Joe Horn

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't know. It seems like a different issue all together really to consider whether we're better off with them dead than it is to laugh at their deaths.

I'm satisfied that Ted Bundy was executed back in the day. It doesn't make his execution funny. It seems like there ought to be a dignity in regarding loss of human life, even if the humans in question are criminals. It's more about us than them.

ETA: sorry about the self-righteousness. I can see laughing if they hadn't been killed or grievously wounded. It's sort of what shows like Cops and American's funniest videos are all about, right?

Its ok, I wasn't really laughing because they died. I was laughing because the way that the guy handled it was funny. He was so calm and deliberate in his actions and just comes back to the phone and says "I shot them."

[DSTCHAOS]

This moron was let off the hook. It's a slippery slope and I almost guarantee this CRIMINAL would've gone to trial had the alleged burglars not been illegal immigrants (and maybe even if Horn had not been a white man). A loophole in the Texas law would've been found and the jury would've found that this vigilantism was taken to a criminal level.

'Castle Doctrine' Gives Texans Unprecedented Authority to Take Action Against Intruders
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5283784&page=1

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

This moron was let off the hook. It's a slippery slope and I almost guarantee this CRIMINAL would've gone to trial had the alleged burglars not been illegal immigrants (and maybe even if Horn had not been a white man). A loophole in the Texas law would've been found and the jury would've found that this vigilantism was taken to a criminal level.

'Castle Doctrine' Gives Texans Unprecedented Authority to Take Action Against Intruders
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5283784&page=1

Texas allows you to kill people who deserve to be killed... crazy idea.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

crazy idea.

Exactly.

"Deserve to be killed" is too subjective to be placed in the hands of vigilante citizens. This man is a murderer regardless of what Texas law states.

[Kevlar281]

Vigilant? Yes. Vigilante? No.

[DSTCHAOS]

It's all well and good with you all until a vigilante kills someone based on a misunderstanding or misinformation.

To hell with the justice system and just burn perceived criminals at stakes.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It's all well and good with you all until a vigilante kills someone based on a misunderstanding or misinformation.

To hell with the justice system and just burn perceived criminals at stakes.

This entire post is unrelated to this case.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

This entire post is unrelated to this case.

That entire post speaks to the core of the issue.

To hell with Joe Horn and his supporters.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

If true, this worries me a little for you.

It's one thing to be relieved that the guy wasn't indicted. It's another to celebrate and laugh at loss of human life that might have been averted.

Personally, I find it troublesome that Horn declared he would shoot them before he went outside. I'm ambivalent about the failure to indict: on the one hand, I like the idea that you can protect life and property and not be criminalized; on the the other hand, I don't think that stealing should get the death penalty and the only reason Horm ended up being threatened was that he elected to go outside and confront the robbers.

I still fidn it botherson that from the time it took to get 911 on the phone until the time police to arrive was under 8 mins...good response time in most places...thety couldnt get there any faster unless someone 'beamed' them in...so I wonder if really ol' Joe was itching for a fight.

The jury's decision set a dangerous precedent in that more of these shootings and court rulings will refer to this case and interprtations of it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

The jury's decision set a dangerous precedent in that more of these shootings and court rulings will refer to this case and interprtations of it.

Look at the Texas law and judge for yourself. Why is this not an affirmative defense to homicide?

§ 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.

[DaemonSeid]

Kevin, I read over that whn the verdict went down and I am sure that was the centerpeice based on what the jury used to come to a conclusion.

I still look at it...as the jury ruled based on somethign that they felt was right at the time...if that is how they interpreted the law....fine. If they felt that joe was right, fine...

But I got a bad feeling about what this will do for future cases...

All we need is one person breaking into thier own home because of lost keys or something and getting shot by a trigger happy neighbor.

I can't disagree with the letter of the law...it is was it is...I just disagree with the jury...but then...who am I?


let me ask another question...being as though in my opinion, he didn't give law official ample enough time to execute thier duties...does anyone disagree with his actions?

[TexasWSP]

The report states one of the criminals ran at Horn. I'm not seeing a problem here with shooting an illegal Colombian ex-con who just robbed his neighbor's house and was then dumb enough to try to run, especially towards him, when being held at gun point.

Calling this man a murderer is pathetic. These men were not perceived criminals...they were criminals, and he rid our state of two of them. Shouldn't have tried to run. Deal with it.

DS, If memory serves me, there was an officer on the scene who was there long enough to see him holding up the criminals and then shoot them when, from his point of view, one of them ran at Horn. Surely he was there in enough time to perform his duties.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

The report states one of the criminals ran at Horn. I'm not seeing a problem here with shooting an illegal Colombian ex-con who just robbed his neighbor's house and was then dumb enough to try to run, especially towards him, when being held at gun point.

Calling this man a murderer is pathetic. These men were not perceived criminals...they were criminals, and he rid our state of two of them. Shouldn't have tried to run. Deal with it.

DS, If memory serves me, there was an officer on the scene who was there long enough to see him holding up the criminals and then shoot them when, from his point of view, one of them ran at Horn. Surely he was there in enough time to perform his duties.

correct...a UC was at the scene...who more than likely was or could be utilized as eyes for the uni already en route that would have been able to track the criminals down...

Getting out of the car could have had the consequences of him getting shot by Horn, who could have mistaken the UC as a getaway driver. Or possibly the UC getting shot or detained by unis who also could have mistaken him for one of the perps and the perps were getting away...

just a thought.

But in any instance, the UC did what he was supposed to do IMO

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

correct...a UC was at the scene...who more than likely was or could be utilized as eyes for the uni already en route that would have been able to track the criminals down...

Getting out of the car could have had the consequences of him getting shot by Horn, who could have mistaken the UC as a getaway driver. Or possibly the UC getting shot or detained by unis who also could have mistaken him for one of the perps and the perps were getting away...

just a thought.

But in any instance, the UC did what he was supposed to do IMO

Exactly and I agree with your other posts, too.

Horn was a proud gun toting Texan who was looking forward to shooting someone, regardless of anything else. The "regardless of anything else" is what makes this scary because individual citizens don't have the right to take the law into their own hands and PLACE THEMSELVES in danger for the helluvit. He killed people over property--there is no self-defense when you go outside with a gun and claim you felt threatened when one of the dudes came toward you. Horn treated this like he was playing a video game.

There are laws that state what home owners can and can not do to burglars. These may not exist in Texas and that makes Texas a perfect example of some of what anti-gun people are talking about.

(Horn might be crazy, too, so this could support mental health screening for gun owners.)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

because individual citizens don't have the right to take the law into their own hands and PLACE THEMSELVES in danger for the helluvit.

You're not taking the law into your own hands when you follow the law. Joe Horn followed the law.