Bogley

[CarpeyBiggs]

James_B_Wads2000 wrote: Yes Dan you are naïve, but I applaud you effort. And for the record I don’t think I am and infallible thinker.(were you talking about me or deathcricket?)
Just speaking in general terms, no particular person in mind. The people I most generally think believe this though, are those young minds I associated with at BYU...

[James_B_Wads2000]

deathcricket wrote: Let's say I did meet you. And was pissed for that gay fat guy under the waterfall pic you posted. The first thing I do when I meet you IS to punch you in the face.

You mean this one?


Is that what this is all about? Are you really just a closeted homosexual and have to disagree with me because deep down you want to have sex with me?

Disclaimer: The above was an attempt for me to get under you skin for my own sick pleasure. It was not meant to be a serious reply to you previous post.

Really we could debate hypothetical’s all day, but what I am baffled about is that you think because I don’t support the actions of Joe Horn I therefore want to be a victim of a violent crime, or that I’m a passivist? Or how you think murdering two people in cold blood is the same heroism as say the off duty cop who kept the Trolley gunman at bay until the rest of the police arrived. Or how you think just because someone has done something wrong they are now garbage, without any chance of redemption. :blahblah:


James

[James_B_Wads2000]

CarpeyBiggs wrote: The people I most generally think believe this though, are those young minds I associated with at BYU...

Oh so you were talking about deathcricket, got ya! :haha:


James

[Jaxx]

James_B_Wads2000 wrote: So pretty much we are in full agreement here, so why are you flaming me again?

The way you acted was what I was "flaming". And I like to troll, so that doesn't help anything.

James_B_Wads2000 wrote: This makes the act of killing them less evil? Just because some people may use this event to perpetuate some “poor-me” agenda, it should be played down or ignored?
I don't remember saying that, you may have just pulled that out of your ass.
Things get blown out of proportion when a white person does something to a "minority", whether or not it was due to racism. I quote minority because there are more "minorities" than crackers in this country. If he killed two white guys people would just say "oh well that guy is crazy". But instead Quanell whatever has to make a big deal out of it and get a march going. Does that mean that he supports robbers,Black people or Black robbers?

Robbers being killed isn't high on my agenda. There is alot more that deserves our attention

I applaud the motorcyclists for not being afraid of PC BS and protesting the march. It is ridiculous to me that when black robbers get killed it is something to march about. Why doesn't the NAACP care about anyone but black people, to me that is racist.

I also forgot to mention that if there was someone home in the other house that would change my opinion of how he should be prosecuted, if at all. He probably should have waited for the cops anyway. I think he was just crazy and wanted to kill someone though.

[donny h]

Jaxx wrote:
Things get blown out of proportion when a white person does something to a "minority", whether or not it was due to racism.

Often that is true, here's a case that didn't make the national news feed, Dallas business owner shoots and kills two burglars a month apart, what makes his story so different? One dead burglar is black, one white, and the shooter is black-



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdb_1192424992

[Jaxx]

donny h wrote: Jaxx wrote:
Things get blown out of proportion when a white person does something to a "minority", whether or not it was due to racism.

Often that is true, here's a case that didn't make the national news feed, Dallas business owner shoots and kills two burglars a month apart, what makes his story so different? One dead burglar is black, one white, and the shooter is black-



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdb_1192424992

Wheres Quanell and the NAACP. This is a case that I think property isn't worth killing people over. Just call the cops. Thanks for the post donny.

[deathcricket]

CarpeyBiggs wrote: Unlike James, I apparently do believe that when we have these discussions, I can change people's minds. Perhaps I am just that naive.. :haha: But even if you don't want to believe a word I say, there is still value in the exercise. It's always good to analyze why you believe something, and see if you can advance your own thinking (myself included.) And hopefully, everyone realizes there is room for growth. It is the infallible thinkers who scare me, quite frankly.

Awesome! I’m not really interested in changing peoples minds. I like that people have different opinions. My purpose is more to understand where you are coming from and understand different points of view, even if I don’t agree, I do respect that you are able to back up your opinions with logic and facts. I have recently changed my mind about several things though and enjoy these discussions.

CarpeyBiggs wrote: Every person does know right and wrong, but I am pretty sure you will agree with me that it is not black and white (not race), but thousands of shades of gray. For instance, I believe that what Joe Horn did was evil. You believe it was heroic. Yet both of us know what is right and wrong. We both agree that the kids who were shot for stealing were in the wrong. After that, our understandings of right and wrong are completely different.

This differing level of understanding is exactly my point. People do have foundations from which they can understand more. Criminals also understand right and wrong, but their interpretations could vary as widely as yours and mine.

Agreed. I would not describe his actions as “heroic”, but instead call it “completely justified”. But that is splitting hairs I guess. Since we both agree that the criminals knew what they were doing was wrong. We can just agree to disagree on the punishment for their crime.

CarpeyBiggs wrote: An analogy: Understanding simple arithmetic allows you to do basic math. Understanding basic math will allow you to understand more complex functions of math in the future. Likewise, with all other "truths," just because someone understands "math," doesn't qualify them to understand calculus. And a criminal who understands "right and wrong" on elementary levels, should be given the chance to understand the more complex functions, and reform their behavior.

Not sure that makes sense, but the point is that right and wrong is not always black and white. And everyone's sense of right and wrong is not as finely tuned.

I’m following you on the “shades of gray” certain crimes are worse than others, stealing a pack of gum vrs armed robbery. Both are criminal acts. I just draw my “line in the sand” quite a bit further forward than you do. I would even go so far as to say you don’t draw a line at all? You would argue that a person can always be reformed and feel sorry for their actions. You feel there is always still hope for a criminal. I’m more of a cynic(sp?) and feel that that whatever the reason for committing the crime, they knew what they were doing was wrong and there are consequences for their actions. I’m perfectly fine with him not allowing “them to get away with it”. If you listen closely, he did say “you move you’re dead”, and pulled the trigger literally a second later. You could argue he didn’t give them time to comply. I would argue they were thinking they could still get away with it and didn’t heed his wishes. If the robber had complied and surrendered immediately, they would still be alive today.

CarpeyBiggs wrote: But if a soldier EVER killed someone unnecessarily, even in the name of war, it is horrendously evil. A soldier's job (some will disagree) is NOT to take life and perpetuate violence. A soldier's job is to perpetuate peace! The goal of any "good" military should be to spare as many lives as possible. And if any military has a goal of sparing life at most any cost, then why should we kill others for far lesser crimes?

I’m not qualified to judge what a soldier would determine is “nessesary” when taking a life or not. Since I have never served for our country. But I do trust that their training and experience would guide them in each situation. And then there is a chain of command to investigate certain situations if required. But sparing life at any cost? I’m going to say keeping our “side” alive and unharmed at any cost, but not life in general, no. If a suspicious person is approaching them and not complying with wishes (to stop) and still advancing, they shoot him dead first, and ask questions later. They put their lives and safety above the value of a possible terrorist’s. It’s surprisingly easy to stay alive, just comply with the person who has the guns wishes. So no I would not agree the military’s goal is to “protect life at any cost”, but that is probably another thread .

CarpeyBiggs wrote: Did Joe give the criminals a chance to be cooperative? I don't think so. I think he surprised the guys pretty good, and then took care of business.

Another thought, someone who steals a pack of gum from the supermarket and runs out of the store deserves to die? This sounds like the Mosaic law, on steroids. Forget chopping off their hand, let's just finish them off... And I thought the Mosaic law was pretty severe and inhumane.

He did give them a warning (see above), and yeah he starting firing REAL quick. But we weren’t there and know what happened. I can tell you that they did not heed his warning and he “took care of business” as you say. Again I think we both assign different values to these criminals lives. That is the heart of the issue. I judge a person by their intentions, choices, and impact on society. You judge them by what they could possibly become? You would say they aren’t living up to their full potential and I would say they are a burdon on society and predators. Can we agree on that? I’m really trying to see your point, I hope you see mine, even though we wont agree.

CarpeyBiggs wrote: Good point. :haha: People shouldn't own guns, with the intent of meting out justice. You should not be judge, jury, and executioner. (thanks Quanell, for that one...)

I’m tempted to leave this one alone. But again will just restate that I personally judge people by their intentions. And in this case I feel he was defending his neighbors property from falling into the hands of thieves. It wasn’t judge, jury, and executioner, it was “I will not let this happen before my eyes without doing something about it”. He believed the thieves were in the wrong, and stopped them.

CarpeyBiggs wrote: Unfair stereotype. Truth is, we don't know why they did it. Maybe their mom is sick, they can't pay the medical bills, and so they are trying to steal some stuff to get money to help her out, which in their mind is not evil. Might be a long shot, I know. But the fact is, these people are PEOPLE. Their understanding of what they are doing is justified in their mind in some way. We may not agree with their justification, but I'm sure they still think about it. No one does anything without having a brain tell them why to do it, whether consciously or instinctively. Perhaps the criminals justified stealing by thinking that they had been done wrong by someone else, so they were going to get some justice by stealing from someone else. In their mind, it isn't wrong. To us, who observe from the outside, it is. IMO, the solution is to figure out what their justification was (i.e. figure out what level of right and wrong they understand) and then help them understand how their justification wasn't appropriate. Kinda like learning arithmetic to understand algebra.

Ok here is where we really don’t agree, hehe. This is probably where James is going to start quoting me and get his trolling materials. I don’t care what their reason was for stealing. If it was validated in their mind is not relevant to me. The fact that they knew it was wrong and still did it is enough. They committed the crime and there is a penalty for that. I feel people should be responsible for their actions, cant explain it any more simple.

CarpeyBiggs wrote: Again, blanket statements about intent and choice are not black and white. We don't always know what criminals intent was. It's easy to think they are just worthless criminals, looking to get their next fix or whatever. But the bottom line is we don't know their intent, which is closely linked to their ability to truly discern different levels of wright and wrong.

Maybe I should explain what I mean by intent. Their intent was to rob the place. Their intent was to go into that person’s house and take possessions that didn’t belong to them. I thought your position was that they knew it was wrong but they felt “justified” doing wrong for some other reason. Are you now saying they didn’t think it wrong to break the glass on the side of this house and enter with a set of crowbars to remove cash? I will agree that they knew it was wrong but maybe did it by some “other” reason, even something noble like helping the sick mom. But if you are stating that they weren’t able to discern it was wrong I will have to disagree.


CarpeyBiggs wrote: I think you don't realize why people commit crime. The intent is rarely to cause harm, unless it is out of retaliation. And retaliation is the exact thing you are calling for. Which perpetuates the cycle.

Again,, I feel people commit crimes for many different reasons. Their intent is always to cause harm. It could be physical harm (rape, murder), financial harm (property damage, theft, arson). But “harm” is the general term I would use to describe what a criminal does. They may not be directly concerned about the victim of their crime, ok I agree. But I think it’s more out of disregard for their fellow man. I cant fathom the arguement that a criminal is not “harmful” in some way shape or fashion. I would be interested if you could explain this further?

I’m outta time to finish…. I do enjoy this and look forward to hearing your reply. I will try to finish my response up soon, or we can drop it and agree to disagree? 

[James_B_Wads2000]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5864151.html

Joe Horn cleared by grand jury in Pasadena shootings
Panel issues no-bill after two weeks of testimony

By BRIAN ROGERS, RUTH RENDON and DALE LEZON
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

A Harris County grand jury on Monday ended the rancorous seven-month debate over Pasadena resident Joe Horn's decision to gun down two illegal immigrant burglars in his front yard, concluding the act was a justifiable use of deadly force and not murder.

The grand jury heard two weeks of testimony from witnesses, including Horn. They likely also heard his breathless 911 call, during which the increasingly frustrated retiree ignored a dispatcher's pleas to stay inside and out of harm's way. The Nov. 14 call ended with the sound of Horn racking a shell into his 12-gauge shotgun's chamber followed by three gunshots that killed Colombians Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38.

Each man was shot in the back. They had taken about $2,000 in the burglary.

Horn's defense hinged on his assertion that he fired out of fear for his life, making the shooting justifiable under Texas law. The law also permits the use of deadly force to protect property under some circumstances.
District Attorney Ken Magidson said he couldn't comment on the grand jury's secret proceedings.
"In Texas, a person has a right to use deadly force in certain circumstances to protect property ... and that's basically what the grand jurors had to deal with," Magidson said.

After the announcement, Horn's attorney said his 62-year-old client was no vigilante.

"Joe was not some sort of wild cowboy," Tom Lambright said. "He was trying to help police. He was put in a situation where he didn't have any choice."

Lambright said Horn was "relieved" the investigation was over and he was cleared. "When I talked to him on the telephone I could hear it in his voice — not giddy, just relieved."

Others decried the decision as a miscarriage of justice.
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 said. "It's amazing to me that anyone with a Hispanic surname cannot get justice. This was no more than a vigilante."

In his 911 call, Horn cited a newly enacted Texas law, the "castle doctrine," which authorizes the use of deadly force during a home invasion.

But Sen. Jeff Wentworth, who wrote the law, said it did not apply to Horn's case.

"It was not an issue in this case other than him saying incorrectly that he understood it to mean he could protect his neighbor's property," said Wentworth, R-San Antonio.

He said the castle doctrine simply didn't apply because, although the burglars were running across Horn's lawn, Horn's home wasn't under siege — his neighbor's home was.

"It comes from the saying 'A man's home is his castle,' " Wentworth said. "But this wasn't his castle."

Lambright said even though many people, including Horn's neighbors, have called him a hero, Horn doesn't believe he is.

The attorney said Torres, who was on parole for a drug conviction, and Diego Ortiz were near the front door when Horn stepped outside.
"They were attacking," Lambright said. "It scared him to death."

Police guard neighborhood

At Horn's home, boards formed a makeshift barricade on the front walk, supporting a red "No Trespassing" sign.

Police patrolled in force — by car, motorcycle and bicycle — and stood guard at the subdivision's entrances. They said they were there to keep the peace in case protesters showed up.

No protesters had arrived by late Monday.

Some of Horn's neighbors on Timberline Drive greeted news that he won't face criminal charges with enthusiasm; others hung "no comment" signs on their front doors.

"I just praise God that he was not indicted, that our country is still behind our good, honest people," said Velma Cabello, 61. "He is a hero in my book."

She lives in Humble, but was house-sitting Monday a few doors down from Horn's home.

"I would love for him to be my neighbor, for someone to watch over me like that," Cabello said.

"I'm glad he's not going to jail, but it's a bad thing, killing a couple people," said John White, 51, who lives half a block away from Horn. "It's sad for everyone, him and the victims."

Horn was alone inside the home he shares with his daughter's family around 2 p.m. on Nov. 14 when he was heard glass shattering next door, spotted Ortiz and Torres crawling through a window and called 911 to report the break-in.

The operator repeatedly urged him to stay in his house, but Horn said he did not believe it would be right to let the burglars get away.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn told the operator. "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

The operator replied: "Don't go outside."

Then the tape recorded Horn warning: "Move and you're dead!" Two quick shots can be heard on the tape, followed by a pause and then a third shot.

Detective was on scene

Pasadena police have said a detective in plainclothes had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call, and saw the two men before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

Police believe that neither Horn nor the burglars knew an officer was present.

When Horn confronted the men in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, police have said. However, the men ignored his order to freeze.
Authorities have said one man ran toward Horn but had angled away toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

Ortiz and Torres died a short distance from Horn's house.

A news release from the city of Pasadena read, in part, "We hope that the decision of the grand jury, while difficult for some to accept, will be respected as the product of a careful weighing of all the facts by an impartial panel of citizens."

[James_B_Wads2000]

Got to love Texas! There you can shoot two people in the back and get off clean. Who ever said the Jim Crow South is gone?

Now I know racism is only a small part of this story so save your flames. The real reason Joe Horn was not brought up on charges is all political. The DA can try and distance himself from the grand jury all he wants, but he knows that if he prosecutes Joe Horn it will be political suicide. Because all the gun toting hillbillies would drive him out of office.

Unfortunately Joe Horn will have to be tried civilly in federal court. There he will most certainly loose but the penalties will not be as stiff as if he were charged with murder. It is very similar to the Rodney King verdict where the cops got off on criminal charges but two of the four were found guilty in the civil court case.

Just for the record Joe Horn is a pile of shit who got away with murder. Just like O.J.


James
(Am I just flaming in the wind here? Won’t someone come out and play?)