TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:If the threat is a threat because you intentionally put yourself into position to make the threat a threat, you have now become the threat.... . Wow...figure that one out...LOL.

If a woman gets dressed up and goes out to a dance club and is raped on the way home, maybe she made some tactical errors but it's disgusting to blame the victim.

THE CRIMINALS IS THE ONE PERSON ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CRIME.

boomerang wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:If the threat is a threat because you intentionally put yourself into position to make the threat a threat, you have now become the threat.... . Wow...figure that one out...LOL.

If a woman gets dressed up and goes out to a dance club and is raped on the way home, maybe she made some tactical errors but it's disgusting to blame the victim.

THE CRIMINALS IS THE ONE PERSON ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CRIME.

Good lord...that doesn't apply to this situation in any way, shape, form or fashion. Please don't even attempt to continue on with this line of silliness as I won't be responding to it and hope others will see the futility of giving silliness like this credibility by responding to it.

By the way...is there some way we could get you to stop playing games by quoting bits and pieces of posts to put them in a completely different context than what they were originally intended to mean?

Thanks...

I would like to state for the record that Joe Horn is obviously a better shot than Dick Cheney.

03Lightningrocks wrote:The usual thought process about shooting someone in the back is that it usually means they are trying to get away from you...which means they were no longer a threat. I will say this...I don't believe for one minute these two BG's charged a guy holding a shotgun on them. I believe they were trying to run away. I believe one tried to run to the left and go down the side of the house and the other tried to run straight away from Joe Horn.

The problem is that what you have chosen to believe is contradicted by the testimony of the only two living eye witnesses: Horn and the plainclothes detective who was the first responder. One can, of course, discount Horn's testimony for obvious reasons. But you still have the detective's account to contend with. That is, unless your beliefs are arrived at simply because they are what you want to believe.

DParker wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:The usual thought process about shooting someone in the back is that it usually means they are trying to get away from you...which means they were no longer a threat. I will say this...I don't believe for one minute these two BG's charged a guy holding a shotgun on them. I believe they were trying to run away. I believe one tried to run to the left and go down the side of the house and the other tried to run straight away from Joe Horn.

The problem is that what you have chosen to believe is contradicted by the testimony of the only two living eye witnesses: Horn and the plainclothes detective who was the first responder. One can, of course, discount Horn's testimony for obvious reasons. But you still have the detective's account to contend with. That is, unless your beliefs are arrived at simply because they are what you want to believe.

My beliefs are arrived at the same way yours are. By how I see the evidence. Maybe your beliefs are simply because they are what you want to believe, since you brought this possibility up first. I did not remember reading that an officer actually watched as Joe Horn fired at these guys. In a legal case...this should be enough for a verdict of self defense. I still don't think Joe Horn should test his luck on this.

There is a new thread on Joe Horn's No-Bill here http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... &sk=t&sd=a. In the interest of not having double threads going, I have locked this one and we can continue to post in the other one.

Thanks!