Quanell X humiliated, marginalized by large crowd in Pasadena

Many do. They think the guys he stopped are capable of killing just like those who burglarized and killed Sean Taylor. I do not expect them to be as trusting as you.

 

That may be an interesting question, but it's completely irrelevant. It's the D.A.'s decision to prosecute.

 

If it's self-defense, that's fine, to me.

But killing someone over property...particularly in an instance like this where the authorities tell you 13 times not to get involved...is a whole other story to me.

 

You do not know their intentions. If someone was in that home there is a good chance they would have killed them. They had to be stopped before they did it again. It is very defensive.

 

That's not how the law defines self-defense in these sorts of proceedings.

I saw a guy drinking at a bar. I'm guessing he drove there. I should probably kill him before he gets in his car and can kill someone else.

by the way...the first sentence in your post....ummmm...why do i know less of their intentions than you do? you know they're likely to kill???

 

I know what they could be, not what they are.

This is about intent. Those who intentionally invade our homes do not deserve our trust or the benefit of the doubt about their intentions. I will expect the worst.

 

I saw a dirty guy (looked homeless) wandering down my street a couple of nights ago. He stopped in front of my house and stared at it for several minutes. I didn't know his intentions. Would I have been justified in killing him? Had broken into my house, I might have gotten my shotgun out and confronted him. (I would probably have gotten a baseball bat out since I don't have any ammunition in the house.) But until he broke into my house or at least tried, he posed no threat to me. My imagination of his intentions wouldn't have warranted any response at all.

 

Illegal downloaders BEWARE!! You are stealing, and you know what happens to thieves?!?!

 

And that's different from me how, again??

Expect the worst all you want. That's fine. And if they invaded this man's home and he shot them out of fear for his life, I'd have no problem with that. But that's not remotely close to what happened here.

 

Yet people feel safer.

 

That's pure speculation. If we are getting speculative its more likely that the robbers had cased the house and chose a time they knew the owners wouldn't be there. I mean why rob a house in broad daylight?

 

Personally now that I know this law I feel less safer about visiting Houston. Not because I want to rob anyone but out of the fear that I could be shot on accident by a panicky neighbor overreacting.

 

Please. Show me the stats of people being hurt by citizens trying to stop crime compared to actual crime. Hold on, I found it. It is 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to .000000000000000001

 

I would like to see your source material for that statistic.

Anyway I don't know how long this law has been in affect but it only takes one incident to make a tragedy. Further as I mentioned earlier in the thread I know for a fact that there have been accidental shootings. Last year a 12 year old was killed in her own house in Minneapolis when she was hit by a bullet intended for someone outside of her house. The less reasons for people to fire guns the better.

 

I don't have statistics on people hurt by citizens trying to stop crime but I just remembered there was a situation a few years ago where someone was killed by someone thinking they were stopping a crime. I don't recall the names or where but perhaps someone else does and if I do I will look up a link. There was a case a few years ago where a homeowner shot a Japanese exchange student who had the wrong address and showed up at the person's house thinking it was a party.

Anyway your comparison is wrong because no one is saying we should allow crime to continue only that we should be far more careful in how we prevent crime. Your comparison would work if we were saying we either shoot criminals ourselves or we let crime go unchecked.

 

Can you read? Who's talking about "want to"? When it comes to logic and reason, you are hopeless.

 

If you have it in you to invade someones home, you have it in you to kill.

 

Go read up on bounty hunters and how often they **** up and target the wrong person.

Vigilante justice doesnt work, period.

 

Just like my mama once told me "dead men can't tell lies and can't testify against you in court." You have a right to defend yourself and your property. In Joe Horn's case, without knowing all the details of the case, I applaud the man for having the BALLS to sense a threat in his neighborhood. Why were the alleged burglars there? what time did the situation occur? All these matters are factors. If you take away common citizens' lawful right to protect themselves, and their neighborhoods, due to the lack in number of law enforcement officers to respond and apprehend suspects. You hear usually only on the local news about the ones that got caught. What about the ones that didn't?

Furthermore, if you hypothetically were Joe Horn and you noticed something unusual at a neighbors house what would you do?

You say call the cops. Ok, what if there had been a rash of robberies, burglaries in the neighborhood and the cops were not able to respond in time.

All I'm saying is let the facts come out in the case before saying "judge, jury, and executioner" crap, Quannel X!

Quannel X is a notorious glory hound and its just another opportunity to up his notoriety. It's not about race? Then, ask yourself this? If the races had been reversed in the case would Quannel X had his little "peace" march then? He would care less if a white man, woman or child was to get shot. He would be delighted in fact. Quannel X is contradictory and cannot even hide well his angst and disgust for white people. We're racists? Think again and don't buy into the Quannel X hype.

 

You know, you really shouldn't just make up facts to support your arguments.