edgarblythe wrote:Whatever.
Is there some reason for your rudeness?
That may strike you as rudeness. It did not occur to me when I posted it. If I say whatever in a conversation, it does not get construed like that. I think the people online get so conditioned to everything being an argument, they begin to react to trvial statements as arguments or rudeness. But, I apologize that I said something that brought offense.
Thank you for that... and no worries. If there was no offense meant, then there is none taken. Have a good night.
Great jumpin off jesus palomino in a handbasket.
dadpad wrote:Joe Horn, mr nice guy from the burbs, really had no reason to have a gun.
Yes he did. He's an American. If he chooses to have a gun, that is a reason to go get a gun.
dadpad wrote:Was he a sporting shooter? probably not if he owned a shotty.
Shotguns aren't used for sport shooting?
dadpad wrote:This mind set that any person is entitled to own a gun "just in case" confounds me.
Why? What is wrong with freedom?
edgarblythe wrote:dlowan wrote:
It's stil;l murder by any reasonable law.
It certainly is. If you read closely you will see that Joe did not abide by even that laxly written law.
Texas law says quite clearly that you can shoot a fleeing thief to keep them from taking your neighbor's property. How did he not abide by the law?
Brand X wrote:I don't understand why this was not determined to be premeditated murder.
He said during the 911 call that he was going to kill them and he did.
Justified shooting isn't murder.
Well, that teaches those idiot thieves for being poorly armed and not doing a proper assessment of nearby threats.
Maybe when the next wave comes Mr. Joe will have a little more difficulty, kinda like a space invaders game from the eighties.
To be frank, if I was 60+ sitting inside bored out of my brains doing the daily crossword, I'd be itching for some action as well, I'm at the end of my tether anyway, YEEE HAAWWW!
oralloy wrote:Brand X wrote:I don't understand why this was not determined to be premeditated murder.
He said during the 911 call that he was going to kill them and he did.
Justified shooting isn't murder.
It seems they certainly have taken the murder quotient out of the Castle Doctrine there, in fact it's a license to kill. Unbelievable.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I think the issue here is whether stolen property is worth killing over. Texas says it is.
And what a sad indictment of the state that is..
Define "property".
While I probably wouldn't shoot you for stealing my neighbor's stuff, I would if I caught you on my property stealing mine, at least if you didn't immediately assume the position and stay there. Tough **** sherlock.
