Joe Horn

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I disagree, there's a difference between being asked to watch/defend/etc your neighbor's house and calling 911 because you happen to see something over there. It's never been made clear that he was asked to keep an eye on that house.

Honestly the fact that he said "I'll kill 'em" on the way out the door with his gun negates the defense that the burglars shot because they were on his property. And if he'd been asked to defend his neighbor's property then it wouldn't have mattered that they supposedly only were shot after crossing the property line.

Sorry, this guy went out with a gun into a situation that was not a deadly one and decided to be judge/jury/executioner. He could very well have shot a cop since, as the 911 operator said, there were officers coming on to the scene who were not in uniform. Vigilantes put innocent people in danger. Just because Batman makes it look cool, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do in real life.

Batman never carried a gun....hehehehehehehehehe!

[Kevin]

9.43 only requires that the other person have made the request to this guy to protect his property. I don't think that's apparent from what we see here, but I don't see how that didn't happen either.

The requirement of the potential for potential death or serious bodily harm isn't required. Heck -- criminal mischief in the night. The standard is low.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Batman never carried a gun....hehehehehehehehehe!

Yes he did:

From Wiki
The first issue of Batman was notable not only for introducing two of his most persistent antagonists, the Joker and Catwoman, but for one of the stories in the issue where Batman shoots some monstrous giants to death. That story prompted editor Whitney Ellsworth to issue a decree that the character could no longer kill or use a gun

Originally Posted by Kevin

9.43 only requires that the other person have made the request to this guy to protect his property. I don't think that's apparent from what we see here, but I don't see how that didn't happen either.

The requirement of the potential for potential death or serious bodily harm isn't required. Heck -- criminal mischief in the night. The standard is low.

If that was actually true, then why would the attorney neglect to include that. His defense doesn't seem based on a neighbor's request, but on the claim that they went on his property. From the 911 call it was clear he was intending to shoot them whether they were on his property or not.

Not saying it didn't happen, but there's been no claim that it did by the defense or by the neighbor. Sad to say but a little lie by the neighbor may get this guy off.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I think judging from the tone of the 911 call...it was clear (wasn't it?) that the guys were robbing the house...and the fact that they ran from a guy wielding a shotgun was even more evident.

But what if it wasn't clear? We're telling people to use their own discretion when determining whether it's OK to shoot at someone who's not even a threat?

Some people have said here that the guy was protecting his neighbor, but I don't see that at all. He was, at most, protecting his neighbor's "stuff" which is not enough cause in my mind to shoot someone. In other words, I'm saying the law in this case is idiotic. But I think we all probably get what really happened here - the guy was pissed off and wasn't going to let the robbers get away with anything...not on his block!

And if the guys were running away from him, all the more proof to me that he was not in any danger.

Don't get me wrong, if someone was in my house that I didn't know, they better watch out. But our laws shouldn't permit people to just shoot other people they see breaking the law.

[DaemonSeid]

dang...somehow I thought u would find that!!!

Curses foiled again!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

dang...somehow I thought u would find that!!!

Curses foiled again!

Batman fangirl ftw.

I have a book that collects some of the most memorable comics, old school. So I knew it before I googled for the pictures.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

But what if it wasn't clear? We're telling people to use their own discretion when determining whether it's OK to shoot at someone who's not even a threat?

Some people have said here that the guy was protecting his neighbor, but I don't see that at all. He was, at most, protecting his neighbor's "stuff" which is not enough cause in my mind to shoot someone. But I think we all probably get what really happened here - the guy was pissed off and wasn't going to let the robbers get away with anything...not on his block!

And if the guys were running away from him, all the more proof to me that he was not in any danger.

Don't get me wrong, if someone was in my house that I didn't know, they better watch out. But our laws shouldn't permit people to just shoot other people they see breaking the law.

that's what I was thinking peppy...what happened was not enough grounds for him to shoot these guys.

I mean just suppose these guys were also armed and what went from a simple robbery, wound up getting him shot?

What kind of obligation was he under to watch a neighbor's (who he didn't know) property and call himself a protector?

I am sure he thought he was being the 'good' neighbor but his responsibility ended when he called 911.

I think what would be interesting to find out is the rate of burglaries in that area over an extended period of time.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Batman fangirl ftw.

I have a book that collects some of the most memorable comics, old school. So I knew it before I googled for the pictures.

Coolness....

Trying to think of a really tough Batman Question to throw at you......

[Kevin]

I read the statute wrong. 9.43 -- see the "and" after the first paragraph, and note that the rest of the elements are "or" sorts of elements. So you only need one of these:


(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.

-- I think the bolded one works. It all does come to a question as to whether his belief that deadly force was immediately necessary... but we're dealing with Texas here folks

Criminal mischief in the night....

[Drolefille]

(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.

I don't think either A or B are viable here, although again, a lie is all that's required to get him off. He knew the police were on the way so A is not valid. B requires some sort of threat to himself that would suggest that deadly force is necessary. If he saw the burglars carrying a gun for example.

ETA: Also, I don't think this happened at night. That's a BIG issue here. Reports said about 2 in the afternoon I think? I'm trying to find that.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I read the statute wrong. 9.43 -- see the "and" after the first paragraph, and note that the rest of the elements are "or" sorts of elements. So you only need one of these:


(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.

-- I think the bolded one works. It all does come to a question as to whether his belief that deadly force was immediately necessary... but we're dealing with Texas here folks

Criminal mischief in the night....

wait...was it at night? I thought this happened in broad daylight.....the deadly force....well again...that may work against him since we come back to the 911 ops telling him several times not to discharge his weapon....interesting...

[nittanyalum]

Here's a good follow-up article.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Here's a good follow-up article.

Nittany...thank you....I think it also answers some questions

Quoted from the article:

"....report a burglary next door on that November afternoon"

and

Although a Texas law allows citizens to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property, some experts say the statute only applies to nighttime incidents.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

wait...was it at night? I thought this happened in broad daylight.....the deadly force....well again...that may work against him since we come back to the 911 ops telling him several times not to discharge his weapon....interesting...

I only say criminal mischief during the nighttime to illustrate how low the standard is. In this case, I believe burglary was the crime. That used to have an element of it being nighttime, but not really anymore.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

wait...was it at night? I thought this happened in broad daylight.....the deadly force....well again...that may work against him since we come back to the 911 ops telling him several times not to discharge his weapon....interesting...

I'd like to direct your attention to the "or" following (A).

Anything under B is unnecessary if A is met. The converse is also true.

Also, from a practical standpoint, try picking a jury that's not going to hang on this case

No charges will be filed.