X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1682307:date=Jul 1 2008, 03:53 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jul 1 2008, 03:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682307"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah that's what I got out of it too. And I completely agree <b>X_Stickman</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
goddamnitlolf!
you might have crappy taste in piazza, but you are better at the words then I am.
What lolf said.
It is important that the laws were enforced as they are laid out. It is also important for us to challenge laws we believe to be unjust/wrong/whatever.
<!--quoteo(post=1682347:date=Jul 1 2008, 08:59 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Jul 1 2008, 08:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682347"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]you might have crappy taste in piazza[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh come <i>on!</i> Just because I prefer my piazzas with large planters in the middle rather than the plain open and tiled kind it doesn't mean that my preferred variant is somehow inferior, or that my preferences deserve scorn!
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
that is a DAMN good typo and I will leave it for the ages <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1682275:date=Jun 30 2008, 09:36 PM:name=Gwahir)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gwahir @ Jun 30 2008, 09:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682275"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The results of the trial are out.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Awesome, courts did something right for once. Its good to see a message being sent out to the people in the us that if you do a crime like that, you may pay with your life. But i'm an eye for an eye kinda guy. (i be rhymin yo)
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683368:date=Jul 14 2008, 01:18 PM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Jul 14 2008, 01:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683368"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Awesome, courts did something right for once. Its good to see a message being sent out to the people in the us that if you do a crime like that, you may pay with your life. But i'm an eye for an eye kinda guy. (i be rhymin yo)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't realize a T.V. was the going rate for a man's life in these parts.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683377:date=Jul 14 2008, 02:00 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jul 14 2008, 02:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683377"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't realize a T.V. was the going rate for a man's life in these parts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> yah, that phrase is always mis quoted, every one stops after "an eye for an eye", but is actually" An eye for an eye, but if you touch my ###### I'ma gona ######en kill you! BOOM HEADSHOT!"
Dead, in jail draining money or on the run, is any of these better then the other for someone who most likely isn't ever going to do honest work? When fallen so low once you can't really stop and it's mostly due to the "criminal" stamp they receive from society, even if they tried none would take them in, except other crime gangs/organisations.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683386:date=Jul 14 2008, 03:04 PM:name=Svenpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Svenpa @ Jul 14 2008, 03:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683386"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Dead, in jail draining money or on the run, is any of these better then the other for someone who most likely isn't ever going to do honest work? When fallen so low once you can't really stop and it's mostly due to the "criminal" stamp they receive from society, even if they tried none would take them in, except other crime gangs/organisations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you really think someone is better off dead after they've stolen a T.V.? I find that hard to believe.
The Bill of Rights also protects us from "cruel and unusual punishment" in the U.S., and thank God, or whatever deity you believe in(which is also explicitly protected by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" target="_blank">Bill of Rights</a>), for that. I know the second amendment is getting a lot of press recently, but it's not the only right listed there.
<!--quoteo(post=1683394:date=Jul 14 2008, 09:21 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jul 14 2008, 09:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683394"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you really think someone is better off dead after they've stolen a T.V.? I find that hard to believe.
The Bill of Rights also protects us from "cruel and unusual punishment" in the U.S., and thank God, or whatever deity you believe in(which is also explicitly protected by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" target="_blank">Bill of Rights</a>), for that. I know the second amendment is getting a lot of press recently, but it's not the only right listed there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where does it matter to me if he's dead or not? Can't exactly say someone is better off dead but the alternatives just leaves the person to leech on others then if he was dead.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited July 2008
the entire "well, no one will ever hire a crook" is BS.
Hell, one of my previous jobs one of the better co workers had served time for attempted murder and a number of drug related crimes.
There are lots of programs out there for getting people readjusted and absorbed into society. By your logic we should just kill everyone instead of having a prison system.
Swipe a TV? Die. Get into a fight? Die. Drunken Driving? Die. Embezzle from your company? Die. Possession? Die. Kill some one escaping from a burglary? Die.
Ok, being kinda jaded about our criminal justice system is kinda understandable, it is far from perfect, but it is a good sight better then most systems out there, and it is infinitely better then some sort of legalized vigilantism, which is what we end up with here.
It's not as flat out as "the punishment for X crime is..."
You have a legal right to shoot someone in your home, or in the act of a burglary, because you can't evaluate their threat to you fully, but you can immediately evaluate that their intent is unlawful. A civilian hasn't taken the same oath a police officer has, and on their own property they are empowered to defend themselves against someone with unlawful intent by any means necessary.
The punishment for bungie jumping is having your body smashed against sharp rocks at 100 miles an hour. Of course that's not really the case, it's an inherant risk. If you rob someone's house the legal consequences are unpleasant, but there is a risk there will be someone there to defend the property, in which case you might get shot and die. You choose to still pursue that action accepting that risk. People still bungie jump even though there is a chance of a critical failure causing fatality. That doesn't make the perpetrator of self defense guilty of vigilantism. The worst case scenario is always far worse then the legal repercussion if caught. That fact is impossible to legally combat, without creating laws to protect criminals against victims during the actual crime... at which point, IMO, your legal system has gone off the deep end.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683403:date=Jul 14 2008, 04:22 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Jul 14 2008, 04:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not as flat out as "the punishment for X crime is..."
You have a legal right to shoot someone in your home, or in the act of a burglary, because you can't evaluate their threat to you fully, but you can immediately evaluate that their intent is unlawful. A civilian hasn't taken the same oath a police officer has, and on their own property they are empowered to defend themselves against someone with unlawful intent by any means necessary.
The punishment for bungie jumping is having your body smashed against sharp rocks at 100 miles an hour. Of course that's not really the case, it's an inherant risk. If you rob someone's house the legal consequences are unpleasant, but there is a risk there will be someone there to defend the property, in which case you might get shot and die. You choose to still pursue that action accepting that risk. People still bungie jump even though there is a chance of a critical failure causing fatality. That doesn't make the perpetrator of self defense guilty of vigilantism. The worst case scenario is always far worse then the legal repercussion if caught. That fact is impossible to legally combat, without creating laws to protect criminals against victims during the actual crime... at which point, IMO, your legal system has gone off the deep end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But it is vigilantism when a.) the alleged perpetrators are running away from you, b.) the alleged perpetrators were never on your property. I'm not saying people don't have a right to self defense. I'm saying that self defense doesn't apply in this case. If that's true, then no, he doesn't have any right to shoot them, even if they were on his property. You can't shoot the kids on your lawn just because they are there and you "can't evaluate their threat to you fully".
The fact that the dead men never entered the shooter's property seems to be an uncomfortable one, considering it gets conveniently forgotten again and again and again.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683409:date=Jul 14 2008, 05:19 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jul 14 2008, 05:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683409"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The fact that the dead men never entered the shooter's property seems to be an uncomfortable one, considering it gets conveniently forgotten again and again and again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> admittedly one of them did, as he was on his lawn (yes, lawn counts as property), and from what I got of the Texan law, he had the right to shoot that guy (as despicable as it sounds) but the other guy was RUNNING DOWN THE STREET!
That and it was fairly obvious that this was not a case of self defense in any way shape or form based on the 911 call which basically went "I Ain't gona let them get away with this, I'ma gona go out and kill them, BOOM BOOM YOUR DEAD!". He knew he was in no danger. He went out there to kill him some <insert racial slur on Hispanics that probably isn't swear filtered out>.
<!--quoteo(post=1683404:date=Jul 14 2008, 03:31 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jul 14 2008, 03:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683404"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it is vigilantism when a.) the alleged perpetrators are running away from you, b.) the alleged perpetrators were never on your property. I'm not saying people don't have a right to self defense. I'm saying that self defense doesn't apply in this case. If that's true, then no, he doesn't have any right to shoot them, even if they were on his property. You can't shoot the kids on your lawn just because they are there and you "can't evaluate their threat to you fully".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why are those two qualifiers the determiners of vigilantism? Maby they're running to get a gun, maby they were just stealing from your car, or your neighbors car (I don't see why protecting your friends legal property is any less valid then protecting your own). You just arbitrarily stated that those are the qualifications for vigilantism, I disagree with that on a philosophical level personally, and Texas law disagrees with that on a legal level. I think if you catch someone in the act of something, and you are directly confronted by them, weather because you approached them or not, taking whatever acts are necessary to protect yourself, even while performing the legally sanctioned act of citizens arrest, does not fall under the qualification of vigilantism. Vigilantism is acting based on judgments without having the authority to have appropriately examined the evidence against a suspect, or taking matters into your own hands by actively pursuing a suspect without legal sanction. If you catch someone with a bag of stolen goods in your front yard, they are an immediate threat and anything is fair game.
The part where self-defense becomes really entertaining is when you take reach and concealability into account. In olden days, you couldn't have both. A crossbow isn't exactly something you conceal, and a dagger, while it CAN be thrown (with great difficulty, in most cases), has only melee range. Thus, anyone who wasn't obviously carrying a ranged weapon or venturing near you was no immediate threat, making it feasible to reason with them. A pistol can be concealed, and can, as the phrase goes, "reach out and touch someone." Thus, the only viable means of self-defense is to shoot first, and shoot to kill.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683420:date=Jul 14 2008, 06:42 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Jul 14 2008, 06:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683420"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are those two qualifiers the determiners of vigilantism? Maby they're running to get a gun, maby they were just stealing from your car, or your neighbors car (I don't see why protecting your friends legal property is any less valid then protecting your own). You just arbitrarily stated that those are the qualifications for vigilantism, I disagree with that on a philosophical level personally, and Texas law disagrees with that on a legal level. I think if you catch someone in the act of something, and you are directly confronted by them, weather because you approached them or not, taking whatever acts are necessary to protect yourself, even while performing the legally sanctioned act of citizens arrest, does not fall under the qualification of vigilantism. Vigilantism is acting based on judgments without having the authority to have appropriately examined the evidence against a suspect, or taking matters into your own hands by actively pursuing a suspect without legal sanction. If you catch someone with a bag of stolen goods in your front yard, they are an immediate threat and anything is fair game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And it's opinions like this which make me glad I have a right to a speedy trial and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Notice that's "citizen's arrest" and not "citizen's shoot-them-until-they're-dead-because-you-caught-them-committing-a-crime". Acting as the judge, jury, and executioner is the definition of vigilantism.
Since we're on the topic of unlikely scenarios where the unarmed alleged burglers are running to go get a gun to shoot someone currently unrelated to their crime; what if they weren't burglers at all? What if the neighbor had asked the perps to move him out and they had to do it at night because they work during the day? That's why there's due process.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683420:date=Jul 14 2008, 06:42 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Jul 14 2008, 06:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683420"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why are those two qualifiers the determiners of vigilantism? Maybe they're running to get a gun, maybe they were just stealing from your car, or your neighbors car (I don't see why protecting your friends legal property is any less valid then protecting your own). You just arbitrarily stated that those are the qualifications for vigilantism, I disagree with that on a philosophical level personally, and Texas law disagrees with that on a legal level. I think if you catch someone in the act of something, and you are directly confronted by them, weather because you approached them or not, taking whatever acts are necessary to protect yourself, even while performing the legally sanctioned act of citizens arrest, does not fall under the qualification of vigilantism. Vigilantism is acting based on judgments without having the authority to have appropriately examined the evidence against a suspect, or taking matters into your own hands by actively pursuing a suspect without legal sanction. If you catch someone with a bag of stolen goods in your front yard, they are an immediate threat and anything is fair game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> First up, those are not the 2 qualifiers for determining vigilantism, those are descriptions OF THIS CASE! Did you listen to (or read a transcript of) the friken 911 call?
basically all the guy said was "I am not going to let them get away". He decided that he was judge jury and executioner! For a burglary! With the suspects FLEEING! Do any of these things add up to something even QUESTIONABLY punishable by DEATH? If so, tell me where you live so I can stay the hell away from you!
Yes, apparently Texas says that Vigilantism is acceptable (as they didn't even bother taking this guy to trial), however can you HONESTLY argue that in this exact case, that the punishment met the crime, and that this was a case of self defense? Burglary and fleeing the scene of the crime. No hostile actions taken. One of the poor sods was down the block.
<!--quoteo(post=1683425:date=Jul 14 2008, 06:09 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Jul 14 2008, 06:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683425"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First up, those are not the 2 qualifiers for determining vigilantism, those are descriptions OF THIS CASE! Did you listen to (or read a transcript of) the friken 911 call?
basically all the guy said was "I am not going to let them get away". He decided that he was judge jury and executioner! For a burglary! With the suspects FLEEING! Do any of these things add up to something even QUESTIONABLY punishable by DEATH? If so, tell me where you live so I can stay the hell away from you!
Yes, apparently Texas says that Vigilantism is acceptable (as they didn't even bother taking this guy to trial), however can you HONESTLY argue that in this exact case, that the punishment met the crime, and that this was a case of self defense? Burglary and fleeing the scene of the crime. No hostile actions taken. One of the poor sods was down the block.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Both men were shot within fifteen feet of Horn's doorway according to firearms evidence. Each man was shot once as they fled from his property. He didn't track them down and make sure he finished the job, he just did what he deemed necessary for his personal protection. Ultimately he would be proved wrong, but the knowledge necessary to determine that was something he couldn't have possibly possessed before acting.
I'm not arguing the punishment met the crime. That's clearly not the case. I'm arguing that in the age of firearms, there are inherent risks to breaking into someone's house, and those risks are that if someone with a gun confronts you, they have a right to shoot you. Because you are the one clearly defying legal and personal security proticals, and there is no way your intent of pulling a concealed weapon can be rationally weighed while you're still on your feet with your hands not on your head.
Like I say, everyone who bungie jumps does not deserve death as a punishment for that crime (it's not even a crime). But the risk is still inherent, and if that risk is taken and pans out to fatality, then the party who is fatally wounded is primarily to blame for assessing the risk, making the choice, and ultimately going through with the action. Sure, if there's negligence on the part of the stunt coordinator then he can be held responsible, but negligence is his clear legal responsibility. A victim of a burglary or trespassing has to work within their legal rights, and under texas law they are legally right to defend them self with lethal force in that case. I'm not personally incredibly pleased with the ramifications of that, but it's absolutely logical and sane as a standard. In my opinion criminals need not be legally protected from their victims while in the act of crime. Unfortunately, in a firearms prevalent society that means that in certain cases criminals can be killed for crimes that don't really remotely warrant a death penalty... but ultimately, they chose to risk threatening someone that might have been armed, even if that wasn't their intent, it still voids their right to protection. If you taunt a bear, it's your fault when it mauls you, weather or not you personally believe it was a gentle bear... and once again, the punishment for taunting a bear is a small fine, it's not the death penalty, but death is an immediate consequence if things don't pan out your way. Someone committing a criminal action takes entire responsibility for their own safety, for better or worse.
I'm not out to say that what Horn did was for the greater good, and he's cleaned the streets of scum, and that he's some kind of hero. In my opinion, with retrospective knowledge, he should have bunkered down in his house and let the police take care of the issue. I think the consequences of his actions are ultimately unfortunate and they have left a scar on communities and families. But he is not morally or legally at fault, he did not know what he was approaching, and he acted against a threat he was absolutely legitimate in assuming was an immediate danger to himself and his community. The reality is that most of you wouldn't even be arguing against the morality of his actions if the men he shot WERE found to be armed (maby you'd call him stupid for confronting gunmen, but you wouldn't call him a murderer) and that's exactly the point. When someone's breaking into your house, or your neighbors house, you don't wait until after they have shot you to decide weather they seriously intend to do you harm or not. You shouldn't legally have to.
Shouldn't this now be in the "Discussions " part of the forum seeing how this is going?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> well yah, but no one ever puts anything there b/c you get banned for being a twit, and no one looks in there any way. It got necroed because there was an update (the grand jury failed to indite him).
Swift: Again, did you listen to the 911 call? He STATED they were leaving and he was going out to stop them, he went out there with the intention of killing them.<ul><li>"They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"</li><li>"There, one of them's getting away!"</li><li>Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?" Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."</li><li>On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone. "Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.</li></ul>Seriously, does that sound like some one who was defending himself? No, it was some one who decided "Well, the cops ain't gona get here fast enough, so I am gona go out and kill me some burglers!". AKA A Vigilante.
Basically, you are making arguments for self defense in general, somethign that every one in this thread agrees is good and proper. What we are trying to point out that this was in no way shape or form self defense, it was some one going out and trying to be a hero.
TJO: No such thing. Material possessions are FAR more important then the life of a couple burglers.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
I'd just like to throw in the fact that I thought the legal system was centered around rehabilitation rather than punishment (or at least, it's *supposed* to be centered around that).
I'm not sure on that though. It should be, but maybe it isn't.
<!--quoteo(post=1683486:date=Jul 15 2008, 05:09 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Jul 15 2008, 05:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683486"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd just like to throw in the fact that I thought the legal system was centered around rehabilitation rather than punishment (or at least, it's *supposed* to be centered around that).
I'm not sure on that though. It should be, but maybe it isn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say that every legal system, that does not execute its death row prisoners ASAP is centered around punishment. Maintaining high security facilities for death row inmates is very expensive and does not benefit society in any way. I usually also does not benefit the inmates. So why keep them alive, if the only thing left for them is to be executed some day? The answer is simple: punishment!
You basically take away for freedom thus punishing them. (Many deathrow inmates kill themself, cause they want to at least decide one thing for themselves.
THe cost for a single prisoner ranges from 50 to 200 $ a DAY. That's 18250 to 73000 a YEAR. A quick execution would cost 60 cent for a bullet and paperwork and roughly 200$ for the burial.
So, why do you keep people in deathrow for several decades?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683489:date=Jul 15 2008, 11:20 AM:name=Faskalia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Faskalia @ Jul 15 2008, 11:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683489"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, why do you keep people in deathrow for several decades?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because deathrow verdicts do get overturned. Texas, the state with the most deathrow inmates also has the highest proportion of overturned verdicts. Not just the largest number but the largest proportion.
Because a death sentence, once carried out, is irrevocable. If you sentence an innocent man to twenty years in jail and his innocence is established two years into his sentence, he is released immediately, rather than serving the full twenty years. If an innocent man gets executed and his innnocence is established a week after the execution, he remains dead.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1683486:date=Jul 15 2008, 11:09 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(X_Stickman @ Jul 15 2008, 11:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683486"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd just like to throw in the fact that I thought the legal system was centered around rehabilitation rather than punishment (or at least, it's *supposed* to be centered around that).
I'm not sure on that though. It should be, but maybe it isn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> and THAT is actually a huge debate.
Justice systems are first about Determent (all of them all). Once that has failed we then must pick between punishment and rehabilitation.
The US mostly falls under a desire to Rehabilitate, only punishing when we believe there is no chance for rehabilitation. Obviously these laws vary sate by state.
Comments
I'm printing this out and framing it.
you might have crappy taste in piazza, but you are better at the words then I am.
What lolf said.
It is important that the laws were enforced as they are laid out. It is also important for us to challenge laws we believe to be unjust/wrong/whatever.
Oh come <i>on!</i> Just because I prefer my piazzas with large planters in the middle rather than the plain open and tiled kind it doesn't mean that my preferred variant is somehow inferior, or that my preferences deserve scorn!
(nicely done lolf)
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Awesome, courts did something right for once. Its good to see a message being sent out to the people in the us that if you do a crime like that, you may pay with your life. But i'm an eye for an eye kinda guy. (i be rhymin yo)
I didn't realize a T.V. was the going rate for a man's life in these parts.
yah, that phrase is always mis quoted, every one stops after "an eye for an eye", but is actually" An eye for an eye, but if you touch my ###### I'ma gona ######en kill you! BOOM HEADSHOT!"
Do you really think someone is better off dead after they've stolen a T.V.? I find that hard to believe.
The Bill of Rights also protects us from "cruel and unusual punishment" in the U.S., and thank God, or whatever deity you believe in(which is also explicitly protected by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" target="_blank">Bill of Rights</a>), for that. I know the second amendment is getting a lot of press recently, but it's not the only right listed there.
The Bill of Rights also protects us from "cruel and unusual punishment" in the U.S., and thank God, or whatever deity you believe in(which is also explicitly protected by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" target="_blank">Bill of Rights</a>), for that. I know the second amendment is getting a lot of press recently, but it's not the only right listed there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where does it matter to me if he's dead or not? Can't exactly say someone is better off dead but the alternatives just leaves the person to leech on others then if he was dead.
Hell, one of my previous jobs one of the better co workers had served time for attempted murder and a number of drug related crimes.
There are lots of programs out there for getting people readjusted and absorbed into society. By your logic we should just kill everyone instead of having a prison system.
Swipe a TV? Die.
Get into a fight? Die.
Drunken Driving? Die.
Embezzle from your company? Die.
Possession? Die.
Kill some one escaping from a burglary? Die.
Ok, being kinda jaded about our criminal justice system is kinda understandable, it is far from perfect, but it is a good sight better then most systems out there, and it is infinitely better then some sort of legalized vigilantism, which is what we end up with here.
You have a legal right to shoot someone in your home, or in the act of a burglary, because you can't evaluate their threat to you fully, but you can immediately evaluate that their intent is unlawful. A civilian hasn't taken the same oath a police officer has, and on their own property they are empowered to defend themselves against someone with unlawful intent by any means necessary.
The punishment for bungie jumping is having your body smashed against sharp rocks at 100 miles an hour. Of course that's not really the case, it's an inherant risk. If you rob someone's house the legal consequences are unpleasant, but there is a risk there will be someone there to defend the property, in which case you might get shot and die. You choose to still pursue that action accepting that risk. People still bungie jump even though there is a chance of a critical failure causing fatality. That doesn't make the perpetrator of self defense guilty of vigilantism. The worst case scenario is always far worse then the legal repercussion if caught. That fact is impossible to legally combat, without creating laws to protect criminals against victims during the actual crime... at which point, IMO, your legal system has gone off the deep end.
You have a legal right to shoot someone in your home, or in the act of a burglary, because you can't evaluate their threat to you fully, but you can immediately evaluate that their intent is unlawful. A civilian hasn't taken the same oath a police officer has, and on their own property they are empowered to defend themselves against someone with unlawful intent by any means necessary.
The punishment for bungie jumping is having your body smashed against sharp rocks at 100 miles an hour. Of course that's not really the case, it's an inherant risk. If you rob someone's house the legal consequences are unpleasant, but there is a risk there will be someone there to defend the property, in which case you might get shot and die. You choose to still pursue that action accepting that risk. People still bungie jump even though there is a chance of a critical failure causing fatality. That doesn't make the perpetrator of self defense guilty of vigilantism. The worst case scenario is always far worse then the legal repercussion if caught. That fact is impossible to legally combat, without creating laws to protect criminals against victims during the actual crime... at which point, IMO, your legal system has gone off the deep end.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it is vigilantism when a.) the alleged perpetrators are running away from you, b.) the alleged perpetrators were never on your property. I'm not saying people don't have a right to self defense. I'm saying that self defense doesn't apply in this case. If that's true, then no, he doesn't have any right to shoot them, even if they were on his property. You can't shoot the kids on your lawn just because they are there and you "can't evaluate their threat to you fully".
admittedly one of them did, as he was on his lawn (yes, lawn counts as property), and from what I got of the Texan law, he had the right to shoot that guy (as despicable as it sounds) but the other guy was RUNNING DOWN THE STREET!
That and it was fairly obvious that this was not a case of self defense in any way shape or form based on the 911 call which basically went "I Ain't gona let them get away with this, I'ma gona go out and kill them, BOOM BOOM YOUR DEAD!". He knew he was in no danger. He went out there to kill him some <insert racial slur on Hispanics that probably isn't swear filtered out>.
Why are those two qualifiers the determiners of vigilantism? Maby they're running to get a gun, maby they were just stealing from your car, or your neighbors car (I don't see why protecting your friends legal property is any less valid then protecting your own). You just arbitrarily stated that those are the qualifications for vigilantism, I disagree with that on a philosophical level personally, and Texas law disagrees with that on a legal level. I think if you catch someone in the act of something, and you are directly confronted by them, weather because you approached them or not, taking whatever acts are necessary to protect yourself, even while performing the legally sanctioned act of citizens arrest, does not fall under the qualification of vigilantism. Vigilantism is acting based on judgments without having the authority to have appropriately examined the evidence against a suspect, or taking matters into your own hands by actively pursuing a suspect without legal sanction. If you catch someone with a bag of stolen goods in your front yard, they are an immediate threat and anything is fair game.
Truly, we live in civilised times.
And it's opinions like this which make me glad I have a right to a speedy trial and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Notice that's "citizen's arrest" and not "citizen's shoot-them-until-they're-dead-because-you-caught-them-committing-a-crime". Acting as the judge, jury, and executioner is the definition of vigilantism.
Since we're on the topic of unlikely scenarios where the unarmed alleged burglers are running to go get a gun to shoot someone currently unrelated to their crime; what if they weren't burglers at all? What if the neighbor had asked the perps to move him out and they had to do it at night because they work during the day? That's why there's due process.
First up, those are not the 2 qualifiers for determining vigilantism, those are descriptions OF THIS CASE!
Did you listen to (or read a transcript of) the friken 911 call?
basically all the guy said was "I am not going to let them get away". He decided that he was judge jury and executioner! For a burglary! With the suspects FLEEING! Do any of these things add up to something even QUESTIONABLY punishable by DEATH? If so, tell me where you live so I can stay the hell away from you!
Yes, apparently Texas says that Vigilantism is acceptable (as they didn't even bother taking this guy to trial), however can you HONESTLY argue that in this exact case, that the punishment met the crime, and that this was a case of self defense? Burglary and fleeing the scene of the crime. No hostile actions taken. One of the poor sods was down the block.
Did you listen to (or read a transcript of) the friken 911 call?
basically all the guy said was "I am not going to let them get away". He decided that he was judge jury and executioner! For a burglary! With the suspects FLEEING! Do any of these things add up to something even QUESTIONABLY punishable by DEATH? If so, tell me where you live so I can stay the hell away from you!
Yes, apparently Texas says that Vigilantism is acceptable (as they didn't even bother taking this guy to trial), however can you HONESTLY argue that in this exact case, that the punishment met the crime, and that this was a case of self defense? Burglary and fleeing the scene of the crime. No hostile actions taken. One of the poor sods was down the block.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both men were shot within fifteen feet of Horn's doorway according to firearms evidence. Each man was shot once as they fled from his property. He didn't track them down and make sure he finished the job, he just did what he deemed necessary for his personal protection. Ultimately he would be proved wrong, but the knowledge necessary to determine that was something he couldn't have possibly possessed before acting.
I'm not arguing the punishment met the crime. That's clearly not the case. I'm arguing that in the age of firearms, there are inherent risks to breaking into someone's house, and those risks are that if someone with a gun confronts you, they have a right to shoot you. Because you are the one clearly defying legal and personal security proticals, and there is no way your intent of pulling a concealed weapon can be rationally weighed while you're still on your feet with your hands not on your head.
Like I say, everyone who bungie jumps does not deserve death as a punishment for that crime (it's not even a crime). But the risk is still inherent, and if that risk is taken and pans out to fatality, then the party who is fatally wounded is primarily to blame for assessing the risk, making the choice, and ultimately going through with the action. Sure, if there's negligence on the part of the stunt coordinator then he can be held responsible, but negligence is his clear legal responsibility. A victim of a burglary or trespassing has to work within their legal rights, and under texas law they are legally right to defend them self with lethal force in that case. I'm not personally incredibly pleased with the ramifications of that, but it's absolutely logical and sane as a standard. In my opinion criminals need not be legally protected from their victims while in the act of crime. Unfortunately, in a firearms prevalent society that means that in certain cases criminals can be killed for crimes that don't really remotely warrant a death penalty... but ultimately, they chose to risk threatening someone that might have been armed, even if that wasn't their intent, it still voids their right to protection. If you taunt a bear, it's your fault when it mauls you, weather or not you personally believe it was a gentle bear... and once again, the punishment for taunting a bear is a small fine, it's not the death penalty, but death is an immediate consequence if things don't pan out your way. Someone committing a criminal action takes entire responsibility for their own safety, for better or worse.
I'm not out to say that what Horn did was for the greater good, and he's cleaned the streets of scum, and that he's some kind of hero. In my opinion, with retrospective knowledge, he should have bunkered down in his house and let the police take care of the issue. I think the consequences of his actions are ultimately unfortunate and they have left a scar on communities and families. But he is not morally or legally at fault, he did not know what he was approaching, and he acted against a threat he was absolutely legitimate in assuming was an immediate danger to himself and his community. The reality is that most of you wouldn't even be arguing against the morality of his actions if the men he shot WERE found to be armed (maby you'd call him stupid for confronting gunmen, but you wouldn't call him a murderer) and that's exactly the point. When someone's breaking into your house, or your neighbors house, you don't wait until after they have shot you to decide weather they seriously intend to do you harm or not. You shouldn't legally have to.
Shouldn't this now be in the "Discussions " part of the forum seeing how this is going?
Shouldn't this now be in the "Discussions " part of the forum seeing how this is going?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well yah, but no one ever puts anything there b/c you get banned for being a twit, and no one looks in there any way. It got necroed because there was an update (the grand jury failed to indite him).
Swift:
Again, did you listen to the 911 call? He STATED they were leaving and he was going out to stop them, he went out there with the intention of killing them.<ul><li>"They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"</li><li>"There, one of them's getting away!"</li><li>Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"
Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."</li><li>On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.
"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.</li></ul>Seriously, does that sound like some one who was defending himself? No, it was some one who decided "Well, the cops ain't gona get here fast enough, so I am gona go out and kill me some burglers!". AKA A Vigilante.
Basically, you are making arguments for self defense in general, somethign that every one in this thread agrees is good and proper. What we are trying to point out that this was in no way shape or form self defense, it was some one going out and trying to be a hero.
TJO: No such thing. Material possessions are FAR more important then the life of a couple burglers.
I'm not sure on that though. It should be, but maybe it isn't.
I'm not sure on that though. It should be, but maybe it isn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say that every legal system, that does not execute its death row prisoners ASAP is centered around punishment.
Maintaining high security facilities for death row inmates is very expensive and does not benefit society in any way. I usually also does not benefit the inmates. So why keep them alive, if the only thing left for them is to be executed some day?
The answer is simple: punishment!
You basically take away for freedom thus punishing them. (Many deathrow inmates kill themself, cause they want to at least decide one thing for themselves.
THe cost for a single prisoner ranges from 50 to 200 $ a DAY. That's 18250 to 73000 a YEAR.
A quick execution would cost 60 cent for a bullet and paperwork and roughly 200$ for the burial.
So, why do you keep people in deathrow for several decades?
Because deathrow verdicts do get overturned. Texas, the state with the most deathrow inmates also has the highest proportion of overturned verdicts. Not just the largest number but the largest proportion.
I'm not sure on that though. It should be, but maybe it isn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and THAT is actually a huge debate.
Justice systems are first about Determent (all of them all). Once that has failed we then must pick between punishment and rehabilitation.
The US mostly falls under a desire to Rehabilitate, only punishing when we believe there is no chance for rehabilitation. Obviously these laws vary sate by state.