[Tricks]

Brenda Brenda:

Well, most of the times, they just don't shoot. They negociate. If they shoot, and kill, they will be investigated, and likely procecuted for murder.

That's retarded. If they wound him, he can still shoot the cop. If they kill him he isn't going to do much of anything.

[Ex-Expat]

lily lily:

$1:

If they had stopped, no further action necessary. Wait for police to arrive and take them away. But they did not

He claimed he shot them whe they didn't obey his command to stop.

Anything other than his word that they didn't stop?

Yes. The 911 recording proves that he warned them to stop, before opening fire. If he just wanted a shootfest, why bother warning them? For that matter, why bother calling 911? Wouldn't it have been easier to just skip all that and start shooting? The actions he took say a lot about his intent and mindset.

lily lily:

And if it's indeed true they were shot in the back, this whole discussion is moot... or it should be.

One never knows with Texas.

No, it's not. Given a choice, as he had, between free criminals or dead criminals, I'd pick dead. At least then they're not running around victimizing more innocent people.

[sasquatch2]

I shall give you a bit of advice as from a father to his child:

in continental europe, if a policeman shouts halt....halt....in Italy carabiniri carry submachineguns.

In Russia "STOY" means hit the deck.

[Ex-Expat]

WBenson WBenson:

Ex-Expat Ex-Expat:

WBenson WBenson:

Well, someone who should only have been stopped shouldn't have deadly force used on them, so that would be a problem.

Yes, better to let known criminals have a chance to get away and terrorize more people because we're too afraid the bullet might miss their legs and kill them instead. Because after all, it would be such a tragedy to have one less career criminal running the streets victimizing the innocent, even if it is by accident.

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that if a situation calls for deadly force, then it should be deadly, not "maimy."

Again, in this case, Mr. Horn had a shotgun. He did not have a "maimy" option.

No I understood. I'm saying that of course I'd prefer "maimy" too because I'd actually prefer to see them rotting in jail. 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. Most people are not trained for sharpshooting, will not be at close range, and only have seconds, or fractions of a second, to react. If they have caught a criminal redhanded, and have a gun, I say warn them to stop and if they don't, shoot. Whatever they get shot in is their own fault for making the crappy decisions to 1) commit a crime, and 2) run when somebody with a gun has warned them to stop.

[Ex-Expat]

lily lily:

$1:

No, it's not. Given a choice, as he had, between free criminals or dead criminals, I'd pick dead. At least then they're not running around victimizing more innocent people.

If he shot them in the back, he's no hero - he's a coward.

Tell that to their previous victims. I suspect they'll disagree.

[martin14]

lily lily:

Right... because everyone they stole from wanted to see them dead.

yep.. and that could be a pretty long list.

[Joe_Stalin]

Texas justice.

Swift, silent, superb.

Did I say silent?

$1:

By Bill O'Reilly


Now last night, we told you about 61-year old Joe Horn, who shot two alleged burglars dead in Pasadena, Texas outside of Houston. The harrowing incident was recorded on 911:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE HORN: OK, he's coming out the window right now. I got to go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window.

DISPATCHER: No, don't. Don't go out the door. Mr. Horn. Mr. Horn...

HORN: God -- they just stole something. I'm going out the window.

DISPATCHER: No...

HORN: 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. You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going.

DISPATCHER: Don't go outside.

HORN: Move, you're dead!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

And they were dead. Mr. Horn has not yet been charged, but a grand jury will most likely hear the case. However, "The Factor" has been investigating, and the victims or perpetrators, depending on your point of view, were both illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds. So once again, our chaotic immigration system has led to death.

Miguel Dejesus and Diego Ortiz were both from Colombia. Dejesus spent six years in a Texas prison for drug dealing, then was deported. Obviously, he came back illegally. Ortiz was arrested by Houston police on a drug charge. We don't know much more about him, because Houston is a "Sanctuary City" and does not cooperate with Homeland Security or with the press in matters involving criminal aliens.

As you may know, Houston is one of the most crime ridden cities in America and criminal aliens have added to that problem. Mayor Bill White and Police Chief Harold Hurtt remain totally defiant in the face of all the chaos. They are supported by the far left Houston Chronicle but now they may be partly responsible for the deaths of Dejesus and Ortiz.

You see, if Mayor White and Chief Hurtt would themselves obey the law and inform Homeland Security any time an illegal alien is arrested, some of the deadly dealings might stop. But White and Hurtt refuse to do that.

In Phoenix, Mayor Phil Gordon, who told us he would change that city's sanctuary policies, will now do so after police officer Nick Erpol was murdered by a criminal alien.

"Talking Points" has a simple question. How many more people have to die before the federal government denies federal funding to sanctuary cities? Places like Houston, San Francisco, New Haven, Connecticut, and so on should get no federal money, because their sanctuary policies are harming the country.

This isn't a complex issue. Homeland Security must be notified any time an illegal alien is arrested, period.

Few Americans will have any sympathy for Miguel Dejesus and Diego Ortiz, but they didn't deserve to die. And Joe Horn, obviously in an emotional state, does not deserve to have his life ruined.

Again and again, this broadcast has stated the illegal alien chaos must stop. And we should not vote for any presidential candidate who doesn't support the immediate confinement of criminal aliens. This has been going on for far too long.

And that's "The Memo."

I have read where the crooks had crowbars, were shot in the side not the back, were large menacing mothers and were approaching him on his property. Whatever the facts will come out. Horn has received many death threats and is getting some police protection.

[Ex-Expat]

lily lily:

Right... because everyone they stole from wanted to see them dead.

I never said that. All I meant is that I suspect their previous victims will be glad those two are not out there victimizing more people. Of course it is preferable that they are caught alive, because for one thing most people don't want it to go as far as death (myself very much included), and secondly they would much rather see them rot in jail (again, myself included). But lacking that, I suspect they'll be thankful that at least no one else is going through the suffering they did... and I doubt they will be as quick as you to think of Mr. Horn as a coward.

[sasquatch2]

The main difference between a conservativa and a liberal is which one has been mugged.

Oddly enough from a tactical prospective, shouting a warning, is dangerous. It has cost a lot of home-owners their lives, the criminal promptly shots them.........

Even those with tactic experience are at a disadvantage for the simple reason the criminal's mind is prepared and expecting to shoot whereas the home-owner must take valuable time considering the options.......he who hesitates looses in a gun-fight..........

[Ex-Expat]

Good point JS. They had no business being in the U.S. to begin with. I used to live in Southern California, where in many places there's an actual majority of illegal aliens. And police told us that very large portion of the gang members and other criminals they pick up are also illegal aliens. But get this! The law says they're not allowed to question people on their immigration status or even to look it up to find out. So the jails are chock full of people that should have been extradited long ago, and taxpayers foot the bill, because hey criminals have rights.

Btw, I'd love to see these criminal aliens go home and start their crap in their home countries. They should be so lucky as to get a warning before getting shot.

[Sherminator333]

Tricks Tricks:

Shooting in the legs is hollywood BS. No one actually does that.

The IRA used to to punish people, but that was a whole different situation, so not relevent in this context maybe. And they shot the kneecap.

[Ex-Expat]

lily lily:

Ex-Expat Ex-Expat:

lily lily:

Right... because everyone they stole from wanted to see them dead.

I never said that. All I meant is that I suspect their previous victims will be glad those two are not out there victimizing more people. Of course it is preferable that they are caught alive, because for one thing most people don't want it to go as far as death (myself very much included), and secondly they would much rather see them rot in jail (again, myself included). But lacking that, I suspect they'll be thankful that at least no one else is going through the suffering they did... and I doubt they will be as quick as you to think of Mr. Horn as a coward.

I said: If he shot them in the back, he's no hero - he's a coward.

You replied: Tell that to their previous victims. I suspect they'll disagree.

Tell me again what you meant?

My summary sentence was: "I suspect they'll be thankful that at least no one else is going through the suffering they did... and I doubt they will be as quick as you to think of Mr. Horn as a coward."

This was not clear?

lily lily:

Shooting someone in the back is cowardly.
It's also illegal... at least in most places.

Ah ok. But committing a crime, and then running for the hills when you are caught, is not cowardly at all.

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

[Tricks]

Sherminator333 Sherminator333:

Tricks Tricks:

Shooting in the legs is hollywood BS. No one actually does that.

The IRA used to to punish people, but that was a whole different situation, so not relevent in this context maybe. And they shot the kneecap.

I know, they would kneecap informants.

[Ex-Expat]

lily lily:

$1:

Ah ok. But committing a crime, and then running for the hills when you are caught, is not cowardly at all.

It's not an either/or situation.

What is not an either/or situation?

lily lily:

And your summary sentence came well after your original post.

Do I need to remind you that you were the one saying, "Tell me again what you meant?"

No, I didn't miss the sarcasm there. I took it, from your sarcasm, that maybe I had not expressed myself clearly. So I went back and attempted to clarify my statement. This is not allowed?

Btw you didn't answer my question about whether police shooting at criminals to keep them from getting away, also makes them cowards. This was not a rhetorical question. I'm asking what you think.

[Ex-Expat]

lily lily:

Shooting someone in the back is cowardly, period. It's not relevant to anything else.

$1:

Btw you didn't answer my question about whether police shooting at criminals to keep them from getting away, also makes them cowards. This was not a rhetorical question. I'm asking what you think.

I'm not sure of the legalities involved. If you want to know my personal opinion, it would depend on the circumstances. If it was a burglar running away, particularly if he's unarmed, then no, the cops have no business shooting someone in the back.

If someone is in imminent danger, that's another story.

If a burglar is trying to escape, has been warned that they will be shot if they continue to try to escape, and chooses to continue anyway, . I feel this is not cowardly, since they knew the consequences but still made the conscious choice to risk their lives trying to escape. All they had to do was stop. It's their fault for not stopping. Which way they're facing when shot is irrelevant. And if there is a non-lethal way to stop them that will not increase their chances of escaping, I'd prefer that every time. But usually in these situations there is no such option, i.e. tranquilizer guns and the like. So people should use whatever is at their disposal to keep that criminal from continuing to be a menace to society.

Also, how do you know they're "just" a burglar? Maybe they've also murdered people when they burglarized and found that the homeowners were home after all. Maybe they're a sex offender. Maybe they're selling drugs to the kids on your street. But you'll never really know if you don't catch them first, will you?

If criminals know that they can take off running from any crime scene and no one will use weapons to try to stop them, they will run more often. They will also escape more often. Given the choice, I would rather catch them dead than let them escape to continue perpetrating.