Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[Ravi]

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

If the "reasonable" standard was applied to the case in Texas, I'm not seeing it. The man was safe in his house with the dispatcher telling him to stay put. He had no "reasonable" fear to fall back on.

 

[Steerpike]

If the "reasonable" standard was applied to the case in Texas, I'm not seeing it. The man was safe in his house with the dispatcher telling him to stay put. He had no "reasonable" fear to fall back on.

Like I said above, I think this was more a case of the grand jury simply refusing to indict. They have that right. Also, there is a good argument to make that Horn fell within Texas law, and that's the determination the jury was supposed to make - not whether it was right or wrong.

 

[BrianH]

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

I'm sorry but you're wrong...there alot of "or" in this which does not exclusively limit this law to nightime.

 

[Ravi]

Like I said above, I think this was more a case of the grand jury simply refusing to indict. They have that right. Also, there is a good argument to make that Horn fell within Texas law, and that's the determination the jury was supposed to make - not whether it was right or wrong.

I'm pretty sure he did fall within Texas law. That's kind of my point, it's a stupid law that leaves too much room for abuse.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm pretty sure he did fall within Texas law. That's kind of my point, it's a stupid law that leaves too much room for abuse.

I support the Castle Doctrine, but I would limit it to being within the home I think.

 

[BrianH]

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.

I admit, this guy sounded like he was going to piss his pants at the opportunity, but it also sounded like he was having an extremely hard time watching his neighbors get ripped off in front of his eyes. I would not have done the same, but he falls within Texas law.

It's funny how many people will argue that the South's secession was illegal because it was against the law, but then will now turn around and say that the law doesn't matter. This guy, regardless of the right or wrong, moral or immorality, and stupid law or not, was within the law of Texas Penal Code

 

[BrianH]

I'm pretty sure he did fall within Texas law. That's kind of my point, it's a stupid law that leaves too much room for abuse.

There you go Rav, that makes more sense to me. Many people are arguing based on the right or wrong of it which doesn't matter if the guy is within the law at the time. Once upon a time it was LEGAL for blacks to be segregated. While it was a crappy law and no doubt discriminatory, there was no one who could be prosecuted (at that time for not breaking the law). However, I think you should also give Texas authorities a little bit of credit to not let a full fledged murderer go for killing his gardener with hedge-clippers, or the neighbor's kid. Many of us know what our neighbors and their vehicles look like.

 

[Ravi]

There you go Rav, that makes more sense to me. Many people are arguing based on the right or wrong of it which doesn't matter if the guy is within the law at the time. Once upon a time it was LEGAL for blacks to be segregated. While it was a crappy law and no doubt discriminatory, there was no one who could be prosecuted (at that time for not breaking the law). However, I think you should also give Texas authorities a little bit of credit to not let a full fledged murderer go for killing his gardener with hedge-clippers, or the neighbor's kid. Many of us know what our neighbors and their vehicles look like.

And many of us don't. Laws like this just serve to make things more murky (murkier?). It's already perfectly acceptable to kill someone in self-defense.

 

[Care4all]

I'm sorry but you're wrong...there alot of "or" in this which does not exclusively limit this law to nightime.

where was his life threatened in the process of his neighbor's burglary brian?

why would he kill them, when the police told him NOT TO?

he was not asked to protect his neighbor's house by the neighbor, the burglars had no intentions of burglarizing him or harming him?

they were not going to get away with the goods or harm anyone in their escape, the cops were there already.....it doesn't seem to fit these laws in my opinion.

i don't think the laws are wrong as ravi, i think the laws are ok, but were not followed.

care

 

[jillian]

Also, I just want you gun hating crybabies to know.... Im having a grand ole time watching you freak out because illegal alien burglars were killed while on "the job". Maybe you should stop crying that sky is falling and go get your grassroots effort on?

I'm sorry... where is anyone freaking out? Besides you, that is.

How should we measure freaking out? By you saying you're having a grand ole time or by your out of control rhetoric.

I think I'll go with the rhetoric.

 

[Steerpike]

And many of us don't. Laws like this just serve to make things more murky (murkier?). It's already perfectly acceptable to kill someone in self-defense.

The Castle Doctrine isn't new - it's a few hundred years old in the common law. Legislatures are just making it statutory, probably in response to judicial modification of the common law doctrine.

 

[AllieBaba]

Because people are sick of being victimized repeatedly...first by the criminals, then by the justice system when it protects the criminals and criminalizes self defense.

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm pretty sure he did fall within Texas law. That's kind of my point, it's a stupid law that leaves too much room for abuse.

And if you don't have a law to protect your property (or your neighbor's property, etc)... then what you are leaving a lot of room for is criminals to have more of an advantage, because the police can't be everywhere at once...

A bit more fear in criminals or potential criminals, because they have in the back of the head that they might be blasted with a shotgun, is a very good thing

 

[Care4all]

this is the ONLY AUTH by law to use deadly force:

§ 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.

how did the bold part take place???

care

 

[Steerpike]

this is the ONLY AUTH by law to use deadly force:



how did the bold part take place???

care

It doesn't have to. That's why there is an OR in front of it. If it said AND, then you would need it.

 

[Shogun]

I'm sorry... where is anyone freaking out? Besides you, that is.

How should we measure freaking out? By you saying you're having a grand ole time or by your out of control rhetoric.

I think I'll go with the rhetoric.

you will go with the RHETORIC? boy, THATS a shocker.


Indeed, 20 pages crying about vigilantes, stupid laws, guns and shit talking in the shadow of Joe Horn's vindication may not sound like crying to you.. but, then again, you are not one to be consistently honest about issues that you identify with, are you?

 

[Ravi]

The Castle Doctrine isn't new - it's a few hundred years old in the common law. Legislatures are just making it statutory, probably in response to judicial modification of the common law doctrine.

I know the castle doctrine isn't new. I don't even think I disagree with it. What I do disagree with is how it has been expanded, like in this case to include killing someone coming out of someone else's house that isn't a physical threat to you, or what we've done in Florida.

 

[Shogun]

THE LAW with a link

Sec. 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.

Text of Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.42.

 

[Ravi]

And if you don't have a law to protect your property (or your neighbor's property, etc)... then what you are leaving a lot of room for is criminals to have more of an advantage, because the police can't be everywhere at once...

A bit more fear in criminals or potential criminals, because they have in the back of the head that they might be blasted with a shotgun, is a very good thing

What? There are no laws protecting property?

Killing someone for stealing is too steep of a punishment. If it wasn't, we'd have the death penalty for it. This may deter some burglars and it may make burglars more apt to pack heat. Doesn't change the fact that it is a stupid law. I'm sure it keeps your panties a bit drier though, so there's one benefit.

 

[Care4all]

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, Care? Did you JUST edit your post to say AND instead of OR after Steerpike clarified your evidence?



Today, 02:19 PM Steerpike
It doesn't have to. That's why there is an OR in front of it. If it said AND, then you would need it.



Care

(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:

how did the bold part take place???

care
Last edited by Care4all; Today at 02:19 PM.


THE LAW with a link

Sec. 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.

Text of Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.42.

oh i know the difference between and vs or, and a semi colan vs a comma, DO YOU?

WHY WAS DEADLY FORCE NECESSARY? BY LAW, HE was allowed TO USE FORCE, BUT deadly source, WAS NOT IMMINENT.....necessary, according TO THE LAW.