Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[Care4all]

IT IS NOT OKAY TO KILL A CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST, because it is considered cruel and unusual punishment for Christ's sake people.....

How does killing for a simple burglary warrent a suspects death, without even a trial/ Mr Horn being judge jury and convictioner along with executioner fit in to this picture?

Mr Horn was not threatened, at least when you listen to the tape and the three shotgun shots....YES SHOTGUN shots, they are immediate and consecutive.....

and IF IT IS TRUE, that one of the suspects moved towards him slightly before turning away to run, (there is NOTHING that i have read that even says one man charged him)but lets say that one of the men moved towards him, mr horn did not shoot him when he was moving towards him, he shot him when the man ran away....IN THE BACK.

AND ALSO, what gave Mr Horn the right to shoot the other man in the back, to kill, when he never charged mr horn at all?

care

 

[Steerpike]

No, I think you've got this one right. But people keep saying the cops testified on behalf of Horn.

Maybe it is known that they testified, but not specifically what they said? I don't know.

 

[Ravi]

Only if he yells "******' while running towards him with a knife or any other type of weapon. Or simply running towards him while yelling it...if you feel threatened physically you can shoot. If the guy is crawling out of your window with your TV yelling "******" you can shoot him dead...in Texas anyway. But, you better damn well have some witness or hope that the evidence proves your story. If it's discovered that there was no forced entry anywhere, then you may have a problem.

Our law is a bit different from yours. I'll have to research it, but my understanding of it is you may protect yourself, you are not required to back down. So if someone calls you ******, it isn't a stretch to imagine the one being called that feels threatened.

 

[Ravi]

I love the way the left's hatred of Americans manifests itself whenever it comes to the law and/or courts, and how they are always so willing to throw out the very system that provides us with freedom whenever they feel like it....

What are you babbling about, Allie?

 

[Steerpike]

IT IS NOT OKAY TO KILL A CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST, because it is considered cruel and unusual punishment for Christ's sake people.....

How does killing for a simple burglary warrent a suspects death, without even a trial/ Mr Horn being judge jury and convictioner along with executioner fit in to this picture?

There is a big difference between a state-sanctioned execution and a self-defense statute. You are comparing two things that are entirely different from one another, so the comparison is not a good one.

 

[AllieBaba]

"According to the state penal code, a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection."
Elderly man shoots two suspected burglars at neighbor's home | Texas District & County Attorneys Association

 

[Shogun]

I love the way the left's hatred of Americans manifests itself whenever it comes to the law and/or courts, and how they are always so willing to throw out the very system that provides us with freedom whenever they feel like it....

knock that "the left" shit off Baba. I'm on the left and Ravi doesn't speak for me.

 

[Care4all]

In light of the burglary next door, I think he would still get a pass, since they were not just strolling innocently through his yard, and the evidence would back that up.

You think a SHOTGUN s easily missed?

They were crossing his lawn to get away, they did not have guns, they did not harm his neighbor, they were of no threat to him....yet he went outside to kill them, he said so to the dispatch, that he would kill them.....yet you think it is okay to kill a burglar in this case, and you claim to believe in God and his commandments allie? Or am I mistaken on that and got you mixed up with someone else......? If I didn't, then how can you justify KILLING someone for something less than murder? Where does thou shall not kill and an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth a life for a life come in to the picture of true and just actions?

Care

 

[Care4all]

"According to the state penal code, a person can use force or deadly force to defend someone else's property if he reasonably believes he has a legal duty to do so or the property owner had requested his protection."
Elderly man shoots two suspected burglars at neighbor's home | Texas District & County Attorneys Association

the police dispatcher TOLD HIM NOT TO, THAT detectives were on their way, told him that killing someone that was burglarizing was not justified or worth it....

AND THE NEIGHBOR NEVER ASKED HIM TO GUARD HIS HOME.....

this law does not cover him as far as I can tell....not one iota.

 

[Steerpike]

the police dispatcher TOLD HIM NOT TO, THAT detectives were on their way, told him that killing someone that was burglarizing was not justified or worth it....

AND THE NEIGHBOR NEVER ASKED HIM TO GUARD HIS HOME.....

this law does not cover him as far as I can tell....not one iota.

I've already explained how it covers him, which you didn't respond to. Your "nighttime" argument doesn't work because that limitation doesn't apply to burglary in the statute.

If Texans are unhappy with the outcome, they should change the law through their representatives.

 

[Glori.B]

There's no point in talking sense. They see the guy who protected himself as the bad guy, and the criminals as the victims, and no amount of talking will change their minds because they know that all Americans are baaaaddddd....

please, allie...i am a fine upstanding american citizen whose relatives have shed blood in every american war going back to the revolution, so why don't you stop making stuff up...?

did you listen to the 911 audio? the man did not give them a warning. that is BS! it was a split second and blammo in the back. that troubles me, allie. sorry you can't comprehend why it's a questionable use of deadly force and that you have to make stuff up in order to feel correct.

 

[AllieBaba]

THe grand jury decided otherwise, and they were able to hear the actual evidence and talk to the people involved. But I'm sure you're more up on the "real" facts.

Yes, the 911 operator told him not to go outside. 911 operators are notoriously idiotic. His response was, "I'm not going to get killed over this." Apparently he thought there was a threat.

 

[Ravi]

I promise you I am correct 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.

Here's the case I was thinking about: Murder case puts 'Stand Your Ground' law on the defense - 06/27/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

This happened back in March, I believe, and this guy was only recently charged. It seems pretty clear if he hadn't been caught by tape, he would have been believed and not been charged.

Bonus for Allie: the shooter was legally registered to carry...that pretty much blows your asinine statement that legal gun owners don't commit crimes out of the water.

 

[AllieBaba]

please, allie...i am a fine upstanding american citizen whose relatives have shed blood in every american war going back to the revolution, so why don't you stop making stuff up...

did you listen to he 911 audio? the man did not give them a warning. that is BS! it was a split second and blammo in the back. that troubles me, allie. sorry you can't comprehend why it's a questionable use of deadly force and that you have to make stuff up in order to feel correct.

Actually, it's not so much that I think I know what happened (I haven't heard the audio, but I've read articles which quote it) as I trust a grand jury.

That's the way our system works. You put your faith in the juries, and except in cases of egregious misconduct, you don't second guess them because YOU DON'T HAVE THE FACTS.

Personally, I think it was probably a combination of mitigating factors. I think the guy was adrenalined up. He was adrenalined up because he was watching a crime in progress and he was afraid. Was his judgment perfect? Maybe, maybe not. Should he be held criminally responsible? I don't think so, and neither did the grand jury, the police, or the prosecutor.

 

[Steerpike]

Here's the case I was thinking about: Murder case puts 'Stand Your Ground' law on the defense - 06/27/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

This happened back in March, I believe, and this guy was only recently charged. It seems pretty clear if he hadn't been caught by tape, he would have been believed and not been charged.

Bonus for Allie: the shooter was legally registered to carry...that pretty much blows your asinine statement that legal gun owners don't commit crimes out of the water.

As this goes through the courts, if the shooter claims self-defense one issue is going to be whether his belief that he was entitled to self-defense was objectively reasonable. Let me see if I can find the jury instructions for this kind of charge...

 

[Steerpike]

Here's the case I was thinking about: Murder case puts 'Stand Your Ground' law on the defense - 06/27/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

This happened back in March, I believe, and this guy was only recently charged. It seems pretty clear if he hadn't been caught by tape, he would have been believed and not been charged.

Yeah...see this link Ravi. Florida already applies the objectively "reasonable" standard to this law:

Law.com - NRA Uses New Florida Gun Law as National Model

 

[Care4all]

I've already explained how it covers him, which you didn't respond to. Your "nighttime" argument doesn't work because that limitation doesn't apply to burglary in the statute.

If Texans are unhappy with the outcome, they should change the law through their representatives.

sorry steer, missed it! and i disagree, the clause is then used again, mentioning night again, which could apply to all....it makes no sence that theft would have to be at night but burglary would not....?

i'm sorry, but mr horn did NOT MEET this criteria to use deadly force as far as i know, (leaving opened that there is more to this story than has made the papers.)

§ 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.

he meets NONE of the criteria above.....????? NONE!

Care

 

[Steerpike]

sorry steer, missed it! and i disagree, the clause is then used again, mentioning night again, which could apply to all....it makes no sence that theft would have to be at night but burglary would not....?

i'm sorry, but mr horn did NOT MEET this criteria to use deadly force as far as i know, (leaving opened that there is more to this story than has made the papers.)



he meets NONE of the criteria above.....????? NONE!

Care

9.42(2)(b) and 9.42(3)(A) you can make good arguments for.

 

[Glori.B]

Actually, it's not so much that I think I know what happened (I haven't heard the audio, but I've read articles which quote it) as I trust a grand jury.

That's the way our system works. You put your faith in the juries, and except in cases of egregious misconduct, you don't second guess them because YOU DON'T HAVE THE FACTS.

just do me a favor and listen to the 911 audio...(speaking of FACTS)
i haven't checked, but it's probably on you tube.

 

[Glori.B]

just do me a favor and listen to the 911 audio...(speaking of FACTS)
i haven't checked, but it's probably on you tube.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0]YouTube - Man Kills 2 . . . [Joe Horn - Full Tape][/ame]