[stratos]

lily lily:

$1:

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. — the Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001.

Oh, the 2 burglars had guns and were trying to shoot him?

I missed the update. That changes everything.

Someone on here said someting about them having crowbars, a decent lawyer can make the case that the two were coming after the man with the crowbars to do him harm. That would either hold up or not via the the wonds. Side wounds can be from him jumping to the side and shooting. IF any buckshot or what ever is in the proper place for such a move the man would most likely not go to court or if he did a jury would probably let him go.

Lots of IF's in there and we just dont know enough at this point. So unless something new comes out its only hypathetical at this point and beyond.

[WBenson]

Ex-Expat Ex-Expat:

Are all the cops that shoot criminals in the back to stop them from getting away, also cowardly?

Yes. "Getting away" is never a valid reason to kill someone. Now, if they pose a threat to the life of the officer*, shoot away, but capital punishment is illegal in most of the Western world for a reason.

*EDIT: Or a clear, present, and immediate threat to the populace. "They might commit another crime" isn't, unless there's proof that they intend to commit another crime that would endanger lives.

[stratos]

WBenson WBenson:

Ex-Expat Ex-Expat:

But in most cases, and certainly not Mr. Horn's case, I don't think the "maimy" option is there as often as you'd like to think it is.

I don't think it ever is or should be right, at least not with firearms as the option. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I said that maiming is never the right choice. A situation calls for deadly or non-deadly. .[If it calls for using a gun, go all out with it. Kill the bastard then and there/quote]

The use of a gun IS deadly force plain and simple there is no higher level or lower level for the use of force with a gun in Texas law.

"If it calls for using a gun, go all out with it. Kill the bastard then and there" Reminds me of a saying
" It's better to be tried by 12 then burried by 6"

[WBenson]

stratos stratos:

The use of a gun IS deadly force plain and simple there is no higher level or lower level for the use of force with a gun in Texas law.

I know! That's what I've been saying!

[stratos]

WBenson WBenson:

stratos stratos:

The use of a gun IS deadly force plain and simple there is no higher level or lower level for the use of force with a gun in Texas law.

I know! That's what I've been saying!

I know just backing you up on it.

[inis]

I live down in the south. I dont think the guy worried about if the guys were legal or not. they were breaking into his friends house. If someone breaks into my house I will use my shotgun and pump every round I have into them... it is a lot cheaper in court when they are dead and can not talk. When it comes down to protecting you wife from getting rapped or killed ...just blast away...they were not boy scouts coming into your house to sell you an apple. get with it

[tritium]

stratos stratos:

tritium tritium:

stratos stratos:

tritium that pic you posted is it from the justice center in Austin?

It looks like it.

It's from the book The Legacy of Historical Courthouses. I love old architecture & history.

More here on Texas: http://www.martana.com/

IF it is the same place I'm thinking of the building connected to it is the Jail I used to work at. I love walking through the Capital building every now and then just looking at it and all the interestig features along with the portriats of all the Texas Governors.

Yeah, you know the shop off to the right as you're walking in. (before the capital building, next to parking)

I would drive down for the tour and pick up stuff at that shop about every 2 months. Loved it there.

[sasquatch2]

Yes!

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six...

[stratos]

tritium tritium:

stratos stratos:

tritium tritium:

stratos stratos:

tritium that pic you posted is it from the justice center in Austin?

It looks like it.

It's from the book The Legacy of Historical Courthouses. I love old architecture & history.

More here on Texas: http://www.martana.com/

IF it is the same place I'm thinking of the building connected to it is the Jail I used to work at. I love walking through the Capital building every now and then just looking at it and all the interestig features along with the portriats of all the Texas Governors.

Yeah, you know the shop off to the right as you're walking in. (before the capital building, next to parking)

I would drive down for the tour and pick up stuff at that shop about every 2 months. Loved it there.

All of Congress Ave is decked out I love comeing over the bridge and seeing the Capital in the distance with all the Christmass lights along the road.

[dog77_1999]

Another criminal was shot. He did the same thing by breaking into someone's house. Unfortunatly for him, it was the owners, not the neighbors who had a gun. He was killed right on the spot.

[dog77_1999]

Another criminal was shot today in the Houston area. He did the same thing by breaking into someone's house. Unfortunatly for him, it was the owners, not the neighbors who had a gun. He was killed right on the spot.

[sasquatch2]

dog77_1999

$1:

Another criminal was shot today in the Houston area. He did the same thing by breaking into someone's house. Unfortunatly for him, it was the owners, not the neighbors who had a gun. He was killed right on the spot.

Good stuff........

[Ex-Expat]

WBenson: yes, it does seem that I misunderstood what you were driving at. Although we still disagree.

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Yes!

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six...

A nice slogan, but you will have neither if the criminal gets away.

If a person has been apprehended, then yes, I agree with you 100%. Again, better for them to have to do the hard time than to get an easy out. But if the choice is between letting a criminal get away or putting a stop to him/her by any means possible, the latter is preferable. One less scumbag in the world to victimize people.

[WBenson]

Ex-Expat Ex-Expat:

WBenson: yes, it does seem that I misunderstood what you were driving at. Although we still disagree.

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Yes!

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six...

A nice slogan, but you will have neither if the criminal gets away.

If a person has been apprehended, then yes, I agree with you 100%. Again, better for them to have to do the hard time than to get an easy out. But if the choice is between letting a criminal get away or putting a stop to him/her by any means possible, the latter is preferable. One less scumbag in the world to victimize people.

Are you seriously stating that police officers should be qualified to perform summary executions?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the backbone of a democracy. Police officers slaughtering human beings for noncompliance violates that. Police are not qualified to judge guilt ever, and nor should they be.

"Getting away," unless the suspect is armed and they pose an immediate threat (i.e. if they are not stopped now, and that is the only way to stop them, they will kill another person) to the populace or other officers is not an excuse to kill a human being.

What crimes does the person have to be suspected of to be executed on the spot for noncompliance? Murder? Assault? Petty Larceny? Speeding?

Would you really kill someone that wasn't a threat to you just because you don't like what they did? In Canada, we call that "murder," and we (should) send them to prison until they die.

[Ex-Expat]

WBenson WBenson:

Are you seriously stating that police officers should be qualified to perform summary executions?

If you are suggesting that I stated that police should be allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, I said nothing of the sort.

WBenson WBenson:

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the backbone of a democracy. Police officers slaughtering human beings for noncompliance violates that. Police are not qualified to judge guilt ever, and nor should they be.

Police are qualified to judge whether a person is attempting to get away.

WBenson WBenson:

"Getting away," unless the suspect is armed and they pose an immediate threat (i.e. if they are not stopped now, and that is the only way to stop them, they will kill another person) to the populace or other officers is not an excuse to kill a human being.

This is where we disagree. I believe that, if there is absolutely no other way to stop a criminal from leaving the scene of the crime, and they will not stop when warned, then one should use any means available to stop them, including lethal ones if non-lethal ones are not available. This applies to citizens as well as police officers. Thus, I believe that Mr. Horn behaved responsibly, acted in the best interest of his community, and should therefore not be prosecuted.

WBenson WBenson:

What crimes does the person have to be suspected of to be executed on the spot for noncompliance? Murder? Assault? Petty Larceny? Speeding?

Evading arrest.

WBenson WBenson:

Would you really kill someone that wasn't a threat to you just because you don't like what they did? In Canada, we call that "murder," and we (should) send them to prison until they die.

Do you normally attack all arguments with straw man reasoning? I never said anything of the sort. I said when criminals are caught in the middle of committing a crime, such as was the case with Mr. Horn, they should be warned to stop... and if they do not stop, they should be stopped by whatever means necessary. I was very specific in my statement. Please stop making wild generalizations.

In the case of police, however, which I'll remind you is not what this discussion is really about, they have batons, rubber bullets, etc. which they are licensed to carry. They have other means to get the job done without necessarily resorting to shooting to kill.