EvilPolock-

If you can't understand it my way from the baseball example, then you're retarded. Case closed.

Redlight-

If you were watching baseball and a guy hit a home run, and someone said, "wow, if that's not a home run, then there's no such thing as a home run," would you not take that to mean that the hit you just saw was the most ultimate and severe example of a home run ever?

Oh wait, you're gay. Let me put it this way: If a guy fucked you in the ass really hard, and afterwards you said, "wow, if that isn't an ass-fucking, then there's no such thing as an ass-fucking," would you not be expressing the fact that you were just ass-fucked in the most ultimate and extremely hardcore way?

"They can take my car antenna - when they pry it from my cold, dead hands."

Buffalo Heston

"but they have certainly set the precedence by this case now."

Again, you don't know anything. Legal precedent is not set by grand juries or even circuit courts. It has to get to the appellate level for the decision to be binding on anyone else.

Speaking of changing the subject, there goes the troll talking about law school. Apparently people are only allowed to go to Harvard and Yale in Montecore's world. I never said I went to a great law school, you fucking idiot.

"But if you want to attribute whatever some individual does to "the left," two can play at that game."

Wow. How intimidating.

Redlightrobot-

Hitchens said "if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture." This implies that he has experienced the most painful and depraved infliction of suffering possible in the universe, and if that particular infliction of pain is not "torture," then torture doesn't even exist.

Nobody has to be a lawyer to gather that meaning from what he said. It's clear to anyone with a brain. The rest of your post wasn't worth reading.

"People like Joe, who take the shit on this site seriously enough to "want to explode" crack me up. What the fuck? Get a real life, with real people in it, and maybe that won't happen to you anymore. Fucking pathetic."

And dumbshits like Montecore who think that just because someone is shocked by the amount of stupidity on the internet means they have no real friends, are fucking morons. Nothing more to say about that.

So you disagree with the idea of a grand jury - that's different than saying whether or not someone broke the law. Grand juries are there to determine whether there is enough evidence to go to trial.

It's been said that prosecutors have so much influence over grand juries they could get them to indict a ham sandwich. I'm assuming they could just as easily get them not to indict someone.

There's an intersection near my work where you can see three Starbucks' within a block of each other. I suppose there'll only be two now.

101-

I don't come to the site more than once a week anymore, I used to want to explode when I read how much stupid shit people post here. It's a little better now.

"It is not simulated drowning...can't you even read?"

Technically, the definition of drown is "To kill by submerging and suffocating in water or another liquid." When you are waterboarded you are not "submerged," so you are not drowning.

So you might say that Hitchens underwent "simulated simulated drowning."

"This man obviously committed manslaughter by its very definition. Twice. It was recorded that he even INTENDED to do so. The jury elected to NOT prosecute. That does not mean he did not break any law."

Again, you're wrong. You can commit the exact crime down to every last word in that crime's definition - and if you have a valid defense, you walk. In Texas, protecting the property of a third person is a valid defense to murder. You obviously don't like that, and I don't either. But to claim that he broke the law is simply incorrect.

Donnerboy-

It is not manslaughter until he is convicted in a court of law, of manslaughter. Just like terrorists are not "for sure" the guy who blew anything up until they are given a hearing.

Just because you think Joe Horn's conduct conforms to the definition of "manslaughter" doesn't mean that Joe Horn did commit manslaughter. And if I'm not mistaken, the statutes I posted yesterday are affirmative defenses - meaning that even if what he did fits the textbook definition of manslaughter, he can get away with it under the law - because he has a valid defense that was created by the legislature.

"no Joe.. they would say that was Torture too. Both are illegal."

Except Hitchens said "if waterboarding isn't torture, then there's no such thing as torture" - implying that waterboarding is the worst kind of torture.

And anyone who has had their fingernails ripped off or a lighter held to their eyeball would disagree with him. Hitchens just thinks he's a hardass for going through some of the easiest torture of all time. And he even knew the whole time that nobody would let him die.

"He obviously Killed 2 humans! He admits it! He shot them in the back. He is recorded saying he INTENDED to do so.

Killing Humans is pretty much against the law. (except in TEXAS?)"

Are you still talking about this? The Texas statutes clearly indicate that one can use deadly force to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes it necessary to do so. Apparently the grand jury thought his conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.

The Texas State Legislature is the reason Joe Horn is not in jail.

"if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."

While waterboarding may very well be "torture," I think anyone who has had their fingernails pulled off or a lighter held up to their eyeballs would probably disagree with this statement.

I wonder if all the liberals claiming this man "broke the law," when he clearly was not convicted in a court of law, would say the same thing about a terrorist who was no-billed by a grand jury.

Is this why black people have so many kids?

"Chicago is a shit hole. Attending functions at the McCormick Center has to be the closest thing to hell."

This coming from a guy whose only experience in Chicago is probably McCormick Place and a few shitty tourist trap restaurants. Despite the absurd taxes in Chicago, it's an outstanding place to live (nobody who lives here goes near dumps like McCormick Place, Navy Pier or Michigan Avenue).

Danni-

There is no need for you to defend Obama from a political or policy-related standpoint. You've already made it clear that you plan on voting for him simply because he was nominated by the Democrat party. That is all that ever needed to happen for him to earn your vote, and nothing (including contributions from Wall Street) is going to change that. No need to defend his actions - you don't even need to pretend to agree with them. Although it probably makes you feel better about your vapid participation in our democracy.

"I'm in bed. I hear someone entering my house. I pull my gun, point it a the door to the bedroom and wait silently. When the intruder enters my bedroom -- BANG! He's dead."

Turns out it's a family member. Whoops!

So basically, it looks like according to Texas law, as long as you reasonably believe that a person is stealing another person's property, (9.43) and you reasonably believe that deadly force is required to immediately stop them from trespassing and/or stealing (9.41), you are justified in shooting them in the back.

I still don't think the grand jury should have completely cleared him as I believe a question remained as to whether this guy's beliefs were reasonable. However, the statute certainly gives the grand jury a lot more wiggle room than I ever thought they had.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I'll be posting a few statutes. It appears that perhaps the grand jury isn't the one to blame here, but the Texas legislature for passing laws that appear to exonerate Mr. Horn.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

I don't mind seeing criminals get shot. I do, however, think it's stupid for the guy not to be in trouble for it. He got himself all riled up and the evidence is right there in the 911 call. Shooting people in the back is not defense of any property. It's called vigilantism and senility. On the other hand, I'd expect a grand jury full of trigger-happy Texans to ignore the laws themselves and simply let the guy off because they liked the result of his illegal conduct. Oh well. Won't be moving down there anytime soon.

Damn stuff slides down soooo goood. I may have to get Me a whole box today and chow down.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr

Vomit flag. Do you mix it with anything?

Danni-

My guess is the auto dealership lobbied the county board (i.e. bribed them) enough to get an exemption. Apparently the furniture and appliance stores aren't making enough money to get enough of a bribe together.

"Why are dumbfucks buying stuff in Chicago? Ever heard of the internet?"

Many internet retailers are now charging sales tax. In addition, for most larger items (furniture, appliances) whatever you might save in taxes is more than offset by shipping costs.

"How about a drive to another county?"

Many people in Chicago use public transit. You know - that thing liberals claim to love - except now you're advocating driving around to avoid taxes. On top of that the drive to another county for some could takes as much as an hour each way - and with gas costing what it does, you might not save anything.

Are you actually this stupid?

"The retired general Wesley Clark said McCain had not "held executive responsibility" and had not commanded troops in wartime."

Has Obama?

The fact that Obama has tried to distance himself from this statement is pathetic. There is no way that people so close to a campaign rnu free and say whatever they want. This was planned - Obama didn't have to say it himself, but the message gets out there. On top of it he gets to look like the good guy by pretending to respect McCain.

With the way government is run in Illinois, I can only see this going higher. I'm estimating 12% by 2012.

"Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer were the majority. Stevens wrote the majority opinion with an additional opinion by Kennedy.

O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

Seems sorta mixed to me."

How is that "mixed?" Do you pay attention to anything?

Did he at least get his hat back?

Seems like a good thread for this gem:

I can set my own fractures.
I have stiched my own wounds since I was a child.
I pull my own teeth. Regularly file others.
Knew I had cancer 2 years before any doctor(pain meds).
If I am injured to the point of death, there are explicit demands to not use life saving measures, including blood transfusions. At least 7 scull fractures. Double shattered mandable in a bar fight(very painful). 2 heart attacks. Tossed from a moving vehicle twice. Run over by a car or truck 2 times. Whooping cough, measels, mumps(8-9 times),pox. survived a 5.5 grain dose of methaqualone sulphate.
I work 7 days a week, on an average of 4 hrs. sleep a night. I work in -20 to 120 f, year round.
I dont wear watches, because they quit working in a matter of seconds, and are non-repairable. I dont wear any jewelry, as they leave burn marks on my body, if worn more than a few minutes. Most electronic equipment goes berserck when I am present. I can knock a grown man to the ground( static charge)just by shaking his hand. I dont shake many hands.
I stand 5'8" tall, weight of 205, a 31 inch waist, 48-18 shirt. I eat at least 10000 calories, plus 1 pound of chocolate, every day, for at least the last 25-30 years.
I scare doctors.

Posted by gitmboy at 2007-05-02 02:58 PM

43 years would be fine if it ever meant 43 years. I'll probably see him about 15 years from now buying a 30-pack.