I completely disagree with that sentiment, the reason you have jurors is to interpet the laws as they pertain to each case. I would not convict the "good citizen" who overeacted over the criminals who decided to rob someone. DD
This is a red herring: You don't have to feel sorry for the criminals to think Horn was in the wrong. Utter rubbish.
I'm with DaDa on this one. It's very difficult for me to feel much sympathy for the victims and it's hard for me to want to punish the guy who is trying to be a good friend/neighbor. On the other hand, you also do not want people going around waving guns all over the place anytime they suspect something out of the norm. I think he should probably be convicted but have a lenient sentence. What the definition of lenient is, I'm not entirely sure.
Are you kool with me putting on my black shirt with the skull on it and shooting criminals . . . . . . I mean . . I see someone selling drugs on the street. . . DRIVE BY!!! . . I mean . .they just criminals WHOO WOOO turn the Neighborhood watch into a POSSE!!!! Yea boy . . .no need to even call the cops anymore Just shoot 'em on site. . . . Rocket River Horn is a cold blooded murderer he wanted to kill someone . . .and he found his opportunity!
'Good Citizen' - someone who disobey's a direct order from a police man . . and goes kills 2 men Interesting definition Rocket River . . . amazing. . .when someone does something like go for their wallet or cellphone and get shot 41 times. . .well . .they should have just listened to the cops. . but to disobey the cops and kill people. . .well . .that is ok
Were these men armed? Did they pose a threat to Horn? I mean, they were shot IN THE BACK after all. They lost their lives over $2,000 - that's sad. People are most likely inclined to have sympathy for this guy because of his age, but it doesn't make what he did right. In fact, he's even admitted that it was wrong in that story.
But the 911 operator has more training on how to handle the situation than Joe Horn who shot two people in the back.
It has nothing to do with his age, it has everything to do with what he was trying to do versus what the thieves were trying to do. There is nothing that you can take from the thieves actions that can be construed as good. You can at least make the argument that Horn was trying to do something good. Was it misguided? Sure. Was it entirely right? No. He was not a cold blooded murderer as some have said and I'm sure that if he had it to over again, he would have stayed inside. That doesn't mean that you should ship him off to prison for the rest of his life. Like I said, I think he deserves to be convicted and I think he needs some sort of punishment. Maybe 6 months in jail? I don't know, I haven't put a ton of thought into what exactly I think is fair.
May you never be on a jury (again). Jurors like you help to break the system. If a "good citizen" breaks the law, they must suffer consequences of the law. This type of vigilante behavior must not be encouraged.
I disagree. Using common sense in the system isn't a terrible thing. There are plenty of cases that need a good dose of it.
well, they must have been real desperate for money to steal.. aren't drug dealers, rapists, murderers worse criminals? what kind of good does shooting two unarmed people in the back result in?
I never said that there are not worse criminals, that has nothing to do with it. He was trying to help his neighbors not get robbed even if he didn't go about it the right way.
Victims do not stand trial in this country, suspects do. I don't care if someone unlawfully takes the life of a child rapist, the law applies equally in its defense. That said, it seems to me there is a legitimate question of law in this case. As only a fan of the law and not a true student, my opinion is meaningless but I'll give it anyway. It seems that he is caught int he gray area of the law where what he did seems justified by the law but wrong none the less.
the neighbors were already robbed.. the cops have been dispatched and the thieves were already fleeing.. now, two men are dead..
I don't believe that laws are black and white, that is why we have trials, they are more than guidelines but are open to interpetation based upon each and every case. Of course you listen to the arguments on both sides, then you make the best choice you can as a juror and peer. If I was on Joe Horn's jury, I would not convict him of any major crime that would require time.....I might...MIGHT be willing to convict him of a lessor charge that results in probation. At the end of the day, the criminals made their choice and paid the ulitmate price. DD
