|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
Deliberation AND Premeditation were both present here, as he went outside to confront them. It wasn't in self-defense as he provoked them. Strikes me as meeting the definition of murder. I was speaking idiomatically. |
Still don't understand where people are getting "The guy with the gun provoked the other people into a situation where he had to kill them." Now, I'm no lawyer or anything, so I have no idea if there's a precedent here, but it seems to me that you can separate, in this instance, the deliberate and premeditated act of going outside to stop them, and the actual act of killing them.
This provoke thing is really giving me issues. I mean, it's a transitive verb right? So it takes an object. One provokes something else. That something else is then being acted upon by the subject. There's also this idea that a person in the stronger position doesn't need to provoke anyone in order to act. The only way I can see the guy with the shotgun provoking the poor "victims" is if you want to say he created a situation where they had to act a certain way, which would necessitate the use of force. That's taking all responsibility away from the thieves. I think that's stupid. Guy stabbed his ex-girlfriend up at the mall near my apartment. There was a conversation after the fact with a bunch of friends, consensus being that we'd like to think we would have stepped in to help the lady if we had been there. Of course, we might have injured the guy doing the stabbing. And that means we provoked the assailant? The logic seems all twisty and wrong. Also, Devo, it occurred to me this morning that this isn't a useless discussion. It's a nice ethical question, and it's always good to hash out tough ethical questions with yourself, you know, if you're open-minded about it. Builds character. At the very least, I'll know exactly who to rob if it ever became necessary, because you know, they'll think I have rights. <3 What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
FELIPE NO "In a somewhat related statement. Hugging fat people is soft and comfy. <3" - Jan "Jesus, Gumby. You just...came up with that off the top of your head?" - Alice |
Regressing Since 1988 |
Pu-leez. If I shoot someone I'm guilty of the applicable crime, whether or not it's proven in a court of law is immaterial. It's like arguing OJ didn't kill his wife because 12 people were too thick to understand the evidence. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
"You want to make a bet?" Horn answered."I'm going to kill them." And that was before he even left the house. Most amazing jew boots |
This really isn't about what anyone's personal idea of right and wrong is or how the dictionary/common law defines murder. What matters here is how Texas law applies in this case. Here's the law that Horn is relying on:
Notice the section under 9.42 that I highlighted. While Horn certainly meets some of the elements under the statute, 9.42 requires that this have happened during the nighttime, and this case happened at 2 PM, which is about as far away from the nighttime as one can get. Granted, innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz, but the law that he justifies his actions by is clearly against him on a critical point. The fact that a Texas state senator says that the law does not apply in this case only further demonstrates the law's intent. All this probably explains why in the original article posted, it mentions that "His attorney says Horn just feared for his life." The attorney probably already realizes the law won't apply here and is hoping that he can get Horn off on some sort of self-defense theory. But Horn's conversation with the dispatcher is pretty damning to that defense, so that probably won't work either. The lesson: wait until a nighttime burglary. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Jury nullification is a motherfucker, though.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Well, the jury can disagree with the statute if they want, but that just means it's a dead letter law, in which case the case defaults to the common law--and I'm pretty certain the jury can't override the common law murder rule.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
"Go Joe Horn! Go Joe Horn! Go Joe Horn!"
Looks like the people don't care 'bout them nigras, well not the black community at least. At first I thought I was just watching some NAACP publicity move, but it looks to be the black community there in Pasadena. Anyway, maybe Joe Horn won't be charged with any murder seeing how the [white] people got his back. I bet if he was even charged with murder, there would be such a huge backlash from the [white] people that they would have to overturn the ruling. Frankly, I support Horn and don't condemn his actions. I was speaking idiomatically. |
God... Why does EVERYTHING have to be a race issue? I'm actually with one of the protesters: This is a CRIMINAL issue. While I personally don't condone his straight-up vigilante actions, even if he IS charged with a crime I would hate to see this turn into a bitter race rivalry when it clearly is nowhere near that territory.
On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with their protest either so I kind of have to wonder why these people are claiming ever-so-matter-of-factly "we don't wanna hear anything he has to say!"... Maybe you should, lady. Perhaps he's NOT there to play the race card this time. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Regressing Since 1988 |
FELIPE NO |
Wasn't aware that differing opinion = idiot these days. On the other hand, I really do love how personally you're taking those who are pro-horn here. Serious business much? What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? #654: Braixen
Last edited by Tails; Dec 5, 2007 at 03:14 AM.
|
Regressing Since 1988 |
To quote an old history professor, "Son, everyone has opinions. Some opinions are wrong." But hey, I'm sorry; I didn't realize that a fundamental ignorance of the law which governs the land suddenly became trivial when you talked about it on the internet. My apologies for not putting in more content supporting my position when the previous four pages are filled with it.
As he didn't post any kind of reasoning behind his inane support of this killer (albeit one with a good heart!) I didn't feel compelled to respond with any of the information that had already been posted. But I'll bite. Toss me an infraction for trolling, Moderation, I earned it. Ashame blatant stupidity and ignorance don't incure infractions, but then we'd be missing so many wonderful posters. And it's spelled Frankie, dickwad. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Am I on course here? There's nowhere I can't reach. #654: Braixen |
Fuck you! ;_; I try to give someone a hard time and you RUIN IT. RUIN IT.
Taking you off my friends list. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. #654: Braixen |
I heard this on the local news last night and thought y'all would like a small update on this case. Here's video of the news report: Video
That same article mentions in passing, and this one mentions in more detail, the following:
I'd be very interested in hearing what that officer saw. I can't wait until this case goes to court. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Regressing Since 1988 |
I was speaking idiomatically. |