Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[RetiredGySgt]

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

I wasn't aware State Cases could go to the US Supreme Court unless they some how violate a Federal law.

 

[Care4all]

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.

See, after reading what Congress said when passing the law and what their bill said when passing the law, (which SOMEHOW did NOT come out with the same WORDING in the actual law), which focused on the ability for citizens to defend themselves IF IN AN IMMINENT Danger without worry of whether they met the original law covering this which required them to RETREAT if at all possibly or "reasonably" possible....congress defineing "reasonably" as 'something any normal person would do under the same circumstances....

This law was burdensome on the victims, could have given hesitation for a man with a family whose house is being broken in to, to actually defend himself or family in an imminent situation......is what Texas Congress was saying.....

so the new law stayed pretty much the same, that the person should TRY to retreat if it is what a 'reasonable' person would do or defend yourself with force, if it was what a reasonable' person would do in the same circumstances, HOWEVER they took out the part for the this to be MANDATORY when the Grand Juries are reviewing the cases....

There are 3 other laws related that Brian had posted early on in this thread....

one involves when you can 'reasonbly' use Force,

one describes the circumstances of when you can 'reasonbly' use Deadly Force,

and the other describes when you can 'reasonably' use force when it is a neighbor's house or relative's house....with no option of Deadly Force regarding a neighbor or relative's property....


I think you mentioned this early on Ravi and it appears you are right.....it is the "reasonable" part that gives the loophole for all kinds of crap...

care

 

[Care4all]

I wasn't aware State Cases could go to the US Supreme Court unless they some how violate a Federal law.

or violate the Constitution....

 

[Care4all]

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

Honestly, the man LOST HIS MIND, he was really freaking out....

If it had gone to trial, I truely believe that he would have plead temporary insanity....

What he did WAS NOT "REASONABLE" in my opinion and IS NOT what a handful of other "Reasonable" people would do under the same circumstances....

The Grand jury didn't see it this way....conveniently, which has now put a loophole bigger than the state of Alaska in this new law and it is now a free "shoot for all" imho.

Care

 

[Anguille]

Ravi also brought up a interesting point when she asked if the same people defending this guy's actions would feel the same if he used a chainsaw instead of a gun.

I think many people here are blinded by their love for their guns and cry like a baby who has lost his pacifier at the thought of not being able to use them. That is why they feel the need to make up stuff such as the guy knew his neighbors or that the suspects were charging him and he shot in self defense. They know that what he did was morally wrong and that he got away with it because of a poorly written law, the negligence of a policeman and the complicity of a jury.

Some people choose to look the other way at vigilantism when they think it benefits them.

 

[Ravi]

I think you mentioned this early on Ravi and it appears you are right.....it is the "reasonable" part that gives the loophole for all kinds of crap...

care

So does the word "neighbor," which can encompass just about anyone.

 

[Anguille]

Well, apparently, the officer who witnessed the shooting said the suspect charged/ran towards Horn before turning around as Horn shot. Listen, I personally, don't agree with Horn's motives for this, and I would not have done the same, but Horn was within Texas Law in one way or the other. The jurors were presented with the Penal Code, and presented with the evidence...

Brian, you have defended the law and said that Horn acted within the law but you say you do not agree with his motives. I'm curious why you would not have done what he did and what you would have done instead. Sorry if you already explained this earlier. I may not have read the entire thread.

 

[Care4all]

So does the word "neighbor," which can encompass just about anyone.

I don't think so, cuz in the "neighbor" one, it specifically states that the 'neighbor' HAD TO ASK THE PERSON to watch their house or guard it....or the neighbor had to be a relative of yours, IF YOU WERE TO try to protect such with force....

THIS was NOT the case with Mr Horn and his neighbor, that law does NOT apply to this case....and IF IT DID, (which it doesn't), when protecting a neighbor's house you are allowed by Texas Law to use FORCE, but you are NOT allowed to use DEADLY FORCE....if you read the laws that Brian had posted and of course imo....

I really think we are to the point where we should paste each one of those laws that Brian had posted and review them/disect them/discern their meanings before we can go any further on this thread regarding Mr Horn....I have tried to bring the actual laws in to the discussion to put this on a less "partisan" or less "pro gun, con gun" standing and more on to what the laws ACTUALLY SAY and then how they relate to this topic of mr Horn....but to no avail...no bites.... booooo hooooo, and bwhaaaaaaaaa all in one!

Care

 

[Ravi]

I don't think so, cuz in the "neighbor" one, it specifically states that the 'neighbor' HAD TO ASK THE PERSON to watch their house or guard it....or the neighbor had to be a relative of yours, IF YOU WERE TO try to protect such with force....

THIS was NOT the case with Mr Horn and his neighbor, that law does NOT apply to this case....and IF IT DID, (which it doesn't), when protecting a neighbor's house you are allowed by Texas Law to use FORCE, but you are NOT allowed to use DEADLY FORCE....if you read the laws that Brian had posted and of course imo....

I really think we are to the point where we should paste each one of those laws that Brian had posted and review them/disect them/discern their meanings before we can go any further on this thread regarding Mr Horn....I have tried to bring the actual laws in to the discussion to put this on a less "partisan" or less "pro gun, con gun" standing and more on to what the laws ACTUALLY SAY and then how they relate to this topic of mr Horn....but to no avail...no bites.... booooo hooooo, and bwhaaaaaaaaa all in one!

Care

Well, I'm not a lawyer but to me that word "or" leaves it open:


§ 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) yada...yada...yada

 

[Care4all]

Well, I'm not a lawyer but to me that word "or" leaves it open:


§ 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) yada...yada...yada

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

OK, I was WRONG on that....missed it all together

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Defense of property is also self-defense, in Texas and in some other states.
You have the right to be secure in your person and your posessions, and you have the right to protect same with force -- deadly force if, necessary.

 

[Ravi]

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

OK, I was WRONG on that....missed it all together

So basically, if I see someone stealing a kid's wagon from a carport (or even a garbage can), and he happens be carrying a baseball bat, I can whip out my gun and shoot him dead. Or run him over with my lawnmower, car, or truck. Or hack him up with a knife or chainsaw.

And I'd be perfectly justified in doing it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So basically, if I see someone stealing a kid's wagon from a carport (or even a garbage can), and he happens be carrying a baseball bat, I can whip out my gun and shoot him dead. Or run him over with my lawnmower, car, or truck. Or hack him up with a knife or chainsaw.
And I'd be perfectly justified in doing it.

Dont you suppose that knowing that this is likely to happen, you'd be deterred from stealing said wagon...?

 

[Care4all]

Well, I'm not a lawyer but to me that word "or" leaves it open:


§ 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) yada...yada...yada

§ 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by
Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor
reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law,
by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental
tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is
used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect
property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by
virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is
specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful
conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to
retreat before using it.

§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 2, eff. September 1,
2007.

check this link out!

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

it has the definitions of every word we are questioning and GIVES CLARITY to the laws....

mr. horn, SHOULD BE ON TRIAL.....imo.

 

[Care4all]

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

my, my, my.....

 

[Shogun]

I wonder if his wallet says "bad motherfucker" on it?

HA!

no, thats what is on Sam Jackson's lightsaber.

 

[Shogun]

I don't get this argument that the guy said freeze or stop or whatever. Big freaking deal. Does that mean if I say that to someone I can shoot them afterward?

if someone is coming at you with an intent to harm you and you are armed then yes.

 

[Shogun]

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

that is your opinion and you were not there.


go get your grass root effort on to scrap the castle doctrine if you can.

 

[Shogun]

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

You don't know this at all. In fact, you can't presume there was no threat in some hindsight armchair effort to add your monday morning quarterback opinion.

 

[Shogun]

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?

your SOUL?!@?


wtf?


how about your fucking LIFE?

How is the view from way up there as you jump the fucking shark, Ravi?