Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why? It becomes the shooter's word against a dead person. How would you prove the shooters thoughts were true or not true?
Why? It becomes the shooter's word against a dead person. How would you prove the shooters thoughts were true or not true? This is almost like hate crime legislation in a twisted sort of way. You can kill someone because of what you think.
Yes, if you think you're in danger.
Why? It becomes the shooter's word against a dead person. How would you prove the shooters thoughts were true or not true? This is almost like hate crime legislation in a twisted sort of way. You can kill someone because of what you think.
according to the law, he can't shoot any burglar unless it is night time....?
Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief, at night.
wasn't this broad daylight?
and how come the stories on this NEVER MENTIONED a detective on site when he shot them early on? no news reported such....?
this was a burglary, NOT EVEN A ROBBERY.....for goodness sakes!
i feel sorry for mr horn, but this should have gone to trial ACCORDING TO the 3 laws posted by Brian, he met none of those scenarios, with his testimony or his voice as witness, on tape....
if it went to trial, he could have plead temporary insanity....cuz he DEFINATELY had lost his mind, IF YOU LISTEN to the full tape....and he planned on killing them for committing the burglary. HE DID NOT even know THIS neighbor....he would have killed them SOONER if it had been the neighbor on his other side, who he did know......
so, if these were 2 white, American 18 year olds, WOULD Mr horn have not been in the very least tried for this possible vigilante crime?
care
We shall see. These new laws haven't been tested much in court. The way it is written in Florida you must only believe you are being threatened to take action. It's pretty easy to "believe" something when there aren't any witnesses.Typically you don't have to prove this. You apply a reasonable standard - not only does the person have to hold a belief subjectively, but it has to be determined to be objectively reasonable to hold the belief. It's not a matter of whatever someone thinks being the deciding factor.
Yes, if you think you're in danger.
We shall see. These new laws haven't been tested much in court. The way it is written in Florida you must only believe you are being threatened to take action. It's pretty easy to "believe" something when there aren't any witnesses.
IT does say at night, but that clause does not apply to the entire scenario.
No, that's not what I'm saying Rav....I'm saying that COPS were WITNESS to the SHOOTING. THey testified FOR him. Had their not been COPS/WITNESSES to testifiy for Horn...and the two dead guys were simply walking through his yard and not commiting any crime, Horn would be in Prison. What I'm saying is that the witnesses saved him....
Can you link me to what they testified? I haven't seen it. The two accounts I've read from Joe Horn have some discrepancies. And this cop that witnessed it...I can't even tell if that is true or not.
Then it works both ways. If someone yells ****** at a black person, the black person should be able to shoot no questions asked.
I don't think you are correct. We just passed a law that pertains to this subject. From what I understand, prosecutors are not prosecuting because it is felt some of these cases can get off under the new law...where in the past there would have to be a bit more evidence.Many laws have been phrased that way for many, many years, including common law rights to self defense, which is where these statutes come from. The belief has to be objectively reasonable.
No, I think you've got this one right. But people keep saying the cops testified on behalf of Horn.Aren't grand jury proceedings kept secret? I doubt there's a transcript available, unless they do things differently than I think.
If you happen to be smoking legally, no problem. If you aren't, who knows?
I don't think you are correct. We just passed a law that pertains to this subject. From what I understand, prosecutors are not prosecuting because it is felt some of these cases can get off under the new law...where in the past there would have to be a bit more evidence.
If you think any jurisdiction is going to apply a purely subjective standard to any self-defense laws, you're mistaken. If that were the case, a really paranoid guy who is afraid of people who look at him could shoot people under the law. When the courts go to interpret these laws they're going to look at legislative intent and common law precedents, and they're going to apply an objectively reasonable standard. No one is advocating that you can shoot people if you think you are in danger no matter how unreasonable your belief is.
