Joe Horn

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

More importantly, feeling "danger" and being "threatened" are not elements which are necessary to raise the defense.



None of that stuff is necessary either. Texas doesn't have a duty to retreat, nor does it specify that you have to feel there's a danger of death or serious bodily harm, or papercuts, or that the defense can't be raised on days starting with a T. The statute is pretty clearly set up to allow homeowners to take care of situations which may potentially become dangerous, thus allowing the homeowner to avoid having to ever be in danger at all.

Weighing the equities here, I'm going to have to say that I'll place the security and safety of homeowners above burglars' lives every single time. You don't know that by calling the cops, if there had been the duty to retreat, etc., that there would have eventually been a hostage situation, or something dangerous like that. You just don't know.

In Texas, they prefer not to find out.

As I always like to say...

"Don't go to Texas and raise a ruckus...you might not come back."

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If he had shot a cop or someone innocent, he would have been criminally liable. Gun owners are generally pretty careful about these sorts of things.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with the law. Perhaps if word gets out about this statute, it'll be a deterrent?

The profession of burglar is now more hazardous. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

In general yes, but this guy was going to go out there and shoot someone, I'm not convinced he wouldn't have slipped up. But that's hypothetical.

I think everyone knows that in Texas they can shoot you fairly easily. I doubt that it deters much of anything as these guys were targeting a house that was empty.

I have a big problem with letting any gun-holder be the distributor of justice. His life wasn't in danger until he stepped out the door (and doubtful even then). Something he did knowing exactly what was going on outside. Police were on the way, he had the advice of an expert in these matters not to go out because it could be dangerous. I don't see this as self-defense. And I think there's a big difference between vigilantism and justice. Justice wasn't served here. Yeah, getting shot is an "occupational hazard" of being a burglar, but it would have been far better for these guys to have been caught by the authorities, and tried for their crimes because that's the way it is supposed to work and even criminals should have civil rights.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If he had shot a cop or someone innocent, he would have been criminally liable. Gun owners are generally pretty careful about these sorts of things.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with the law. Perhaps if word gets out about this statute, it'll be a deterrent?

The profession of burglar is now more hazardous. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

OK, have any of you ever fired a SHOTGUN? I haven't either, but I've shot plenty of other guns (pistols and rifles) and learned enough about them to know that a shotgun is by no means a particularly accurate firearm. Honestly, if he cared about gun safety and being "careful" and accurate when he fired it, he wouldn't have used a shotgun. A homeowner that brings out a shotgun to confront some guys on his lawn is doing it to scare the crap out of them, not as a cautious response.

I think we all agree that it's unclear whether this guy broke the law (though the scale is weighing in his favor), but that even if he didn't break the law, that doesn't mean that what he did was right. And that the law is too generous regarding when it is OK to go after someone with deadly force.

[Kevlar281]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

OK, have any of you ever fired a SHOTGUN? I haven't either, but I've shot plenty of other guns (pistols and rifles) and learned enough about them to know that a shotgun is by no means a particularly accurate firearm. Honestly, if he cared about gun safety and being "careful" and accurate when he fired it, he wouldn't have used a shotgun. A homeowner that brings out a shotgun to confront some guys on his lawn is doing it to scare the crap out of them, not as a cautious response.

A shotgun’s accuracy varies depending on the ammunition that is being used. They are the perfect firearm for home defense. It’s dam near impossible to miss when firing in close quarters and you don’t have to worry about collateral damage. It was probably the safest firearm he could have used in this situation. If he had used a handgun and missed, then this very well could have turned into a tragedy when the bullet traversed into a neighboring house with the potential to impact an innocent resident.

[Kevin]

Homeowners have rights as well -- the right to be secure in their own homes from burglars, for example.

I think the policy here is that the law allows the homeowner to shoot before a situation threatening her life comes to fruition.

When legislators write these sorts of statutes, they're looking at a situation where if they define homeowners' rights too broadly, a few burglars will lose their lives. On the other hand, if they define homeowners' rights too narrowly, either there will be deaths or injuries dealt to those who are trying to comply with the law, e.g., observing a duty to retreat, etc., or there will be prosecutions of individuals who are really only trying to defend their homes.

Yeah, vigilantism is bad. I think that from a law and order standpoint, what this guy did was morally corrupt, however, I don't know if he actually broke the law -- I don't really think he did.

[macallan25]

Yeah, got to agree there. I pistol gripped shotgun (riot gun) is probably the best for home defense without question. You don't have to be accurate at all.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Yeah, got to agree there. I pistol gripped shotgun (riot gun) is probably the best for home defense without question. You don't have to be accurate at all.

Maybe he should have used a taser....

heh

[BobbyTheDon]

Texas is just a crappy state period


-Alabama

[Kevlar281]

Update:

A Harris County grand jury decided today that Joe Horn should not be charged with a crime for shooting two burglary suspects he confronted outside his neighbor's home in Pasadena last fall.

Link: To Full Article

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Yeah, got to agree there. I pistol gripped shotgun (riot gun) is probably the best for home defense without question. You don't have to be accurate at all.

Either that or a handgun with hollow points. It makes the bullets stop if they hit a wall and eliminates collateral damage.

[PhiGam]

I just listened to the whole thing, I couldn't help loling when he killed the scumbags.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I just listened to the whole thing, I couldn't help loling when he killed the scumbags.

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.

[PhiGam]

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 disagree, I think that the world and our country is a better place without these two illegal aliens that steal from hardworking American citizens. I'm a big picture guy, in the end it helps society to have those two dead.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I disagree, I think that the world and our country is a better place without these two illegal aliens that steal from hardworking American citizens. I'm a big picture guy, in the end it helps society to have those two dead.

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?

[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."