burglary now punishable by death in texas

[nageov3t]

seriously, what the hell is wrong with this state?

Texas man cleared in shooting of possible burglars

HOUSTON (AP) ? A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.

Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.

Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.

"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.

Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.

The suspected burglars, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.

The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.

http://ap.google.com/article/A...6y5d66X8hodrwD91KJA7G1

I guess it's OK when the dead are brown.

this shit blows my mind... how the hell can we justify a guy walking out of his house, in cold blood, with the cops already on their way there, and murdering two guys on his neighbor's property? his life wasn't in danger, his neighbor's life wasn't in danger... was what they were doing wrong? of course. did it warrant getting executed on the spot? wtf.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Nothing's wrong with it, everything worked perfectly. An excellent decision all around.

You have the right to stop crimes in progress, you have the right to protect yourself. The question, which remains unanswered to me, is 'did they threaten Joe Horn once he was outside'? If they did then he was right. Even if they didn't the fact that the jury refused to put him on trial is completely legal and correct and the reason we have the system we do.

It is ALWAYS good for the criminal to die. Always.

 

[heyheybooboo]

A bunch of good ol' boys on that grand jury let Mr. Horn get away with murder ...

 

[mxyzptlk]

theres already a thread for this, but I'm glad this one appeared because it gives me the chance to call PrinceofWands a monster and an idiot.

 

[sandorski]

Ridiculous.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nothing's wrong with it, everything worked perfectly. An excellent decision all around.

You have the right to stop crimes in progress, you have the right to protect yourself. The question, which remains unanswered to me, is 'did they threaten Joe Horn once he was outside'? If they did then he was right. Even if they didn't the fact that the jury refused to put him on trial is completely legal and correct and the reason we have the system we do.

It is ALWAYS good for the criminal to die. Always.

Is my sarcasm meter broken...?

The coward shot the burglars in the back. They were no threat to Horn, he just felt like dishing out his own vigilante justice instead of letting the police handle the matter. And I'm sure race had absolutely nothing to do with the matter, either.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
theres already a thread for this, but I'm glad this one appeared because it gives me the chance to call PrinceofWands a monster and an idiot.

doh. didn't see the other thread. my bad.

 

[Dari]

I'd rather my neighbor kill a burgular than have the burgular kill me.

 

[umbrella39]

Texas..

:roll:

 

[seemingly random]

I wondered what happened to this case.

These situations are very precarious. In this case, it looks like the guy did everybody a favor though. It seems very likely that either of these two would have committed one atrocity or another. I heard the guy was having a hard time dealing with the fact that he ended somebody. Makes you wonder how a policeman can deal with it - even when it's state sanctioned.

Texas - you got love 'em over there - and be scared of 'em too. Let's just hope we don't have another president from there for a very long time.

 

[miketheidiot]

i've had to break into realitives houses, luckily noone decided they needed to shoot me up when i did it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
theres already a thread for this, but I'm glad this one appeared because it gives me the chance to call PrinceofWands a monster and an idiot.

Bring it bitch.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: loki8481
seriously, what the hell is wrong with this state?

Texas man cleared in shooting of possible burglars

HOUSTON (AP) ? A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.

Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.

Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.

"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.

Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.

The suspected burglars, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.

The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.

http://ap.google.com/article/A...6y5d66X8hodrwD91KJA7G1

I guess it's OK when the dead are brown.

this shit blows my mind... how the hell can we justify a guy walking out of his house, in cold blood, with the cops already on their way there, and murdering two guys on his neighbor's property? his life wasn't in danger, his neighbor's life wasn't in danger... was what they were doing wrong? of course. did it warrant getting executed on the spot? wtf.

I went ahead and bolded the relevant part that you seem to ignore. I wasn't there, and I don't know the details of the case, but the defendant claims the two criminals threatened him. Personally, if I was on the jury, I'd be inclined to believe the story of the homeowner over the criminals, but I don't see how he explained shooting them in the back. Perhaps they threatened to come back later and harm him or his family, in which case I have no problem with him doing what he did. Either way, good riddance to two criminals, they won't be committing any more crimes any time soon! :thumbsup:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nothing's wrong with it, everything worked perfectly. An excellent decision all around.

You have the right to stop crimes in progress, you have the right to protect yourself. The question, which remains unanswered to me, is 'did they threaten Joe Horn once he was outside'? If they did then he was right. Even if they didn't the fact that the jury refused to put him on trial is completely legal and correct and the reason we have the system we do.

It is ALWAYS good for the criminal to die. Always.

Is my sarcasm meter broken...?

The coward shot the burglars in the back. They were no threat to Horn, he just felt like dishing out his own vigilante justice instead of letting the police handle the matter. And I'm sure race had absolutely nothing to do with the matter, either.

Not at all.

Do you KNOW they were no threat? Do we have an absolute report of what happened once he went outside? Because if they threatened him in ANY way he was justified.

Even if not (in which case his actions WERE illegal and morally questionable) the law was followed completely. He was brought to a grand jury, they said he's free, that's the end of it. I totally support that decision as, regardless of the legality of his actions, two absolutely horrible wastes of human flesh will no longer plague the world and I celebrate that. I just wish every criminal like them would face the same fate.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
theres already a thread for this, but I'm glad this one appeared because it gives me the chance to call PrinceofWands a monster and an idiot.

doh. didn't see the other thread. my bad.

I think it's ok - the other thread was getting flatulent.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nothing's wrong with it, everything worked perfectly. An excellent decision all around.

You have the right to stop crimes in progress, you have the right to protect yourself. The question, which remains unanswered to me, is 'did they threaten Joe Horn once he was outside'? If they did then he was right. Even if they didn't the fact that the jury refused to put him on trial is completely legal and correct and the reason we have the system we do.

It is ALWAYS good for the criminal to die. Always.

Is my sarcasm meter broken...?

The coward shot the burglars in the back. They were no threat to Horn, he just felt like dishing out his own vigilante justice instead of letting the police handle the matter. And I'm sure race had absolutely nothing to do with the matter, either.

Not at all.

Do you KNOW they were no threat? Do we have an absolute report of what happened once he went outside? Because if they threatened him in ANY way he was justified.

Even if not (in which case his actions WERE illegal and morally questionable) the law was followed completely. He was brought to a grand jury, they said he's free, that's the end of it. I totally support that decision as, regardless of the legality of his actions, two absolutely horrible wastes of human flesh will no longer plague the world and I celebrate that. I just wish every criminal like them would face the same fate.

:thumbsup:

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nothing's wrong with it, everything worked perfectly. An excellent decision all around.

You have the right to stop crimes in progress, you have the right to protect yourself. The question, which remains unanswered to me, is 'did they threaten Joe Horn once he was outside'? If they did then he was right. Even if they didn't the fact that the jury refused to put him on trial is completely legal and correct and the reason we have the system we do.

It is ALWAYS good for the criminal to die. Always.

Is my sarcasm meter broken...?

The coward shot the burglars in the back. They were no threat to Horn, he just felt like dishing out his own vigilante justice instead of letting the police handle the matter. And I'm sure race had absolutely nothing to do with the matter, either.

Not at all.

Do you KNOW they were no threat? Do we have an absolute report of what happened once he went outside? Because if they threatened him in ANY way he was justified.

Even if not (in which case his actions WERE illegal and morally questionable) the law was followed completely. He was brought to a grand jury, they said he's free, that's the end of it. I totally support that decision as, regardless of the legality of his actions, two absolutely horrible wastes of human flesh will no longer plague the world and I celebrate that. I just wish every criminal like them would face the same fate.

What don't you understand about shooting someone in the back. If you shoot them in the back, they are not facing you. That means they are running away from you, and not running at you. How is a person running away from you a threat?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: loki8481
seriously, what the hell is wrong with this state?

Texas man cleared in shooting of possible burglars

Don't agree with it? You're free to go to a country that thinks like you do.

Joe Horn :beer: :thumbsup:

 

[AAjax]

Well judge, they needed shootin'

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nothing's wrong with it, everything worked perfectly. An excellent decision all around.

You have the right to stop crimes in progress, you have the right to protect yourself. The question, which remains unanswered to me, is 'did they threaten Joe Horn once he was outside'? If they did then he was right. Even if they didn't the fact that the jury refused to put him on trial is completely legal and correct and the reason we have the system we do.

It is ALWAYS good for the criminal to die. Always.

Is my sarcasm meter broken...?

The coward shot the burglars in the back. They were no threat to Horn, he just felt like dishing out his own vigilante justice instead of letting the police handle the matter. And I'm sure race had absolutely nothing to do with the matter, either.

Not at all.

Do you KNOW they were no threat? Do we have an absolute report of what happened once he went outside? Because if they threatened him in ANY way he was justified.

Even if not (in which case his actions WERE illegal and morally questionable) the law was followed completely. He was brought to a grand jury, they said he's free, that's the end of it. I totally support that decision as, regardless of the legality of his actions, two absolutely horrible wastes of human flesh will no longer plague the world and I celebrate that. I just wish every criminal like them would face the same fate.

What don't you understand about shooting someone in the back. If you shoot them in the back, they are not facing you. That means they are running away from you, and not running at you. How is a person running away from you a threat?

Do you have the IQ of a kumquat?

Having your back to someone is NOT running away from them, and even if it is if it happened subsequent to a threat and during the process of firing the weapon there is no question that it was justified.

In other words:

A man with a shotgun goes out and says stop, the police are on the way.

One or both of the criminals says "we'll fucking kill you old man" and takes a step towards him.

The man raises the shotgun to defend his life, believing that he is reasonably in danger.

As he does so the two men naturally stop their forward movement and begin to turn away.

The man, already committed to an action which takes only a second or two to complete, fires the gun at the two threats.

The end result is a lawful shooting, despite the fact that the criminals were hit in the back.

I'm not saying that IS what happened, I'm saying that COULD happen, and if you don't have proof, if there is reasonable doubt, then you MUST side with the good guy against the KNOWN criminals.

 

[daniel1113]

I can't wait to move to Texas in 2 weeks. People should always be given the benefit of the doubt on their own property when threatened by a criminal. It's nice to see a state that stands up for the good guy every once in a while.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
A bunch of good ol' boys on that grand jury let Mr. Horn get away with murder ...

x2

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Dari
I'd rather my neighbor kill a burgular than have the burgular kill me.

But they weren't armed and weren't going to kill anyone.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Excellent

 

[JohnnyGage]

If you don't want to get shot, don't break into people's homes.