Texas Killer Freed

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

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.

Scenario:
I pull a gun on you. I'm going to rob you then kill you. I tell you this.
You are also armed. You have a CLEAR opportunity to pull your gun and shot me dead.

Do you:
Shoot, or...
Wait for a judge/jury to convict him before you shoot?

Oh, here's another one.

Cops are in a stand off. The perp shoots a hostage and threatens to shoot more.
SWAT is on scene and in place to attack the perp.

Should they:
attack the perp, or...
Wait for a judge/jury trial before they enter?

In short, you have a poor understanding of "innocent until proven guilty".

None of your examples fit the description of this crime. The burglars were unarmed. The police were coming. He did not have permission from his neighbors to defend their property. He was inside his house. He came out and shot them in the back.

It relates to your issue. You do -not- have to wait for a guilty verdict before action is taken when defending your life/property, so saying "innocent until proven guilty" is completely and utterly moot.

Unarmed doesn't matter. See: Texas state law.
Police doesn't matter. See: Texas state law.
Neighbors supported his action. See: Texas state law.
Shot in the back doesn't matter. See: Texas state law.

Any other irrelevant points you want to make?

Taking objection to the law is one thing. Thinking this man acted outside the law is moronic, the law agrees with the homeowner. Saying someone should be killed for FOLLOWING THE LAW, is in fact, moronic.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

None of your examples fit the description of this crime. The burglars were unarmed. The police were coming. He did not have permission from his neighbors to defend their property. He was inside his house. He came out and shot them in the back.

Once again, you do not understand the law. He does not need implicit permission. The law states, the actor( Joe Horn) reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;

Reasonably believes does not mean the 1st party says hey joe you can shoot that guy. It means Joe believed he was doing what the neighbor wanted him to do, which is what happened.



edit: hopefully i got all the nested quotes out of my posts, so at least some of you will hate me a little less because I care for you soo much :lips:

 

[buck]

Wow this thread is hot.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I really find it quite disgusting and disturbing how quickly so many of you would be able to kill another human being. It's really very sad.

KT

human beings respect other peoples propertiy and they realize that there are consequences for their actions.

They were killed in the act of a felony.

So stealing a piece of property, a replaceable good, is worthy of death. Wow. I really don't know what to say to that.

KT

I'm not sure how you are surprised about this. Defending property with deadly force isn't new at all. The only "new" part about this law is extending that right to defending your neighbors property.

What I'm surprised by is peoples' wanton disregard for human life.

KT

Laws to defend private property with deadly force have been around for a LONG time. Why the surprise?

 

[jpeyton]

Can a shop owner kill a teenager shoplifting a candy bar?

Can a homeowner execute a pair of high school students who trespassed on their property to take a dip in their pool?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent


What I'm surprised by is peoples' wanton disregard for human life.

KT

What I'm surprised by is peoples wanton care for low life pieces of shit that commit crime after crime yet should be given a free ride in life, and those people's inability to apply reason and understanding of the laws that govern people that defend themselves.

You may have a moral objection to what happened, but there is a clear legal defense to the actors actions and that in the long run is what matters.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Nitemare
cops and soldiers commit "murder" daily. Why is it right for them to "murder" and John Q Citizen not allowed to to prevent a felony from happening?

Please tell me you're not serious.

Tell me why he isn't serious. As I've stated before, there is no Constitutional Amendments saying that a police officer has the right to kill anyone. In fact there is no Constitutional mandate that we have to have police officers. A police officers powers are granted by the state, and thus he must work under the law and power of the state. Joe Horn or anyone else that will or would use a firearm on another person must do so under the power given to them by their state. Therefore, while the rules they follow are actually stricter on police officers because of departmental regulations, a police officer and a citizen are afforded rights by the state to use deadly force. So if you don't want joe citizen to be able to shoot a bad guy, then you are saying you don't want a police officer to shoot a bad guy for any reason.

Also, no where in the Constitution does it say Thou Shalt not Kill (lest you start flame wars on internet message boards)

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That is our "thou shalt not kill".

We also have the right to a fair trial.

As I've said earlier, I don't disagree with the court's ruling, but I do disagree with the law. I have no sympathies for the deceased. I'm just not sure I wish to live in a country where theft (unarmed theft, no less) is a crime punishable by death. I don't think our founding fathers did, either.

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.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: KeithTalent


What I'm surprised by is peoples' wanton disregard for human life.

KT

What I'm surprised by is peoples wanton care for low life pieces of shit that commit crime after crime yet should be given a free ride in life, and those people's inability to apply reason and understanding of the laws that govern people that defend themselves.

You may have a moral objection to what happened, but there is a clear legal defense to the actors actions and that in the long run is what matters.

Right, and Horn knew they were low-life repeat offenders when he shot them in the back. Of course I morally object, it's despicable. Just saying "it's the law, so it's ok" doesn't make it any more palatable nor does it mean it was the right thing to do. As I said before I think he got away with murder here.

I guess I should just consider myself fortunate that I don't live in Texas. I think back to when I used to cut through people's yards when I was a kid and I imagine I'd probably be dead now if I did it down there.

KT

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I guess I should just consider myself fortunate that I don't live in Texas. I think back to when I used to cut through people's yards when I was a kid and I imagine I'd probably be dead now if I did it down there.

KT

Yeah, you were cutting thru people's actual homes with a crow bar and a sack in the other hand. :roll: Quit being a stupid douche.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I guess I should just consider myself fortunate that I don't live in Texas. I think back to when I used to cut through people's yards when I was a kid and I imagine I'd probably be dead now if I did it down there.

KT

Yeah, you were cutting thru people's actual homes with a crow bar and a sack in the other hand. :roll: Quit being a stupid douche.

Had a couple of golf clubs on me once or twice, does that count? That kind of thing NEVER happens though, you're right. :roll:

KT

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
Some of you in here seem to like to point out that this guy shot at the burglars even "after the 911 operator told him not to do anything". This is a serious question.....does a 911 operator have any authority whatsoever in situations like this? Some of you make it sound like since the operator told him to stop and not go outside, that it was to be followed explicitly. It seems to me that the operator can only make suggestions, not give orders. But I don't know what authority an operator has, so I don't really know.

no, but in my opinion his statements and actions qualified as premeditated murder. He informed the dispatcher that we intended to kill both men before he ever stepped foot out of his home. Before they were on his property. Before he had any knowledge if they were armed or not.

That is murder, plain and simple.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I guess I should just consider myself fortunate that I don't live in Texas. I think back to when I used to cut through people's yards when I was a kid and I imagine I'd probably be dead now if I did it down there.

KT

Yay, more dishonest arguments!

Because shooting children cutting through yards is exactly what happens here Texas. It doesn't generally make the news because we're all tired of hearing the same story on an hourly basis. We're that fucked up down here. YEEEHAAAW

*pulls a 6-shooter and fires in the air*

:|

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: blurredvision
Some of you in here seem to like to point out that this guy shot at the burglars even "after the 911 operator told him not to do anything". This is a serious question.....does a 911 operator have any authority whatsoever in situations like this? Some of you make it sound like since the operator told him to stop and not go outside, that it was to be followed explicitly. It seems to me that the operator can only make suggestions, not give orders. But I don't know what authority an operator has, so I don't really know.

no, but in my opinion his statements and actions qualified as premeditated murder. He informed the dispatcher that we intended to kill both men before he ever stepped foot out of his home. Before they were on his property. Before he had any knowledge if they were armed or not.

That is murder, plain and simple.

Which is legal in Texas, apparently, so long as they're carrying your neighbor's stereo.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I guess I should just consider myself fortunate that I don't live in Texas. I think back to when I used to cut through people's yards when I was a kid and I imagine I'd probably be dead now if I did it down there.

KT

Yay, more dishonest arguments!

Because shooting children cutting through yards is exactly what happens here Texas. It doesn't generally make the news because we're all tired of hearing the same story on an hourly basis. We're that fucked up down here. YEEEHAAAW

*pulls a 6-shooter and fires in the air*

:|

you didn't read the link about the other guy who killed the kid on his lawn did you...

 

[slayer202]

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.

that might be the most idiotic post i've ever seen on AT. btw, horn wasn't even defending his own property.

and to all the people saying the guys threatened him, i say bullshit. HE SHOT THEM IN THE BACK.

look, I see where the guy was coming from. If I saw someone breaking into my house, even if it was empty at the time, I would be really angry, and if I was in texas and had guns and shit, yeah, I might try to use them. and I can see how he got pissed even if it was his neighbors house(no, race didnt play a factor...lol). that still doesn't make it just though.

and what do you guys think. If the cops got there sooner and the 2 guys tried to run away, would the cops have shotgunned/killed them in the back while they were unarmed? not even in texas...

and I think someone else mentioned it, but do you crazy fucks in texas realize that the majority of states don't share the same law/philosophy as you?

 

[imported_Section8]

Originally posted by: slayer202

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.

that might be the most idiotic post i've ever seen on AT. btw, horn wasn't even defending his own property.

and to all the people saying the guys threatened him, i say bullshit. HE SHOT THEM IN THE BACK.

look, I see where the guy was coming from. If I saw someone breaking into my house, even if it was empty at the time, I would be really angry, and if I was in texas and had guns and shit, yeah, I might try to use them. and I can see how he got pissed even if it was his neighbors house(no, race didnt play a factor...lol). that still doesn't make it just though.

and what do you guys think. If the cops got there sooner and the 2 guys tried to run away, would the cops have shotgunned/killed them in the back while they were unarmed? not even in texas...

and I think someone else mentioned it, but do you crazy fucks in texas realize that the majority of states don't share the same law/philosophy as you?

If the police showed up and they witnessed the fleeing felons then they could have shot them. And nothing crazy ever happens in New Jersey does it? You = Fail

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Nitemare
cops and soldiers commit "murder" daily. Why is it right for them to "murder" and John Q Citizen not allowed to to prevent a felony from happening?

Please tell me you're not serious.

Tell me why he isn't serious. As I've stated before, there is no Constitutional Amendments saying that a police officer has the right to kill anyone. In fact there is no Constitutional mandate that we have to have police officers. A police officers powers are granted by the state, and thus he must work under the law and power of the state. Joe Horn or anyone else that will or would use a firearm on another person must do so under the power given to them by their state. Therefore, while the rules they follow are actually stricter on police officers because of departmental regulations, a police officer and a citizen are afforded rights by the state to use deadly force. So if you don't want joe citizen to be able to shoot a bad guy, then you are saying you don't want a police officer to shoot a bad guy for any reason.

Also, no where in the Constitution does it say Thou Shalt not Kill (lest you start flame wars on internet message boards)

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That is our "thou shalt not kill".

We also have the right to a fair trial.

As I've said earlier, I don't disagree with the court's ruling, but I do disagree with the law. I have no sympathies for the deceased. I'm just not sure I wish to live in a country where theft (unarmed theft, no less) is a crime punishable by death. I don't think our founding fathers did, either.

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.

In Texas they have a right to kill yo ass if they catch ya stealing...

if you don't like it move to California where the property owner will help you load up their TV and stereo because you are just a misguided victim of society...

God bless Texas

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This thread makes me sick to my stomach all the moronic replies defending criminals rights.

For everyone trying to equate this shooting as punishment for a crime "burglary = death penalty in Texas" your argument is more than idiotic. This is about tresspass and owners rights to protect their property, has nothing to do with what type of crime was commited.

In this case Joe Horn had no idea the extent of the crime they had commited, for all he knew these criminals had just killed and mutilated the neighbors family. You guys make it sound like if someone came on your property to rob you, you would let them because "it's just stuff" well what about when they decide robbing you isn't fun enough so they decide to rape and murder your wife and daughter? Going to change your mind then? Sorry, too late your fucking dead.

Here is how it works, you come on my property uninvited and through my best judgement you are here to commit a crime I will pull a gun on you and tell you to freeze, if you comply you will get to meet the police and explain yourself, if you don't expect to get shot.
Whats' so difficult to understand about that? That has been the unwritten law in Texas forever (now it's the written law). If you want to tresspass and commit crimes on someones property in Texas you better understand this or you will find the same fate as these two idiots.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I guess I should just consider myself fortunate that I don't live in Texas. I think back to when I used to cut through people's yards when I was a kid and I imagine I'd probably be dead now if I did it down there.

KT

Yay, more dishonest arguments!

Because shooting children cutting through yards is exactly what happens here Texas. It doesn't generally make the news because we're all tired of hearing the same story on an hourly basis. We're that fucked up down here. YEEEHAAAW

*pulls a 6-shooter and fires in the air*

:|

Because a single case=ALL THE TIME.

Also.

"Self-defense claims are weighed on a case-by-case basis, based on the facts," Kaufman County District Attorney Rick Harrison said Monday. "We decided to take it to the grand jury, and they indicted him."

I bolded the important part. See if you can tell the difference between the OP's case, the law and that example.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Here is how it works, you come on my property uninvited and through my best judgement you are here to commit a crime I will pull a gun on you and tell you to freeze, if you comply you will get to meet the police and explain yourself, if you don't expect to get shot.
Whats' so difficult to understand about that? That has been the unwritten law in Texas forever (now it's the written law). If you want to tresspass and commit crimes on someones property in Texas you better understand this or you will find the same fate as these two idiots.

It's been written law in Texas to defense your property with deadly force since... Forever?

The "new" part of the law extends that right to defending your neighbors property and I think allowing you to shoot someone fleeing. Not sure about the last part...

 

[IEC]

Let's see.

Under Texas law, what Horn did is completely legal and he cannot be imprisoned for it.
Many people would view what he did as morally reprehensible (shooting in the back to kill), but there's nothing you can do about it. Personally, I think shooting them in the legs would have been the appropriate course of action.

It doesn't matter. Case closed. Grand jury refused to indict.

Summary: Don't break into homes to steal things and maybe you won't get shot by trigger-happy homeowners.

 

[JTsyo]

FYI, they were shot not for robbing the place but for not stopping afterwards so that they could have a fair trial. They chose to take the risk of getting shot instead of stopping, it didn't pay off. In order for them to go to trail, they have to be caught first. There's no guarantee that they would have been caught.

 

[robphelan]

ack. stop with the liberal bashing.. i'm a liberal pro-guns(for the most part), pro-death penalty, pro-protecting my private property.. it's not a liberal v conservative argument.

as for the guns.. i'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms.. i'm from Texas.. hunted half my life.. however, I really think handguns should be banned.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman


Yes, the Militia should be able to bear arms. Anyone else, no.

I agree.

The militia is made up of able bodied citizens. That doesn't just mean police or the military in case you're not in touch with the Constitution or Supreme Court.

So I'm all for the militia (citizens) being able to own guns.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: robphelan


as for the guns.. i'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms.. i'm from Texas.. hunted half my life.. however, I really think handguns should be banned.

Come and get them.