40FIVER wrote:
Those who carry for only selfish reasons (me and mine), have lost that ideal that has made America so great.
I'm sure others will disagree,
Not really, why is it selfish? Those who carry to protect others should join the Academy and become an outstanding and upright Police Officer. Most departments are short staffed and you will have all the RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES as such.
This country was found on watching out for your neighbor. There is not enough spots for police officers where I live plus Do you know the ratio how many people to one police there is? That is why the citizens should watch out for each other.
Think of it this way. What would you want done if you were in someone else's shoes. YOu can say well I would always have my gun. YOu know stuff can happen like it jamming or you do not have a clear safe shot. Or here is another one it is your 18 year old daughter and she is not allowed to carry and she is working at a convience store that got robbed. How would you feel if there was someone there who could have done something and didn't.
I watch out for my nieghbors and they watch out for me. We can not really on a police department who has two or three officers on at a time to respond to 15,000 people. They are not GOD and they can not be everywhere every minute of the day.
We as CHLers just have to make good choice and deal with the consiquences of our actions.
Last edited by TxBlonde on Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Unless there's immunity like what cops have, being selfish is just a way to adapt what this sheep society has become.
Since the majority of the people don't want the good Samaritan to help/intervene, why bother? All the laws, media, and people are seriously discouraging, so to hell with them. Let them suffer since they choose to suffer.
One side of me really want to follow this logic; the other side me probably wouldn't let me sleep if I could do something to help - that's just something called conscience I guess, if any.
Stupid wrote:Unless there's immunity like what cops have, being selfish is just a way to adapt what this sheep society has become.
Sorry, but we seem to have a flaw in logic here. Cops not only have no immunity that you do not have, but they have even more potential charges if they do something wrong. Many court cases and laws restricting the use of force or deadly force only apply to police officers. After all, you do not have to worry about federal civil rights charges just because the feds (or some political group) don't like the original jury/grand jury decision.
TxBlonde wrote:What if that money they stole was for something very important like a needed surgery. If they had gotten away how would of that homeowner been able to prove he even had the money.
Even if he could prove it (time-stamped photos, notorized list of bills by serial number, etc.), it wouldn't matter: homeowner's insurance does not cover stolen cash.
dihappy wrote:We each weigh the risks and respond accordingly.
I agree with this statement because there is no blanket requirement that a CHL must help/protect someone just because you have a gun. There is a concept that many people have a hard time seeing; but if every homeless person asks you for "help" are you going to just give your money? Do you just think that giving money is the only way you can help? If you give them advice, offer a job, direct them to a shelter, is that HELPING??
That concept is the same for me when it comes to a criminal incident. Would you help that same person without a gun? If someone chose to "help" by calling 911, why should they be considered just standing by?
I know the word "sheeple" is used alot on this site, but we should take this discussion back to the beginning. Everyone has the RKBA by 2A, and same with TX CHL. If you choose to do something that cause this right to be denied, then that is your problem. You see people come on here all time asking about if a criminal charge in the past disqualifies them. So if more people legally carried a firearm for the protection of themselves and family, then we would not have to worry about having to protect a stranger. And those that chose not to carry a firearm, then that is their choice and problem too. But CHL should not be exposed to risks because of some people's choices.
If you don't stand for something, then you will fall for anything.
40FIVER wrote:
Those who carry for only selfish reasons (me and mine), have lost that ideal that has made America so great.
I'm sure others will disagree,
Not really, why is it selfish? Those who carry to protect others should join the Academy and become an outstanding and upright Police Officer. Most departments are short staffed and you will have all the RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES as such.
This country was found on watching out for your neighbor. There is not enough spots for police officers where I live plus Do you know the ratio how many people to one police there is? That is why the citizens should watch out for each other.
Think of it this way. What would you want done if you were in someone else's shoes. YOu can say well I would always have my gun. YOu know stuff can happen like it jamming or you do not have a clear safe shot. Or here is another one it is your 18 year old daughter and she is not allowed to carry and she is working at a convience store that got robbed. How would you feel if there was someone there who could have done something and didn't.
I watch out for my nieghbors and they watch out for me. We can not really on a police department who has two or three officers on at a time to respond to 15,000 people. They are not GOD and they can not be everywhere every minute of the day.
We as CHLers just have to make good choice and deal with the consiquences of our actions.
TxBlonde, just to be clear, I did not make the last statement you attribute to me in your post.
Also, you certainly have to use good judgement when choosing to intervene in a situation concerning other people (non family members). However, I think some are no brainers: women being mugged in mall parking lot, female clerk behind the counter at the stop & rob are some examples.
Those situations that are not clear in what is happening certainly require some serious thought before helping out. The mind is a much more powerful tool than the gun.
BTW, I did try to become an LEO in my younger days, but I couldn't pass any agency's physical (an abnormality of the spine that I was born with).
I guess that makes me free from any moral obligation to help my neighbor as I would want him/her to help me? I don't think so. I was able to serve with the New Mexico Mounted Police (a type of reserve force for the NM state police) when I lived out there.
40FIVER wrote:Those who carry for only selfish reasons (me and mine), have lost that ideal that has made America so great.
I'm one who would disagree with you. In most situations, when I am out and about there are one or more children in tow - the primary reason I carry a sidearm. Me getting shot trying to stop a gas station robbery that does not present a direct threat to their safety does not help them.
That said, if somebody does present a direct threat to "me and mine" then my only purpose for existing at that moment is to stop the threat.
40FIVER wrote:Those who carry for only selfish reasons (me and mine), have lost that ideal that has made America so great.
I'm one who would disagree with you. In most situations, when I am out and about there are one or more children in tow - the primary reason I carry a sidearm. Me getting shot trying to stop a gas station robbery that does not present a direct threat to their safety does not help them.
That said, if somebody does present a direct threat to "me and mine" then my only purpose for existing at that moment is to stop the threat.
I never said that you should always intervene, no matter what the circumstances. Certainly, the safety of your own family is of utmost importance. Why introduce a scenario where you should clearly protect your family first? My other posts have made that very clear.
What if your family isn't with you, what is your excuse then? There are not enough excuses in this world that will cover up pure selfishness and disregard for helping others when you have the power to do so.
40FIVER wrote:What if your family isn't with you, what is your excuse then? There are not enough excuses in this world that will cover up pure selfishness and disregard for helping others when you have the power to do so.
Just because a person does not go charging into a situation does not mean they are seflish. I tend to approach life with much skepticism and have learned to believe only a fraction of what I see and even less of what I hear. Sometimes it is better to be a good witness and make contact with the proper authorities.
That said, there are certain rare situations that one has no choice but to dive headlong into the fray (i.e. Luby's in Waco).
My family is always with me. Perhaps not physically, but my actions will direclty impact their lives regardless. Those actions must be weighed against too questions: is this in their best interest and is this the moral/right course of action. Those two questions may come into direct conflict. Which one takes precedence will be determined by the situation.
Regarding selfishness versus altruism, this is not a black-and-white issue.
I am not going to risk my life and fortune to recover $49 for a convenience store, and I am not going to take homeless drug addicts into my home, although we have plenty of room and food is cheap.
I do make charitable contributions (definitely not as much as I could if I dispensed with recreational activities), and I would intervene in some situations.
Each situation has unique circumstances and has to be judged accordingly.
Lodge2004 wrote:That said, there are certain rare situations that one has no choice but to dive headlong into the fray (i.e. Luby's in Waco).
Hey Lodge2004,
I understand your stance and your statement sums up what I learned and hold true as my justification for using deadly force. The suspect in his criminal actions HAS LEFT ME NO OTHER CHOICE. PERIOD. If I am NOT in imminent danger, then I HAVE PLENTY OF CHOICES other than using deadly force. This justification can be applied to any scenario.
Store robbery in progress with me inside, then firearm is coming out.
Store robbery in progress across the street and I'm outside, then cellphone is coming out.
If you don't stand for something, then you will fall for anything.
American Hero Joe Horn: Pasadena Shootings Justifiable and Praiseworthy
Will Malven
11/16/2007
Friday afternoon, the 14th of November, 2007, 61 year old grandfather Joe Horn was working in his home when he heard glass breaking at his next door neighbor’s house. He investigated the sound and saw two men in the act of breaking into and then entering his neighbor's house. What happened next was a textbook example of how every American citizen should behave.
When Mr. Horn saw the two men breaking into his neighbor's house, he called 911 to alert the police. Over the next six or seven minutes, he conversed with the 911 operator as he waited for police to arrive. Mr. Horn was outraged at this act of brazen criminal behavior and rightfully so, would that every law-abiding citizen felt such outrage when a crime is being committed. Mr. Horn was absolutely determined that he was not going to allow these two criminals to escape and he told the 911 operator of his intention.
Having waited for the police to arrive, Mr. Horn then did what I would hope every citizen would do, he acted to defend his neighbor's property and very possibly his own. When he witnessed the perpetrators leaving the crime scene and it became apparent that the police would not arrive in time, Joe Horn grabbed up a pump shotgun and went outside to stop them and hold them for the police. He warned them not to move. They moved and he shot them.
Here is the Houston Chronicle’s article about the shooting:
Nov. 15, 2007, 9:58PM
Shooting of theft suspects may test self-defense law
By RUTH RENDON and PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
In a case legal experts say may "stretch the limits" of the state's self-defense laws*, a Pasadena man shot and killed two suspected burglars during a confrontation as they attempted to flee his neighbor's property Wednesday afternoon.
In the minutes before the fatal shootings, Pasadena police said the man called 911 and reported that he had heard glass breaking next door and saw two men entering the home through a window. Still on the phone with police, the man, believed to be in his 70s, saw the suspects leaving from the back of the home.
"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way.'
"Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."
Our forefathers believed that every citizen capable of handling and using a firearm could and should possess one. They also believed that it was the duty of every citizen to protect themselves and their communities. They expected men to intervene to prevent these crimes rather than cowering helplessly waiting for the police to arrive and watching helplessly as the criminals make good their escape because the police are can’t get there.
Any society so cowed by their government that they are afraid to defend themselves, their property, and their neighborhood is no longer a free society. In this case these criminals were stopped by a man who refused to allow himself and his neighbor to become victims. They encountered a man who refused to live in a completely lawless society. We should all be angry that criminals feel perfectly safe in committing a crime like this. As Americans, we should not be forced to live in fear because some people don't respect the property of others.
Our population is increasing at an alarming rate, due in large part to a massive influx of people (illegal aliens) who feel no compunction at violating our nation’s laws to enter our country. If one uses the logic of Rudy Giuliani’s “broken window theory,� by looking the other way as we have been doing for decades as these law breakers violate the integrity of our borders, we are encouraging criminal behavior of a more serious nature.
The fact is that police forces across the nation are increasingly undermanned, over worked, and underpaid. It is apparent for all who will see that American citizens must begin to depend more upon their neighbors for security than on the police. The average response time in Houston to a “Priority One� (life threatening ) emergency call is now in excess of five minutes. This, as reported by Channel Two News:
Local 2 Investigates analyzed three years worth of police response times, breaking down Houston neighborhood by neighborhood, we discovered more and more parts of the city are waiting longer than five minutes for police to respond to these life-threatening, "priority one" calls.
"What I hear from officers is we are short and could we get some help out here," outgoing Houston Police Officers’ Union president Hans Marticiuc said.
In 2004, police were taking longer than 5 minutes to respond to a third of Houston's neighborhoods. Two years later it was 43%. Through the first quarter of this year it was half the city.
"Any given shift you probably don't have more than 200 to 250 officers out on the street," Marticiuc said.
"For the entire city?" Arnold asked.
"Uh, huh," Marticiuc said.
Ironically that news story was published just nine days prior to this shooting. Since “a burglary in progress� is not considered a life threatening call under ordinary circumstances, it is a safe bet that, short of Mr. Horn making his intention to intervene clear to the dispatcher, the police would have arrived 5-10 minutes or more after the criminals had left the crime scene and were well out of the neighborhood.
Every action Mr. Horn took was textbook citizenship. Citizenship is not a state of being; it is a state of action. Citizens vote in elections, serve on juries, and help their neighbors when asked. Real citizens care enough about their communities to be willing to risk their lives to make sure their neighborhoods are safe for their children, their neighbor's children, the elderly, and all of those who are incapable of protecting themselves. Real citizens do not sit and let bad things happen out of fear of injury or legal action.
Our society is slowly devolving to a point where our justice system is more concerned with the rights of criminals than it is with the rights of law abiding citizens. Our judges appear to care more about how our criminal population is being treated than the fact that they are in prison for a committing criminal acts against the people those judges are elected to protect. Those to whom we have entrusted our domestic order and tranquility have become advocates of chaos rather than enforcers of order. Why should the American people be forced to endure living in a lawless society because the lawyers of the ACLU and a bunch of Leftist Judges believe that criminals’ rights supersede the rights of law-abiding citizens to be secure in their neighborhoods and homes?
What happened on Wednesday was both heroic and tragic. Mr. Horn’s actions were heroic. It was the courageous thing to do and it was the right thing to do. That these two men had to die is tragic, but their deaths were of their own choosing.
The criminals Dejesus and Ortiz were solely responsible for their own deaths. Mr. Horn was not looking for someone to shoot that day; he was minding his own business. It was the two perpetrators who were looking for trouble and unfortunately for their families, they found more trouble than they bargained for. We must never allow ourselves to forget, DeJesus and Ortiz were criminals and were caught in the act of committing a crime. Had they surrendered to Mr. Horn rather than ignore him, they would be alive today. Had they not been intent on breaking the law, they would be alive today.
Our Founding Fathers believed passionately in every man’s right to own and protect his property as well as his person by any appropriate means. They also believed in the right of people to protect their communities. That is precisely what Mr. Joe Horn did when he confronted Ortiz and DeJesus. The survival of our Republic depends on the citizens’ right to do so.
Our society has blessed us with lives of abundance and liberty due, in main part, to the laws we have passed which define how we are supposed to relate to each other. Those blessings also derive from the rights and liberties we claim as our inheritance from our "Creator" and from the traditions and laws handed down to us by our forefathers. Our freedoms and liberties have been bought and paid for many times over by the blood of our forefathers and our fellow citizens and to the extent that we allow our government to usurp those freedoms and liberties, we dishonor those who have gone before us.
Criminals should be afraid to commit crimes. They should live in terror that every time they go out to commit a crime, they will encounter a man like Joe Horn. When criminals are more afraid of committing a crime than they are in gaining from their brazenness, then crimes decrease. It has been proven time and again; the more likely it is that criminals believe that they will encounter a homeowner armed with a firearm; the less likely they are to attempt to enter that house. That is why those cities and states in which they have passed the most draconian gun laws have the highest violent crime rates and those which have enacted concealed carry laws and the castle doctrine, have the lowest violent crime rates.
The reaction from those on the Left was easily predictable. They are immediately more concerned with the deaths of two felons than they are with the fact that they were caught committing a crime. Once more we are shown an object lesson that Liberals are incapable of comprehending human nature. It is the same people who advocate tighter restrictions on gun ownership, who advocate an international policy of appeasement over confrontation. Once more we are shown why allowing Liberals to govern our society is dangerous for our citizenry.
When a society becomes so afraid that it surrenders its citizens’ rights to do exactly what Joe Horn did; when a society allows itself to be disarmed by its government and police are the only people in that society who are allowed to possess firearms, it is precisely at that moment that a free society becomes a “police state.�
Mr. Horn is not happy that he was forced to kill those two men. Their deaths will haunt him for a long time, but he should never doubt that what he did was right and justified. And as for those in our society who condemn him, they are wrong and unjustified in their criticism. Until they find themselves in the same situation and are forced to make the same decisions, perhaps they should withhold their judgment.
I don’t know if Messrs. Ortiz and DeJesus deserved to die for their crime, but once they made the decision to cross the line from citizen to criminal, once they chose to ignore Mr. Horn’s order to stop, they became responsible for their own fates.
I for one will pray for Mr. Horn, that he can find some solace in the fact that what he did was the right thing to do. It was and is what every good citizen should be prepared to do. He is a hero in the greatest traditions of our Founding Fathers.
