As we all know, there's a lot of controversy regarding the right to bear arms...or perhaps you DON'T all know. for reference, see Wikipedia...or, you know, the Constitution. Second Amendment. It's the second door on your left right past the Declaration of Independence. You can also check out the NRA's website. They know all about firearms and one's right to bear them. They even have a splashy flashy website. oh, and apparently you can even donate a deer on the site. but the link doesn't connect to anything to do with deer so i'm omitting it for this blog.
ANYWAY there's gun control and right to bear arms controversy. What's new? Well...what's NEW is that on March 27, 2007 Texas Governor Rick Perry of Texas signed a bill into law that "states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force" (Dallas News). In layman's terms, this means that a private citizen may protect their home, car, or their workplace (which, of course, is not actually an employee's property so one must wonder where the line gets drawn. like...can you only use deadly force if someone attempts to rob your cubicle? and hey, what if someone DOES try to rob your cubicle. What if your most annoying worker intrudes on your workspace and steals a post-it...? can you use deadly force? According to the Dallas News article, this "castle doctrine" bill (named for the idea that a man's home is his castle--and his car is his steed???) "also provide[s] civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in any of the circumstances spelled out in the bill." Note: those circumstances require the building or car to be "occupied at the time for the deadly force provision to apply" and the killer must not be the instigator of the attack. Very interesting. Yes, it's all VERY interesting. But not as interesting as what follows now.
On November 17, a Texan by the name of Joe Horn (I call him a Texan because he is, in fact, from Texas and, thereby, affected by the aforementioned castle doctrine bill) shot and killed two men. But it's not like he, you know, walked up to them in a supermarket or anything. no no no. he felt threatened by these two men. they were burglarizing his neighbor's home. and not just any neighbor, but a neighbor with whom he didn't have a very close relationship. Yes, Mr. Horn shot and killed two men...with a shotgun...and, according to CBS they were both shot from less than 15 feet away...and all for a neighbor that he didn't really know well? Yes. Not only that, but according to CBS' documentation of the 911 call transcript, Mr. Horn argued with the dispatcher about whether he should go outside to stop them with force.
Now, I know what you're thinking: but wait! he wasn't defending his own property! Exactly. that seems to be the root of the complication. And it's not like he shot them in the legs to keep them from running. No, he shot them dead. But still, Hron "was not taken into custody after the shooting...a grand jury will decide if charges are to be filed." Why? The law never said 'your neighbor's property' it says YOUR property. the neighbor's house wasn't occupied by the person who did the killing. Doesn't that make him the instigator? doesn't that say "off to jail with you now!"
No, apparently it doesn't. The New York Times today created a community comment board for Readers' Comments and Responses to what people felt about Mr. Horn's actions. Definitely click on that NYTimes link and definitely read the responses. The majority of them make them pretty sick, not gonna lie. Comments like "If criminals were routinely shot ... instead of trying to protect them from their own folly ... there would be fewer crimin[als]" (S.A.W., Washington DC) and "Illegal aliens have no business in this country and they should be caught and deported at every chance. In the meantime, American homes and property are being burglarized by them, our medical services are overwhelmed by illegals with no remunerative compensation, our law enforcement can't possibly do enough, and on and on" (Dude, USA...yes, he called himself "DUDE")...quick comment on this, the names of the two men were spanish, but no where in the initial report did it say they were illegal aliens. now, that is possible that they were, but really this negative and poorly informed outlook on international inhabitants is pretty disgusting to hear coming from anyone. Oh and a personal favorite: "It's his life. He was born free. So it's his decision. If they didn't want to be shot then they should not have angered him. End of story." (Tatiana Covington, Tuscon AZ). Wait...if they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have ANGERED him??? what about if my roomate eats my cheese or my damn coworker steals my post-its or my sister steals a CD out of my car (note: I don't have a car)? Should I shoot them because I'm angry? According to 2/3 of those commenting on this situation, yes.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment