, "self defense" was clearly not one of them. He
should, at least, have faced a jury.
Jones
John Briggs
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:14:32 -0700 (PDT), in alt.war.vietnam Tiglath
> <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
>> Don't these people want to secede the Union?
>>
>> I vote yes.
>>
>> And wrap that wall for Mexico around Texas as well...
>
> Texas was the only state that was actually recognized as a sovereign
> nation when it joined the US... California was sort of independent;
> however, California residents had to declare independence from Mexico
> before they could become a state. The Republic of California never
> established diplomatic relations with other world powers; Texas did
> so.
>
> When Texas became a state, the US didn't get a great bargain at the
> time; the state retained all public land; thus, there exists no
> federal land in Texas besides military bases and US court houses.
What about Post Offices?
--
John Briggs
Jack Linthicum
Hawaii
!Jones
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> When Texas became a state, the US didn't get a great bargain at the
>> time; the state retained all public land; thus, there exists no
>> federal land in Texas besides military bases and US court houses.
>
>What about Post Offices?
Well, yeah... that sort of thing. Contrast Texas to Nevada where
(what?) 85% of the state is federally owned. Isn't California pushing
40% federal? I saw the number the other day and it was greater than I
thought.
Jones
!Jones
Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Hawaii
Yeah, I suppose Hawaii was, in fact, independent about the time Texas
was. Of course, we have ranches in Texas bigger than Hawaii, so you
can see why I'd have forgotten that one.
Jones
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
> There is also the "Sumofabitch just needed killin" defense.
That is for the sheriff to decide, not you and me.
Andrew Swallow
John Briggs
But that applied to all the Confederate States: the only Federal property
had been the Arsenals (and the odd coastal fort) and the Post Offices.
--
John Briggs
Tiglath
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:31:31 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 9, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> >> Please show us the full statute.
> >> --
> >> DSH
> >> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> >> Vires et Honor
>
>
> >>news:6dkj5eF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> > In fact, the People of the State of Texas have further defined their right
> >> > to use Deadly Force in protection of their property as recently as this
> >> > year - when the Castle Doctrine took effect in law. Now under the law a
> >> > citizen has no responsibility to retreat prior to using deadly force.
>
> >What's so great about your property?
>
> >Don't you know that if you lose one of your toys the Chinese will make
> >you another one. And the insurance company might even pay for it?
>
> >It will probably be a better model than the one you lost.
>
> >The dead burglar is another matter, he'll stay dead.
>
> And that is a "bad thing" how?
>
Burglary is not a capital offense. Many burglaries are not even
violent crimes. Deadly force is excessive, unjust and thus immoral.
Tiglath
Sharky? Just the help Texans need...
What circular logic? Show me if you know how.
Jack Linthicum
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT), in alt.war.vietnam Jack
>
> >Hawaii
>
> Yeah, I suppose Hawaii was, in fact, independent about the time Texas
> was. Of course, we have ranches in Texas bigger than Hawaii, so you
> can see why I'd have forgotten that one.
>
> Jones
A ranch of 11,000 square miles? King Ranch is listed at 850,000 acres
about 1350 square miles.
Tiglath
>
> You seem to be very confused. The right to use deadly force is not a
> punishment.
>
The confusion is all yours. You think you are John Wayne.
The use of deadly force to prevent a crime is very much a punishment,
much as it is not a sentence passed by a judge.
Get thee to a library. Run, don't walk.
Words have usually more than one meaning. The word "punishment" can
mean either a penalty for an offense, or rough treatment, or being
hurt.
I really don't mind doing this. It's like missionary work in a way,
thankless but yet rewarding at some level.
Most Texans love their children and have hopes and feel pain like
other people, but far too many of them are too immorally trigger
happy. To the point that they have cemented their immorality into bad
laws, behind which to hide the darker side of their character.
It took massive Yankee fusillades and punishing cannon fire to make
you realize that slavery was wrong. On this one it will take no less
than endless boisterous broadsides to make you fly right.
You obviously cannot grasp your problem; it's normal for you to
believe that shooting people for no good reason is fine, as long as
there is some reason. I'll give you two examples for your benefit,
which you can use to explain this to others the day you wake up less
benighted.
In the Old World there was once The Divine Right of Kings and Queens.
It held that God gave kings and queens the right to rule their
people. And at that time it really meant "rule"; it was not very
different from "own."
Eminent clergymen argued that it was clearly written in the Bible. It
was the will of God, said people like Thomas Hobbes. And yet after
a stirring sequence of worldwide revolutions in America, France,
Russia and other places a world emerged in which no one, except an
occasional atavistic emperor of a short lived small country, no one
believes in the divine right of kings. It's now a kind of
embarrassment. It's something our ancestors believed but we in this
more enlightened times do not.
Here is an example you can relate to much better: chattel slavery,
which Aristotle argued was in the natural order of things and that any
movement to free slaves was against divine intention. Slaveholders,
some Texan no doubt, throughout history have pointed to passages in
the Bible to justify the holding of slaves. Yet today, in another
stirring sequence of events worldwide, legal chattel slavery has been
virtually eliminated. And again it's something from our past we are
embarrassed about. Another insight on the kind or dark human nature
that we must resist. We have not yet regained full balance after
that pitfall, but we are progressing and figuring things out.
The status of women would be an third example, but I'll pay you the
compliment to think that the two previous examples suffice.
The analogy is clear: immorally trigger happy Texans and supporters
like yourself are pointing to the right of the states to legislate as
they wish and the Constitution to justify their right to shoot
fleeing, unarmed burglars in the back, just like slave owners, not
surprisingly around the same parts, quoted the Bible as justification
for their inhumanity.
Those sadistic Texan laws are destined to be relatively soon like the
divine right of kings and slavery, a historical stain, an embarrassing
tradition. Many southern states have a head start on Texas on that
score: you are trailing badly.
Most likely your philosophical advancement will start from within
when one or more Texans with a sturdy sense of right and wrong decide
it's high time for their state to take the higher road and lead the
way.
You are obviously not one of them.
Tiglath
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:34:36 -0500, in alt.war.vietnam "Nigel Brooks"
>
Well said.
La N.
> >
> The idea of self defense is common law. It's like marriage... we have
> a body of law that we have written trying to define exactly what it is
> and is not; however, it's like nailing jelly to the wall. No law
> created it... it exists within the very fabric of life and is
> universally accepted in all societies. It's a much greater leap to
> suggest that these concepts mean the same thing to all people.
>
> IMO, we, in the US and particularly in Texas, are fairly promiscuous
> as to what we're willing to accept as "self defense". In the
> particular case under discussion, the person who fired the shots was
> clearly beyond that which I would accept. First of all, he left the
> safety of his home in armed pursuit, this in direct defiance of a
> lawful police order which he heard and understood; second, the police
> were actually on the scene and would easily have arrested the alleged
> burglars. Had the police officers summarily shot the suspects, they'd
> have gone to jail, I assure you. On the other hand, they'd have been
> quite justified to have fired upon the man wielding the shotgun.
>
> That person simply took justice into his own hands... it was a lot of
> things; however, "self defense" was clearly not one of them. He
> should, at least, have faced a jury.
>
It wasn't "punishment"; it wasn't "self-defense"; it was pure revenge.
I'm gonna kill that guy who stole my neighbour's TV set! And he
appears to be a hero to several of the posters here who believe they
could do the same thing in a wink; their conscience wouldn't bother
them at all. How does one get to be so desensitized to killing, I
wonder.
- nilita
!Jones
Yeah, OK... no issue here. Most other entities joined the US as
possessions and had to accept whatever terms were offered or remain
possessions. Texas is unique in that, at the time it joined, it was a
sovereign republic... not a territory, not a possession, not a
protectorate. There isn't any federal land in Massachusetts, either.
This tends to deny that Texas should have seceded because we didn't
like what we received... Texans should have read the fine print before
signing!
Jones
Tiglath
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 16:15:59 -0700 (PDT), Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 9, 5:53 pm, "Nigel Brooks" <nbro...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The fact that a
> >> > state CAN decide when to allow deadly force, doesn't mean at all that
> >> > the decision is moral.
>
> >> Moral? Who decides what is moral? That is a ridiculous statement.
>
> >You coming out in a history newsgroup, try a little history
> >yourself.
>
> >Unjustified killing has been deemed to be immoral since the Code of
> >Hammurabi.
>
> wasn't by you doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
>
Here we have the intellectual poser shooting his Zomby Hoof again.
It's risible to see your attempting to make this a conflict between me
and a Texas jury.
I am simply pointing out how the widespread wisdom of states and
nations doesn't agree with the Texan morality that condones the
shooting of unarmed burglars in the back, especially by a trigger-
happy old man of misshapen character who eagerly informs the police
that he is going to kill a couple of people who are not engage in any
kind of violence.
> >It's one of the Ten Commandments. Being next to The Bible Belt, you
> >would think Texans would know that one at least.
>
> Thou Shall not Steal is another one.
>
Thank you for making my point. Killing and stealing, are separated
into TWO different commandments, to clearly emphasize they are
distinct offenses. For millennia this difference has been reiterated
by markedly different penalties for each.
> >A more recent clue is that the OVERWHELMING majority of penal codes in
> >the United States do not allow deadly force to protect property.
>
> And they are changing rather quickly as we move from a Pussy Society,
> back to a Society of men. The recent passing of Castle Doctrine laws
> in several states bears that out.
>
Please quote any recent legislation that changes to law to authorize
deadly force to protect property, in a state when this was not the
case before. Can you?
> >Is that a big enough clue to find out who decides what is moral?
>
> We each do, that is the beauty of Morality.
>
Wow! I'll let THAT speak for itself...
> >If not travel to the Old World and see if any European countries or
> >other so-called civilized countries like Japan or Australia permit the
> >killing of a fleeing burglar.
>
> Comparing country X to Country Y in anything is a "fools" argument.
Says who?
You are an embarrassment to the point that claiming you are a
degenerate zombie won't help.
We compare countries' moral standards CONSTANTLY.
There are hundreds of articles comparing how Muslim countries treat
women to how we treat women; or how African countries conduct
elections with how other countries conduct elections, and so on an
on.
Think before you post or you'll bleed to death through your hoof.
!Jones
But it's way out there in the ocean... you know, the Bermuda Triangle
thing screws up the surveying instruments. (Hawaii is in the Bermuda
Triangle, right? ... or is that the other ocean?)
Jones
John Briggs
Texas seceded from Mexico because Mexico had outlawed slavery...
--
John Briggs
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Jack Linthicum
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:13:30 -0700 (PDT), in alt.war.vietnam Jack
>
> >On Jul 10, 1:34 pm, !Jones <h...@there.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT), in alt.war.vietnam Jack
>
> >> Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >Hawaii
>
> >> Yeah, I suppose Hawaii was, in fact, independent about the time Texas
> >> was. Of course, we have ranches in Texas bigger than Hawaii, so you
> >> can see why I'd have forgotten that one.
>
> >> Jones
>
> >A ranch of 11,000 square miles? King Ranch is listed at 850,000 acres
> >about 1350 square miles.
>
> But it's way out there in the ocean... you know, the Bermuda Triangle
> thing screws up the surveying instruments. (Hawaii is in the Bermuda
> Triangle, right? ... or is that the other ocean?)
>
> Jones
I can't tell if you are ignorant on your own or it is disease that all
Texans seem to have.
!Jones
<nilit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How does one get to be so desensitized to killing, I
>wonder.
Oh, I suppose that you live in close proximity to lots of other
people... sooner or later, you'd like to kill them and they'd like to
kill you. I have often wanted to shoot at "boom boxes" cruising down
my street. If I ever stop fantasizing and take action with a gun,
it's nice to know that I can resonably cite "noise tresspass" and
claim self defense.
I do like the fact that "noise tresspass" is now in our vocabulary,
though. The people on my street have successfully sued a property
owner who rented to a group of bikers w/o mufflers. We didn't get
mufflers; however, we did get them evicted and made the property owner
pay the court costs to the tune of $1,500!
Jones
!Jones
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Texas seceded from Mexico because Mexico had outlawed slavery...
Some say thus. The ones who do tend to support their historical
arguments well, IMO. I will accept it. Harrigan comes to mind. It's
fictional, but well researched.
Jones
!Jones
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Other ocean. It is Bermuda that is hidden by the Bermuda Triangle.
OK, so we have ranches bigger than Bermuda, so why would we care what
the Burmese think, anyway?
Jones
!Jones
Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> But it's way out there in the ocean... you know, the Bermuda Triangle
>> thing screws up the surveying instruments. (Hawaii is in the Bermuda
>> Triangle, right? ... or is that the other ocean?)
>>
>> Jones
>
>I can't tell if you are ignorant on your own or it is disease that all
>Texans seem to have.
OK, it's bigger than that *other* island... what's its name? Rhode
Island? (Seen one island, you seen 'em all, I say... who wants to
live in the middle of the ocean?)
Jones
Andrew Swallow
cells. ;)
Andrew Swallow
Tiglath
> >Allowing death as retribution for stealing property has a fixed moral
> >value irregardless of where is being practiced.
>
> Well miss-characterizing what happened is a tad unethical in & off
> itself.
How did I exactly miss-characterize what happened? You are miss-
characterizing my characterization.
Mr. Horn did not fire until the thieves entered his property
> boundaries and refused to freeze.>You obviously have no ideas of what constitutes fair punishment.
>
There are many ways to enter a property. The evidence indicates that
the thieves entered Horn's property
only to pass through and make an escape. Trespassers must be killed
as well?
> >The fact that disproportionate punishment is made legal in some states
> >does not make it proportionate or moral.
>
> Stealing isn't Moral or Ethical either.
>
That's why we sent thieves to prison in civilized places, instead of
shooting them on the back.
> >Learn the difference.
>
> >Life is not sacred but to allow killing for thieving is ridiculous.
>
> Why? He didn't kill for thieving. He killed because thieving
> bastards came onto his property & did not follow his orders to
> "freeze". Both bodies fell within the boundaries of Mr. Horn's
> property.
>
Unfortunately, Horn had already made clear his intention of going to
kill them. He never said that he would kill them only if they didn't
follow his commands or entered his property.
He also shot them in the back. That is hardly consistent with
shooting people who have hostile intentions in self-defense, on the
contrary it indicates that they were running away from Horn, and thus
presenting no danger. For civilized people, that is killing people
without good reason: the definition of murder.
> >Are you aware that people most of the world call "barbarians" and
> >"medieval" only chopped the thief's hand?
>
> Another version of Justice.
It's more than that. It's harsh medieval justice, and yet less
severe that the swift justice dealt out by Horn, and condoned by
fellow Texans and their law. An illustrative contrast.
Read the exchange of Horn with the police dispatcher carefully. The
dispatcher tells him to stay put and that's not worth shooting anyone
over property, several times. It's quite clear Horn is raring
provoke a situation that will give him a excuse to shoot the thieves.
There was NO NEED for him to go out, he was told the police would
arrive momentarily and they did.
They guy is not trigger happy, he is trigger-orgasmic.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml
Tiglath
> Texas and Kentucky are far from alone in having the Castle Doctrine.
>
> Virginia is a terrible laggard.
Nope.
The law here is quite clear even if it doesn't fit nicely int the
Castle Law category.
If you are not at fault whatever and just going about your lawful
business you need not retreat at all, and you may use force to repel
an attack to the extent of killing your adversary.
If, however, you are at fault by say, escalating or exacerbating a
fight, you must retreat as far as you safely can. Having done that
and in good faith abandoned the fight, you may kill your adversary if
you cannot in any other way save yourself from serious harm or death.
Very reasonable.
Tiglath
> You take another look, they both were on Mr. Horn's property when he
> shot. One was shot in the back, the other the side as if turning. He
> issues a command to halt, they did not halt.
I see nowhere in the evidence that he issued a command to halt or
freeze. What evidence do you have the he did?
The phone picked up most if not all what was said. Horn went out and
he shouted, "Boom, you are dead." Not, "Freeze."
The transcript shows very clearly that there was absolutely no need
for him to go out and confront the thieves, and he was told not to do
so and let the police deal with it, several times. There was NO
NEED to kill those two guys.
Horn was the only one powerfully armed, and at no time was he or his
property threatened. Shooting non-violent yard trespassers in the
torso is an egregious misuse of deadly force.
Unless you are a hardened killer, killing a person has deep and
lasting consequences even when justified. I hope any good that there
may be in him doesn't let him have a restful hour for the short rest
of his life, for it should know that what he did was dead wrong.
> thieves, they weren't very bright ones. Now perhaps they "No Habla
> English", but a shotgun pointed at you is sort of universal language.
How do you know unarmed thieves stopped their escape to threatened a
man armed with a shotgun?
The evidence indicates that he shot them as they were running away,
which most burglars do when they realize they've been detected.
Mark Borgerson
says...
acres or 812.5 square miles. The land area of Hawaii is about
6423 square miles (and growing). So the largest ranch in Texas is
about 1/8th the size of Hawaii. Even the single island of Hawaii
is about 5 times the size of the biggest ranch in Texas.
The King Ranch---which is composed of several discontiguous
properties is bigger---about 825,000 acres-----but it's
still much smaller than the island of Hawaii.
Several sources say that the Parker ranch on Hawaii is the largest
ranch in the US---but I suppose it depends on how you qualify
the ownership and discontiguous divisions
"King Ranch (c.825,000 acres/333,878 ha), S Texas, bet. Corpus Christi
and Harlingen, headquarted and centered around Kingsville, Texas.
Located mainly in Kleberg and Kenedy cos., occupying most of their land
area, ranch extends N into Nueces co. and S into Willacy co. One of the
largest ranches in the world, largest ranch in continental U.S. (ranch
on isl. of Hawaii is larger). "
http://www.bartleby.com/69/33/K04533.html
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
says...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:43:24 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam "John Briggs"
> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, yeah... that sort of thing. Contrast Texas to Nevada where
> >> (what?) 85% of the state is federally owned. Isn't California pushing
> >> 40% federal? I saw the number the other day and it was greater than I
> >> thought.
> >
> >But that applied to all the Confederate States: the only Federal property
> >had been the Arsenals (and the odd coastal fort) and the Post Offices.
>
> Yeah, OK... no issue here. Most other entities joined the US as
> possessions and had to accept whatever terms were offered or remain
> possessions. Texas is unique in that, at the time it joined, it was a
> sovereign republic... not a territory, not a possession, not a
> protectorate. There isn't any federal land in Massachusetts, either.
Well, except for a handful of Air Force and Army bases and a few
National Wildlife refuges. However, a Texan might consider them
insignificant as they may add up to less acreage than the King Ranch.
;-)
>
> This tends to deny that Texas should have seceded because we didn't
> like what we received... Texans should have read the fine print before
> signing!
>
Mark Borgerson
Raymond O'Hara
"Mark Borgerson" <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.22e020e6f...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
the national seas shore is federally owned.
Tiglath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc
The transcript I pointed to before is incomplete.
After "You wanna bet," Horn says, "I'm gonna kill them."
Listen and weep.
Joe Horn is worse than evil, he is stupid.
A true hero to so many Texans too... My oh my.
Justin Case
Some people think states which allow the death penalty also makes killing
legal.
THAT is the problem, for those who haven't caught on yet.
It's all in the eye of the beholder. Somehow we justify killing unborn
babies, then turn around and charge someone for killing an unborn baby when
a prenant woman's fetus is killed during a crime.
J A
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6dmgv0F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> Case Closed.
I don't know if that's true.
The Federal Govt. in the past has intervened in certain types of cases,,,,
but if these thieves were illegals that could make a legal difference.
That is, "violation of civil liberties" (to life, not to burglerize or sack
neighborhoods) would be the basic predicate, but that probably would'nt
stand up if they aren't citizens(?).
[Like cops, left wing law professors are never around when you sort of need
them.]
>
> Nigel Brooks
William Boyd
you abide by the laws of your country, well Texans just abide by the
laws of theirs. Laws that have existed from the time Texas was a
sovereign country and retained during statehood.
--
Texas Born
BILL P.
&
DOG
Billzz
news:g568uq$87t$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
These same sort of arguments (and that is all they are: an excuse to argue
with someone) go on forever, and have been going on for a very long time.
No one ever convinces anyone of anything, but they keep adding to the mess.
We lived in Texas for ten years. Lived in Virginia for ten years. Lived in
California for ten years. Lived in Germany for five years, and other
places.
It's called situational ethics. Everyone does it. When we were in Germany
a man went down to the local gasthaus to show off his new Mercedes. Another
man harshly criticized both the man and the car, and was promptly shot dead.
The judge ruled that it was justifiable homicide because everyone knows that
the Mercedes is a fine car, and so the killer went temporarily insane, and
was not responsible for the death.
I have other stories, but I will spare everyone, unlike being spared myself.
Tiglath
> "Nigel Brooks" <nbro...@msn.com> wrote in message
Indeed. Those posters think that Texas exists in a vacuum and that
they can do as they please in their state all else be damned.
They seem oblivious they are part of a country. Much of the material
I read before I made my first post contains comments from readers. A
great number of them are from fellow trigger-happy people who think
Horn deserves a medal. A few are from other countries and people see
that Texan aberration as an American aberration, it's only a short
step to making it not an aberration but something typical of the
American mentality.
And voila, the whole country is tarred with the brush that rightfully
belongs to Texas and Texans alone.
>
> The Federal Govt. in the past has intervened in certain types of cases,,,,
> but if these thieves were illegals that could make a legal difference.
>
It made a huge difference in the minds of the grand jury, who were
people fed up with Houston's crime problem, twice that of New York.
Many of the crimes are committed by illegal aliens trying to cope.
It's easy to see they thought Horn did everyone a favor.
But Horn didn't know the immigration status of the thieves when he
shot them, they could have been first time offenders born in America.
The law should be blind to this, but the grand jury wasn't, I
suspect.
Venerable Joe Horn JUST had to defend himself his lawyer claimed -- an
easy gig. ELEVEN times he was told by the police dispatcher to STAY
HOME and not go out, which would have kept him safe,
notwithstanding.
.