Texas Man Cleared of Shooting Burglars

[Ravi]

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

Me? I don't steal. But if you mean might it deter someone else, sure. Or it might inspire burglars to kill whomever is around before they burgle.

Either way, it's a stupid law that's too easy to abuse and killing someone over a wagon, or any material thing, is just wrong, IMNSHO. Especially when you willfully put yourself in a position where you MIGHT be harmed, like this guy did. He was safely in his house, the perps weren't armed, and they were running away.

I understand the mindset that makes people so afraid that they enact draconian laws to keep them feeling safe, but I certainly don't agree with them. If I was that frightened, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

 

[Ravi]

your SOUL?!@?


wtf?


how about your fucking LIFE?

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

Hey, if you feel comfortable killing someone over a bag of shit when that someone isn't a threat to you, move to Texass. Or Florida.

 

[Care4all]

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.

NO NO NO

That is not what the law says....

THAT IS WHAT THESE POSTERS on here are saying but NOT what the law states.....

going over what you posted regarding 9.43, protecting a neighbor's property....

it has to meet the standards layed out in 9.41 and 9.42 before he can use deadly force....

here's what 9.41 and 9.42 say...

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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.


§ 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.

WELLLLLLL, he did not meet the criteria of being allowed to use deadly force, it was not NECESSARY as described by law, and this part in bold above....

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 could have used FORCE to stop them, without any danger of his own life....

he did not have the authority of law to use DEADLY FORCE.

so in your example with the baseball bat, is not a situation, where deadly force is permitted....

of course, with the grand jury IGNORING their own definitions of their laws in this case. it makes it as though NONE of these laws even matter, texans will do what texans will do....regardless of Law....it appears.....

care

 

[dread]

Hey, if you feel comfortable killing someone over a bag of shit when that someone isn't a threat to you, move to Texass. Or Florida.

Seeing as you dont care about how hard you and your family worked to attain your possesions because it is just shit anyways why dont you go to craigs list and invite the world over to your house to come take whatever they please?

 

[Care4all]

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.

HE DID NOT HAVE A GUN OR DEADLY WEAPON, positioned towards him, which is required in part of the deadly force legal useage...

 

[Care4all]

Seeing as you dont care about how hard you and your family worked to attain your possesions because it is just shit anyways why dont you go to craigs list and invite the world over to your house to come take whatever they please?

you are dead wrong on the interpretation of these Texas laws....

READ THEM! please

care

 

[M14 Shooter]

Me? I don't steal. But if you mean might it deter someone else, sure.

So, there is some efficacy to the law. Glad you agree.

Or it might inspire burglars to kill whomever is around before they burgle.

That's a common argument from the pro-safe-criminal crowd.
Unfortunately for that crowd, few burglars are willing to escalate in that manner. Most who are willing to escalate in such a way already carry a weapon.

Either way, it's a stupid law that's too easy to abuse and killing someone over a wagon, or any material thing, is just wrong, IMNSHO.

Its a great law. It allows people to more aggressively protect themselves and their property, and it creates a deterrent to crime, thusly reducing the chance thay they will NEED to protect themselves and their property.

I understand the mindset that makes people so afraid that they enact draconian laws to keep them feeling safe, but I certainly don't agree with them.

I understand the mindset that wants to protect criminals and handicap the law abiding in defending themselves, putting innocent people at unnecessary risk... Not.

 

[Care4all]

So, there is some efficacy to the law. Glad you agree.

Or it might inspire burglars to kill whomever is around before they burgle.

That's a common argument from the pro-safe-criminal crowd.
Unfortunately for that crowd, few burglars are willing to escalate in that manner. Most who are willing to escalate in such a way already carry a weapon.


Its a great law. It allows people to more aggressively protect themselves and their property, and it creates a deterrent to crime, thusly reducing the chance thay they will NEED to protect themselves and their property.


I understand the mindset that wants to protect criminals and handicap the law abiding in defending themselves, putting innicent people at unnecessary risk... Not.

so these burglars DID NOT think that way....? they had no intent of killing the neighbor or mr horn, since they were not armed is what you are implying by this post M14? right?

care

 

[Shogun]

HE DID NOT HAVE A GUN OR DEADLY WEAPON, positioned towards him, which is required in part of the deadly force legal useage...

yea.. you know that NOW. AFTER THE FACT. Why don't you presume the best case scenerio the next time some criminal charges your direction.

 

[Shogun]

Hey, if you feel comfortable killing someone over a bag of shit when that someone isn't a threat to you, move to Texass. Or Florida.

I don't have to move to Texas or Florida. Missouri adopted Castle Doctrine clarification already.


Kep your ass out of Missouri if you plan on stepping into a career of burglary.



bang bang.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so these burglars DID NOT think that way....?

Beats me.
Care to bet your life on guessing what a criminal is thinking?

 

[BrianH]

Link, please.

Corbett said the plainclothes detective, whose name has not been released, had parked in front of Horn’s house in response to the 911 call. He saw the men between Horn’s house and his neighbor’s before they crossed into Horn’s front yard. Corbett believes neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present.

“It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired,” Corbett said. “At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the ‘wheel man’ (get-away driver). He ducked at one point.”

When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze. Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb"

Patterico’s Pontifications Joe Horn Has a Problem … Maybe (Updated)

The medical examiner also said that he could not confirm whether the men were shot in the back or not...

 

[Ravi]

Thanks, Brian. That was from last year and it could be true, I suppose, but the story has changed. At first the guy said he was asked to watch his neighbor's house and then he changed his story and said he wasn't. And it's kind of strange that this detective still remains unnamed. Plus, I imagine by now the medical examiner has figured out where the two were shot.

Anything more recent?

 

[Ravi]

I understand the mindset that wants to protect criminals and handicap the law abiding in defending themselves, putting innocent people at unnecessary risk... Not.

That's stupid, and that's why I believe this law is more about keeping Depends out of business. No one that I know of thinks burglars shouldn't be punished. And Horn was never at risk. If the guys had a gun, Horn would have been putting himself at risk by leaving the safety of his house. I bet if he actually thought there was any danger he'd have hidden under his bed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one that I know of thinks burglars shouldn't be punished.

They werent punished.
You, however, apparently think they need to be protected, especially from their potential victims.

And Horn was never at risk.

Possibly, said only after the fact.
At the moment of decision, its impossible for YOU to make that statement.

If the guys had a gun, Horn would have been putting himself at risk by leaving the safety of his house.

So...?

I bet if he actually thought there was any danger he'd have hidden under his bed.

And -I- bet you don't have the balls to say that to his face.

 

[Ravi]

They werent punished.
You, however, apparently think they need to be protected, especially from their potential victims.


Possibly, said only after the fact.
At the moment of decision, its impossible for YOU to make that statement.


So...?


And -I- bet you don't have the balls to say that to his face.

Are you really that stupidly partisan? They don't need to be protected from the law. They deserved to be arrested and deported, not murdered.

Actually, I wrote the guy a letter and signed my name and told him exactly what I thought about his cowardice.

I also bet if there were any danger you'd have stayed shaking under your bed. If you thought they weren't a danger, you'd probably have shot them in the back from the safety of your little cave.

 

[editec]

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

They could probably try to make the case that the guy who shot the burgulars violated their civil rights, if they want to make a Federal case about it.

Remember? That's how they nailed the Klanners down South during the 60's when the locals wouldn't indict for murder.

Not the kind of same case, of course, but if somebody takes it into their heads to do that in the Justice Department, I expect they could charge the guy on some technicality or the other.

Of course with Junior's JD, I expect that isn't going to happen.

 

[Ravi]

It seems like it violates due process, but what do I know?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you really that stupidly partisan?

I dont recall there being any mention of party politics, so no.

They don't need to be protected from the law.

No - according to your argument here they need to be protected from their apparent victims,

They deserved to be arrested and deported,

Sometimes, a victim that needs to act in self-defense doest have time for the police to show up. That's why he has the right to act in self-defense.

not murdered.

Murder is an unlawful killing. They were not murdered any more than an abortion murders an unborn child

Actually, I wrote the guy a letter and signed my name and told him exactly what I thought about his cowardice.

Suuuuure you did.
Never mind that mailing it in isn't the same as face-to-face.
Be a man. Say it to his face.

I also bet if there were any danger you'd have stayed shaking under your bed. If you thought they weren't a danger, you'd probably have shot them in the back from the safety of your little cave.

You better be careful -- my dad can beat up your dad.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It seems like it violates due process, but what do I know?

Not a lot, apparently...

Due process is a restriction on the government, a restraint that keeps it from acting arbitrarily against its citizens.

It doesnt have any bearing whatsoever on the acts of individuals