Texas Killer Freed

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Hopefully, Horn will get shot in the back while walking on someone's lawn b/c the home owner thought he was going to rob them.

So it is OK for a neighborhood homeowner to be mistakenly shot while not committing a crime, but is not OK for robbers to be shot while they are presently committing a crime?

Fabulous.

MotionMan

I was making a point of how stupid this law is and how one easily one can get away with murder. Basically, I can shot anyone in the back if they are on my or my neighbor's property. I just need to say that I thought they were robbing the place or I felt threatened.

I guess that means people better stay off other peoples property if they are unknown or uninvited, which, I believe, is the whole point of the law.

It is called private property for a reason - not open to the public.

MotionMan

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: TheVrolok
In my mind, this guy committed murder.

He did. He murdered people who needed murdering. I have no problems with that.

I am pro death penalty. I am pro guns. I am pro justice.

But what you said is quite terrible.

The two men were thieves. I am in total agreement. But our country was founded on a few very basic principles - one in particular is the right to a fair trial. An individual has no right to be the judge, jury, and executioner when his immediate well-being is not in peril (it was 100% not).

Furthermore:

The operator repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to shoot, and the police had just arrived at the scene when Mr. Horn fired three blasts of 00 buckshot from his 12-gauge, striking the men in their backs.

Would the police have shot and killed these men? I would argue no, but really it's hard to tell. I know that I know many officers who have encountered similar situations here in NJ, and none have had to pull their gun, let alone pull the trigger.

I understand Texas' laws give some leeway to the situation - and I believe the jury made the correct decision with the laws available. I simply disagree with the laws. I am opposed to laws which are open for interpretation - as quoted in the article:

Every case involving deadly force ?stands or falls on its own particular facts.?

Race definitely played a part in this. If you deny it, you are oblivious to the world. As said, if the criminals were white, or young, or women - or if the shooter was black, or an illegal immigrant - the outcome would be solely different.

Am I sad the criminals are dead? No. Absolutely not. I'm not some bleeding heart liberal who thinks they just needed a step in the right direction. Chances are they were scum. But once we start skewing the principles of being American, the ultimate outcome will be in no one's benefit.

 

[Arkitech]

Deadly force to protect a few possessions is a bad idea, shows a lack of respect for life. Not that I side with criminals, if you're breaking the law you gotta expect severe consequences. However there's no way it should be legal to kill a person over something like theft.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Hopefully, Horn will get shot in the back while walking on someone's lawn b/c the home owner thought he was going to rob them.

Ah, criminal sympathizers. I love it.

Innocent til proven guilty.

How are they innocent?

They had a bag of loot. Period. How is this any different then if a police officer had shot them? Yes the officer would have tried to detain them without killing them first, but assuming the office could not and the only option he had was shoot them or let them get away so he shoots them. Would you still say the officer shouldn't have because they are "innocent until proven guilty"? They were guilty. End of story.

Option B is they were illegal immigrants, so they broke that law. Either way they broke a law, and for either of those 2 laws I don't have issues with people getting killed because of.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Hopefully, Horn will get shot in the back while walking on someone's lawn b/c the home owner thought he was going to rob them.

Ah, criminal sympathizers. I love it.

Innocent til proven guilty.

How are they innocent?

They had a bag of loot. Period. How is this any different then if a police officer had shot them? Yes the officer would have tried to detain them without killing them first, but assuming the office could not and the only option he had was shoot them or let them get away so he shoots them. Would you still say the officer shouldn't have because they are "innocent until proven guilty"? They were guilty. End of story.

Option B is they were illegal immigrants, so they broke that law. Either way they broke a law, and for either of those 2 laws I don't have issues with people getting killed because of.

So the punishment for petty theft is murder? I suppose in Texas it is. Also in China.

Also, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution - right to a fair trial, more than speaks for itself.

 

[imported_Section8]

I don't think this guy will get away with it. http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...etfrosch.5439de4a.html

This is the situation that some on here think the Texas law will allow you to get away with. I believe he will be convicted.

In the OPs post I believe the homeowner was justified.

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
He shot two men in the back without permission from his neighbor to protect their property. Should have been charged with murder.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Section8
I don't think this guy will get away with it. http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...etfrosch.5439de4a.html

This is the situation that some on here think the Texas law will allow you to get away with. I believe he will be convicted.

In the OPs post I believe the homeowner was justified.

Wow, look at the chain of events that this law allowed to occur. I don't think you can better define absurdity.

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I guess that means people better stay off other peoples property if they are unknown or uninvited, which, I believe, is the whole point of the law.

It is called private property for a reason - not open to the public.

MotionMan

You're honestly going to argue that the penalty for trespassing should be death? I suppose we may as well start amputating shoplifters' hands, that'll teach 'em!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: slayer202
The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the ?actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.? Deadly force can also be used to protect property when ?the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.?

not sure I agree with that part, but that's the law

You don't have to agree with it because it IS the law. The law was changed back in 1991 or so to allow you to use deadly force to stop someone escaping with property. It wasn't long before a guy shot a burglar that was trying to steal his car.....he shot him from his apartment window. No charges, just like there shouldn't be.

The grand jury got this one right just like Joe Horn did. He just needs to learn that you call 911 AFTER, not before.

The day this story broke all my neighbors made it a point to give me explicit permission to protect their property in front of witnesses.

well you are from texas. and even if it is the law, doesn't mean it is right. killing someone over a few thousand dollars of someone elses money while police are on the way is just stupid, and so is the guy for not staying in his damn house like the 911 operator told him to.

If you're not willing to kill/risk your life to protect your rights, you don't deserve them.

Thankfully, brutal men stand ready to do just that for you while you whine about the life and rights of those who violate the rights and lives of others.

Remember that when you have a nation of hand wringers who stay cowering in their homes, criminals and despots take over.

The police are NOT there to protect you, or your property. They are only there to clean up the mess and catch the criminal AFTER the fact. The protection of yourself and property is YOUR responsibility. Abdicating that responsibility does nothing but make you a favorable victim to criminals.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: slayer202
The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the ?actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.? Deadly force can also be used to protect property when ?the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.?

not sure I agree with that part, but that's the law

You don't have to agree with it because it IS the law. The law was changed back in 1991 or so to allow you to use deadly force to stop someone escaping with property. It wasn't long before a guy shot a burglar that was trying to steal his car.....he shot him from his apartment window. No charges, just like there shouldn't be.

The grand jury got this one right just like Joe Horn did. He just needs to learn that you call 911 AFTER, not before.

The day this story broke all my neighbors made it a point to give me explicit permission to protect their property in front of witnesses.

well you are from texas. and even if it is the law, doesn't mean it is right. killing someone over a few thousand dollars of someone elses money while police are on the way is just stupid, and so is the guy for not staying in his damn house like the 911 operator told him to.

If you're not willing to kill/risk your life to protect your rights, you don't deserve them.

Thankfully, brutal men stand ready to do just that for you while you whine about the life and rights of those who violate the rights and lives of others.

Remember that when you have a nation of hand wringers who stay cowering in their homes, criminals and despots take over.

The police are NOT there to protect you, or your property. They are only there to clean up the mess and catch the criminal AFTER the fact. The protection of yourself and property is YOUR responsibility. Abdicating that responsibility does nothing but make you a favorable victim to criminals.

I fail to see what right this murder protected. Do other humans not have the right to life?

 

[imported_Section8]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Section8
I don't think this guy will get away with it. http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...etfrosch.5439de4a.html

This is the situation that some on here think the Texas law will allow you to get away with. I believe he will be convicted.

In the OPs post I believe the homeowner was justified.

Wow, look at the chain of events that this law allowed to occur. I don't think you can better define absurdity.

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I guess that means people better stay off other peoples property if they are unknown or uninvited, which, I believe, is the whole point of the law.

It is called private property for a reason - not open to the public.

MotionMan

You're honestly going to argue that the penalty for trespassing should be death? I suppose we may as well start amputating shoplifters' hands, that'll teach 'em!

The law had nothing to do with the Kaufman shooting. The old guy is a well known ahole and will be convicted and sent to prison.

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: MotionMan
You know, if you do not commit crimes, the likelihood of being shot dead is greatly reduced.

MotionMan

I guess that innocent til proven guilty thing gets thrown out the door here.

Since when is anandtech a court of law?

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: slayer202
The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the ?actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.? Deadly force can also be used to protect property when ?the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.?

not sure I agree with that part, but that's the law

You don't have to agree with it because it IS the law. The law was changed back in 1991 or so to allow you to use deadly force to stop someone escaping with property. It wasn't long before a guy shot a burglar that was trying to steal his car.....he shot him from his apartment window. No charges, just like there shouldn't be.

The grand jury got this one right just like Joe Horn did. He just needs to learn that you call 911 AFTER, not before.

The day this story broke all my neighbors made it a point to give me explicit permission to protect their property in front of witnesses.

well you are from texas. and even if it is the law, doesn't mean it is right. killing someone over a few thousand dollars of someone elses money while police are on the way is just stupid, and so is the guy for not staying in his damn house like the 911 operator told him to.

If you're not willing to kill/risk your life to protect your rights, you don't deserve them.

Thankfully, brutal men stand ready to do just that for you while you whine about the life and rights of those who violate the rights and lives of others.

Remember that when you have a nation of hand wringers who stay cowering in their homes, criminals and despots take over.

The police are NOT there to protect you, or your property. They are only there to clean up the mess and catch the criminal AFTER the fact. The protection of yourself and property is YOUR responsibility. Abdicating that responsibility does nothing but make you a favorable victim to criminals.

So by your logic if someone tells you to shut up, shoot em in the head because they're infringing on your right to free speech. You can protect your rights without resorting to deadly force. A violation of a right does not mean an automatic call to arms.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Section8

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Section8
I don't think this guy will get away with it. http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...etfrosch.5439de4a.html

This is the situation that some on here think the Texas law will allow you to get away with. I believe he will be convicted.

In the OPs post I believe the homeowner was justified.

Wow, look at the chain of events that this law allowed to occur. I don't think you can better define absurdity.

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I guess that means people better stay off other peoples property if they are unknown or uninvited, which, I believe, is the whole point of the law.

It is called private property for a reason - not open to the public.

MotionMan

You're honestly going to argue that the penalty for trespassing should be death? I suppose we may as well start amputating shoplifters' hands, that'll teach 'em!

The law had nothing to do with the Kaufman shooting. The old guy is a well known ahole and will be convicted and sent to prison.

Kaufman County authorities initially cited the state's new "castle law" in declining to file charges. Under the law, a person is presumed to be acting reasonably if he shoots someone he believes is trying to break into his occupied home, business or car.

They didn't even file charges at first due to the law. I'll wager that this guy may not have fired had this law not existed. Sure, he may have fired anyway, but the bottom line is that this law gives enough of a grey area where he could easily think he's in the right. I'm glad he's getting his.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: Amused
If you're not willing to kill/risk your life to protect your rights, you don't deserve them.

Thankfully, brutal men stand ready to do just that for you while you whine about the life and rights of those who violate the rights and lives of others.

Remember that when you have a nation of hand wringers who stay cowering in their homes, criminals and despots take over.

The police are NOT there to protect you, or your property. They are only there to clean up the mess and catch the criminal AFTER the fact. The protection of yourself and property is YOUR responsibility. Abdicating that responsibility does nothing but make you a favorable victim to criminals.

So where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say I have the right to kill someone if they impose upon my rights?

And where does the line get drawn?

Again, I am all for civil liberties and fighting for and protecting your rights as an American citizen. The thing is, we have a judicial system for a reason.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: TheVrolok
In my mind, this guy committed murder.

He did. He murdered people who needed murdering. I have no problems with that.

I am pro death penalty. I am pro guns. I am pro justice.

But what you said is quite terrible.

The two men were thieves. I am in total agreement. But our country was founded on a few very basic principles - one in particular is the right to a fair trial. An individual has no right to be the judge, jury, and executioner when his immediate well-being is not in peril (it was 100% not).

Furthermore:

The operator repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to shoot, and the police had just arrived at the scene when Mr. Horn fired three blasts of 00 buckshot from his 12-gauge, striking the men in their backs.

Would the police have shot and killed these men? I would argue no, but really it's hard to tell. I know that I know many officers who have encountered similar situations here in NJ, and none have had to pull their gun, let alone pull the trigger.

I understand Texas' laws give some leeway to the situation - and I believe the jury made the correct decision with the laws available. I simply disagree with the laws. I am opposed to laws which are open for interpretation - as quoted in the article:

Every case involving deadly force ?stands or falls on its own particular facts.?

Race definitely played a part in this. If you deny it, you are oblivious to the world. As said, if the criminals were white, or young, or women - or if the shooter was black, or an illegal immigrant - the outcome would be solely different.

Am I sad the criminals are dead? No. Absolutely not. I'm not some bleeding heart liberal who thinks they just needed a step in the right direction. Chances are they were scum. But once we start skewing the principles of being American, the ultimate outcome will be in no one's benefit.

well said.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: MotionMan
You know, if you do not commit crimes, the likelihood of being shot dead is greatly reduced.

MotionMan

I guess that innocent til proven guilty thing gets thrown out the door here.

Um if i catch you in my house, your guilty. I'm not going to wait for a jury to show up and give me the ok.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Section8

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Section8
I don't think this guy will get away with it. http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...etfrosch.5439de4a.html

This is the situation that some on here think the Texas law will allow you to get away with. I believe he will be convicted.

In the OPs post I believe the homeowner was justified.

Wow, look at the chain of events that this law allowed to occur. I don't think you can better define absurdity.

Originally posted by: MotionMan
I guess that means people better stay off other peoples property if they are unknown or uninvited, which, I believe, is the whole point of the law.

It is called private property for a reason - not open to the public.

MotionMan

You're honestly going to argue that the penalty for trespassing should be death? I suppose we may as well start amputating shoplifters' hands, that'll teach 'em!

The law had nothing to do with the Kaufman shooting. The old guy is a well known ahole and will be convicted and sent to prison.

Kaufman County authorities initially cited the state's new "castle law" in declining to file charges. Under the law, a person is presumed to be acting reasonably if he shoots someone he believes is trying to break into his occupied home, business or car.

They didn't even file charges at first due to the law. I'll wager that this guy may not have fired had this law not existed. Sure, he may have fired anyway, but the bottom line is that this law gives enough of a grey area where he could easily think he's in the right. I'm glad he's getting his.

This law reminds me of the South Park episode with the Mexican Jumping Frog. All Ned had to do was yell "It's getting ready to attack" as the frog sat on a log, and he could legally kill it.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
Now, how would this law pertain to store owners?

Texas penal code allows fo rth euse of deadly force if the actor reasonably believes the act is nessicary to prevent the commission of the crime or if he is in fear of his life or their is belief that there is no other way to retrieve the property.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: slayer202
The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the ?actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.? Deadly force can also be used to protect property when ?the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.?

not sure I agree with that part, but that's the law

You don't have to agree with it because it IS the law. The law was changed back in 1991 or so to allow you to use deadly force to stop someone escaping with property. It wasn't long before a guy shot a burglar that was trying to steal his car.....he shot him from his apartment window. No charges, just like there shouldn't be.

The grand jury got this one right just like Joe Horn did. He just needs to learn that you call 911 AFTER, not before.

The day this story broke all my neighbors made it a point to give me explicit permission to protect their property in front of witnesses.

well you are from texas. and even if it is the law, doesn't mean it is right. killing someone over a few thousand dollars of someone elses money while police are on the way is just stupid, and so is the guy for not staying in his damn house like the 911 operator told him to.

911 operate can't TELL him to do anything. He can suggest, but he has no legal authority over the person on the other end of the line. You may not believe it is right, but most Texans and free thinking people think it is correct. Go ahead and put a sign up in your yard that says you will not defend your self or property and leave your door wide open, since it's only a few thousand dollars of stuff they might take.

Let us know how that turns out.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
This law reminds me of the South Park episode with the Mexican Jumping Frog. All Ned had to do was yell "It's getting ready to attack" as the frog sat on a log, and he could legally kill it.

Ha, yes.

"It's comin' right for us!"

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: slayer202
The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the ?actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.? Deadly force can also be used to protect property when ?the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.?

not sure I agree with that part, but that's the law

You don't have to agree with it because it IS the law. The law was changed back in 1991 or so to allow you to use deadly force to stop someone escaping with property. It wasn't long before a guy shot a burglar that was trying to steal his car.....he shot him from his apartment window. No charges, just like there shouldn't be.

The grand jury got this one right just like Joe Horn did. He just needs to learn that you call 911 AFTER, not before.

The day this story broke all my neighbors made it a point to give me explicit permission to protect their property in front of witnesses.

Except Horn didn't have permission from his neighbors. He should be rotting in jail.

Where are you getting your bullshit about not having permission. Read the interview with the homeowners. They explicity said they are glad Joe did what he did. That IS permission.
Here in Texas we still have a sense of community. We look after our neighbors. We care about the people we live next to. We are not liek your highly civilized cities where we lay down and die and give criminals more rights than victims. The only thing I'm sorry about in this case is that the guys were illegals and Joe has nothing to gain by suing their family for emotional distress.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: slayer202

and ron, where do you see anything about self defense? did they have a gun?

One of them had a crow bar and had apparently entered Horn's property.

MotionMan

im willing to bet he didn't try to get them to get on the ground or anything. not to mention he shot them in the back lol

He told them not to move. It's on the audio tape. They started fleeing, one towards him initially then turning towards the curb.

Horn did right.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: slayer202
The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the ?actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.? Deadly force can also be used to protect property when ?the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.?

not sure I agree with that part, but that's the law

You don't have to agree with it because it IS the law. The law was changed back in 1991 or so to allow you to use deadly force to stop someone escaping with property. It wasn't long before a guy shot a burglar that was trying to steal his car.....he shot him from his apartment window. No charges, just like there shouldn't be.

The grand jury got this one right just like Joe Horn did. He just needs to learn that you call 911 AFTER, not before.

The day this story broke all my neighbors made it a point to give me explicit permission to protect their property in front of witnesses.

well you are from texas. and even if it is the law, doesn't mean it is right. killing someone over a few thousand dollars of someone elses money while police are on the way is just stupid, and so is the guy for not staying in his damn house like the 911 operator told him to.

911 operate can't TELL him to do anything. He can suggest, but he has no legal authority over the person on the other end of the line. You may not believe it is right, but most Texans and free thinking people think it is correct. Go ahead and put a sign up in your yard that says you will not defend your self or property and leave your door wide open, since it's only a few thousand dollars of stuff they might take.

Let us know how that turns out.

Just because some of us don't condone murder to prevent theft we don't condone theft. 😛 There's some really bad logic going around. It's as if when we won't defend our property with deadly force we deserve to have it stolen.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Renob
Woot good guy 2 bad guys ZERO

Kill those fuckers dead if they try to steal from my neighbors and I! I just love seeing all the liberal cry babies in a huff over this, always wanting to give the human garbage more rights than the law-abiding taxpaying people.

God, I couldn't have said it better. Leave my family and property alone and nothing will happen. Simple as that. How do you some of you not understand that?