Castle Law Texas Style!

[Durandal]

Happy Thanksgiving! :)



Texan Kills 2 Suspects While On Phone With 911
CBS News Interactive: Crime Beat
PASADENA, Texas (CBS) ― The 911 call came from a Pasadena, Texas resident, who alerted police to two burglary suspects on a neighbor's property. Before he hung up, two men were dead by his hand.

Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun.

"I've got a shotgun," Horn said, according to a tape of the 911 call. "Do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.

"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this --."

Shortly after, Horn said he sees one suspect was standing in front of his house, looking at it from the street.

"I don't know if they're armed or not. I know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with. ... Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood."

He gets more agitated. The dispatcher asks if he can see the suspects but they had retreated into the target's house, out of view: "I can go out the front [to look], but if I go out the front I'm bringing my shotgun with me, I swear to God. I am not gonna let 'em get away with this, I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK? I'm gonna shoot, I'm gonna shoot."

"Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?" the dispatcher said. "I know you're pissed off, I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting somebody over this, OK?"

"I don't want to," Horn said, "but I mean if I go out there, you know, to see what the hell is going on, what choice am I gonna have?

"No, I don't want you to go out there, I just asked if you could see anything out there."

The dispatcher asks if a vehicle could be seen; Horn said no. The dispatcher again says Horn should stay inside the house.

Almost five minutes into the call, police had not arrived.

"I can't see if [the suspects are] getting away or not," Horn said.

Horn told the dispatcher that he doesn't know the neighbors well, unlike those living on the other side of his home. "I can assure you if it had been their house, I would have already done something, because I know them very well," he said.

Dispatcher: "I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?"

Horn: "Yes?"

Dispatcher: "I got ultras coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house. And I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers are poking around out there."

Horn: "I understand that, OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the First and you know it and I know it."

Dispatcher: "I understand."

Horn: "I have a right to protect myself ..."

Dispatcher: "I'm ..."

Horn: "And a shotgun is a legal weapon, it's not an illegal weapon."

Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..."

Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "

Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..."

Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this --. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"

Dispatcher: "Mister, do not go outside the house."

Horn: "I'm sorry, this ain't right, buddy."

Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"

Dispatcher: "Stay in the house."

Horn: "There, one of them's getting away!

Dispatcher: "That's alright, property's not something worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house, don't be shooting nobody. I know you're pissed and you're frustrated but don't do it."

Horn: "They got a bag of loot."

Dispatcher: "OK. How big is the bag?" He then talks off, relaying the information.

Dispatcher: "Which way are they going?"

Horn: "I can't ... I'm going outside. I'll find out."

Dispatcher: "I don't want you going outside, Mister..."

Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

Dispatcher: "Don't go outside."

On the tape of the 911 call, the shotgun can be heard being cocked and Horn can be heard going outside and confronting someone.

"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts. A loud bang is heard, then a shotgun being cocked and fired again, and then again.

Then Horn is back on the phone:

"Get the law over here quick. I've now, get, one of them's in the front yard over there, he's down, he almost run down the street. I had no choice. They came in the front yard with me, man, I had no choice! ... Get somebody over here quick, man."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, are you out there right now?"

Horn: "No, I am inside the house, I went back in the house. Man, they come right in my yard, I didn't know what the -- they was gonna do, I shot 'em, OK?"

Dispatcher: "Did you shoot somebody?

Horn: "Yes, I did, the cops are here right now."

Dispatcher: "Where are you right now?"

Horn: "I'm inside the house. ..."

Dispatcher: "Mister Horn, put that gun down before you shoot an officer of mine. I've got several officers out there without uniforms on."

Horn: "I am in the front yard right now. I am ..."

Dispatcher: "Put that gun down! There's officers out there without uniforms on. Do not shoot anybody else, do you understand me? I've got police out there..."

Horn: "I understand, I understand. I am out in the front yard waving my hand right now."

Dispatcher: "You don't have a gun with you, do you?

Horn: "No, no, no."

Dispatcher: "You see a uniformed officer? Now lay down on the ground and don't do nothing else."

Yelling is heard.

Dispatcher: "Lay down on the ground, Mister Horn. Do what the officers tell you to do right now."

Two days later, Horn released a statement through an attorney.

"The events of that day will weigh heavily on me for the rest of my life," it said. "My thoughts go out to the loved ones of the deceased."

The identities of the men killed were released Friday.

They are Miguel Antonio Dejesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30. Official records show that each of them had a prior arrest in Harris County for drug offenses.

The men were reportedly shot at a distance of less than 15 feet.

A woman who lives nearby who asked not to be identified told CBS News affiliate KHOU correspondent Rucks Russell that she always saw Horn as a grandfather figure. "He is the guardian of the neighborhood," she said. "He takes care of all our kids. If we ever need anything, we call him."

But according to Tom Lambright, Horn's attorney and a friend for more than four decades, he's the one in need now. "He just needs everyone to know he's not a villain, he's not a bad guy," Lambright said.

He went on to say that Horn voluntarily gave an extensive video statement to police immediately following the shooting.

Horn was not taken into custody after the shooting. A Harris County grand jury will decide if charges are to be filed.

Lambright says Horn acted in complete and total self defense and has nothing to hide.

Local opinion has been passionate on both sides of the shooting.

One letter to the Houston Chronicle said, "He didn't shoot them in the legs, to make sure they did not run away, or hold them at gunpoint until police arrived. No, he was judge, jury and executioner."

Another letter writer praised Horn, saying, "Where does the line form to pin a medal on Joe Horn? I want to get in line." Another wrote, "Let's get rid of the police force and just hire Joe Horn!"

Support for Horn was also running about 2-1 in an online survey of readers on the KHOU Web site.

The incident may prove a test for a new law recently passed in Texas which expands the right of citizens to use deadly force.

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night.

But the legislator who authored the "castle doctrine" bill told the Chronicle it was never intended to apply to a neighbor's property, to prompt a "'Law West of the Pecos' mentality or action," said Republican Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "You're supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle."

[hughdotoh]

Nice lines:



Dispatcher: "You gonna get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don't care what you think."

Horn: "You wanna make a bet?"


This one cuts it cool:


Horn: "Well, here it goes buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

[Gothjod]

"Boom! You're dead!" he shouts.


That's a wrong transcription... its "Move... You're Dead!" He warned them first and when these guys moved towards him there's when he shot

Im trying to get the CNN video where it shows that.

Ed: ok go to http://www.cnn.com/video/ and look for the
911 call: 'I'm gonna kill 'em' video

[PeterG]

I want castle laws too! Fat chance here though...

[gaijinsamurai]

Whether or not he'll be prosecuted depends on Texas law. Here in Oregon, he'd probably be facing a long prison term.
My sympathies are with him, and if they don't prosecute, I'm fine with that.

[Dasein]

Looks to me like Mr. Horn is going to be facing some manslaughter charges. I fail to see anything that indicates how his actions are defensible: he saw a couple of suspicious people doing something to a neighbors house, but was not himself in any immediate danger. He then voluntarily confronts these men, and ends up shooting them both. This is manslaughter, plain and simple.

[kosse]

I want castle laws too! Fat chance here though...
2x. I envy US citizens' rights of self defence and defence of property. Make sure politicians don't take those rights away like in Europe where defending against criminals is well nigh impossible without landing in a jail.

[Hollis]

Whether or not he'll be prosecuted depends on Texas law. Here in Oregon, he'd probably be facing a long prison term.
My sympathies are with him, and if they don't prosecute, I'm fine with that.


Yeah, I am all for prosecuting the perps again. Hang them in Iron cages at the city border for the crows to feast on. Sign saying, Perps this is your reward for victimizing our good folks here.

OK, I am just kind of kidding. We really do give the perps too much slack.

[szr]

We'll have this idiot to thank when opponents of a robust right to self defense successfully undermine citizens' rights to defend themselves by citing this case as the basis for new legislation that further restricts a person's ability to lawfully defend life and property.

[Xaito]

My sympathies are with him, and if they don't prosecute, I'm fine with that.

x2 - one of these junkies once tried breaking into my home a couple of years ago - he fell off the roof and hurt his leg when my father ran after him and couldn't get away - but police let him go a short while after.

[raulv]

Something similar to that!!!!!WELCOME TO TEXAS!!!!!

DALLAS -- For the second time in three weeks, police say the owner of a Dallas machine shop has fatally shot an intruder who had broken into his business.

Investigators say no charges will be filed against James Walton, but the case will be referred to a Dallas County grand jury.


Police say Walton killed the suspected burglar with a shotgun blast inside Able Walton Machine & Welding on Sunday. Walton lives above the shop and was alerted to the intrusion by a motion sensor system.

Police identified the intruder as 37-year-old Jimmy Gannon of Ferris.

Walton also shot and wounded a second man Sunday outside of the shop. Police said the man escaped, but was eventually detained for questioning.

Police say Walton shot and killed Raul Laureles about three weeks ago after Laureles climbed through a pried-open window of the business. That incident also was referred to a grand jury.

"It's the second time this has happened in less than a month, where he has shot and killed a burglar, and so the first case was refered over to the grand jury, as this one will be as well," Sgt. Andy Harvey said.

[Rictor]

Look, everyone has a right to defend themselves with whatever weapons they deem appropriate; I'm not arguing that. But from the transcript, it doesn't sound like the man was in imminent danger. Stolen property is not worth a human life. Going by the transcript, it sounds like a voluntary choice to go out and shoot the fleeing robbers.

If you ask me, this is one unnecessary death.

[pgm]

Stolen property is not worth a human life.


I could even agree - I don't, if such propery is the product of a life of work, hopes and dreams - anyway: If you have someone inside your house, what should you do, ask him, "Sir, are you just a burglar or a drug addicted killer/rapist/sadist?" and then wait for his answer? Then, should you say, "Well, Sir, since you want to kill me, would you please wait for the police with me instead?".
But above all, everybody seems to forget one fundamental thing: a criminal chooses to commit a crime, chooses his victims, chooses the place and the time. His victims don't choose anything, and they usually don't even choose to be victims. So, if you don't want to be shot, you have only not to commit crimes. Period. This is the meaning of deterrence, and the only way to avoid any victim (criminal or not). Up with Texas.

[Gothjod]

I could even agree - I don't, if such propery is the product of a life of work, hopes and dreams - anyway: If you have someone inside your house, what should you do, ask him, "Sir, are you just a burglar or a drug addicted killer/rapist/sadist?" and then wait for his answer? Then, should you say, "Well, Sir, since you want to kill me, would you please wait for the police with me instead?".
But above all, everybody seems to forget one fundamental thing: a criminal chooses to commit a crime, chooses his victims, chooses the place and the time. His victims don't choose anything, and they usually don't even choose to be victims. So, if you don't want to be shot, you have only not to commit crimes. Period. This is the meaning of deterrence, and the only way to avoid any victim (criminal or not). Up with Texas.

Couldn't have said it better....

[LaoSexMachine]

Criminals get a free pass when we say "Oh it wasn't worth it". Eff them. They knew they are committing a crime.

[Buckeye67]

The only thing he'll be convicted of in Texas is being a good neighbor. ;)

[Dasein]

So what if he had shot a couple of people who were not actually committing any crime? Let's say it was a couple of repo men coming to reclaim his neighbor's car, and he gunned them down because he though they were thieves?

[Buckeye67]

What if Spartacus had had a Piper Cub?

[RxOnco]

Usually, about once a year there's a repo man shot or shot at down here.

[Albatross]

So what, good for him. Those idiots should have been aware that there is a chance that they would get shot.

[LaoSexMachine]

So what if he had shot a couple of people who were not actually committing any crime? Let's say it was a couple of repo men coming to reclaim his neighbor's car, and he gunned them down because he though they were thieves?


Could of, would of , should of. I live in Houston. Pasadena is basically a suburb of Houston. Crime happens all the time. About a year and a half ago my friend's friend was raped and murder. A crime is a crime.

[hank]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You can not use deadly force in defense of property. End of story. There is a great argument here that this guy did fear eminent bodily injury but if it will ultimately come down to whether he put himself in that situation or it was forced on him by these clowns. You just can't go around shooting people who are stealing stuff. And you never could.

hank

[Dasein]

I see no one really wants to think about the precedent this case sets if this man is exonerated.

He was in no danger himself - his home itself was not invaded, nor were the alleged thieves even aware of him.

He undertook of his own initiative an attempt to stop them, and ended up shooting and killing them both.

Is mere suspicion of criminal activity now sufficient for using deadly force? Where should society draw the line?

It's easy to defend this guy knowing that the victims were, in all likelyhood, thieves, but we need to realize that this may not always be the case, and mere suspicion cannot be the sole factor in allowing the use of deadly force.

[Rifleman]

One thing is for sure, if the two thieves would have gone to work that night, come payday thay could have bought what they were stealing.

The precedent you are selling is that we should show more concern for their lives than they do. You want us to get lost in the what if's. Here "ARE" the facts, a guy killed two thieves...period! Good for him!

[RxOnco]

That's the beauty of living in Texas. After dark, if you're on someone's property...you better be wearing a vest.

[PsychoMantis]

I love how whenever this story comes up,some Californians criticize Texas Castle Doctrine...Despite the fact that California has some of the most dangerous cities in America.

http://www.cqpress.com/docs/City%204%20-%20Most%20Dangerous_14E.pdf

[LaoSexMachine]

I see no one really wants to think about the precedent this case sets if this man is exonerated.

He was in no danger himself - his home itself was not invaded, nor were the alleged thieves even aware of him.

He undertook of his own initiative an attempt to stop them, and ended up shooting and killing them both.

Is mere suspicion of criminal activity now sufficient for using deadly force? Where should society draw the line?

It's easy to defend this guy knowing that the victims were, in all likelyhood, thieves, but we need to realize that this may not always be the case, and mere suspicion cannot be the sole factor in allowing the use of deadly force.

People in Texas know not to go on someone else's property unannounce. We worry to much about criminals rights and not the right of the law-abiding citizen. Well, hind sight is 20/20.

[hank]

Criminal rights has nothing to do with the fact that you can't kill people that you suspect may be stealing. Let's not turn this into something it isn't. It has been the law since before the US existed that you can't kill unless you reasonably fear for your life. That is just axiomatic to US (and old English common law) law.

hank

[California Joe]

^ Seriously, I listened to the audio on that and the old dude was just itching to slot those guys.

[RxOnco]

I'm no law expert but I believe that, here in Texas, if someone is on your property after dark and unannounced...it can be justified that they don't have good intention to be there and you're good to use whatever force you feel necessary. I vaguely recall there being some type of stipulation that they need to be in the back yard if the sun is up. Like I said, I'm no law expert so hopefully someone with some know-how might chime in.

[LaoSexMachine]

The neighbor asked Horn to look over their house. That could be in Horn's favor. We'll see. From what I hear on the news it will take "weeks".

[shocker1]

I am not down with how this guy shot these people. If they were in his house or about to attack him then maybe. From reading his words he was itching to blow someone away out of anger. Not self defense. It is close to election time and I bet some "enlightened" politician will introduce the Shotgun Registry Bill. Just watch and see.

[hank]

I'm no law expert but I believe that, here in Texas, if someone is on your property after dark and unannounced...it can be justified that they don't have good intention to be there and you're good to use whatever force you feel necessary. I vaguely recall there being some type of stipulation that they need to be in the back yard if the sun is up. Like I said, I'm no law expert so hopefully someone with some know-how might chime in.

There will undoubtedly be someone who posts some law here that says that you can kill people on your property or when you think someone is stealing your tools, etc. We've had this discussion around here several times since 2004. Just so everyone is clear, when you read those laws make sure you read the whole thing because there will always be a definition hidden in there that says you have to fear for your life. Fearing that your property will be stolen alone is not now, never has been, and never will be enough to justify deadly force. People get confused because they read some story where a guy gets killed stealing tools but if you really read the facts in those cases it always boils down to the thief being so close to you that you can say you reasonably fear for your life.

Always rememebr too that no jury will ever convict you for shooting someone in your own house.

This case is not the same. This guy went next door and shot people he thought were stealing from someone else's house. That is at least manslaughter in every state in the Union.

hank

[California Joe]

I don't doubt that the majority of people in the Texas jury pool will probably see him as a sympathetic character but lets face it, he didn't need to go out on his lawn and challenge those jokers with a shotgun.

[hank]

I don't doubt that the majority of people in the Texas jury pool will probably see him as a sympathetic character but lets face it, he didn't need to go out on his lawn and challenge those jokers with a shotgun.

You are right and I'm not predicting what a jury will do. If this guy doesn't get indicted it will undoubtedly be becasue the DA thinks he couldn't convict. On a purely legal basis this is a bad shoot under any state's laws. I'll predict right now that this case will be taught in many law schools because its just a classic case of deadly force that is not justified though to many it might seem so.

hank

[California Joe]

Even if it ends up going to court you could see a case of jury nullification...

[hank]

Even if it ends up going to court you could see a case of jury nullification...


Sure, if they get 12 numbskulls from mp.net on the jury it'll be 12-0 AGAINST conviction. The fact that only 1 numbskull would squash conviction makes that even more likely.

hank

[Far]

About time....I'm so tired of the criminals having more rights than the good guys. Hope he gets off.

[RxOnco]

Gotta love Texas!

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4674/bewaregm4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Rictor]

The way I see it, this was a case not of self-defense but of punishment. He made a conscious decision to go out there and shoot them. And if we're going to have private individuals doling out punishment, at least make it fit the crime.

An argument can be made that cutting off a shoplifter's hand serves as a deterrent, but few people would consider it to be an appropriate level of punishment.

[WarriorMonk]

house arrest anyone?

[Dasein]

People in Texas know not to go on someone else's property unannounce.

Unannounced to whom? If I plan on stopping by a person's house, do I have to notify his neighbors? The guy across the street?


We worry to much about criminals rights and not the right of the law-abiding citizen. Well, hind sight is 20/20.Until convicted in a court of law in accordance with due process, everyone is presumed to be a law abiding citizen.

[mas-36]

Perhaps I may have missed it somewhere, but I'll ask anyway: Did the intruders have anything on them that was a weapon, or could be used as a weapon?

[Litti]

I have had some heated conversations with my friends and in various Finnish forums over this incident and here is my take :

WELL DONE!

And I am not saying that, because he wasted two criminals. But, because this is the kind of neighbour that everyone would like to have, admit it or not.

It takes a lot of courage to protect your own family and property when someone invades your house. But this was not his house, not his privacy on the line, it was his neighbour. And he saw that something wrong was happening and decided to take stand.

"YOU DO NOT CROSS THIS LINE"

The criminals could have surrendered. He clearly stated his intentions when he went out with the gun and yelled at them. They decided to take their chances, fair enough.

[Kippari]

Hehheh, judging by the sound of it, the Shotgun-Joe would pop a kid illegally downloading music from the internet because it's someone else's property.p-)

[Litti]

After watching the video, I think he was not thinking the situation straight. The 911 operator was really bad though, it sounded like he was not taking the situation seriously enough.

[junglejim]

I dont care what the law says, I want him as my neighbor.

[Laconian]

If a police officer had shot and killed these subjects, based on the facts presented, it would be a bad shoot. This is a bad shoot. This guy was never in fear for his life or the life of anyone else - he was protecting stuff. Like hank and CJ said, the local DA might not indict or a jury might not convict, but he didn't have to shoot anyone. He could have stood by and been a good witness for the cops, kept them under observation so responding units could have a better idea of where/what to look for, etc.

Over in another thread people are crucifying a cop who TASERS somebody for not signing a ticket or being patient enough to explain the speeding ticket, but in here its okay to kill somebody over a stolen microwave?

[Dasein]

I dont care what the law says, I want him as my neighbor.

I wouldn't. While he got lucky this time, and killed a couple of people who were likely committing a crime, there are many situations where he could just as easily end up killing someone innocent.

I'd much rather my DVD player get stolen than one of my friends or family get gunned down by some overzealous vigilante who thought they were 'acting supicious'.

[junglejim]

I wouldn't. While he got lucky this time, and killed a couple of people who were likely committing a crime, there are many situations where he could just as easily end up killing someone innocent.

I'd much rather my DVD player get stolen than one of my friends or family get gunned down by some overzealous vigilante who thought they were 'acting supicious'.

Absolutely, because its the norm for neighbors to enter a house through a smashed window and after going through the window, come out with a bag, through the same window.

" know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with"

[Dasein]

Absolutely, because its the norm for neighbors to enter a house through a smashed window and after going through the window, come out with a bag, through the same window.

" know they got a crowbar 'cause that's what they broke the windows with"

It is entirely possible there are legitimate reasons for such activity. While it might be reasonable at this point for my neighbor to call the police, I do not want someone living next door who feels they are judge, jury and executioner.

For those defending this man, what is the appropriate level of suspicion needed before deadly force is acceptable? how much risk should a person place himself in to verify that an actual crime is occurring before using deadly force?

[junglejim]

If I was out of town and my neighbors see's someone breaking through my window at night and grabbing my stuff... feel free to blast away.

I know how the guy felt at that moment, when my place got burglarized cause somebody left the gate open in the middle of a stormy night. For days I left the gate open and stayed up all night with my shotgun hoping that the guy will come back for seconds.

- not condoning what I did, but I just know how the guy must have felt

[Dasein]

If I was out of town and my neighbors see's someone breaking through my window at night and grabbing my stuff... feel free to blast away.

How is he supposed to know that this person is actually a criminal? What if you lock yourself out, and have to pry open a window to get in - would you want your neighbor to open fire then? What if he did - would he be justified in doing so?

[junglejim]

He opened fire after he approached the perps that were about to leave the area.
He didnt blast them from inside his house with a Barret, so Im guessing once he confronts me I would stop and say "Mr. Horn sorry for scaring the crap out of you, but i left my keys.... yes I just had to grab some stuff... couldnt call the locksmith.... felt like coming back out through the broken window instead of the door"

[Dasein]

He opened fire after he approached the perps that were about to leave the area.
He didnt blast them from inside his house with a Barret, so Im guessing once he confronts me I would stop and say "Mr. Horn sorry for scaring the crap out of you, but i left my keys.... yes I just had to grab some stuff... couldnt call the locksmith.... felt like coming back out through the broken window instead of the door"

Would you say he has a legal responsibility to approach a suspicious person?

[Grimner]

I Would not want this guy to be my neighbor, be like living next to judge dread.
What if he were to see someone sneaking around your house at night and ended up killing your daughters boyfriend, Billy Everyteen?

[Xaito]

What if he were to see someone sneaking around your house at night and ended up killing your daughters boyfriend, Billy Everyteen?

then he'd save the father of the daugther the trouble of doing it himself ;)

[LaoSexMachine]

Unannounced to whom? If I plan on stopping by a person's house, do I have to notify his neighbors? The guy across the street?

Until convicted in a court of law in accordance with due process, everyone is presumed to be a law abiding citizen.

Do you live in Texas? People who do know better not to to sneeking in someone's backyard and stealing shyt.


Well, I guess the guy that stole my 100 gallon cooler is a law abiding citizen since he wasn't convicted or caught.

[little icebear]

Over in another thread people are crucifying a cop who TASERS somebody for not signing a ticket or being patient enough to explain the speeding ticket, but in here its okay to kill somebody over a stolen microwave?

Although I know it´s not going to happen, I think Mr.Horn should spend the rest of his days in jail (unless he was attacked by the burglars when he confronted them, that would be a different thing) and that´s exactly what would happen to him, if it had happened in any other country, except for South Africa perhaps.
But I wanted to keep my stupid ideas of right and wrong out of this thread, cause I knew that he´d be a hero for most users around here.
Why argue if you´ve got a totally different mind-set about those issues? It´s a question of sociallization.

[Dasein]

Do you live in Texas? People who do know better not to to sneeking in someone's backyard and stealing shyt.

So does this mean that you need to verify the person is actually stealing something before you shoot them?


Well, I guess the guy that stole my 100 gallon cooler is a law abiding citizen since he wasn't convicted or caught.


Yeah, the presumption of innocence is a real pain. All this stuff about a fair trial and due process - life would be so much easier if you just shot people you suspected of committing a crime.

[Firetxmi]

I'm no law expert but I believe that, here in Texas, if someone is on your property

The key is your property. I wonder if by Mr. Horn going outside he attracted these two criminals to his property and thus shot them. Just a question though.

I will defer to Hank though, as he knows more about law than I do.

[Delta Niner]

Gotta love Texas!

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4674/bewaregm4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


i was about to say that too, besides some dogs are a bit annoying :)

[Delta Niner]

then he'd save the father of the daugther the trouble of doing it himself ;)

almost blew my breakfast out of my mouth with that one, LOL

[seraosha]

Quite a few legal beagles all ready to condemn Mr. Horne.
Suck it.

He'll get his day in court, if the Grand Jury determines he did something wrong. In the meantime, I'd be glad to have a neighbor like him.
Just because he wanted to shoot those dirtbags doesn't mean they didn't have it comin'.

I love living in Texas, it just gets better every day.

[California Joe]

Yeah, it's always a shame when you get comments from actual lawyers, cops and federal agents that don't happen to support some vigilante action by a crazy old neighborhood kook with a shotgun and a hankering to waste a couple of burglars.

Maybe we should just all high five and spout retarded platitudes about "f*ck yeah it's Texas" and just ignore common sense and the law. Thank Gawd he didn't use a taser on them.

[that_one_guy]

How is he supposed to know that this person is actually a criminal? What if you lock yourself out, and have to pry open a window to get in - would you want your neighbor to open fire then? What if he did - would he be justified in doing so?

if he was your neighbor, wouldn't he know who you were? and if you were locked out and had to pry open a window to get in, why would you leave through the window and not the front door? if i were locked out of my house, i'd surely ask my neighbor for help, i've done so in the past.

i live in Texas, and if i caught someone trying to break into my house, I'd take matters into my own hands. The guy could be rapist/serial killer etc. There have been numerous cases of illegals breaking into houses and killing/raping.

[Firetxmi]

Yeah, it's always a shame when you get comments from actual lawyers, cops and federal agents that don't happen to support some vigilante action by a crazy old neighborhood kook with a shotgun and a hankering to waste a couple of burglars.

Maybe we should just all high five and spout retarded platitudes about "f*ck yeah it's Texas" and just ignore common sense and the law. Thank Gawd he didn't use a taser on them.

Haha! Why must you make sense and hate America (or Texas)? :D

Good post.

[Mastermind]

Old white guys with shot guns...Damn...now that's a most dangerous combination.

The perps are caught red handed...the 'Protect and Serve" folks are long minutes away...and you have the right to protect property...yours or your neighbors.

Ha...this one kind of reminds me of Uncle Jimbo on South Park...."look a rabbit!" "Yaaa! It's coming right at us!" "Shoot...!"And they blast the rabbit with AK-47s and bazookas.

This guy hollers "Move ... yer dead." Then instantly, "BANG" Ca-chick "BANG" ca-chick "BANG"

Hey! Wot the Hell? They were carrying away my neighbors stuff!

You get a picture of the thieves and , Whoa! I'd probably shot them just on looks alone....

Of course, it's very much like a fire arms instructor of mine once said..."You shoot anyone...friend, foe, thief, murderer, even someone raping your wife in your own bedroom....your life as you once knew it is over."

[tuercas]

i think its great that Texas has such laws. i believe its one of the reasons people can live in homes with no fences or burglars bars and sleep soundly at nigth , a concept that is foreing to us. Here in Mex we dont have such rigths . we have to wait for law enforcement to save us, so our homes have to look like ugly concrete bunkers with concertina wire or shards of glass on the top of tall concrete walls, every window , even the one to the bathroom , has to have a burglar grates, and still it is no incentive to stop thieves. Aint nothing better than a healthy fear of death to keep someone from breaking into your home.

[hank]

i think its great that Texas has such laws. i believe its one of the reasons people can live in homes with no fences or burglars bars and sleep soundly at nigth , a concept that is foreing to us. Here in Mex we dont have such rigths . we have to wait for law enforcement to save us, so our homes have to look like ugly concrete bunkers with concertina wire or shards of glass on the top of tall concrete walls, every window , even the one to the bathroom , has to have a burglar grates, and still it is no incentive to stop thieves. Aint nothing better than a healthy fear of death to keep someone from breaking into your home.

Guys, I feel like I'm beating dead horse but I can't stop. If you are in your home when someone breaks in you are not protecting property, you are protecting your person. I've said that so many times I feel silly saying it again. The property protection laws do not apply to home breakins when you are home.

hank

[szr]

Yeah, it's always a shame when you get comments from actual lawyers, cops and federal agents that don't happen to support some vigilante action by a crazy old neighborhood kook with a shotgun and a hankering to waste a couple of burglars.

Maybe we should just all high five and spout retarded platitudes about "f*ck yeah it's Texas" and just ignore common sense and the law. Thank Gawd he didn't use a taser on them.
x2

And don't anyone here think they can bank on "woooooooooo! It's Texas baby!" to be impulsive like this jackass, Joe Horn, and think it'll all be OK. Everyone who owns a firearm, here, needs to be very clear on what their local laws are, what exactly self defense is, when deadly force is and isn't justified, and they need to make sure they're packing their best judgement everytime they pack heat.

Joe Horn may have very well ruined the rest of his own life. We don't yet know what his future is, but don't be mistaken, this is very serious.

I don't want young kids who read this site and who may live in a 'Stand Your Ground' state getting the wrong idea about what these laws really mean. I don't know how things will work out for Mr. Horn in Texas but in any other state he's in a world of ****. Exercise judgement, people.

[raulv]

(repost)I grew up about 3 blocks away from this man. Its in the West Dallas area. Most likely they were just looking for copper or scrap metal for quick fix!!!!!!



The Associated Press
For the second time in three weeks, the owner of a machine shop fatally shot an intruder who had broken into his business, police said.

James Walton fired a shotgun Sunday at a man inside Able Walton Machine & Welding, police said. Walton, who lives upstairs from the shop, was alerted to the intruder's presence by a motion sensor system.

"He's got a right to defend his property," Dallas police Sgt. Gene Reyes said. "What gives a stranger the right to go in and vandalize or burglarize his business? He's within every legal right to do this."

Police said the intruder was Jimmy Gannon of Ferris. The 37-year-old died after being taken to a hospital.

Walton also shot and wounded a second man Sunday outside of the shop. Police said the man escaped, but was eventually detained for questioning.

Walton could not be reached for comment Sunday.

Police said no charges were filed against him, but the case will be referred to a grand jury.

About three weeks ago, Walton shot and killed Raul Laureles when Laureles was climbing through a pried-open window of the business, police said. That incident also was referred to a grand jury.

Police said they don't believe anything was stolen from Walton's business on Sunday

[Hollis]

Regardless of Joe Horn's inability to grasp the political nuance of this situation, IMHO........ it still is on the perps head, NOTHING gives the right of a person to FVCK with another. When a person does that, they are fair game.


The perps should have left Joe alone PERIOD!!

[Calanen]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You can not use deadly force in defense of property. End of story. There is a great argument here that this guy did fear eminent bodily injury but if it will ultimately come down to whether he put himself in that situation or it was forced on him by these clowns. You just can't go around shooting people who are stealing stuff. And you never could.

hank

hank - putting one side completely what the law is, which I agree with your take on (with some exceptions, think Lousiana permits deadly force to prevent carjacking) - the DA would have a real hard time finding a jury that will convict him, no matter what the law says.

[Pandy]

Guys, I feel like I'm beating dead horse but I can't stop. If you are in your home when someone breaks in you are not protecting property, you are protecting your person. I've said that so many times I feel silly saying it again. The property protection laws do not apply to home breakins when you are home.

hank

I really don't think it matters thou Hank. if Mr. Horn didn't shoot them and let them get away, there is an another chance to commit an another crime, more bull****, and a possible murder down the road. When you commit a crime, in my eyes, no longer have any rights.

[Robbee]

I really don't think it matters thou Hank. if Mr. Horn didn't shoot them and let them get away, there is an another chance to commit an another crime, more bull****, and a possible murder down the road. When you commit a crime, in my eyes, no longer have any rights.

Including the right to live, it seems... :|
I like the potential crimes (pre-crime) angle, it's very "Minority Report"

[BugHunt]

I really don't think it matters thou Hank. if Mr. Horn didn't shoot them and let them get away, there is an another chance to commit an another crime, more bull****, and a possible murder down the road. When you commit a crime, in my eyes, no longer have any rights.


Jesus - have you ever committed the potentially fatal crime of speeding?


Sounds like you and probably 100% of all car owners are criminals and would probably progress to murder at some point - better shoot the fukkers first....


Theres any number of good reasons why ordinary people dont just become "judge jury and executioner" on a whim. If states with death penalties and due process are executing innocents on a regular basis - how often are granpap Dredge/triggerhappy neighbour and his shotgun gonna make a mistake?


Sometimes i wonder how a wealthy educated country such as yours could stroll into Iraq in the badly planned manner that you did. Then i read threads like this.....

[wicked_hind]

Sometimes i wonder how a wealthy educated country such as yours could stroll into Iraq in the badly planned manner that you did. Then i read threads like this.....

What does that have to do with the situation that's being discussed?

[that_one_guy]

What does that have to do with the situation that's being discussed?

i think he's implying that this "wild west vigilante style" is why we went to Iraq, you know, the whole "United States playing the role of the Global Police or more be it Global Vigilante" etc etc. or he could be implying that you know, since Bush is from Texas and they have this stereotype about Texans as "gun toting vigilantes with hair triggers.." nonetheless, totally irrelevant to this thread.

likewise i really don't think states execute innocents on a regular basis. however a valid point is said on how a trigger happy neighborhood could make a mistake. in this case though, the suspects were caught in the act. you could argue that "hey maybe they were locked out and had to get into their house somehow.."well that implies that:

1) if that is indeed their house (which it wasn't) then they would be neighbors with Mr. Horn. that being said, Horn would know them and not call the police on them.

2)if you were to break into your own house for the sake of getting in when you are locked out, wouldn't it make sense to exit through the door and not the window?

do i think Horn acted accordingly in killing them? no, i don't, but hindsight is 20/20. he couldve held them at gunpoint and waited for the cops to arrive, or the two criminals could've had weapons of their own and killed him.

[Mastermind]

1) You have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself, your family or another person who you see is in peril from attackers.

2) You do have a right to protect your home and your property...but only under very special circumstances.

a) If the intruder/thief presents a threat that you perceive as deadly (you can also use deadly force to protect against bodily harm…like just a beating…why? Because you have no reasonable expectation such a beating will stop short of death.)

b) If the intruder/thief actually threatens you (even just verbally) with harm to yourself or your family.

c) If the intruder/thief is armed with any weapon that could be deadly, even though he/she did not wield or brandish the weapon. This "weapon" could even be a tool that could be used as a weapon...a pry bar, a screwdriver, a wrench.

As for protection of property, that is left for a Grand jury to make a decision on. For example, you will go to jail if you use some form of man-trap, such as a snap trap, a pit, an electrified cage or a trip wired shotgun. The law looks very dimly upon such traps...why? No human life is at risk in a vacant building or shop or barn. However, if you sit up with a shotgun inside your barn protecting the property and the intruder comes in even bare handed, you probably will get away with shooting him/her. Why? Because there was a reasonable threat to your life. Now, if the intruder is an 8 year old, unarmed kid and you are a 35 year old able bodied man...sorry...you are going to probably spend a few years behind bars...Why? Because no jury is going to believe your life was in any danger and that you could have stopped the kid with simple physical force, short of lethal force.

What about killing (or even wounding) an intruder who was fleeing with the goods? Sorry...you are probably going to jail...a fleeing person is not a threat to your life.


See it all comes down to the question..."Was your life in any danger?" It has to be at least a danger that a reasonable person would perceive. Most jury members will appreciate the threat an unarmed man of some strength has over a 60 year old woman with arthritis...the woman probably can shoot the guy. It would probably be acceptable for one man to shoot another, even if the other guy is totally unarmed, in self defense even if both are of equal build...you are not expected to be a skilled grappler or boxer. However, there are cases where an armed man shot and killed a man of much greater strength who was issuing verbal threats to the armed man's life....in those cases the choice to use deadly force rather than flee...since fleeing was a viable option...were considered as man slaughter. You must use every possible option available to you before you choose to use deadly force.

So...In Mr. Horn's case, I can see a jury finding him liable for manslaughter (if not pre-meditated murder) since he stated to the dispatcher he was going to kill the men before he actually killed them...see, in the eyes of the law, that is considered a plan before the act...i.e., premeditation. Horn's life was not in any danger as long as he remained inside his home. There was reasonable likelihood the property was going to be recovered since police were on the way. The culprits, before Mr. Hood presented himself to them, were not acting in any threatening way toward Mr. Horn. Mr. Horn placed himself in the position of being possibly threatened when he stepped in the way of the intruders....if he had remained out of the way, they never would have threatened him. He gave warning but gave no reasonable time for compliance before he fired on the men.

I believe, based on my experience, Mr. Horn could and probably will be charged with two counts of manslaughter. Although, it is not unheard of for a Grand Jury to be sympathetic toward cases like Horn's and let the shooter off with a round-about self defense excuse. Personally, I think the evidence in this case is highly unusual due to its graphic nature and the severe and clear warnings the dispatcher gave and Mr. Horn's stated determination to kill...I think Mr. Horn is in very deep trouble. Just my opinion, of course.

[California Joe]

^ Yep. What Mastermind said.

Very eloquently I might add.

[seraosha]

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, ****** assault, aggravated ****** assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;


Read for yourself.
No high fives, just the law.

[Firetxmi]

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, ****** assault, aggravated ****** assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;


Read for yourself.
No high fives, just the law.

Yes, but it is my interpretation from reading the law that those above offenses have to be commited (or are being commited) against you or your property. Otherwise what is to say I can't go around and just shoot every criminal around town I see doing the above. What do we need the cops for?

[Calanen]

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, ****** assault, aggravated ****** assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;


Read for yourself.
No high fives, just the law.

You're not ready to pass the Bar just yet soldier. There's a big difference between 'theft' and 'robbery.'



PENAL CODE


CHAPTER 29. ROBBERY

Sec. 29.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "In the course of committing theft" means conduct that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.

(2) "Property" means:

(A) tangible or intangible personal property including anything severed from land; or

(B) a document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 29.02.

ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:

(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;

(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or

(3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:

(A) 65 years of age or older; or

(B) a disabled person.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 357, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html

[seraosha]

Yes, but it is my interpretation from reading the law that those above offenses have to be commited (or are being commited) against you or your property. Otherwise what is to say I can't go around and just shoot every criminal around town I see doing the above. What do we need the cops for?

No, read it again.
Your home, your car, your place of work, and any place you have a right to be. The man certainly has a right o be on his front lawn. No one is calling for a batmobil, thanks.

*edit - I've known anough lawyers to never want to be counted among their number, but thanks anyway...did one of the robbers have a crowbar when he approaced Mr. Horn?
On his own lawn?

The events are not black and white, nor are they going to be hashed out here...I conceed that. But unless you are an officer of the court here in Texas, your opinion has as much weight as anyone elses, so please spare me the condescention, cowboy.

[California Joe]

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378I.htm

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, ****** assault, aggravated ****** assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;


Read for yourself.
No high fives, just the law.

Are you high? Read this slowly....The old dude told the 911 dispatcher that he was going to go outside his house, with a shotgun to shoot those burglars. Then he chambered a shell for effect, complete with the loud clacking noise while on the phone. Then he actually did it....to prevent a crime against property, not people, that was taking place in a separate dwelling from his own, and then he shot 2 people dead. You may sympathize with his intent, you may agree with him. But he broke the f*cking law, and he made sure his intent was clear, and well documented, before he did it.

Personally speaking, I actually agree that those douchebags had it coming. But they should have had jail terms not an execution. This guy broke the law. Period. And by doing so he actually weakened the case for average gun owners being responsible.

[seraosha]

Gosh, accused of trying to pass the bar and of drug use in a matter of minutes. Nice folks, thanks for sentiment. Y'all must be friends with my Ex-wife.

And from a Mod, no less.

As I said previously, I'll wait for any action from the Grand Jury, and will post it as I find it out.

[Firetxmi]

so please spare me the condescention, cowboy.

Same to you!

[California Joe]

Oh quit being so serious. The old dude is lucky the cops didn't roll up when he was waxing the Messicans. They would have shot his ass.

[Calanen]

Gosh, accused of trying to pass the bar and of drug use in a matter of minutes. Nice folks, thanks for sentiment. Y'all must be friends with my Ex-wife.

And from a Mod, no less.

As I said previously, I'll wait for any action from the Grand Jury, and will post it as I find it out.

You've decided to wade right into the debate and take on a number of US law enforcement personnel and two US lawyers and give them all a lecture on the law and its application to the circumstances. Internet expert syndrome at its finest. If I can bash on my keyboard and use google, I can be an expert on anything.

You didn't even know that there was a difference between theft, robbery and aggravated robbery. And that's something a pre-law student could have told you from Criminal Procedure 101. Being an attorney is a lot harder than finding the State legislature web page.

You can give your opinion about what you think the law should be. But it is the height of arrogance to lecture attorneys and cops, about what the law IS - when you have absolutely no clue.

[Robbee]

Robbery is the taking of personal property in the possession of another, from the person or in the presence of the person, against the person's will, by means of force or fear of injury. Robbery is a violent crime and often includes the use of a weapon. Robbers often case businesses for cash on hand and ways to achieve surprise and avoid witnesses. Burglary is the entry of a business or other property with the intent to commit larceny or any felony therein.

SOURCE (http://www.sandiego.gov/police/prevention/robbery.shtml)

Is the definition of burglary different in TX?

[hank]

I've said my piece about this so I'm not going to get involved in any more of this but I did want to mention one thing about these laws that purport to allow deadly force for theft-related crimes. I got a pm from someone (whose opinion I respect) about this and got a chance to look at one state's law on this issue and Calanen mentioned it as well.

We've had this debate here several times, and each time I look at some particular law that purports to allow deadly force for theft-related crimes. Each time I am struck by the fact that they each allow deadly force in a theft-crime but only when the person defending property actually fears for his life or reasonably thinks that is he tries to stop the crime without using deadly force he will face deadly force. So, in reality, its just an extension of the age-old rule that you can't preemptively use deadly force to stop theft.

With that said I've not looked at that LA carjack law and am not going to look it up. Before any of you gun-toting idiots posting here go popping caps in thieves just think about it.

hank

[Calanen]

This is for Robbee:


http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or

(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or

(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.

(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:

(1) any part of the body; or

(2) any physical object connected with the body.

(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a:

(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or
(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.

(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:

(1) the premises are a habitation; and

(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

[Calanen]

Dont worry hank, I'll look it up.
http://law.justia.com/louisiana/codes/146/146.html

Interested me too:
Louisiana Title 14 - Criminal law

§20. Justifiable homicide

A. A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.

(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

[hank]

That is consistent with every other law I've seen that is described as permitting deadly force to protect property. As I read it that law does not justify deadly force to protect property alone. You can protect property with deadly force, but only when you are in the property. If I have misread it I apologize.

hank

[Hollis]

Each time I am struck by the fact that they each allow deadly force in a theft-crime but only when the person defending property actually fears for his life or reasonably thinks that is he tries to stop the crime without using deadly force he will face deadly force. So, in reality, its just an extension of the age-old rule that you can't preemptively use deadly force to stop theft.


hank

Generally that has been the rule, or even more limitation at self protection in some states like Calif. They shift the burden of proof to the home owner on the use of lethal force and I believe as in some states require the home owner to retreat.

The difference is the castle doctrine, such as Florida. The home owner no longer needs to demonstrate they were fearful or had reason to believe a member will be harmed just the presence of the perp in the home is sufficient to use lethal force.

Joe obviously had his head up his butt, but the issue is also the perps would not have been shot had they not decided to violate Joe's freedom. I think it would be wise to bifurcate the issue. Other issue the Grand Jury will decide if there is merit to file charges against Joe.

Joe's actions obviously muddied the issue or raises some other questions. He is definitely guilty of rectal cranial inversion, but again the perps did initiate the conflict.

[hank]

Generally that has been the rule, or even more limitation at self protection in some states like Calif. They shift the burden of proof to the home owner on the use of lethal force and I believe as in some states require the home owner to retreat.

The difference is the castle doctrine, such as Florida. The home owner no longer needs to demonstrate they were fearful or had reason to believe a member will be harmed just the presence of the perp in the home is sufficient to use lethal force.

Read that LA statue, there is a presumption that an intruder puts the homwowner in fear of his life. That is my point, the castle laws are really not
extraordinary anymore and they really don't change the equation. I'll also represent to you that I read the TX law and it is virtually identical.

These statutes only attempt to codify what has always been the case in reality. Juries do not convict homeowners who shoot intruders when the homeowned is in the house.

hank

[Calanen]

That is consistent with every other law I've seen that is described as permitting deadly force to protect property. As I read it that law does not justify deadly force to protect property alone. You can protect property with deadly force, but only when you are in the property. If I have misread it I apologize.

hank

I think it was the inclusion of the 'vehicle' part that made it special, when usually it extends only to homes. There was perhaps the presumption that you would give over the car, in a carjacking, rather than drawdown, but this made crystal clear you did not have to. You are right about being in the car though. You can't set up a sniper position and pick off a guy entering your vehicle on the road with a Barret from 500 yards away.

[hank]

I think it was the inclusion of the 'vehicle' part that made it special, when usually it extends only to homes. There was perhaps the presumption that you would give over the car, in a carjacking, rather than drawdown, but this made crystal clear you did not have to.

Yeah, I am with you on that. The law in most states is generally turning this way though I think. The simple fact is that if you are faced with (or reasonably think you are faced with) deadly force you can respond in kind. Makes sense.

hank

[Hollis]

Read that LA statue, there is a presumption that an intruder puts the homwowner in fear of his life. That is my point, the castle laws are really not
extraordinary anymore and they really don't change the equation. I'll also represent to you that I read the TX law and it is virtually identical.

These statutes only attempt to codify what has always been the case in reality. Juries do not convict homeowners who shoot intruders when the homeowned is in the house.

hank


I think for the home owner there is a difference, they are no long made a victim of the law or having to show, burden of proof, that they acted properly. This means, as I read it, a owner can use lethal force immediately upon discovery of intruder in their house. This is without regards to the intruder's actual intent.

If memory is right, homeowners have gone to jail for failure to adequately demonstrate the intruder was about to harm a member of that household. Also some states has/had as a requirement the owner must retreat if possible. Failure to retreat when possible means a owner can be held accountable.


Edited to add, a California clearification:

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/9selfdefense.pdf

[hank]

I think for the home owner there is a difference, they are no long made a victim of the law or having to show, burden of proof, that they acted properly. This means, as I read it, a owner can use lethal force immediately upon discovery of intruder in their house. This is without regards to the intruder's actual intent.

If memory is right, homeowners have gone to jail for failure to adequately demonstrate the intruder was about to harm a member of that household. Also some states has/had as a requirement the owner must retreat if possible. Failure to retreat when possible means a owner can be held accountable.

Not to pick nits but as far as I know there has never been a retreat requirement for homeowners. That is a bit of urban myth. The idea that anyone facing deadly force had to reatreat was never unanimously accepted and was virtualy impossible to establish. I've not done a lot of work in this area but when i graduated law school in 04 we were taught that retreat was no required by an state's homeowners and hadn't been for some time. If any homeowner's did go to jail for failing to retreat it would have been a long, long time ago.

I read that statute to mean that the homeowner must be in the home (or business) and know that the person he faces is not there lawfully (an intruder). I will submit to you that using deadly force in that situation has always been the law, but these statutes make it explicit.

hank

[Hollis]

. If any homeowner's did go to jail for failing to retreat it would have been a long, long time ago.


hank

That may just it, I received my degree in Administration of Justice and LE Academy training in the late '70's.

I am not questioning the "reasoning" that it has always been the law, but would say certain states made it difficult for the homeowner by requiring additional elements to be known, or reasonableness, or ??

Just as that clarification of the State of California self-defense code defines what the elements that the homeowner must fulfill, or they could be charged with manslaughter or murder. That effectively waters down the right to self defense.

In this case here, Joe could have been scare scatless and this was his way of dealing with the overwhelming fear. Obviously he did not demonstrate certain elements of self defense. Under the California code that I posted, he placed himself at risk of being charged with murder.


Keep in mind, your a Lawyer, cops also have some legal training but most civilians do not. It has been my experience that the average Joe receives their legal training from TV and movies, which are ofter very erroneous.


Edited to add, Florida law did require the element to Retreat:

"Such dueling rhetoric marked the debate over a measure that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) could sign as early as Tuesday. The legislation passed so emphatically that National Rifle Association backers plan to take it to statehouses across the nation, including Virginia's, over the next year. The law will let Floridians "meet force with force," erasing the "duty to retreat" when they fear for their lives outside of their homes, in their cars or businesses, or on the street."

Site:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html

I did my study in Arizona so this is probably a reason I post this responce:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-1958(194104)41%3A4%3C733%3ACLHSDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4

[hank]

That may just it, I received my degree in Administration of Justice and LE Academy training in the late '70's.

I am not questioning the "reasoning" that it has always been the law, but would say certain states made it difficult for the homeowner by requiring additional elements to be known, or reasonableness, or ??

Just as that clarification of the State of California self-defense code defines what the elements that the homeowner must fulfill, or they could be charged with manslaughter or murder. That effectively waters down the right to self defense.

In this case here, Joe could have been scare scatless and this was his way of dealing with the overwhelming fear. Obviously he did not demonstrate certain elements of self defense. Under the California code that I posted, he placed himself at risk of being charged with murder.


Keep in mind, your a Lawyer, cops also have some legal training but most civilians do not. It has been my experience that the average Joe receives their legal training from TV and movies, which are ofter very erroneous.


Edited to add, Florida law did require the element to Retreat:

"Such dueling rhetoric marked the debate over a measure that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) could sign as early as Tuesday. The legislation passed so emphatically that National Rifle Association backers plan to take it to statehouses across the nation, including Virginia's, over the next year. The law will let Floridians "meet force with force," erasing the "duty to retreat" when they fear for their lives outside of their homes, in their cars or businesses, or on the street."

Site:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html

I did my study in Arizona so this is probably a reason I post this responce:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-1958(194104)41%3A4%3C733%3ACLHSDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4

Hollis, we are on the same page but you are off base on the futy to retreat. Read that quote you gave, it deals with being met with force outside the home. There has never been to my knowledge any duty to retreat in a home and that is what this whole thing is about. The duty to retreat, to the extent it was ever applicable, was not applicable to homes.

hank

[LaoSexMachine]

Well, Quanell X, Houston's own racial ambulance chaser has said this is a racial thing since Horn is not arrested yet. This guy, like many community leaders is just trying to get their name in the press.

[NuclearHead]

This is just anarchic vigilantism. That guy was in no danger and took the law in his own hands. I hope he pays for it.

[James]

Under Texas law, people may use deadly force to protect their own property or to stop arson, burglary, robbery, criminal mischief at night.

Wow. Why even bother with any laws? Or just change it to say "If you really, really feel justified in shooting someone, it's probably ok."

I'm a big supporter of the right to bear arms and am very supportive of the idea of self defense, but the article really makes it seem like this guy wanted to shoot someone. Calling them a threat, based on the information presented in the original article, is quite a stretch.

[Firetxmi]

Here is the recording of the 911 call:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1195171937

If you ask me the guy sounds pretty cocky.


Nov. 15, 2007 Pasadena
BOOM YOU'RE DEAD
A Pasadena homeowner this afternoon fatally shot two men he believed were burglarizing his neighbor's house, police said.

About 2 p.m., the homeowner in the Village Grove East subdivision heard noises he thought sounded like broken glass, said Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett, with the Pasadena Police Department. The man determined the noise was coming from next door.

The man, who police have not identified, knew the owner of the house in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive was not home, and that the noise could possibly be a burglary, Corbett said. The man then called police to inform them he thought his neighbor's house was being burglarized.

The man then saw two men coming through a gate in the backyard of the neighbor's house.

"He confronted them with a shotgun," Corbett said, and asked them to stop. They did not and he fired two shots, striking each man once, Corbett said.

One man was found dead about two houses from where the reported burglary occurred. The other was found dead across the street, Corbett said.

Police are interviewing the homeowner.

A window in the back of the neighbor's house was broken

They were not even on his property when he shot them.

At the end of the video the cops don't sound to happy with Mr. Horne either for shooting two people.

[akd]

Here is the recording of the 911 call:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1195171937

If you ask me the guy sounds pretty cocky.



They were not even on his property when he shot them.

At the end of the video the cops don't sound to happy with Mr. Horne either for shooting two people.

I'm not claiming they were, but you do understand that sometimes when living things are shot, they don't instantly lie down dead on the spot, don't you?

[Robbee]

Is the recording of the call edited or do the police actually turn up less than a minute after he shoots?

[Buckeye67]

It was about 6 minutes, 40 seconds from the start of the call until the guy said that he was going out to shoot the suspects. The call taker should've had the call entered for dispatch as soon as he had the address and what was going on (probably less than a minute), then kept the guy on the line to update the run as needed.

Assuming that there was little to no delay in the actual dispatch of the call, the coppers had probably 5 or so minutes to respond. I'm sure that once the info was put out that the guy had a shotgun and was talking about shooting the suspects, they expedited their asses off to get there.

So it was probably a 4 to 6 minute response in getting there.

[James]

A few weeks ago in Memphis an old woman was carjacked. Her son (IIRC) chased the dude down in another car, ran him off the road, and shot him when he attempted to flee on foot. The shooter was let off with the claim of "self defense". I was surprised.

[Firetxmi]

A few weeks ago in Memphis an old woman was carjacked. Her son (IIRC) chased the dude down in another car, ran him off the road, and shot him when he attempted to flee on foot. The shooter was let off with the claim of "self defense". I was surprised.

Why do we need police any more when we can njust shoot people? :roll:

[Hollis]

A few weeks ago in Memphis an old woman was carjacked. Her son (IIRC) chased the dude down in another car, ran him off the road, and shot him when he attempted to flee on foot. The shooter was let off with the claim of "self defense". I was surprised.

Maybe the local municipality has figured it out, a funeral is much cheaper than confinement. That is interesting they let him off. Long ago some where around Grants Pass Oregon, a guy got tired of his business being burglarized, he ****ied trap the place where the thieves generally entered. The ****y trap worked and killed a teenager. He too was let off.

In the case above there might have been some other issue that overrided the "self Defense" claim. Not sure how it is today, but deadly force could be used on a fleeing suspect of a felony. In some states Citizens do share some of the tools that LEOs can use. If memory is right there is only a very few things a LEO can do, that a citizen can not. Maybe someone who is currently a office can correct this or varify it.

[hank]

A few weeks ago in Memphis an old woman was carjacked. Her son (IIRC) chased the dude down in another car, ran him off the road, and shot him when he attempted to flee on foot. The shooter was let off with the claim of "self defense". I was surprised.

My brother in law was at the scene and tried to talk the guy out of shooting the carjacker. That was indeed a surprising result.

hank

[IDF_TANKER]

I want castle laws too! Fat chance here though...
There are currently a couple of "castle law" projects being discussed in Israeli parliament, but a little chance any will be accepted. I also see a lot of problems with such a law in Israel...

[0rphie]

I salute this guy! finally, brave people take justice in their own hand if the government refuses to safeguard us from criminals.

[Buckeye67]

It isn't a question of the "government" "refusing" to "safeguard us from criminals". The government simply cannot protect any one individual and/or their property from any sort of crime at any given time. This is why it is incumbent on the individual to provide a means to protect themselves and their property. That protection can take the form of CCW permits, alarm systems for their homes and so on.

While I'm sympathetic to the frustration people feel with the criminal justice system (as a participant in it for five years, I can assure you that those who work in the system are frustrated with it too) - but in this situation, as much as I'd like to say "**** YEAH!", I don't think this was a good shooting.

Had the guy stayed on the phone with the call taker/dispatcher and continued to relay descriptions of the suspects, their direction of travel and other information the responding units (who, as we've noted, would have responded in time to apprehend the suspects) everyone would have been a lot better off.

I support CCW, I support firearms ownsership and I support "castle laws", but I can't justify leaving a safe place to go "hunt down" real or suspected criminals. As has been explained in the thread, at no point was this fella in a position where he could be described as being in fear of his life (or in fear of serious physical injury).

He'll be hard-pressed to defend his actions in a courtroom, and his actions I'm sure will be used to try and attack "castle laws" in Texas and other states.

That said, as I initially posted in the thread - I'll be surprised if a Texas jury convicts him of anything other than being a good neighbor.

[0rphie]

When I saud "refuse" I meant a resent case where Mass judge Tuttman released "convicted killer Daniel Tavares Jr. in July, rejecting prosecutors' request to set his bail at $50,000 after he was arrested on assault charges." this is exactly what we all need - more criminal on the streets. So without "good neighbors" like that guy with a shotgun it might be dangerous soon to go grocery shopping

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312683,00.html



It isn't a question of the "government" "refusing" to "safeguard us from criminals". The government simply cannot protect any one individual and/or their property from any sort of crime at any given time. This is why it is incumbent on the individual to provide a means to protect themselves and their property. That protection can take the form of CCW permits, alarm systems for their homes and so on.

While I'm sympathetic to the frustration people feel with the criminal justice system (as a participant in it for five years, I can assure you that those who work in the system are frustrated with it too) - but in this situation, as much as I'd like to say "**** YEAH!", I don't think this was a good shooting.

Had the guy stayed on the phone with the call taker/dispatcher and continued to relay descriptions of the suspects, their direction of travel and other information the responding units (who, as we've noted, would have responded in time to apprehend the suspects) everyone would have been a lot better off.

I support CCW, I support firearms ownsership and I support "castle laws", but I can't justify leaving a safe place to go "hunt down" real or suspected criminals. As has been explained in the thread, at no point was this fella in a position where he could be described as being in fear of his life (or in fear of serious physical injury).

He'll be hard-pressed to defend his actions in a courtroom, and his actions I'm sure will be used to try and attack "castle laws" in Texas and other states.

That said, as I initially posted in the thread - I'll be surprised if a Texas jury convicts him of anything other than being a good neighbor.

[Buckeye67]

Ah, pardon me for not realizing that you meant something entirely different than what you posted.

[Buckeye67]

I thought I'd have a look through the Texas Penal* Code and see what the "Castle Doctine" there entailed. Chapter 9: Justification that Excludes Criminal Responsibility (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm) is the pertinent section.

This blew my mind. If this is saying what I think it's saying, this fella may get off:

Section 9.43: Protection of Third Person's Property (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00):

§ 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) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

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.

Edit:
Here are sections 9.41 and 9.42 as mentioned above:


§ 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.

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.

Yea or nay?



(*lol they said "Penal")

[hank]

I thought I'd have a look through the Texas Penal* Code and see what the "Castle Doctine" there entailed. Chapter 9: Justification that Excludes Criminal Responsibility (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm) is the pertinent section.

This blew my mind. If this is saying what I think it's saying, this fella may get off:

Section 9.43: Protection of Third Person's Property (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm#9.43.00):


Edit:
Here are sections 9.41 and 9.42 as mentioned above:



Yea or nay?



(*lol they said "Penal")

Not quite. Read 9.41 and 9.42. They only authorize deadly force when the person using force when he reasonably anticipaites he would be met with deadly force. I've said this now about 5 times in this thread. You cannot preemptively use deadly force to protect property unless you are either facing deadly force or you think you will. Its just that simple.

hank

[Buckeye67]

I did read 9.41 and 9.42. I don't see anything in either that states the actor must anticipate he would be met with deadly force.


9.42(3) states:

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.

If the "or" between A and B was an "and", then yes, I'd agree that that condition had to be met in order to justify deadly force. Given that it's an "or" though, doesn't that provide a fair bit of legal "wiggle room"?

[hank]

I did read 9.41 and 9.42. I don't see anything in either that states the actor must anticipate he would be met with deadly force.


If the "or" between A and B was an "and", then yes, I'd agree that that condition had to be met in order to justify deadly force. Given that it's an "or" though, doesn't that provide a fair bit of legal "wiggle room"?

I'm not trying to be a **** but you are just not reading all the "or"s and "and"s correctly.


§ 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.

That is the relevant part. All that other stuff leads you to these and they are required. The reality is that deadly force is the last resort in these cases and in Mr. Horn's case this was clearly not last resort considering the cops were on the way and the dispatcher was telling him not to do it. Bad shoot.

hank

[Buckeye67]

I understand that that's the relevant part, which is why I posted that as the relevant part.

What I'm reading there says that either "A" or "B" be must be present.

Not both.

Or does "or" mean something different there?

I'm sure that he (and his defense team, if it comes to it) will argue the "A" portion is what he was acting under - that he "reasonably believed" that the property couldn't be protected or recovered by any other means. It'd be up to the jury to decide whether or not his "belief" was "reasonable".

Again, I don't see anything in the language there that stipulates BOTH "A" and "B" must be present in order to justify deadly force.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's whacky too.

[hank]

I understand that that's the relevant part, which is why I posted that as the relevant part.

What I'm reading there says that either "A" or "B" be must be present.

Not both.

Or does "or" mean something different there?

I'm sure that he (and his defense team, if it comes to it) will argue the "A" portion is what he was acting under - that he "reasonably believed" that the property couldn't be protected or recovered by any other means. It'd be up to the jury to decide whether or not his "belief" was "reasonable".

Again, I don't see anything in the language there that stipulates BOTH "A" and "B" must be present in order to justify deadly force.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's whacky too.

No you are right, you need either 3A or 3B but as I read that it means you have no other option or think you will face deadly force. How does Horn meet that. He was on 911 (the other option) and didn't see any guns (didn't think he would meet deadly force). I'm thinking he had neither 3A or 3B and he needed one. Am I wrong?

I thought you were saying 3A and 3B were optional. My bad.

hank

[Buckeye67]

I dunno if you're wrong or not, hank. :p

The way that reads to me is that in order to use deadly force someone has to:

(A) 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 he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

-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 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.

It's that "or" there after "A" that I think gives him the "wiggle room".

Now this may sound silly, but I think if there's anything there that might hang him it's the "nighttime" clause. I haven't seen anything in the articles posted that indicate what time of day this occurred. The statute is very clear that it must be "nighttime". If it wasn't nighttime, then IMO, the guy is hosed.

[Firetxmi]

I dunno if you're wrong or not, hank. :p

The way that reads to me is that in order to use deadly force someone has to:

(A) 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 he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

The cops were on their way.




-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 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.

It's that "or" there after "A" that I think gives him the "wiggle room".

Now this may sound silly, but I think if there's anything there that might hang him it's the "nighttime" clause. I haven't seen anything in the articles posted that indicate what time of day this occurred. The statute is very clear that it must be "nighttime". If it wasn't nighttime, then IMO, the guy is hosed.

[Buckeye67]

The cops were on their way.

He tells the call taker that the suspects are starting to leave the area. and at that point there is no sign of the police (and no word from the call taker/dispatcher how long it was going to take for them to get there). It's obvious that he believed they were going to get away. I'm sure he'll argue that he indeed had a reasonable belief that the property wasn't going to be protected or recovered in any other way.

If there were police officers already on scene and he walked up and blasted them, that's obviously no good. No police on scene and the suspects starting to leave the area - well, as I said, he has wiggle room.

[James]

Maybe the local municipality has figured it out, a funeral is much cheaper than confinement. That is interesting they let him off. Long ago some where around Grants Pass Oregon, a guy got tired of his business being burglarized, he ****ied trap the place where the thieves generally entered. The ****y trap worked and killed a teenager. He too was let off.

In the case above there might have been some other issue that overrided the "self Defense" claim. Not sure how it is today, but deadly force could be used on a fleeing suspect of a felony. In some states Citizens do share some of the tools that LEOs can use. If memory is right there is only a very few things a LEO can do, that a citizen can not. Maybe someone who is currently a office can correct this or varify it.

I think that the neighborhood in which the carjacking had taken place had been the scene of numerous violent crimes in the recent past, and the locals had just had enough. There could've been a riot! So, when the police arrived on the scene, they were like "Yeah, you shouldn't have chased him... But he pointed a shotgun at you? No, he wasn't throwing it out the window, he was trying to shoot you with it. Right? RIGHT? Good. Okay, self defense it is." ;)

[Johnny_H02]

If a police officer had shot and killed these subjects, based on the facts presented, it would be a bad shoot. This is a bad shoot. This guy was never in fear for his life or the life of anyone else - he was protecting stuff. Like hank and CJ said, the local DA might not indict or a jury might not convict, but he didn't have to shoot anyone. He could have stood by and been a good witness for the cops, kept them under observation so responding units could have a better idea of where/what to look for, etc.

Over in another thread people are crucifying a cop who TASERS somebody for not signing a ticket or being patient enough to explain the speeding ticket, but in here its okay to kill somebody over a stolen microwave?

THANK YOU!
I totally missed this thread but you have put my thoughts to the letter.
This guy judging from the call was out for revenge, he was locked and loaded and just itching to get out there and shoot someone he was eluding to it the whole time. At no time did it seem that he was in personal danger, with the exception of the fact that he was running around in the street with a shotgun when officers were responding.

If this were Canada he'd be looking at anywhere from 10-25years,whether you agree with him personally or not.

[Johnny_H02]

I dont care what the law says, I want him as my neighbor.


He clearly said he didn't even know the neighbors who's house was being burglarized.So say if he can't recognize or doesn't know them or you if you are the neighbor in question. What if your kids were locked out? trying to shimmy a window open? what if they had a friend with them? after school perhaps? you weren't home? this guy gets hot under his collar sees two kids/teenagers trying to "Break in" runs out and shoots them both?Its not impossible and has happened.

Some one that unstable that they are so easily willing to take someones life over something so little would not be my choice for a next door neighbor. I wouldn't want the goddamn nutter within 12 blocks of me.

You can play the "What if they are rapists, what if its a serial killer angle but strictly in terms of this situation the only violence carried out was by this so called good neighbor.

This post isn't directly towards you mate, so don't take it personally but it is to all who say they want this guy living next to them. I sure as hell wouldn't'

[hank]

Watch this video. This explains a lot about this whole incident. Call me crazy, but I don't want these "supporters" and the baggage they come along with if I just killed 2 people.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/03/reese.tx.shooting.protest.khou

How did this incident get from homeowner shoots neighbors intruders to guys thinking they need to wave rebel flags? Anyone doubting or questioning the divisiveness of the rebel flag take notice. This coming from from an Ole Miss alum who regrets having waved one while in college.

hank

[Hollis]

Hank, your in the South, Good Ole boys will be Good Ole boys.

[RxOnco]

Watch this video. This explains a lot about this whole incident. Call me crazy, but I don't want these "supporters" and the baggage they come along with if I just killed 2 people.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/03/reese.tx.shooting.protest.khou

How did this incident get from homeowner shoots neighbors intruders to guys thinking they need to wave rebel flags? Anyone doubting or questioning the divisiveness of the rebel flag take notice. This coming from from an Ole Miss alum who regrets having waved one while in college.

hank

A lot of that had to do with who was staging the protest. Anytime Quanell X comes out with his New Black Panthers to spit their hate, you're going to see some from the other side.

[hank]

Hank, your in the South, Good Ole boys will be Good Ole boys.

Well, I would beg to differ. Houston is not the "South". It is in the Southern half of the US but Texas is its own deal exclusive of the "South". I've lived in TX and several places in the "South" (TN, MS x 2, TX - Dallas area, FL, and now GA) and the 2 are mutually exclusive.

That being said, I don't want huge fat biker guys on my "side" in any disputes in any state, especially ones with rebel flags tattooed/painted on the back of their shaved heads. Not going to give you a lot of credibility. Would certainly come in handy if fisticuffs become necessary, but a serious negative in the overall court of public opinion on the rightousness of this "shoot".

hank

[Laworkerbee]

That dispatcher did the best he could have, hats off to him.

[hank]

A lot of that had to do with who was staging the protest. Anytime Quanell X comes out with his New Black Panthers to spit their hate, you're going to see some from the other side.

Well, maybe that was a bit of CNN spin, but Quanell came off looking a lot better than fat biker boys did IMO.

hank

[hank]

That dispatcher did the best he could have, hats off to him.

Agreed on that. There was the distinct possibility in that clip that someone gets really hurt. Glad cooler heads prevailed.

hank

[Mr. JOSHUA]

This sh*t is gettin old.

Everytime something like this happens, its the gun owner who gets all the negative attention and not the person(s) who initiated the whole thing.

Under any circumstances, like this one or cut n dry self defense , you're always gonna have certain groups trying to exploit the situation.

Until recently with VTech, I had never seen pro gun or pro self defense rallys and protest.

Just the usual race bait and shakedown groups.

Believe me, at least 3/4 of Houston are like Mr. Horn, we take care of each other and don't stand for people walking all over us like that.

[Mastermind]

I have to agree with Mr. Joshua...well said.

Say, how's that scar on the inside of your left forearm. You got over that////Right?

[California Joe]

Joshua's right. This sh*t's getting old. But only because of people thinking every jackass that thinks it's OK to whack some dirtbags cause they're bored and nosey should get a medal.

If the old guy had called 911 while those two ****heads were breaking into his house with bad intent? I'd say throw the f*cker a parade.

As it is, if you listen to that tape and actually look at the law and still think he's just a good old boy doin' some good? You're delusional.

I don't think it takes media bias to make gun owners look bad when they're perfectly willing to make the case all by themselves.

And I'm a gun owner that really likes guns.

[dedbunniez]

I agree with CJ. IMHO no ones life was in danger. If he would have stayed in his house there would have been little danger unless they start breaking into his. In Texas if some one is breaking into your car at night you can legally shoot him. But is property really worth killing or horribly maiming some one? If you are in danger then I am all for protecting yourself.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

I have to agree with Mr. Joshua...well said.

Say, how's that scar on the inside of your left forearm. You got over that////Right?

I heal like Wolverine from Xmen, you can't tell it was ever there, now if I can figure out how to grow a head back after a Chuck Norris round house kick, I can take over the world!!!


Joshua's right. This sh*t's getting old. But only because of people thinking every jackass that thinks it's OK to whack some dirtbags cause they're bored and nosey should get a medal.

If the old guy had called 911 while those two ****heads were breaking into his house with bad intent? I'd say throw the f*cker a parade.

As it is, if you listen to that tape and actually look at the law and still think he's just a good old boy doin' some good? You're delusional.

I don't think it takes media bias to make gun owners look bad when they're perfectly willing to make the case all by themselves.

And I'm a gun owner that really likes guns.

I see your point, he took a big gamble on gun rights with that, especially since the media are just starving for a juicy story like that, I mean c'mon, this wasn't a police report, this was live audio with gun noises and everything.

He came down on the 50 yard line, and stuffed himself with shooting them, although I know if I had any barrel the size of quarter or larger pointing at me I would have laid down or put my hands up or something to give up, maybe those guys where on drugs or something if they didn't submit.

I'm just saying it could go either way and that I think had they gone after his house, we'd still be arguing the merits of that instance.

Not because we'd be arguing it, but because the media or some group made a big deal out of it.

[Hollis]

As another gun owner who also really likes gun, we do not need "gun owners" helping the anti-gun nuts.

My thoughts, is that this should be viewed in the same light as OPSEC. In a way were in a political war with the anti-gun nuts and part of the tactic is one of hearts and minds of those who don't own gun, but are not actually hostile to ownership.

When the anti-gun nuts can view forums or read the news of gun owners and gleam posts and articles that will serve their purpose of demonstrating that gun owners are whack jobs, what is happening is that we are helping them to do their work to in banning guns.

While standing up for your rights of self defense is seen as a good thing among gun owners and others, this incidents hands the anti-gun nuts a big win.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Sh*t!

I said when I first joined here, that I never talk about my guns, never show them to anybody, never talk about anykind of training that I receive, never show anybody my gun magazines, anything firearms related discussion in public or with people I don't know that well is off limits with me because:

A) People have big mouths and ears and robberies and home invasions have occurred because of the above said.

B) When and if something like this happens, the media is sure to take a look to see if it is juicy enough, and if its not, its not out of the question for the media to "fatten" it up.

C) Prosecutors. Do you know who your local prosecutor is?
Are they a straight foward person?
Or are they POS just looking for some publicity and some more votes?

Prosecutors take into account what kind of history you've had with firearms and that includes whats currently in your home and conversations with friends and family.

Bottom line, the more gung-ho or militaria you look, the easier it is to make case out to bury you.

The more self defense training, safety features, (locks, safes etc.) you have, the better the chances of aquittal.

I should also mention that knowing the laws are crucial, dot every I and cross every T, because its an uphill battle.

The media is the biggest factor, biased or not they're still POS because they are like salesman, only the juiciest stories bring them the mulah and if it aint there, they'll make it themselves.

Tell em to go eff off when they come knocking on your door.

[Mastermind]

AS far as I am concerned the best defense for your rights (gun ownership or otherwise), is to practice them. The more folks who own 'em the more folks should fight to keep 'em. Here in Las Vegas, a trip to the Gun Store on Tropicana....that's the way to relieve stress...you get an M-14 on full auto and three mags full for thirty bucks...you go to the range just behind the sales counter and you put up any target you want....then you let'er rip! Man...I come away from that and I feel like I'm 35 again....and then I go home and have Wife Woman massage my sore shoulder with BenGay...and I forget about any petty stress I had before the day began....Next week, we have the Big Gun Show here...I really wish you guys could come.

Hahhahha...Hell, yeah...I'm a gun nut...always have been. And I LOVE IT! And I'm not afraid of some jerk wad of a DA reading that I am. In fact, I want them and their whiney follwers to read all about it. Makes 'em think before they go messing with my rights...any of my rights!

[hank]

Sh*t!

I said when I first joined here, that I never talk about my guns, never show them to anybody, never talk about anykind of training that I receive, never show anybody my gun magazines, anything firearms related discussion in public or with people I don't know that well is off limits with me because:

A) People have big mouths and ears and robberies and home invasions have occurred because of the above said.

B) When and if something like this happens, the media is sure to take a look to see if it is juicy enough, and if its not, its not out of the question for the media to "fatten" it up.

C) Prosecutors. Do you know who your local prosecutor is?
Are they a straight foward person?
Or are they POS just looking for some publicity and some more votes?

Prosecutors take into account what kind of history you've had with firearms and that includes whats currently in your home and conversations with friends and family.

Bottom line, the more gung-ho or militaria you look, the easier it is to make case out to bury you.

The more self defense training, safety features, (locks, safes etc.) you have, the better the chances of aquittal.

I should also mention that knowing the laws are crucial, dot every I and cross every T, because its an uphill battle.

The media is the biggest factor, biased or not they're still POS because they are like salesman, only the juiciest stories bring them the mulah and if it aint there, they'll make it themselves.

Tell em to go eff off when they come knocking on your door.

I didn't comment about your previous post but now I will. There is no way you read this whole thread. You should before you spout off. Most of the commentary here and the reports about his actions have been supportive of Horn. That despite that fact that current LEO and a few lawyers have said this was a bad shoot. Pay attention.

How exaclty has the "media" fattened this up. Please elaborate.

hank

[Mr. JOSHUA]

I didn't comment about your previous post but now I will. There is no way you read this whole thread. You should before you spout off. Most of the commentary here and the reports about his actions have been supportive of Horn. That despite that fact that current LEO and a few lawyers have said this was a bad shoot. Pay attention.

How exaclty has the "media" fattened this up. Please elaborate.

hank

I read the whole thread, I read and observed who supported his actions and who did not.

The few that did not support him made a good case for why they didn't and in the times that we live in, I went ahead and added my 2 cents on why I supported those views.

I live in Houston, do you?

If you do, have you seen every single channels coverage of the incident, 2, 11, 13, 26?

Did you find the way reporters reported the story to be fair and balanced in terms of the way they chose their words, how much time they gave to both sides of the argument?

Who got more airtime?

Quannel or the people supporting him.

Did the reporters let Quannel use a sanitized statement and not challenge him?

Did the reporters go out and look for the most gung-ho guy wearing an AK47 emblazened T shirt for comment?

You didn't get what I was trying to say, we already had a discussion on this months ago on how we gun owners have sit here and study and be on the defensive on how we protect ourselves and our property which by the way is bullsh*t because all the criminal has to do is pick which window he wants to go through and if things get hairy, all he has to do is sit back and let his lawyer do the work aswell as other nitwits.

Next time, don't tell me what to read and what not, I know what I was posting, you didn't comprehend.

[hank]

I read the whole thread, I read and observed who supported his actions and who did not.

The few that did not support him made a good case for why they didn't and in the times that we live in, I went ahead and added my 2 cents on why I supported those views.

I live in Houston, do you?

If you do, have you seen every single channels coverage of the incident, 2, 11, 13, 26?

Did you find the way reporters reported the story to be fair and balanced in terms of the way they chose their words, how much time they gave to both sides of the argument?

Who got more airtime?

Quannel or the people supporting him.

Did the reporters let Quannel use a sanitized statement and not challenge him?

Did the reporters go out and look for the most gung-ho guy wearing an AK47 emblazened T shirt for comment?

You didn't get what I was trying to say, we already had a discussion on this months ago on how we gun owners have sit here and study and be on the defensive on how we protect ourselves and our property which by the way is bullsh*t because all the criminal has to do is pick which window he wants to go through and if things get hairy, all he has to do is sit back and let his lawyer do the work aswell as other nitwits.

Next time, don't tell me what to read and what not, I know what I was posting, you didn't comprehend.

Ok, well some of what you referenced is not based on stuff in this thread and that is valid. But, you've spouted off now several times about this shoot being a good one when there is ample information here to the contrary. Also, if you wanted to make the point that Houston media is painting Horn to be the bad guy then by all means link us up so we can read.

None of this changes the fact that you, at this point in the thread, spouting off a lot of righteous shoot talk is, well, not situationally aware.

Also, I think its fair to say that I fully comprehend what you are saying. I don't agree but I understand.

hank

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Ok, well some of what you referenced is not based on stuff in this thread and that is valid. But, you've spouted off now several times about this shoot being a good one when there is ample information here to the contrary. Also, if you wanted to make the point that Houston media is painting Horn to be the bad guy then by all means link us up so we can read.

None of this changes the fact that you, at this point in the thread, spouting off a lot of righteous shoot talk is, well, not situationally aware.

Also, I think its fair to say that I fully comprehend what you are saying. I don't agree but I understand.

hank

What have I said that is not base on this thread?

What have I said that is not valid?

Where is my unconditional support for this man?

Where is my righteous shoot talk?

The only thing I said in support of this man is that he did a good thing in protecting his neighbors house and in some ways sent a message to criminals and in other ways, negative ways in my view, sent a message to lobbyist, political groups and all around nutjobs.

I explained myself pretty clearly for both of your accusations, the one where I'm railing against Horn and the one where I'm railing for Horn....

I think its pretty safe to say that you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

[seraosha]

I'm still waiting for the Grand Jury.

The hype surrounding this incident is a three ring circus.
I'm trying to fathom why the "New & Improved Black Panthers" are involved in the frenzy.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

I'm still waiting for the Grand Jury.

The hype surrounding this incident is a three ring circus.
I'm trying to fathom why the "New & Improved Black Panthers" are involved in the frenzy.

Cuz Quanell wants a piece of that pie that Jesse and Al have been gobbling up all these years.

The news has been quiet around the past two days, been focusing on the officer that was gunned down, they haven't spun this one into a "more gun control" type thing yet, but i've noticed they are actually showing "some" respect and waiting a couple of days before they start up with that bullsh*t.

I expect these two stories to somehow be intertwined by our local media in the coming days..........it always happens.

Aswell as the mall shooting.

[Mastermind]

Yeah...the "Mall Shooting" has moved far to the front. But...and this is a strange twist...my son suggested this twist to me... there is a sudden shift of fright on the left with the SCOTUS about to hear the DC gun case. No one wants to upset the apple cart and encourage the Gunners to come out and say..."This would not have been so bad if there had been an armed citizen or two to pin this f6kcer down as happend in Salt Lake City." The left are really on the defensive right now.

I like to hear that...so maybe I'm just being optimistic and biased. I do know that if either of us, my son or me, had been there, the little prick would have been in his first serious gun fight.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Yeah...the "Mall Shooting" has moved far to the front. But...and this is a strange twist...my son suggested this twist to me... there is a sudden shift of fright on the left with the SCOTUS about to hear the DC gun case. No one wants to upset the apple cart and encourage the Gunners to come out and say..."This would not have been so bad if there had been an armed citizen or two to pin this f6kcer down as happend in Salt Lake City." The left are really on the defensive right now.

I like to hear that...so maybe I'm just being optimistic and biased. I do know that if either of us, my son or me, had been there, the little prick would have been in his first serious gun fight.


^^

I don't doubt that for one minute!

On the first part of what you wrote, I guess you could call me cautiously optimistic.

I don't doubt the gun rights proponents ability to present a sound case for us, but I don't underestimate the opposition either....

.......just saying they can be sneaky.