Eyas wrote:The Joe Horn incident is back in the news a lot lately.  With all of the drive-by's condemning his vigilantism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a fantastical journey with me.

Suspend reality, and allow yourself to embrace a hypothetical.

Two men (undescribed) are witnessed carrying belongings from a vacant home which is not theirs.  These are not their belongings.  It is clear to any witness, that these men are burglarizing a house.

Now, imagine a police officer witnesses this burglary and recognizes it for what it is.

The police officer confronts the burglars, pointing his weapon at them and instructing them to "Freeze".
Rather than "freezing", the burglars charge toward the police officer.

It is unknown whether these particular burglars are armed.  It is unknown whether these particular burglars are dangerous. What IS known is that they are criminals, and that many (most) burglars are both armed and dangerous.

It is also unknown whether the burglars - in charging toward the officer - are simply trying to flee, or whether they intend to attack the officer.  Running towards the officer in an attempt to flee is a bit of a stretch, even in a hypothetical.

Would the officer be justified in firing at these burglars?  

If, at the last minute, a burglar turned - such that the shot fired by the officer hit the burglar in the back - would this make the officer's action less justified?  In their run towards the officer in an attempt to escape they turned around completely or ran over the officer?? Silly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I present this hypothetical simply to break-down the Joe Horn situation into it's simplest (least objectionable) form.

Now, when/where there is NO police presence.  In fact, when 20 minutes have passed since police were first
contacted. Is a law-abiding citizen not OBLIGATED to take the place of the police?  Whether the house be his, his neighbor's, or a complete stranger's -- EVERY law-abiding citizen is morally (albeit not legally) obligated to function as police, in the absence of actual police.

Please, forget discussions of "citizen's arrests".  Forget the LAW entirely.

Isn't this RIGHT?

"Right", not in the sense of "correct"; and certainly not in the sense of "legal" -- forget all of that.  Isn't it RIGHT?  Morally right.  Socially RIGHT. Functionally RIGHT.
An affirmative duty is where an individual is required, by law, to take a specific action.  In the typical example, where you stand on a dock, and witness a child 30 ft away drowning -- you are under no LEGAL obligation to save that child.  That is, you cannot be charged with a crime for NOT saving the child.

Of course, as a human being, you would absolutely be MORALLY obligated to save the child.

Generally speaking, there are no affirmative duties.  Nor should there be any affirmative duties.

However, the outrage of certain people (primarily on the LEFT) over the case of Joe Horn, implies that the OPPOSITE of an affirmative duty be imposed.  That is, that one who (by virtue of his moral obligation) dives off the dock to save the child should be criminalized, penalized, and castigated.

Again, Black is White, Up is Down, Morality is Immoral, Justice is Unjust.  Blah, blah, blah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As many of you know, I am an atheist.  But, in a world like this; a little Armageddon might be welcome.  Yeah, a little smiting of the unrighteous would suit me fine.

In the words of Homer J. Simpson: "Oh Lord, show me who to smite and they shall be smoten!!!"

bedbug wrote:Nor will the criminals break into another home, taking what one has worked for and earned. A cold-hearted view? Sure. But, I'm not one to shed tears over law breakers who succumb to the consequences of their actions. No one forced those two men into a life of crime. They chose it.

And, to make sure the legal issue is clearly understood. The Texas Castle Law gives citizens the legal right to use deadly force to defend private property. Mr. Horn is also protected from civil liability. Good job Texas!

the Yeti wrote:

bedbug wrote:Nor will the criminals break into another home, taking what one has worked for and earned. A cold-hearted view? Sure. But, I'm not one to shed tears over law breakers who succumb to the consequences of their actions. No one forced those two men into a life of crime. They chose it.

And, to make sure the legal issue is clearly understood. The Texas Castle Law gives citizens the legal right to use deadly force to defend private property. Mr. Horn is also protected from civil liability. Good job Texas!

I certainly will not lose sleep over the deaths of the two crimminals, but the cercumstances were a little harsh for robbing a house. death penalty.  But that's his demon  he will have to live with.  I'm thinking he is not going to be invited to the next block party.  they will be calling him crazy joe and he will be a shut in, in a few years.

jokeness wrote:

the Yeti wrote:

bedbug wrote:Nor will the criminals break into another home, taking what one has worked for and earned. A cold-hearted view? Sure. But, I'm not one to shed tears over law breakers who succumb to the consequences of their actions. No one forced those two men into a life of crime. They chose it.

And, to make sure the legal issue is clearly understood. The Texas Castle Law gives citizens the legal right to use deadly force to defend private property. Mr. Horn is also protected from civil liability. Good job Texas!

I certainly will not lose sleep over the deaths of the two crimminals, but the cercumstances were a little harsh for robbing a house. death penalty.  But that's his demon  he will have to live with.  I'm thinking he is not going to be invited to the next block party.  they will be calling him crazy joe and he will be a shut in, in a few years.

Not if he has neighbors like Bedbug and myself.

the Yeti wrote:The three of you can be shut in's together. LOL

jokeness wrote:

the Yeti wrote:The three of you can be shut in's together. LOL

You mean we'll be shut ins just like you?  No thanks.  "LOL"

jokeness wrote:

the Yeti wrote:

bedbug wrote:Nor will the criminals break into another home, taking what one has worked for and earned. A cold-hearted view? Sure. But, I'm not one to shed tears over law breakers who succumb to the consequences of their actions. No one forced those two men into a life of crime. They chose it.

And, to make sure the legal issue is clearly understood. The Texas Castle Law gives citizens the legal right to use deadly force to defend private property. Mr. Horn is also protected from civil liability. Good job Texas!

I certainly will not lose sleep over the deaths of the two crimminals, but the cercumstances were a little harsh for robbing a house. death penalty.  But that's his demon  he will have to live with.  I'm thinking he is not going to be invited to the next block party.  they will be calling him crazy joe and he will be a shut in, in a few years.

Not if he has neighbors like Bedbug and myself.

Eyas wrote:
He's already widely considered a hero, both inside and outside Texas.