Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trying to get laid?? At knifepoint? What's wrong with you?
The knife was not produced until after the woman ignored his advances. It escalated to that after he was rebuffed by her and he became more aggressive. She could have held the attacker at gunpoint. She has to prove that he did not move towards her after she pulled the gun.
She will probably be charged with at least manslaughter because she fired the weapon and it caused the death of the attacker.
**EDIT: After seeing the video, she was justified in shooting the guy since he struck her first.
Believe it or not, I'm very familiar with the Joe Horn case. The key to the no-bill of the Joe Horn case was that he shot two men who were in the act of committing felony theft on his property (they were physically located on his front lawn at the time). That was an ugly, ugly thing and I'm 100% certain that Joe Horn would take a very different course of action if he had the opportunity to re-live that day, but it simply doesn't justify changing the law. Those sorts of high-profile, objectionable, politically charged cases just don't happen very often and there is no way to make everyone happy and no matter how great the temptation to "do something" may be, prosecutors must consider what precedent is being set, how it will affect people in the future and whether "doing something" is constructive or helpful at all. People get shot during home invasions on at least a weekly basis in Harris County and, for the most part, removing the homeowner or resident's protections under the law would be a major disservice to the people of the state, hence the no-bill of Joe Horn.
I don't know why you believe that Horn would take a different course of action. It takes a lot of nerve to kill someone in cold blood when you are NOT in imminent danger, which clearly, he was not. This Horn guy was using this law to do what he felt like doing, without a second thought.
That being said, there will be many more questionable killings that most likely would be avoidable. Again, the roots of this law stem form the NRA and it is in their best interest to arm evey citizen for their bottom line. If even one killing is avoided by repealing this law it is well worth it. Do you not understand that as long as there are no witnesses, any person can fabricate any scenario they choose to justify using the SYG statute. Think of the ramifications. We are already seeing them and there have always been laws protecting people for justifiable self defense homicides, so why this one on steroids? Again...the NRA and their bottom line. As simple as that.
I watched the video a few days ago. The male was relentless - once she took the rifle out of the car- He go even more aggressive. What was she to do? In Canada where citizens are almost never armed- the only alternative would be to make a run for it and yell out bringing attention to the problem...In this case even if she was unarmed and made a run for it- The guy most likely would have followed - run her down and stabbed her- This was a crazy man. How many other people has he harmed in the past- How many would he have hurt or even killed in the future? I hate to say it as someone who is not pro gun...He deserved the instant street justice he got. This guy was nothing but some damned mad dog that needed to be put down.
If he had half a brain he would have retreated instantly once he figure out he would be shot- it appears he thought she would not shoot- He was wrong.
I don't know why you believe that Horn would take a different course of action. It takes a lot of nerve to kill someone in cold blood when you are NOT in imminent danger, which clearly, he was not. This Horn guy was using this law to do what he felt like doing, without a second thought.
That being said, there will be many more questionable killings that most likely would be avoidable. Again, the roots of this law stem form the NRA and it is in their best interest to arm evey citizen for their bottom line. If even one killing is avoided by repealing this law it is well worth it. Do you not understand that as long as there are no witnesses, any person can fabricate any scenario they choose to justify using the SYG statute. Think of the ramifications. We are already seeing them and there have always been laws protecting people for justifiable self defense homicides, so why this one on steroids? Again...the NRA and their bottom line. As simple as that.
I say that I'm sure he would do things differently because when you listen to the 911 calls you hear a man who is outraged about being a spectator to his blue-collar neighbor and friend's house being cleaned out. He wasn't "cold", he was as hot as a pepper. His actions were calculated in a very much altered state of being due to, I'm sure, an extremely high level of adrenal cocktail circulating through his blood. After pulling the trigger and experiencing the dissipation of those fleeting combat hormones, I'm sure the gravity of what he had done came home to roost. He has not been unapologetic, he's been ashamed. I'm sure he would do anything to restore the anonymity of the name "Joe Horn" and be free of the shame that those men are, avoidably, dead by his hand, even if it meant letting a pair of illegal immigrants get away with his neighbor's stuff. It seems to me that you may be unfairly ascribing some characteristics to this man that do not exist.
What I think you may be missing is that the buzzword laws like "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" have, at least in Texas, not had much impact - if any at all - on how the application of deadly force by its citizens is judged. Before the Castle Doctrine, Joe Horn STILL would have been no-billed because he applied deadly force to people committing a felony on his property. The most impactful portion of the Texas Castle Doctrine has been immunity from civil liability in the event a defendant is no-billed or acquitted. The romanticized notion that the NRA has injected these laws to enable *group A* to further subjugate *group B* with impunity or to otherwise ruin America one state at a time is simply not real.
Just out of curiosity, why not wait until the police have completed their investigation and submitted their findings to the DA?
Then if the DA decides there is cause, he can either dismiss the case and not prosecute, or he can prosecute if he decides there was a crime.
Then the jury can decide if the evidence supports the charge or finds not guilty.
I wasn't there, I am not investigating the incident, I don't know if she felt she was in danger of immenent harm.
If the facts follow her story, then she had the right of self defense.
If the facts show otherwise, she is guilty of a crime.
Endless speculation on an internet board parroting the hyperbole of a specific political dogma is counterproductive and boring.
I say that I'm sure he would do things differently because when you listen to the 911 calls you hear a man who is outraged about being a spectator to his blue-collar neighbor and friend's house being cleaned out. He wasn't "cold", he was as hot as a pepper. His actions were calculated in a very much altered state of being due to, I'm sure, an extremely high level of adrenal cocktail circulating through his blood. After pulling the trigger and experiencing the dissipation of those fleeting combat hormones, I'm sure the gravity of what he had done came home to roost. He has not been unapologetic, he's been ashamed. I'm sure he would do anything to restore the anonymity of the name "Joe Horn" and be free of the shame that those men are, avoidably, dead by his hand, even if it meant letting a pair of illegal immigrants get away with his neighbor's stuff. It seems to me that you may be unfairly ascribing some characteristics to this man that do not exist.
What I think you may be missing is that the buzzword laws like "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" have, at least in Texas, not had much impact - if any at all - on how the application of deadly force by its citizens is judged. Before the Castle Doctrine, Joe Horn STILL would have been no-billed because he applied deadly force to people committing a felony on his property. The most impactful portion of the Texas Castle Doctrine has been immunity from civil liability in the event a defendant is no-billed or acquitted. The romanticized notion that the NRA has injected these laws to enable *group A* to further subjugate *group B* with impunity or to otherwise ruin America one state at a time is simply not real.
It seeems to me that you might ascribing personalty traits to someone that you do not know. Did you not read where I said that he could have held them at gunpoint? Suppose we decide that Horn is good natured old coot that had a hot-headed moment...does that not establish that this law, which he cited when shooting these guys, played a role in an avoidable killing and will again?
I stand my ground as to the content of my previous post.
Former NRA President: We Helped Draft Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law
"There is no doubt about it. Marion Hammer, the NRA lobbyist here, former president of the NRA wrote the legislation and she would tell you so," Flemming told Media Matters.
Asked how he discovered that the NRA had co-written the legislation, Flemming stated: "She told me, I talked to her. I speak to Marion and certainly spoke to Sen. Peaden regularly. The observation is that they have their legislative priorities every year and that was one." He added, "All of the gun laws that come through the Florida legislature, she writes."
Hammer recalled that the law came about after an incident following Hurricane Ivan in 2004 in which 77-year-old James Workman shot an intruder who broke into his RV after the deadly storm. Months before the statute was passed, prosecutors declined to press charges against Workman, saying he had legally acted in self-defense.
"Yes, we helped," Hammer said. "Sen. Peaden and I had a conversation, he was outraged at what had happened and ... they had not decided whether to charge this man. He says, 'what are we going to do about it?' I said 'we can work on some legislation to deal with this issue.' It is not an uncommon problem."
She added, "he came to us, we helped draft it, he took it, he put it in the bill drafting, it came out of bill drafting, it came through the process, it passed."
But there are people who insist on profiling young black men this way while Zim, the real gun toting thug later posing as victim, exited his vehicle with no provocation, manifested the same racist mindset of Spaten.
People insist on profiling young black males because the majority of street crime in these troubled neighborhoods are being committed by young black males Given that FACT ... who are people supposed to be suspicious of ... old white ladies?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given that FACT ... who are people supposed to be suspicious of ... old white ladies?
