Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[dread]

The man had no reason to kill those men. They posed no threat to his life or welfare.

BULLSHIT!

Once robbed the neighborhood goes up on the market for easy pickins. What the hell kind of sheltered life do you live ?

 

[My Winter Storm]

BULLSHIT!

Once robbed the neighborhood goes up on the market for easy pickins. What the hell kind of sheltered life do you live ?

The mans life was not at risk, yet he shot those men anyway.

 

[dread]

the Mans Life Was Not At Risk, Yet He Shot Those Men Anyway.

boo-hoo!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The mans life was not at risk, yet he shot those men anyway.

One of the theifs rushed toward the guy. Reason enough to shoot. Further the law in Texas allows deadly force if they are going to get away.

More laws like this around the country and crime will drop.

 

[Ravi]

You know...Most neighbors would have just let the fuckers rob you blind. And then they would have told the cops that they heard and saw nothing. Then once you get back home you get to go to work all those extra hours to replace everything that was stolen. On top of that you get to have your sense of security forever stolen too. Maybe have your kids worry in the back of their minds that some bad guys will come again. Which isnt all that unreasonable because once your house has been a target they tell all their buddies about about how easily they scored at your house.


So now we dont have two criminals on the streets shitting all over someone else. Boo-hoo!

And if you think they would have been caught and justice would have been served THINK AGAIN!

So what? I wouldn't risk my soul and possible charges for someone's bag of shit. Big on personal responsibility, eh you silly fraud? Why don't you get the law changed to make it a requirement to be our neighbor's keeper?

 

[Ravi]

One of the theifs rushed toward the guy.

Link, please?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Link, please?

Already provided IN this thread.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Those criminals have a right to a trial, the penalty for rape is NOT death!

Killing someone in self-defense is not punishment.
And your right to trial does not apply to nor overrule actions applied by individuals exercising their right to self-defense.

 

[Diuretic]

It isn't. Burglary has LONG been considered a violent crime in the common law. Goes way back.

At common law burglary had to be committed on a dwellinghouse and at night (2100-0600 from memory). I don't think the dwelling had to be inhabited at the time but it was that it was likely to be inhabited (unlike, say, a shop that would be occupied during business hours but vacated during the 'night'). I think at common law the penalty was death but in my jurisdiction it used to be punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment (ie 20 yrs or so - changed now).

The severity of the sentence was to protect the sleeping inhabitants, so yes, good call.

 

[Care4all]

Killing someone in self-defense is not punishment.
And your right to trial does not apply to nor overrule actions applied by individuals exercising their right to self-defense.

SELF defense of what? Of oneself, right? Of an imminent mortal attack on oneself or others with you, no? Such, is self defense according to the law, right?

Care

 

[Diuretic]

So, is there any chance the Tx legislature will change this law?

I'd say none.

 

[Ravi]

Killing someone in self-defense is not punishment.
And your right to trial does not apply to nor overrule actions applied by individuals exercising their right to self-defense.

This is just retarded. It fits the definition under any of the choices.

1 a: to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b: to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation 2 a: to deal with roughly or harshly b: to inflict injury on : hurt

 

[Steerpike]

This is just retarded. It fits the definition under any of the choices.

1 a: to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b: to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation 2 a: to deal with roughly or harshly b: to inflict injury on : hurt

I think the point is that acting in defense of self is not an adjudicated punishment, nor should it be.

True, people are entitled in a court of law to a presumption of innocence, and punishments vary for different crimes, most of them not including the death penalty. But it is also true that the right to use deadly force exists under the law and the two things should not be conflated. It is not incumbent upon a person protecting themselves to ascertain the judicial punishment for a particular crime and then mete it out. That would be ridiculous to expect, in my view.

Even in states where there is no death penalty, there exists a right to use deadly force for self defense under certain circumstances. The two things are entirely different and entirely unrelated. So pointing out that "death" isn't the punishment for burglary is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The same set of laws that dictate the punishment for burglary also provide the boundaries for self-defense an the use of deadly force, so the argument is a canard. The only question is whether the individual operated within the boundaries of the law when defending life or property.

 

[Diuretic]

This is just retarded. It fits the definition under any of the choices.

1 a: to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b: to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation 2 a: to deal with roughly or harshly b: to inflict injury on : hurt

I have to disagree Ravi - M-14 is right. Self defence is a subset of the defence of necessity. It's a defence that, if successful, will negate a charge of murder, if the defendant can prove it was necessary for him/her to protect him/herself or another from potentially fatal assault (or grievous bodily harm in some jurisdictions). It's not seen as a penalty because a penalty can only be handed down by a court.

 

[Care4all]

So, is there any chance the Tx legislature will change this law?

I'd say none.

The law is NOT a bad law to me, if read properly (hahahahahaha, orrrr, in other words, how I read it! lol).

The Grand Jury, picked by Texas State Prosicutors, reviewing what took place, 'just so happened' to let this man off without a trial.

What was as stake seemed to be MORE important to these nimnods in the Grand Jury, Police Dept, and D/A's office... than the actual case itself imho, and the fact that these two suspects were Illegal Immigrants, has allowed them to go on without worry of a Supreme Court "test" on this new law so early in the 'game', depending on how the trial would have come out and whether appeals would have taken place....and you can bet your booty that the ACLU would have taken this case all the way to the SC if it did not turn out the way they wanted, and perhaps justifiably so....

That's my insider take! hahahaha! For what is it worth!

Care

 

[Diuretic]

I hadn't thought of that...

 

[editec]

Let's face it.

Human life just doesn't mean that much in Texas as it does in some other states, folks.

Now, some of us think that's cool, some of us are disgusted by it, but there it is.

There's really two Americas:

the liberal America -- where aborting fetuses is okay, but shooting fleeing criminals isn't; and

and the conservative America -- where every fetus has the right to be born, but shooting fleeing burgulars is thought good citizenship and stellar markmanship.

Just as my advise to those who eschew abortions is to not have one, so too my advise for those of us disgusted by this guy's actions is to stay the hell out of Texas.

 

[Care4all]

Let's review the case:

Mr Horn sees suspects breaking and entering in to a neighbor that he does not know's house, using a crow bar to break the window and enter...

Mr Horn tells this to the Police Dispatcher, and that he did not see them with any guns....

The Dispatcher tells him that cops are on the way...

Horn basically freaks out and says to the Dispatcher that he is going to kill the suspects if he goes outside and reminds the Dispatcher that this new law allows him to do this and have his shotgun.....oh yeah, his shotgun....

Dispatcher tells Mr Horn NOT TO GO OUTSIDE over and over again, and tells mr horn not to go outside with his gun he could be hurt, mr horn says something like the only one hurt will be them....

Dispatchers tells him again NOT to go outside, that it is basically not worth killing these suspects for burglary, for taking a tv....Mr Horn ignores the police dispatch....

Mr horn sees them leaving thru the window and goes outside with his phone and within seconds, boom, boom, boom....

He comes back in and the dispatch tells him to put the gun down and lay flat on the ground the police are there, some confusion in talk, dispatch repeats to put the gun down there are plain clothes detectives out there and he did not want mr horn to shoot them by mistake....Mr horn tells dispatch immediately that the police were there....more confusion between the two....he tells dispatch the gun was in the house....dispatch tells him again to lay flat on the ground with arms and hands over the head.....

then not much else.

 

[Diuretic]

In my jurisdiction it would be murder. But that's just here.

 

[Ravi]

I have to disagree Ravi - M-14 is right. Self defence is a subset of the defence of necessity. It's a defence that, if successful, will negate a charge of murder, if the defendant can prove it was necessary for him/her to protect him/herself or another from potentially fatal assault (or grievous bodily harm in some jurisdictions). It's not seen as a penalty because a penalty can only be handed down by a court.

That's all fine and dandy, but I can't see where this guy had the need to act in self-defense. He was in his house and he had a bug up his butt to exploit the castle law in Texas. IMO, there was no self-defense so he was meting out a punishment. I realize the law in Texas seems to allow for this. Doesn't make it right, IMO, or any less a punishment.